HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 04-23 City Council Meeting PacketThe Listening Forum begins at 6:30 p.m. before the second and fourth regularly scheduled City
Council meetings and replaces Visitor Presentations on the City Council Agenda
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, April 23, 2012
City Hall, Council Chambers
Meeting No. 08-12
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. Acknowledgement of Maplewood Residents Serving the Country.
C. ROLL CALL
Mayor’s Address on Protocol:
“Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all
discussions civil as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public
Hearing or to address the City Council, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and
Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. Before addressing the
council, sign in with the City Clerk. At the podium please state your name and address
clearly for the record. All comments/questions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. The
Mayor will then direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond to comments.”
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of April 9, 2012 City Council Workshop Minutes
2. Approval of April 9, 2012 City Council Meeting Minutes
F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Commission Appointments
a. Heritage Preservation Commission
b. Parks & Recreation Commission
G. CONSENT AGENDA – Items on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and non-controversial
and are approved by one motion of the council. If a councilmember requests additional information
or wants to make a comment regarding an item, the vote should be held until the questions or
comments are made then the single vote should be taken. If a councilmember objects to an item it
should be removed and acted upon as a separate item.
1. Approval Of Claims
2. Acceptance of Community Design Review Board’s 2011 Annual Report
3. Approval to Accept Donations to Landfall Cops ‘N Kids Fishing Clinic
4. Conditional Use Permit Review – Cottagewood Town House Development, South of Highwood
Avenue, east of Dennis Street, west of I-494
5. Conditional Use Permit Review – Bruentup Heritage Farm, 2170 County Road D
6. Conditional Use Permit Review – Midwest Grounds Maintenance Company, 1949 Atlantic Street
7. Approval for Police and Fire Departments to Accept Donation from Maplewood Moose Lodge
8. Approval of Purchase for Geotechnical Testing Services for 2012 Mill and Overlays, City
Project 11-15
9. TH 36 / English Street Interchange Improvements, City Project 09-08
a. Resolution Removing the Construction of a Noise Wall
b. Resolution of Support for Transportation Economic Development Funding Application
Submittal
10. Authorization to Make Payment for Safari Yearly Support Contract
11. Approval for Maplewood Community Center Expenditures for Repairs and Maintenance
12. Approval for Building Operations Expenditures for Repairs & Maintenance
13. Approval of Implementation to Replace and Upgrade the Trane Summit System at City Hall
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. First Reading - Park Dedication Fee Code Revision
I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. 2012 Mill and Overlays, Project 11-15, Resolution Adopting Revised Assessment Roll
J. NEW BUSINESS
1. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Request for Used Car Sales – Kline Auto World,
2610 Maplewood Drive
2. Approval of Initial Findings, July 16th Storm Clean-up and Investigation, City Project 11-19
K. AWARD OF BIDS
L. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
N. ADJOURNMENT
Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The
request for this must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk’s Office at 651.249.2001 to
make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability.
RULES OF CIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY
Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings
– elected officials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone’s opinions can be heard
and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings, it is
understood that everyone will follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep
emotions in check and use respectful language.
April 9, 2012
City Council Manager Workshop Minutes 1
Item E1
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:15 P.M. Monday, April 9, 2012
Council Chambers, City Hall
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 5:19 p.m. by Mayor Rossbach.
B. ROLL CALL
Will Rossbach, Mayor Present
Robert Cardinal, Councilmember Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present
James Llanas, Councilmember Present
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Rossbach moved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All
The motion passed.
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Commissioner Interviews
The city council asked each applicant questions during the interview process for openings on the
commissions.
a. Heritage Preservation Commission
1. Leonard Hughes
2. Pete Boulay
b. Business & Economic Development Commission
1. Robert Zick
c. Human Rights Commission
1. Teresa Ryan Manzella
d. Parks & Recreation Commission
1. Therese Sonnek was not present to be interviewed and will be rescheduled for the
next set of interviews.
F. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rossbach adjourned the meeting at 6:22 p.m.
Packet Page Number 1 of 233
April 9, 2012
City Council Meeting Minutes 1
Item E2
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 p.m., Monday, April 9, 2012
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 07-12
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 7:04 p.m. by Mayor Rossbach.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Will Rossbach, Mayor Present
Robert Cardinal, Councilmember Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present
James Llanas, Councilmember Present
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to the agenda:
M1 City & Park Clean-Up
M2 Organ Donations
M3 Commission Interviews
M4 Listening Forum
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of March 26, 2012 City Council Workshop Minutes
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the March 26, 2012 City Council Workshop
Minutes as submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2. Approval of March 26, 2012 City Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the March 26, 2012 City Council Meeting Minutes as
submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 2 of 233
April 9, 2012
City Council Meeting Minutes 2
F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Consider Adoption of Proclamation for Building Safety Month - May 2012
Assistant City Manager Ahl presented the staff report to the council. Mayor Rossbach read the
proclamation into the records.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Adoption of Proclamation for Building Safety
Month, May 2012.
PROCLAMATION
BUILDING SAFETY MONTH - MAY 2012
Whereas, the City of Maplewood’s continuing efforts to address the critical issues of
safety, energy efficiency, water conservation and sustainability in the built environment that affect
our citizens, both in everyday life and in times of natural disaster, give us confidence that our
structures are safe and sound, and;
Whereas, our confidence is achieved through the devotion of vigilant guardians – building
safety and fire prevention officials, architects, engineers, builders, laborers, and others in the
construction industry – who work year-round to ensure the safe construction of buildings and;
Whereas, these guardians – dedicated members of the International Code Council -
develop and implement the highest-quality codes to protect Maplewood residents in the buildings
where we live, learn, work, worship, play, and;
Whereas, Building Safety Month is sponsored by the International Code Council and
International Code Council Foundation to remind the public about the critical role of Maplewood’s
guardians of public safety -our code official - who assure us of safe, efficient and livable building
and
Whereas, Building Safety Month is sponsored by the International Code Council and
International Code Council Foundation, to remind the public about the critical role of our
communities’ largely unknown guardians of public safety – our local code officials – who assure
us of safe, efficient and livable buildings, and;
Whereas, “Building Safety Month: An International Celebration of Safe and Sensible
Structures” the theme for Building Safety Month 2012, encourages awareness of the importance
of building safety, including residential fire sprinklers that enhance not only fire safety, but also
green and sustainable buildings, utilizing the latest in construction technology. Building Safety
Month 2012, encourages appropriate steps everyone can take to ensure that the buildings we
occupy every day are safe and sustainable, and recognizes that countless lives have been saved
due to the implementation of safety codes by local and state agencies, and;
Whereas, each year, in observance of Building Safety Month, Maplewood residents are
asked to consider projects to improve building safety and sustainability at home and in the
community, and to acknowledge the services provided to all of us by building and fire officials in
protecting lives and property.
Now, therefore, it is hereby proclaimed that the month of May 2012 is Building Safety
Month in the City of Maplewood. Accordingly, our citizens are encouraged to join their community
in participating in Building Safety Month activities and assisting efforts to improve building safety.
Adopted this 9th Day of April 2012
Packet Page Number 3 of 233
April 9, 2012
City Council Meeting Minutes 3
Will Rossbach, Mayor Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
G. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Juenemann asked that agenda items G4, G5 and G11 be highlighted for further
information.
Councilmember Cardinal requested that agenda items G2 and G3 be pulled from the agenda for
separate votes.
Councilmember Llanas moved to approved agenda items G1, G4-G11.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
1. Approval of Claims
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the Approval of Claims.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:
$ 266,162.46 Checks # 86703 thru # 86744
dated 3/16/12 thru 3/27/12
$ 402,640.30 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 3/19/12 thru 3/23/12
$ 333,687.49 Checks # 86745 thru # 86803
dated 3/23/12 thru 4/3/12
$ 216,448.31 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 3/23/12 thru 3/30/12
$ 1,218,938.56 Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL:
$ 504,670.14 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 3/30/12
$ 1,748.16 Payroll Deduction check # 9986751 thru # 9986753
dated 3/30/12
$ 506,418.30 Total Payroll
$ 1,725,356.86 GRAND TOTAL
Packet Page Number 4 of 233
April 9, 2012
City Council Meeting Minutes 4
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2. Consider Approval of Revision to Contract for Consulting Legal Services with
Charles Bethel
Assistant City Manager Ahl presented that staff report and answered questions of the council.
Mayor Rossbach moved to approve the contract revision with Charles Bethel for the remainder of
2012 to March 31, 2013 as Human Resources Attorney and authorize the Mayor and City
Manager to execute said contract; and authorizes the Finance Manager to make the appropriate
budget revisions.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
3. Consider Contract Amendment for Salary Adjustment with City Manager James
Antonen
Assistant City Manager Ahl presented the staff report and answered questions of the council.
Mayor Rossbach moved to approve the addendum to Mr. Antonen’s contract to provide a one
percent cost of living adjustment to Mr. Antonen’s contract retroactive to January 1, 2012.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – Mayor Rossbach, Council Members
Koppen, Llanas and Juenemann
Nays – Councilmember Cardinal
The motion passed.
4. Approval to Accept Donation to Police Department
Chief of Police Thomalla presented the staff report.
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve to accept this $100 donation and the necessary budget
adjustments be made so the funds can be expended by the Police Department as needed.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
5. Acceptance of Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Annual Report
Councilmember Juenemann presented the report.
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the Environmental Natural Resources Commission
2011 Annual Report.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 5 of 233
April 9, 2012
City Council Meeting Minutes 5
6. Submission of Heritage Preservation Commission 2012 Goals
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the Heritage Preservation Commission 2012 Goals.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
7. Approval of Cat 140G Trade-In and Purchase of 304DCR Excavator on State
Contract
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the proposed trade-in of the 1989 Caterpillar 140G and
purchasing the 304DCR Excavator, and further authorize the finance manager to make the
appropriate budget arrangements for said transaction.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
8. Approval of Purchase of Zero Turn Mower
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the purchase of the Zero Turn Mower (Toro 6000
Series) with collection system from L.T.G. Power Equipment, Inc. The total cost including tax,
delivery and training is $12,313.05.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
9. Approval of Resolution Accepting Assessment Roll and Ordering Assessment
Hearing for May 9, 2012, Bartelmy-Meyer Area Street Improvements, Project 11-14
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the resolution for the Bartelmy-Meyer Area Street
Improvements, Project 11-14: Accepting Assessment Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing.
RESOLUTION 12-4-710
ACCEPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL AND ORDERING ASSESSMENT ROLL HEARING
WHEREAS, the clerk and the city engineer have, at the direction of the council, prepared
an assessment roll for the Bartelmy-Meyer Area Street Improvements, City Project 11-14, and the
said assessment roll is on file in the office of the city engineer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
1. A hearing shall be held on the 14th day of May 2012, at the city hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass
upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property
affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such
assessment.
2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed
assessment to be published in the official newspaper, at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and
to mail notices to the owners of all property affected by said assessment.
Packet Page Number 6 of 233
April 9, 2012
City Council Meeting Minutes 6
The notice of hearing shall state the date, time and place of hearing, the general nature of the
improvement, the area to be assessed, that the proposed assessment roll is on file with the clerk
and city engineer and that written or oral objections will be considered.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
10. Approval of Resolution Directing Modification of Existing Construction Contract,
Change Order No. 2, Gladstone Area Improvements, City Project 04-21
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the Resolution Directing Modification of Existing
Construction Contract, Change Order No. 2, for the Gladstone Area Phase I Improvements, City
Project 04-21.
RESOLUTION 12-4-711
DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
PROJECT 04-21, CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made
Improvements Project 04-21, Gladstone Area Phase I Improvements, and has let a construction
contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as
Improvement Project 04-21, Change Order No. 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that:
1. The mayor and city engineer are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing
contract by executing said Change Order No. 2 which is an increase of $22,517.49
The revised contract amount is $3,552,467.74.
Adopted by the Maplewood City Council on this 9th day of April 2012.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
11. Consider Approval of Arbor Day Proclamation
City Manager Antonen presented the staff report.
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the Proclamation that May 12, 2012 is Arbor Day in
Maplewood.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
H. PUBLIC HEARING
1. TH 36 / English Street Interchange Improvements, City Project 09-08
a. Public Hearing 7:00 pm
Packet Page Number 7 of 233
April 9, 2012
City Council Meeting Minutes 7
b. Resolution Ordering Improvement after Public Hearing (4 votes)
City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Thompson presented the staff report and answered
questions of the council.
Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing. The following people spoke:
1. Jim Collova, Representing Camada Limited Partnership, Maplewood
2. Deb Forbes, Maplewood Resident
3. Blake Nelson, Maplewood Resident
4. Larry Cramer, Maplewood Resident
5. Steve Kuzj, Representing Professional Heating, Maplewood
6. Mark Bradley, Maplewood Resident
7. Bob Zick, North St. Paul Resident
8. Jay Stutsman, Maplewood Resident
Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing.
Mayor Rossbach moved to approve the resolution ordering the improvement for the TH 36 /
English Street Interchange Improvements, City Project 09-08. (Four affirmative votes are required
to approve this resolution).
RESOLUTION 12-4-712
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT
WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 26rd day of March 2012, fixed a
date for a council hearing on the proposed improvements for the TH 36 / English Street
Interchange Improvements, City Project 09-08.
AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing
was given, and the hearing was duly held on April 9, 2012, and the council has heard all persons
desiring to be heard on the matter and has fully considered the same;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, as follows:
1. That it is necessary, cost-effective and feasible, as detailed in the feasibility report, that
the City of Maplewood make improvements to the TH 36 / English Street Interchange
Improvements, City Project 09-08.
2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the
9th day of April, 2012.
3. The City’s consultant engineering team of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and SEH,
Inc., is the designated engineer for this improvement and is hereby directed to prepare final plans
and specifications for the making of said improvement as previously directed by the city council at
the March 26, 2012 council meeting.
4. The finance director was authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to
implement the financing plan for the project by the city council at the March 26, 2012 council
meeting. A project budget of $22,997,000 was established. The approved financing plan is as
follows:
Packet Page Number 8 of 233
April 9, 2012
City Council Meeting Minutes 8
Funding Source Amount
Federal STP Funds
• Interchange $ 7,280,000
• Water Quality $ 248,000
Subtotal $ 7,528,000
MnDOT Funds
• SRC $ 5,475,000
• Cooperative Agreement $ 500,040
Subtotal $ 5,975,040
Ramsey County Funds $ 975,000
RWMWD Funds $ 850,000
City Funds
• St. Paul WAC $ 150,000
• Sanitary Sewer Utility $ 150,000
• City Abatement Funds $ 1,500,000
• MSA Bond $ 1,663,170
Subtotal $ 3,463,170
SPRWS Funds $ 500,000
Assessments $ 1,005,790
Other Sources/MnDOT (to be determined) $ 2,700,000
Total Funding $ 22,997,000
Approved this 9th day of April 2012
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Mayor Rossbach called for a 10 minute recess.
2. 2012 Mill and Overlays, City Project 11-15
a. Assessment Hearing, 7:00 p.m.
b. Resolution Adopting Assessment Roll
c. Resolution Receiving Bids and Awarding Construction Contract
Assistant City Engineer Steve Love presented the staff report and answered questions of the
council.
Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing. The following people spoke:
1. John Gregerson, Maplewood Resident
2. William Robbins, Maplewood Resident
3. John Hoeschler – Attorney representing 1870 Rice, 1908 Rice and 1958 Rice
4. Brian Doby – Representing Kathleen Delaney, Maplewood Resident
5. Tasha Cardinal, Maplewood Resident
6. John Wykoff, Maplewood Resident
7. Mark Bradley, Maplewood Resident
8. Bob Zick, North St. Paul Resident
9. Richard Conrad, Maplewood Resident
Packet Page Number 9 of 233
April 9, 2012
City Council Meeting Minutes 9
Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing.
Mayor Rossbach moved to approve the Resolution for Adopting Assessment Roll for the 2012
Mill and Overlays, City Project 11-15.
RESOLUTION 12-4-713
ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on February 27, 2012,
calling for a Public Hearing (Assessment Hearing), the assessment roll for the 2012 Mill and
Overlays, City Project 11-15, was presented in a Public Hearing format on April 9, 2012, pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, the following property owners have filed objections to their assessments
according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows:
a. Parcel 17-29-22-32-0001 – Rosoto LLP; 1901 DeSoto Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 293.23 feet of frontage. The
owner is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the property will not receive
benefit from the project.
b. Parcel 17-29-22-23-0057 – DeSoto Associates LP; 375 Roselawn Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the property will not receive benefit from
the project.
c. Parcel 18-29-22-32-0025 – 337 Group Company, LLC; 1870 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 507.39 feet of frontage. The
owner is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is
greater than benefit to the property.
d. Parcel 18-29-22-32-0028 – P&B Investments, LLC; 1908 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 138.47 feet of frontage. The
owner is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is
greater than benefit to the property.
e. Parcel 18-29-22-32-0018 – Alice M. Zittel; 1958 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 700.28 feet of frontage. The
owner is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is
greater than benefit to the property.
f. Parcel 17-29-22-32-0004 – Church of St. Jerome; 380 Roselawn Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 812.45 feet of frontage. The
owner is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment will create a
financial hardship.
g. Parcel 02-29-22-22-0010 – Percy Pooniwala; 3030 Southlawn Drive North
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 127.38 feet of frontage. The
owner is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment will create a
financial hardship and is requesting an abatement of assessment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part
hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the
lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be
benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied
against it.
Packet Page Number 10 of 233
April 9, 2012
City Council Meeting Minutes 10
2. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to review the objections
received and report to the City Council at the regular meeting on April 23, 2012, as to
their recommendations for adjustments.
3. The assessment roll for the 2012 Mill and Overlays Improvements as amended,
without those property owners’ assessments that have filed objections, a copy of
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. Said
assessment roll shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named
therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the
proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it.
4. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a
period of 8 years, the first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in
January 2013 and shall bear interest at the rate of 3.65 percent per annum from the
date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be
added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until
December 31, 2012. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added
interest for one year on all unpaid installments.
5. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the
assessment to the county auditor, but no later than November 15, 2012, pay the whole
of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment,
to the city clerk, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is
paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and they may, at any time
after November 15, 2012, pay to the county auditor the entire amount of the
assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in
which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or
interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year.
6. The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith after November 15, 2012, but no later
than November 16, 2012, transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the
county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such
assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other municipal
taxes.
Adopted by the council on this 9th day of April 2012.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – Mayor Rossbach, Council Members
Koppen, Llanas, Juenemann
Nays – Councilmember Cardinal
The motion passed.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Resolution Receiving Bids and Awarding
Construction Contract for the 2012 Mill and Overlays, City Project 11-15, to Hardrives, Inc.
RESOLUTION 12-4-714
RECEIVING BIDS AND AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that the bid of Hardrives, Inc. in the amount of $2,234,772.18, for the Base Bid and
Bid Alternates 1 and 2, is the lowest responsible bid for the construction of the 2012 Mill and
Overlays – City Project 11-15, and the mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a contract with said bidder for and on behalf of the city.
Packet Page Number 11 of 233
April 9, 2012
City Council Meeting Minutes 11
The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to
implement the financing plan for the project as previously approved by council and detailed
below.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST RECOVERY
FUNDING SOURCE TOTAL AMOUNT
% OF TOTAL
PROJECT
M.S.A. BONDS $1,266,400 40%
SANITARY SEWER FUND $59,900 2%
ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND $46,200 1%
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT $1,146,000 36%
W.A.C. FUND $26,300 1%
3M TAX INCREMENT FINANCING $650,000 20%
TOTAL FUNDING $3,194,800 100%
Adopted by the council on this 9th day of April, 2012.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – Mayor Rossbach, Council Members
Koppen, Llanas, Juenemann
Nays – Councilmember Cardinal
The motion passed.
I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Consider Suspension of Rookies Sports Bar Intoxicating Liquor License, 1820
North Rice Street
City Clerk Guilfoile presented the staff report and answered questions of the council. Kari Hooten
and Pat Conroy, owners of Rookies Sports Bar & Grill were present and addressed the council.
Mayor Rossbach moved to table the item and directed City Attorney Kantrud to contact the
attorney for Rookies Sports Bar and Grill to set-up a judicial review and come back to the council
upon completion of the review or if there is a violation of their action plan or any further violations.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All
The motion passed.
J. NEW BUSINESS
1. Approval of On-Sale Liquor License for Blue Bell Enterprises/Keller Golf Club
City Clerk Guilfoile presented the staff report and answered questions of the council. Lee
Renneke, Lancer Hospitality District Manager and Stephen Craver, Owner of Lancer Hospitality
which owns Blue Bell Enterprises were present and addressed the council.
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the on-sale intoxicating liquor license for Blue Bell
Enterprises to Operate at Keller Golf Club located at 2166 Maplewood Drive.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 12 of 233
April 9, 2012
City Council Meeting Minutes 12
K. AWARD OF BIDS
None.
L. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1. Cancellation of May 28, 2012 City Council Meeting in Observance of Memorial Day
City Manager Antonen presented the staff report.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the motion to cancel the May 28, 2012 Council –
Manager Work Session and Regular Meeting due to the conflict with Memorial Day.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1. City-Wide Spring Clean-Up
Councilmember Juenemann reminded residents that Saturday, April 21, 2012 is the City-Wide
Spring Clean-Up event at Aldrich Arena. Also on Saturday, April 21st both North St. Paul and
Maplewood will be cleaning up their parks. She also asked residents to please pick -up litter in
front of their homes that has been blown in from the winter to assist in cleaning up the city.
2. Organ Donations
Councilmember Juenemann informed residents that April is National Organ Donation month. You
can indicate on your driver’s license and in your living will your desire to be an Organ Donor.
3. Commission Interviews
Councilmember Llanas informed residents that prior to the council meeting at the City Council
Workshop, community members were interviewed for various commissions. He encouraged
residents to visit the City’s website to see the various commissions that have openings and
encouraged citizens to serve on one of them.
4. Listening Forum
Councilmember Llanas highlighted two items from the Listening Forum that is held at 6:30 p.m.
before every regular scheduled council meeting and encouraged citizens to participate if they
have items that they want the council to be aware of.
N. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rossbach adjourned the meeting at 10:42 p.m.
Packet Page Number 13 of 233
Agenda Item F1
Agenda Report
TO: James W. Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Sarah Burlingame, Senior Administrative Assistant
DATE: April 23, 2012
SUBJECT: Appointments to Boards and Commissions
a. Heritage Preservation Commission
b. Parks & Recreation Commission
INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY
There are a total of four (4) openings due to commissioner terms ending: two (2) on the
Heritage Preservation Commission and two (2) on the Parks & Recreation Commission. The
City has advertised and accepted applications from interested individuals. The City Council
then interviewed the candidates for these commissions during Council-Manager Work Session
on April 9th and April 23rd and filled out ballots, which staff has tallied.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution to appoint candidates to the
commissions indicated.
Heritage Preservation Commission
- Peter Boulay, term expires April 30, 2015
- Len Hughes, term expires April 30, 2015
Parks & Recreation Commission
- ______________, term expires April 30, 2015
- ______________, term expires April 30, 2015
Attachments:
1. Resolution for Appointment
Packet Page Number 14 of 233
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. ______
BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA:
Hereby appoints the following individuals, who have interviewed with the Maplewood City
Council, to serve on the following commissions:
Heritage Preservation Commission
- Peter Boulay, term expires April 30, 2015
- Len Hughes, term expires April 30, 2015
Parks & Recreation Commission
- ______________, term expires April 30, 2015
- ______________, term expires April 30, 2015
Packet Page Number 15 of 233
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page Number 16 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
AGENDA NO.G-1
TO:City Council
FROM:Finance Manager
RE:APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
DATE:
273,324.26$ Checks # 86807 thru # 86862
dated 4/3/12 thru 4/10/12
1,675,390.90$ Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 4/2/12thru 4/6/12
198,025.07$ Checks # 86863 thru # 86905
dated 4/17/12
238,545.61$ Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 4/9/12 thru 4/13/12
2,385,285.84$ Total Accounts Payable
493,726.34$ Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 4/13/12
2,180.89$ Payroll Deduction check # 9986779 thru # 9986782
dated 4/13/12
495,907.23$ Total Payroll
2,881,193.07$ GRAND TOTAL
sb
attachments
Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 651-249-2902 if you have any questions on the
attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if necessary.
PAYROLL
AGENDA REPORT
April 23, 2012
Attached is a listing of paid bills for informational purposes. The City Manager has reviewed the bills
and authorized payment in accordance with City Council approved policies.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:
Packet Page Number 17 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
Check Description Amount
86807 02464 FUNDS FOR ATMS 10,000.00
86808 02728 PROJ 09-08 PROF SRVS TRHU 02/29 28,227.79
02728 PROJ 04-21 PROF SRVS THRU 02/29 13,636.87
02728 PROJ 08-13 PROF SRVS THRU 02/29 5,191.35
02728 PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS THRU 02/29 1,126.49
86809 00393 MONTHLY SURTAX - MARCH 13772123035 3,085.75
86810 01409 PROJ 09-08 ENGINEERING SERVICES 60,441.51
01409 PROJ 04-29 ENGINEERING SERVICES 36,736.64
01409 PERMI TRACK PROG SRVS FEE 3,024.00
01409 ENGINEERING SERVICES 1,955.97
01409 ENGINEERING SERVICES 1,516.16
01409 PROJ 11-22 ENGINEERING SERVICES 1,176.33
01409 PROJ 06-02 ENGINEERING SERVICES 197.52
86811 01546 SHIRTS FOR BBALL CLINIC 182.50
86812 01574 TACK OIL 80.16
86813 01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 14,905.15
01190 GAS UTILITY 2,792.31
01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 13.66
86814 04562 FOOTCARE CLINICS 9/27 - 11/8/11 260.00
04562 FOOTCARE CLINICS 12/6 - 12/20/11 156.00
04562 FOOTCARE CLINC 3/29 78.00
86815 00100 MINITOR VHF PAGERS 17,998.97
86816 04848 MONTHLY PREMIUM - APRIL 230.48
86817 03958 REIMB FOR MEALS 3/29 - 3/30 21.24
86818 00258 ESCROW RELEASE 2538 DAHL 2,023.75
86819 04999 PROJ 04-21 UTILITY BURIAL 23,272.37
86820 00298 ANNUAL DUES 60.00
86821 04163 REPAIR COST SQUAD 952 CN 12003873 6,111.14
04163 REPAIR COST SQUAD 952 CN 12003873 681.32
86822 03109 LAB FEE FOR STATE LIC 150.00
86823 03200 REIMB FOR UNIFORM ALLOW 3/20 214.24
86824 00545 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 5/1/12-4/30/13 250.00
86825 00644 REFUND FOR TRANS MEDIC MW12433A 912.55
86826 00667 LAPTOPS 2,340.20
86827 00767 REIMB FOR UNIFORM ALLOW 3/16-3/26 291.99
86828 00857 REGISTRATION FEE WILL ROSSBACH 380.00
86829 00891 MEETING FOR JIM ANTONEN 20.00
86830 00910 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 50.00
86831 00935 2012 SUPPLEMENTAL AID 6,000.00
86832 04790 DANCE INSTRUCTION 8,554.00
86833 04114 REFUND FOR TRANS MEDIC 41.16
86834 02617 REIMB FOR UNIFORM ALLOW 3/29-3/31 81.87
86835 04193 FORFEITED VEHICLE STORAGE-MARCH 2,250.00
86836 04988 ACUPUNCTURIST - MARCH 150.00
86837 04849 TEXAS HOLD'EM INSTRUCTOR - MARCH 108.00
86838 00001 REFUND K SARNECKI HP BENEFIT 80.00
86839 00001 REFUND GRAMSE HP BENEFIT 40.00
86840 00001 REFUND D HARDEN BCBS BENEFIT 40.00
86841 00001 REFUND M NESVACIL HP BENEFIT 40.00
86842 00001 REFUND RILEY HP BENEFIT 40.00
86843 00001 REFUND R ADELSMAN UCARE BENEFIT 20.00
86844 00001 REFUND S GARBERS BCBS BENEFIT 20.00
86845 00001 REFUND K STARR MEDICA BENEFIT 20.0004/10/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/10/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/10/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/10/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/10/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/10/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/10/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/10/2012 ANN MONGEAU
04/10/2012 RICHARD NIELSEN
04/10/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/10/2012 MEDICARE PART B
04/10/2012 ALESIA METRY
04/10/2012 MIDAMERICA AUCTIONS
04/10/2012 M S S A
04/10/2012 MAPLEWOOD FIRE FIGHTERS RELIEF
04/10/2012 MAYER ARTS, INC.
04/10/2012 KEVIN A JOHNSON
04/10/2012 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
04/10/2012 M A M A
04/10/2012 GFOA
04/10/2012 HEALTHPARTNERS
04/10/2012 HEWLETT PACKARD
04/10/2012 CLASSIC COLLISON CENTER
04/10/2012 CLIA LABORATORY PROGRAM
04/10/2012 KEVIN COFFEY
04/10/2012 CENTURYLINK ASSET ACCOUNTING
04/10/2012 CITY ENGINEERS ASSOC OF MN
04/10/2012 CLASSIC COLLISON CENTER
04/10/2012 AVESIS
04/10/2012 MARKESE BENJAMIN
04/10/2012 CARDINAL HOMEBUILDERS INC
04/10/2012 AFFORDABLE FOOT CARE
04/10/2012 AFFORDABLE FOOT CARE
04/10/2012 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC
04/10/2012 XCEL ENERGY
04/10/2012 XCEL ENERGY
04/10/2012 AFFORDABLE FOOT CARE
04/10/2012 SUBURBAN SPORTSWEAR
04/10/2012 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
04/10/2012 XCEL ENERGY
04/10/2012 S.E.H.
04/10/2012 S.E.H.
04/10/2012 S.E.H.
04/10/2012 S.E.H.
04/10/2012 S.E.H.
04/10/2012 S.E.H.
04/10/2012 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC
04/10/2012 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY
04/10/2012 S.E.H.
04/10/2012 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC
04/10/2012 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC
04/10/2012 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC
Check Register
City of Maplewood
04/06/2012
Date Vendor
04/03/2012 US BANK
Packet Page Number 18 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
86846 00001 REFUND B STICKLER UCARE BENEFIT 20.00
86847 00001 REFUND K WALSH HP BENEFIT 20.00
86848 04581 SUBSCRIPTION FOR LETS - APRIL 150.00
86849 04841 BBALL CLINIC INSTRUCTION 408.80
86850 01295 SAFE DEPOSIT BOX RENTAL 00424 125.00
86851 02008 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION 2011 190.00
86852 01359 CAR WASHES - JAN 123.00
01359 CAR WASHES - FEB 72.00
86853 03446 DEER REMOVAL - MARCH 345.00
86854 01836 SRVS PROVIDED TO PD - APRIL 3,798.00
01836 PROJ 09-04 WATER MAIN INSPECTION 96.10
86855 00198 WATER UTILITY 1,385.64
86856 04965 CERAMICS INSTRUCTOR - MARCH 200.00
86857 01550 ELECTRICAL INSPECTION - MARCH 5,219.20
86858 03843 REPAIR 98 CHEVROLET PICKUP 2,750.02
86859 04998 BIOMENTRIC SCREENING 50.00
86860 01674 K9 CERTIFICATION TRIALS 200.00
86861 04179 PROGRAM DISPLAY SIGN MCC - FEB 250.00
04179 PROGRAM DISPLAY SIGN MCC - JAN 250.00
86862 01754 FIRE EXTINGUISHER REPAIR & MAINT 394.06
273,324.2656Checks in this report.
04/10/2012 VISUAL IMAGE PROMOTIONS
04/10/2012 VISUAL IMAGE PROMOTIONS
04/10/2012 WEBER & TROSETH INC.
04/10/2012 TRANS-AUTO TRANSMISSION INC.
04/10/2012 US WELLNESS INC.
04/10/2012 USPCA
04/10/2012 ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER SRVS
04/10/2012 SANDRA JEAN STAUNER
04/10/2012 SUMMIT INSPECTIONS
04/10/2012 RICK JOHNSON DEER & BEAVER INC
04/10/2012 CITY OF ST PAUL
04/10/2012 CITY OF ST PAUL
04/10/2012 RAMSEY COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
04/10/2012 REGAL AUTO WASH BILLING
04/10/2012 REGAL AUTO WASH BILLING
04/10/2012 ORION SYSTEMS/NETWORKS
04/10/2012 ALI OZYIGIT
04/10/2012 PREMIER BANK
04/10/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/10/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
Packet Page Number 19 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date Payee Description Amount
3/29/2012 4/2/2012 U.S. Treasurer Federal Payroll Tax 95,929.58
3/29/2012 4/2/2012 P.E.R.A.P.E.R.A.87,912.97
3/30/2012 4/2/2012 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 38,452.57
3/31/2012 4/2/2012 US Bank Merchant Services Credit Card Billing fee 3,264.47
4/1/2012 4/2/2012 US Bank Debt Service payments 1,262,231.26
3/29/2012 4/3/2012 MidAmerica - ING HRA Flex plan 14,398.54
3/29/2012 4/3/2012 Labor Unions Union Dues 5,465.74
4/2/2012 4/3/2012 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 38,781.42
3/29/2012 4/4/2012 MN State Treasurer State Payroll Tax 20,828.06
4/3/2012 4/4/2012 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 39,053.75
4/4/2012 4/5/2012 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 31,499.82
3/30/2012 4/6/2012 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 3,281.45
4/5/2012 4/6/2012 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 32,468.89
4/5/2012 4/6/2012 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 1,822.38
TOTAL 1,675,390.90
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Packet Page Number 20 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
Check Description Amount
86863 04842 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION NSP - MARCH 300.00
86864 00240 APPLICANT BACKGROUND CHECKS 65.11
86865 01973 CAR WASHES - MARCH 72.00
86866 01149 BURNING OF BUCKTHORN PILES 2,468.81
86867 04265 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION - MARCH 524.00
86868 01337 911 DISPATCH SRVS - MARCH 27,409.41
01337 FLEET SUPPORT FEE - MARCH 455.52
86869 01574 PROJ 10-14 WESTER HILL PARTPMT#9 66,029.49
86870 04845 RECYCLING FEE - MARCH 27,499.50
86871 04192 EMS BILLING - MARCH 3,180.00
86872 03334 WINTER PATCHING MATERIALS 269.54
03334 WINTER PATCHING MATERIALS 268.15
03334 WINTER PATCHING MATERIALS 250.09
03334 WINTER PATCHING MATERIALS 237.58
03334 WINTER PATCHING MATERIALS 229.25
03334 WINTER PATCHING MATERIALS 223.69
03334 WINTER PATCHING MATERIALS 138.94
86873 01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 928.61
86874 03738 ADD'L PROFESSIONAL SRVS - MARCH 2,937.50
03738 ATTORNEY SRVS FEES - ADD'L APRIL 2,000.00
86875 01974 REFUND FOR TRANS MEDIC 239.36
86876 00211 PROJ 11-15 PROF SRVS THRU 3/23 4,404.50
86877 04549 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION MCC - MARCH 148.50
86878 03619 PROJ 11-14 SEWER TELEVISING CLEANING 480.00
03619 PROJ 11-14 SEWER TELEVISING CLEANING 360.00
03619 PROJ 11-14 SEWER TELEVISING CLEANING 180.00
03619 PROJ 11-14 SEWER TELEVISING CLEANING 180.00
03619 PROJ 11-14 SEWER TELEVISING CLEANING 180.00
03619 PROJ 11-14 SEWER TELEVISING CLEANING 70.00
86879 04374 AMBUTRAK LICENSE FEE 399.00
86880 04525 ETIQUETTE PROG INSTRUCTION 100.00
86881 03875 REIMB FOR MILEAGE 2/9 - 2/22 14.43
86882 00827 CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE C0012092 497.20
86883 04239 MAINT AGREEMENT IN-CAR VIDEO EQUIP 6,375.00
04239 MAINT AGREEMENT IN-CAR VIDEO EQUIP 1,200.00
04239 MAINT AGREEMENT VIDEO EQUIP 900.00
86884 02336 FITNESS CONSULTANT SRVS - 1ST QTR 1,100.00
86885 03818 REFUND FOR TRANS MEDIC PATIENTS 448.88
86886 01089 QTR UNEMPLOYMENT - 1ST QTR 2012 10,991.96
86887 00001 REFUND T SCHOONOVER MN REVENUE 625.91
86888 00001 REFUND K GUSTAFSON HP BENEFIT 360.00
86889 00001 REFUND C ARNOLD UCARE BENEFIT 250.00
86890 00001 REFUND C OSTLING UCARE BENEFIT 195.00
86891 00001 REFUND H ARNEY MEMBERSHIP MCC 55.71
86892 00001 REFUND X VANG BCBS BENEFIT 40.00
86893 00001 REFUND J RILEY HP BENEFIT 20.00
86894 01267 NOTICE OF CIP BONDS PUBLIC HEARING 370.36
86895 01275 CHEVROLET SILVERADO CK20953~23,265.80
86896 01340 CADAVER LAB 1,820.00
86897 04074 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION SPRING SESSION 168.00
86898 04240 SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER - FEB 560.00
04240 SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER - DEC 392.00
04240 SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER - JAN 392.00
86899 01836 ASPHALT FOR SPRING PATCHING 2,115.45
86900 04965 CERAMICS INSTRUCTOR - NOV 2011 250.00
86901 04528 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION - MARCH 224.50
86902 01649 S130 BOBCAT SKID LOADER (INC. TAX)2,030.63
86903 02177 UCARE BENEFIT 135.00
86904 02359 LOBBY CHAIRS RECOVERED MCC 593.69
02359 EXERCISE EQUIP PADS MCC 205.00
86905 03378 CANCELLED SOFTBALL ENROLLMENT 200.00
198,025.07
43 Checks in this report.
04/17/2012 WALLY'S UPHOLSTERY
04/17/2012 WALLY'S UPHOLSTERY
04/17/2012 MATT WOEHRLE
04/17/2012 SARA M. R. THOMPSON
04/17/2012 TRI-STATE BOBCAT, INC.
04/17/2012 U-CARE REFUND
04/17/2012 SPORTSIGN
04/17/2012 CITY OF ST PAUL
04/17/2012 SANDRA JEAN STAUNER
04/17/2012 ELAINE SCHRADE
04/17/2012 SPORTSIGN
04/17/2012 SPORTSIGN
04/17/2012 PIONEER PRESS
04/17/2012 POLAR CHEV, GEO, MAZDA
04/17/2012 REGIONS HOSPITAL
04/17/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/17/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/17/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/17/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/17/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/17/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/17/2012 MEDICA
04/17/2012 MN UC FUND
04/17/2012 ONE TIME VENDOR
04/17/2012 L3 COM MOBILE-VISION, INC.
04/17/2012 L3 COM MOBILE-VISION, INC.
04/17/2012 M A TAYLOR INC
04/17/2012 JASON KREGER
04/17/2012 L M C I T
04/17/2012 L3 COM MOBILE-VISION, INC.
04/17/2012 DRAIN KING INC
04/17/2012 EMS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC
04/17/2012 EVERYDAY ETIQUETTE JULIE R FRANTZ
04/17/2012 DRAIN KING INC
04/17/2012 DRAIN KING INC
04/17/2012 DRAIN KING INC
04/17/2012 JAN ALICE CAMPBELL
04/17/2012 DRAIN KING INC
04/17/2012 DRAIN KING INC
04/17/2012 CHARLES E. BETHEL
04/17/2012 BLUE CROSS REFUNDS
04/17/2012 BRAUN INTERTEC CORP.
04/17/2012 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS CORP
04/17/2012 XCEL ENERGY
04/17/2012 CHARLES E. BETHEL
04/17/2012 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS CORP
04/17/2012 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS CORP
04/17/2012 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS CORP
04/17/2012 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS CORP
04/17/2012 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS CORP
04/17/2012 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS CORP
04/17/2012 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
04/17/2012 TENNIS SANITATION LLC
04/17/2012 TRANS-MEDIC
04/17/2012 MARIA PIRELA
04/17/2012 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
04/17/2012 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
04/17/2012 C.S.C. CREDIT SERVICES
04/17/2012 ERICKSON OIL PRODUCTS INC
04/17/2012 NATURAL RESOURCES RESTOR INC
Check Register
City of Maplewood
04/13/2012
Date Vendor
04/17/2012 MARY JOSEPHINE ANDERSON
Packet Page Number 21 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
Settlement
Date Payee Description Amount
4/9/2012 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 25,793.79
4/10/2012 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 30,060.03
4/11/2012 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 30,449.71
4/12/2012 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 29,504.81
4/12/2012 ING - State Plan Deferred Compensation 27,373.00
4/13/2012 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 32,516.99
4/13/2012 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 2,385.25
4/13/2012 US Bank VISA One Card*Purchasing card items 49,330.88
4/13/2012 MN Dept of Revenue MN Care Tax 6,839.00
4/13/2012 ICMA (Vantagepointe)Deferred Compensation 4,292.15
TOTAL 238,545.61
*Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Packet Page Number 22 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
Transaction Date Posting Date Merchant Name Transaction Amount Name
04/04/2012 04/05/2012 U OF M CCE NONCREDIT $225.00 R CHARLES AHL
03/27/2012 03/28/2012 LA POLICE GEAR INC $79.29 MARK ALDRIDGE
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 GOVTTRNGSVC $225.00 JAMES ANTONEN
03/23/2012 03/27/2012 GRAND VIEW LODGE & TENNIS $239.61 JAMES ANTONEN
03/22/2012 03/26/2012 OLD LOG THEATER, LTD $322.50 MANDY ANZALDI
03/28/2012 04/02/2012 OLD LOG THEATER, LTD $119.00 MANDY ANZALDI
04/03/2012 04/04/2012 PARTY CITY #768 $156.12 MANDY ANZALDI
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 JOANN ETC #1970 $10.19 MANDY ANZALDI
03/25/2012 03/26/2012 CPS INC-DARECATALOUGE.COM $195.75 LONN BAKKE
03/27/2012 03/28/2012 CUB FOODS, INC.$63.26 LONN BAKKE
03/26/2012 03/28/2012 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $24.53 MARKESE BENJAMIN
04/04/2012 04/05/2012 KOHL'S #0052 $81.96 JOHN BOHL
03/31/2012 04/02/2012 SUPERAMERICA 4520 $4.34 NEIL BRENEMAN
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 MENARDS 3059 $21.39 TROY BRINK
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 FIRST SHRED $49.50 SARAH BURLINGAME
03/26/2012 03/28/2012 SUBWAY 00052159 $60.26 SARAH BURLINGAME
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 CUB FOODS, INC.$10.71 SARAH BURLINGAME
03/29/2012 04/02/2012 RICHARD'S MARKET $165.00 SARAH BURLINGAME
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 GE CAPITAL $43.92 SARAH BURLINGAME
03/31/2012 04/02/2012 FIRST SHRED $30.00 SARAH BURLINGAME
04/05/2012 04/06/2012 SFI*PHOTOSBYSHUTTERFLY $5.02 SARAH BURLINGAME
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 WILSON'S GUN SHOP, INC.$909.95 DAN BUSACK
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 BOTACH TACTICAL $299.70 DAN BUSACK
03/24/2012 03/26/2012 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE ($20.34)JOHN CAPISTRANT
03/24/2012 03/26/2012 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $54.59 JOHN CAPISTRANT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 NAPA STORE 3279016 $13.38 JOHN CAPISTRANT
03/22/2012 03/26/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 ($69.60)SCOTT CHRISTENSON
03/22/2012 03/26/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $43.32 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
03/27/2012 03/28/2012 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $5.08 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $61.73 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
03/28/2012 03/30/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $56.92 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 VIKING ELECTRIC - CREDIT $166.00 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 VIKING ELECTRIC - CREDIT $86.06 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 VIKING ELECTRIC - CREDIT $91.81 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 VIKING ELECTRIC - CREDIT $56.31 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 CRESCENT ELECTRIC 024 $41.85 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $80.76 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
04/03/2012 04/04/2012 VIKING ELECTRIC - CREDIT $9.54 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 MENARDS 3022 $30.86 CHARLES DEAVER
03/31/2012 04/02/2012 FRATTALLONES WOODBURY AC $53.53 CHARLES DEAVER
04/03/2012 04/04/2012 MENARDS 3022 $23.25 CHARLES DEAVER
04/05/2012 04/06/2012 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC.$248.99 JOSEPH DEMULLING
03/28/2012 03/30/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $15.98 TOM DOUGLASS
03/28/2012 03/30/2012 SPECTRUM PRODUCTS $290.00 TOM DOUGLASS
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 NAPA STORE 3279016 $15.51 TOM DOUGLASS
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $50.60 TOM DOUGLASS
04/05/2012 04/06/2012 COMMERCIAL POOL & SPA SUP $21.41 TOM DOUGLASS
03/24/2012 03/26/2012 TARGET 00011858 $92.06 PAUL E EVERSON
03/26/2012 03/27/2012 MENARDS 3059 $91.92 LARRY FARR
03/26/2012 03/28/2012 STAPLES 00118836 $90.58 LARRY FARR
03/27/2012 03/28/2012 ALLIED PARKING - TN SQ $4.00 LARRY FARR
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 ELECTRO WATCHMAN INC $2,230.48 LARRY FARR
03/28/2012 03/30/2012 WM EZPAY $435.23 LARRY FARR
03/28/2012 03/30/2012 WM EZPAY $1,009.34 LARRY FARR
03/28/2012 03/30/2012 WM EZPAY $475.33 LARRY FARR
03/29/2012 03/30/2012 CERTIFIED LABORATORIES $1,566.77 LARRY FARR
03/29/2012 04/02/2012 OFFICE MAX $76.52 LARRY FARR
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 BATTERIES PLUS #31 $942.27 LARRY FARR
Packet Page Number 23 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
04/02/2012 04/03/2012 MENARDS 3059 ($8.55)LARRY FARR
04/02/2012 04/03/2012 MENARDS 3059 ($126.19)LARRY FARR
04/02/2012 04/03/2012 ELECTRO WATCHMAN INC $833.63 LARRY FARR
04/02/2012 04/04/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 ($36.29)LARRY FARR
04/02/2012 04/04/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $37.31 LARRY FARR
04/04/2012 04/06/2012 OFFICE MAX $99.48 LARRY FARR
04/04/2012 04/05/2012 EMBASSY SUITES DWNTWN $5.00 DAVID FISHER
03/22/2012 03/26/2012 RED ROBIN 399 SHOREVIEW $25.88 TIM FLOR
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTION $358.71 MYCHAL FOWLDS
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTION $1,068.04 MYCHAL FOWLDS
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTION $61.39 MYCHAL FOWLDS
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTION $199.10 MYCHAL FOWLDS
03/28/2012 03/30/2012 VERIZON WRLS MYACCT VN $208.78 MYCHAL FOWLDS
04/02/2012 04/03/2012 B & H PHOTO-VIDEO-MO/TO $42.35 MYCHAL FOWLDS
04/03/2012 04/04/2012 MOBILE VISION $4,895.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS
03/29/2012 03/30/2012 HP SERVICES $243.94 NICK FRANZEN
03/29/2012 03/30/2012 IDU*PUBLIC SECTOR $451.40 NICK FRANZEN
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 SHI CORP $261.99 NICK FRANZEN
04/04/2012 04/05/2012 IDU*PUBLIC SECTOR $54.70 NICK FRANZEN
03/22/2012 03/26/2012 BLUE RIBBON BAIT & TACKLE $6.91 CAROLE GERNES
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 PETLAND $10.75 CAROLE GERNES
04/05/2012 04/06/2012 TACK WHOLESALE $47.10 CAROLE GERNES
03/22/2012 03/26/2012 GARELICK STEEL $115.32 MARK HAAG
03/22/2012 03/26/2012 MILLS FLEET FARM #2,700 $12.83 MARK HAAG
03/26/2012 03/28/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $212.11 MARK HAAG
04/03/2012 04/04/2012 UNITED RENTALS $34.73 MARK HAAG
04/05/2012 04/06/2012 HEJNY RENTAL INC $260.70 MARK HAAG
03/27/2012 03/29/2012 STREICHER'S MPLS $129.99 TIMOTHY HAWKINSON JR.
03/26/2012 03/27/2012 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $30.47 GARY HINNENKAMP
03/26/2012 03/28/2012 CARPENTERS SMALL ENGIN $12.84 GARY HINNENKAMP
03/27/2012 03/28/2012 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $3.09 GARY HINNENKAMP
03/27/2012 03/29/2012 TESSMAN COMPANY SAINT PAU $951.62 GARY HINNENKAMP
04/04/2012 04/05/2012 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $9.62 GARY HINNENKAMP
03/31/2012 04/02/2012 ARC*SERVICES/TRAINING $19.00 RON HORWATH
03/31/2012 04/02/2012 ARC*SERVICES/TRAINING $27.00 RON HORWATH
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 WAYFAIR*WAYFAIR $844.50 ANN HUTCHINSON
04/06/2012 04/06/2012 COMCAST CABLE COMM $143.80 DUWAYNE KONEWKO
03/30/2012 03/30/2012 HP DIRECT-PUBLICSECTOR $591.33 JASON KREGER
04/03/2012 04/03/2012 HP DIRECT-PUBLICSECTOR $3,264.76 JASON KREGER
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 FEDEX 405629616 $114.29 NICHOLAS KREKELER
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $148.99 DAVID KVAM
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $3.75 DAVID KVAM
03/29/2012 04/02/2012 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $38.55 TODD LANGNER
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 BRUCE NELSON PLUMBING $567.60 STEVE LUKIN
03/27/2012 03/28/2012 MENARDS 3059 $160.17 STEVE LUKIN
03/27/2012 03/29/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $9.46 STEVE LUKIN
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC $210.00 STEVE LUKIN
03/29/2012 03/30/2012 PAYPAL *AMEMASSOCIA $100.00 STEVE LUKIN
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 OVERHEAD DOOR COMP $815.23 STEVE LUKIN
04/02/2012 04/04/2012 EGAN COMPANY $523.83 STEVE LUKIN
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 ASPEN MILLS INC.$164.80 STEVE LUKIN
04/05/2012 04/06/2012 WM EZPAY $164.49 STEVE LUKIN
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 STREICHER'S MPLS $9.76 ALESIA METRY
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC ($84.40)MICHAEL MONDOR
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 NATL. REGISTRY OF EMTS $15.00 MICHAEL MONDOR
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $1,107.72 MICHAEL MONDOR
03/31/2012 04/02/2012 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC ($1,128.24)MICHAEL MONDOR
04/02/2012 04/04/2012 PRIMARY PRODUCTS COMPANY $696.00 MICHAEL MONDOR
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 U OF M CCE NONCREDIT $300.00 BRYAN NAGEL
Packet Page Number 24 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
04/02/2012 04/03/2012 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $14.95 JOHN NAUGHTON
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 AUTOZONE3948 $12.32 MICHAEL NYE
04/01/2012 04/02/2012 WWW.NEWEGG.COM $29.99 MICHAEL NYE
04/01/2012 04/02/2012 WWW.NEWEGG.COM $11.57 MICHAEL NYE
04/01/2012 04/02/2012 WWW.NEWEGG.COM $58.56 MICHAEL NYE
04/02/2012 04/03/2012 BEST BUY MHT 00000109 $53.55 MICHAEL NYE
03/28/2012 03/30/2012 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $255.84 MARY KAY PALANK
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 PIONEER PRESS ADVERTISING $1,752.90 CHRISTINE PENN
04/02/2012 04/02/2012 WEDDINGPAGES INC $300.00 CHRISTINE PENN
03/31/2012 04/02/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 ($0.73)ROBERT PETERSON
03/31/2012 04/02/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $1.05 ROBERT PETERSON
03/31/2012 04/02/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $64.87 ROBERT PETERSON
03/31/2012 04/02/2012 MILLS FLEET FARM #2,700 $16.07 ROBERT PETERSON
04/04/2012 04/05/2012 AUTOZONE3948 $10.59 ROBERT PETERSON
03/26/2012 03/27/2012 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $32.29 PHILIP F POWELL
03/26/2012 03/27/2012 B & H PHOTO-VIDEO.COM $204.94 PHILIP F POWELL
03/27/2012 03/28/2012 B & H PHOTO-VIDEO.COM $156.90 PHILIP F POWELL
03/27/2012 03/29/2012 EVIDENT INC $263.25 PHILIP F POWELL
04/02/2012 04/03/2012 CMPLE COM $4.74 PHILIP F POWELL
04/05/2012 04/06/2012 NXT*NEXTAG.COM $84.18 PHILIP F POWELL
03/22/2012 03/26/2012 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $41.51 STEVEN PRIEM
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 WHEELCO BRAKE &SUPPLY $92.66 STEVEN PRIEM
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $21.90 STEVEN PRIEM
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 UNITED RENTALS $294.25 STEVEN PRIEM
03/23/2012 03/27/2012 NATIONAL PARTS CORP ($81.48)STEVEN PRIEM
03/26/2012 03/27/2012 POLAR CHEVROLET MAZDA SER $154.73 STEVEN PRIEM
03/26/2012 03/28/2012 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $63.79 STEVEN PRIEM
03/27/2012 03/28/2012 AMERICAN FASTENER AND SUP $44.02 STEVEN PRIEM
03/27/2012 03/28/2012 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 $588.65 STEVEN PRIEM
03/27/2012 03/28/2012 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC $560.33 STEVEN PRIEM
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 FACTORY MTR PTS #1 $80.15 STEVEN PRIEM
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $63.98 STEVEN PRIEM
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $17.15 STEVEN PRIEM
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 JOHN S AUTO PARTS $910.56 STEVEN PRIEM
03/28/2012 03/30/2012 H AND L MESABI COMPANY $1,848.19 STEVEN PRIEM
03/29/2012 03/30/2012 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $224.37 STEVEN PRIEM
03/29/2012 03/30/2012 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $64.34 STEVEN PRIEM
03/29/2012 04/02/2012 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $103.87 STEVEN PRIEM
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 TOWMASTER $526.19 STEVEN PRIEM
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $82.24 STEVEN PRIEM
04/02/2012 04/03/2012 PIONEER RIM & WHEEL $507.45 STEVEN PRIEM
04/02/2012 04/04/2012 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL ($16.14)STEVEN PRIEM
04/03/2012 04/04/2012 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $26.28 STEVEN PRIEM
04/03/2012 04/04/2012 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 $104.16 STEVEN PRIEM
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $625.77 STEVEN PRIEM
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 NORTHERN FACTORY $160.51 STEVEN PRIEM
04/04/2012 04/06/2012 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 ($374.94)STEVEN PRIEM
04/05/2012 04/06/2012 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $23.90 STEVEN PRIEM
04/05/2012 04/06/2012 GOODYEAR AUTO SRV CT 6920 $58.69 STEVEN PRIEM
03/22/2012 03/27/2012 MED-FIT SYSTEMS, INC.$16.02 KELLY PRINS
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $8.54 KELLY PRINS
03/27/2012 03/28/2012 WW GRAINGER $214.46 KELLY PRINS
03/27/2012 03/29/2012 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $38.43 KELLY PRINS
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 FITNESSREPAIRPARTS.COM $124.34 KELLY PRINS
04/03/2012 04/04/2012 AMERICAN TIME & SIGNAL CO $39.44 KELLY PRINS
03/27/2012 03/28/2012 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $777.32 MICHAEL REILLY
04/02/2012 04/05/2012 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $326.76 MICHAEL REILLY
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 UPS*2922N39MG68 $6.45 LORI RESENDIZ
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 TARGET 00011858 $160.31 AUDRA ROBBINS
Packet Page Number 25 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 CUB FOODS, INC.$24.79 AUDRA ROBBINS
03/28/2012 03/30/2012 CVS PHARMACY #1751 Q03 $38.90 AUDRA ROBBINS
03/28/2012 03/30/2012 CVS PHARMACY #4573 $14.41 AUDRA ROBBINS
03/29/2012 03/30/2012 FIRSTSTDNT#11762 OAKDA $145.00 AUDRA ROBBINS
03/29/2012 03/30/2012 FIRSTSTDNT#11762 OAKDA $215.50 AUDRA ROBBINS
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 RAINBOW FOODS 00088617 $76.26 AUDRA ROBBINS
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 CUB FOODS, INC.$24.02 AUDRA ROBBINS
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 WALGREENS #13685 $25.92 AUDRA ROBBINS
03/31/2012 04/02/2012 CUB FOODS, INC.$11.52 AUDRA ROBBINS
03/31/2012 04/02/2012 CVS PHARMACY #1751 Q03 $23.74 AUDRA ROBBINS
04/04/2012 04/05/2012 BALLOONSFAST.COM $27.00 AUDRA ROBBINS
03/22/2012 03/26/2012 MILLS FLEET FARM #2,700 $78.96 ROBERT RUNNING
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $18.31 ROBERT RUNNING
03/27/2012 03/28/2012 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $10.02 ROBERT RUNNING
03/26/2012 03/28/2012 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $61.33 DEB SCHMIDT
03/27/2012 03/29/2012 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $68.54 DEB SCHMIDT
03/28/2012 03/29/2012 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAPE $108.00 DEB SCHMIDT
03/31/2012 04/02/2012 T-MOBILE.COM*PAYMENT $31.03 DEB SCHMIDT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 ($180.00)DEB SCHMIDT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 ($360.00)DEB SCHMIDT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 ($317.85)DEB SCHMIDT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 ($180.00)DEB SCHMIDT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 ($315.96)DEB SCHMIDT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 ($1,053.90)DEB SCHMIDT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 ($53.55)DEB SCHMIDT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 $192.83 DEB SCHMIDT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 $385.65 DEB SCHMIDT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 $340.49 DEB SCHMIDT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 $192.83 DEB SCHMIDT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 $338.47 DEB SCHMIDT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 $1,128.99 DEB SCHMIDT
04/01/2012 04/03/2012 USA MOBILITY WIRELE $16.12 SCOTT SCHULTZ
04/02/2012 04/04/2012 BROADWAY RENTAL $192.70 CAITLIN SHERRILL
03/28/2012 03/30/2012 RAPID PACKAGING $189.93 ANDREA SINDT
03/29/2012 04/02/2012 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $150.37 ANDREA SINDT
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 METRO SALES INC $344.00 ANDREA SINDT
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 U OF M CPHEO CONTINUING $195.00 JOANNE SVENDSEN
04/02/2012 04/03/2012 PUBLIC AGENCY TRAINING C $500.00 JOANNE SVENDSEN
04/02/2012 04/03/2012 PUBLIC AGENCY TRAINING C $295.00 JOANNE SVENDSEN
04/02/2012 04/03/2012 PUBLIC AGENCY TRAINING C $250.00 JOANNE SVENDSEN
04/04/2012 04/06/2012 LIFELINE TRAINING INC $179.00 JOANNE SVENDSEN
04/05/2012 04/06/2012 PAYPAL *MINNESOTAHI $160.00 JOANNE SVENDSEN
03/24/2012 03/26/2012 BODY ARMOR OUTLET, LLC $223.79 BRIAN TAUZELL
03/26/2012 03/28/2012 BLUE FORCE GEAR INC.$114.64 BRIAN TAUZELL
03/27/2012 03/29/2012 STREICHER'S CLT $22.47 BRIAN TAUZELL
03/28/2012 03/30/2012 STREICHER'S MO $22.47 BRIAN TAUZELL
03/29/2012 04/02/2012 MINNESOTA YOUTH ATHLETIC $1,600.00 JAMES TAYLOR
04/03/2012 04/05/2012 STRAUSS SKATE AND BICY $410.11 JAMES TAYLOR
04/02/2012 04/04/2012 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $257.92 PAUL THIENES
03/22/2012 03/26/2012 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $18.16 JOSEPH TRAN
03/29/2012 03/30/2012 MEDICBATTERIES COM $85.79 SUSAN ZWIEG
$49,330.88
Packet Page Number 26 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
CHECK #CHECK
DATE
EMPLOY
EE NAME
04/13/12 LLANAS, JAMES
04/13/12 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM
04/13/12 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN
04/13/12 KOPPEN, MARVIN
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
AMOUNT
04/13/12 CARDINAL, ROBERT 435.16
04/13/12 KANTRUD, HUGH
04/13/12 CHRISTENSON, SCOTT
04/13/12 ANTONEN, JAMES
04/13/12 BURLINGAME, SARAH
04/13/12 STRAUTMANIS, MARIS
04/13/12 AHL, R. CHARLES
04/13/12 ANDERSON, CAROLE
04/13/12 DEBILZAN, JUDY
04/13/12 RAMEAUX, THERESE
04/13/12 BAUMAN, GAYLE
04/13/12 FARR, LARRY
04/13/12 JAHN, DAVID
04/13/12 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH
04/13/12 SPANGLER, EDNA
04/13/12 RUEB, JOSEPH
04/13/12 GUILFOILE, KAREN
04/13/12 JACKSON, MARY
04/13/12 KELSEY, CONNIE
04/13/12 MOY, PAMELA
04/13/12 OSTER, ANDREA
04/13/12 LARSON, MICHELLE
04/13/12 MECHELKE, SHERRIE
04/13/12 THOMFORDE, FAITH
04/13/12 CORTESI, LUANNE
04/13/12 KVAM, DAVID
04/13/12 PALANK, MARY
04/13/12 WEAVER, KRISTINE
04/13/12 CORCORAN, THERESA
04/13/12 RICHTER, CHARLENE
04/13/12 SCHOENECKER, LEIGH
04/13/12 ABEL, CLINT
04/13/12 ALDRIDGE, MARK
04/13/12 THOMALLA, DAVID
04/13/12 YOUNG, TAMELA
04/13/12 POWELL, PHILIP
04/13/12 SVENDSEN, JOANNE
04/13/12 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN
04/13/12 BOHL, JOHN
04/13/12 BELDE, STANLEY
04/13/12 BENJAMIN, MARKESE
04/13/12 BAKKE, LONN
04/13/12 BARTZ, PAUL
04/13/12 BUSACK, DANIEL
04/13/12 CARNES, JOHN 1,918.52
3,461.21
3,151.33
2,878.21
1,900.55
4,961.38
2,101.79
2,932.46
1,913.17
3,598.43
2,845.55
2,990.84
3,442.13
2,937.06
3,280.90
1,520.44
1,117.15
1,827.75
1,092.31
1,287.00
1,300.57
4,209.55
1,900.55
2,356.55
1,569.35
941.61
1,907.48
1,990.09
4,244.92
3,061.20
1,882.87
3,061.16
2,193.75
2,746.39
4,407.64
2,642.60
2,594.80
2,166.08
1,314.20
435.16
435.16
435.16
184.62
2,074.90
5,800.00
5,408.64
138.00
494.44
Packet Page Number 27 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
04/13/12 DEMULLING, JOSEPH
04/13/12 DOBLAR, RICHARD
04/13/12 COFFEY, KEVIN
04/13/12 CROTTY, KERRY
04/13/12 FRASER, JOHN
04/13/12 FRITZE, DEREK
04/13/12 FLOR, TIMOTHY
04/13/12 FORSYTHE, MARCUS
04/13/12 DUGAS, MICHAEL
04/13/12 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA
04/13/12 JOHNSON, KEVIN
04/13/12 KALKA, THOMAS
04/13/12 HER, PHENG
04/13/12 HIEBERT, STEVEN
04/13/12 GABRIEL, ANTHONY
04/13/12 HAWKINSON JR, TIMOTHY
04/13/12 LANGNER, TODD
04/13/12 LU, JOHNNIE
04/13/12 KROLL, BRETT
04/13/12 LANGNER, SCOTT
04/13/12 KONG, TOMMY
04/13/12 KREKELER, NICHOLAS
04/13/12 METRY, ALESIA
04/13/12 NYE, MICHAEL
04/13/12 MARTIN, JERROLD
04/13/12 MCCARTY, GLEN
04/13/12 LYNCH, KATHERINE
04/13/12 MARINO, JASON
04/13/12 SHORTREED, MICHAEL
04/13/12 STEINER, JOSEPH
04/13/12 REZNY, BRADLEY
04/13/12 RHUDE, MATTHEW
04/13/12 OLSON, JULIE
04/13/12 PARKER, JAMES
04/13/12 THIENES, PAUL
04/13/12 TRAN, JOSEPH
04/13/12 TAUZELL, BRIAN
04/13/12 THEISEN, PAUL
04/13/12 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM
04/13/12 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS
04/13/12 BASSETT, BRENT
04/13/12 BAUMAN, ANDREW
04/13/12 ANDERSON, BRIAN
04/13/12 BAHL, DAVID
04/13/12 WENZEL, JAY
04/13/12 XIONG, KAO
04/13/12 BRESIN, ROBERT
04/13/12 CAPISTRANT, JACOB
04/13/12 BOURQUIN, RON
04/13/12 BRADBURY, RYAN
04/13/12 BECK, YANCEY
04/13/12 BIGELBACH, ANTHONY
04/13/12 CRUMMY, CHARLES
04/13/12 DAWSON, RICHARD
04/13/12 CAPISTRANT, JOHN
04/13/12 CRAWFORD, RAYMOND
231.00
234.00
640.00
360.00
144.00
2,770.11
2,778.84
351.00
537.00
420.00
495.00
3,840.35
3,150.93
2,746.04
3,115.26
2,819.55
3,261.59
96.00
465.50
63.00
2,904.76
2,937.06
3,038.70
3,038.70
3,049.02
3,061.61
2,878.21
2,226.13
3,343.01
4,091.18
2,871.56
2,894.37
2,186.00
2,950.79
3,447.75
3,808.95
3,229.48
2,829.97
2,832.73
3,183.59
3,079.58
2,980.04
3,092.20
2,904.76
871.57
2,878.21
921.88
2,845.55
3,611.20
2,878.21
3,234.44
2,186.00
3,609.69
2,301.33
3,840.35
3,925.54
Packet Page Number 28 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
04/13/12 EATON, PAUL
04/13/12 EVERSON, PAUL
04/13/12 HALWEG, JODI
04/13/12 HAWTHORNE, ROCHELLE
04/13/12 HAGEN, MICHAEL
04/13/12 HALE, JOSEPH
04/13/12 FASULO, WALTER
04/13/12 FOSSUM, ANDREW
04/13/12 KARRAS, JAMIE
04/13/12 KERSKA, JOSEPH
04/13/12 JANSEN, CHAD
04/13/12 KANE, ROBERT
04/13/12 HENDRICKSON, NICHOLAS
04/13/12 HUTCHINSON, JAMES
04/13/12 MELLEN, CHRISTOPHER
04/13/12 MILLER, NICHOLAS
04/13/12 LINDER, TIMOTHY
04/13/12 LOCHEN, MICHAEL
04/13/12 KONDER, RONALD
04/13/12 KUBAT, ERIC
04/13/12 NOVAK, JEROME
04/13/12 NOWICKI, PAUL
04/13/12 MORGAN, JEFFERY
04/13/12 NIELSEN, KENNETH
04/13/12 MONDOR, MICHAEL
04/13/12 MONSON, PETER
04/13/12 PETERSON, ROBERT
04/13/12 POWERS, KENNETH
04/13/12 PACHECO, ALPHONSE
04/13/12 PETERSON, MARK
04/13/12 OLSON, JAMES
04/13/12 OPHEIM, JOHN
04/13/12 REYNOSO, ANGEL
04/13/12 RICE, CHRISTOPHER
04/13/12 RANK, PAUL
04/13/12 RAVENWALD, CORINNE
04/13/12 RAINEY, JAMES
04/13/12 RANK, NATHAN
04/13/12 WESSELS, TIMOTHY
04/13/12 GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE
04/13/12 STREFF, MICHAEL
04/13/12 SVENDSEN, RONALD
04/13/12 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO
04/13/12 SEDLACEK, JEFFREY
04/13/12 BRINK, TROY
04/13/12 BUCKLEY, BRENT
04/13/12 KNUTSON, LOIS
04/13/12 NIVEN, AMY
04/13/12 LUKIN, STEVEN
04/13/12 ZWIEG, SUSAN
04/13/12 NAGEL, BRYAN
04/13/12 OSWALD, ERICK
04/13/12 JONES, DONALD
04/13/12 MEISSNER, BRENT
04/13/12 DEBILZAN, THOMAS
04/13/12 EDGE, DOUGLAS
3,442.00
1,949.35
2,194.15
2,262.00
2,170.15
2,564.13
2,381.97
480.00
2,967.81
2,770.11
2,848.62
15.00
420.00
2,360.55
1,425.42
2,054.95
721.42
4,498.52
3,906.58
2,898.76
101.50
231.00
353.50
2,702.31
159.00
72.00
591.00
307.00
792.00
567.00
351.00
144.00
388.00
2,702.31
2,549.67
432.00
432.00
2,778.84
264.00
325.00
303.00
3,119.66
162.00
2,674.17
353.50
288.00
2,600.61
390.00
3,103.29
399.00
462.00
96.00
476.00
2,412.68
230.50
507.00
Packet Page Number 29 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
04/13/12 DUCHARME, JOHN
04/13/12 ENGSTROM, ANDREW
04/13/12 TEVLIN, TODD
04/13/12 BURLINGAME, NATHAN
04/13/12 RUIZ, RICARDO
04/13/12 RUNNING, ROBERT
04/13/12 LOVE, STEVEN
04/13/12 THOMPSON, MICHAEL
04/13/12 KUMMER, STEVEN
04/13/12 LINDBLOM, RANDAL
04/13/12 JACOBSON, SCOTT
04/13/12 JAROSCH, JONATHAN
04/13/12 HAMRE, MILES
04/13/12 HAYS, TAMARA
04/13/12 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE
04/13/12 EDSON, DAVID
04/13/12 ZIEMAN, SCOTT
04/13/12 JANASZAK, MEGHAN
04/13/12 DEAVER, CHARLES
04/13/12 GERNES, CAROLE
04/13/12 NORDQUIST, RICHARD
04/13/12 BIESANZ, OAKLEY
04/13/12 HINNENKAMP, GARY
04/13/12 NAUGHTON, JOHN
04/13/12 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA
04/13/12 KROLL, LISA
04/13/12 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE
04/13/12 WACHAL, KAREN
04/13/12 HAYMAN, JANET
04/13/12 HUTCHINSON, ANN
04/13/12 FINWALL, SHANN
04/13/12 MARTIN, MICHAEL
04/13/12 THOMPSON, DEBRA
04/13/12 EKSTRAND, THOMAS
04/13/12 SINDT, ANDREA
04/13/12 SWANSON, CHRIS
04/13/12 WELLENS, MOLLY
04/13/12 BERGER, STEPHANIE
04/13/12 FISHER, DAVID
04/13/12 SWAN, DAVID
04/13/12 BRASH, JASON
04/13/12 CARVER, NICHOLAS
04/13/12 GERMAIN, BRADY
04/13/12 KHOURY, SARAH
04/13/12 DWELLY, KATHLEEN
04/13/12 FRANK, PETER
04/13/12 BETHEL III, CHARLES
04/13/12 BRENEMAN, NEIL
04/13/12 SCHALLER, SCOTT
04/13/12 SCHALLER, TYLER
04/13/12 ROBBINS, AUDRA
04/13/12 ROBBINS, CAMDEN
04/13/12 KOHLMAN, JENNIFER
04/13/12 LARSON, KATELYN
04/13/12 TAYLOR, JAMES
04/13/12 VUKICH, CANDACE 133.13
2,738.98
47.13
104.00
372.00
37.50
2,159.70
80.75
380.00
137.94
172.00
3,019.96
14.00
173.38
465.50
3,233.35
3,829.34
760.22
1,056.00
2,033.80
1,900.55
1,709.69
2,766.15
3,807.86
3,244.09
2,393.35
2,709.35
626.41
1,514.06
2,148.46
2,146.16
2,268.46
1,539.75
3,244.09
887.48
315.02
2,649.17
1,394.03
637.88
3,446.90
2,740.37
3,216.60
2,871.75
2,555.75
2,555.77
1,513.60
2,191.39
4,613.24
1,497.35
191.70
4,258.96
2,740.37
2,026.42
2,146.15
2,356.55
1,539.75
Packet Page Number 30 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
04/13/12 HAAG, MARK
04/13/12 ORE, JORDAN
04/13/12 ADAMS, DAVID
04/13/12 GERMAIN, DAVID
04/13/12 GLASS, JEAN
04/13/12 HER, PETER
04/13/12 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND
04/13/12 EVANS, CHRISTINE
04/13/12 SCHULTZ, SCOTT
04/13/12 ANZALDI, MANDY
04/13/12 PENN, CHRISTINE
04/13/12 SHERRILL, CAITLIN
04/13/12 KULHANEK-DIONNE, ANN
04/13/12 PELOQUIN, PENNYE
04/13/12 HOFMEISTER, MARY
04/13/12 HOFMEISTER, TIMOTHY
04/13/12 BAUDE, SARAH
04/13/12 BIGGS, ANNETTE
04/13/12 ANDERSON, MAXWELL
04/13/12 BAETZOLD, SETH
04/13/12 VUE, LOR PAO
04/13/12 ANDERSON, ALYSSA
04/13/12 CRANDALL, KRISTA
04/13/12 DEMPSEY, BETH
04/13/12 BUTLER, ANGELA
04/13/12 COSTA, JOSEPH
04/13/12 BRUSOE, CRISTINA
04/13/12 BUCKLEY, BRITTANY
04/13/12 FOX, KELLY
04/13/12 FRAMPTON, SAMANTHA
04/13/12 ERICKSON-CLARK, CAROL
04/13/12 FONTAINE, KIM
04/13/12 DIONNE, DANIELLE
04/13/12 DUNN, RYAN
04/13/12 HAGSTROM, EMILY
04/13/12 HANSEN, HANNAH
04/13/12 GRAY, MEGAN
04/13/12 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA
04/13/12 GADOW, ANNA
04/13/12 GIEL, NICOLE
04/13/12 JOHNSON, BARBARA
04/13/12 JOHNSON, KAITLYN
04/13/12 HORWATH, RONALD
04/13/12 JANSON, ANGELA
04/13/12 HEINRICH, SHEILA
04/13/12 HOLMBERG, LADONNA
04/13/12 LAMEYER, BRENT
04/13/12 LAMSON, ELIANA
04/13/12 KOLLER, NINA
04/13/12 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN
04/13/12 JOYER, ANTHONY
04/13/12 KOHLER, ROCHELLE
04/13/12 NADEAU, KELLY
04/13/12 NADEAU, TAYLOR
04/13/12 MCCANN, NATALIE
04/13/12 MUSA, OLUTOYIN
11.63
770.74
140.01
72.00
74.00
47.10
32.85
215.06
46.00
176.00
72.00
80.40
457.45
89.86
114.00
171.00
209.00
277.80
51.00
2,614.55
531.50
746.00
182.80
168.60
419.00
85.00
311.65
91.20
131.58
90.00
631.13
24.50
992.34
133.85
227.25
2,332.74
661.17
479.00
509.63
1,132.56
419.40
127.75
72.50
518.30
9.69
297.50
613.62
2,356.55
2,155.39
1,837.00
2,125.10
1,369.02
354.58
1,467.39
3,090.83
1,539.75
Packet Page Number 31 of 233
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2012\AprClms - 4-6-12 and 4-13-12.xlsx
9986766
9986767
9986768
9986769
9986770
9986771
9986772
9986773
9986774
9986775
9986776
9986777
9986778
04/13/12 NELSON, ELEONOR
04/13/12 NORTHOUSE, KATHERINE
04/13/12 RICHTER, DANIEL
04/13/12 RONNING, ISAIAH
04/13/12 RANEY, COURTNEY
04/13/12 RESENDIZ, LORI
04/13/12 POVLITZKI, MARINA
04/13/12 PROESCH, ANDY
04/13/12 SCHREINER, MICHELLE
04/13/12 SKAAR, SAMANTHA
04/13/12 SCHREIER, ROSEMARIE
04/13/12 SCHREINER, MARK
04/13/12 RONNING, ZACCEUS
04/13/12 SCHMIDT, EMILY
04/13/12 THORWICK, MEGAN
04/13/12 TREPANIER, TODD
04/13/12 SMITLEY, SHARON
04/13/12 TAYLOR, JASON
04/13/12 SMITH, ANN
04/13/12 SMITH, CASEY
04/13/12 BOSLEY, CAROL
04/13/12 DANIEL, BREANNA
04/13/12 WARNER, CAROLYN
04/13/12 WOLFGRAM, MARY
04/13/12 TUPY, HEIDE
04/13/12 TUPY, MARCUS
04/13/12 PRINS, KELLY
04/13/12 REILLY, MICHAEL
04/13/12 DOUGLASS, TOM
04/13/12 MALONEY, SHAUNA
04/13/12 BORCHERT, JONATHAN
04/13/12 COLEMAN, PATRICK
04/13/12 WOEHRLE, MATTHEW
04/13/12 BERGO, CHAD
04/13/12 AICHELE, CRAIG
04/13/12 PRIEM, STEVEN
04/13/12 SCHULZE, KEVIN
04/13/12 THOMPSON, BENJAMIN
04/13/12 VANG, TIM
04/13/12 ERICSON, RACHEL
04/13/12 KREGER, JASON
04/13/12 DIAZ, SARITA
04/13/12 FOWLDS, MYCHAL
04/13/12 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS
04/13/12 WEINHAGEN, SHELBY
04/13/12 BELMARES, GABRIEL
04/13/12 MORIS, RACHEL
04/13/12 WALES, ABIGAIL
04/13/12 GADOW, VERONIKA
04/13/12 MCMAHON, MICHAEL
493,726.34
79.75
87.00
72.50
145.00
130.50
04/13/12 STEFFEN, MICHAEL
04/13/12 VANG, GEORGE
04/13/12 MORGAN, LINDSEY
04/13/12 REMNYAKOVA, ANZHELIKA
407.00
31.50
2,087.22
2,534.62
4,428.02
2,678.00
269.21
102.26
17.50
67.38
27.48
46.80
1,875.14
112.50
1,756.55
333.25
145.00
85.50
2,388.36
2,463.76
2,230.86
257.25
480.00
1,978.40
135.98
72.80
336.70
127.41
162.40
20.00
102.50
46.80
184.80
261.25
91.60
264.00
151.20
1,393.74
362.00
175.56
19.00
190.88
196.19
47.45
360.76
88.40
43.80
75.08
100.00
Packet Page Number 32 of 233
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Matt Ledvina, Community Design Review Board Chair
SUBJECT: Community Design Review Board 2011 Annual Report
DATE: March 27, 2012
INTRODUCTION
Annually the community design review board (CDRB) reports the board’s actions and activities for
the city council for the previous year. In 2011, the CDRB reviewed the following 25 items during its
10 meetings:
Type of Proposal # Reviewed
New Development Proposals 7
1. Design and Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval – Metro Transit Park and Ride
Ramp (Northeast Corner of Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive)
2. South Metro Human Services Mental Health Care Facility (1111 Viking Drive)
3. Former Corner Kick Soccer Center (1357 Cope Avenue)
4. Beam Avenue Medical Building (Northeast of Beam and White Bear Avenues)
5. LaMettry Collision Auto Repair (2923 Maplewood Drive)
6. Wendy’s (1975 County Road D East)
7. Kennard East Professional Building (East of 3100 Kennard Street)
Expansions/Remodels/Revisions 12
1. Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment, Maplewood Square Shopping Center (3035
White Bear Avenue)
2. Ramsey County Park Shelters (Keller Regional Park)
3. Cottagewood Town House Development (South of Highwood Avenue, East of Dennis
Street, West of I-494)
4. Ramsey County Park Shelter (Battle Creek Regional Park)
5. Design Review and Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment, Maplewood Mall (3001
White Bear Avenue)
6. Maplewood Mall Stormwater Retrofit Project (3001 White Bear Avenue)
Agenda Item G2
Packet Page Number 33 of 233
Type of Proposal, continued # Reviewed
Expansions/Remodels/Revisions
7. 3M Company Building and Site Renovations (3M Center)
8. 3M Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment (3M Center)
9. Maplewood Toyota Service Entrance Addition (2873 Maplewood Drive)
10. Dearborn Meadow East, Building Elevation Revision (north of Castle Avenue)
11. St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church Building Addition (1770 McMenemy Street)
12. Maplewood Town Center Sign Plan Revision (1845 County Road D)
Special Projects and Presentations 6
1. 2010 Annual Report
2. Complete Streets
3. Election of Officers
4. Maplewood Green Building Program
5. Gladstone Area Streetscape
6. Bartelmy Street/Meyer Street Living Streets Proposal
Total 25
COMPARATIVE INFORMATION
Year Number of Items Reviewed
2003 25
2004 25
2005 27
2006 33
2007 27
2008 15
2009 18
2010 20
2011 25
Packet Page Number 34 of 233
MEMBERSHIP
The CDRB consists of five members appointed by the city council. Membership terms are for two
years, with extensions for additional terms approved by the city council. The current membership
is as follows:
Board Member Membership Began Term Expires
Ananth Shankar 8/8/94 4/30/13
Matt Ledvina 3/10/97 4/30/14
Matt Wise 2/12/07 4/30/13
Jason Lamers 5/26/09 4/30/12
Jawaid Ahmed 7/25/11 4/30/15
Jason Lamers is the only member due for reappointment in 2012. In 2011, the city council
appointed Mr. Ahmed to replace outgoing member Michael Mireau.
DISCUSSION
2011 Actions/Activities
In 2011, the CDRB reviewed 25 items, an increase from the past few years. Almost half of the
projects reviewed in 2011 were redevelopment related. The CDRB saw an uptick in projects
reviewed as the economy is slowly recovering. In 2012, the CDRB expects to see increases in its
number of projects reviewed. The CDRB continued its review of the city’s developing green
building program and the living streets program. The CDRB appointed Mr. Lamers to work with the
living streets task force.
The CDRB reviewed mainly commercial projects – most notably at the Maplewood Mall and 3M
Center. Two housing projects were reviewed – Cottagewood and Dearborn Meadow East – but
these were two previously approved projects seeking design revision approval. The CDRB also
worked on several key commercial and institutional projects in the city. The CDRB has
consistently demonstrated keen interest and skill in their reviews of these development projects to
ensure they are of the quality of design and materials that complement the surrounding areas and
improves a site’s aesthetics.
The reason for the rise in redevelopment and remodel is that the city has seen the amount of
vacant land available for new developments diminish. In addition, several other projects that
occurred in 2011 were smaller in nature allowing city staff to process many of the city’s remodels
and additions as 15-day reviews, as allowed by code, rather than the more formal review by the
CDRB. Because of the developed nature of the city, many of the new commercial and residential
developments reviewed by the CDRB are either redevelopment of existing buildings or in-fill
development. The CDRB will continue to be a vital advisory board to the city council in the future,
particularly with more redevelopment and in-fill development projects on the horizon.
Packet Page Number 35 of 233
2012 Activities
In addition to its design review duties, the CDRB lists these potential activities for 2012:
1. Continue having in-service training sessions for the CDRB.
2. Continue developing policy guidelines for vegetation use along public rights-of-way.
3. Focus on educating the CDRB on sustainable building practices.
4. Living Streets
5. Update on Bartlemy Meyer Street Project
CONCLUSION
In 2012, the CDRB will continue its dedication to the quality design of buildings and developments,
ensuring a high quality of life for the citizens of Maplewood.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the CDRB’s 2011 annual report.
P\com -dev\community design review board\annual report (2011)
Packet Page Number 36 of 233
Agenda #G-3
AGENDA REPORT
To: City Manager James Antonen
From: Chief of Police David J. Thomalla
Subject: Approval to Accept Donations to Landfall Cops ‘N Kids Fishing Clinic
Date: April 18, 2012
Introduction
City Council approval is required to accept donations received for the Landfall Cops ‘N
Kids Fishing Clinic. St. Paul Harley-Davidson has donated $100 and the City of Landfall
Village has donated $700 to this year’s event.
Background
For the past several years, the Maplewood Police Department, which provides police
services in the City of Landfall, has held a half-day Cops ‘N Kids Fishing Clinic for youth
living in Landfall. This event provides an opportunity for the children to interact with
police officers in a positive way while they spend the morning fishing and then having
lunch.
St. Paul Harley-Davidson has donated $100 and the City of Landfall Village has
donated $700 to be used to purchase supplies for the Cops ‘N Kids Fishing Clinic, and
City Council approval is required for us to accept these donations.
Recommendation
It is recommended that City Council approval be given to accept these donations and
that the necessary budget adjustments be made so that the donations may be used for
costs associated with the fishing clinic.
Action Required
Submit to the City Council for review and action.
DJT:js
Packet Page Number 37 of 233
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GIFT TO CITY
WHEREAS, Maplewood is AUTHORIZED to receive and accept grants, gifts and
devices of real and personal property and maintain the same for the benefit of the
citizens and pursuant to the donors’ terms if so-prescribed, and;
WHEREAS, St. Paul Harley-Davidson and the City of Landfall Village wish to grant the
City of Maplewood the following: $100 and $700 respectively, and;
WHEREAS, St. Paul Harley-Davidson and the City of Landfall Village have instructed
that the City of Maplewood will be required to use the aforementioned for: 2012 Cops &
Kids Fishing Clinic in Landfall, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has agreed to use the subject of this resolution for
the purposes and under the terms prescribed, and;
WHEREAS, the City agrees that it will accept the gifts by a super majority of its
governing body’s membership pursuant to Minnesota Statute §465.03;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to Minnesota Statute §465.03, that
the Maplewood City Council approves, receives and accepts the gifts aforementioned
and under such terms and conditions as may be requested or required.
The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution by a super majority vote of its
membership on _________________________, 20_____.
Signed: Signed: Witnessed:
___________________ ____________________ ___________________
(Signature) (Signature) (Signature)
Mayor______________ Chief of Police_________ City Clerk____________
(Title) (Title) (Title)
___________________ _____________________ ____________________
(Date) (Date) (Date)
Packet Page Number 38 of 233
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review – Cottagewood Town House
Development
LOCATION: South of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street, west of I-494
DATE: April 17, 2012
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
The conditional use permit (CUP) for the Cottagewood planned unit development (PUD) is due for
review. This CUP is for a 15-unit town house PUD (planned unit development). Refer to the maps,
plans and the city council minutes attached to this report.
BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2006, the city council made several approvals for this development. They included
a revision to the planned unit development, a preliminary plat and a resolution ordering the public
improvements. These approvals were subject to several conditions. (Please see the attached city
council minutes)
On September 19, 2006, the community design review board approved the design plans for
Cottagewood (subject to several conditions of approval).
On March 12, 2007, the city council approved the final plat for Cottagewood.
On September 24, 2007, the city council approved the PUD review.
On April 26, 2011, the community design review board approved the revised design plans for
Cottagewood (subject to several conditions of approval).
DISCUSSION
In 2006 and 2007 the city council gave several approvals for the Cottagwood Town House
development. Since those approvals the original developer walked away from the project which had
sat dormant for several years. In 2011, Tom Wiener of Cardinal Homebuilders took over the project
and received community design review board approval for building plans to move forward with this
development.
The previous contractor has completed the site grading, retaining walls, utilities and the base course
for the private driveway. However, there was still some landscaping, curbing, paving and other site
work the current developer has assumed responsibility for. Staff has been working with the developer
to ensure all council conditions are met while he proceeds with this development. Currently, the city
has issued three building permits for new houses within this development.
Agenda Item G4
Packet Page Number 39 of 233
2
RECOMMENDATION
Review the conditional use permit (CUP) for the Cottagewood PUD again in one year or sooner if
the owner proposes a major change to the site.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 3.71 acres
Existing land use: Townhouse development (under construction)
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: New Century development across Highwood Avenue
South: I - 494
West: Single dwellings on Ferndale Street
East: Single dwelling and cell phone tower
PLANNING
Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-3l (low-density multiple dwelling)
Existing Zoning: PUD (planned unit development
Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval
Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards.
p:sec13-28\Cottagewood PUD Review_042312
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Address Map
3. Land Use Map
4. Property Line/Zoning Map
5. Final Plat
6. August 28, 2006 City Council minutes
Packet Page Number 40 of 233
Attachment 5
7
Packet Page Number 45 of 233
City Council Meeting 08-28-06 1
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, August 28, 2006
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 06-22
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at City Hall, and was called to order at
7:10 P.M. by Mayor Longrie.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Diana Longrie, Mayor Present
Rebecca Cave Councilmember Present
Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Cottagewood Subdivision Public Improvements, City Project 06-10
Public Hearing 7:10 pm
Cottagewood Town Houses (2666 Highwood Avenue)
Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Revision
Preliminary Plat
Resolution Ordering Improvement (4 votes)
a. Environmental Manager Konewko presented the public improvement report.
b. Civil Engineer Kummer provided further specifics from the report.
c. Commissioner Pearson presented the Planning Commission report.
d. Planner Roberts presented the project approval report.
e. Phil Soby, the applicant, 200 East Chestnut Street, Stillwater, was present for council
questions.
f. Mayor Longrie opened the public hearing (9:03 p.m.), calling for proponents or
opponents. The following persons were heard:
Kip Johnson, Project Engineer for the Developer
Chris Gerke, 2660 Highwood Avenue East, Maplewood
Sharon Soby, Realtor and applicants wife
g. Mayor Longrie closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Cave moved to approve the following resolution. This resolution approves a
conditional use permit revision for a planned unit development for the property at 2666
Highwood Avenue to be known as Cottagewood. This site is on the south side of Highwood
Avenue, east of Dennis Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code:
Attachment 6
8
Packet Page Number 46 of 233
City Council Meeting 08-28-06 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION 06-08-105
WHEREAS, Mr. Phil Soby, representing the project developers, applied for a conditional use
permit (CUP) revision for the Cottagewood residential planned unit development (PUD).
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Cottagewood town house development plan the city
received on July 7, 2006 for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue. The legal description is:
Subject to State TH 100/117 and HWY 393, the north 1100 feet of the West 173 feet of the East
198 feet of the West ½ of the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22,
Ramsey County, Minnesota. (This is the property to be known as Lots 1-15 of the proposed
Cottagewood)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On August 7, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The
planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff.
The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use
permit.
2. On August 28, 2006, the city council discussed the proposed 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 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.
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.
9
Packet Page Number 47 of 233
City Council Meeting 08-28-06 3
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the plans for 18 15 detached town houses as approved by
the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community
Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include:
a. Revising the grading and site plans to show:
(1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation.
(2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of
the main driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. However, widening of the driveway
must not lessen the side setback of the driveway from the east property line.
(3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. Also,
review and possibly revise the parking spaces and the turn-around area at the south end of the
site to maximize the number of trees to be saved and to minimize the amount of hard surface
area.
(4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the
watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city’s design standards.
(5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping
and protecting as many of the large trees in the undisturbed area south of the town houses and
parking areas.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall
meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer’s memo dated July 28, 2006. These
shall include:
a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, tree, retaining walls,
driveway and parking lot plans.
a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, tree, retaining walls, driveway
and parking plans. This approval includes the design of the proposed private cul-de-sac.
b. Showing no grading or ground disturbance in the conservation easement. This land is to be
preserved for open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect this area,
including the large trees that are in and near the south side of the site, from encroachment from
equipment, grading or filling.
c. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal.
4. The design of all ponds shall meet Maplewood’s design standards and shall be subject to the
approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off-
site pond and drainage easements.
5. The developer or contractor shall:
a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements
and meet all city requirements.
10
Packet Page Number 48 of 233
City Council Meeting 08-28-06 4
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Remove any debris or junk from the site, including the conservation area.
d Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the proposed site plan will meet the
state’s noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise
on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to build the town houses so that they can
meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air
conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the
city with this documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses.
6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Cottagewood PUD shall be:
a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum
– 35 feet
b. Rear-yard setback: 12 feet from any adjacent residential property line
c. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum of six feet from a side property line and at least 12
feet between units.
7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing
unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
8. Submit the homeowner’s association documents to city staff for review and approval.
9. The developer shall provide a permanent means to preserve and maintain the common open
space. This may be done by conservation easement, deed restrictions, covenants or public
dedication. The developer shall record this document with the final plat and before the city
issues a permit for grading or utility construction.
10. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
11. This approval does not include the design approval for the townhomes or any signs. The
project design plans, including architectural, signs, site, lighting, tree and landscaping plans,
shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). The
projects shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council.
b. For the driveways:
(1) Minimum width - 20 feet.
(2) Maximum width - 28 feet.
(3) All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for “No Parking” on both sides.
Driveways at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and shall be posted for No
Parking on one side.
c. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the planned
unit development (PUD).
11
Packet Page Number 49 of 233
City Council Meeting 08-28-06 5
12. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code
requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots in the preliminary
plat before the city will issue a building permit.
Seconded by Mayor Longrie Ayes-Mayor Longrie, Councilmembers Cave, Hjelle,
and Juenemann
Nay-Councilmember Rossbach
Mayor Longrie moved to approve the Cottagewood preliminary plat (received by the city on July
7, 2006). 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. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in two locations - primarily at the street
intersection and near the south end of the driveway. The exact style and location shall be
subject to the city engineer’s approval.
d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs.
e. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off-site easements.
f. Demolish or remove the existing house and garage from the site, and remove all other
buildings, fencing, trailers, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site.
g. Cap and seal all wells on site that the owners are not using; remove septic systems or
drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines.
h. Complete all the curb and gutter on Highwood Avenue on the north side of the site. This is to
replace the existing driveways on Highwood Avenue and shall include the restoration and
sodding of the boulevards.
i. Install a sign where the new driveway intersects Highwood Avenue indicating that it is a
private driveway.
j. Install survey monuments and signs along the edges of the conservation easement area.
These signs shall explain that the area beyond the signs is a conservation easement area and
that there shall be no building, fences, mowing, cutting, filling, dumping or other ground
disturbance in that area. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city
issues building permits in this plat.
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 Michael Thompson
dated July 28, 2006, and shall meet the following conditions:
a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code.
12
Packet Page Number 50 of 233
City Council Meeting 08-28-06 6
b. The grading plan shall show:
(1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site.
The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat.
(2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb.
(3) Building pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large
trees.
(4) The proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer.
(5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. 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.
(6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a
building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on
top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet.
(7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city
engineer.
(8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the
affected property owner(s).
(9) As little grading as possible west and south of the town houses. This is to keep as
many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible.
c. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
(1) The driveway shall be a nine-ton design with a maximum grade of eight percent and the
maximum grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent.
(2) The street (driveway) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city
engineer determines that curbing is not necessary for drainage purposes.
(3) The removal of the unused driveways and the completion of the curb and gutter on the
south side of Highwood Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards.
(4) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and
requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow
requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department.
(5) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements.
The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area.
(6) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
(7) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor
shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion.
13
Packet Page Number 51 of 233
City Council Meeting 08-28-06 7
(8) The minimum cul-de-sac size to meet the public safety needs while preserving as many
trees as possible.
d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-off
leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer’s engineer shall:
(1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities.
(2) Submit drainage design calculations.
e.* The tree plan shall:
(1) Be approved, along with the landscaping, by the Community Design Review Board
(CDRB) before site grading or final plat approval.
(2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall
include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site.
(3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The
deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 ½) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of
red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees
shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills Spruce, Austrian pine and
other species.
(4) Show no tree removal in the buffer zones, conservation easement, or beyond the
approved grading and tree limits.
(5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list.
(6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be:
(a) near the ponding areas
(b) on the slopes
(c) along the west side of the site to screen the proposed buildings from the homes
to the west
(7) Show the planting of at least 37 trees after the site grading is done.
3. Change the plat as follows:
a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. This shall include
showing a 20-foot-wide drainage and utility easement along the north side of Lot 15.
b. 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.
c. Label the common areas as an outlot or as outlots.
d. If allowed, show the conservation easement on the final plat.
4. Pay for costs related to the engineering department’s review of the construction plans.
5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site
drainage and utility easements. These shall include, but not be limited to, an easement for the
culvert draining the pond at the northwest corner of the plat.
14
Packet Page Number 52 of 233
City Council Meeting 08-28-06 8
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. Sign a developer’s 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. Provide for the repair of Highwood Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the
developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway.
8. Record the following with the final plat:
a. All homeowner’s association documents.
b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or
parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites.
c. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any additional driveways (besides the one new
driveway shown on the project plans) from going onto Highwood Avenue.
d. The conservation easement for the undisturbed area of the site.
The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for
approval before recording. The city will not issue a building permit until after the developer has
recorded the final plat and these documents and covenants.
9* Submit the homeowners association bylaws and rules to the director of community
development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance
of the common areas, outlots, private utilities, driveways, retaining walls and structures.
10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading.
11. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the interim director of
community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat.
12. 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.
____________________
*The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or
approves the final plat.
Seconded by Mayor Longrie Ayes-Mayor Longrie, Councilmembers Cave, Hjelle,
and Juenemann
Nay-Councilmember Rossbach
15
Packet Page Number 53 of 233
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review – Bruentrup Heritage Farm
LOCATION: 2170 County Road D
DATE: April 17, 2012
INTRODUCTION
The Bruentrup farm buildings were relocated from White Bear Avenue to a 2.36 acre site within
the Prairie Farm Neighborhood Preserve in 1999. On June 14, 1999, the city council approved a
conditional use permit (CUP) to the Maplewood Area Historical Society (MAHS) to operate the
farm on the site as a historical, educational, and interpretive center. Since that time MAHS has
leased the land from the city for this purpose.
In order to create a sustainable cash flow for farm expenses and other society projects, the
MAHS requested an amendment to their CUP in order to sublease the Bruentrup Heritage Farm
(BHF) site for large non-historical events, such as weddings. On July 27, 2009, the city council
approved the amendment on the condition that MAHS limit the number of people to 290 and the
number of events to six per year with a maximum of 290 people per event.
BACKGROUND
February 8, 1999, the city council approved the relocation of the Bruentrup farm buildings to the
Prairie Farm Preserve.
June 14, 1999, the city council approved a CUP for a “public facility” to be located within the
Prairie Farm Preserve and a parking waiver for the reduction in the required number of parking
spaces for such a use.
December 13, 1999, the city council approved a 99-year lease agreement which allows the
MAHS to lease the land and buildings for interpretive and educational purposes. The lease was
never formally signed by the MAHS.
July 8, 2002, the city council approved a CUP revision to allow the construction of a parking lot
on the west side of the site, within the city’s open space.
December 1, 2008, the city council held a workshop to discuss issues associated with MAHS
including the lease, proposed fund-raising events, CUP amendment, parking, insurance, etc.
April 13, 2009, the city council approved a lease agreement with the Maplewood Area Historical
Society. This lease allows the society the use of the Bruentrup Heritage Farm site and buildings
located at 2170 County Road D.
July 27, 2009, the city council approved the amendment to the CUP allowing MAHS to hold a
maximum of six private events a year with a maximum of 290 people per event.
Agenda Item G5
Packet Page Number 54 of 233
2
February 22, 2010, the city council reviewed the CUP and approved it for another year. The city
council also approved the use of a state licensed caterer to provide alcohol for large events at
the BHF.
February 28, 2011, the city council reviewed the CUP and approved it for another year.
DISCUSSION
The CUP allows the society to host up to six large non-historical fundraising events a year on the
site. Examples of events would be weddings or graduation parties. The events would be held
during the months of May through October. The hours would be limited from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.
The society did hold non-historical fundraising events in 2010 and staff is not aware of any
issues or concerns resulting from these private events. All conditions of approval for the CUP at
the BHF are being met and staff is recommending approval of the CUP with the city council
reviewing it again in one year.
Master Plan
The BHF lease, approved in 2009, allows MAHS to use and maintain the BHF property for 99
years unless terminated sooner. The lease specifies that the use of the site should be
designated in the BHF master plan and the approved CUP. The BHF master plan was last
significantly updated in January 2008 and describes the purpose as an interpretive center for the
history of agriculture in New Canada-Maplewood. The goals include education and
interpretation; learning by participation; historical authenticity; attraction of people and
organizations to the site; and community support.
A condition of the most recent CUP amendment was to update the outdated material in the
master plan and add language regarding the intent and purpose of the fundraising events. On
February 10, 2010, the society approved amendments to the master plan. These amendments
meet the minimum requirements of the CUP.
In December of 2010 the MAHS adopted an Interpretive Plan that lists 11 major goals for the
BHF. Robert Overby, president of the MAHS, communicated to staff that six of the 11 goals
have either been started or completed at this time. Mr. Overby also stated that in March of this
year the MASH established a formal operating budget for the BHF. The MAHS intends to use
this budget as a tool of implementing the Interpretive Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the Maplewood Area Historical Society’s conditional use permit. This permit should be
reviewed again in one year or sooner if a major change is proposed for the site.
P:\sec2N\Bruentrup\Bruentrup Farm CUP_042312
Attachments:
1. July 27, 2009, Bruentrup Heritage Farm Conditional Use Permit Resolution
2. Bruentrup Heritage Farm Premise Survey
Packet Page Number 55 of 233
July 27, 2009
City Council Meeting Minutes
1
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
6:30 p.m., Monday, July 27, 2009
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 15-09
L. NEW BUSINESS
1. Approval Of Bruentrup Heritage Farm Conditional Use Permit Amendment To Allow
a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the report.
b. Parks & Community Development Director, DuWayne Konewko answered questions of
the council.
c. City Clerk, Citizens Services Director, Karen Guilfoile answered questions of the council.
d. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud answered questions of the council.
Mayor Longrie asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding this item.
1. Robert Overby, representing the Historical Society.
2. Gary Pearson, Planning Commission member.
3. Richard Currie, Historic Preservation Commission Vice Chairperson
4. Mark Bradley, 2164 Woodlyn Avenue, Maplewood.
5. Carolyn Peterson, 1801 Gervais Avenue, Maplewood. Vice President of the Historical
Society.
6. Mark Jenkins, 830 New Century Boulevard South, Maplewood.
Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the resolution amending the Maplewood Area
Historical Society’s Conditional Use Permit for the use of the Bruentrup Heritage Farm Site (2170
County Road D) Striking condition number 12.
RESOLUTION 09-07-224
Maplewood Area Historical Society Conditional Use Permit Amendment
for the Bruentrup Heritage Farm
WHEREAS, the Maplewood Area Historical Society was granted a Conditional Use Permit on
June 14, 1999, and July 28, 2002 for the society to operate a public facility on the Bruentrup Heritage
Farm at 2170 County Road D. Bruentrup Heritage Farm is further described as a 2.36 acre site within
the Maplewood Prairie Farm Neighborhood Preserve as defined in the April 6, 2009, lease boundary
completed by the City of Maplewood Department of Public Works.
WHEREAS, the Maplewood Area Historical Society has submitted a proposal to amend their
conditional use permit to allow for the subleasing of the Bruentrup Heritage Farm for non-historical
fundraising events.
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2009, the planning commission held a public hearing to review the
conditional use permit revision. After due published notice in the legal newspaper and notice of said
hearing was mailed to surrounding property owners, and after considering all testimony from every
person or persons wishing to speak or those who wished to submit written statements, and after
considering reports and recommendations from city staff the planning commission tabled the item for
review by the city’s historical preservation commission.
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 56 of 233
July 27, 2009
City Council Meeting Minutes
2
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2009, the historical preservation commission reviewed the conditional
use permit revision and recommended approval of the Maplewood Area Historical Commission’s
fundraising proposal.
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2009, the planning commission reviewed the historical preservation
commission’s recommendations and the conditional use permit amendment and recommended
approval of the fundraising proposal, on the condition that all parking for these events be
accommodated on site.
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2009, the city council reviewed the planning commission and historical
preservation commission’s recommendation and the conditional use permit amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL approves the above-
described conditional use permit, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity
with the City’s comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate area 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, smoking, 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 and design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions (additions to the original 1999 and 2002
conditional use permits are underlined if added and stricken if deleted):
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2. Before the city issues a building permit, the city engineer shall complete the necessary grading,
drainage, utility and erosion control plans.
3. The applicant or contractor shall complete the following before occupying the buildings:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-
parking space and an address on the building.
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 57 of 233
July 27, 2009
City Council Meeting Minutes
3
c. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers. The enclosures
must be 100 percent opaque, match the color of the buildings and have a closeable gate
that extends to the ground. If the trash container is not visible to the public it does not
have to be screened.
d. Install site-security lighting as required by the code. The light source, including the lens
covering the bulb, shall be concealed so the light source in not visible and so it does not
cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if the city determines
that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve
minor changes.
New Conditions Which Apply to All Uses at the Bruentrup Heritage Farm:
6. Update the January 2008 Bruentrup Heritage Farm Master Plan to include correct site size, site
conditions, parking references, and purpose and intent of uses including any large non-historical
fundraising events.
7. When the parking lot located east of the site cannot accommodate parking for an event (i.e.,
events where there are more than 84 people based on 4 people per vehicle in the 21 space
parking lot located to the east of the site) the society must supply off-site parking to accommodate
the events.
8. Off-site parking at Salvation Army (78 parking spaces at 2080 Woodlyn Avenue):
a. The society must supply the city with a signed parking agreement between the society
and the owners of the Salvation Army for the use of the parking lot.
b. Transportation of guests in a wagon pulled by a tractor to and from the Salvation Army
parking lot (Woodlyn Avenue) on a trail through the Prairie Farm Neighborhood Preserve
is only allowed during daytime hours.
c. The society must ensure safe pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Woodlyn Avenue
and Ariel Street for visitors parking in the Salvation Army parking lot. Safe pedestrian
crossing can involve temporary signs or crossing guards.
9. Off-site parking at Harbor Pointe (278 parking spaces at 2079 to 2127 County Road D):
a. The society must supply the city with a signed parking agreement between the society
and the owners of Harbor Pointe which allows the use of this parking lot.
b. The society must ensure safe pedestrian crossing at the intersection of County Road D
and Ariel Street for visitors parking in the Harbor Pointe parking lot. Safe pedestrian
crossing can involve temporary signs or crossing guards.
10. Any large scale music proposed for any event on the site (such as DJs and bands) should be
limited to inside the barn.
11. Use of the farm must comply with the city’s noise ordinance which requires that no disturbing
noises be generated before 7 a.m. and after 7 p.m.
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 58 of 233
July 27, 2009
City Council Meeting Minutes
4
12. In exchange for occasional use of the Bruentrup Heritage Farm site by the city, the city will allow
the society the use of the Community Center at no charge for their annual fundraising Halloween
Hoe Down.
13. The society will work with Maplewood city staff to coordinate the management of the oak savanna
located west of the entry drive within the Bruentrup Heritage Farm site with the intent of
continuing to manage that portion of the site as oak savanna.
14. The barn must be posted with a maximum occupancy of 290 people.
New Conditions Which Apply to the Subleasing of the Site by the Society for Large Non-Historical
Fundraising Events:
15. Subleased large non-historical fundraising events are allowed six times per year.
16. Subleased large non-historical fundraising events are allowed from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.
17. Parking for subleased large non-historical fundraising events in which alcohol will be served is
limited to the parking lot on the east side of the site and the Harbor Pointe parking lot located
about a block west of the site on the north side of County Road D.
18. Maximum number of occupants allowed on site for large non-historical fundraising events in
which alcohol will be served is limited to 290 people.
19. Appropriate liquor licenses must be obtained prior to serving alcohol on the site.
20. The society must obtain the appropriate liability coverage for large non-historical fundraising
events which holds the city harmless.
21. A rental agreement must be approved by the city which dictates hours of use, maximum number
of people, location of parking, etc.
Seconded by Mayor Longrie. Ayes – All
Councilmember Hjelle made a friendly amendment to remove the Halloween Hoe-Down from the
discussion and address it separately.
Mayor Longrie accepted the friendly amendment regarding condition number 12.of the resolution
be removed which stated In exchange for occasional use of the Bruentrup Heritage Farm Site by
the city, the city will allow the society the use of the Community Center at no charge for their
annual fundraising Halloween Hoe Down.
The friendly amendment was accepted by the motioners.
The motion passed.
Mayor Longrie moved that the staff review and bring back to the council options for memoralizing
that agreement including the idea that it may include an amendment to the current lease between
the parties involved.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 59 of 233
Attachment 2Packet Page Number 60 of 233
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review— Midwest Grounds Maintenance
Company
LOCATION: 1949 Atlantic Street
DATE: April 17, 2012
INTRODUCTION
The conditional use permits (CUP) for Midwest Grounds Maintenance Company located at 1949
Atlantic Street (Gladstone neighborhood) are due for review. The CUPs were issued to Midwest
Grounds Maintenance but now a company called Homemasters Real Estate Services owns and
operates from the site. The CUPs were required for exterior storage and the construction of a metal
building within the business commercial zoning district.
BACKGROUND
February 9, 2004: The city council approved a minor subdivision to subdivide 1949 Atlantic Street
into two separate lots and also approved three CUPs as follows: 1) exterior storage for Ohlson
Landscaping at 1949 Atlantic Street; 2) construction of a 3,264-square-foot metal building within the
business commercial zoning district at 1949 Atlantic Street for Ohlson Landscaping; and 3) exterior
storage for Oehrlein Property Maintenance at the newly subdivided and vacant lot located north of
1949 Atlantic Street. Refer to the attached city council minutes (Attachment 3).
August 22, 2005: The city council reviewed Ohlson Landscaping’s CUPs. The city council waived
the requirement to pave Ohlson Landscaping’s parking lot for one year (August 22, 2006) pending
the outcome of the Gladstone redevelopment concept plan. The city council required the owners to
complete all other exterior improvements including fencing, landscaping, and grading by October 31,
2005, with review again in November 2005 to ensure this completion.
November 28, 2005: The city council reviewed Ohlson Landscaping’s CUPs and requested review
again to ensure completion of all required exterior improvements which were not installed by the
November 2005 deadline as specified above.
November 27, 2006: The city council reviewed the CUPs and requested review again in two years to
ensure completion of the parking lot.
September 27, 2010: The city council reviewed the CUPs and requested review again in 18 months
to ensure completion of the parking lot.
DISCUSSION
Farid Atiyeh purchased the property at 1949 Atlantic Street in December 2005 from Erik and
Stephanie Ohlson. The Ohlson’s originally applied for and received the CUPs. Mr. Atiyeh operated a
similar landscaping business as Ohlson Landscaping – which the CUPs allow. The CUPs run with
the property regardless of the current owner. The purchase agreement between Mr. Atiyeh and the
Ohlson’s stated that Mr. Atiyeh was responsible for the paving of the parking lot. Mr. Atiyeh sought a
Agenda Item G6
Packet Page Number 61 of 233
waiver for this requirement from council in 2006. The waiver request was rejected meaning the
paving of the parking lot is still a requirement of the CUPs for 1949 Atlantic Street. The council
required the parking lot to be paved within two years.
Since 2006, Mr. Atiyeh has passed away and the property was sold to Andrew McNattin
approximately 18 months ago. Prior to Mr. McNattin’s purchase staff talked with him and his
mortgage company several times regarding the conditions attached to the CUPs for this site. The
buyer and his mortgage company were fully aware of the paving requirement, as well as the other
requirements of the CUPs for this site. With that said, council required the parking lot to be paved in
2004, well before Mr. McNattin assumed control of the property.
Mr. McNattin has submitted a letter to the city detailing his reasons for why the parking lot has yet to
be paved. Staff believes having this site occupied and in use is better for the neighborhood and
wants to work with this property owner; however the parking lot paving requirement has been ignored
for more than eight years. Mr. McNattin has requested a three year extension to have the parking lot
paved. Staff feels 18 months is more reasonable and gives Mr. McNattin through the 2013
construction season to satisfy this requirement. Staff would recommend that if in October of 2013 the
parking lot has yet to be paved, the city council give serious consideration to amending or revoking
the CUPs for this site. For the council’s information staff estimates the cost of paving the parking lot
to be approximately $13,900.
Again, staff understands Mr. McNattin’s position of having recently assumed the property while also
ensuring his business stays afloat. However, staff needs to ensure the parking lot is paved to satisfy
the CUP conditions and to ensure erosion on the site does not affect surrounding properties. Also of
note, staff did visit the property and found some areas to have piles of rubbish and debris and the
property owner has been instructed to clean up his site.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the conditional use permits for 1949 Atlantic Street and review again in October 2013 to
ensure completion of the required parking lot pavement.
P:Sec16\Midwest Grounds Maintenance\1949Atlantic CUP Review_042312
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Landscape Plan
3. February 9, 2004, City Council Minutes
4. Mr. McNattin’s Letter
Packet Page Number 62 of 233
Packet Page Number 63 of 233
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 64 of 233
Packet Page Number 65 of 233
Packet Page Number 66 of 233
Packet Page Number 67 of 233
Packet Page Number 68 of 233
Packet Page Number 69 of 233
Packet Page Number 70 of 233
Packet Page Number 71 of 233
Packet Page Number 72 of 233
(P) 651-235-9971 (F) 651-490-3160
(e-mail) inFo@homemastersllc.com
City of Maplewood
Attn: Michael Martin
Re: 1949 Atlantic Street
To whom it may concern;
This letter is intended to request an extension for the CUP currently in place for the
property located at 1949 Atlantic Street.
I, Andrew McNattin, have owned the property at 1949 Atlantic for approximately 18
months. In that time I have made efforts to satisfy the CUP involving paving the lot at
this property but have been unsuccessful in doing so.
In part the delay has stemmed from the somewhat limited time-frame available within the
previous extension. While the previous extension was 18 months, and was greatly
appreciated, all but 6/7 months were in winter months. The summer months following the
purchase of the property were actually my first months inhabiting the property as it sat
mostly vacant during the winter immediately following the sale of the property.
Considering that the paving would need to take place in the summer/fall I was left with a
fairly small window of time to complete the paving. As this extension draws to a close
we are only beginning to enter the time of year in which the paving could even take
place.
Secondly the delay stems from a lack of funds available to complete this work. In
purchasing this property I have had to adjust my business practices in an effort to keep up
with additional operating expenses necessary to accommodate the new space along with
attempting to expand and grow my business. While the increased expenses were not
unexpected, it has taken longer to adjust than was initially anticipated. Money that was
intended to be set aside for the paving project has been re-allocated for day to day
operating expenses. As we continue to adjust our operations it becomes more realistic to
set aside funds for the completion of the project, however we were unable to do so within
the previous extension. My ability to obtain a loan against the building in attempt to
bridge any gap between what is on hand and what is needed has also fallen short. The
loan on this property is still very new and the bank which loaned the money for the
building will not even consider a refinance for at least three years.
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 73 of 233
(P) 651-235-9971 (F) 651-490-3160
(e-mail) inFo@homemastersllc.com
I have spoken with paving companies regarding this project and have been given a wide
range of expenses associated with paving this property. While the possibility exists to
have the property paved in a less expensive manner, it is not felt that this will satisfy the
needs of my business nor will it satisfy the needs of most businesses that will likely find
this space suitable in the future. I feel that to have this property paved “cheaply” will not
be responsible and will lead to additional expenditures in the future.
At this time I am requesting an additional extension for the existing CUP for 1949
Atlantic. I do not have the money available to complete the lot paving at this time. My
request for an extension would be for an additional 3 years or as the Council sees fit.
During the extension period I will do everything I can to ensure the funds are on hand to
complete the lot paving and satisfy the existing CUP.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Andrew McNattin
Homemasters, LLC.
andrew@homemastersllc.com
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 74 of 233
Agenda #G-7
AGENDA REPORT
To: City Manager James Antonen
From: Chief of Police David J. Thomalla & Fire Chief Steve Lukin
Subject: Approval to Accept Donation to Police & Fire Departments
Date: April 16, 2012
Introduction
The Maplewood Police and Fire Departments have received 12 Tommy Moose stuffed
moose toys from the Maplewood Moose Lodge, and City Council approval is required
before this donation can be accepted.
Background
The Maplewood Moose Lodge has donated 12 Tommy Moose stuffed toys to be divided
between the Maplewood Police and Fire Departments. These stuffed toys are intended
to be given to children we may encounter who need comforting.
The toys have been provided to us free of charge; but the estimated dollar value is $10
each, making the monetary value of the donation approximately $120.
City Council approval is required for us to accept this donation.
Recommendation
It is recommended that City Council approval be given for the Police and Fire
Departments to accept this donation from the Maplewood Moose Lodge.
Action Required
Submit to the City Council for review and approval.
DJT:js
Packet Page Number 75 of 233
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GIFT TO CITY
WHEREAS, Maplewood is AUTHORIZED to receive and accept grants, gifts and
devices of real and personal property and maintain the same for the benefit of the
citizens and pursuant to the donor’s terms if so-prescribed, and;
WHEREAS, the Maplewood Moose Lodge wishes to grant the City of Maplewood the
following: 12 Tommy Moose stuffed toys, and;
WHEREAS, the Maplewood Moose Lodge has instructed that the City will be required to
use the aforementioned for: distribution to children in the City of Maplewood, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has agreed to use the subject of this resolution for
the purposes and under the terms prescribed, and;
WHEREAS, the City agrees that it will accept the gift by a super majority of its
governing body’s membership pursuant to Minnesota Statute §465.03;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to Minnesota Statute §465.03, that
the Maplewood City Council approves, receives and accepts the gift aforementioned
and under such terms and conditions as may be requested or required.
The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution by a super majority vote of its
membership on _________________________, 20_____.
Signed: Signed: Witnessed:
___________________ ____________________ ___________________
(Signature) (Signature) (Signature)
Mayor______________ Chief of Police_________ City Clerk____________
(Title) (Title) (Title)
___________________ _____________________ ____________________
(Date) (Date) (Date)
Packet Page Number 76 of 233
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director
Steven Love, Assistant City Engineer
Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I
SUBJECT: Approval of Purchase for Geotechnical Testing Services for 2012 Mill and
Overlays, City Project 11-15
DATE: April 11, 2012
INTRODUCTION
It is necessary to utilize the services of an independent testing laboratory to assist city inspectors in
quality control and quality assurance on the 2012 Mill and Overlays, City Project 11-15, slated for 2012
construction. Since this purchase will exceed $10,000 written quotations were obtained and council
authorization to proceed is requested.
DESCRIPTION
Each request for proposal included the scope of services as well as project quantities and access to
plans and specifications for the construction project. The companies involved in soliciting a price for
services provided a similar scope of testing services essential for project quality control. The City
received quotes from the following 3 geotechnical testing firms:
Company Proposal Total
Northern Technologies $15,845.00
Braun Intertec $24,471.00*
Terra-Con, Inc $83,901.00
*Proposal includes bituminous and concrete batch plant observations, which the other
proposals do not.
BUDGET IMPACT
City staff anticipated that geotechnical testing services for this street improvement project would most
likely be in the $20,000 to $30,000 range and determined competitive quotes were needed.
Geotechnical testing costs are built into the approved budget for the project, so no additional funding
allocation is required.
RECOMMENDATION
Braun Intertec Corporation included costs in their proposal for bituminous and concrete batch plant
observations in the amount of $5,780. These observations are a State Aid testing requirement of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Based on Braun Intertec’s understanding of the project, performance on past State Aid projects, the
reputation of the company and their responsive proposal for the needs of this State Aid project, staff
Agenda Item G8
Packet Page Number 77 of 233
recommends the council authorize the City Engineer to enter into a contract for services with Braun
Intertec Corporation for testing and quality control-services for the 2012 Mill and Overlays, City Project
11-15.
Attachments
1. Braun Intertec Proposal
2. Terra-Con, Inc Proposal
3. Northern Technologies Proposal
Agenda Item G8
Packet Page Number 78 of 233
Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1Packet Page Number 79 of 233
Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1Packet Page Number 80 of 233
Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1Packet Page Number 81 of 233
Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1Packet Page Number 82 of 233
Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1Packet Page Number 83 of 233
Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1Packet Page Number 84 of 233
Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1Packet Page Number 85 of 233
Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1Packet Page Number 86 of 233
Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1Packet Page Number 87 of 233
Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1Packet Page Number 88 of 233
Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1Packet Page Number 89 of 233
Terracon Consultants, Inc. 3535 Hoffman Road East White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110
P [651] 770 1500 F [651] 770 1657 terracon.com
April 11, 2012
City of Maplewood via Email
Department of Public Works
1902 County Road B East
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
Attention: Mr. Jon E. Jarosch, P.E.
Staff Engineer/Project Representative
Department of Public Works
P: 651.249.2400
F: 651.249.2409
E: jon.jarosch@ci.maplewood.mn.us
RE: Proposal for Engineering and Construction Materials Testing Services
City Project 11-14: 2012 Mill and Overlays
Maplewood, Minnesota
Terracon Proposal Number: P41120099
Dear Mr. Jarosch:
Thank you for your time to review the attached Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon)
qualifications and proposal for Engineering and Construction Materials Testing Services
associated with the 2012 Mill and Overlays Project for the City of Maplewood Department of
Public Works in Maplewood, Minnesota. Included within this proposal submittal are the
following:
■ Terracon’s background and experience;
■ A listing of Terracon experienced personnel planned for this project; and
■ The cost proposal form per the Request for Proposal (RFP).
Terracon is a dynamic and growing consulting firm providing multiple related service lines to
clients at local, regional, and national levels. Our services are delivered on a timely basis with
consistently high value and attention to client needs. The services that Terracon can provide
include:
■ Construction Materials
■ Geotechnical
■ Environmental
■ Facilities
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 90 of 233
Proposal for Engineering and CMT Services
City Project 11-14: 2012 Mill and Overlays ■ Maplewood, Minnesota
April 11, 2012 ■ Terracon Proposal No. P41120099
2
Since 1965, our employee-owned firm has provided tailored services to meet our clients’
objectives. We help our clients succeed in their business ventures by effectively executing
projects, controlling costs, and managing risk. Our clients appreciate this approach, and they
know that we intend to be with them for the long term.
Terracon provides services on thousands of projects each year. Our culture, systems, and
structure enable us to excel at both small and large projects. By combining our national
resources with specific local area expertise, we consistently overcome obstacles and deliver the
results our clients expect.
Whether you do business down the street or across the country, we offer a variety of related
services through a nationwide network of offices to meet your single-site or multi-site needs.
Our responsiveness, high quality deliverables, practical solutions, and competitive fees afford
clients with an easier way of doing business that saves time and money.
Benefits that Terracon brings to our Clients include:
■ Reliability – Terracon is a growing national firm having begun in Cedar Rapids, Iowa in
1965. Terracon has achieved controlled growth through successful client service, rising
from 391st in 1986 to our present overall ranking of 38th on the 2011 Engineering News-
Record (ENR) Top 500 Design Firms annual ranking. Our knowledge of local conditions
and experience working with multiple stakeholders enable us to avoid or resolve a wide
variety of project issues. Terracon will be a dependent partner throughout the duration of
your project.
■ Responsiveness – Our employee-owners are always available to you. We act quickly to
provide the services you need to meet your deadlines. We understand that unique
situations sometimes arise that require expertise beyond the norm to provide sound,
practical solutions. As a highly diversified company, Terracon has many nationally
recognized individuals who are considered experts in their respective fields. These
individuals will be consulted when we discover problems that require additional expertise.
■ Innovation – Applying new methodologies and techniques to your objectives allows us
to take a proactive approach to solving challenges. Our professionals are committed to
ongoing education and to staying informed of changes and innovations within their
respective fields. Terracon has a history of providing innovative and sound engineering
practices to develop cost-saving solutions.
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 91 of 233
Proposal for Engineering and CMT Services
City Project 11-14: 2012 Mill and Overlays ■ Maplewood, Minnesota
April 11, 2012 ■ Terracon Proposal No. P41120099
3
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Based upon our review of the project documents provided within the Request for Proposal, We
understand that the scope of our services includes, but is not limited to, the following:
observation/sampling/testing of earthwork, soil, concrete, and asphalt relating to the milling and
overlay of 2-inches of bituminous pavement and the removal and replacement of concrete
curbing, sidewalks, gutters, ramps, and aprons in accordance with MnDOT and the City of
Maplewood requirements and specifications. Terracon will make every reasonable effort to
ensure that the requirements of MnDOT and the City of Maplewood, as it pertains to
quality control and quality assurance, are met on this project.
Our services will be performed on an as-requested basis with scheduling by contractor field
personnel. For budget purposes, we have assumed a Terracon field technician can be on site
on a will-call basis with a minimum of 24 hour notice. Terracon will not be responsible for
scheduling our services and will not be responsible for tests that are not performed due to a
failure to schedule our services on the project.
Earthwork Observation and Testing
A Terracon representative can observe the subgrade in the concrete and asphalt
placement areas to determine that the soils are suitable for support of the new concrete
and asphalt item, prior to placement of materials. Observation services and compaction
tests can be performed during backfill and subgrade re-placement operations for density
determination at representative locations.
A Terracon representative can observe proofrolling of the sub-base prior to the
placement of the aggregate base course in pavement areas. The graded and compacted
aggregate base course in pavement areas can also be proofrolled and tested for
compaction.
Foundation Bearing Soils Testing
A Terracon representative can evaluate the bearing soils at concrete curb and gutter,
sidewalk, ramps, and apron area using a nuclear density gauge for fill soils, or a hand
auger and/or dynamic cone penetrometer for native soils. Bearing tests are typically
performed at depths within two feet below design footing elevation.
Reinforcing Steel Observations
A Terracon representative can observe the reinforcing steel prior to concrete placement.
The reinforcing steel can be observed for placement, bar size, cleanliness, and lap
lengths. The field observations for structural elements can also include anchor bolt
placement, dowel bars and embedded steel.
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 92 of 233
Proposal for Engineering and CMT Services
City Project 11-14: 2012 Mill and Overlays ■ Maplewood, Minnesota
April 11, 2012 ■ Terracon Proposal No. P41120099
4
Concrete Testing
A Terracon representative can obtain representative samples of freshly placed concrete
in general accordance with project specifications. The concrete can be tested for
temperature, slump, air content, and unit weight (if specified). The concrete can then be
molded into sets of four (6” x 12”) cylinders and transported to Terracon’ s laboratory
after field curing, where compressive strength testing will be performed at specified
intervals.
Asphalt Testing
A Terracon representative can perform field density tests on the asphalt during
placement after compaction operations. A representative sample of asphalt can be
obtained for field temperature testing and laboratory testing of composition properties
and theoretical specific gravity. If requested, asphalt cores can also be taken to verify
thickness and/or density. A Terracon representative can also provide plant quality
control testing and observations during the day’s production.
We will require a copy of all necessary construction records during the progress of the work.
Such records shall consist of, but may not be limited to: RFI’s, geotechnical report, concrete mix
designs, soil density test results, shop drawings, batch tickets, etc.
COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING
During construction we request to be copied on changes in drawings and specifications that
affect our portion of the work. We also request one copy of project specifications for reference.
Our services can be performed on an as-requested basis with scheduling required by
the general contractor’s personnel. Terracon will not be responsible for scheduling our
services and will not be responsible for tests that are not performed due to a failure to
schedule our services on the project.
Additional testing or observation/inspections required by local municipalities but not
noted on drawings or specifications are not included and will be charged at the unit rates
enclosed.
Two copies of any shop drawings should be provided to Terracon prior to construction of
the affected components.
Terracon should attend preconstruction and progress meetings to aid in the sharing of
information and transfer of data to participants in the project.
Also, if observations made or tests performed indicate non-compliance with the contract
documents or referenced specifications, we will immediately notify general contractor’s
designated personnel. Items not corrected by the end of work on the day noted will be
documented as deviations and communicated as such to the general contractor and
client.
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 93 of 233
Proposal for Engineering and CMT Services
City Project 11-14: 2012 Mill and Overlays ■ Maplewood, Minnesota
April 11, 2012 ■ Terracon Proposal No. P41120099
5
REPORTING FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Terracon believes that the recording and delivery of test and observation results is as important
as the collection of the data via field and laboratory activities.
Terracon has developed an internal Construction Materials Engineering Laboratory
Management System (CMELMSTM) that automates the delivery of information and is focused on
four major goals.
■ Make all parties fully aware of our scope and role on the project so that none of the required
materials testing services are overlooked or ignored.
■ Establish an effective process for the rapid transfer of observation and material test results.
■ Incorporate and maintain a tracking system for material performance, report distribution, and
identification and clearance of non-conformance items.
■ Communicate regularly with our client on test results and findings as well as budget and
cost issues in order for the project to be both technically and financially successful.
Comprehensive Construction Materials Testing Plan
Terracon can meet with your project team prior to the start of the project and develop a
comprehensive construction materials testing plan. This plan assures that all parties are aware
of the lines of communication and highlights the overall testing requirements for the project. In
addition, it allows the project team to define and discuss items that are of a specific critical
nature so that special attention can be paid to prevent such items from impacting the schedule.
Automated System for Scheduling, Reporting, Distribution, and Budget Tracking
Once the project begins, to enhance our belief in GREAT customer service, Terracon utilizes
our automated CMELMS software program. Dispatching calls will be received by our Project
Manager whom will relay this information to our field staff via CMELMS. Each of our field staff is
equipped with laptop computers and smartphones to access CMELMS and our scheduling
software from the project site or anywhere cell phone service is available. This allows us to
achieve better communication, more consistency, and faster turnaround of reporting on the
project. Data, observations, and other information are entered into the system and reports
generated from the field. The CMELMS system notifies the project manager who reviews the
report in the office. Once approved, the report is distributed to the client, often time while our
field personnel are still on the project site. The program automatically tracks all reports and
provides immediate availability of test results. The program also allows us to schedule our field
personnel, through their smartphones, and track their availability daily. Additionally, the
statistical performance of all concrete mixes being utilized on a project can also be monitored.
The CMELMS software can produce electronic or paper copies of reports for distribution.
Reports can be distributed via traditional mail, electronic mail, and/or Internet web pages can be
established. The program will also track our project budget on a daily basis and produce real-
time budget reports and invoices for services provided.
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 94 of 233
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 95 of 233
Proposal for Engineering and CMT ServicesCity Project 11-14: 2012 Mill and Overlays ■ Maplewood, MinnesotaApril 11, 2012 ■ Terracon Proposal No. P411200992012 Mill and Overlays ‐ City of MaplewoodUnit Unit PriceHighwood Avenue Quantity Linwood Avenue QuantityMaryland Avenue QuantityRoselawn Avenue QuantityStillwater Avenue QuantityConway Avenue QuantitySouthlawn Drive Quantity Total QuantityTestingStandard/Modified Proctor, Test, ASTM D 698/D 1557Each $105.00222223215Aggregate Gradation Thru No. 200, Test, ASTM C 136, D 1140Each $85.0011111117Concrete Cylinders, Test, ASTM C 39Each $12.50120420410836184Extraction/Gradation, Test, ASTM D 5444Each $125.004521023430Moisture Content, Test, ASTM D 2216Each $10.00333334322Asphalt Thickness and Density (Cores Field Cut by Contractor)Each $25.00152053553010120Bituminous Mix Design ReviewEach $350.0011121219Atterberg Limits TestEach $75.00222222214Sieve Analysis ‐ Minus 200 OnlyEach $25.00444444428Organic Content of SoilEach $48.0011111117Topsoil fertility w/ hydrometerEach $150.0011111117pH of SoilEach $25.0011111117Subtotal ‐ Testing$2,173.00 $2,273.00 $1,573.00 $3,873.00 $1,573.00 $4,088.00 $2,348.00 $17,901.00Vehicle ChargeTripsTrips $10.0025251540154530165Subtotal ‐ Mileage$250.00 $250.00 $150.00 $400.00 $150.00 $450.00 $300.00 $1,650.00StaffProject Manager (Engineer)Hr $85.001015102510251595Senior Project EngineerHr $125.005105155151055Materials Technician IIHr $40.0015552557530130Materials Technician IIIHr $45.006080401204010060440Materials Technician IV ‐ Asphalt PlantHr $50.00406030100308040340Project Assistant/Admin. AssistantHr $40.0015201530153020125Field EngineerHr $80.00555555530Subtotal ‐ Staff$7,775.00 $10,525.00 $5,975.00 $17,000.00 $5,975.00 $17,100.00 $9,625.00 $64,350.00TOTAL$10,198.00 $13,048.00 $7,698.00 $21,273.00 $7,698.00 $21,638.00 $12,273.00 $83,901.00Agenda Item G8 Attachment 2Packet Page Number 96 of 233
Responsive Resourceful Reliable 2012 Fee Schedule
Page 1 of 4
2012
Schedule of Services and Fees
Construction Materials Testing and Inspection Services
I. PERSONNEL
Senior Principal ........................................................................................................ $180.00/hour
Principal ......................................................................................................... 165.00/hour
Senior Project Engineer ........................................................................................... 125.00/hour
Senior Project Scientist ........................................................................................... 115.00/hour
Senior Project Professional ..................................................................................... 115.00/hour
Project Engineer II ................................................................................................... 110.00/hour
Project Engineer I .................................................................................................... 100.00/hour
Project Manager ...................................................................................................... 85.00/hour
Field Project Manager.............................................................................................. 80.00/hour
Senior Staff Engineer ............................................................................................... 110.00/hour
Staff Engineer ......................................................................................................... 85.00/hour
Field Engineer ......................................................................................................... 80.00/hour
Technician V (4 hour minimum) ............................................................................... 60.00/hour*
Technician IV (4 hours minimum) ............................................................................ 50.00/hour*
Technician III (4 hours minimum) ............................................................................. 45.00/hour*
Technician II (4 hours minimum) ............................................................................. 40.00/hour*
Technician I (4 hours minimum) .............................................................................. 35.00/hour*
Drafts Person/Cad Operator .................................................................................... 70.00/hour
Clerical/Administrative Staff ..................................................................................... 40.00/hour
* An overtime premium of 1.5 times the hourly rate will apply for services provided Monday through Friday that
are in excess of 8 hours per day and for services provided before 7:00 AM and after 6:00 PM, as well as for
services provided on Saturday, Sunday and Terracon recognized Holidays.
NOTE: Deposition or court testimony at a minimum of 1.75 times regular rate - minimum of $200.00/hour
II. EXPENSES AND SUPPLIES
Vehicle Charge (local area, within 25 miles of office) .............................................. 10.00/day
Vehicle Charge (local area, within 25 miles of office, less than 4 hours) ................. 5.00/1/2 day
Vehicle Charge (outside local area) ......................................................................... 0.55/mile
Per Diem, Lodging and Food .................................................................... Minimum of 125.00/day
Miscellaneous charges, including analytical laboratory tests, ................................. Cost + 20%
[Consider mileage @ fed. Rate + 20%]
shipping charges, rental equipment, outside labor, public
transportation, materials, permit fees or other contracted services
III. SOIL LABORATORY TESTING
Identification
Atterberg Limits Determination (LL, PL) ................................................................. 75.00/test
Atterberg Limits Determination (C.O.E. Method) .................................................... 120.00/test
Combined Analysis (Hydrometer and Sieve) .......................................................... 105.00/test
Density Determination (Shelby tube sample) ......................................................... 13.00/test
Density Determination (Irregular sample) ............................................................... 35.00/test
Hydrometer Analysis ............................................................................................... 100.00/test
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 97 of 233
Responsive Resourceful Reliable 2012 Fee Schedule
Page 2 of 4
Organic Content (by heating) .................................................................................. 48.00/test
Shrinkage Limit Determination ................................................................................ 65.00/test
Sieve Analysis (Unwashed) .................................................................................... 62.00/test
Sieve Analysis (Washed over #200 sieve) .............................................................. 77.00/test
Sieve Analysis (Washed over #200 sieve Only) ..................................................... 25.00/test
Specific Gravity Determination ................................................................................ 70.00/test
Visual Engineering Classification ............................................................................ 7.00/each
Moisture Content Determination ............................................................................. 10.00/test
Soil Suction (ASTM, D-5298) ................................................................................... 35.00/test
Porosity . ........................................................................................................ 100.00/test
Pin Hole Dispersion ................................................................................................. 350.00/test
With Remolding of Sample .......................................................................... 375.00/test
Sand Equivalent....................................................................................................... 110.00/test
Compaction and Density
Laboratory CBR ...................................................................................................... 315.00/test
R-Value (ASTM D-2844) .......................................................................................... 365.00/each
Modified Proctor (ASTM D 1557) ............................................................................ 105.00/test*
Relative Density (ASTM D 4253 & D 4254 wet or dry method) ............................. 275.00/each
Standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) ............................................................................. 105.00/each*
Field CBR ......................................................................................................... On Request
* Additional charge for Coarse Aggregate Correction ............................................. 20.00/each
Permeability
Constant Head Permeability Test (ASTM D2434).................................................... 340.00/test
Falling Head Permeability Test (ASTM D5084) ....................................................... 270.00/test
Preparation of Remolded Samples .......................................................................... 75.00/each
Chemical Tests
pH (by meter) ......................................................................................................... $25.00/each
Electrical Conductivity by Miller box ........................................................................ 175.00/each
Chloride Concentration ........................................................................................... 75.00/each
Soluble Sulfate ....................................................................................................... 65.00/each
Cation Exchange Capacity of Soil .......................................................................... 125.00/each
IV. HEAVY WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER - PAVEMENT EVALUATION
Field Operations (does not include analysis or mobilization)
HWD Unit & Operator (4 hour minimum) ..................................................... 475.00/hour
Mobilization and Traffic Control ............................................................................... Cost+20%
V. AGGREGATES
Sieve Analysis (ASTM C 136) .................................................................................. 85.00/each
Analysis of Material finer than #200 Sieve (ASTM C 117) ....................................... 47.00/each
Combined Coarse and Fine ......................................................................... 90.00/each
Organic Impurities - Colorimetric (ASTM C 40) ....................................................... 45.00/each
Lightweight Particles or Chert Analysis (ASTM C 123) : Fine ............................ $85.00/each
Coarse ....................... 145.00/each
Chert ...................... 145.00/each
Clay Lumps (ASTM C 142) ...................................................................................... 60.00each
Soundness (ASTM C 88) (5 cycles) ........................................................................ 325.00/each
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 98 of 233
Responsive Resourceful Reliable 2012 Fee Schedule
Page 3 of 4
Large Size Aggregate .................................................................................. 350.00/each
Abrasion (ASTM C 131) ........................................................................................... 200.00/each
Large Size Aggregate .................................................................................. 240.00/each
Organic Impurities - Mortar Strength (ASTM C 87) .................................................. 440.00/each
Specific Gravity (ASTM C 127 or 128) ..................................................................... 55.00/each
Absorption Analysis (ASTM C 127 or 128) .............................................................. 55.00/each
Unit Weight (ASTM C 29) ........................................................................................ 50.00/each
Specific Gravity and Absorption combined (ASTM C 127 or 128) .......................... 70.00/each
Percentage Particles Less Than 1.95 Specific Gravity (AASHTO T 150) ................ On Request
Scratch Hardness Test ............................................................................................ 50.00/each
Freeze Thaw (AASHTO T-103) ................................................................................ 675.00/each
Flat and Elongated Particles .................................................................................... 120.00/each
Crushed Particle Determination ............................................................................... 80.00/each
Bulk Impregnated Specific Gravity ........................................................................... 325.00/each
Solubility .................................................................................................................. 75.00/each
VI. ASPHALT
Extraction (ASTM D 2172) (includes gradation) ..................................................... 125.00/each
Extraction only ............................................................................................. 105.00/each
Asphalt Cement by ignition (including gradation) .................................................... 145.00/each
Marshall Density Specimens (ASTM 2726) (already mixed) ................................... 40.00/each
Set of 3 samples .......................................................................................... 125.00/set
Marshall Stability Flow and Density Specimens (ASTM D 1559) (already mixed) ... 45.00/each
Set of 3 samples .......................................................................................... 120.00/set
Core Density (field cut by client) .............................................................................. 25.00/each
Core Density (field cut by Terracon) ........................................................................ 45.00/each
Asphalt Design Mix Review (Marshall Method) ....................................................... 350.00/design
Three Point Marshall Curve (including laboratory
mixed asphalt with 9 stability, flow and density tests) ................................. 750.00/set
Additional Point ........................................................................................... 185.00
Hveem Stability and Density (ASTM D 1560) (already mixed) (Set of 3 samples) .. 135.00/set
Super Pave Molded Density Specimens (Set of 3 samples) ................................... 225.00/set
Penetration and Specific Gravity (ASTM D 5) .......................................................... 75.00/each
In-place Asphalt Density with nuclear testing unit (equipment only) ........................ 50.00/day
Bitumen Softening Point .......................................................................................... 60.00/each
Asphalt Coring - person ........................................................................................... 50.00/hour
Core Drilling Machine .............................................................................................. 75.00/day
Generator................................................................................................................. 65.00/day
VII. CONCRETE AND MASONRY
Concrete or Mortar Mix Verification ........................................................................ $350.00/each
Laboratory Concrete Trial Batch (with cylinders) .................................................. 500.00/minimum
Laboratory Concrete Trial Batch (with beams) ..................................................... 750.00/minimum
Initial setting time (ASTM C 403) (already mixed) ................................................... 250.00/each
Compressive Strength of 6” x 12” Cylinder (ASTM C 39) ........................................ 12.50/each*
Compressive Strength of 4” x 8” Cylinder (ASTM C39) ........................................... 12.50/each*
Special capping for irregular surface ........................................................... 18.00/each
6" x 12"/4” x 8”/ or 3” x 6” cylinder molds ..................................................... 1.25/each
Trimming for capping (if required) ................................................................ 20.00/each
Strip and cured test cylinders, not tested ..................................................... 15.00/each
*This includes one copy of report sent to one location. Additional copies of each
report 0.25/copy/mailing and additional locations sent are 2.00/mailing/location.
Flexural Strength of Concrete Beam ........................................................................ 55.00/each
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 99 of 233
Responsive Resourceful Reliable 2012 Fee Schedule
Page 4 of 4
(Cleaning charges in addition where applicable)
Splitting Tensile Test (6” Cylinders) .......................................................................... 30.00/each
Concrete coring - technician .................................................................................... 61.00/hour
Core drilling machine ............................................................................................... 75.00/day
Generator................................................................................................................. 65.00/day
Diamond bit wear per inch depth (1" steel = 12" concrete)
3-5 inch diameter core ................................................................................. 4.00/inch
5-7 inch diameter core ................................................................................. 5.00/inch
Concrete core, measurement and strength ............................................................. 50.00/core
Trimming ...................................................................................................... 20.00/cut
Lineal Drying Shrinkage of Masonry Block (ASTM C 426) ..................................... 260.00/each
Compressive Strength of Masonry Block Prism (Hollow) ........................................ 130.00/each
Compressive Strength of Masonry Block Prism (filled with grout) ....................... quote on request
Compressive Strength of 3x6 inch Grout Prism ....................................................... 30.00/each
Compressive Strength of 2 inch Mortar Cube or 3 inch cylinder .............................. 14.75/each
Laboratory Mortar, Trial Batch (does not include testing cubes) .............................. 275.00/each
Rapid chloride permeability of concrete - 4 inch diameter sample,
includes sawing to length but no special curing
1st Sample ................................................................................................... $250.00/each
Additional Samples ...................................................................................... 175.00/each
Rapid cure by boiling procedure .............................................................................. 100.00/each
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 100 of 233
Pag
This AG
provided
Informat
section o
1. Sc
are
sub
the
vul
agr
at t
2. Ac
exe
req
Add
use
con
par
ear
3. Ch
Co
req
aut
acc
Co
4. Co
sec
not
Co
bel
por
Clie
pay
pre
the
Clie
pre
5. Th
ben
per
und
agr
6. LIM
PR
AS
RE
TH
(IN
RE
SH
NE
CO
7. Ind
aga
cau
join
prin
is e
of l
to r
8. Wa
pro
OR
IMP
ge 1 of 2
GREEMENT is b
d by Consultant
tion section of Co
or Exhibit is inco
cope of Servic
e otherwise desc
bcontracted. Co
e presence or pre
nerability to nat
reement. Consul
the time of the Se
cceptance/ Te
ecute the Servic
quest, both partie
ditional terms an
es a purchase or
nflicting terms it
rty may terminat
rned to the date o
hange Orders.
nsultant will retu
quested changes
thorizes, or perm
cording to the fe
nsultant at the tim
ompensation a
ction of the Prop
t stated in either,
nsultant may inv
ow, within 15 da
rtion. Client shall
ent agrees to pa
yment. It is the r
evailing wages a
e prevailing wage
ent also agrees
evailing wage act
hird Party Reli
neficiaries intend
riod not to excee
derstands that s
reed-upon relian
MITATION OF
ROJECT, INCLU
SSOCIATED RIS
ELATED CORP
E GREATER OF
CLUDING ATTO
EQUEST FROM
HALL APPLY R
EGLIGENCE, IND
ONSULTANT’S C
demnity/Statu
ainst legal liabilit
used by their neg
nt or concurrent
nciples. Neither
explicitly waived
liability, including
run not later than
arranty. Consu
ofession currently
R IMPLIED, REL
POSED BY LAW
between City of
for Client on the
onsultant’s Prop
rporated into this
ces. The scope
cribed in Exhibit B
onsultant’s Serv
evention of biolo
tural disasters, t
tant’s findings, o
ervices.
ermination. Cl
ces, and if Servi
es shall conside
nd conditions ma
rder or other form
contains are stri
te this Agreemen
of termination plu
. Client may requ
urn to Client a s
s. Following Clie
mits Consultant to
ees stated or its
me of proposal, C
and Terms of
osal unless fees
, fees will be acc
voice Client at le
ays of the date o
l pay a finance fe
ay all collection-
responsibility of
pply. If it is later
e from that point
to defend, inde
tivity for failing to
iance. This Agr
ded. Reliance up
ed three months f
such reliance wil
ce fee.
F LIABILITY.
UDING CONSUL
SKS. TO THE F
PORATIONS A
F $50,000 OR CO
ORNEY AND E
CLIENT, CONS
REGARDLESS
DEMNITY, OR O
COMMERCIAL G
ute of Limitati
ty for claims, loss
gligent acts, erro
negligence of Co
r party shall have
under this Agree
g negligence, ind
n the date of Con
ultant will perform
y practicing unde
LATING TO CO
W, INCLUDING W
A
Maplewood - De
e City Project 11
osal dated April
s Agreement).
of Consultant’s s
B to this Agreem
ices do not incl
ogical pollutants (
terrorism, or vio
opinions, and rec
lient agrees tha
ices are initiated
er that commenc
ay be added or
m to administer t
icken. This Agre
nt or the Service
us reasonable co
uest changes to
statement (or su
nt’s review, Clie
o perform change
s current fee sc
Consultant is ent
f Payment. Cl
are otherwise s
cording to Consu
east monthly an
of the invoice if
ee of 1.5% per m
related costs tha
Client to determ
r determined tha
forward, as well
emnify, and hold
o pay prevailing w
reement and the
pon the Services
from the date of
l not be granted
CLIENT AND C
LTANT’S FEE
FULLEST EXTE
AND EMPLOYE
ONSULTANT'S
EXPERT FEES)
SULTANT MAY N
OF AVAILABL
OTHER RECOVE
GENERAL LIAB
ions. Consultan
ses, damages, a
rs, or omissions.
onsultant and Cl
e a duty to defen
ement. Causes
demnity or other
nsultant’s substan
m the Services
er similar conditio
ONSULTANT’S S
WARRANTIES O
AGREEMEN
epartment of Pub
1-14: 2012 Mill a
9, 2012 (“Propos
services is descr
ment (which sect
lude the investig
(e.g., mold, fungi
lence. If Service
commendations a
t execution of th
d by Consultant
cement of Servic
changed only by
this Agreement,
ement shall not
es upon written n
osts of closing th
the scope of Se
upplemental prop
nt shall provide
ed or additional w
chedule. If proje
titled to a change
lient shall pay c
tated in Exhibit C
ultant’s current fe
d payment is du
Client objects to
month, but not ex
at Consultant in
mine whether fed
at prevailing wage
as a retroactive
d harmless Cons
wages, including
Services provide
s and any work
the report, Cons
d until those par
CONSULTANT
RELATIVE TO
NT PERMITTED
EES) TO CL
FEE, FOR ANY
ARISING OUT
NEGOTIATE A
LE INSURANCE
ERY. THIS LIM
ILITY POLICY.
nt and Client sha
and expenses to
. In the event suc
lient, they shall b
nd the other party
of action arising
recovery shall be
ntial completion
in a manner co
ons in the same
SERVICES AND
OF MERCHANTA
NT FOR SER
blic Works (“Clien
and Overlays, M
sal”) unless the P
ribed in the Scop
ion or exhibit is
gation or detect
i, bacteria, viruse
es include purch
are based solely
his Agreement i
prior to executi
ces constitutes
y written amendm
the use of such
be assigned by
notice to the oth
he project.
ervices by alterin
posal) of the cha
written acceptan
work, the Service
ect conditions ch
e order equitably
compensation for
C to this Agreem
ee schedule. Fee
ue upon receipt
o any portion of t
xceeding the max
curs, including a
deral, state, or lo
es apply, and Co
payment adjustm
sultant from any
the payment of a
ed are for Consu
product is limite
sultant will issue
rties sign and re
HAVE EVALUA
THE RISKS A
D BY LAW, THE
IENT AND T
Y AND ALL
T OF CONSULT
HIGHER LIMITA
E COVERAGE,
ITATION SHALL
all indemnify and
the extent such
ch claims, losses
be borne by eac
y, and no duty to
out of Consultan
e deemed to hav
of services on th
onsistent with th
locale. CONSUL
D CONSULTANT
ABILITY AND FI
RVICES
nt”) and Terraco
Maplewood,Minne
Project is otherw
pe of Services se
incorporated into
tion of, nor do
es, or their bypro
hase of software
upon data and i
is a material ele
ion of this Agree
formal acceptan
ment to this Agr
form shall be fo
either party with
her. In such case
ng or adding to t
ange setting fort
nce. If Client doe
es are changed a
hange materially
y adjusting its Se
r the Services p
ment (which secti
e schedules are v
of invoice. Clien
the charges on
ximum rate allow
attorney fees. C
ocal prevailing w
onsultant was no
ment to bring pre
y alleged violatio
any fines or pen
ultant and Client
d to Client, and
additional report
eturn Consultant’
ATED THE RIS
ASSUMED, AN
E TOTAL AGGR
THIRD PARTIE
INJURIES, DA
TANT’S SERVIC
ATION FOR AD
, CAUSE(S) O
L NOT APPLY T
d hold harmless
claims, losses, d
s, damages, or e
ch party in propo
o defend is hereb
nt’s services or t
ve accrued and t
he project.
hat level of care
LTANT MAKES
T DISCLAIMS A
ITNESS FOR A
n Consultants, In
esota project (“P
wise described in
ection of the Pro
o this Agreemen
recommendation
oducts) or occu
e, Client will ex
information obtai
ement of the co
ement as an ac
nce of all terms
reement signed
or convenience p
hout prior written
e, Consultant sh
the Services to b
rth an adjustmen
es not follow the
accordingly and
y from those ob
ervices and fee.
performed at the
on or Exhibit is i
valid for the cale
nt shall notify Co
the invoice, and
wed by law, for a
Consultant may s
wage requiremen
ot previously not
eviously paid am
ons made by an
alties.
t’s sole benefit a
is not intended
ts to others agre
’s reliance agree
SKS AND REWA
ND AGREE TO
REGATE LIABIL
ES GRANTED
AMAGES, CLAI
CES OR THIS
DITIONAL CON
OR THE THEO
TO THE EXTEN
the other and th
damages, or exp
expenses are leg
ortion to its own
by created by this
this Agreement r
the applicable st
e and skill ordina
NO WARRANTI
ANY IMPLIED W
PARTICULAR P
Reference N
nc. (“Consultant”
Project), as desc
n Exhibit A to this
oposal (“Services
nt). Portions of th
ns in Consultant
upant safety
xecute a separat
ined by and furn
onsideration Con
ccommodation fo
and conditions
by both parties.
purposes only an
n consent of the
all be paid costs
be performed. If
nt to the Service
ese procedures,
Consultant will b
served at the s
e fees stated in
ncorporated into
endar year in whi
onsultant in writ
d shall promptly
all unpaid amoun
suspend Service
nts apply and to
tified by Client, C
mounts in line wit
ny governmental
nd exclusive use
for third parties
ed upon with Cli
ement and Cons
ARDS ASSOCIA
ALLOCATE C
LITY OF CONSU
RELIANCE
IMS, LOSSES,
AGREEMENT.
NSIDERATION.
ORY OF LIABIL
NT THE DAMAG
heir respective e
penses are legal
ally determined t
negligence unde
s indemnity prov
regardless of cau
tatute of limitatio
arily exercised b
IES OR GUARA
WARRANTIES O
PURPOSE.
Rev. 8-10
umber: P411200
”) for Services to
ribed in the Proj
s Agreement (wh
s”), unless Servic
he Services may
t’s reports addre
issues, such
te software licen
ished to Consult
nsultant requires
or Client at Clien
of this Agreeme
In the event Cli
nd any additiona
other party. Eit
s incurred and fe
Client so reques
es and fees for
but instead direc
be paid for this w
site or described
the Compensat
o this Agreement
ich they are issu
ing, at the addre
pay the undispu
ts 30 days or old
es for lack of tim
notify Consultan
Client agrees to p
th prevailing wag
l agency regulat
e with no third pa
. For a limited ti
ent, however Cli
sultant receives
ATED WITH TH
CERTAIN OF T
ULTANT (AND I
IS LIMITED
OR EXPENS
UPON WRITT
THIS LIMITATI
LITY, INCLUDI
E IS PAID UND
mployees from a
ly determined to
to be caused by
er comparative fa
ision and such d
use(s) or the the
ns shall commen
by members of
ANTEES, EXPRE
OR WARRANTI
099
be
ject
hich
ces
be
ess
as
nse
tant
s to
nt’s
ent.
ent
l or
her
ees
sts,
the
cts,
work
d to
tion
). If
ed.
ess
ted
der.
mely
nt if
pay
ges.
ting
arty
me
ent
the
HIS
HE
ITS
TO
SES
EN
ON
NG
ER
and
be
the
ault
duty
ory
nce
the
ESS
IES
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 101 of 233
Pag
9. Ins
the
com
lim
sha
10. CO
US
AN
11. Dis
unt
the
end
acc
12. Su
exp
dis
acc
the
13. Te
con
fiel
red
del
res
res
tes
wa
the
14. Sa
sta
tha
Ma
Co
dire
saf
nec
val
Affe
Co
aga
cos
per
loca
15. Ow
pro
sha
16. Ut
rea
sub
inc
17. Sit
com
for
con
Consulta
By:
Name/T
Address
White B
Phone:
ge 2 of 2
surance. Cons
e states having j
mmercial genera
it); and (iv) prof
all waive subroga
ONSEQUENTIA
SE OR OPPORT
NY SPECIAL, CO
spute Resolut
til Client has obta
e standard of ca
deavor to resolve
cording to Kansa
ubsurface Exp
ploratory service
tance from those
cepts that invasiv
e Services.
esting and Obs
nditions only at th
d observations o
duce - not elimin
egated to contra
sponsible for dam
sponsible for the
sting and observa
rranty or guaran
eir means and me
ample Disposi
ated otherwise in
at relate to the id
aterials”) at or n
nsultant is not r
ecting such disp
fety, or the envi
cessary) required
ue of this equipm
ected Materials.
nsultant neither c
ainst Consultant a
st, including attor
rformance of serv
al law or ordinanc
wnership of D
operty. Proprietar
all be maintained
ilities. Client s
asonable precau
bterranean struc
orrectly shown o
te Access and
mplete the Servic
its own employe
ntractors, subcon
ant: Terraco
itle: David J
s: 3535 Hoff
Bear Lake, Mi
651.770.150
sultant represents
jurisdiction over
al liability insuran
fessional liability
ation against the
AL DAMAGES
TUNITY; LOSS O
ONSEQUENTIAL
tion. Client sha
ained the written
are applicable to
e the dispute wit
as law.
plorations. Sub
s. Client underst
e locations. Con
ve services such
servations. Cl
he depths, locati
only for the work
nate - project risk
actor) for request
mages caused b
quality and com
ation services sh
tee. Consultant w
ethods.
tion, Affected
the Services). C
dentity, location,
ear the site, an
responsible for t
position. In the e
ronment, or (ii)
d to ensure the
ment and reason
Client shall have
created nor contr
and agrees to ind
rney and expert f
vices hereunder,
ce.
Documents. W
ry concepts, sys
d in general acco
shall provide the
utions to avoid
ctures or utilities
on the plans furni
d Safety. Clien
ces and will exec
ees, but shall no
ntractors, or othe
on Consultant
J. Wolfgram, P
fman Road Ea
innesota 5511
00 Fax:
s that it now car
r Consultant’s em
nce ($1,000,000
insurance ($1,0
other party on a
S. NEITHER PAR
OF GOOD WILL
L, INDIRECT, PU
all not be entitled
n opinion from a
o Consultant’s pe
hin 30 days, afte
bsurface conditio
tands Consultan
nsultant will take
h as drilling or sa
lient understands
ons, and times t
k tested. Client
k. Client agrees
ting services, an
by services not p
pleteness of Clie
hall not relieve C
will not supervise
d Materials, a
Client shall furnis
quantity, nature
nd shall immedia
he disposition o
event that test s
equipment used
equipment and/o
nable disposal co
e the obligation t
ributed to the crea
demnify and save
fees, for injury or
or for any claims
Work product, suc
stems, and ideas
ordance with Con
e location and/o
damage or inju
that are not cal
shed to Consulta
nt shall secure a
cute any necess
ot be responsible
er parties present
ts, Inc.
Date:
P.E./Principal
ast
10
651.770.16
rries, and will con
mployees who a
occ / $2,000,000
00,000 claim / a
all general liability
RTY SHALL BE
L; COST OF SU
UNITIVE, OR EX
d to assert a Cla
registered, indep
erformance of th
er which Client m
ons throughout th
t’s layout of bori
reasonable pre
ampling may dam
s that testing an
he procedures w
understands tha
to the level or a
nd notifying and s
performed due t
ent’s contractor’s
Client’s contracto
e or direct the w
nd Indemnity
h or cause to be
, or characterist
ately transmit n
of Affected Mate
amples obtained
d during the Se
or samples are t
osts. In no event
to make all spill o
ation or existence
e Consultant, its a
r loss sustained
s against Consult
ch as reports, lo
s developed duri
nsultant’s docume
or arrange for th
ury to subterran
led to Consultan
ant.
all necessary site
sary site access a
e for the supervis
t at the site.
4/11/2012
657
ntinue to carry: (
are engaged in
0 agg); (iii) autom
agg). Certificates
y and property co
E LIABLE TO T
BSTITUTE FAC
XEMPLARY DAM
aim against Cons
pendent, and rep
he Services. Cli
may pursue its re
he site may vary
ng and test loca
cautions to redu
mage or alter the
d observation ar
were performed.
at testing and ob
amount of testin
scheduling Cons
to a failure to re
s work or their ad
or in any way fro
work performed b
y. Samples are c
e furnished to Co
ic of any hazard
ew, updated, or
rial unless spec
d during the per
rvices cannot re
ransported and
shall Consultant
or release notific
e of any Affected
agents, employee
by any party from
tant as a generat
gs, data, notes,
ng performance
ent retention pol
he marking of p
nean structures
nt’s attention, ar
e related approv
agreement. Con
sion or health an
Client:
By:
Name/Title
Address:
Maplewo
Phone:
(i) workers’ comp
the Services, a
mobile liability ins
s of insurance wi
overage.
THE OTHER FO
CILITIES, GOOD
MAGES.
sultant based on
putable engineer
ient shall provid
medies at law. T
y from those dep
ations is approxim
uce damage to t
e site. Site restor
re discrete samp
Consultant will p
bservation are no
g performed and
sultant so Consu
equest or schedu
dherence to the p
om its responsib
by Client’s contra
consumed in test
onsultant all docu
dous waste, toxic
r revised inform
cifically provided
rformance of Se
easonably be de
disposed of prop
t be required to s
cations to approp
d Materials condit
es, and related co
m such exposure
tor, disposer, or a
or calculations,
of the Services
icies and practic
private utilities a
or utilities. Con
re not correctly m
vals, permits, lice
sultant will be re
nd safety precau
City of Maple
e:
1902 Coun
ood, Minneso
651.249.240
pensation insura
and employer’s l
surance ($1,000
ill be provided u
OR LOSS OF PR
DS, OR SERVICE
n any theory of p
r, architect, or ge
de this opinion t
This Agreement s
picted on logs of
mate and that Co
the site when pe
ration is not prov
pling procedures
provide test resu
ot continuous or
d the associated
ultant can perform
ule Consultant’s
project document
bility for defects
actor or its subco
ting or disposed
uments and infor
c, radioactive, or
mation as it beco
in the Services
ervices (i) contai
econtaminated,
perly, and agree
sign a hazardous
priate governmen
tions at the site.
ompanies harmles
es allegedly arisin
arranger of Affec
prepared by Co
shall remain the
ces.
and subterranean
nsultant shall n
marked, includin
enses, and cons
esponsible for su
tions for any oth
ewood
ty Road B Eas
ota 55109
00 Fax:
ance in accordan
liability insuranc
0,000 B.I. and P.
pon request. Cli
ROFITS OR REV
ES; COST OF C
professional neg
eologist that Con
o Consultant an
shall be governe
f discrete borings
onsultant may de
erforming Service
vided unless spe
, and that such p
lts and opinions
r exhaustive, an
d risk. Client is r
m these Services
services. Cons
ts, and Consulta
discovered in its
ontractors and is
of upon complet
rmation known o
r contaminated m
omes available.
, and that Clien
n substances ha
Client shall sign
es to pay Consul
s waste manifes
ntal agencies. Th
Accordingly, Clie
ss from any claim
ng out of Consul
cted Materials und
onsultant shall r
e sole property o
n structures. Co
not be responsib
ng by a utility loc
sents necessary
upervision and si
her parties, includ
Date:
st
651.249.2409
Reference N
Rev. 8-10
nce with the laws
ce ($1,000,000);
D. combined sin
ient and Consult
VENUE; LOSS
CAPITAL; OR F
gligence unless a
sultant has viola
nd the parties sh
ed by and constru
s, test pits, or ot
eviate a reasona
es; however, Cli
ecifically included
procedures indic
based on tests a
d are conducted
responsible (eve
s. Consultant is
sultant shall not
ant’s performance
s work, or creat
not responsible
tion of tests (unle
or available to Cli
materials (“Affec
Client agrees t
t is responsible
azardous to hea
n documentation
ltant the fair mar
t or take title to a
he Client agrees t
ent waives any cla
m, liability or defen
ltant’s non-neglig
der federal, state
remain Consultan
of Consultant. F
onsultant shall ta
ble for damage
cate service, or
y to commence a
ite safety measu
ding Client, Clien
9
umber: P411200
s of
(ii)
gle
tant
OF
OR
and
ted
hall
ued
her
able
ent
d in
cate
and
d to
n if
not
be
e of
e a
for
ess
ent
cted
that
for
alth,
n (if
rket
any
that
aim
nse
gent
, or
nt’s
iles
ake
to
are
and
res
nt’s
099
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 102 of 233
Minneapolis/St. Paul ● Fargo ● Grand Forks
April 12, 2012
Jon E. Jarosch, PE
Staff Engineer/Project Representative
City of Maplewood, Public Works Department
1902 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
Re: Proposal for Construction Quality Assurance Testing for 2012 Mill and Overlays
City Project 11-15
NTI Proposal P2137
Mr. Jarosch,
Pursuant to your Request for Proposals (RFP) dated April 4, 2012, Northern Technologies, Inc. (NTI) is pleased
to present this proposal for the above referenced project. We enjoyed working with you and the rest of the City’s
engineering staff in 2010 and look forward to another successful project.
If you have any questions regarding the proposal or would like any further information about our firm please do
not hesitate to contact me at (763) 433-9175.
Best regards,
Steve Johnston, PE
Regional Manager / Vice President
Tony Francis, PE
Project Engineer
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 103 of 233
Minneapolis/St. Paul ● Fargo ● Grand Forks
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Northern Technologies, Inc. (NTI) offers the following proposal to perform quality assurance testing
for the 2012 Mill and Overlays projects. Our proposal and estimated testing quantities are based on
the Statement of Estimated Quantities provided by you and the MnDOT 2011 Schedule of Materials
Control.
Northern Technologies, Inc. is a North Dakota Corporation established by Marc D. Shannon, PE in
1996. Our Ramsey office was opened in 2001. This year we have reopened our St. Cloud office and
opened a new office in Mendota Heights. Our Twin Cities offices are staffed by over 25 full-time and
seasonal employees. We have an on-site laboratories in Ramsey and Mendota Heights that follow the
same procedures, calibration schedules and documentation standards as our Fargo lab which is
AMRL and USACE certified. We expect the Ramsey laboratory to be AMRL certified this year. Our
Twin Cities’ staff and laboratory have undergone and passed MnDOT IAST audits each of the past 5
years.
We have assigned a Project Manager / Engineer with over 10 years experience including 6 years
managing the testing on street and utility construction projects to manage the project. He will assign
and review the work of our qualified engineering technicians who work on the project. Our field
personnel will work at the direction of the City. Scheduling is accomplished verbally with our project
manager or through the engineering technician on site.
Daily reports are prepared for each site visit and left with the City’s project representative.
Laboratory tests are generally completed within 24 hours and the results are transmitted along with
approved copies of the daily reports to the client and other stakeholders on a weekly basis. NTI’s
personnel will complete the necessary MnDOT forms, reports, certifications, and
incentive/disincentive sheets for this project, such as the weekly grading and base reports.
Our proposed fees are a combination of hourly rates for field and management personnel, standard
rates for field and laboratory tests and trip charges for travel to and from the site. Based on the testing
schedule included in the RFP and our experience with Maplewood and other communities’ street
reconstruction projects, we propose a testing budget of $15,845. Our final fee is dependent on the
actual services performed, which can be affected by weather, schedule, and services requested by the
City’s representative.
SCOPE OF SERVICES - GENERAL
The project scope includes mill and overlays on 6 streets, along with curb and gutter repairs, concrete
sidewalks, new aggregate base, and new topsoil. Northern Technologies, Inc. (NTI) will provide
MnDOT certified engineering technicians on a part to full time basis as project progress dictates to
test for compliance with the project specifications including; compaction and/or DCP testing of
aggregate base and bituminous pavements, approval of subgrade prior to the placement of street
materials, perform tests (slump, air and temperature) on plastic concrete, cast and test concrete
cylinders to verify required strength, check gradations of aggregate and bituminous materials, verify
organic and nutrient content of topsoil borrow.
NTI will provide services as directed by Maplewood’s project representative in coordination with the
general contractor. Our engineering technicians will leave daily reports on-site with the City and
general contractor’s representatives. The field reports and laboratory test results will be reviewed by
NTI’s Project Engineer daily and copies are sent to all stakeholders on a weekly basis. If deficiencies
are identified in lab or field reports NTI will verbally present them, as they are noted, to the City and
general contractor for corrective action. The necessary weekly and/or monthly MnDOT forms will be
submitted to the State Personnel. At the end of construction we will provide a project
summary/closeout report for the City, State and Contractor’s files.
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 104 of 233
Quality Assurance Testing
2012 Mill and Overlays
Maplewood, Minnesota
3
SCOPE OF SERVICES - DETAILED
NTI will provide all services at the direction, location and frequency requested by the City’s
representative.
Project Management
Tony Francis, PE will manage this project for the City of Maplewood. He will attend the
preconstruction and any progress meetings as requested, schedule and supervise the field and
laboratory technicians, review field reports and test results, issue summary reports and reply to
any questions from the client or contractor.
Soil and Aggregate Properties
NTI’s laboratory technicians will run a variety of tests to determine the properties of the
various soils and aggregates that will be utilized on the project. These tests include a Sieve
Analysis (ASTM C-136, C-117) to determine the soils gradation, Organic Content (ASTM
D2974), and Nutrient Analysis (pH, organic content, estimated texture, and micro nutrients)
In the field the field engineer will determine the bearing capacity of the subgrade or aggregate
base with a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer test (MnDOT 2211).
Concrete Properties
NTI’s engineering technicians will test concrete materials as they are delivered to the job site to
verify that the temperature, slump and air entrainment meet specification. The field engineer or
engineering technician will cast three cylinders for every 50 yards of concrete that is delivered
and installed on the project (minimum 2 sets of 3 cylinders per day). These cylinders are
returned to the laboratory where they complete their curing and are tested for compressive
strength at 7, and 28 days (ASTM C-39).
Bituminous Properties
NTI’s engineering technicians will perform a variety of tests on the bituminous materials and
pavements. Samples of the bituminous can be obtained from the paver or from cores drilled in
the completed pavement. In the laboratory these samples can tested to determine the asphalt
content and the gradation of the aggregate (ASTM D-2172, C-137, C-117). The maximum
density of the bituminous mixture will be determined with a Gyratory Compactor (ASTM D-
6925-09). The density of the installed pavement will be determined by cores (AASHTO T166
– MnDOT Modified).
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 105 of 233
Quality Assurance Testing
2012 Mill and Overlays
Maplewood, Minnesota
4
Fees and Contract Terms
NTI proposes to perform the described scope of work for the rates listed in Table 1, which also lists
our estimated time and quantities of tests. The final cost, which may be higher or lower, is dependent
on a variety of factors including weather, contractor’s schedule, actual requested tests and the
frequency of trips to the site. Based on our experience with previous street improvement projects and
the minimum quantity of tests required by the specifications NTI proposes a fee budget of $15,845.
NTI’s attached standard General Conditions shall be integrated along with this proposal into the final
contract document.
Staffing
Because we are a small firm, Maplewood will benefit from working directly with NTI’s top-line
managers. It is our personal mission to make certain that we are responsive and that the Engineers and
Engineering Technicians working on the project are qualified, professional and reliable. Your project
team is:
Steve Johnston, PE, Regional Manager/Vice President
Steve will serve as Client Manager for Maplewood, responsible for all contract matters, project
scoping, invoicing, and any similar matters. Steve has over 30 years of construction and civil
design experience on projects throughout the nation.
Tony Francis, PE, Project Manager
Tony will serve as project manager, reviewing and approving their daily reports, providing
weekly summaries and project closeout reports to the client, and personally performing the
inspections when difficult conditions warrant. Tony has 10 years of geotechnical engineering and
construction testing experience – all with NTI
Robb Lux, Lab Manager
Robb is NTI’s Lab Manager, responsible for scheduling the technician’s appointments,
previewing their daily reports before they are given to the project manager for approval,
managing the materials laboratory in NTI’s Twin Cities offices, including supervising staff, spot
checking procedures, and verifying equipment is properly calibrated. He will be preparing the
MnDOT reports, forms, certifications, and incentive/disincentive sheets and distributing them to
the proper personnel. Robb has 7 years of construction material testing experience – all with NTI
Engineering Technicians
The engineering technicians used on this project will have the necessary MnDOT certifications.
Scheduling
The primary method for scheduling appointments will be for the person that the City designates to
call Tony Francis. Generally the assigned contact will be the contractor or your field representative.
While NTI appreciates 24 to 48 hours’ notice for appointments, we will make every effort possible to
cover short notice emergencies.
Reports and Test Results
Detailed handwritten reports are completed for each and every site visit. The reports indicate the
engineering technician or engineer’s observations, conversations, and test results. Any failing tests
are conveyed verbally to the contractor and City representative immediately, along with
recommendations for corrective actions needed to bring the work or material into conformance.
Before leaving the site a copy of the written field report is left with the contractor and/or the City
representative. The original field report is returned to the office where it is reviewed and approved by
NTI’s Project Manager.
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 106 of 233
Quality Assurance Testing
2012 Mill and Overlays
Maplewood, Minnesota
5
Laboratory Tests are completed and recorded in conformance with ASTM, AASHTO and MnDOT
standards. The typewritten reports are reviewed and approved by NTI’s project manager. In general
gradations, Proctors, and similar tests are completed within 24 hours of the sample arriving in the lab.
Gyratory compaction tests may take up to a week. Concrete cylinders are broken on the appropriate
day following casting. Non-compliant test results are relayed to the stakeholders by the project
manager verbally as soon as they are discovered. On a weekly basis the project manager will transmit
copies of the approved field and laboratory reports to all designated stake holders.
Upon project completion the project manager will consolidate all reports into a single binder for the
client’s records.
Project Experience
NTI offers the following projects as examples of our ability to perform on projects of similar size and
scope to the proposed 2012 Mill and Overlays Project. The City of Maplewood is encouraged to
discuss our qualifications and performance with the listed project representative. Additional
examples are available upon request.
Completion Project Project Representative Project Services
2010, 2011 Street Reconstruction
Projects,
Maple Grove, MN
Al Hartman
Project Coordinator
City of Maple Grove
12800 Arbor Lakes Pkwy
Maple Grove, MN 55311
(763) 494-6356
Construction Materials
Testing and Inspections
2010, 2011 Street Reconstruction
Projects, Blaine, MN
Stefan Higgins
Assistant City Engineer
City of Blaine
10801 Town Square Drive
NE
Blaine, MN 55449
phone 763-717-2722
Geotechnical
Investigations,
Construction Materials
Testing and Inspections
2003-2011 Street Reconstruction
Projects,
Ramsey, MN
Mike McDowall
Engineering Tech IV
City of Ramsey
7550 Sunwood Drive NW
Ramsey, MN 55303
(763) 433-9894
Geotechnical
Investigation, Construction
Materials Testing and
Inspections
2010, 2011 Street Reconstruction
Projects,
Mendota Heights, MN
Ryan Ruzek, PE
Assistant City Engineer
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve,
Mendota Heights, MN
55118
(651) 452-1850
Geotechnical
Investigation, Construction
Materials Testing
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 107 of 233
Quality Assurance Testing
2012 Mill and Overlays
Maplewood, Minnesota
6
Completion Project Project Representative Project Services
2004 - 2011 Street Reconstruction
Projects,
Andover, MN
David D Berkowitz, PE
Director of Public Works /
City Engineer
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd
Andover, MN 55304
(763) 755-5100
Geotechnical
Investigation, Construction
Materials Testing
2011 Street Reconstruction
Projects,
Columbia Heights, MN
Kathy Young
Assistant City Engineer
City of Columbia Heights
590 40th Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN
55421
(763) 706-3704
Geotechnical
Investigation, Construction
Materials Testing
2010, 2011 Street Reconstruction
Projects,
Champlin , MN
Timothy Hanson, PE
City Engineer
City of Champlin
11955 Champlin Drive
Champlin, MN 55316
(763) 421-8100
Geotechnical
Investigation, Construction
Materials Testing
Acceptance
Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by signing one copy and returning it to us. The attached
GENERAL CONDITIONS are an integral part of this proposal for services. This proposal is valid
through June 3, 2012.We look forward to working with you and being part of your team. If you have any
questions, feel free to contact us at 763-433-9175.
NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Anthony Francis, P.E.
Project Engineer
Stephen Johnston, P.E.
Regional Manager/Vice President
Attachments: Fee Schedule
General Conditions
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
By: _________________________________
Printed Name: ________________________
Title: _______________________________
Date ________________________________
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 108 of 233
Hourly Rates
Project Manager / Engineer 15 85.00 per hour 1,275.00
Principal Engineer 120.00 per hour 0.00
Engineering Assistant 20 60.00 per hour 1,200.00
Senior Technician ( Assumed 30 trips @ 2 hr site time)60 54.00 per hour 3,240.00
Technician (Assumed 30 Trips@ 2 hours site time)48.00 per hour 0.00
Clerical 10 40.00 per hour 400.00
Trip Charge (includes Labor and Mileage)30 75.00 per trip 2,250.00
Testing Fees
Moisture Density Relationship (ASTM D-698) - Includes Labor 2 110.00 per test 220.00
Density of Soil by Nuclear Methods (ASTM D2922) - Plus
Labor 0 10.00 per test 0.00
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test for Aggregate Base
(MnDOT 2211) - Plus Labor 6 10.00 per test 60.00
Sieve Analysis: 1-1/2" to #200 & wash (ASTM C-136, C-117) -
Includes Labor 6 100.00 per test 600.00
Filtration Media Test -Gradation and Organic Content (ASTM
C-136, D2974) - Includes Labor 1 250.00 per test 250.00
Nutrient Analysis of Topsoil Borrow - Includes Labor 1 125.00 per test 125.00
Relative Moisture Tests 6 15.00 per test 90.00
Tests of Plastic Concrete - Air Entrainment, Slump,
Temperature (ASTM C143, C138) - Labor Only 6 0.00 per test 0.00
Tests of Plastic Pervious Concrete - Unit Wieght (ASTM
C1688) - Includes Labor 0 100.00 per test 0.00
Cylinder Compressive Strength (ASTM C-39) Includes Labor 24 15.00 per cyl 360.00
Core and Test Pervious Concrete for Thickness and Unit
Weight (ASTM C42, C138, C140) - Includes Labor 0 150.00 per test 0.00
Modular Block Testing - Compressive Strength (ASTM C140) -
Includes Labor 0 300.00 set of 8 0.00
Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of
Bituminous Paving Mixtures (ASTM D-2041) - Includes Labor 10 75.00 per test 750.00
Realative Density of HMA specimen by means of the Super
Pave Gyratory Compactor (ASTM D6925-09) Includes Labor 10 240.00 per test 2,400.00
Density of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures by Nuclear
Methods (ASTM D2950) - Plus Labor 0 5.00 each 0.00
Extraction of Asphalt Cement & Aggregate Gradation (ASTM
D-2172, C-137, C-117) - Includes Labor 10 175.00 per test 1,750.00
Bulk Specific Gravity, Density, and Percent Absorbed Water of
Compacted Bituminous Specimens (AASHTO T166, MnDOT
Modified) - Includes Labor 25 35.00 per test 875.00
Total Budget 15,845.00
Table 1 - Estimate of Services
2012 Mill and Overlays
City of Maplewood
Unit CostEstimated Units Unit Estimated Fee Item
Page 8 of 8
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 109 of 233
7
GENERAL CONDITIONS
SECTION 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Client will make available to NTI all known information regarding
existing and proposed requirements which affects the work,
including but not limited to: specifications, contracts,
recommendations, plans and change orders.
1.2 Client will immediately transmit to NTI any new information that
becomes available to it or its subcontractors, so that recommended
actions can be reviewed.
1.3 Client will provide a representative to answer questions about the
project when required by NTI upon 24-hour notice.
1.4 NTI will not be liable for any incorrect advice, judgment, or
decision based on any inaccurate information furnished by Client,
and Client will indemnify NTI against liability arising out of or
contributed to by such information.
SECTION 2: SAMPLES
2.1 NTI will retain representative samples for 30 days after
submission of NTI report. Upon request by Client, samples can be
shipped, charges collect, to destination selected by Client; or NTI
can store them for an agreed upon storage charge.
SECTION 3: FEE PAYMENT
3.1 NTI will submit invoices to client monthly, and a final invoice upon
completion of services. Invoices will show charges based on
current NTI Fee Schedule or other agreed upon basis. A detailed
separation of charges and backup data will be at Client’s request.
3.2 The Client will pay the balance stated on the invoices unless Client
notifies NTI in writing of the particular item that is alleged to be
incorrect within fifteen (15) days from the invoice date.
3.3 Payment is due upon receipt of invoice and is past due thirty (30)
days from invoice date. On past due accounts, Client will pay a late
charge of 1.5(%) per month, or the maximum allowed by law. In
the event of litigation, resulting from Client’s refusal to make
payment, without just cause, then all warranties and representations,
expressed or implied, by NTI shall be void.
3.4 In the event Client fails to pay NTI within sixty (60) days following
invoice date, NTI may consider the default a total breach of this
agreement and all duties of NTI under this agreement will be
terminated.
SECTION 4: OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
4.1 All documents prepared by NTI as instruments of service will
remain the property of NTI.
4.2 Client agrees that all reports and other work furnished to the Client
or his agents, which are not paid for, will be returned upon demand
and will not be used by the Client for any purpose.
4.3 NTI will retain all pertinent records concerning services performed
for a period of two (2) years after the report is sent; during that time
the records will be made available to the Client during NTI’s normal
business hours.
SECTION 5: DISPUTES
5.1 If NTI institutes suit against the Client to enforce any part of this
agreement, then all litigation expenses or collection expenses,
including attorney’s fees, will be paid to the prevailing party.
5.2 If the Client institutes a suit against NTI, which is dismissed, or a
verdict rendered for NTI, client agrees to pay NTI for all cost of
defense, including attorney’s fees, expert witness fees and court
costs.
SECTION 6: STANDARD OF CARE
6.1 NTI will perform consistent with the level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical and materials
testing profession currently practicing under similar conditions.
No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
6.2 NTI will be responsible for its data, interpretation and
recommendations, but will not be responsible for interpretation by
others.
SECTION 7: LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
7.1 NTI’s liability to the Client and all contractors and
subcontractors on the project, for damages due to
professional negligence, negligence or breach of any other
obligation to Client or others, will be limited to an amount
not to exceed $20,000 or the NTI fee, whichever is less.
7.2 Client will notify any contractor or subcontractor who
performs work in connection with any work done by NTI of
the limitation of liability for design defects, errors,
omissions, or professional negligence, and to require as a
condition precedent to their performing their work, a like
indemnity and limitations of liability on their part as against
NTI. In the event the Client fails to obtain a like limitation
and indemnity, Client agrees to indemnify NTI for any
liability to any third party.
SECTION 8: INSURANCE
8.1 NTI will carry worker’s compensation insurance and public
liability, property damage, and errors and omissions insurance
policies, which NTI considers adequate. NTI will not be
responsible for liability beyond the limits and conditions of the
insurance. NTI will not be responsible for any loss or liability
arising from negligence by Client or by other consultants
employed by Client.
SECTION 9: TERMINATION
9.1 This agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven (7)
days written notice if there is substantial failure by the other part to
perform. Termination will not be effective if substantial failure is
remedied before expiration of the seven days. Upon termination,
NTI will be paid for services rendered plus reasonable termination
expenses.
9.2 If the contract is terminated prior to completion of all reports
contemplated by the agreement, or suspended for more than three
(3) months, NTI may complete analysis and records as are
necessary to complete it’s files and may complete a report on the
services performed. Termination or suspension expenses will
include direct costs of completing analysis, records and report.
SECTION 10: ASSIGNS
10.1 Neither party may assign duties or interest in the agreement
without the written consent of the other party.
Agenda Item G8
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 110 of 233
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer / Dep. Public Works Director
SUBJECT: TH 36 / English Street Interchange Improvements, City Project 09-08
a) Resolution Removing the Construction of a Noise Wall
b) Resolution of Support for Transportation Economic Development
Funding Application Submittal
DATE: April 12, 2012
INTRODUCTION
The council will consider officially adopting a resolution reflecting the removal of a noise wall on the
north side of Highway 36 adjacent to the project improvements. This will officially recognize the
removal of the wall and implementation of the landscaped berm. As you may recall, the Viking Drive
residents did not want or vote for a noise wall, rather they preferred the construction of a landscaped
berm, which is proceeding forward.
In addition the council will consider supporting the submittal of a transportation economic development
funding application for this project.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
A Public Hearing for the environmental assessment portion of the project was held on February 27,
2012. The environmental document covered a number of issues including the noise wall process.
As part of the noise analysis two locations were identified for noise walls, one on the south side of
Highway 36 , and one of the north side of Highway 36, both adjacent to residential properties.
The City mailed out voting materials and also held an open-house meeting to specifically discuss the
noise analysis process. The open-house was held on August 17th, 2011 at the Maplewood Community
Center. The property owners adjacent to the proposed walls voted. To summarize; the residents on
the south side of Highway 36 voted to have a 20’ wall installed, while the residents on the north side did
not want a 20’ wall installed. There was not even one affirmative vote for a wall from the Viking Drive
homeowners. Instead, an alternative was sought by the homeowners and the City worked with them on
an earth berm option with landscaping.
To help focus the design and details of the berm, a citizen committee was created and consisted of four
homeowners. The committee met two times; December 7, 2011 and January 31, 2012. The
collaboration process led to the berm and landscaping design which is attached as an exhibit. The
homeowners along Viking Drive continue to express their opposition to a wall a preference for the
berm. The City is moving forward accordingly.
Regarding the transportation funding application; the City intends on requesting up to $2 million as part
of the Transportation Economic Development Program (TED). MnDOT has committed $20 million in
Trunk Highway funds; in addition DEED is seeking additional resources as part of the ongoing 2012
legislative session.
Agenda Item G9
Packet Page Number 111 of 233
The TED program is a competitive grant program available to communities for highway improvement
and public infrastructure projects that create jobs and support economic development. The proposed
interchange improvement will greatly position the area for redevelopment and upgrades thus the City is
seeking to submit to contend for the available funds. The completed grant application is available in the
office of the City Engineer.
BUDGET
This action has no impact on the budget.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution Removing the Construction of a
Noise Wall on the TH 36 / English Street Interchange Improvement Project, City Project 09-08. It is
further recommended that the council adopt a resolution of support for submitting the Transportation
Economic Development grant application for City Project 09-08.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Removal Construction of Noise Wall
2. Resolution Supporting TED Application
3. Berm Design
Agenda Item G9
Packet Page Number 112 of 233
RESOLUTION NO. ________
RESOLUTION REMOVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NOISE WALL FROM THE TRUNK
HIGHWAY 36 AND ENGLISH STREET INTERCHANGE PROJECT
WHEREAS, as part of the Trunk Highway (TH) 36 and English Street Interchange Project, the City has
proposed installing a noise wall along the north side of TH 36 between the Bruce Vento Trail Bridge on the west
and approximately Germain Street on the east; and
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) convened a
Public Hearing in regards to the TH 36/English Street Interchange Project Environmental
Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet on February 27, 2012. Comments were received at the public
hearing and attendees were encourage to provide input to MnDOT, the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU)
for purposes of the federal and state environmental review. Comments received at the public hearing and during
the comment period were provided to the City for review; and
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood mailed a survey to property owners that are located immediately
adjacent to the proposed noise wall located along the north side of TH 36. The survey requested the property
owner to state their preference as to whether or not they supported the construction of the noise wall as part of the
interchange project; and
WHEREAS, the majority of property owners located immediately adjacent to the proposed noise wall
along the north side of TH 36 indicated a preference “NO” to the construction of a noise wall along the north
right-of-way line of TH 36 from approximately the just east of the Bruce Vento Trail Bridge to Germain Street;
and
Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MAPLEWOOD, that the City Council hereby requests that a noise wall not be constructed along the north right-
of-way line of TH 36 from approximately the just east of the Bruce Vento Trail Bridge to Germain Street.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) ss
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD )
The undersigned, being the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, certifies that the
foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. ______ adopted at the
Maplewood City Council meeting held on April 23, 2012.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Maplewood this _____ day of ________ 2012.
________________________________
______________, City Clerk
Approved this 23rd day of April 2012
Agenda Item G9
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 113 of 233
RESOLUTION NO. ________
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR TRANSPORTATION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDING
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 AND ENGLISH STREET INTERCHANGE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Transportation Economic Development solicitation process is targeted toward
transportation improvements to promote safety, mobility, and economic development in communities; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project improves safety and mobility and promotes economic development
within the corridor; and
WHEREAS, the proposed improvements reflect collaboration between the following partnering agencies,
in which a memorandum of agreement was executed in 2010 in order to provide a more efficient use of resources:
1) City of Maplewood (Project Lead)
2) MnDOT
3) Ramsey County Public Works and Parks and Recreation Departments
4) Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District; and
WHEREAS, a tight diamond interchange is proposed at Trunk Highway (TH) 36 and English Street in
the City of Maplewood; and
WHEREAS, the proposed improvements will greatly improve the overall transportation network and
encourage economic growth and competitiveness both in Maplewood and the greater region; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously received letters of support for the TED Program for this project
from:
1) Senator Chuck Wiger, Senate District 55
2) Matt Kramer, President of the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce
3) Scott McBride, MnDOT Metro District Engineer
Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MAPLEWOOD, that the City Council adopts this resolution supporting the submittal of the Transportation
Economic Development funding application for the TH 36/ English Street Interchange Improvement project in the
City of Maplewood.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) ss
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD )
The undersigned, being the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, certifies that the
foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. ______ adopted at the
Maplewood City Council meeting held on April 23, 2012.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Maplewood this _____ day of ________ 2012.
________________________________
______________, City Clerk
Approved this 23rd day of April 2012
Agenda Item G9
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 114 of 233
Proposed Berm/LandscapingProposed Berm/LandscapingAgenda Item G9
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 115 of 233
Agenda Item G10
Attachment
1. Safari Invoice
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager, Jim Antonen
FROM: IT Director, Mychal Fowlds
SUBJECT: Approval to Make Payment for Safari Yearly Support Contract
DATE: April 17, 2012
Introduction
Support contracts for software are a major necessity due to the fact that there are always fixes and updates
and without the support contracts we’re entitled to none of these. Also, in order to speak with any of our
third party vendors a support contract is required.
Background
The Maplewood Park and Recreation department and the Maplewood Community Center purchased
Recware Safari roughly 8 years ago and the support contract is due.
Budget Impact
This purchase has been planned for and will be funded from the 2012 IT Fund in the amount of
$11,401.44.
Recommendation
It is recommended that authorization be given to pay the support contract for Safari so as to keep current
with updates and to keep Safari support available for staff.
Action Required
Submit to City Council for review and approval.
Packet Page Number 116 of 233
Packet Page Number 117 of 233
G11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Larry Farr, Chief Building Engineer
SUBJECT: Maplewood Community Center Expenditures for Repair and Maintenance
DATE: April 23, 2012 City Council Meeting
INTRODUCTION
The annual budget for 2012 has been approved by council which includes expenditures by departments
for the fiscal year. Expenses or projects over $10,000 require council’s approval before proceeding with
the expense. Staff is asking for council approval of allowing for certain GL line items expenses up to the
approved budgeted amount either accumulative or individually over $10,000 be approved without having
to be brought to council for individual approvals.
BACKGROUND
In the process of planning the annual budget departments are responsible for justifying the planned
expenses for their areas and any changes. These are reviewed and combined into the completed fiscal
budget for approval by council. Once the budget is formally approved departments use their final
budgeted amounts as a guide throughout the year to efficiently run the department and control expenses.
Individual or accumulative expenses over $10,000 to the same vendor or contractor require council to
proceed.
DISCUSSION
Building Maintenance uses many service companies, suppliers, vendors, and contractors throughout the
year for projects or supplies. Many of these can or do require council approval due to the dollar amount or
cumulative yearly amounts. This requires staff to either do a Consent Agenda, or Award of Bid for council
approval multiple times throughout the year. Staff follows all of the required procedures of bidding or
securing the best pricing for items purchased, services provided, and contractor work. To stream line the
procedure and enhance the efficiency of expenditures staff has in the past combined general ledger line
item expenses into one report and one approval for the entire fiscal year. This allowed for spending up to
the approved budgeted amount before requiring additional council approval. Going forward and in the
future staff would like to do the same for four (4) main line items in the Maplewood Community Center’s
Building Maintenance Budget. These line items are as follows.
General Ledger Number 2012 Budgeted Amount
• 602-614-000-4130 Supplies Janitorial $44,500
• 602-614-000-4160 Supplies and Equipment $47,770
• 602-614-000-4410 Repair & Maintenance Buildings $48,500
• 602-614-000-4430 Repair & Maintenance $59,550
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting city council approval for spending up to the approved budgeted amounts in their
respective fiscal years which will vary yearly on the amount approved in the budgeting process before
requiring additional council approval for the GL line items listed above.
My documents/council items/ approval of Maplewood community center expenditures for repairs and maintenance
Packet Page Number 118 of 233
G12
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Larry Farr, Chief Building Engineer
SUBJECT: Building Operations Expenditures for Repair and Maintenance
DATE: April 23, 2012 City Council Meeting
INTRODUCTION
The annual budget for 2012 has been approved by council which includes expenditures by departments
for the fiscal year. Expenses or projects over $10,000 require council’s approval before proceeding with
the expense. Staff is asking for council approval of allowing for certain GL line items expenses up to the
approved budgeted amount either accumulative or individually over $10,000 be approved without having
to be brought to council for individual approvals.
BACKGROUND
In the process of planning the annual budget departments are responsible for justifying the planned
expenses for their areas and any changes. These are reviewed and combined into the completed fiscal
budget for approval by council. Once the budget is formally approved departments use their final
budgeted amounts as a guide throughout the year to efficiently run the department and control expenses.
Individual or accumulative expenses over $10,000 to the same vendor or contractor require council to
proceed.
DISCUSSION
Building Operations uses many service companies, suppliers, vendors, and contractors throughout the
year for projects or supplies. Many of these can or do require council approval due to the dollar amount or
cumulative yearly amounts. This requires staff to either do a Consent Agenda, or Award of Bid for council
approval multiple times throughout the year. Staff follows all of the required procedures of bidding or
securing the best pricing for items purchased, services provided, and contractor work. To stream line the
procedure and enhance the efficiency of expenditures staff has in the past combined general ledger line
item expenses into one report and one approval for the entire fiscal year. This allowed for spending up to
the approved budgeted amount before requiring additional council approval. Going forward and in the
future staff would like to do the same for four (4) main line items in the Maplewood Community Center’s
Building Maintenance Budget. These line items are as follows.
General Ledger Number 2012 Budgeted Amount
• 101-115-000-4130 Supplies Janitorial $13,200
• 101-115-000-4160 Supplies and Equipment $27,400
• 101-115-000-4410 Repair & Maintenance Buildings $43,000
• 101-115-000-4430 Repair & Maintenance $41,000
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting city council approval for spending up to the approved budgeted amounts in their
respective fiscal years which will vary yearly on the amount approved in the budgeting process before
requiring additional council approval for the GL line items listed above.
My documents/council items/ approval of building operations expenditures for repairs and maintenance
Packet Page Number 119 of 233
G13
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Larry Farr, Chief Building Engineer
SUBJECT: Implementation to Replace and Upgrade the Trane Summit System at City
Hall
DATE: April 23, 2012 City Council Meeting
INTRODUCTION
The heating and cooling systems for City Hall / Police Department were installed in 1984 and
1994 respectively. The systems have been upgraded several times with the last one being in
2004 to the Trane Summit Energy Management System (EMMS). There are Variable Air
Volume (VAV) units that have pneumatic (air pressure) controls for heating and cooling of the
areas. The pneumatic thermostats open and close the dampers and heating valves to maintain
the temperatures for their area.
BACKGROUND
The existing VAV systems units are from 18 – 28 years old and are starting to require more
maintenance and parts replacement. The hot water heat control valves and VAV dampers are
controlled by air pressure that requires frequent adjusting to operate properly. The heat valves
are starting to leak in many areas that require replacing the valve and repairs. The Maplewood
Community Center and Public Works facilities have Trane Summit Electronic VAV’s and
electronic heating valves that require little maintenance or constant adjusting. The long range
plan in 2006 was to upgrade the City Hall / Police Department systems to all electronic so all
campus facilities are up to date.
DISCUSSION
In early 2011 staff made the decision to control the expenses of the Building Operation Budget
GL# 101-115 due to the economy outlook early in the year. When the overall fiscal budget
improved and there were monies available in 101-115 from early planning it was to late in the
year to implement delayed projects. At the February 13, 2012 City Council meeting council
approved the Carry Over of 2011 funds as designated on the Consent Agenda Item G-9. With
this approval Building Operations received $45,000 for implementation of the project to Replace
and Upgrade the Trane Summit System at City Hall for Air Handler Unit #2 which is discussed
above.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting city council approval to spend the approved 2011 Carry Over funds
designated for the Replace and Upgrade the Trane Summit System at City in the amount of
$45,000 for Building Operation.
My documents/council items/ Implementation to Replace and Upgrade the Trane Summit System at City Hall
Packet Page Number 120 of 233
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: DuWayne Konewko, Parks and Recreation Director
Alan Kantrud, City Attorney
Jim Taylor, Parks Manager
SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fee Code Revision 1st Reading
DATE: April 16, 2012
INTRODUCTION
The City Manager with Council support has requested that staff explore all areas of
development for Park Dedication Fees to help generate additional revenue. Staff did
research on what our code currently says, and in what ways it should be revised to
address additional revenue opportunities to help sustain our Parks system.
BACKGROUND
In Maplewood, the purpose and intent of part of Chapter 26 (zoning code) is to ensure
that the citizens of the city have additional open space for parks, playgrounds, and
recreation facilities, in addition to those spaces owned by the public. As authorized in
chapter 26, a developer may provide a cash payment in lieu of dedication of land. This
is commonly referred to as a Park Availability Charge (PAC) and in Maplewood, it is also
referred to as a Park Dedication Fee.
The way the code reads currently, PAC is only authorized in circumstances of new
development. Chapter 26-126 thru 131 speak to the issue of development refer to the
development of undeveloped land, and do not speak to redevelopment.
Staff researched what other metro communities were doing with Park Dedication Fees to
find out where we had opportunity to make changes to our code to capture additional
revenue. What we found was that many communities in the metro specifically
addressed redevelopment. This is an area that Staff is proposing changes to address
redevelopment, while crediting the developer for any previously paid dedication.
DISCUSSION
In the early 1980’s when the Code on PAC was adopted, there was still enough
development going on in the community to only address new development. Currently,
most development in the city is redevelopment, whether residential or commercial.
Staff is recommending the modification of the park dedication ordinance to simply
discuss these charges as they relate to all development, not just new development.
Minnesota law specifically authorizes cities to require the dedication of land or cash in
lieu for park s, playgrounds, trails or open spaces by a developer wishing to develop land
in the city. Minnesota statute 462.358 subdivision 2b specifically authorizes the
Agenda Item H1
Packet Page Number 121 of 233
dedication of land and/or cash in lieu of. That statute also authorizes dedication or
payment in redevelopment scenarios.
The change proposed by staff would essentially apply the same 9% value that it
currently does to new development on all development. In consideration of any park
dedication fee or value of dedicated land previously paid, the ordinance provides a full
credit for that amount against any new fee derived from redevelopment.
For example, property X currently has one house on it and the developer had previously
paid a PAC fee. In subdividing the property, the numbers of lots were increased to five.
PAC would be available on the net increase of lots.
Other Highlights from the Revision:
- In cases of redevelopment, credit towards the park dedication due for such
redevelopment shall be given for the actual amount of previous park dedication
satisfied for the lots proposed.
- If PAC charges were not previously paid on the purchased property, the
developer would be responsible for the full 9% of the market value of the
property.
- In the event that park dedication was previously satisfied for a larger land area
than the lot or lots currently proposed for development, the previously satisfied
park dedication amount shall be prorated on a per square foot basis to the lot or
lots currently proposed for development.
- While credits may fully satisfy Park Dedication due credits shall not result in
refunds of park dedication previously paid
Not all redevelopment will be eligible, there still needs to be an added use or burden on
our parks system. Most of the time this will be from a density/use change, subdivision,
or re-platting. Each development would be looked at individually to determine whether
additional PAC is warranted.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the change to Chapter 26 section 26-
126 thru 130 of the City Code.
1. Ordinance Amendment to Section 26 – 126 thru 130
Agenda Item H1
Packet Page Number 122 of 233
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO. ___
AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING
THE CITY PARK DEDICATION BY DEVELOPERS
The Maplewood City Council approves the following revision to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances. (Additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out.)
Chapter 26. Section 26-126 thru 130 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances is hereby
amended as follows:
Sec. 26-126 – Purpose and intent.
The purposes and intent of this division are to ensure the citizens of the city that
additional open space for parks, playgrounds and recreation facilities will be the
responsibility of every sort of new new development in the city, not just residential
development, so that the city’s vast amount of privately owned open spaces with
potential for development are partially available for orderly park, recreation, and open
space development ; to ensure that, in fact, such facilities will be provided; and to
preserve, enhance and improve the qualities of the physical environment of the city for
commercial and industrial uses or a combination thereof, regardless of whether such
developments or subdivisions are within the context of chapter 34, which pertains to
subdivisions.
Sec, 26-127 Required dedications generally.
The developer of any tract of land in the city which is to be developed or
redeveloped for commercial, residential, governmental, institutional, or industrial or like
uses shall dedicate to the public, for public use as parks, playgrounds or public open
space, such portion of his/her development tract equal to 9 percent, with such portion to
be reviewed annually in December. The percentage of the development tract to be so
dedicated may be amended by resolution of the council.
Sec. 26-128 Delineation of dedicated area on preliminary plat or site plan.
The actual area to be dedicated for public use as parks, playgrounds or public
space pursuant to this division shall be delineated on the preliminary plat or site plan by
the developer. Such plat or site plan shall be referred to the park and recreation
commission for its scrutiny and report to the city council of its findings, conclusions, and
recommendations, with this referral being in addition to any other referral to other
commissions or committees.
Sec. 26-129 Revision of dedication
If the city council, after receiving the report from the park and recreation
commission and the planning commission, shall determine that such area delineated by
the developer pursuant to section 26-128 is unsuitable for such purposes, it may require
the subdivider or developer to relocate or rearrange such area or to make such changes
or revisions of the proposed dedication as it deems necessary; reasonable; and in the
best interests of health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the city.
Agenda Item H1
Packet Page Number 123 of 233
Sec. 26-130 Cash in lieu of dedication.
(a)
The term “undeveloped land value” as used in this section, shall be the market
value of the subject land at the time of the application, and to be determined by
the city council in its reasonable discretion. As a basis for its decision, the
council may request a appraisal at the expense of the subdivider or developer for
the purposes of determining such value. Such additional appraisal shall be
obtained, if the council deems advisable, from an appraiser selected by the
council. Thereafter, the council, with the aid of both appraisals, shall determine
the “undeveloped land value”.
(b)
In lieu of the dedication of land required for the purposes enumerated in the
division, the city council may require the subdivider or developer to pay the city,
as an equivalent contribution, an amount in cash equal to the product of the
percentage of land required to be dedicated, multiplied be the undeveloped land
value of the tract to be subdivided or, developed or redeveloped. Such cash
payments shall be made to the city prior to the issuance of a building permit, for
commercial, industrial uses or accommodation thereof.
(c)
All cash contributions received by the city are pursuant to this division shall be
placed in a special fund and used only for the acquisition of land for parks,
playgrounds, public space or the development of existing parks and playground
sites, public open spaces and debt retirement in connection with land previously
acquired for such public purposes.
(d)
In cases of redevelopment, credit towards the park dedication due for such
redevelopment shall be given for the actual amount of previous park dedication
satisfied for the lots proposed.
(e)
In the event that park dedication was previously satisfied for a larger land area
than the lot or lots currently proposed for development, the previously satisfied
park dedication amount shall be prorated on a per square foot basis to the lot or
lots currently proposed for development.
(f)
While credits may fully satisfy park dedication due, credits shall not result in
refunds of park dedication previously paid.
The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance revision on ___________.
_________________
Mayor
Attest:
______________________
City Clerk
Agenda Item H1
Packet Page Number 124 of 233
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director
Steven Love, Assistant City Engineer
Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I
SUBJECT: 2012 Mill and Overlays, Project 11-15, Resolution Adopting Revised
Assessment Roll
DATE: April 11, 2012
INTRODUCTION
On April 9, 2012 the 2012 Mill and Overlays, City Project 11-15 assessment hearing was held and
objections were received. Recommendations for action on each of the objections are provided for
council approval in considering adopting the final roll.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The proposed assessments for the 2012 Mill and Overlays were submitted to the city council for
adoption at the April 9, 2012 meeting.
Residents were provided with the required advanced notice of assessment hearing. Residents were
required to file a written notice if they objected to the assessment amount. Seventeen (17) property
owners provided written objections as follows:
Objections:
1. Parcel 17-29-22-32-0001 – Rosoto LLP; 1901 DeSoto Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 293.23 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the property will not receive benefit from the
project.
2. Parcel 17-29-22-23-0057 – DeSoto Associates LP; 375 Roselawn Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the property will not receive benefit from the project.
3. Parcel 18-29-22-32-0025 – 337 Group Company, LLC; 1870 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 507.39 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
the property.
4. Parcel 18-29-22-32-0028 – P&B Investments, LLC; 1908 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 138.47 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
the property.
5. Parcel 18-29-22-23-0018 – Alice M. Zittel; 1958 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 700.28 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
the property.
6. Parcel 17-29-22-32-0004 – Church of St. Jerome; 380 Roselawn Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 812.45 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment will create a financial hardship.
The owner is also requesting a cancellation or revision of assessment.
Agenda Item I1
Packet Page Number 125 of 233
7. Parcel 02-29-22-22-0010 – Percy Pooniwala; 3030 Southlawn Drive North
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 127.38 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment will create a financial hardship
and is requesting an abatement of assessment.
8. Parcel 24-29-22-33-0011 – John Wykoff; 2345 Maryland Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment will create a financial hardship and requests a
cancellation of assessment
9. Parcel 17-29-22-23-0056 – Kathleen Delaney; 0 Roselawn Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
The owner is requesting a cancellation of assessment. The owner is also requesting a senior
citizen, financial hardship, or undeveloped property deferral. A revision of assessment has also
been requested.
10. Parcel 25-29-22-32-0015 – William B. Robbins; 2277 Stillwater Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is not objecting to
his assessment but requests a discovery of the assessment procedure.
11. Parcel 13-28-22-11-0018 – John E. Gregerson; 2622 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to his
assessment on the basis that the project will not increase the property value. The owner is
requesting a cancellation of assessment.
12. Parcel 13-28-22-31-0067– Peng Cha; 2492 Highwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 5 units. The owner is requesting a
revision of assessment or an undeveloped property deferral.
13. Parcel 13-28-22-22-0073 – Xia Lor Vang; 2358 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is requesting a
cancellation of assessment or a disability/financial hardship deferral.
14. Parcel 12-28-22-33-0091 – Xia Lor Vang; 2359 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is requesting a
cancellation of assessment or a disability/financial hardship deferral.
15. Parcel 12-28-22-33-0077 – George Oxford; 2305 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 3 units. The owner is requesting an
undeveloped property deferral and a senior citizen/disability/financial hardship deferral.
16. Parcel 36-29-22-13-0019– Denco Automotive, Inc.; 2545 Conway Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 168.84 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than the benefit
received and requests a revision of assessment. The owner requests a financial hardship
deferral.
17. Parcel 17-29-22-42-0001– Forest Lawn Memorial Park Association; 1800 Edgerton Street North
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1,470.15 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the Forest Lawn Memorial Park Association is a
501(C)(13) exempt organization and therefore cannot be assessed pursuant to Minn. Stat.
306.14. The owner is requesting cancellation of assessment.
Agenda Item I1
Packet Page Number 126 of 233
Recommended Adjustments
The staff reviewed the requests and granted all financial hardship, senior citizen, and undeveloped
property deferrals, however the staff is recommending denial of all requests for cancellation or revision
of assessments, except for the Forest Lawn Cemetery property (1800 Edgerton). Cancellation is
recommended in that case in order to comply with Minnesota Statute 306.14.
The recommendations are based on the benefit appraisals which support the proposed assessments,
in addition it is consistent with the City’s Assessment Policy. If council chooses to adopt the staff
recommendation and a property owner disagrees with the action, there is an opportunity to work with
the City Attorney in addition to appealing to the City and District Court.
The following are recommended adjustments by staff to the assessment roll:
1. Parcel 17-29-22-32-0001 – Rosoto LLP; 1901 DeSoto Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 293.23 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the property will not receive benefit from the
project. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property
is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the
benefit to the property as determined through the special benefit appraisal. The owner has
submitted a letter formally withdrawing their objection.
2. Parcel 17-29-22-23-0057 – DeSoto Associates LP; 375 Roselawn Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the property will not receive benefit from the project. Staff
recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property as determined through the special benefit appraisal. The owner has submitted a
letter formally withdrawing their objection.
3. Parcel 18-29-22-32-0025 – 337 Group Company, LLC; 1870 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 507.39 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
the property. Staff recommendation is to deny a revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property as determined through the special benefit appraisal.
4. Parcel 18-29-22-32-0028 – P&B Investments, LLC; 1908 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 138.47 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
the property. Staff recommendation is to deny a revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property as determined through the special benefit appraisal.
5. Parcel 18-29-22-23-0018 – Alice M. Zittel; 1958 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 700.28 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
the property. Staff recommendation is to deny a revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property as determined through the special benefit appraisal.
6. Parcel 17-29-22-32-0004 – Church of St. Jerome; 380 Roselawn Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 812.45 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment will create a financial hardship.
The owner is also requesting a cancellation or revision of assessment. Staff recommendation is
to deny the request for cancellation or revision of assessment as this property is being
Agenda Item I1
Packet Page Number 127 of 233
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property as determined through the special benefit appraisal. Staff recommendation is to
grant a financial hardship deferral (8 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 8
year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
7. Parcel 02-29-22-22-0010 – Percy Pooniwala; 3030 Southlawn Drive North
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 127.38 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment will create a financial hardship
and is requesting an abatement of assessment. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for
cancellation or revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s
assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as
determined through the special benefit appraisal. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial
hardship deferral (8 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 8 year deferral time
period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
8. Parcel 24-29-22-33-0011 – John Wykoff; 2345 Maryland Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment will create a financial hardship and requests a
cancellation of assessment. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for cancellation of
assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the
assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as determined through the special
benefit appraisal. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (8 year) upon
approval of necessary paperwork. After the 8 year deferral time period the assessment would
become due in total with interest.
9. Parcel 17-29-22-23-0056 – Kathleen Delaney; 0 Roselawn Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
The owner is requesting a cancellation of assessment. The owner is also requesting a senior
citizen, financial hardship, or undeveloped property deferral. A revision of assessment has also
been requested. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for cancellation or revision of
assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the
assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as determined through the special
benefit appraisal. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship, senior citizen, and
undeveloped property deferral (8 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 8 year
deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest for the financial
hardship or senior citizen deferral. For the undeveloped property deferral; if the property
remains undeveloped during the entire 8 year deferral time period the assessment will be
cancelled. If at any point during the 8 year deferral period the lot is developed the assessment
would become active.
10. Parcel 25-29-22-32-0015 – William B. Robbins; 2277 Stillwater Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is not objecting to
his assessment but requests a discovery of the assessment procedure. No adjustments are
recommended. Mr. Robbins needs to request this information through the City Attorney.
11. Parcel 13-28-22-11-0018 – John E. Gregerson; 2622 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to his
assessment on the basis that the project will not increase the property value. The owner is
requesting a cancellation of assessment. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for
cancellation of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy
and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as determined through the
special benefit appraisal.
12. Parcel 13-28-22-31-0067– Peng Cha; 2492 Highwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 5 units, 4 of which are undeveloped.
The owner is requesting a revision of assessment or an undeveloped property deferral. Staff
Agenda Item I1
Packet Page Number 128 of 233
recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property as determined through the special benefit appraisal. Staff recommendation is to
grant an undeveloped property deferral (8 years), for the 4 undeveloped units, upon approval of
necessary paperwork. If the property remains undeveloped during the entire 8 year deferral
time period the assessment, against the 4 undeveloped units will be cancelled. If at any point
during the 8 year deferral period the lot is developed the assessments would become active. No
deferral is recommended for the remaining developed unit.
13. Parcel 13-28-22-22-0073 – Xia Lor Vang; 2358 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is requesting a
cancellation of assessment or a disability/financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to
deny the request for cancellation of assessment as this property is being assessed per the
City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as
determined through the special benefit appraisal. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial
hardship/disability deferral (8 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 8 year
deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
14. Parcel 12-28-22-33-0091 – Xia Lor Vang; 2359 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is requesting a
cancellation of assessment or a disability/financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to
deny the request for cancellation of assessment as this property is being assessed per the
City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as
determined through the special benefit appraisal. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial
hardship and disability deferral (8 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 8 year
deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
15. Parcel 12-28-22-33-0077 – George Oxford; 2305 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 3 units, 2 of which are undeveloped.
The owner is requesting an undeveloped property deferral and a senior
citizen/disability/financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial
hardship and senior citizen deferral (8 year) for the developed unit upon approval of necessary
paperwork. After the 8 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with
interest for the financial hardship or senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is also to
grant an undeveloped property deferral (8 years), for the 2 undeveloped units, upon approval of
necessary paperwork. If the property remains undeveloped during the entire 8 year deferral
time period the assessment will be cancelled. If at any point during the 8 year deferral period
the lot is developed the assessment would become active.
16. Parcel 36-29-22-13-0019– Denco Automotive, Inc.; 2545 Conway Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 168.84 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than the benefit
received and requests a revision of assessment. The owner requests a financial hardship
deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this
property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not
exceed the benefit to the property as determined through the special benefit appraisal. Staff
recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (8 year) upon approval of necessary
paperwork. After the 8 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with
interest.
17. Parcel 17-29-22-42-0001– Forest Lawn Memorial Park Association; 1800 Edgerton Street North
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1,470.15 feet of frontage. The owner is
objecting to the assessment pursuant to Minnesota Statute 306.14 as it relates specifically to
cemeteries and special assessments. The owner is requesting cancellation of assessment. Staff
recommendation is to grant a cancellation of assessment upon approval of necessary
paperwork.
Agenda Item I1
Packet Page Number 129 of 233
BUDGET
The project budget will not be affected by approving the recommendations above.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the city council approve the attached Resolution for Adopting Revised
Assessment Roll for the 2012 Mill and Overlays, Project 11-15. It is further recommended that the City
Attorney work with the property owners to resolve any outstanding concerns.
Attachments:
1. Resolution: Adopting Revised Assessment Roll
2. Assessment Roll
3. Location Map
4. Assessment objections
Agenda Item I1
Packet Page Number 130 of 233
RESOLUTION
ADOPTING REVISED ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on April 9, 2012, the assessment roll
for the 2012 Mill and Overlays, City Project 11-15, was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, seventeen (17) property owners filed objections to their assessments according to the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows:
1. Parcel 17-29-22-32-0001 – Rosoto LLP; 1901 DeSoto Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 293.23 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the property will not receive benefit from the project.
2. Parcel 17-29-22-23-0057 – DeSoto Associates LP; 375 Roselawn Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to the assessment
on the basis that the property will not receive benefit from the project.
3. Parcel 18-29-22-32-0025 – 337 Group Company, LLC; 1870 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 507.39 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
4. Parcel 18-29-22-32-0028 – P&B Investments, LLC; 1908 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 138.47 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
5. Parcel 18-29-22-23-0018 – Alice M. Zittel; 1958 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 700.28 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
6. Parcel 17-29-22-32-0004 – Church of St. Jerome; 380 Roselawn Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 812.45 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment will create a financial hardship. The owner is also
requesting a cancellation or revision of assessment.
7. Parcel 02-29-22-22-0010 – Percy Pooniwala; 3030 Southlawn Drive North
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 127.38 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment will create a financial hardship and is requesting an
abatement of assessment.
8. Parcel 24-29-22-33-0011 – John Wykoff; 2345 Maryland Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to the assessment
on the basis that the assessment will create a financial hardship and requests a cancellation of assessment
9. Parcel 17-29-22-23-0056 – Kathleen Delaney; 0 Roselawn Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to the assessment
on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. The owner is requesting a
cancellation of assessment. The owner is also requesting a senior citizen, financial hardship, or
undeveloped property deferral. A revision of assessment has also been requested.
10. Parcel 25-29-22-32-0015 – William B. Robbins; 2277 Stillwater Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is not objecting to his
assessment but requests a discovery of the assessment procedure.
11. Parcel 13-28-22-11-0018 – John E. Gregerson; 2622 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to his assessment
on the basis that the project will not increase the property value. The owner is requesting a cancellation of
assessment.
12. Parcel 13-28-22-31-0067– Peng Cha; 2492 Highwood Avenue East
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 131 of 233
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 5 units. The owner is requesting a revision of
assessment or an undeveloped property deferral.
13. Parcel 13-28-22-22-0073 – Xia Lor Vang; 2358 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is requesting a cancellation of
assessment or a disability/financial hardship deferral.
14. Parcel 12-28-22-33-0091 – Xia Lor Vang; 2359 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is requesting a cancellation of
assessment or a disability/financial hardship deferral.
15. Parcel 12-28-22-33-0077 – George Oxford; 2305 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 3 units. The owner is requesting an undeveloped
property deferral and a senior citizen/disability/financial hardship deferral.
16. Parcel 36-29-22-13-0019– Denco Automotive, Inc.; 2545 Conway Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 168.84 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than the benefit received and requests a
revision of assessment. The owner requests a financial hardship deferral.
17. Parcel 17-29-22-42-0001– Forest Lawn Memorial Park Association; 1800 Edgerton Street North
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1,470.15 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the Forest Lawn Memorial Park Association is a 501(C)(13) exempt
organization and therefore cannot be assessed pursuant to Minn. Stat. 306.14. The owner is requesting
cancellation of assessment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
A. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to make the following adjustments to the
assessment roll for the 2012 Mill and Overlays, City Project 11-15:
1. Parcel 17-29-22-32-0001 – Rosoto LLP; 1901 DeSoto Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 293.23 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the property will not receive benefit from the project. Staff
recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per
the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as determined
through the special benefit appraisal. The owner has submitted a letter formally withdrawing their
objection.
2. Parcel 17-29-22-23-0057 – DeSoto Associates LP; 375 Roselawn Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to the assessment
on the basis that the property will not receive benefit from the project. Staff recommendation is to deny
the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy
and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as determined through the special benefit
appraisal. The owner has submitted a letter formally withdrawing their objection.
3. Parcel 18-29-22-32-0025 – 337 Group Company, LLC; 1870 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 507.39 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
recommendation is to deny a revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s
assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as determined through
the special benefit appraisal.
4. Parcel 18-29-22-32-0028 – P&B Investments, LLC; 1908 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 138.47 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 132 of 233
recommendation is to deny a revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s
assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as determined through
the special benefit appraisal.
5. Parcel 18-29-22-23-0018 – Alice M. Zittel; 1958 Rice Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 700.28 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
recommendation is to deny a revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s
assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as determined through
the special benefit appraisal.
6. Parcel 17-29-22-32-0004 – Church of St. Jerome; 380 Roselawn Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 812.45 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment will create a financial hardship. The owner is also
requesting a cancellation or revision of assessment. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for
cancellation or revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy
and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as determined through the special benefit
appraisal. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (8 year) upon approval of
necessary paperwork. After the 8 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total
with interest.
7. Parcel 02-29-22-22-0010 – Percy Pooniwala; 3030 Southlawn Drive North
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 127.38 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment will create a financial hardship and is requesting an
abatement of assessment. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for cancellation or revision of
assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not
exceed the benefit to the property as determined through the special benefit appraisal. Staff
recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (8 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork.
After the 8 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
8. Parcel 24-29-22-33-0011 – John Wykoff; 2345 Maryland Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to the assessment
on the basis that the assessment will create a financial hardship and requests a cancellation of assessment.
Staff recommendation is to deny the request for cancellation of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property
as determined through the special benefit appraisal. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship
deferral (8 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 8 year deferral time period the
assessment would become due in total with interest.
9. Parcel 17-29-22-23-0056 – Kathleen Delaney; 0 Roselawn Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to the assessment
on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. The owner is requesting a
cancellation of assessment. The owner is also requesting a senior citizen, financial hardship, or
undeveloped property deferral. A revision of assessment has also been requested. Staff recommendation
is to deny the request for cancellation or revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the
City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as determined
through the special benefit appraisal. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship, senior
citizen, and undeveloped property deferral (8 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 8
year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest for the financial hardship
or senior citizen deferral. For the undeveloped property deferral; if the property remains undeveloped
during the entire 8 year deferral time period the assessment will be cancelled. If at any point during the 8
year deferral period the lot is developed the assessment would become active.
10. Parcel 25-29-22-32-0015 – William B. Robbins; 2277 Stillwater Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is not objecting to his
assessment but requests a discovery of the assessment procedure. No adjustments are recommended. Mr.
Robbins needs to request this information through the City Attorney.
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 133 of 233
11. Parcel 13-28-22-11-0018 – John E. Gregerson; 2622 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is objecting to his assessment
on the basis that the project will not increase the property value. The owner is requesting a cancellation of
assessment. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for cancellation of assessment as this property is
being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the
property as determined through the special benefit appraisal.
12. Parcel 13-28-22-31-0067– Peng Cha; 2492 Highwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 5 units, 4 of which are undeveloped. The owner
is requesting a revision of assessment or an undeveloped property deferral. Staff recommendation is to
deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment
policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as determined through the special
benefit appraisal. Staff recommendation is to grant an undeveloped property deferral (8 years), for the 4
undeveloped units, upon approval of necessary paperwork. If the property remains undeveloped during
the entire 8 year deferral time period the assessment, against the 4 undeveloped units will be cancelled. If
at any point during the 8 year deferral period the lot is developed the assessments would become active.
No deferral is recommended for the remaining developed unit.
13. Parcel 13-28-22-22-0073 – Xia Lor Vang; 2358 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is requesting a cancellation of
assessment or a disability/financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for
cancellation of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the
assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as determined through the special benefit appraisal.
Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship/disability deferral (8 year) upon approval of
necessary paperwork. After the 8 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total
with interest.
14. Parcel 12-28-22-33-0091 – Xia Lor Vang; 2359 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. The owner is requesting a cancellation of
assessment or a disability/financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for
cancellation of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the
assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as determined through the special benefit appraisal.
Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship and disability deferral (8 year) upon approval of
necessary paperwork. After the 8 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total
with interest.
15. Parcel 12-28-22-33-0077 – George Oxford; 2305 Linwood Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 3 units, 2 of which are undeveloped. The owner
is requesting an undeveloped property deferral and a senior citizen/disability/financial hardship deferral.
Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship and senior citizen deferral (8 year) for the
developed unit upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 8 year deferral time period the
assessment would become due in total with interest for the financial hardship or senior citizen deferral.
Staff recommendation is also to grant an undeveloped property deferral (8 years), for the 2 undeveloped
units, upon approval of necessary paperwork. If the property remains undeveloped during the entire 8
year deferral time period the assessment will be cancelled. If at any point during the 8 year deferral
period the lot is developed the assessment would become active.
16. Parcel 36-29-22-13-0019– Denco Automotive, Inc.; 2545 Conway Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 168.84 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than the benefit received and requests a
revision of assessment. The owner requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny
the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy
and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property as determined through the special benefit
appraisal. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (8 year) upon approval of
necessary paperwork. After the 8 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total
with interest.
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 134 of 233
17. Parcel 17-29-22-42-0001– Forest Lawn Memorial Park Association; 1800 Edgerton Street North
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1,470.15 feet of frontage. The owner is objecting
to the assessment pursuant to Minnesota Statute 306.14 as it relates specifically to cemeteries and special
assessments. The owner is requesting cancellation of assessment. Staff recommendation is to grant a
cancellation of assessment upon approval of necessary paperwork.
B. The assessment roll for the 2012 Mil and Overlays, City Project 11-15, as amended, is hereby accepted, a
copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Said assessment roll shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be
benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it.
C. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 8 years, the
first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2013 and shall bear interest at the
rate of 3.65 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first
installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until
December 31, 2012. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all
unpaid installments.
D. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the
county auditor, but no later than November 15, 2012, pay the whole of the assessment on such property,
with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the city clerk, except that no interest shall be charged
if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and they may, at any
time after November 15, 2012, pay to the county auditor the entire amount of the assessment remaining
unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment
must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next
succeeding year.
E. The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith after November 15, 2012, but no later than November 16,
2012, transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property
tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other
municipal taxes.
Adopted by the council on this 23rd day of April 2012.
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 135 of 233
Notes Parcel ID Tax Payer Street
Number Street Commercial
L.F.Units Mill & Overlay
Assessment
Total
Assessment
132822230053 ALAN C SARGENT 2339 HIGHWOOD AVE 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822240005 IND SCHOOL DIST NO 622 0 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822320010 DANIEL J ENGA 2270 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822230009 MAGDALYN CUNNINGHAM 2275 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822320009 SCOTT A NELSON 2280 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822320008 CHARLES M FADER 2292 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822320073 MICHAEL P STREFF 2296 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822320074 FUE VUE 2300 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822230050 KENNETH MAHONEY 2315 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822230051 ANGELA N IKERI 2321 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822320060 LEE PAO XIONG 2322 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822230052 ROGER T NELSON 2329 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822320075 MARK L STAPLETON 2336 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822320076 SCOTT HUSNICK 2344 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822230005 KEVIN W MOORE 2345 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822320003 PAUL KAUFENBERG 2348 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822320002 MICHAEL B BRAZIL 2350 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822230004 ANN E SYVERSON 2355 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822230003 TOM MOOSBRUGGER 2361 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822230002 RICHARD A ORSELLO 2371 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822320077 EUGENE P HUSNICK 2374 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822240002 CHARLES H PLUMMER 2385 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822240099 RUSSEL SPERMBAUR 2401 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822310080 JAMES A FISCHER 2406 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822240098 WILLIAM C POPPERT 2433 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822310016 GREGORY J WALKER 2446 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822310015 SANDRA R LEWIS 2450 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822240023 BEE THAO 2465 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822240006 JEFFREY E NIELSEN 2475 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822310067 DOUA LEE 2492 HIGHWOOD AVE E 5 $2,000.00 $10,000.00
132822240007 JOHN R ROEDLER 2495 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822240008 SARKIS DJERDJIAN 2501 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822130005 DAVID A BJORK 2511 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822130004 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSO 2519 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822130003 MARGARET G ENGSTROM 2525 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822130031 KIMBERLY L KNIPPENBERG 2539 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822130030 LEE R FOSTER 2549 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822130002 C RICHARD KASTNER 2585 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822130089 WILLIAM E BRUHN 2611 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822410012 EARL R CHAPMAN 2660 HIGHWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822210081 CRAIG D RHODE 2442 LINWOOD AVE 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822210082 STEVEN E ALBRECHT 2454 LINWOOD AVE 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822220010 MAUREEN M WEISMAN 2262 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822220009 LEIF C MADSON 2278 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822220008 TCHENG YANG 2294 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822220007 THOMAS J PERZICHILLI 2300 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822330077 V GEORGE OXFORD 2305 LINWOOD AVE E 3 $2,000.00 $6,000.00
132822220039 TONY J JOHNSON 2308 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822330078 STEFAN IFKEWITSCH 2313 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822220040 DOUGLAS J LASKA 2314 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822220005 JANICE L AURELIUS 2324 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822330079 CHRIS MASON 2325 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822220004 JERRY A HARRIGAN 2336 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822220003 ROBERT E HANSON 2342 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822330090 LESTER W LANGE 2349 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822220002 STEVEN A KRUEGER 2350 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822220073 XIA LOR VANG 2358 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822330091 XIA L VANG 2359 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822330092 DOMINADOR J ALOJADO 2369 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822330184 DANIEL TSEGAI 2371 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822330185 JUDITH M GERVAIS 2373 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822340069 CHERYL R STAHNKE 2383 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822340070 THOMAS LEE VAN HEEL 2401 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822340077 GABRIEL CLENDENEN 2413 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822340006 FREDERICK E NAZARIAN 2425 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822340071 KIRK A HUGO 2437 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822340054 HUE MOUA 2445 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822340055 KENNETH G HAIDER 2453 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822210084 MATTHEW G MCCOLLOW 2460 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
122822340056 CAROL H BATTEY 2461 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822210086 KRISTEN M SYRDAL 2480 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822120001 BARBARA M DEMPSEY 2616 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822110018 JOHN E GREGERSON 2622 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822110024 DARROYL R HANSON 2632 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
PENDING ASSESSMENT ROLL
2012 MILL AND OVERLAYS ‐ CITY PROJECT 11‐15
HIGHWOOD AVENUE
LINWOOD AVENUE
Agenda Item I1
Packet Page Number 136 of 233
Notes Parcel ID Tax Payer Street
Number Street Commercial
L.F.Units Mill & Overlay
Assessment
Total
Assessment
132822110020 JOHN C EATON 2660 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822110021 GEORGE M ANDERSON 2670 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822110007 BRIAN D HERIAN 2680 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822110006 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG ASSN 2688 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822110005 ALIX M THEISSEN 2698 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
132822110004 THEODORE SELBITSCHKA 2710 LINWOOD AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
362922130019 DENCO AUTOMOTIVE INC 2545 CONWAY AVE E 168.84 0 $40.00 $6,753.60
***362922240002 3M COMPANY 2301 MCKNIGHT RD N 8106.17 0 SEE NOTE BELOW $371,164.52
252922320015 WILLIAM B ROBBINS 2277 STILLWATER AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
252922320030 BEAVER LK EVANG LUTH CHURCH 2280 STILLWATER AVE E 617.89 0 $32.50 $20,081.43
252922320016 LOUIS W HOPKINS JR 2293 STILLWATER AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
252922320017 DENNIS M DANICH 2307 STILLWATER AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
252922320029 BIGOS SILVER RIDGE LLC 2330 STILLWATER AVE E 723.75 0 $40.00 $28,950.00
252922320026 MICHAEL T DELANEY 2351 STILLWATER AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
252922320028 JAMES D FARRELL 2361 STILLWATER AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
252922320027 WILLIAM J RUTHERFORD 2341 STILLWATER RD E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
242922330017 GARY J SALKOWICZ 2299 MARYLAND AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
242922330019 MARVIN M WOLF 2307 MARYLAND AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
242922330022 RUSSELL A NIEZGOCKI 2313 MARYLAND AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
242922330021 WALTER R JENSEN 2319 MARYLAND AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
242922330009 TIMOTHY J OKEEFE 2325 MARYLAND AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
242922330010 JASON L JUETTEN 2335 MARYLAND AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
242922330011 JOHN G WYKOFF 2345 MARYLAND AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
242922330052 DAKOTA COMMUNITIES 2355 MARYLAND AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
242922330053 PATRICK H WALTERS 2365 MARYLAND AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922130001 ALVIN C LINDNER 1928 ADOLPHUS ST N 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922410001 KELLER LAKE APARTMENTS LLC 1915 ARCADE ST 139 0 $25.00 $3,475.00
172922140081 KELLER LAKE AUTO REPAIR INC 1925 ARCADE ST 52.29 0 $49.00 $2,562.21
172922140080 FRANKLIN P MICHAEL 1933 ARCADE ST 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922320001 ROSOTO LLP 1901 DESOTO ST N 293.23 0 $25.00 $7,330.75
172922420001 FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL PK ASN 1800 EDGERTON ST N 1470.15 0 $40.00 $58,806.00
172922310001 GARRETT S KRAMER 1855 EDGERTON ST N 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922240026 IND SCHOOL DIST NO 623 1929 EDGERTON ST N 435.6 0 $40.00 $17,424.00
172922130059 DONALD V KORTUS 1930 EDGERTON ST N 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922140082 JAMES R WARREN 1931 KENWOOD DR E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922320005 ANDREW N D PIONTEK 1912 MCMENEMY ST N 0.5 $2,000.00 $1,000.00
182922320025 337 GROUP COMPANY LLC 1870 RICE ST 507.39 0 $49.00 $24,862.11
182922320028 P & B INVESTMENTS LLC 1908 RICE ST 138.47 0 $40.00 $5,538.80
182922230018 ALICE M ZIITTEL 1958 RICE ST 700.28 0 $40.00 $28,011.20
172922230056 KATHLEEN R DELANEY 0 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922310025 NATASHA N CARDINAL 42 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922310004 GARY T TIERNEY 70 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922310003 LINDA L DEHAVEN VANPATTEN 78 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922240019 KEVIN D MORSE 81 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922310002 DOUGLAS J MEWHORTER 86 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922240018 JOSEPH W JUNEAU 87 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420015 JOHN P STRANTZ 112 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922130100 KERRY L KAPAUN 113 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420014 DEBORAH I HUDOBA 120 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922130101 ANGELA B DWYER 121 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420013 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST C 128 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922130102 DENISE L ANDERSON 129 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420012 WAYNE WELDON 134 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922130103 ALBERT B NIETERS 135 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420011 RAYMOND L MILLER 142 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922130104 DEBORAH A SAMAC 143 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420010 VICKI M KENNEDY 150 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922130105 JACQUELINE ROSE AMLOTTE 151 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420009 NEIL A PETERSEN 156 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922130106 JOHN W WROBLESKI 157 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420008 ROSE MARIE SCHWAGEL 162 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922130107 TIFFANY A CORK 163 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420007 BERNARD CRAIG 170 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922130108 MICHELLE L SWENSON 171 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420006 EUGENE E VANNESS 176 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922130109 VALERIE L JENNINGS 177 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420005 RICHARD J CONRAD 184 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922130110 WILLIAM C ROSS 185 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420004 MIKE D NAGAN 192 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922130111 MOLLY FEE 193 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420003 DANIEL LOUIS LIEDER 200 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420002 HELIODORO SARINANA 206 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922420001 WANGMENG T XIONG 216 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922140014 ST PAUL BUSINESS CENTER INVST 225 ROSELAWN AVE E 48 0 $49.00 $2,352.00
MARYLAND AVENUE
ROSELAWN AVENUE
CONWAY AVENUE
STILLWATER AVENUE
Agenda Item I1
Packet Page Number 137 of 233
Notes Parcel ID Tax Payer Street
Number Street Commercial
L.F.Units Mill & Overlay
Assessment
Total
Assessment
182922140008 UPPER MIDWEST HOSPITALITY INC 305 ROSELAWN AVE E 234.8 0 $25.00 $5,870.00
182922410005 BAO K YANG 306 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922410004 JAMES HILL 314 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922410003 NAPOLEON H BRUNEAU 320 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922140007 ST PAUL AREA BOARD REALTORS 325 ROSELAWN AVE E 190 0 $25.00 $4,750.00
182922410002 JOHN C THOMAS 328 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
182922410001 DONALD L ZETTEL 334 ROSELAWN AVE E 0.5 $2,000.00 $1,000.00
172922230057 DESOTO ASSOCIATES LP 375 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922320004 CHURCH OF ST JEROME 380 ROSELAWN AVE E 812.45 0 $32.50 $26,404.63
172922230060 MAURICE P SCHNEIDER 443 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922240025 KATE H EDREY 471 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922310009 CAROL DUPRE 474 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922240012 W M STADLER 477 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922240013 ELIZABETH A WAGNER 487 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922240014 RICK D ERLANDSON 495 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922310008 PAUL WILLIAM NOLAN 498 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922310007 ROBERT L ALLEN 500 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922240015 CHRISTINE LOCKE 501 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922240016 ROGER S LARSON 509 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922310006 DANIEL J POWERS 510 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922240017 KENNETH F CONWAY 515 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922310005 DAVID R QUARLES 520 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922240018 RICHARD M JANKE 521 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922240019 NORA L THIGPEN 527 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922240020 JULEE M DWE 535 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922310094 EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN GOOD 550 ROSELAWN AVE E 475 0 $49.00 $23,275.00
172922130060 NATHAN L AASNESS 605 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922130061 THOMAS M LUNDBERG 615 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922130036 PAUL A THOLE 659 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922130014 ROGER F CREWS 687 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922140038 RICHARD D PIERRE 707 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922140039 ADAN IBARRA RAMOS 715 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922410039 RICHARD C PERSON 722 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922410011 LINNEA KOLESAR 740 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922140051 TIMOTHY JENSEN 741 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922410010 SANDRA S SHEARER 748 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922410009 GREGORY A MCCREARY 750 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922140052 RONALD J NELSON 751 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922140053 REBECCA L NILSESTUEN 755 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922410008 KENNETH P CRIPPEN 762 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922140054 GREGORY A REESE 763 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922140055 NOEL L DUNN 767 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922410007 STEPHEN M MARKERT 768 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922410006 MARK KINSTLER 774 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922140079 LAURA M SWENSON 795 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
172922410003 ANNETTE M GARBERS 800 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $2,000.00
$2,000.00
**032922140015 CW BIRCH RUN LLC 1715 BEAM AVE E 892.33 0 $49.00 $43,724.17
**032922140006 CW BIRCH RUN LLC 1719 BEAM AVE E 52.55 0 $49.00 $2,574.95
**032922140013 JACOB BROTHERS MOUNDSVIEW LLC 1745 BEAM AVE E 63.89 0 $49.00 $3,130.61
**032922140016 PARK SHORE INCORPORATED 1747 BEAM AVE E 93.77 0 $49.00 $4,594.73
**032922140008 GENERAL MILLS INC 1749 BEAM AVE E 84.84 0 $49.00 $4,157.16
**032922140011 MCDONALDS REAL ESTATE CO 2935 SOUTHLAWN DR N 37.09 0 $49.00 $1,817.41
**022922220007 MAY DEPT STORES CO 3001 WHITE BEAR AVE N 202.66 0 $49.00 $9,930.34
**022922220008 MAINSTREET RETAIL STORES INC 3001 WHITE BEAR AVE N 89.16 0 $49.00 $4,368.84
**022922230003 SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO 3001 WHITE BEAR AVE N 266.16 0 $49.00 $13,041.84
**022922230007 JCPENNEY PROPERTIES INC 3001 WHITE BEAR AVE N 100 0 $49.00 $4,900.00
**022922230010 MAPLEWOOD MALL ASSOC LP 3001 WHITE BEAR AVE N 649.63 0 $49.00 $31,831.87
**022922220010 PERCY POONIWALA 3030 SOUTHLAWN DR N 127.38 0 $49.00 $6,241.62
TOTALS = 17772.77 182
TOTAL = $1,131,924.78
ASSESSMENT RATES:
RESIDENTIAL ‐ MILL & OVERLAY RATE = $2,000.00 PER UNIT
COMMERCIAL L.F. ‐ MILL & OVERLAY RATE = VARIES
NOTE: THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT RATE IS PER THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY
**BOLD = MALL LOTS USING PRORATED METHOD
PRORATED METHOD = [(FRONTAGE OF SOUTHLAWN DRIVE) x (LOT AREA / TOTAL MALL AREA)
*** FORMULA FOR ASSESSMENT OF 3M PROPERTY ‐ PID NUMBER 362922240002
SOUTH SIDE OF CONWAY AVENUE = 5,213.08 L.F. X $49.00 PER L.F. = $255,440.92
NORTH SIDE OF CONWAY AVENUE = 2,893.09 L.F X $40.00 PER L.F. = $115,723.60
TOTAL PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AMOUNT = $371,164.52
SOUTHLAWN DRIVE
Agenda Item I1
Packet Page Number 138 of 233
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 139 of 233
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 140 of 233
Packet Page Number 141 of 233
Packet Page Number 142 of 233
Packet Page Number 143 of 233
Packet Page Number 144 of 233
Packet Page Number 145 of 233
Packet Page Number 146 of 233
Packet Page Number 147 of 233
Packet Page Number 148 of 233
Packet Page Number 149 of 233
Packet Page Number 150 of 233
Packet Page Number 151 of 233
Packet Page Number 152 of 233
Packet Page Number 153 of 233
Packet Page Number 154 of 233
Packet Page Number 155 of 233
Packet Page Number 156 of 233
Packet Page Number 157 of 233
Packet Page Number 158 of 233
Packet Page Number 159 of 233
Packet Page Number 160 of 233
Packet Page Number 161 of 233
Packet Page Number 162 of 233
Packet Page Number 163 of 233
Packet Page Number 164 of 233
Packet Page Number 165 of 233
Packet Page Number 166 of 233
Packet Page Number 167 of 233
Packet Page Number 168 of 233
Packet Page Number 169 of 233
Packet Page Number 170 of 233
Packet Page Number 171 of 233
Packet Page Number 172 of 233
Packet Page Number 173 of 233
Packet Page Number 174 of 233
Packet Page Number 175 of 233
Packet Page Number 176 of 233
Packet Page Number 177 of 233
Packet Page Number 178 of 233
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Request for Used Car Sales –
Kline Auto World
LOCATION: 2610 Maplewood Drive
DATE: April 17, 2012
INTRODUCTION
Rick Kline, representing Kline Auto World, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit
(CUP) to sell used cars at the former Mitsubishi dealership building located at 2610 Maplewood
Drive. The city ordinance requires a CUP to sell only used cars (the sale of new and used cars
is permitted, however).
BACKGROUND
Past Action
On August 27, 1984, the city council approved the use and plans for a new car dealership.
On September 27, 1993, the city council approved a CUP to expand an automobile maintenance
garage within 350 feet of a residential lot line.
City Zoning Code Requirements
Section 44-512(5) requires a CUP for the sale and leasing of “used” motor vehicles. Such used
auto sales must also be at least 350 feet away from property that the city is planning for
residential use.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
The proposed used car sales operation would meet the requirements for CUP approval outlined
in the city ordinance. This proposal would utilize the existing facility and would require no
expansion or alteration of the building or site.
After the site was developed for an auto dealership in 1984, the ordinance was amended to
require a 350 foot separation from property zoned for residential. There is a home 223 feet to
the east from this site. The existing building is grandfathered in since it was built under another
set of guidelines.
Agenda Item J1
Packet Page Number 179 of 233
2
COMMITTEE ACTION
Planning Commission
On March 20, 2012, the planning commission held a public hearing and recommended approval
of the proposed CUP revision for used car sales.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit to allow the sale of used cars at 2610
Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the
following conditions:
1. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
2. All activity shall be confined to the site. There shall be no loading or unloading of vehicles on
the street rights-of-way.
3. The applicant shall comply with and observe the city’s noise ordinance as it relates to PA
systems or any other business activity.
4. Comply with all city ordinance requirements for signage and parking.
Packet Page Number 180 of 233
3
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 3.68 acres
Existing Use: The former Polaris, Victory & Suzuki Motorcycles building
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Lakeview Lutheran Church Polaris, Victory & Suzuki Motorcycles
South: Connor Avenue and Walser Used Car Dealership
East: Frontage Road and single-family residential
West: Highway 61
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: C (commercial)
Zoning: M1 (light manufacturing)
Criteria for CUP Approval
Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards.
See findings 1-9 in the resolution.
APPLICATION/DECISION DEADLINE
We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on March 13, 2012. State law
requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. The deadline
for city council review, therefore, is May 12, 2012.
p:sec9\Kline Used Car Sales CUP CC_042312
Attachments
1. Location
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Site Plan
5. Applicant’s Letter of request, dated February 17, 2012
6. Planning Commission minutes, dated March 20, 2012
7. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
Packet Page Number 181 of 233
2610 Maplewood Drive Use Car Sales Lot
Location Map and Aerial Photo
Attachment 1
Used Car Sales
Packet Page Number 182 of 233
2610 Maplewood Drive Use Car Sales Lot
Land Use Map
Attachment 2
Used Car Sales
Commercial
Government
Low Density Residential
Institutional
Packet Page Number 183 of 233
2610 Maplewood Drive Use Car Sales Lot
Zoning Map
Attachment 3
Used Car Sales
Light Manufacturing
Single Dwelling
Double Dwelling
Packet Page Number 184 of 233
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 185 of 233
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 186 of 233
Attachment 6
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012
5. PUBLIC HEARING
b. Conditional Use Permit Request for Used Car Sales, 2610 Maplewood Drive
i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the
commission.
Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing.
1. Jan Schulte, Kline Auto World, 2610 Maplewood Drive, Maplewood, addressed and
answered questions of the commission.
Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution approving a conditional use
permit to allow the sale of used cars at 2610 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on
the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions:
1. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
2. All activity shall be confined to the site. There shall be no loading or unloading of
vehicles on the street rights-of-way.
3. The applicant shall comply with and observe the city’s noise ordinance as it relates to
PA systems or any other business activity.
4. Comply with all city ordinance requirements for signage and parking.
Seconded by Commissioner Boeser Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 187 of 233
Attachment 7
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Rick Kline, representing Kline Auto World, applied for a conditional use permit to
sell used cars.
WHEREAS, Section 44-512(5) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit for the
sale and leasing of used motor vehicles.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2610 Maplewood Drive. The legal
description is:
Speiser's Arbolada, subject to road and easements and vacated road accruing and
except Northeasterly 3 feet; Lot 12, also part of Lots 5 and 10 lying northerly of a line 240
feet northerly of and par with the South line of Block 1 and all of
Lot 4 and Lot 11, Block 1; and
Speiser's Arbolada, subject to road and easements and vacated road accruing; part of
Lots 5 and 10 lying southerly of a line 240 feet northerly of and par with the South line of
Block 1 and all of Lots 6 through 9, Block 1.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On March 20, 2012, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners.
The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present
written statements. The planning commission also considered the report and
recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city
council approve this permit.
2. On April 23, 2012, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city
staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council __________ the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and this Code.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance
to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes,
Packet Page Number 188 of 233
water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical
interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
2. All activity shall be confined to the site. There shall be no loading or unloading of
vehicles on the street rights-of-way.
3. The applicant shall comply with and observe the city’s noise ordinance as it relates to PA
systems or any other business activity.
4. Comply with all city ordinance requirements for signage and parking.
The Maplewood City Council __________ this resolution on April 23, 2012.
Packet Page Number 189 of 233
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director
Steven Love, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Approval of Initial Findings, July 16th Storm Clean-up and Investigation,
City Project 11-19
DATE: April 13, 2012
INTRODUCTION
The following agenda report provides the council with an update on the status of City Project 11-19,
July 16th Storm Clean-up and Investigation.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On Friday evening through Saturday morning (July 15-16, 2011) the city received 4.54 inches of rain,
with a majority of that total received over a 3 hour span on Saturday morning. A 100-year storm event,
which has only a 1% chance of occurring in any given year, equates to 3.8 inches of rain over a 3 hour
span. So clearly the 100-year storm event was eclipsed causing many problems throughout the city.
The high intensity storm event taxed the overall storm sewer networks especially the ponds and lakes
which could not drain fast enough to avoid flooding and backups in the storm pipe networks.
Following the storm event 20 areas were identified that reported localized flooding issues. Please refer
to the attached City Map showing the approximate general location of these areas. The City Council
authorized the establishment of a budget of $100,000 for the investigation and remediation efforts of
the localized flooding issues resulting from the July 16, 2011 storm event.
City staff and S.E.H., the City’s consultant, have been meeting with property owners, performing
preliminary site reviews, building drainage models, researching area history, and completing design
alternatives. Several of the identified areas are being reviewed together as they are part of an overall
larger drainage system.
S.E.H. and city staff have completed the initial site investigation. Attached to the agenda reports is
S.E.H.’s memorandum for the 2011 Floods – Initial Assessments and Investigations dated April 16,
2012. This memorandum outlines for each study area a description of the problems reported from the
July 19, 2011 storm event, a summary of the review and analysis efforts conducted to date, a
description of implementation actions and activities conducted to date, recommendations for
implementation actions or additional analysis needs, and estimated cost for each recommended action.
Agenda Item J2
Packet Page Number 190 of 233
COMPLETED REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES
Since the July 16, 2011 storm event the following is a list of areas and the remediation efforts that have
been completed to date:
Area #5a - Wakefield Lake Outlet: Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has included the
outlet structure improvement as part of a District lead improvement project completed in 2012.
Area #9 - TH 36 at Vento Trail: Detailed modeling analysis of the existing system has been completed
and preliminary plans for addressing flooding is underway as part of English Street/TH 36 Interchange,
City Project # 09-08.
Area #10 - 1398 Myrtle Street: The outlet structure consists of a wooden weir skimmer structure and
a reduced pipe on the wetland outlet. The outlet was found to be free of significant debris. Public
works staff shall continue regular inspection of the outlet structure during annual spring snowmelt to
confirm free flowing conditions. If additional review of the pond overflow conditions along Arlington
Avenue during a winter or spring snowmelt condition is required to assess the severity of the problem
the estimated cost of the review process is $500.00.
Area #11 - 1866 & 1874 East Shore Drive: City crews replaced the existing 3” PVC outlet with a 12”
RCP outlet. This improvement will significantly reduce the depth and duration of high water levels in
the backyards of the residents of 1866 and 1874 East Shore Drive.
Area #14 - County Road D Court: Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has replaced the
storm sewer culvert and the section of road that washed out during the storm event.
Area #16 - Truck Utilities: Detailed modeling analysis of the existing system has been completed and
preliminary plans for addressing flooding are underway as part of English Street/TH 36 Interchange,
City Project # 09-08.
Area #17a – 2260 VanDyke Street: City crews replaced the existing catch basin with a beehive inlet
grate to reduce the potential for plugging of the inlet during rainfall events. City crews will continue
regular maintenance of the existing catch basins located on VanDyke Street.
RECOMMENDED 2012 REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES
The following is a list of current activities and recommended 2012 remediation projects, the area name,
proposed remediation activity, and an estimated cost:
Area #5b - Wakefield Lake I&I: The sanitary sewer system will be televised and/or smoke tested in
the areas adjacent to the three properties along Hazelwood and Prosperity that experienced backup in
the July 2011 storms. This condition assessment work will identify any blockages or major inflow and
infiltration into the system. Following this initial investigation work and identification of the cause(s) of
the backups, potential improvements will be evaluated and a plan and schedule will be developed. The
estimated cost of the initial investigation work is $10,000 to televise and smoke test the systems. Costs
associated with the review of the sanitary sewer backup will be covered as part of the ongoing I&I
program.
Agenda Item J2
Packet Page Number 191 of 233
Area #7.1 - Knucklehead – Lark Avenue: This area is currently under review.
Area #8 – Edgerton Pond and Area #12 – Roselawn Park Pond: City staff has been coordinating
with Ramsey County, Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD), Capital Regions
Watershed District (CRWD), and the City of St. Paul on a project that will provide a permanent solution
to the flooding issues to the Edgerton Pond area. This review also looks at the effects that the
Roselawn Park Pond has on the overall drainage area system.
Ramsey County is currently planning a road maintenance project this summer for Edgerton Street. The
City of Maplewood is working with Ramsey County to coordinate the installation of a lift station and
piping system along Edgerton Street south to Larpenteur Avenue. By coordinating the construction
activities with Ramsey County there will be a significant savings to the cost of construction by reducing
or eliminating items such as restoration. The estimated cost associated with the lift station and piping
system work is $100,000.00.
Area #15 - 2496 Flandrau Street: Public works staff recommends surveying the existing ponding area
and low opening of home at 2496 Flandrau Street. City forces will install an outlet structure that will
connect to the existing storm sewer system to the southeast. This will provide the necessary
emergency outlet for the ponding area adjacent to 2496 Flandrau Street. Staff is currently working with
the adjacent property owners on this solution. The estimated cost of the survey work by city staff is
$1,000.00 and $5,000.00 for the construction of the outlet structure. The total cost of the proposed
remediation work is estimated at $6,000.00.
Area #18 - 2010 Co. Road B East: Survey the property of 2010 County Road B East and the ditch
segment along County Road B East to define options for an emergency overflow from the residential
area. Design emergency overflow path at 2010 County Road B East. The estimated cost of the survey
work by city staff is $2,000.00 and $10,000.00 for the design of the emergency overflow path. The total
cost of the proposed remediation work is estimated at $52,000.00. The funding should be reviewed
after the completion of the design to verify that construction in 2012 is feasible. Staff is recommending
further coordination with Ramsey County for review of possible solutions along County Road B East.
Area #19 - 2324 Holloway Avenue: Work with public works crews to clear and grade City of
Maplewood property adjacent to the back property line of 2324 Holloway Avenue to remove a subtle
berm that has developed over time. This grading will provide free drainage from the backyard to the
storm water pond located on the City of Maplewood property. The estimated cost for public works
crews to complete clearing, grading, and restoration is $3,000.00.
Area #20 - 2482 Adele Street: Staff is exploring an opportunity to directionally drill an outlet pipe from
the backyard into the ponding areas to the east. The feasibility of this approach will depend on the
elevation of the ponding areas to the east relative to the low point in the backyard at 2482 Adele. If
adequate grade is available, the estimated cost of drilling an outlet pipe through the existing berm is
$35,000 to $45,000 for survey, design and construction. The initial survey work is estimated at $1,500-
$2,000. Timing of this project is dependent on project funding.
Agenda Item J2
Packet Page Number 192 of 233
RECOMMENDED FUTURE PROJECTS AND CIP REMEDIATION PROJECTS
Area #1 - City Hall Pond: Review elevation of MCC low opening relative to the emergency overflow
elevation (EOF) from Wicklander pond. Evaluate EOF options for the MCC parking lot. The estimated
cost for the review work is $2,000.00.
Area 17b - 2260 Van Dyke Street: Continued regular maintenance of the catch basins at the low point
to remove debris/leaves is recommended. At the time Van Dyke Street is reconstructed it is
recommended to review the storm sewer system’s capacity and condition and at the low point located
at 2260 Van Dyke Street. Cost associated with any improvements of the storm system as part of the
reconstruction of Van Dyke Street will be covered as part of the associated CIP project.
Area #2 - Ivy Pond System and Area #3 - Glendon Pond and Area 4d - Lakewood Drive/McKnight
Road: These three areas are group together as part of an overall drainage area and recommended to
be studied as part of a future Capital Improvement Project (CIP). This CIP project would look into
potential diversion of flows from Glendon Pond, additional capacity near the Ivy Pond system, and
impacts to drainage at the crossing on Lakewood Drive. The estimated cost for the feasibility study is
$20,000.00. The total cost of the proposed remediation work will be determined as part of the feasibility
study.
Area #4b -Gas Station – McKnight Road and Area #4c - McKnight CBs and Area #6 - Larpenteur
Avenue at Sterling Street: These areas are grouped together as part of an overall drainage area and
recommended to be studied as part of a future Capital Improvement Project (CIP). This CIP project
would identify improvements that will aid in protecting the area during extreme rainfall events. The
estimated cost for the feasibility study is $15,000.00. The total cost of the proposed remediation work
will be determined as part of the feasibility study.
Area #12 - 500 Ripley: Review cost-benefit of lift station near 500 Ripley. The estimated costs
associated with the lift station review are $2,000.00.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The impacts of the flooding from this event will be to place an additional burden on the Environmental
Utility Fund [EUF]. The current Capital Improvement Plan calls for an annual average increase in the
EUF rates of 10% each year for the next five years. Sustaining those increases will result in a positive
cash balance in the fund as well as eliminating any requirements for bonding of the EUF program. This
flood event will add some substantial costs to the program over the next 3-5 years that will likely reduce
the projected cash balance, but will likely not require increases to the EUF fee beyond the 10% annual
increase. We are estimating that adding the projects from this investigation into the EUF program will
require $300,000 to $500,000 in additional improvements over the next 3-5 years. It is the staff
recommendation that this program and fee charged to property is exactly the reason that this fund and
the subsequent charge was created. It is projected that the annual increase will place the City fee
within the upper 25% of fees charged in the metro area, but will not put Maplewood’s EUF fee in the top
10% of charges. Given that Maplewood is one of 30 cities in the state of Minnesota that are required to
implement storm water requirements as part of our NPDES permit, having our fee at this level seems
reasonable.
Agenda Item J2
Packet Page Number 193 of 233
SUMMARY
City staff and S.E.H. have completed the majority of the site visits. SEH’s initial investigation memo,
dated April 16, 2012, is attached to this report. For each of the indentified areas this memo includes
findings, conclusions, remediation recommendations, and recommendations for areas in need of further
analyses. Through the work of our City forces, RWMWD projects, and planned CIP projects seven of
the flood areas have or will be receiving remediation work. Currently there are 8 areas actively being
worked on and 9 areas are recommended as future projects. It is recommended that the City Council
adopt this report and authorize the City Engineer to prepare work plans for the next 3-5 years to begin
implementing the recommended projects.
Attachments:
1. 2011 Flooding Issues Map
2. 2011 Floods – Initial Assessments and Investigations Memo, April 16, 2012
Agenda Item J2
Packet Page Number 194 of 233
CITY OF MAPLEWOODLEGENDSTATE HIGHWAYSCOUNTY ROADSCITY STREETS1234a4c4b4d56778910111213141516EXHIBT A - 2011 FLOODING ISSUES1 - CITY HALL POND2 - IVY POND SYSTEM3 - GLENDON POND4 - McKNIGHT ROAD5 - WAKEFIELD LAKE6 - LARPENTEUR AVENUE7 - KNUCKLEHEAD LAKE8 - EDGERTON POND9 - T.H. 36 UNDERPASS FOR BRUCE VENTO TRAIL10 - 1398 MYRTLE STREET11 - 1874 & 1866 EAST SHORE DRIVE12 - 500 RIPLEY13 - SCHNEIDERS POND14 - COUNTY ROAD D COURT15 - 2496 FLANDRAU STREET16 - TRUCK UTILITES17 - 2260 VAN DYKE ST18 - 2010 COUNTY ROAD B19 - 2314 HOLLOWAY AVE20 - 2482 ADELE ST17181920Agenda Item J2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 195 of 233
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Love, PE, PLS
Assistant City Engineer
City of Maplewood
FROM: Ron Leaf, PE
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
SEH
DATE: April 16, 2012
RE: 2011 Floods - Initial Assessments and Investigations
SEH No. 117558 14.00
BACKGROUND
Friday evening through Saturday morning on July 15 and 16, 2011, portions of the City of Maplewood
(City) received a reported 4.54 inches of rain. A majority of that total received over an approximate 3
hour time span during the early morning hours on Saturday, July 16th. As reported in the July 19, 2011,
Agenda Report to Council for the July 25, 2011, Council Meeting, a 100-year storm event equates to 3.8
inches of rain over a 3 hour span. A 100-year event is defined as an event that has a 1% chance of being
exceeded in any given year. Based on the reported depth and duration of rainfall for the July 2011 event,
some areas of the City experienced a storm larger than the “100-year storm event.” This extreme event
caused many problems throughout the City as well as throughout much of the northern metropolitan area.
This high-intensity storm event taxed the overall storm sewer networks including the storm water ponds,
wetland areas and lakes which could not drain fast enough to avoid flooding and backups in some
localized areas. The storm sewer system throughout much of the City is designed to handle a 10-year
storm event and the ponds and other detention areas are designed to handle a 100-year event.
Following the storm event, Public Works Maintenance staff was involved with immediate response
activities such as visiting homes and verifying the condition of vital storm sewer outfalls and reviewing
localized flooding areas to determine an appropriate response. The immediate response of maintenance
staff was to provide temporary pumping of Edgerton Pond, 500 Ripley, Schneider’s Pond near 443
Roselawn Ave, 1874 & 1866 East Shore Drive, and 2496 Flandrau Street. The City of Vadnais Heights
shared one of their unused pumps with Maplewood. Engineering department staff met with a number of
affected businesses and residents within the first week after the storm to gather relevant site specific
information and to help in identifying potential future improvements.
A small number of locations that experienced flooding during this event have also required pumping in
the past, most notable Edgerton Pond. These specific areas were designated higher priority areas in
identifying improvements along with the location of the two homes on Lark Avenue that flooded as a
result of high water levels of Knuckle Head Lake. According to the one owner on Lark Avenue this area
also flooded during the storms of 1987.
With an apparent increase in the frequency of the “100-year storm,” the City has determined that
additional measures are likely needed in selected areas. Over the past few years, the City has made
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 196 of 233
2011 Floods - Initial Assessments and Investigations
April 16, 2012
Page 2
improvements to the local drainage system on private property by acquiring easements and improving
overflow elevations and installing new overflow piping outlets. Identifying minor improvements such as
these in addition to more substantial improvements are expected as part of this preliminary review.
INITIAL REVIEWS
In response to the reported areas of high water or flooding, the City initiated a review of 17 specific areas
that were listed in the July 19, 2011, Agenda Report. The City requested that SEH assist in reviewing the
problem areas and assessing potential solutions for each area. Since that original Agenda Report, the list
of areas to review has expanded to a total of 20. An updated location map of these areas is attached as
Exhibit A.
For the purposes of this initial review process, several of the individual areas have been combined to
better group the problem areas where the drainage system is connected and/or where the overall area was
evaluated. Table 1 provides a summary of the recommendations and preliminary cost estimates for the
specific areas and groupings evaluated as part of this preliminary work. Additional detail on the work
completed to date for each area and grouping is provided in Exhibit B.
Table 1. Summary of Recommendations and Status for 2011 Flooding Areas
Area
ID Area Name Recommendations Estimated Cost /
Status
1 City Hall Pond Review City Hall pond overflow elevation. $2,000
17a
17b
2260 Van Dyke Continue regular maintenance of CB inlets.
Installed beehive to reduce plugging.
Construct additional inlet capacity of CBs on Van
Dyke during future street recon project.
$0 annual inspections
$185 Beehive (Done)
$15,000 (with future
Street Recon project).
2 Ivy Pond System Evaluate the feasibility of a potential diversion of
flows from Glendon Pond and creating
additional flow capacity near Ivy. Coordinate
with RWMWD and complete detailed modeling
to review potential benefits and costs of a
diversion(s).
$20,000 Feasibility
Study and modeling.
Implementation costs
TBD following
feasibility analysis.
3 Glendon Pond
4d Lakewood/McKnight Rd.
4a McKnight at TH 36 Continue regular inspection and maintenance of
the BL‐110A pond/wetland basin inlet and outlet
structures.
Complete hydraulic model and Feasibility Study
to define extent of problem and identify cost
effective improvement options.
$0 – Annual
Inspections program.
$15,000 Feasibility
Study.
4b Gas Station – McKnight
4c McKnight CBs
6 Larpenteur at Sterling
5a
5b
Wakefield Lake Outlet RWMWD will make improvements to outlet
structure.
Televise, smoke test and manhole inspections of
sanitary sewer to identify inflow problems.
$0 ‐ RWMWD outlet
project. (Done)
$10,000 Inspections
program.
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 197 of 233
2011 Floods - Initial Assessments and Investigations
April 16, 2012
Page 3
Table 1. Summary of Recommendations and Status for 2011 Flooding Areas (Continued)
Area
ID Area Name Recommendations Estimated Cost /
Status
9 TH 36 at Vento Trail Improvements for Areas 9 and 16 are planned as
part of TH36/English Street Interchange project
for construction in 2013‐2014.
Area 7 is currently under review.
Areas 9 and 16
included in TH36 /
English area work.
(Done / 2012)
TBD
16 Truck Utilities
7 Knucklehead Lake – Lark
Ave. residential properties
8 Edgerton Pond Install permanent lift station for Edgerton Pond
during Ramsey County reconstruction project.
MOU with St. Paul, Ramsey Co., and two
watersheds will be needed.
Review cost‐benefit of lift station at 500 Ripley.
$100,000 Lift station
and piping
$2,000
12 500 Ripley
13 Roselawn Park Pond Evaluating improvements as part of Edgerton
Pond modeling.
Anticipate that the long‐term solution will
involve and outlet to the Edgerton Pond system.
$1,000
$0 to $150,000
10 1398 Myrtle Street Continue regular inspection and maintenance of
wetland complex outlet structure.
Visit Arlington Street during a spring snowmelt
event to review potential plugging and possible
improvements.
Annual inspection of
outlet structure and
review of spring
snowmelt event.
(Done)
11 1866 & 1874 East Shore Dr Improvements completed by City crews.(Done) $10,288
14 Co. Road D Court Improvements completed by RWMWD.(Done)
15 2496 Flandrau Street Survey emergency overflow swale in easement.
Option 1 – Route line to private site storm sewer
Option 2 ‐ Grade overflow to elevation lower
than low opening of 2496 Flandrau.
$1,000 Survey.
$5,000
$10,000‐20,000
Construction.
18 2010 Co. Road B East Survey along Co. Rd B ditch and property/home
elevations. Identify potential surface overflow
routes at elevation lower than low floor.
Grade/install outlet to downstream outlet point.
$2,000 Survey.
$30,000‐50,000
Construction.
19 2324 Holloway Clear and grade overflow from property to storm
pond. Homeowner to investigate tile layout.
$0 ‐Clearing and
grading.
20 2482 Adele Install pipe outlet from low point in yard to the
east through the berm along back property line.
$30,000‐$45,000
Survey, design,
construction.
NEXT STEPS
Of the more than twenty listed areas of concern identified during the July 2011 storm events, five of the
areas (Areas 5a, 10, 11, 14 and 17a) have had improvements already completed by the City or by the
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 198 of 233
2011 Floods - Initial Assessments and Investigations
April 16, 2012
Page 4
Ramsey-Washington-Metro Watershed District (RWMWD). Several other projects are currently in the
design process and will be completed as part of projects that are already underway, including Areas 9 and
16, as part of the TH 36-English Improvements. Additional projects that can be completed easily by
Public Works crews, such as Areas 15 and 19 are expected to be completed in 2012.
At least four of the areas can be completed as part of future street reconstruction work (Area 17) or can be
planned for work in 2012 (such as Areas 18 and 20). These improvements are small to medium sized
improvements in the $10,000-$50,000 range each. Public Works crews will be completing several of
these improvements. Cost estimates for others assume work will be completed by a private contractor
following some initial surveying to confirm critical elevations in the areas. However, Public Works crews
may be able to complete some of these additional improvements at costs lower than estimated.
The remaining areas will need some additional analysis to identify feasible and cost-effective
improvement options. Several of the areas have been combined into groups based on their location in the
drainage system and their hydrologic connection to each other. Significant work has already been
completed in a few of the areas such as Edgerton Pond and the 500 Ripley area, and the next step will be
to revisit the previous improvement options in more detail to determine the relative cost-benefit of each
option. Edgerton Pond improvements may be able to be combined or coordinated with a planned Ramsey
County reconstruction project on Edgerton Street to make the improvements more cost effective.
Only one of these remaining areas experienced flooding of a building or significant structure (Area 4b)
during the July 2011 storms, and that area should be a higher priority as the improvement options are
reviewed in more detail. Most of the remaining areas have been managed effectively in the past through
the use of temporary pumping systems. While nuisance flooding conditions have occurred in these areas,
we are not aware that of any reported damage to buildings or property. Therefore, the focus of the
additional analysis for these areas should be to determine if the temporary pump system approach is likely
to be a cost effective option in the future.
Attachments:
Exhibit A – 2011 Flood Areas, Location Map
Exhibit B – 2011 Flood Areas; Initial Assessments and Investigations
Exhibit C – Desoto Area Drainage Memorandum (December 2009)
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 199 of 233
EXHIBIT A
Location Map
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 200 of 233
CITY OF MAPLEWOODLEGENDSTATE HIGHWAYSCOUNTY ROADSCITY STREETS1234a4c4b4d56778910111213141516EXHIBT A - 2011 FLOODING ISSUES1 - CITY HALL POND2 - IVY POND SYSTEM3 - GLENDON POND4 - McKNIGHT ROAD5 - WAKEFIELD LAKE6 - LARPENTEUR AVENUE7 - KNUCKLEHEAD LAKE8 - EDGERTON POND9 - T.H. 36 UNDERPASS FOR BRUCE VENTO TRAIL10 - 1398 MYRTLE STREET11 - 1874 & 1866 EAST SHORE DRIVE12 - 500 RIPLEY13 - SCHNEIDERS POND14 - COUNTY ROAD D COURT15 - 2496 FLANDRAU STREET16 - TRUCK UTILITES17 - 2260 VAN DYKE ST18 - 2010 COUNTY ROAD B19 - 2314 HOLLOWAY AVE20 - 2482 ADELE ST17181920Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 201 of 233
EXHIBIT B
Initial Assessments
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 202 of 233
B-1
EXHIBIT B
2011 FLOOD AREAS – INITIAL ASSESSMENTS AND INVESTIGATIONS
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MN
JANUARY 12, 2012
A summary for each of the initial assessments completed are provided in the following pages. Area
numbers correspond to the Area IDs shown in Exhibit A. Note that some of the areas have been combined
where they are close in proximity and/or are part of the same storm sewer or overland flow system. Each
of the summaries is formatted in the following order:
A. A description of the problem area(s) and area identification number(s) as presented in the July 19,
2011 Agenda Report;
B. A summary of our review and analysis efforts conducted to date;
C. A description of implementation actions and activities conducted to date;
D. Recommendations for implementation actions or additional analysis;
E. An estimated cost for each recommended action.
AREA #1 - City Hall Pond (Wicklander Pond)
AREA #17 –2260 Van Dyke Vacant home on
A – Description of Problem Area(s)
#1. City Hall Pond – Overflowed into the Maplewood Community Center (MCC) parking lot and receded
3 to 4 hours later. No description for the Van Dyke areas was provided in the initial Agenda Report.
#17. Van Dyke – Not included in original Agenda Report. The vacant home at 2260 Van Dyke
experienced some flooding in the yard and along the foundation. Catch basin(s) in the street were plugged
with debris. The water level reportedly dropped quickly after debris was removed.
B – Summary of Review and Analysis
Based on our initial review of the pond at City Hall (Wicklander Pond), the overflow into the driveway at
MCC did not impact any buildings on the City Hall Campus. While no hydrologic or hydraulic modeling
was completed to analyze the response of the pond system, it is reasonable to assume that the system
responded generally as expect. City crews noted that a large volume of runoff from the east of the Public
Works yard also enters the pond and the area resulted in significant flows during the July 2011 event
which created some temporary flooding conditions with the Public Works yard.
We have review the general routing of the storm sewer system in Van Dyke and it is connected to
Wicklander Pond. Record drawings show a normal water level (NWL) of 898 and a 100-year High Water
Level (HWL) in Wicklander Pond at about elevation 904. The storm sewer invert at 2260 Van Dyke is at
about elevation 916 and the road surface elevation is at about elevation 920. Therefore, we believe the
downstream conditions in Wicklander Pond are not likely to have caused or significantly contributed to
issues in Van Dyke. Instead, the problem was likely caused by a combination of catch basin inlet capacity
and the partially plugged storm sewer inlets found by Public Works crews. Short-term, City crews can
install a beehive inlet grate to reduce the potential for plugging of the inlet during rainfall events.
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 203 of 233
B-2
Based on field observations and record plans the MCC low opening is below the elevation of the
emergency overflow in the parking lot/driveway west of the pond and the elevation of White Bear
Avenue. Record drawings of the storm sewer show that the 54-inch outlet pipe from Wicklander Pond has
a positive slope into the pond and the functional outlet elevation is in the manhole structure just east of
White Bear Avenue. The outlet elevation is at 898.08 and it outlets to the west into a 42-inch pipe then
south along the west side of White Bear Avenue. Wicklander Pond area is mapped as a Zone A Flood
Hazard area, with no elevation assigned to the flood hazard boundary.
C – Implementation Actions to Date
City staff has installed a beehive inlet grate at the low point along Van Dyke street to reduce the potential
for inlet plugging.
D - Recommended Actions
1. Continue routine maintenance of the Van Dyke catch basins in the low point to remove
debris/leaves that could plug or partially plug the inlets.
2. Increase the inlet capacity of the Van Dyke catch basins in the low point during future street
reconstruction project. At the time of street reconstruction design, review the storm system
capacity and condition overall.
3. Review elevations of MCC low opening relative to the emergency overflow elevation (EOF)
from Wicklander Pond. Longer term consider creating a hydraulic model to evaluate the pond
outlet network that ultimately discharges to Wakefield Lake to determine if increase outlet
capacity from Wicklander Pond would reduce the flooding risk at MCC and if there would be any
significant downstream impacts. Evaluate options for creating a lower EOF at the time the MCC
parking lot needs maintenance. Review the upstream contributing areas as part of this assessment.
E – Preliminary Cost Estimate
1. Install inlet grate beehive. $185
2. Construct Van Dyke inlet capacity improvements $15,000 (with future street recon)
3. MCC parking lot improvement assessment $2,000
AREA #2 – Ivy Pond
AREA #3 – Glendon Pond
AREA #4d – Lakewood/McKnight Road
A – Description of Problem Area(s)
#2. Ivy Pond System – The area south of Ivy Avenue between Century Avenue and Ferndale Street
experienced a large amount of issues as a number of yards were flooded when the Mn/DOT ditch from
Century Avenue overflowed into the area and then down into the neighborhood. Additionally, pavement
patching and repair work to Farrell Street was damaged and washed away.
#3. Glendon Pond – The low areas around Glendon Pond were underwater and waters encroached upon
yard areas. This basin drains north across Maryland Avenue and the discharge rate is controlled by the
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 204 of 233
B-3
system on the north side of Maryland Avenue. During large events the Glendon Pond area is slow to
recede as it must allow the water on the north side of Maryland Avenue to move through the system first.
#4. McKnight Road – Experienced areas of flooding - 1 of the 4 major areas observed:
d. McKnight, south of Maryland, where it turns into Lakewood Boulevard (near Beaver Lake), the
entire roadway flooded and at the time of observation had receded to allow one lane to be
passable.
B – Summary of Review and Analysis
We have completed and initial review of the drainage system and record drawings of the storm sewer
system. All three of these issue areas are part of the same overall drainage network that starts along TH
120/Century Avenue to the east and discharges to Beaver Lake just west of Lakewood Drive. Much of the
wetland area north of Maryland is mapped as a Zone A Flood Hazard Area and Glendon Pond is also a
mapped Zone A. Zone A area designated areas without an assigned 1% chance flood elevation. Based on
the RWMWD Plan, the flood elevation is approximately 965.4 for the area north of Maryland and the
area including Glendon Pond has a flood elevation of approximately 866.7.
A hydrologic model of the Glendon Pond system was created by the Ramsey-Washington-Metro
Watershed District (RWMWD) that shows the 100-year high water level for Glendon Pond at elevation
966.7 (for a 100-year, 1-hour storm event). The pond area was expanded slightly as part of the Ferndale-
Geranium Street reconstruction project in 2007-2008 by adding a pre-treatment filtration cell at the west
end of the basin. The street reconstruction project and the added filtration cell did not result in a change in
the reported high water level on Glendon Pond.
We have completed an initial site area visit and have contacted the RWMWD to inquire about the
availability of modeling and supporting information. RWMWD has an “in-house” model of some
portions of the system. The in-house model is not a widely available model such as HydroCAD or XP-
SWMM, and therefore a more detailed review of the model is needed to evaluate the potential for
improvements in the system. Depending on the level of detail available in the RWMWD model for the
area of interest, the RWMWD may be able to run a few improvement scenarios very efficiently. Another
approach, if less than the necessary detail is available in their model, is to convert the model to a more
widely used modeling software such as XP-SWMM. The two dimensional modeling capabilities of XP-
SWMM would likely apply well to this complex routing network.
One concept discussed with City staff would be to reroute a portion of the Glendon Pond outflow directly
to the west (on the south side of Maryland Ave) towards the ditch segment located west of Sterling. The
challenges with this concept would be balancing the improvement in the Glendon Pond water levels with
the potential downstream impacts in the channel between Sterling and south of Magnolia, as well as the
crossing of Lakewood Avenue where temporary flooding also occurred. Coordination with the Watershed
District would be needed before any change in the routing of flows could be implemented.
The area south of Ivy Avenue and west of Century could also be evaluated as part of the modeling work
described above. The main pipe system in this area collects drainage form Century and portions of the
Dennis/Farrell Street neighborhood and outlets to the same wetland complex that the Glendon Pond outlet
discharges to (in Drainage Area BL-120N). It is very likely that capacity of the storm system was
exceeded and the overland flow resulted in the localized flooding. The more detail modeling effort
recommended in this area would evaluate the potential for additional pipe capacity or for improving the
overland flow conditions to reduce the potential flooding.
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 205 of 233
B-4
C – Implementation Actions to Date
NA
D - Recommended Actions
1. Assess the level of detail in the Ramsey-Washington-Metro Watershed District existing
hydrologic model to evaluate potential improvement options.
2. Meet with RWMWD to initiate discussions on potential related issues in the area. The RWMWD
Plan indicates that there are no know flooding issues in the Beaver Lake subwatershed at the time
the Plan was completed. The focus of implementation actions for the WD is on water quality
improvements.
3. If the WD is open to discussing potential changes in the routing of the drainage system, complete
a feasibility study to identify the most feasible and cost effective approach for obtaining
improvements in the overall system. Study would also assess what, if any, floodplain mapping
changes would be needed for routing changes that reduce the high water levels on Glendon Pond
or the wetland north of Maryland. The WD would likely partner in the improvement efforts if the
rerouting work would include water quality benefits to Beaver Lake.
E – Preliminary Cost Estimate
1. Drainage System Modeling and Feasibility Study $20,000
2. Implementation / construction costs TBD
AREA # 4b – Gas Station at McKnight Road and Larpentuer Avenue
AREA #4c – McKnight Road Catch Basins
AREA #6 – Larpentuer Avenue at Sterling
A – Description of Problem Area(s)
#4. McKnight Road – Experienced areas of flooding - below are three of the four major areas observed:
a. McKnight Road in North Saint Paul, under T.H. 36 had a number of cars stalled with water
reaching window levels
b. McKnight Road, approximately 300 feet south of Larpenteur Avenue, was flooded with a couple
of stalled cars.
c. The parking lot of the gas station along the northeast corner of McKnight Road and Larpenteur
was flooded. The owner later reported that his fuel tanks had been flooded.
#6. Larpenteur Avenue – East of Sterling Street water had risen up onto the west bound lane of
Larpenteur Avenue near the Hill-Murray baseball field. The water was not too deep and vehicles were
able to get through.
B – Summary of Review and Analysis
We have completed a site visit of the area and have completed a general review of the storm system
routing. The Larpentuer Avenue area on the east side of Sterling is connected to the west side through a
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 206 of 233
B-5
culvert. This culvert connects the east side (BL-106) to drainage area BL-109. Area BL-110A which is
located just east of the gas station and is the basin that the gas station lot drains to, also drains to BL-109
and then to BL-106. The catch basins just south of Larpentuer (Area 4c in BL-201) drain to the pond in
BL-110A.
During our brief site visit, we observed what appears to be limited inlet capacity in the catch basins within
the parking lot. The contour information shows that the surface elevation in the lot is at about elevation
1016 and the pond to the east is at about 1012 to 1016. The downstream pond in BL-109 is at about
elevation 1002-1004, so it appears that adequate grade is available.
Without some level of modeling it is difficult to determine what factors contributed most to the flooding
that occurred in the lot and catch basins in McKnight Road. However, we believe it was likely a
combination of limited catch basin inlet capacity and high tail water elevations in pond BL-110A. We
have not had a chance to discuss the storm response conditions with the Gas Station property owner to
date. That discussion would likely help to understand and define what may have contributed to the high
water levels at this location.
C – Implementation Actions to Date
City crews have completed maintenance on the ditch section at Larpentuer and Sterling.
D - Recommended Actions
1. Inspect pond BL-110A inlets and outlet structure. Inspect culverts from south of Larpentuer into
pond BL-110A for sediment and debris on a regular basis during the summer months and prior to
implementing any improvements in the system. Completed following July 2011 storm event.
2. Complete a feasibility study on the area to identify improvements that will be protective of
extreme event rainfalls. Key effort in study would be to create a detailed XP-SWMM hydraulic
model of the system to evaluate potential improvement options in the overall system.
E – Preliminary Cost Estimate
1. Annual inspections of system $0 - Annual inspection program.
2. Drainage System Modeling and Feasibility Study $15,000
AREA #5 – Wakefield Lake Outlet
A – Description of Problem Area(s)
#5. Wakefield Lake – Experienced sewer backup issues related to the storm event. At the time of this
report a total of 4 homes (Hazelwood & Prosperity) were subject to basement flooding that may have
been caused by lake and drainage systems overflowing into and flooding the sanitary sewer system.
Cleaning services were provided to these homes. Currently the sanitary sewer main pipes are being
televised to determine if there was a cross connection issue.
B – Summary of Review and Analysis
Related to the sanitary sewer issues along Hazelwood and Prosperity, we have obtained the Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services (MCES) flow data for their sanitary sewer metering stations in the area.
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 207 of 233
B-6
The flow conditions in the sanitary sewer system show a significant spike in the system the morning of
July 16th. Based on input from City staff, sewer back-up conditions have occurred in this are in the past
during large rainfall events. In order to better understand what the contributing factors are, the City should
conduct a condition assessment of the sanitary sewer system in the contributing area. This assessment
would include televising portions of the system and conducting manhole inspections to evaluate where
there is inflow to the system.
C – Implementation Actions to Date
The Ramsey-Washington-Metro Watershed District will be looking into the outlet structure
improvements as part of a District-lead improvement project.
D - Recommended Actions
1. Support RWMWD Outlet Improvement Project.
2. Complete condition assessment of the sanitary sewer infrastructure in the contributing sewer
system pipes and manholes.
E – Preliminary Cost Estimate
1. Work to be completed by RWMWD $0
2. Sanitary Sewer Condition Assessment $5,000-$10,000
AREA #7 – Knucklehead Lake
AREA #9 – TH 36 Underpass
AREA #16 – Truck Utilities
A – Description of Problem Area(s)
#7. Knucklehead Lake – The Knucklehead Lake system had several localized flooding issues:
a. The Knucklehead Lake system east of Hazelwood was nearly backed up onto Cope Avenue
causing water to overflow into the parking lots of several businesses and south into the park.
b. 1673 & 1665 Lark Avenue – The back yard flooded Saturday morning (July 16th, 2011) and water
entered into the homes. Staff has been coordinating with both residents. The resident of 1673
Lark Avenue stated that his building has previously flooded twice in 1987.
#9. T.H. 36 Underpass for the Bruce Vento Trail – This area was flooded with a stalled car. This
area has had a repeated history of flooding during events in 1984, 1987, 1994, and 2000.
#16. Truck Utilities – This facility is located near T.H. 36 and English Street south of Gerten Pond. The
facilities backyard storage area had 30 inches of standing water.
B – Summary of Review and Analysis
City staff met with the residents on Lark Avenue that experienced flooding following the storm event.
SEH has created a hydrologic/hydraulic model for the area to evaluate the response of the Knucklehead
Lake system and look at potential improvement scenarios in the overall area contributing to Gerten Pond.
We have reviewed record drawings for the overall drainage area and have built a detailed XP-SWMM
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 208 of 233
B-7
hydrologic/hydraulic model of much of the trunk storm sewer system. We have reviewed a report
prepared by SEH in 1988 of the Footprint Lake Outlet and miscellaneous drainage improvements. The
plans and report show that there was a flap gate in the outlet pipe from the Lark Avenue backyards prior
to the drainage improvements completed by the City in the 1989-1990 timeframe. The flap gate was
apparently removed during the public improvements along Cope Avenue in the late 1980’s, although the
flap gate removal is not mentioned in the 1988 report as a recommendation. A note in the construction
plans the plans identifies the flap gate as being removed as part of the 1989 construction project.
The design engineer of record for those 1989 improvements was interviewed and stated that the back
yards were regularly being flooded due to the flap gate not opening for smaller and more frequent storm
events. He recalls that there was discussion of the difficulty in maintaining the flap gate. He further
recalls that City staff discussions with the residents concluded that removing the gate would reduce the
frequency of water ponding in the backyards but that Knucklehead Lake could bounce to a high water
level that would backflow from the pipe and into the backyards on Lark Avenue. Related improvements
in the overall drainage system reduced the peak depth of the 100-year design storm for Knucklehead
Lake.
Improvement options for the Knucklehead Lake, Lark Avenue area are currently under review.
C – Implementation Actions to Date
Completed detailed modeling of the TH 36 system and have a preliminary plan for addressing flooding in
the Truck Utilities site and the TH 36 underpass. Preliminary design work is currently underway. The
design team met with MnDOT Hydraulics staff the week of January 9th to review the overall storm water
routing options before moving into the final design phase of the project. Improvement options for the
Lark Avenue area are currently under review.
D - Recommended Actions
1. For Area 9 (TH36 Underpass) and Area 16 (Truck Utilities), implement the planned
improvements as part of the TH 36-English Street improvements.
E – Preliminary Cost Estimate
1. TH 36 / Truck Utilities (Areas 9 and 16) Included in TH 36-English project
2. Lark Avenue Area. Under review.
AREA #8 – Edgerton Pond
AREA #12 – 500 Ripley
AREA #13 – Roselawn Park Pond
A – Description of Problem Area(s)
#8. Edgerton Pond – A number of headstones were reported under water at the cemetery. Currently no
structures have been reported as having received water damage, but a number of yards were flooded. This
will mark the third time this year the Edgerton Pond has had to be pumped and in the past 5 years the
pond has been pumped almost a dozen times.
#12. 500 Ripley – This small no outlet pond filled and was subsequently pumped.
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 209 of 233
B-8
#13. Roselawn Park Pond/443 Roselawn - Experienced localized flooding issues with no reported
structural flooding and required temporary pumping to prevent basin from overflowing and causing
damage.
B – Summary of Review and Analysis
We have reviewed the previous hydrologic analyses completed in the area of 500 Ripley and Edgerton
Pond. Several studies and reports were prepared by the City in 1988 including the Edgerton and
Roselawn Trunk Storm Sewer Feasibility Report (City Project 85-08), April 1988, and the Feasibility
Report on Maple Hills Storm Water Pumping Station (City Project 85-08), January 1988. This work
recommended improvements consisting of three main elements: storm sewer connection of several storm
ponds and land-locked basins; a storm water lift station from the Maple Hills Pond to Round Lake; and
establishing easements over a number of storm water detention areas in the system. The preliminary cost
estimates for these improvements in 2003 was on the order of $250,000. The recommendations of these
previous studies were not implemented due, in part, to lack of public support and concerns with routing
water to different watershed.
In July 2003, the City initiated project 03-27, which proposed improvements to address localized flooding
and to reduce pumping costs and time at two locations: Roselawn Park Pond (Area #13 in this study) and
Edgerton Street south of Roselawn (i.e., Edgerton Pond – Area #8 in this study). No major storm water
issues had been present since 1988 at these locations except for the need to regularly pump at these
locations. The draft report prepared for these improvements recommended installing rain water gardens in
Edgerton Park to reduce the volume of runoff entering Roselawn Park; and a storm sewer force main
routed to the southwest along the DNR trail corridor to the storm sewer system at the intersection of
Larpentuer and Desoto. These improvements were not implemented.
Engineering Department staff has recently learned that Ramsey County will be completing improvements
to Edgerton Street in 2012. The improvements will consist of recycling the existing bituminous pavement
and repaving from Roselawn to Larpentuer. This work may create an opportunity for the City to install a
more permanent (or semi-permanent) lift station for Edgerton Pond. City crews currently lay a temporary
pipe and hose system from the south end of Edgerton Pond to Larpentuer Avenue when pumping is
needed in the area. Combining this work with the Ramsey County street reconstruction would result in
substantial savings in the costs of implementing improvements. Staff is currently working with Ramsey
County, the City of St. Paul, the Capitol Region Watershed District and the Ramsey Washington Metro
Watershed District to develop a Memorandum of Understanding for installation and operation of a lift
station to serve as an outlet for Edgerton Pond.
For the 500 Ripley area, SEH previously completed a study of the pond located just west of Bradley
Street and Ripley Avenue as described in a memorandum dated December 28, 2009 and titled Desoto
Area Drainage System Evaluation. The study was intended, in part, to evaluate the response of the pond
following street construction work and identify potential improvement options that would reduce the
depth and/or duration of high water levels following larger rainfall events. The memorandum presents ten
options which range in costs from $500 to more than $50,000, excluding costs of obtaining easements.
Based on the previous analyses completed in 2009 in the Desoto/Ripley area, the risk of damage to the
adjacent homes from surface flooding is low. The emergency overflow elevation from this basin is the
road low point at 862.82 and the low opening of the home is at 864.5. Therefore, there appears to be no
significant risk of surface flooding to the home, provided that the current practice of pumping excess
water from the pond continues. Current practice is to pump the pond when the water surface elevation
approaches the elevation of the sump pump outlet 855.85. The effect of the runoff on the surrounding soil
conditions surrounding the home foundation is not known. However, from discussions with City staff, we
understand that there have not been any basement flooding conditions at the adjacent home. If this is in
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 210 of 233
B-9
fact the case, it is likely that continued pumping on an as-needed basis could continue to be an effective
management approach for this basin.
As discussed in the summary for 500 Ripley (Area #12) and Edgerton Pond (Area #8), the City initiated
project 03-27 in July 2003, which proposed improvements to address localized flooding and reduce
pumping costs and time at two locations: Roselawn Park Pond (Area #13) and Edgerton Street south of
Roselawn (i.e., Edgerton Pond – Area #8). No major storm water issues had been present since 1988 at
these locations except for the need to regularly pump at these locations. Flooding and pumping creates
nuisance conditions for residents due to the traffic changes the temporary piping and hose systems create.
The flooding also creates difficult conditions for the public works crews as the pumps need to be manned
continuously during operation.
The draft report prepared for these improvements recommended installing rain water gardens in Edgerton
Park to reduce the volume of runoff entering Roselawn Park; and a storm sewer force main routed to the
southwest along the DNR trail corridor to the storm sewer system at the intersection of Larpentuer and
Desoto. The report describes both a gravity outlet system to the south east and a force main to the
southeast. The force main option was the recommended approach in 2003 at an estimated cost of roughly
$92,000. These improvements were not implemented.
The opportunity to create a gravity outlet from the basin is being evaluated as part of the modeling work
on the Edgerton Pond system. The outlet would ultimately drain to Edgerton Pond during extreme rainfall
events. The basin in Roselawn Park is classified as a wetland. Excavation of the areas surrounding the
wetland could be completed and established as buffer to provide additional flood storage. The steep
slopes on the north side of the park limit the extent of storage that could be completed, although it appears
that sufficient area would be available adjacent to the existing pond/wetland. If the improvements include
some level of excavation and the soils are acceptable as fill, the City could consider use of the excavated
soils at the Maplewood Dump site, for example, if this area needs additional fill.
C – Implementation Actions to Date
Public works has continued temporary pumping during periods of high water levels in Edgerton Pond and
the pond at 500 Ripley. Staff is currently modeling the drainage system to assist in design of an outlet and
is working with Ramsey County, the City of St. Paul, the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) and
the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) to develop a Memorandum of
Understanding for installation and operation of a lift station to serve as an outlet for Edgerton Pond.
D - Recommended Actions
1. For both areas, prepare a detailed cost estimate of staff time and equipment operation and
maintenance costs for the current temporary pumping approach based on the past 20 years.
Answer the question - can a sump/storage chamber improve the efficiency of the temporary
pumping approach.
2. For Edgerton Pond, coordinate potential lift station and piping system installation as part of
Ramsey County reconstruction work on Edgerton Street. The estimated cost of a permanent lift
station system in 2003 was $158,000. The costs would be somewhat less is combined with the
Ramsey County work, estimated at roughly $80,000 to $110,000. Initial discussions with both
Watershed Districts yielded overall support of the improvement concept. Early stages of design
work would need to produce a hydrologic assessment of the relative frequency of operation and
high water level relative to adjacent structures and homes. If this approach is not viable, revisit
the options presented in the draft Feasibility Report prepared by the City in 2003. Compare the
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 211 of 233
B-10
cost-benefit of potential improvements compared to the current costs of the temporary pumping
approach.
3. Complete modeling analysis of Edgerton Pond and Roselawn Park Pond systems to evaluate the
design and operational parameters for a lift station form Edgerton Pond. Coordinate lift station
operational parameters with project partners and downstream entities (St. Paul and CRWD).
4. For 500 Ripley, review the options presented in the December 28, 2009, Desoto Area Drainage
Memorandum (attached Exhibit C). Compare cost-benefit to current temporary costs.
E – Preliminary Cost Estimate
1. Edgerton Pond – Modeling and Coordination $20,000
2. Edgerton Pond / Lift Station/Piping along Edgerton $80,000
3. Review cost-benefit of lift station near 500 Ripley $2,000
4. Roselawn Park Pond Outlet Improvements TBD
AREA #10 – 1398 Myrtle - DONE
A – Description of Problem Area(s)
#10. 1398 Myrtle Street – The wetland behind the property rose 3-5 feet according to reports from the
resident and they were worried about possibly losing their oak trees and how the outlet from the wetland
was working. Later reports from the resident indicated the level of the wetland had started to recede.
B – Summary of Review and Analysis
Steve Love and Ron Leaf met with the homeowner on September 12, 2011, to review the site conditions
and interview the homeowner for information relating to the July 16th storm event. Homeowner has been
in the home for 6 years. In that time he has seen some smaller rainfall event s partially fill the wetland
area adjacent to his backyard. The July 16, 2011, event resulted in the highest water level he has seen in
the wetland basin. He has observed some higher water levels in spring snowmelt events, including the
spring of 2011.
The water level reached the base of several oak trees in his backyard. The resident indicated that the high
water level was reached at about 12:30-1:00 PM on July 16, 4-5 hours after the rainfall has stopped. The
water level stayed high for 2-3 hours then dropped about a foot in the first 24 hours after the storm. The
homeowner’s main concerns are for the function of the outlet structure on the large wetland basin and
some of the local drainage that overflows from a pond onto Arlington Avenue just west of his home. The
overflow during spring snow melts is a concern due to icy road conditions.
C – Implementation Actions to Date
Based on our initial review of the as-built plans and reported high water levels, the wetland system
appears to have responded as expected for a storm of this magnitude. The outlet structure was visited in
the field after meeting with the resident and determined to be free of any significant debris. The outlet
structure has a wooden weir skimmer structure and a reduced on the wetland outlet pipe. The outlet
structure is consistent with the record drawing available for the area.
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 212 of 233
B-11
The record drawings from 1993 show some slight variations on the upstream pond system on the north
side or Arlington Avenue (the area that overflows onto the road) compared to what is in place today.
However, the record plans show that the overflow from the pond would overflow into the road and be
directed to the east towards Myrtle Street and ultimately into the wetland system to the south and east of
1398 Myrtle.
D - Recommended Actions:
1. Public works staff should inspect the outlet structure during or immediately following the annual
spring snowmelt to confirm free flowing conditions and to remove any debris or blockage that
may be present.
2. Public works crews will review the pond overflow along Arlington during a winter or spring
snowmelt condition to assess the severity of the problem. The pipe is shallow and crews have
experience some freezing that has resulted in the pipe being plugged in the past due to the
shallow pipe condition. If it is determined to be a safety hazard, potential could be evaluated at
that time.
E – Preliminary Cost Estimate
1. Wetland Basin outlet inspections $0
2. Review conditions on Arlington during spring snowmelt event. $500
AREA #11 – East Shore Drive – DONE
A – Description of Problem Area(s)
#11. 1874 & 1866 East Shore Drive – The wetland area behind the homes rose to a high level and
pumping ensued.
This area has been a recurring nuisance for the homeowners due to standing water in the backyard for
several hours to days following moderate to heavy rainfall events.
B – Summary of Review and Analysis
SEH analyzed the system with a hydrologic/hydraulic model of the area and recommended increasing the
outlet pipe size from a 3-inch PVC to a 12-inch RCP. The memorandum prepared by SEH describes some
additional improvements that could be considered in the area as future street reconstruction work is
completed.
C – Implementation Actions to Date
Improvements were installed by City crews in late August 2011. The results of this improvement will
significantly reduce the depth and duration of high water levels in the backyard of the resident on East
Shore Drive. However, due to the location of the home in a relatively low area without a surface
overflow, the potential for extreme rainfall events that would exceed the capacity of the system, maintain
a risk of high waters at this property.
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 213 of 233
B-12
D - Recommended Actions
1. Continue to observe response of system and inspect new pipe for debris.
E – Preliminary Cost Estimate
The cost of the completed work was $10,287.78. Total costs included: pipe; concrete, asphalt and base
material for the road reconstruction; topsoil; equipment rental; and labor.
AREA #14 – County Road D Court - DONE
A – Description of Problem Area(s)
#14. County Road D Court – East of Highway 61 a storm sewer culvert and a section of the road were
washed out during the storm event. Emergency repairs were required for this area in order to provide
access to the Xcel sub-station and dental business.
C – Implementation Actions
1. RWMWD has completed improvements. $0
AREA #15 – 2496 Flandrau Street
A – Description of Problem Area(s)
#15. 2496 Flandrau Street – The resident called in concerned about the level of water behind his house.
Public Works Maintenance staff responded by sending out a pump to reduce the water level.
B – Summary of Review and Analysis
Steve Love and Ron Leaf met with the homeowner on August 30, 2011, to review the site conditions and
interview the homeowner for information relating to the July 16th storm event. Homeowner has been in
the home for 3 years. In that time he has seen some smaller rainfall event s partially fill the wetland as
well as snowmelt creating some higher water levels in the basin. The townhome property on the far side
of the wetland stores snow from plowing operations on the wetland area.
During the July 16, 2011, storm event the homeowner observed water to the top of his timber wall and
past several trees between the home and the wetland. No damage to the home occurred, but the water
level reached an elevation within about a foot below the low floor elevation. The homeowner indicated
that the peak water level occurred after the rainfall had stopped. Public works staff pumped the basin for
an estimated 5 hours on Monday and 10 hours on Tuesday.
We reviewed the grading plan for the adjacent townhome development and it shows an overflow swale
between some garages in the townhome development and the backyard at 2496 Bittersweet. Three
properties along the swale have a relatively new wooden fence along the swale. It was difficult to
determine if the swale is the overflow point for the wetland basin or if the road in the townhome
development serves as the overflow.
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 214 of 233
B-13
C – Implementation Actions to Date
None to date.
D - Recommended Actions
1. Survey overflow points and low opening of the home at 2496 Flandrau to determine where
overflow is and what the risk of flooding in the home is.
2. Option 1 - Consider lowering of the swale, or returning it to the planned elevation shown in the
record drawings if current elevations are higher than show on the grading plan. Recommend
lowering it 0.25-0.5 feet lower than the plan to allow for some natural change/increase in
elevation over time. The difficulty with this option is the need to remove and possible reinstall the
fence along the lot line.
3. Option 2 - Review pipe elevations in private storm sewer in the townhome development for
possible lower outlet pipe. Staff will need to obtain an easement from the private development.
E – Preliminary Cost Estimate
1. Survey - completed by City staff $1,000
2. Implement improvements
a. Option 1 – route basin overflow to catch
basin in private development. $5,000
b. Option 2 - Grade overflow swale to lower $10,000-20,000
elevation. Along residential fencline.
AREA #18 – 2010 County Road B East
A – Description of Problem Area(s)
This area was not included in the July 19, 2011, Agenda Report. The property experience severe flooding
in the yard, garage and in the home. Homeowners had damage to the lower level of the home and a
vehicle that parked in the driveway.
B – Summary of Review and Analysis
Steve Love and Ron Leaf met with the homeowner on September 6, 2011, to review the site conditions
and interview the homeowner for information relating to the July 16th storm event. The homeowner was
home during the storm event and noticed several inches of water in the lower level. The homeowner
indicated that the when she opened the service door into the garage, a rush of water entered the home. She
observed the water level in the garage to be two to three feet in depth (see photo of approximate water
level). The homeowner called several friends and relative who came to help pump the water surrounding
the front of the home and garage area to the backyard where it abuts the regional trail corridor. It
reportedly took two days to pump the water level down to where it no longer was ponding in the garage or
home.
We walked the perimeter of the home and both east and west along County Road B to review the
condition of the drainage system and attempt to determine where the runoff came from during the rainfall
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 215 of 233
B-14
event. The overflow from the low area where the garage and front of the house sit appears to be to the east
into North St. Paul across the gravel yard of the automotive repair shop next door. Based on our
observations the water level appears to have been about two feet deep at the garage door. Several of the
upstream culverts along County Road B East were observed to be partially plugged. No scour or erosion
was observed along the drainage course. The downstream culverts also had sediment accumulation that
likely reduced the flow capacity in the south ditch.
We also walked down Stanich Street and spoke to the homeowners at 1996 Stanich. They described
flooding within the street and backyards, but reported that they were not aware of any damage to homes.
The backyard of 1996 Stanich shares the same low area adjacent to the regional trail as the home at 2010
County Road B East.
The house clearly sits in a low point in the drainage system. What’s not clear without additional survey or
reviewing County Road B East as-built drawings, is where the runoff from extreme events was intended
to route. It appears that the routing was intended to be along the south ditch of County Road B East,
although as stated previously, several of the upstream culverts were found to be at least partially plugged.
The routing at the west driveway entrance to 2010 County Road B East appears to route to the south
towards the regional trail. It is possible at this west driveway entrance that the runoff may have skipped
over the subtle berm and entered the driveway area and into the low point. The surface elevation of the
residential property is at about 950 base don’t he Ramsey County contour data. TH backyard low area
along the regional trail is at about 946, or roughly four feet lower. Much of the south ditch of County
Road B is at an elevation between 946 and 950 so there is little opportunity for lowering the overflow
elevation significantly. However, there is the potential to provide an outlet lower than the low floor
elevation that might consist of a ditch/pipe combination. The primary challenge appears to be how much
room is available in the existing right-of-way to provide a surface route with adequate capacity for
extreme event runoff conditions.
On the north side of Co. Rd. B near 5th Street in North St. Paul, the surface elevations drop to around 936
to 940, which is where the current Co. Road B ditch system outlets. The area is also designated a Flood
Hazard Zone AE with a Base Flood Elevation of 939 on the east side of the trail and 938 on the west side
of the trail.
Bryan Nagle informed Steve that he understood that North St. Paul also had some flooding during the
storm event at the County Road B East/7th Street intersection several blocks to the east. Ron Leaf
contacted Scott Duddeck, North St. Paul’s Public Works Director, to discuss what they experienced
during the event. Scott indicated that they had some flooding at that location due to a completely plugged
culvert. Scott indicated that it had been a recurring issue for some time. Scott had already been in contact
with Charlie Markham at Ramsey County. Ron Leaf followed up with a separate call to Charlie on
September 7, 2011. Mr. Markham returned the call and left a voice message that they had programmed
some inspection and maintenance of the area into their schedule.
As of late November 2011, the County has completed some ditch clean out and restoration work on
portions of the County Road B ditch in North St. Paul. While this will improve the drainage in the
immediate areas, it is uncertain if this will have any significant impact on the property at 2010 County
Road B.
C – Implementation Actions
Ramsey County has recently completed some ditch cleanout and maintenance work on the ditch sections
closer to 7th Street in North St. Paul.
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 216 of 233
B-15
D - Recommended Actions:
1. Review County Road B East record drawings.
2. Meet with Ramsey County to review their plans for additional culvert improvements and/or
maintenance work along County Road B East.
3. Recommend that Ramsey County complete some survey of grades along the ditch system from
the top of the hill west of 2010 County Road B East to the wetland system in North St. Paul east
of 7th Street and north of County Road B East. Obtain the survey data if/when available. As an
alternate approach, the City could complete some survey of the immediate area upstream of 2010
County Road B East. The goal of the survey work would be to better assess if and where the ditch
capacity was exceeded during the July 16, 2011 storm resulting in overflow into the residential
property. Survey would also help to define options for an emergency overflow for the residential
area or if creating a berm to limit the ditch flow from entering the residential property would be
feasible.
4. Note that Met Council Environmental Services has plans for lift station improves in the auto
repair shop lot that is adjacent to the flooded property and these improvements should be
considered during review of ditch modifications in the immediate area.
5. Even with improved culvert conditions along CR B East, the potential for flooding at this
property would likely remain due to the potential for culverts to become plugged with debris
during large storm events. A complete solution will likely require a secondary overflow at an
elevation below the low floor elevation at 2010 County Road B East.
E – Preliminary Cost Estimate
1. Survey of the property and ditch segment along Co. Rd. B East $2,000
2. Meeting with Ramsey County and Met Council City Staff time
3. Ditch maintenance County
4. Install emergency overflow path from resident to downstream location $30,000-50,000
AREA #19 – 2324 Holloway
A – Description of Problem Area(s)
This area was not included in the July 19, 2011, Agenda Report.
B – Summary of Review and Analysis
Steve Love and Ron Leaf met with the homeowner on August 30, 2011, to review the site conditions and
interview the homeowner for information relating to the July 16th storm event. Homeowner has been in
the home for more than 10 years and has had water in the furnace room in the past but did not experience
water in the furnace room during the July 16 event. No water was coming in from the floor drain. There is
also a remnant of a conduit that originated in the back garage that currently runs through the concrete
floor slab. The homeowner has filled this where possible, although it was the source of some water in the
home on the morning of July 16, 2011. The home was built in 1954.
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 217 of 233
B-16
There are several small drain inlet areas in the back entry step and in the lower garage in the back yard. A
small drain outlet is located near the back property line, although where this system originates is not
currently known. Ponding occurs near the outlet due to an area of trees and brush that have apparently
resulted in the ground being raised a few inches over the years in the surrounding areas. Some simple
clearing and grading would provide a free outlet to a larger pond system in City property just
downstream.
Homeowner indicated that he has completed some mud jacking and void filling in the driveway area in
the past to help reduce the amount of water that seeps through the ground in to the lower garage. There
has also been a drain filed and septic system in the back yard in the past. The system is no longer
connected to the house, and the homeowner does not know where or if the drain field is still in place in
the back yard.
The steps leading down to the backyard appear to be sloped towards the foundation wall. We suggested
that the homeowner look into this and see if he can get the water here to drain away form the foundation.
This could be a source of the water getting into the remnant of conduit in the floor slab. Homeowner
asked if he could redirect some of the roof drain downspouts to discharge further way from the
foundation. He was advised that that would be a good option, but that he could not route them directly to
the property line and into the neighboring property.
C – Implementation Actions to Date
We suggested that the homeowner do some experiments with the drain tile systems using a garden hose at
the expected upstream locations. The intent would be to better understand what inlets are connected to the
outlet at the back property line. If they are connected, the homeowner could work with the City to
complete some clearing and grading to provide a free outlet for the system. The homeowner tried this
approach following our visit and indicated that these initial tests were inconclusive.
D - Recommended Actions
1. Homeowner should continue to investigate the drain tile connections within his property to better
understand what outside piping might connected to the inside of his house or foundation.
2. Public works staff should clear and grade the back lot line where a very subtle berm has
developed over time with the vegetation growth. This grading would provide a free draining
outlet form the backyard into the storm water pond beyond the back lot line.
E – Preliminary Cost Estimate
1. Clearing, grading and restoration by City crews $3,000.
AREA #20 – 2482 Adele
A – Description of Problem Area(s)
This area was not included in the July 19, 2011, Agenda Report. Homeowner experience standing water
in his backyard during the rainfall event and was able to use a neighbor’s pump to keep the water level
form entering his lower level.
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 218 of 233
B-17
B – Summary of Review and Analysis
Steve Love and Ron Leaf met with the homeowner on September 6, 2011, to review the site conditions
and interview the homeowner (Nick Scanlon) for information relating to the July 16th storm event.
Homeowner has been in the home for 3 months. During the July 16th event, he observed standing water in
his back yard that he ultimately pumped out using a neighbor’s portable pump. He has not had any water
in the home, but it was within inches of the low opening of the patio door. His neighbor to the south
(Gretchen and Mike Trenda) has an in-ground swimming pool and they also indicated some standing
water conditions during the July 16th event.
After meeting with Nick Scanlon, we proceeded downstream to the south and east and spoke to resident
(Gene __) located four houses south of Mr. Scanlon’s. Gene offered some very helpful information on the
drainage system that runs through his yard and the wetland located to the east of the berm that runs
through is back yard. What we understand form our observations, review of the development grading
plans and discussions with the residents is that there are several shallow ponding areas in the back yards
that should have been drained by a swale planned for the back drainage easement. It appears that the
grading plan was modified to avoid removal of a large cottonwood tree. In doing so, the original drainage
pattern was modified. The drainage from the Scanlon and Trenda properties that were intended to route to
the wetland, are instead routed through Gene’s yard into a storm water pond. Again, there are no apparent
capacity issues in this system.
We have discussed three primary improvement options that could improve the drainage conditions:
1. Install an outlet pipe through the backyard berm at 2482 Adele to the pond east of the residential
site. Problems with this option include the difficulty of getting through the estimated 10 to 15 foot
high berm, determining if the pond normal and high water levels would allow the routing, and
getting approval/cooperation of the business owner. The most feasible approach may be to
complete horizontal direction drilling of a 14 inch diameter drill hole to pull a 12-inch HDPE pipe
through. The length of the pipe would be on the order of 120 to 200 LF depending on where the
elevation would allow the outlet.
2. Install a 12-inch diameter outlet pipe from the Scanlon yard to the wetland where it was originally
intended to route to. This option would include and outlet in the Trenda yard and possibly the
next yard to the south. Challenges with this option include getting all of the residents on board
and obtaining new drainage easements through the properties to install the public drainage
system. The pool has gas and electric service which would also be a consideration during
installation of the pipe. A variation on this option would be to route the pipe along the back
drainage easement, although there is limited room between the pool and the base of the berm to
work within and it would require additional length of pipe to get outlet in the two low points. .
City staff reviewed Options2 in the field and raised concerns with the proximity of the outlet pipe
to the existing swimming pool.
3. Install a swale along the same alignment as suggested above for the pipe outlet. This would
require a culvert or footbridge at the patio connection between the house and pool. Similar
concerns with proximity to the pool.
C – Implementation Actions to Date
None to date.
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 219 of 233
B-18
D - Recommended Actions
1. We recommend implementing improvements consistent with Option 1 above. The City should
meet with the business owners on the east side of the berm that would be impacted by
construction and that may need to provide an easement through a portion of their property.
E – Preliminary Cost Estimate
1. Pre-Design Survey $2,000
2. HDD Pipe layout design $8,000
3. Construction Administration $5,000
4. Construction Cost $15,000 - 30,000
5. Total Estimated Improvement Costs $30,000 - $45,000
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 220 of 233
EXHIBIT C
Desoto Area Drainage Memo (SEH 110412, Dec. 2009)
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 221 of 233
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-5196
SEH is an equal opportunity employer | www.sehinc.com | 651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 651.490.2150 fax
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael Thompson, PE
City Engineer / Deputy Public Works Director
City of Maplewood
FROM: Ron Leaf, PE, Sr. Water Resources Engineer
Justin Klabo, EI, Water Resources Engineer
DATE: December 28, 2009
RE: Desoto Area Drainage System Evaluation
SEH No. MAPLE 110412
The City of Maplewood requested that SEH review the engineering design and general drainage system
conditions within the Desoto-Skillman Street Reconstruction Area for conformance to industry design
standards. The key hydrologic feature that is the subject of this review is a landlocked basin referred to
as the Edgerton South Pond. This memorandum summarizes our analysis and findings relating to our
review of maps and hydrologic modeling provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates (KHA), the Owners
and Encumbrances Report prepared by Basiago Law Office and drainage system design information
provided by the City.
The primary scope of work for our review was to understand the general drainage system features and
routing, understand the basis for the selected design, review design computations and plan sheets and
assess the design process relative to industry standards. Our scope of work also includes an evaluation
of possible alternatives to the current design to reduce the volume of runoff routed to the Edgerton
South Pond and/or to reduce the depth and/or duration of high water levels in the pond.
This memorandum provides a brief background of the project, and overview of pre and post project
hydrologic conditions, a summary of potential modifications to the drainage system and a discussion of
easement conditions.
Background
In 2007 the City of Maplewood completed a street reconstruction project for the Desoto-Skillman area.
As part of this project, KHA completed the design work for modifications to the drainage and storm
water management system to support the street improvement project. Following the construction
project, KHA completed additional study of the system to determine the relative effects of drainage
system changes on Edgerton South Pond.
The drainage system within the Desoto Area street reconstruction area includes several natural water
collection areas. Some of these natural collection areas are wetlands as defined in the City’s Wetland
Protection Ordinance and are also identified in Figure 11 of the City’s Surface Water Management
Plan. As part of the street reconstruction project, newly constructed storm sewer was routed to an
existing utility class wetland named Edgerton South Pond located immediately west of Bradley Street.
Much of this area previously routed to Edgerton South Pond prior to the installation of the new storm
sewer. Utility class wetlands, by definition, are those that have had the highest impact and therefore are
the lowest quality wetlands. These wetlands have generally served as part of the storm water
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 222 of 233
Desoto Area Evaluation
December 28, 2009
Page 2
management system providing both water quality treatment functions and large storm runoff storage
capacity. None of these basins are mapped as flood hazard zone on the most recent updates to the
Ramsey County Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
During the design stages for the street reconstruction project, the City assumed that Edgerton South
Pond was covered by a drainage easement. At the time of the design work, The Ramsey County on-line
GIS mapping identified this area as City-owned, and the County GIS database still shows this parcel to
be City owned as of December 2009. After the design process, Richard and Gloria LeFebvre suggested
to the City that they (LeFebvres) were the real property owners. The LeFebvres informed the City that
the property had an easement from the 1986’s, which dedicated a “no-building” area. The City
subsequently retained the Basiago Law Office to prepare an Owners and Encumbrances (O&E) Report
for the Property.
The O&E Report indicates that the City of Maplewood is the taxpayer of record for the parcel on which
the pond (Edgerton South Pond) is located, including Lots 1-4. The Report also references the Quit
Claim Deed recorded on July 28, 1986. The Quit Claim Deed states that LeFebvres grant to the City
“the right to build a dwelling or structure on any of the below captioned lots:” Lots 1-4 are listed. The
deed further states that “It is understood and agreed the City will not build on the above-mentioned.”
The City informed us in a December 22, 2009, email that the underlying property (of Lots 1-4) is
owned by LeFebvres and that the City has secured an assurance that LeFebvres can not build on the lot.
Pre-Construction Conditions
SEH staff conducted a site visit on November 30, 2009, to better understand the drainage patterns
throughout the project area and observe the overall characteristics of the drainage system. The KHA
design process separated the project area drainage system into four separate drainage areas; Desoto,
Sanitary Sewer Lift Station, Bradley West and Bradley East (see Exhibit A). Three of these four
drainage areas ultimately drain to Edgerton South Pond: Desoto; Sanitary Sewer Lift Station; and
Bradley West. Edgerton Pond South does not have a piped outlet. The natural overflow is to the east
with the overflow point being the center of Bradley Street at elevation 862.62. See attached Exhibit A
which illustrates these drainage area boundaries and routing between the drainage areas/basins.
The fourth drainage area, Bradley East, discharges into Bradley East, a land-locked basin located on the
east side of Bradley Street. Infiltration is the primary outlet for this basin. This basin area is wooded and
heavily vegetated with no readily identified signs indicating significant ponding occurs or remains for
extended periods of time after rainfall events.
Based on the design information form KHA, Edgerton South Pond maintains a permanent pool of water
with a normal water level (NWL) of approximately 855.10 feet. As discussed further below, this elevation
likely corresponds to the elevation of a constructed pond liner or lower permeability soil layer. The Ramsey
County Soil Survey Manual shows soil conditions to be a silt loam, having a hydrologic soil group of B/D.
This dual hydrologic soil group designation (B/D) is typically given for wet soils that could be adequately
drained. The first letter applies to the drained condition and the second to the undrained condition. Soils are
assigned to dual groups if the depth to a permanent water table is the sole criteria for assigning a soil to
hydrologic group D. Based on this designation, the soils in the area would have a high infiltration capacity
(Group B) but the depth to the water table is shallow, which limits the infiltration capacity at some
elevation.
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 223 of 233
Desoto Area Evaluation
December 28, 2009
Page 3
During discussions with City staff, it was noted that Edgerton South Pond may have been modified by
the property owner by the installation of an impermeable liner. The existence of a constructed liner
should be confirmed with the LeFebvres. A liner would allow the basin to maintain a permanent pool of
water even though the underlying soils have a relatively high infiltration capacity. Prior to the basin
being lined, it likely functioned as a natural infiltration basin without a permanent pool, somewhat like
the area immediately to the east of Bradley Street. As stated previously, Bradley South Pond does not
have a piped outlet and the primary outlet for the basin is by means of infiltration above the NWL. The
overflow point is on Bradley Street at elevation 862.62, below the First Floor elevation of the LeFebvre
home of 864.50 as noted on Exhibit C.
Based on our site visit we observed one difference in the contributing drainage area to Edgerton South
Pond relative to what was identified in the KHA design information. Sunrise Court, the cul-de-sac
extending to the north off of Ripley Avenue was found to have a catch basin that discharges to the north
and into a Class C wetland basin. As a result, this area was excluded from the SEH modeling runs
under pre-construction and post-construction conditions.
Based on the recollection of City staff, the Edgerton South Pond had been pumped down roughly 1 or 2
times in the late summer of 2009 and was not likely pumped down in 2008. A detailed search or review
of the work orders for pumping activities was not completed. However, the daily rainfall data (for
station 217377 located nearby in St. Paul) we have reviewed indicate that the pumping events described
by City staff correspond well to four rainfall events between August 8 and August 25, 2009. All four of
these storm events exceeded a total depth of 1.1 inches with the largest event totaling 2.46 inches. In
2008, the largest recorded storm was 1.52 inches in August 2008. There were no other significant
events in 2008 within a few weeks of the 1.52 inch event.
Post-Construction Conditions
The street reconstruction project replaced the rural roadway section with an urban section having curb
and gutter, storm sewer and catch basins to collect and convey storm water runoff. Runoff originally
routed along the edge of the road is now captured and conveyed by storm sewer directly into Edgerton
South Pond. The addition of curb and gutter and storm sewer to the street section created a more
efficient flow condition for runoff from the road getting into the pond. While this change increases the
speed at which runoff gets to the pond, the volume of water entering the pond is essentially unchanged
as the project did not create any new impervious surface.
Based on our site observations, the area southeast of Kingston Avenue and Bradley Street was found to
flow onto the street and into the storm sewer system (See Exhibit B). For our evaluation, this area was
included within the Bradley West drainage area and was removed from the Bradley East drainage area
as originally shown by KHA as shown in Exhibit B. As part of the street reconstruction project, the curb
and gutter and profile along Ripley Avenue resulted in the far east end of Ripley and a portion of
Edgerton Street to be included within the Bradley West drainage area.
As shown in Table 1, the Bradley West drainage area increased by about 2 acres and the Bradley East
area decreased by about 2 acres from the pre-construction conditions to post-construction conditions.
While our review identified some differences in the drainage system boundaries, the contributing areas
under pre and post-project conditions are essentially the same as what KHA assumed in their analysis.
There are also some small differences in assumed hydrologic characteristics, but these differences do
not result in any significant differences in the results.
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 224 of 233
Desoto Area Evaluation
December 28, 2009
Page 4
Table 1. Drainage Areas
Drainage
Area
Pre-Construction
Conditions (ac)
Post-Construction
Conditions (ac)
Bradley West 17.2 19.4
Bradley East 5.1 3.2
Total 22.3 22.5
Hydrologic Analysis
The HydroCAD model developed by KHA was reviewed for consistency with generally accepted
engineering practices for drainage networks similar to this system. Overall the modeling approach and
contents of the KHA models appear to be consistent with accepted practices. SEH used these models as
the basis of our review, making some minor changes to several of the input parameters to further assess
the response to a range of rainfall depths. In the KHA models, exfiltration (infiltration) was assumed
above the elevation of the pond liner. The following changes were made to the KHA model:
Pre-Construction Conditions
Time Span start/end times were modified from 5 - 48 hrs to 0 -120 hrs
Edgerton South Pond (P-19) exfiltration rate was modified from 0.8 to 0.6 in/hr
Bradley East Basin (1P) outlet “culvert” was removed from the model
Drainage Area Bradley East total area was changed from 5.03 to 5.09 ac
Post-Construction Conditions
Time Span start/end time were modified from 5 – 48 hrs to 0 - 120 hrs
Edgerton South Pond (P-19) exfiltration rate was modified from 0.8 to 0.6 in/hr
Drainage Area Bradley West total area changed from 8.58 to 8.51 ac
Drainage Area Bradley East total area changed from 3.78 to 3.17 ac
Drainage Area Additional Area, time of concentration was reduced from 21.2 to
12.9 minutes
Three separate models were executed for the project, each with slightly different hydrologic
characteristics. The first model, listed in Table 2 as KHA, is the original KHA model used during the
design of the project. The second model (SEH) incorporates the changes as noted above into the
original KHA model. The third model (SEH Modified) separates out the pervious and impervious areas
of roads within the curb and gutter within the Bradley West drainage area to form two separate
contributing drainage areas. This SEH Modified model was created to further evaluate the significance
of changing the drainage system from a rural section to urban, with curb/gutter and storm sewer.
Based on the SEH model the 100-year HWL for the Edgerton South Pond increased from pre to post
construction by an estimated 0.63 feet. Table 2 below compares the pre and post conditions for the
various model runs.
One of the key elevations in this analysis is the elevation of the sump pump discharge pipe located on
the west side of the Edgerton South Pond. The LeFebvre sump pump outlet into the Edgerton South
Pond is set an elevation of 855.85 feet (see Exhibit C). City staff indicated that they had pumped the
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 225 of 233
Desoto Area Evaluation
December 28, 2009
Page 5
pond down at the request of LeFebvres, and generally when the pond water level reached the level of
the sump pump discharge pipe. Based on the SEH Model, the minimum rainfall total to exceed the
sump pump elevation is about a 2.5 inch rainfall, which equates to approximately a 1-year rainfall
event. This 2.5-inch event corresponds well to the input from City staff on when the pond had been
pumped in 2009.
As part of our modeling analysis, we executed the model at a range of rainfall depths to identify the
depth of storm event that would cause an overflow in each of the contributing drainage areas. Our
modeling indicates that the Desoto Basin (Area 5P) would overflow into the Area 2P (labeled as the
Sanitary Sewer Lift Station basin) under back-to-back 100 year storms; Area 2P would overflow into
Bradley West (4P) under about a 5.6 inch event; Bradley East (3P) does not overflow for storms up to
and including the back-to-back 100-year event; and Bradley West (4P), or the basin with Edgerton
South Pond, would overtop the road and overflow into Bradley East (3P) during a back-to-back
100-year event.
Table 2. Edgerton South Pond Storm Response Characteristics
High Water Level (HWL) Storm
Event Condition
KHA SEH
SEH
Modified
1 inch Pre-Project 855.15 855.15 855.22
Post-Project 855.15 855.15 855.4
Difference 0 0 0.18
2-Yr Pre-Project 855.89 855.93 856.01
(2.75 inch) Post-Project 856.12 856.18 856.79
Difference 0.23 0.25 0.78
10-Yr Pre-Project 857.43 857.52 857.59
(4.15 inch) Post-Project 858.08 858.15 858.69
Difference 0.65 0.63 1.10
100-Yr Pre-Project 859.33 859.49 859.51
(5.9 inch) Post-Project 859.97 860.12 860.44
Difference 0.64 0.63 0.93
Edgerton South Pond NWL - 855.10
LeFebvre Home FFE (First Floor Elevation) - 864.50
LeFebvre Home Basement Floor Elevation - 856.17 (based on 8-foot, 4-inches below FFE)
Sump Pump Discharge Elevation (into Edgerton South Pond) – 855.85
As part of the street reconstruction project, a bioretention basin (or rain water garden) was created to
collect and treat storm water runoff. The basin serves as an off-line feature collecting a small volume of
storm water during rainfall events, typically sized to treat the volume of runoff from a one-inch storm
for the contributing area. Since this specific feature appears to collect runoff form a relatively small
area, a relatively small volume of runoff is likely captured. Therefore, because the model created is
being analyzed for larger rainfall events with a significant volume of runoff, the effects of this feature
were not quantified in the model. KHA also did not include this rain water garden in their model.
The modeling confirms what KHA identified as part of their design work. The additional area creates
higher water elevations in Edgerton South Pond in the post construction conditions than were present
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 226 of 233
Desoto Area Evaluation
December 28, 2009
Page 6
prior to the street reconstruction project. The modeling further shows that the effects of these
hydrologic changes to Edgerton South Pond are most evident for storms between about 2.5 inches and
4.2 inches, those which would extend the depth and duration of water levels exceeding the elevation of
the sump pump outlet from the LeFebvre home.
As shown in Table 2 for the SEH Modified model, the change in peak elevation for storms above about
the 2-year storm event, is on the order of a one foot increase relative to pre-project conditions. Even
with this modeled increase, the 100-year peak elevation remains several feet below the first floor
elevation of the home (864.50). The emergency overflow elevation from this basin is the road low point
at 862.82. Therefore, there appears to be no significant change in the risk of surface flooding to the
home, provided that the current practice of pumping excess water from the pond continues (when the
water surface elevation approaches the elevation of the sump pump outlet).
The effect of the increased depth, duration and volume of runoff on the surrounding soil conditions is
not fully known. However, from discussions with City staff, we understand that there have not been any
basement flooding conditions at the adjacent home. If this is in fact the case, it is likely that continued
pumping on an as-needed basis could continue to be an effective management approach for this basin.
For landlocked basins such as Edgerton South Pond, it is typical to assess the high water level
conditions by modeling a 100-yr, 10-day snowmelt event. The basic model under this scope of work
does not have sufficient detail to fully evaluate these conditions, however, this system was modeled to
get obtain a general understanding of volume of water entering the ponding area. The area was modeled
assuming that the contributing drainage areas had a curve number of 100 (to represent frozen soil
conditions and), and using a total runoff depth of 7.2 inches. These generalized results for both pre and
post project conditions show that the high water level would likely exceed an elevation of 862.82 and
enter the road to the east.
System Modification Alternatives
Several alternatives for reducing the volume of storm water routed to the Edgerton South Pond or for
reducing the depth and/or duration of the high water levels in the pond during certain rainfall events are
presented in Table 3. The approximate location of each alternative is identified on Exhibit C.
Table 3. Pond Response Modification Alternatives
Alternative Description / Easement Needs / Construction Cost
1. Remove the
Pond Liner
The pond would be excavated, removing the liner from the bottom of the pond.
Depending on the depth to the water table, the pond would then function as a true
infiltration basin without a permanent pool. We believe the water table is low enough to
see some improvement by this action as the basin to the east appears to remain dry and
Edgerton South Pond does infiltrate the excess runoff volume for smaller storms. This
option would effectively increase the available storage capacity and increase the
infiltration (discharge) capacity. Monitoring of the new infiltration rate/capacity following
future storm events could be conducted to quantify the effects of this alternative.
Acres Diverted from Edgerton South Pond: NA
Easement Needed: City to secure a drainage easement on Edgerton South Pond. (1)
Construction Cost(2): $13,000
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 227 of 233
Desoto Area Evaluation
December 28, 2009
Page 7
Table 3. Pond Response Modification Alternatives (Continued)
Alternative Description / Easement Needs / Construction Cost
2. Install a Curb
Cut on the south
side of Ripley
Avenue
A curb cut would be installed on Ripley Avenue, south of the cul-de-sac. The curb cut
would divert storm water to the infiltration basin located within the Bradley East drainage
area. There is some potential for increased erosion along this concentrated flow path and
the storm water would be routed within close proximity of existing homes. This approach
would intend to route a portion of the surface area to the Bradley East basin as was routed
there prior to the street reconstruction project. Based on Ramsey County on-line property
information, the western portions of this low area is currently owned by LeFebvre.
Acres Diverted from Edgerton South Pond: 0.95 acres
Easement Needed: Appears to be ROW to the south in this area. City to secure a
drainage easement Edgerton South Pond and to the east/south basin area. (1)
Construction Cost(2): $10,000
3-A. Install a
Curb Cut on the
east side of
Bradley Street –
North of Catch
Basin
A curb cut would be installed upstream of the catch basin along the east curb of Bradley
Street to reroute the storm water coming from the north and east portions of Bradley and
Ripley and route it to the east and into the Bradley East basin. This basin previously had
more surface area routed to it, so the concept would be to return it closer to pre-project
conditions. Additional grading work would need to be completed on private property to
allow the flow to enter the existing low area. Based on Ramsey County on-line property
information, this property is currently owned by LeFebvre.
Acres Diverted from Edgerton South Pond: 1.02 acres
Easement Needed: City to secure a drainage easement to the east. (1)
Construction Cost(2): $7,500
3-B. Install a
Curb Cut on the
east side of
Bradley Street -
South of Catch
Basin
A curb cut would be installed upstream of the catch basin along the east curb of Bradley
Street to reroute the storm water coming from the south portion of Bradley and route it to
the east and into the Bradley East basin. This basin previously had more surface area
routed to it, so the concept would be to return it closer to pre-project conditions.
Additional grading work would need to be completed on private property to allow the
flow to enter the existing low area. Based on Ramsey County on-line property
information, this property is currently owned by LeFebvre.
Acres Diverted from Edgerton South Pond: 0.65 acres
Easement Needed: City to secure a drainage easement to the east. (1)
Construction Cost(2): $7,500
4. Install new
Catch Basins on
Ripley Avenue
The catch basins would be located on Ripley Avenue just west of the cul-de-sac. A storm
line would be installed from the proposed CB’s to the existing CB located within the cul-
de-sac. This area would then be routed to the existing basin to the north. The intent of this
option is to reduce the area contributing to Edgerton South Pond to a level at or lower than
pre-project conditions. The cul-de-sac was not included in the street recon project, so the
City may choose to complete a mil-overlay on the cul-de-sac as part of this work.
Acres Diverted from Edgerton South Pond: 1.63 acres
Easement Needed: Within existing ROW. Confirm easements on pond to the north. (1)
Construction Cost(2): $30,000 * Not including cul-de-sac mil and overlay costs
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 228 of 233
Desoto Area Evaluation
December 28, 2009
Page 8
Table 3. Pond Response Modification Alternatives (Continued)
Alternative Description / Easement Needs / Construction Cost
5. Install Pump
Station
A pump station would be installed at the Edgerton South Pond. The pump would
discharge storm water to the north into an adjacent pond. This approach is similar to what
City staff is currently doing as the Edgerton South Pond water level rises to the elevation
of the sump pump outlet pipe, but a permanent lift station would be installed. The station
could be manually operated or automated with a water level monitoring system. A revised
approach could be to install just the sump and outlet pipe system that would allow use of a
portable pump on an as-needed basis. City may need to secure a drainage easement on a
portion of Lot 1, as well as the parcels to the north crossing the LeFebvre driveway and
extending to the adjacent pond to the north. The lift station or sump MH could be located
on Lot 1 or in the ROW of Bradley Street.
Acres Diverted from Edgerton South Pond: NA
Easement Needed: City to secure easement on pond and parcels along pipe system. (1)
Construction Cost(2): $50,000 ($20,000 for sump manhole and outlet pipe only)
6. Install Catch
Basins
near 575 Ripley
Avenue
The catch basins would be located on Ripley Avenue between properties 563 and 575.
The catch basins would tie into a new storm sewer pipe extending to the north, generally
in the location where there previously existed a 12-inch storm sewer to Edgerton Pond.
The intent of this option is to reduce the area contributing to Edgerton South Pond.
Additional areas of diversion would be needed to reduce the overall contributing area to
a level at or lower than pre-project conditions.
Acres Diverted from Edgerton South Pond: 0.54 acres
Easement Needed: Within existing ROW. Confirm easement between properties.
Construction Cost(2): $30,000
7. Do Nothing This alternative would involve making no physical changes in the drainage system. The
current approach to pumping down the pond following a call or notification by the
adjacent property owners of concerns for the water level, could be continued.
Acres Diverted from Edgerton South Pond: NA
Easement Needed: City to secure drainage easement on Edgerton South Pond. (1)
Construction Cost(2):$0
8. More Active
Inspection /
Pumping
Approach
This alternative is a slight variation on the do nothing alternative, as there would be no
physical changes made in the drainage system. One minor change would be installation
of a staff gauge in the pond area to better monitor water levels following rainfall events.
The approach would be for City staff to visit the pond after a pre-determined rainfall
amount (e.g., 1.5 inches or greater) and record the water level for several days following
the rainfall event. Pumping would be conducted if the water level reached a pre-
determined depth. This would give the City a better understanding of the infiltration
capacity of the basin and what rainfall depths bring the pond to an elevation close to the
sump pump discharge pipe.
Acres Diverted from Edgerton South Pond: NA
Easement Needed: City to secure drainage easement on Edgerton South Pond. (1)
Construction Cost(2):$500
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 229 of 233
Desoto Area Evaluation
December 28, 2009
Page 9
Table 3. Pond Response Modification Alternatives (Continued)
Alternative Description / Easement Needs / Construction Cost
9. Combo of
options 3-A and
3-B
Combination of Options 3-A and 3-B to divert all of the water on the east side of
Bradley Street to the east. This option approaches the pre-street reconstruction
conditions relative to the surface drainage area that routes to the east basin and to
Edgerton South Pond.
Acres Diverted from Edgerton South Pond: 1.67 acres
Easement Needed: Same as 3-A, 3-B
Construction Cost(2):$10,000
10. Combination
of options 4 and
3B
This combination results in over 2 acres of surface area diverted away from Edgerton
South Pond, with most of the diverted area routed directly to the north into the larger pond
system.
Acres Diverted from Edgerton South Pond: 2.28 acres
Easement Needed: See 4 and 3-B
Construction Cost(2):$35,000 *Not including cul-de-sac mil and overlay costs
Notes:
1. Extent of drainage easement will vary depending on the specific changes made to the drainage system.
2. Construction costs assume a contractor would be hired to complete the work.
S:\KO\M\Maple\110412\Word\Desoto Drainage System Memo 12-28-2009.doc
Agenda Item J2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 230 of 233
Agenda Item J2 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 231 of 233
Agenda Item J2 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 232 of 233
Agenda Item J2 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 233 of 233