HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-12 City Council Meeting Packet
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, June 12, 2017
City Hall, Council Chambers
Meeting No. 11-17
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
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. Sign in with the City Clerk before addressing the council. 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 the May 22, 2017 City Council Workshop Minutes
2. Approval of the May 22, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes
F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Administrative Presentations
a. Council Calendar Update
2. Council Presentations
3. Housing Presentation by League of Women Voters
G. CONSENT AGENDA – Items on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and non-
controversial and are approved by one motion of the council. If a councilmember
requests additional information or wants to make a comment regarding an item, the vote
should be held until the questions or comments are made then the single vote should be
taken. If a councilmember objects to an item it should be removed and acted upon as a
separate item.
1. Approval of Claims
2. Approval of Resolution Accepting Tree Planting Donation
3. Approval to Purchase Two 3M Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR)
4. Approval of Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on the Issuance of an
Educational Facilities Revenue Refunding Note and Authorizing the Publication of
a Notice of the Hearing for the Hill-Murray School Project
5. Approval of Resolution to Conduct Off-Site Gambling for the White Bear Avenue
Business Association at the Ramsey County Fair
6. Approval of Resolution for 2017 and 2018 Pay Rates for Non-union, Non-contract
Employees
7. Approval of Resolution Calling Public Hearing for June 26, 2017 at 7:00 p.m., Rush
Line Corridor Locally Preferred Alternative, Project 15-06
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 Cit y Clerk’s
Office at 651.249.2000 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please
check with the City Clerk for availability.
RULES OF CIVILITY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND OUR COMMUNITY
Following are 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, everyo ne’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:
Speak only for yourself, not for other council members or citizens - unless specifically tasked by
your colleagues to speak for the group or for citizens in the form of a petition.
Show respect during comments and/or discussions, listen actively and do not interrupt or talk
amongst each other.
Be respectful of the process, keeping order and decorum. Do not be critical of council members,
staff or others in public.
Be respectful of each other’s time keeping remarks brief, to the point and non-repetitive.
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
J. NEW BUSINESS
1. Consider Acceptance of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Year Ended
12/31/2016
2. Consider Approval of Ordinance Amendment Authorizing Sunday Sales for Off-
Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments, Section 6-116. - Hours of Sale
3. Consider Approval of Tartan Arena JPA Dissolution
a. Dissolution Agreement
b. Bill of Sale
c. Quit Claim Deed
K. AWARD OF BIDS
None
L. ADJOURNMENT
E1
May 22, 2017
City Council Workshop Minutes
1
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
Joint Meeting of City Council, Planning Commission and
Maplewood 2040 Comprehensive Steering Committee
5:00 P.M. Monday, May 22, 2017
Gladstone Fire Station, 1955 Clarence Street
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held at the Gladstone Fire Station, 1955 Clarence Street
and was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mayor Slawik.
B. ROLL CALL
City Council Present Planning Commission Present
Nora Slawik, Mayor Paul Arbuckle, Chair
Marylee Abrams, Councilmember Frederick Dahm, Commissioner
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Tushar Desai, Vice Chairperson
Bryan Smith, Councilmember John Donofrio, Commissioner
Bill Kempe, Commissioner
City Council Absent Planning Commission Absent
Tou Xiong, Councilmember John Eads, Commissioner
Allan Ige, Commissioner
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Slawik opened the meeting and welcomed everyone in attendance. Environmental
& Economic Development Director Konewko also welcomed everyone then introduced Rita
Trapp, Planner with from Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Kick-Off Meeting
Rita Trapp, Planner with from Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. gave the presentation and
then facilitated the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee meeting.
F. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Slawik adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Packet Page Number 1 of 144
E2
May 22, 2017 1
City Council Meeting Minutes
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, May 22, 2017
City Hall, Council Chambers
Meeting No. 10-17
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called
to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Slawik.
Mayor Slawik announced the opening of Aldi located at 3000 White Bear Avenue,
Maplewood. Councilmember Juenemann gave specific information about the opening.
Councilmember Abrams gave additional information about the opening.
Mayor Slawik reported that Weaver Elementary held a special event last Friday. City
Manager Coleman gave specific information about the special event – Leader in Me Day.
Councilmember Abrams gave additional information about the event.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Nora Slawik, Mayor Present
Marylee Abrams, Councilmember Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
Bryan Smith, Councilmember Present
Tou Xiong, Councilmember Absent
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to the agenda under Appointments and Presentations,
Council Presentations:
Rice-Larpenteur Corridor
Housing Study by the League of Women Voters
Tartan Ice Arena Joint Powers Agreement Meeting
Ramsey County Master Gardner
Rush Line Corridor
Councilmember Smith moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Members Abrams,
Juenemann and Smith
The motion passed.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of May 8, 2017 City Council Workshop Minutes
Packet Page Number 2 of 144
E2
May 22, 2017 2
City Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the May 8, 2017 City Council Workshop
Minutes as submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Smith Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Members Juenemann and
Smith
Abstain – Councilmember Abrams
(Was not present at
05/08/2017 meeting)
The motion passed.
2. Approval of May 8, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember Smith moved to approve the May 8, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes
as submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Members Juenemann and
Smith
Abstain – Councilmember Abrams
(Was not present at
05/08/2017 meeting)
The motion passed.
F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Administrative Presentations
a. Council Calendar Update
City Manager Coleman gave the update to the council calendar.
City Manager Coleman gave an update on the hiring of the Public Safety Director.
2. Council Presentations
Rice-Larpenteur Corridor
Councilmember Juenemann gave an update on the Rice-Larpenteur Corridor
monthly meeting she attended last week.
League of MN Voters & Housing
Councilmember Juenemann reported on the housing study that was conducted by
the League of Women Voters.
Tartan Ice Arena Joint Powers Agreement Meeting
Councilmember Smith reported on the Tartan Ice Arena Joint Powers Agreement
Packet Page Number 3 of 144
E2
May 22, 2017 3
City Council Meeting Minutes
meeting with the board he attended last week.
Ramsey County Master Gardner
Councilmember Smith reported on the Ramsey County Master Gardner’s Plant Sale
at the Ramsey County Fairgrounds he went to.
Rush Line Corridor
Mayor Slawik reported that there will be a Rush Line Corridor meeting on Thursday,
May 25, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. in the City of White Bear Lake.
3. Presentation of Awards
a. Response to Structure Fire – Lifesaving Award Officer Pam Vang and
Firefighter/Paramedic Rich Dawson; Medal of Commendation Officer Scott
Langner
Public Safety Director Schnell gave the staff report and presented the awards to
Officer Vang, Firefighter/Paramedic Dawson and Officer Langner.
b. Medical Intervention – CPR: Lifesaving Award Officer Pheng Her and
Officer Parker Olding
Public Safety Director Schnell gave the staff report and presented the awards to
Officer Her and Officer Olding.
c. Citizen Award – David Marshall
Public Safety Director Schnell gave the staff report and presented the award to
Citizen David Marshall.
4. Swearing-in Ceremony – Police Officer Nicholas Lenertz
Public Safety Director Schnell gave the staff report. City Clerk Sindt performed the
swearing in for Police Officer Lenertz.
5. Approval of Resolution of Appreciation for Paul Schnell, Director of Public
Safety
Mayor Slawik read the resolution of appreciation for Public Safety Director Schnell.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Resolution of Appreciation for Paul
Schnell, Director of Public Safety, for his service with the City of Maplewood.
Resolution 17-05-1460
Resolution of Appreciation
WHEREAS, Paul Schnell was hired as the Police Chief of the City of Maplewood in
July of 2013;
Packet Page Number 4 of 144
E2
May 22, 2017 4
City Council Meeting Minutes
WHEREAS, Chief Schnell was promoted to the position of Director of Public Safety
of the City of Maplewood on November 2, 2015;
WHEREAS, Chief Schnell has provided the City of Maplewood with tremendous
leadership during his tenure, particularly in the areas of 21st century policing, racial equity,
and data-driven decision-making;
WHEREAS, Chief Schnell advanced police transparency through the Use of Force
Workgroup, web publishing of key departmental metrics, and web publishing of the
department policy manual;
WHEREAS, Chief Schnell made considerable advances in department technology,
including: police records management system, integrated timekeeping scheduling system
for sworn police department staff, deployment of smart phones for creation of a more
seamless mobile office environment for patrol officers, implementation of fleet telematics
system to monitor the department’s fleet, development of an integrated digital evidence
system, police body worn cameras, and implementation of crime analytics system;
WHEREAS, through his professional experience as a patrol officer, patrol
supervisor, sex crimes and child abuse investigator, and public information officer, Chief
Schnell enhanced the City of Maplewood’s public safety capabilities;
WHEREAS, through his support of National Night Out, WOW events, and
numerous task forces and citizen’s groups, Chief Schnell has gone above and beyond in
the areas of public relations;
WHEREAS, Chief Schnell developed police department policy regarding the
department’s role in immigration matters and expanded the department’s community
outreach and profile as a leading and progressive law enforcement agency.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, for and on behalf of the City of
Maplewood, Minnesota, and its citizens that Paul Schnell, Director of Public Safety, is
hereby extended our gratitude and appreciation for his years of service to the City of
Maplewood and the State of Minnesota.
Seconded by Councilmember Abrams Ayes – All
The motion passed.
G. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve agenda items G1-G5.
Seconded by Councilmember Abrams Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Members Abrams,
Juenemann and Smith
The motion passed.
City Council recessed at 8:03 p.m.
City Council reconvened at 8:13 p.m.
Packet Page Number 5 of 144
E2
May 22, 2017 5
City Council Meeting Minutes
1. Approval of Claims
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the approval of claims.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
$ 373,294.09 Checks # 99628 thru #99664
dated 05/1/17 thru 5/9/17
$ 326,395.46 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 05/01/17 thru 05/05/17
$ 192,441.19 Checks #99666 thru #99694
dated 05/16/17
$ 459,797.48 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 05/08/17 thru 05/12/17
$ 1,351,928.22 Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL
$ 498,957.00 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 05/05/17
$ 1,187.68 Payroll Deduction check # 99102701 thru # 99102703 dated 05/05/17
$ 500,144.68 Total Payroll
$ 1,852,072.90 GRAND TOTAL
Seconded by Councilmember Abrams Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Members Abrams,
Juenemann and Smith
The motion passed.
2. Approval of Resolution to Adopt State Performance Measures
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Resolution to Adopt State Performance
Measures.
Resolution 17-05-1461
RESOLUTION ADOPTING STATE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
WHEREAS, Benefits to the City of Maplewood for participation in the Minnesota
Council on Local Results and Innovation’s comprehensive performance measurement
program are outlined in MS 6.91 and include eligibility for a reimbursement as set by State
statute; and
Packet Page Number 6 of 144
E2
May 22, 2017 6
City Council Meeting Minutes
WHEREAS, Any city or county participating in the comprehensive performance
measurement program is also exempt from levy limits for taxes, if levy limits are in effect;
and
WHEREAS, The City Council of Maplewood has adopted and implemented at
least 10 of the performance measures, as developed by the Council on Local Results and
Innovation, and a system to use this information to help plan, budget, manage and evaluate
programs and processes for optimal future outcomes; and
NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, The City Council of Maplewood
will continue to report the results of the performance measures to its citizenry by the end of
the year through publication, direct mailing, posting on the city’s website, or through a public
hearing at which the budget and levy will be discussed and public input allowed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The City Council of Maplewood will submit to the
Office of the State Auditor the actual results of the performance measures adopted by the
city/county.
Seconded by Councilmember Abrams Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Members Abrams,
Juenemann and Smith
The motion passed.
3. Approval of Resolution Entering Into a Master Partnership Contract Between
the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Maplewood
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution that authorizes the City of
Maplewood to enter into a Master Partnership Contract between the Minnesota Department
of Transportation and the City of Maplewood. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized
to sign said Contract signifying council approval. Minor revisions as approved by the City
Attorney are authorized as needed.
Resolution 17-05-1462
Master Partnership Contract
Whereas, The Minnesota Department of Transportation wishes to cooperate
closely with local units of government to coordinate the delivery of transportation services
and maximize the efficient delivery of such services at all levels of government; and
Whereas, MnDOT and local governments are authorized by Minnesota Statutes
sections 471.59, 174.02, and 161.20, to undertake collaborative efforts for the design,
construction, maintenance and operation of state and local roads; and
Whereas: the parties wish to able to respond quickly and efficiently to such
opportunities for collaboration, and have determined that having the ability to write “work
orders” against a master contract would provide the greatest speed and flexibility in
responding to identified needs.
Therefore, be it resolved:
Packet Page Number 7 of 144
E2
May 22, 2017 7
City Council Meeting Minutes
1. That the City of Maplewood enter into a Master Partnership Contract with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation, a copy of which was before the City
Council.
2. That the proper City officers are authorized to execute such contract and any
amendments thereto.
3. That the City Engineer is authorized to negotiate work order contracts pursuant to
the Master Contract, which work order contracts may provide for payment to or
from MnDOT, and that the City Engineer may execute such work order contracts
on behalf of the City of Maplewood in conformance with the City’s most current
Purchasing Policy.
Seconded by Councilmember Abrams Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Members Abrams,
Juenemann and Smith
The motion passed.
4. Approval to Enter into Agreement with Ramsey Conservation District for Rain
Garden Retrofit Program
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the City of Maplewood to enter into an
agreement with Ramsey Conservation District for the Rain Garden Retrofit Program. The
Mayor and City Manager are authorized to sign said agreement signifying City Council
approval. Minor modification approved by the City Attorney are authorized as needed for
the agreement.
Seconded by Councilmember Abrams Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Members Abrams,
Juenemann and Smith
The motion passed.
5. Approval of Purchase for 2017/2018 Road Salt
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the purchase of de-icing salt under state
contract in an amount estimated at $60,000.00 and authorize an internal budget transfer
(utilizing existing funds) in the amount of $25,000.00 for additional bituminous purchases.
Seconded by Councilmember Abrams Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Members Abrams,
Juenemann and Smith
The motion passed.
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Packet Page Number 8 of 144
E2
May 22, 2017 8
City Council Meeting Minutes
1. Consider Approval of Resolution for the Establishment of a Police Advisory
Commission
Police Chief Schnell gave the staff report. City Manager Coleman answered questions of
the council.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution for the establishment of a
Police Advisory Commission.
Resolution 17-05-1463
Resolution for the Establishment of a
Police Advisory Commission
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2016, the Maplewood City Council established a “Use of
Force Workgroup” to foster effective, fair, and transparent police service delivery; and
WHEREAS, the Workgroup, made up of a diverse cross-section of the Maplewood
community, invested considerable time, energy, and effort reviewing the police
department’s use of force policies and related consideration to police officer training,
development, and wellness; and
WHEREAS, the Workgroup completed its appointed task offering a range of policy
and training recommendations along with recommendations for continued involvement
and oversight of police operations, policy, training and outcome metrics; and
WHEREAS, the police department has adopted the recommendations of the
Workgroup and is publishing the policy manual in its entirety on the police department’s
webpage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Maplewood City Council directs
the establishment of a Council appointed nine-member Police Advisory Commission, and
further directs that the following serve as the Commission’s Charter:
The Police Advisory Commission shall be convened by the City’s police chief and will meet
not less than four times annually;
The police chief shall ensure that a police sergeant and two police officers are present at
each meeting of the Police Advisory Commission. The police chief may engage additional
departmental participation as is needed;
The Commission will review quantitative data and qualitative information provided by the
department, with the goal of: growing police - community partnerships; strengthening trust
and legitimacy; deepening understanding of the complexities of modern policing and
police procedures; and seeking solutions for any disparate outcomes that may be
identified through analysis;
During three of the four annual meetings, the police chief or his/her designee shall minimally
provide the Police Advisory Commission with an overview summary of following:
Department staffing changes, including hiring, pending retirements, promotions
Packet Page Number 9 of 144
E2
May 22, 2017 9
City Council Meeting Minutes
Budget expenditures, including single line items exceeding year-to-date
expectations by more than 20%
Number and types of complaints received since the last meeting of the body
An overview of use of force, including the number of use of force encounters,
levels of injury, discharge of a firearm (excluding dispatch of an injured or sick
animal), repeat use of force encounters by employee, and levels of injury to
officer or subject based on the use of force incident, if any
Overview of departmental efforts to promote full-spectrum officer wellness
The details of the underlying incident and final disciplinary action imposed on
any police department employee since the previous report
Number of citations issued since previous report
Number of custodial arrests since previous report
Summarization of collected traffic stop data
Personnel complainant race data, if known
Use force data by race and gender
Arrests by race and gender, as known
Status of implementation of President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing
recommendations
Overview of use and integration of crime analytics to drive departmental
strategy
Overview and summary of department training since previous report
Recommendations for or substantial changes to policies pertaining to officer
use of force, training, conduct, body camera use or other high-profile policy
concerns, unless required by law;
The police chief shall query members of the Workgroup to determine the number of
Workgroup members interested in serving as a member of the Police Advisory Commission;
The police chief shall submit to the City Manager the names of current Workgroup members
interested in continued service on the Police Advisory Commission and in the event of
vacancies (below nine members), the City Manager shall post for applications to serve on
the Police Advisory Commission following established City protocols;
The police chief, in collaboration with the city manager’s office, shall submit the full slate of
Police Advisory Commission candidates for final appointment to the Commission and
establishment of staggered terms;
The Commission will, as needed, assist police department staff in identifying community-
based initiatives or partnerships focused on prevention and intervention;
The Maplewood Police Advisory Commission will serve as a recognized public body
subject to all Minnesota open meeting laws. The Commission will strive to create
opportunities for candid, constructive, and substantive policing-focused conversations that
are fully compliant with Minnesota law;
The Police Advisory Commission, in collaboration with the police chief, may organize
opportunities of small group or subcommittee discussions between commission members
and command staff to share perspectives and learn from one another. In addition, the City
Manager must be notified of such meetings;
Packet Page Number 10 of 144
E2
May 22, 2017 10
City Council Meeting Minutes
The Commission will meet at Maplewood City Hall or in other public locations around the
city and will not be expected to adopt the more formal practices of a traditional City
Commission, such as video recording or broadcasting. All other commission requirements
established by Minnesota law and City policy shall be followed (i.e. posted meeting notice,
published meeting agenda, and published and web posted summary minutes);
In an effort to ensure orderly departmental operations, a clear chain of command, and the
integrity of the City’s collective bargaining agreements with police department personnel,
there shall be no discussions with and between individual members or sub-group
members of either the police department or the advisory commission;
The Commission’s formal authority will be limited to making recommendations to the
department and presenting an annual written report to the City Council, which will include
departmental performance data;
The Commission will present an annual report to the City Council. In addition, the Police
Chief and the City Manager will keep the City Council informed of Agenda Item topics, and
other relevant issues;
The Commission shall have no involvement in the management or discipline of employees
and will not rule on departmental actions;
The Commission will not be involved in real-time review of critical or high-profile police
incidents. When appropriate and at the discretion of the police chief, the Commission may
be convened for the purpose of assisting the department with community outreach, or
helping to educate the broader community on departmental processes, or for post-incident
continuous improvement review;
Finally, following the establishment of the Commission members and their respective terms,
the Mayor shall appoint one member to serve as Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.
Seconded by Councilmember Abrams Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Members Abrams,
Juenemann and Smith
The motion passed.
2. Consider Approval of 2017-2018 Collective Bargaining Agreements
a. A.F.S.C.M.E. Council No. 5 Local 2725
b. Maplewood Confidential & Supervisory Group (MCSA)
c. Metro Supervisory Group (MSA)
d. Police Sergeants, LELS, Local 173
Assistant City Manager/HR Director Funk gave the staff report and answered questions of
the council.
Councilmember Abrams moved to approve the 2017 and 2018 Collective Bargaining
Agreements between the City of Maplewood and the following four (4) bargaining units:
A.F.S.C.M.E. Council No. 5 Local 2725, Maplewood Confidential & Supervisory Group
(MCSA), and the Metro Supervisory Group (MSA), Police Sergeants, LELS, Local 173; and
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute said contracts on behalf of the City.
Packet Page Number 11 of 144
E2
May 22, 2017 11
City Council Meeting Minutes
Seconded by Councilmember Smith Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Members Abrams,
Juenemann and Smith
The motion passed.
J. NEW BUSINESS
1. Consider Approval of New Corporate Officers and Establishment Manager for
the Crooked Pint, 1734 Adolphus Street
City Clerk Sindt gave the staff report. Ross Inselman, Manager of Crooked Pint
addressed the council to answer questions.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the new corporate officers, Alan Korpi and
Tobin Korpi; and establishment manager Ross Inselman of the Crooked Pint, 1734
Adolphus Street, contingent upon completion of the business transaction set to occur on
June 1, 2017.
Seconded by Councilmember Abrams Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Members Abrams,
Juenemann
Abstain – Councilmember Smith
(Family connection to the
business)
The motion passed.
2. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing a Wetland Buffer Variance for
2224 Woodlynn Avenue
Environmental Planner Finwall gave the staff report. Commissioner Fred Dahm gave the
report from the planning commission.
Councilmember Abrams moved to approve the resolution authorizing a 30-foot wetland
buffer variance for 2224 Woodlynn Avenue East for the construction of a new single family
house. Approval is based on the following reasons:
1. Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties
because complying with the wetland buffer requirement stipulated by the ordinance
would prohibit the building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing
the potential of this lot.
2. Approval of the wetland buffer variance will include the restoration of the remaining
wetland buffer, which will improve the water quality of the wetland.
3. Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance with the construction of
a new single family house on a vacant lot that is zoned and guided in the City’s
comprehensive plan as residential.
Approval of the wetland buffer variance shall be subject to the following:
Packet Page Number 12 of 144
E2
May 22, 2017 12
City Council Meeting Minutes
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the new single family house the applicants
must submit:
a. A tree plan which shows the location, size, and species of all significant
trees located on the lot, and the trees that will be removed with the
construction of the new single family house. Removal of significant trees
with the construction of the single family house must comply with the City’s
tree preservation ordinance and tree replacement requirements.
b. A grading plan which shows the location of a retaining wall to be
constructed on the southwest corner of the house, adjacent the wetland
buffer. The retaining wall should extend approximately 40 feet along the
wetland buffer edge, stopping near the middle of the lot where the slopes
begin to level off.
c. A wetland buffer restoration plan to be approved by City staff. The
restoration plan will reflect native plantings within a 25- to 50-foot area
adjacent the wetland.
d. An escrow to cover up to 150 percent of the cost of the wetland buffer
restoration.
2. Prior to release of the escrow, the wetland buffer plantings must be established.
Resolution 17-05-1464
Variance Resolution
WHEREAS, Mark Gergen applied for a variance from the wetland ordinance.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to the property located at 2224 Woodlynn
Avenue East, Maplewood, MN. The property identification number is 02-29-22-11-0102.
The legal description is Lot 18, Block 1, Netnorlin, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, Section 12-310 of the City’s ordinances (Wetlands and Streams)
requires a wetland buffer of 50 feet adjacent to Manage C wetlands.
WHEREAS, the applicants are proposing to construct a single family house and
grading for the house to within 20 feet of a Manage C wetland, requiring a 30-foot wetland
buffer variance.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On May 15, 2017, the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
reviewed the variance and recommended approval of the wetland buffer variance to the
Planning Commission and City Council.
2. On May 16, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review this
proposal. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners as required by law. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the
Packet Page Number 13 of 144
E2
May 22, 2017 13
City Council Meeting Minutes
hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission
also considered the report and recommendation of the city staff and Environmental and
Natural Resources Commission. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the wetland buffer variance to the City Council.
3. The City Council held a public meeting on May 22, 2017, to review this proposal.
The City Council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff, the
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission, and the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approved the above-
described variance based on the following reasons:
1. Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties
because complying with the wetland buffer requirement stipulated by the ordinance would
prohibit the building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing the potential of
this lot.
2. Approval of the wetland buffer variance will include the restoration of the remaining
wetland buffer, which will improve the water quality and wildlife habitat of the wetland.
3. Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance with the construction of
a new single family house on a vacant lot that is zoned and guided in the City’s
comprehensive plan as residential.
Approval of the wetland buffer variance shall be subject to the following:
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the new single family house the applicants
must submit:
a. A tree plan which shows the location, size, and species of all significant
trees located on the lot, and the trees that will be removed with the
construction of the new single family house. Removal of significant trees
with the construction of the single family house must comply with the City’s
tree preservation ordinance and tree replacement requirements.
b. A grading plan which shows the location of a retaining wall to be
constructed on the southwest corner of the house, adjacent the wetland
buffer. The retaining wall should extend approximately 40 feet along the
wetland buffer edge, stopping near the middle of the lot where the slopes
begin to level off.
c. A wetland buffer restoration plan to be approved by City staff. The
restoration plan will reflect native plantings within a 25- to 50-foot area
adjacent the wetland.
d. An escrow to cover up to 150 percent of the cost of the wetland
buffer restoration.
2. Prior to release of the escrow, the wetland buffer plantings must be established.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Packet Page Number 14 of 144
E2
May 22, 2017 14
City Council Meeting Minutes
Members Abrams,
Juenemann and Smith
The motion passed.
3. Consider Approval of a Community Ambassadors Agreement Between the City
of Maplewood and the Hallie Q. Brown Center on Behalf of the Community
Ambassadors Program
Lieutenant Crotty gave the staff report. City Manager Coleman answered questions of the
council.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Community Ambassadors Agreement
Between the City of Maplewood and Hallie Q. Brown Center on Behalf of the Community
Ambassadors Program.
Seconded by Councilmember Abrams Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Members Abrams,
Juenemann and Smith
The motion passed.
K. AWARD OF BIDS
None
L. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Slawik adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Packet Page Number 15 of 144
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
DATE: June 6, 2017
SUBJECT: Council Calendar Update
Introduction/Background
This item is informational and intended to provide the Council an indication on the current
planning for upcoming agenda items and the Work Session schedule. These are not official
announcements of the meetings, but a snapshot look at the upcoming meetings for the City
Council to plan their calendars. No action is required.
Upcoming Agenda Items & Work Session Schedule
1. June 26th
a. Workshop: Review Capital Improvement Plan 2018-2028
b. Council Meeting: Visitor Presentation Review
2. July 10th
a. Workshop: Racial Equity Program Update, Review 2018 Budget Process and
Calendar
3. July 24th
a. Workshop: Cable Franchise Update, Rice & Larpenteur Project Update
Council Comments
Comments regarding Workshops, Council Meetings or other topics of concern or interest.
Budget Impact
None
Recommendation
No action required.
Attachments
None.
F1a
Packet Page Number 16 of 144
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
DATE: June 12, 2016
SUBJECT: Presentation of Housing Study by Roseville Area League of Women Voters
Introduction/Background
Rachel Geiser and Mindy Greiling will be giving a presentation on the Housing Study completed
by the Roseville Area League of Women Voters.
Budget Impact
None
Recommendation
No action required.
Attachments
1. Affordable Housing Testimony
2. Study of Affordable Housing
3. Comprehensive Plan Priorities for Maplewood
F3
Packet Page Number 17 of 144
During the past year, the League of Women Voters of Roseville Area, with members in Falcon Heights,
Lauderdale, Little Canada, Maplewood and Roseville conducted a study of affordable housing options in our
five cities. The League study coincides with the updating of each city’s comprehensive plan which includes a
housing element. Our study looks at current housing situations, including existing gaps, and makes
recommendations on planning for the future by providing a full continuum of housing options to increase the
overall quality of life for every present and future resident, contributing to a vibrant local economy.
Our research included interviews with regional authorities on affordable housing, engaging a team of
University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs graduate students to do a complementary study,
and hosting presentations by Wilder Foundation researcher Ellen Shelton and a panel made up of State
Representative Alice Hausmann, Dr. Edward Goetz, U. of M. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs and John
Slade, community organizer for ISAIAH. Your packets contain today’s testimony, the results of our research
included in a written report, A Place For Us?, and the student study recommendations which are specific to
this city and endorsed by the League of Women Voters Roseville Area.
All information can also be accessed on our website, www. LWVRosevilleArea.org, including our written
report, the report produced by the University of Minnesota team and a League produced Power Point that
defines affordable housing.
I will read the League of Women Voter Roseville Area recommendations for the public to hear.
When updating the housing section of your comprehensive plan we recommend you:
1. Provide for a full range of affordable housing.
2. Preserve and improve existing affordable housing.
3. Consider inclusion of affordable housing when available land is developed.
4. Support incentives to make development/re-development more attractive to developers.
5. License and monitor rental properties.
6. Promote better awareness of linking low income renters to support services.
7. When licensing landlords, urge or require them to list on Housing Link if their units are affordable.
We welcome continued dialogue on any points. For additional information, you are also invited to a Council of
Metropolitan Leagues sponsored panel on housing from 10:30 a.m. until noon, Saturday, October 21st at
Centennial United Methodist Church, County Rd. C2 and Snelling, Roseville. Speakers will be Chip Halbach,
MN Housing Partnership; Gail Dorfman, Met Council and St. Stephens Executive Director and Cathy Bennett,
Housing Initiative at the Urban Land Institute.
F3, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 18 of 144
1
F3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 19 of 144
2
Study of Affordable Housing and its Availability in Falcon
Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Maplewood, Roseville
League of Women Voters Roseville Area, March 2017
by Judy Berglund, Rebecca Bormann, Mindy Greiling and Bonnie Koch
“I believe we’re headed into the greatest housing problem for poor people in our country since
the early 1900s. Not since 2008. Not since World War II, but since the early 1900s. I think the
convergence of market forces, social issues, policy and politics is going to present us with the
greatest problem we’ve seen for many, many decades, so we need to pass these kinds of bills
(capital investment) that didn’t get passed last year. We need to all pitch in and do our work.”
--Alan Arthur, president Aeon
October, 2016, at a celebration of new affordable housing built by his company
Fact: There are more low-income people in the suburbs than there are in the central cities,
and the need for affordable housing is as great. (Dr. Ed Goetz, CURA)
Fact: So far this decade, 28 communities in the Twin Cities have added 4,584 new
affordable rental units. That amounts to just one year’s worth of metro wide demand. More than
half of those units were built in Minneapolis and St. Paul, according to the Met Council, though
the two cities account for just one-fourth of the region’s population. (Star Tribune, Dec. 30,
2016)
Fact: Three in 5 households earning less than $50,000 experience housing cost burden.
(Minnesota Housing Partnership)
Fact: Homelessness is down statewide since 2012, but in Ramsey County, it increased 14
percent. (Wilder Foundation)
Fact: There are more homeless children in Minnesota today than there were homeless
people in all of the state in 1991. (Wilder Foundation)
Facts like these prompted the League of Women Voters of Roseville Area to take a
serious look at the housing crisis, which, one agency says, is a “tsunami that is broad, complex
and multifaceted.”
The League has a long history of advocating for equality of rights. Social policy
positions center on securing “equal rights and equal opportunity for all” and promoting “social
and economic justice.” The demographics of first-ring suburban cities in the League of Women
Voters Roseville Area, which includes Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Maplewood
and Roseville, are changing dramatically. The Minnesota Department of Education documents
that in the last 10 years there has been a 125 percent increase in the percentage of students in
F3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 20 of 144
3
Roseville Area schools and 85 percent increase in the North Saint Paul/Maplewood school
district who are learning English. We have a sizable Karen community (Burma refugees).
Approximately fifty-seven percent of students in the Roseville schools are now students of color.
Homeless students are a part of our school population.
Study Goal
This study examines if fair housing and an adequate housing supply exist for all our community
members. It focuses on available units for families and individuals using Metropolitan Council
definitions. We chose Council definitions because they are the ones cities will use for updating
their comprehensive plans due to be filed with the Met Council next year. The League sought to
determine if our inner-ring suburbs are doing our share.
What is affordable housing?
Housing is affordable to a family or individual if costs are no more than 30 percent of
their income. For people who earn less than the median income this can be a challenge.
Government subsidizes housing to make it affordable in a variety of ways with the main
goal of preventing homelessness. Affordable housing is obtained by: building it publicly,
building it privately with public assistance or by giving rental vouchers to people who, on their
own, must find landlords who will accept them.
In addition to government-subsidized affordable housing, manufactured mobile homes,
older homes and apartment buildings provide affordable homes as well.
The Metropolitan Council’s new Housing Policy Plan, developed to assist cities, states,
“Having a variety of housing types, including housing affordable to very-low-income households
or those with special support needs, is part of a well-balanced, economically resilient community
and an economically competitive region.”
Gathering Background Information
A committee of League members questioned a variety of housing experts to
gather information for this report. Interviewees were: Barbara Dacy, Washington HRA; Dan
Hylton, Housing Link researcher; Paul Fate, recently retired CEO, Common Bond; Dr. Edward
Goetz, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA); Libby Starling and Beth Reetz.
Metropolitan Council; Commissioner Mary Tingerthal and Katie Topina, Minnesota Housing;
Cathy Bennett, Housing Initiative, Urban Land Institute Minnesota (ULI), Cathy ten Broeke,
Minnesota state director to Prevent Homelessness, and Dr. Craig Waldron, Hamline University.
Ellen Shelton, Wilder Foundation, addressed homelessness at the League’s November
meeting. We focused on affordable housing and homelessness at our meeting with local
policymakers in January. Dr. Goetz, (CURA) John Slade, Organizer for Ramsey and Washington
Counties, Metropolitan Interfaith Council on Affordable Housing (MICAH) and State
Representative Alice Hausman, a legislative leader on expanding affordable housing units, were
speakers at our February meeting. City and county elected and appointed officials and staff
F3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 21 of 144
4
involved in comprehensive planning were invited to this meeting. Many were in attendance.
History
The federal government began building subsidized housing as part of President
Roosevelt’s New Deal. No new federal public housing has been built since the 1970s, when
policy shifted to programs for private developers to create affordable housing. In Minnesota the
number of lower-cost units constructed peaked in 2001 and has since declined.
No publicly subsidized apartments have been built this decade in more than 80 suburbs
and exurbs around Minneapolis and St. Paul, according to an analysis by Dougherty Mortgage, a
firm that tracks the local apartment market.
In 1974 the Housing and Community Development Act created a Section 8 Voucher
Program for rental assistance to low income applicants. In the early eighties the federal
government decreased its funding for rental assistance vouchers from about $10 billion to about
$2 billion.
Metropolitan Council researchers report that the number of households paying more than
half their income for rent doubled between 2000 and 2013.
MICAH estimates that $1.06 billion is needed in Minnesota to fill an existing affordable
housing gap. Rep. Alice Hausman states that 41% of Minnesota renters are cost burdened,
meaning they pay more than 30% of their income for rent.
It’s become increasingly difficult for people of modest means to find housing.
Developers, catering to more affluent clients, are purchasing and upgrading large apartment
complexes, often forcing low-income renters to move.
Current Challenges
The major challenges for developing affordable housing in the five suburbs represented
by the League are building costs and the need to find subsidies, according to Goetz (CURA).
“We don’t have subsidies available; they aren’t funded adequately at the state or federal level,
though we have one of the better state finance agencies,” he said.
In addition to needing to secure scarce funding, it’s difficult to develop housing for a
city’s poorest residents because their potential neighbors worry that it will reduce property
values or damage quality of life. These people are called NIMBYs (Not in My BackYard).
MICAH states that NIMBYism is often rooted in racism. In Minnesota, 25% of renters are white
and 75% are people of color.
According to Paul Fate, immediate past president of CommonBond, the Met Council
hasn’t been as aggressive as they should be in promoting affordable housing. Dr. Ed Goetz says
the Met Council could use their levers more aggressively.
F3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 22 of 144
5
On the other hand, Council housing experts say they are limited in what they can do. The
Council has four systems of responsibility determined by state statute - transportation, parks,
wastewater and aviation. If housing were one of the systems, the Council could insist
noncompliant cities modify their housing plans.
The Met Council does have an enforcement tool. Its Livable Community Program,
funded from the Council’s property tax levy, grants funds for expansion and preservation of
affordable housing to help cities meet housing goals. Local governments’ housing plans must
pass muster to receive monies. Of the 179 local units in the Metro Area, 95 participate in the
Livable Community Program. Of our five cities, only Little Canada does not.
The Metropolitan Council prioritizes funding requests by giving a performance score
based on how well communities are maintaining or expanding and promoting affordable housing
supplies and if transit is accessible. Scores are based on data from the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency (MHFA) and range from 0 to 100. Below is a score comparison of our five
cities and neighboring communities.
City 2016 Housing
Performance Score
Maplewood 84
Roseville 82
Shoreview 81
Fridley 79
White Bear Lake 75
North St. Paul 70
Mounds View 69
New Brighton 69
Arden Hills 68
Falcon Heights 40
Lauderdale 34
Little Canada 25
Dr. Ed Goetz says that generally speaking we have enough affordable units at the 80%
level, but where we lack is for 50% AMI (Area Median Income) and 30% AMI. In that respect,
he said, we’re far behind. John Slade of MICAH says that the Met Council’s goal is based on
F3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 23 of 144
6
given growth in population and jobs, not how much affordable housing is needed. They don’t
deal enough with current need.
Vouchers
Financial help for low income renters is available through Section 8 vouchers. The
Housing Choice Voucher Program, funded by the federal government and distributed through
Metro HRA, offers rental assistance. Eligible households pay 30% to 40% of their incomes for
rent, and Metro HRA pays the remainder. Families may rent any type of housing in the Metro
HRA service area where the landlord agrees to program participation and within HRA rent
guidelines.
Special vouchers are also available. Bridges, a state program, provides rental assistance
for households with one or more adults with mental illnesses. Veteran’s Affairs Supportive
Housing (VASH), a federal program, offers rental assistance for homeless veterans in connection
with supportive services provided through the Veteran’s Administration.
Low-income people in the Twin Cities wait years for a Section 8 housing voucher. The
Metropolitan Council, which oversees Anoka, Carver, and most of the suburbs in Hennepin and
Ramsey counties, opened its waiting list in February 2015 for the first time since 2007. The
agency received 35,000 applications in four days. Only 2,000 names were put in a lottery, and
those families face a wait of up to three years to actually get a voucher.
People who do manage to secure a voucher often have a hard time redeeming them since
few places accept them. According to Met Council data, less than two thirds of Section 8
voucher holders are able to use them. The success rate for people with mental illness who have
Bridges vouchers is one-third.
The Metropolitan Council data below shows voucher usage in our five cities. Numbers
fluctuate and may not be totally accurate in 2017.
Type of
Voucher
Falcon
Heights
Lauderdale Little Canada Maplewood Roseville
Housing
Choice
(Section 8)
39 6 135 380 262
Bridges 0 0 6 5 3
Developers
“Funding is the responsibility of the developer. He or she must pull the funding together
and make it work. If you are a developer and you have a vision, you would not proceed without
F3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 24 of 144
7
making sure you have the underlying financing and subsidies in place,” said CommonBond’s
Paul Fate.
The tool that affects the largest expansion of affordable housing is the Low Income
Housing Tax Credit, (LIHTC) which gives developers tax incentives for including affordable
housing in their projects, generally up to 60% Area Median Income (AMI). (Minnesota Housing
prefers 50%.) Tax credits come through the Federal Government Treasury Department and are
administered by local housing authorities. Credits are only applicable if there is land available
for development or redevelopment and usually require givebacks from the city as well.
NIMBYs (Not in My BackYard) discourage developers because they lead to “slow nos,”
where the city doesn’t say no right way, but rejects a project later in the negotiations process.
Delay is costly for the developer who may be paying for an option on the land, own the land or
be paying a holding cost. Developers learn which cities do this and gravitate to other cities.
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency distributes funds to cities through a
consolidated Request for Proposal (RFP) to facilitate one-stop shopping. It partners with the Met
Council, Section 8 vouchers, and Greater Metropolitan Housing to offer this funding, which
comes from state and federal sources.
Cities rarely apply for funding for a building entirely devoted to Section 8 renters because
the funding is hard to put together and make work. However, Minnesota Housing encourages
local housing authorities to allocate at least some units for Section 8 vouchers within workforce
housing projects. It’s valuable to do so in terms of Housing Performance Scores for state
funding, according to Commissioner Tingerthal.
Landlords
Section 8 voucher renters are not protected under Fair Housing regulation. Even when
receiving a housing voucher, they can’t easily find a landlord who will accept them. Section 8’s
reputation is negative. Landlords don’t want to deal with the extra inspections and paperwork
that are a part of the voucher program. In today’s current competitive housing market, they don’t
need to bother with the hassle or accept applicants who have bad credit ratings or misdemeanors,
which many low-income people and people with mental illness have.
The Minnesota Legislature is currently examining policies that would encourage
landlords to take a risk on the poorest and most vulnerable rental applicants. Legislators recently
allocated a small amount of money to provide a backstop to landlords renting to families who
have criminal backgrounds or mental illness, to compensate for damages beyond what insurance
covers. Current state policy discussions focus on how to prevent “three calls from police and
then you get evicted” policies if the calls are due to a mental health crisis.
Some housing non-profits are compiling data with the hope of giving landlords more
accurate screening processes to enable them to better determine who would be a good tenant.
F3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 25 of 144
8
Housing Link maintains a website to assist people in finding apartments where vouchers
are accepted. Their research manager, Dan Hylton, recommends cities give rental licensees
information about Housing Link and urge them to list there if their units are affordable.
Minnesota Challenge
A particularly helpful study of practical things that can be done to increase the
willingness of local governments to build affordable housing is the Minnesota Challenge study
conducted in 2014. The goal is to give state and local communities additional options for
providing a full range of housing choices for low and moderate income residents. The study was
conducted by CURA, the Housing Justice Center and Becker Consulting and funded by
Minnesota Housing, the McKnight Foundation, ULI Minnesota and Enterprise Community
Partners.
The most important lesson from the research is that local policies that affect cost play an
important role in determining whether it is feasible to build affordable housing and in the amount
of affordable housing that can be built throughout the region.
The report identifies eleven areas where improvements can be made, such as:
● Supporting appropriate density. The single area with the largest impact on cost is the
failure of cities to support cost-effective density and scale of affordable housing projects.
Several cities have been successful in resisting this tendency.
● Finding and acquiring sites for new developments is one of the most difficult, time
consuming and expensive tasks developers undertake. A number of cities have been quite
proactive in easing these burdens, from identifying appropriate sites to zoning sufficient
land.
● Fee reductions and waivers. Local fees, which vary widely, can easily add $20,000 to
$30,000 in costs per unit.
● Supporting inclusionary housing, where market rate units must include a certain ratio of
affordable units.
Hope for the Future
Despite the complex challenges listed in this report, we are guardedly hopeful for the
future. The Greater Minnesota Housing Fund, a nonprofit affordable housing lender, is
developing the nation’s first regional pool of money to help affordable housing stay that way.
The Fund will assist buyers who want to buy apartment complexes when they come up for sale
in the seven-county metropolitan area. The goal is to purchase 10 to 20 percent of the affordable
housing buildings that go on the market.
In our area, Aeon, a Twin Cities non-profit organization, recently purchased a pair of
apartment buildings that will provide much needed workforce housing. The first, Goldenstar, is
a 109-unit building in Maplewood. The other, Sun Place, is a 30-unit structure in Roseville.
F3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 26 of 144
9
Recent research by the Urban Land Institute and the Regional Council of Mayors (RCM),
that ULI staffs, found:
● Cities that are more accepting and intentional in supporting affordable housing as part of
a full range of housing choices ensure their competitive ability by accommodating
income diversity in their communities.
● Communities are adopting housing policies and modifying zoning codes to support
mixed use, mixed income and walkable places.
● 51 percent of affordable housing units in suburban areas were built or preserved in
Regional Council of Mayors (RCM) cities participating in the Urban Land Institute’s
services from 2008-2014.
A Word of Caution
Though progress has been made in increasing affordable housing for Minnesota’s low
and moderate income families, the future remains uncertain, given an expected rise in interest
rates and a potential decline in public housing funding under President Donald Trump.
Minnesota’s Housing Fund is depleted pending Legislative action this year.
Analysis of Affordable Housing In Our Five Cities
On November 1st, 2016, The Roseville Area League of Women Voters Affordable
Housing Study Committee sent Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Maplewood and
Roseville City Managers a survey to determine the present affordable housing situation in their
cities. The cities had just begun to update their comprehensive plans. In some situations
answers were still unknown. City figures are accurate as of December 1, 2016.
The MN Housing Finance Agency defines affordability based on the Area Median
Income (AMI). The agency publishes the AMI adjusted by county and by individuals per
household. In Ramsey County the AMI is $60,100 for an individual, $85,800 for a family of
four. Need for assistance is broken into three categories: those with incomes up to 30% AMI,
incomes between 31 and 50% and incomes that are 51-80% of the AMI.
Survey questions were based on information members of the Study Committee gathered
in interviews with individuals with expertise in regional affordable housing. The survey was
organized into three areas based on the Metropolitan Council Housing Plan: Assessing Existing
Housing/Needs/Priorities; Implementing Housing Planning; Projecting Future Affordable
Housing Needs.
F3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 27 of 144
10
Existing Housing
City Popula-
tion
#Units
0-30%
AMI**
#Units
31-50%
AMI**
#Units 51-
80%
AMI**
Apartments
(Units)
Mobile
Home
Parks/
Units
LIHTC
Financed
Units***
Falcon
Heights
5,571 25*
(25)
616*
(628)
1,156*
(752)
Unknown*
(963)
None None
Lauderdale 2,484 52*
(15)
480*
(590)
528*
(464)
536*
(648)
None None
Little
Canada
10,319 605*
(953)
825*
(1100)
850*
(1753)
1,580*
(2195)
3/573*
(450)
118
Maplewood 40,567 1,327*
(1218)
2,920*
(4059)
7,776*
(7454)
4,373*
(4373)
4/726*
(734)
31
Roseville 35,580 371 +
15
owned
by Met
Council
(1169)*
175*
(2517)
Unknown
(7268)*
Abt 5,000
(Includes single
family rentals)*
(6087)
1/105*
(112)
258
*Number reported in survey (Met Council assessment)
**AMI = Area Median Income. 0-31% includes homeless.
***LIHTC = Low Income Housing Tax Credit.
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH), homes that are available without
subsidies, are not specifically tracked by any of the cities, but are tracked in the aggregate by the
Met Council and included in their Performance Scores.
F3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 28 of 144
11
Implementing Housing Planning
Acreage available for future development is minimal so our inner-ring communities are
more likely to focus on redevelopment and rehabilitation.
City Residential
Acreage
Available for
Development
Residential
Acreage
Available for
Re-development
# Developer
-initiated Request
for Affordable
Housing Builds:
5yrs/10yrs.
Approved/Denied
Falcon
Heights
1 Unknown 1/1 Approved
Lauderdale None None 0/0
Little
Canada
About 20
acres
Hard to Predict Unknown other than
senior housing/high
% of rental housing
available
Senior housing
approved
Maplewood Minimal City doesn’t
specify
2/Unknown Approved
Roseville None 58 acres for
high density
residential dev.
2/4 1 Pending/2
Approved/1 Denied
(hinged on
significant amt. of
subsidy)
City Programs To Encourage Affordable Housing
There are many ways in which cities can encourage or make it easier for affordable
housing to be developed in their communities. We asked if cities:
● Require a percentage of affordable units in high density development?
● Contribute local financial resources for low income housing?
● Reduce/waive building permit and municipal fees?
● Identify and acquire sites?
● Streamline the administrative process for project approval?
● Identify zoning regulations that allow for flexibility in affordable housing development
such as parking requirements, design requirements?
There are few allowances in place in our cities presently, aside from:
● Falcon Heights: Has flexibility in zoning/subdivision codes through a Planned Unit
Development (PUD).
F3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 29 of 144
12
● Lauderdale: flexibility.
● Little Canada: Assisted in providing tax exempt financing with some building upgrades.
Contributed bond issuance fees to at least one complex to assist with improvement to a
fire suppression system. Provided financing to three existing condo developments that
met affordable guidelines using a statutory provision allowing for Housing Improvement
Areas (HIA).
● Roseville: Has considered and given subsidy to low income housing projects.
Most cities require licensing of rental units and oversee them through state and city
building codes. Maplewood does not have specific rental licensing standards. Falcon Heights
only requires licensing of structures with four or less units.
Cities, generally, are not participating in programs that link individuals and families with
affordable housing needs with availability in their communities.
Lauderdale and Roseville have participated in the Met Council’s Livable Communities
Program. Roseville has also worked with Corridors of Opportunity.
Projecting Affordable Housing Needs
The cities in the Roseville Area League are just beginning to update their comprehensive
plans as required by the Metropolitan Council in 2018. When surveyed, they frequently did not
have facts and figures readily available.
To assist communities in assessing their comprehensive plans, the Metropolitan Council
forecasts population and job growth. It also projects regional household growth and determines
each community’s share of the regional need for housing. The figures below are based on a total
regional need of 37,900 Affordable Housing units for the years 2021-2030. The numbers indicate
how many units the Met Council has determined each community needs to add.
City Allocation 0-
30% AMI
Allocation 31-
50% AMI
Allocation 51-
80% AMI
Total Units
Needed
Falcon Heights 0 0 0 0
Lauderdale 0 0 0 0
Little Canada 26 28 25 79
Maplewood 250 95 165 510
Roseville 72 50 20 142
F3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 30 of 144
13
As first-ring suburbs with changing demographics, none has begun to consider examining
the relationship between employment in their cities and the need for housing for those employed.
Conclusion
At the time of the survey, all the cities indicated acreage available for new residential
development is minimal to non-existent, placing emphasis on future redevelopment of existing
land tracts and upgrades or rehabs of current properties.
In general, cities were not well informed about low-income affordable housing AMI
availability and present rental voucher usage. Nor were they making affordable housing more
development friendly through regulation flexibility. Connecting local individuals/families to
support organizations that help them find housing is minimal.
Reflecting the LWVMN position on housing, improvement needs to be encouraged in:
● Providing for a full range of affordable housing opportunities in each city.
● Preserving and improving current affordable housing.
● Promoting better awareness of rental housing subsidy usage and linking low- income
residents to support services.
● Supporting incentives that make development/rehabilitation more attractive to
developers.
● Maintaining and regulating rental properties.
● Considering inclusion of affordable housing when minimal land available is developed.
● When licensing landlords, urge or require them to list on HousingLink if their units are
affordable.
What’s Next?
This year’s study sought to educate League members, elected officials and the public
about the need for affordable housing and its availability in the five cities in which most of our
members reside. Many of the housing experts we interviewed told us that informed local
advocacy by the League of Women Voters, partnering with other organizations, including
churches, could be a key factor in garnering local interest to increase affordable housing options
in our cities.
Capstone Project
League members are working with a team of University of Minnesota Humphrey School
of Public Affairs graduate students working on a Master’s Degree Capstone Project. The goal of
the team is to analyze existing affordable housing in our five cities and build a framework of
successful practices to meet future needs of our changing cities. With the students, we will make
our study results and the framework they develop available to our cities to use as they update
required Metropolitan Council housing plans. We will also make the framework available to
other leagues representing first-ring suburbs who have many of the same needs as our cities.
F3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 31 of 144
14
LWV Affordable Housing Study Committee
Thanks to committee co-chairs: Rebecca Bormann, Mindy Greiling, Bonnie Koch and
members: Judy Berglund, Emma Duren, Georgeann Hall, Claire Jordan, Kathy Juenemann, Kris
Nagy, Beth Salzl.
This study is dedicated to Ann Berry, a lifetime League member and passionate advocate for
affordable housing. Ann died in 2016.
F3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 32 of 144
F3, Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 33 of 144
F3, Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 34 of 144
TO:Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM:Ellen Paulseth, Finance Director
DATE:
SUBJECT:Approval of Claims
125,562.95$ Checks #99695 thru #99730
dated 05/23/17
302,465.04$ Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 05/15/17 thru 05/19/17
509,378.93$ Checks # 99731 thru # 99763
dated 05/22/17 thru 05/30/17
523,903.84$ Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 05/22/17 thru 05/26/17
314,756.04$ Checks #99764 thru # 99803
dated 06/06/17
268,983.86$ Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 05/30/17 thru 06/02/17
2,045,050.66$ Total Accounts Payable
502,290.04$ Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 05/19/17
1,697.03$ Payroll Deduction check # 99102718 thru # 99102721
dated 05/19/17
579,089.09$ Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 06/02/17
1,187.68$ Payroll Deduction check # 99102737 thru # 99102739
dated 06/02/17
1,084,263.84$ Total Payroll
3,129,314.50$ GRAND TOTAL
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
MEMORANDUM
June 7, 2017
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:
G1
Packet Page Number 35 of 144
Check Description Amount
99695 05114 PROJ 16-25 STERLING ST BRIDGE 1,020.00
99696 02728 PROJ 16-31 PROF SRVS THRU 04/30 4,992.59
99697 05311 SOFTBALL UMPIRES 5/08 - 5/14 621.00
99698 00985 INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE PERMIT 2017 400.00
99699 01337 911 DISPATCH SERVICES - APRIL 30,993.07
01337 CAD SERVICES - APRIL 6,099.63
01337 FLEET SUPPORT FEES - APRIL 502.32
01337 FLEET SUPPORT FEES - APRIL 471.12
99700 01546 BASKETBALL CLINIC SHIRTS 325.00
99701 01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS~2,994.84
01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS~2,509.68
01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS~2,222.08
01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS~1,879.80
99702 01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 2,379.29
01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 1,946.21
01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 202.10
01190 FIRE SIRENS 54.81
99703 05761 EMPLOYEE MEMBERSHIPS - APRIL 1,313.00
99704 05318 MN PUBLIC SAFETY-POST OFFER TEST 830.00
99705 05776 CATERING - EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION 1,365.37
99706 02679 REPAIR EMTF FENCE 13,715.00
99707 03965 TOTE BAGS-EMPLOYEE BENEFIT EVENT 704.65
99708 05206 PHOTOS DADDY DAUGHTER DANCE 5-5 140.00
99709 00462 REPAIR TO TORNADO SIREN #11 100.00
99710 00003 ESCROW BIG DIS LIQUOR 2520 WBA 2,900.00
99711 00003 ESCROW CKC 2301 MCKNIGHT RD N 1,502.95
00003 ESCROW CKC 2301 MCKNIGHT RD N 840.00
99712 05770 NOZZLES FOR PAINT SPRAYER UNIT655 27.88
99713 00545 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 5/1/17-4/30/18 250.00
99714 00393 PRESSURE VESSEL FIRESTATION 2 10.00
99715 00532 HR ATTORNEY FEE LITIGATION-APRIL 954.92
00532 HR ATTORNEY FEE LABOR REL-APRIL 361.80
00532 HR ATTORNEY FEE ARB & ADMIN-APRIL 86.40
99716 03818 REFUND FOR TRANS MEDIC PATIENT 439.58
99717 05356 VIDEOGRAPHER SRVS - 60TH ANNIV 1,945.00
05356 VIDEOGRAPHER SRVS - APRIL 961.40
99718 02629 PHYSICAL AGILITY EXAM - PD 240.00
99719 00001 REFUND A ROLDAN - TRANS MEDIC 846.00
99720 01248 ICE FOR BIKE RODIO 23.96
99721 01345 FILING FEES 46.00
99722 04054 DJ FOR DADDY DAUGHTER DANCE 5-5 210.00
99723 04578 TREE INSPECTION SERVICES 102.00
99724 00198 WATER SERVICES FOR THE MCC 1,276.93
99725 01836 RADIO MAINT & SRVS - MARCH 358.00
01836 RADIO MAINT & SRVS - MARCH 165.50
99726 03826 REPLACEMENT LIGHT POLES 9,700.00
99727 05816 REPAIR STATION #2 WASHER 105.00
99728 05815 SOCCER NETS FOR PARKS 5,449.72
05815 SOFTBALLS FOR ADULT LEAGUE 2,903.34
99729 01876 CONSULTING MGMT TEAM RETREAT 2,682.50
01876 CONSULTING STAFF DEVELOPMENT 625.00
99730 02159 PRIVATE SWIM & SWIM ACADEMY-JUNE 12,767.51
Check Register
City of Maplewood
05/19/2017
Date Vendor
05/23/2017 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC
05/23/2017 WILLIE MCCRAY
05/23/2017 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
05/23/2017 BOLTON & MENK, INC.
05/23/2017 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
05/23/2017 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
05/23/2017 SUBURBAN SPORTSWEAR
05/23/2017 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
05/23/2017 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
05/23/2017 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
05/23/2017 XCEL ENERGY
05/23/2017 XCEL ENERGY
05/23/2017 XCEL ENERGY
05/23/2017 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
05/23/2017 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
05/23/2017 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
05/23/2017 DAVID GRUPA PORTRAIT
05/23/2017 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS, INC.
05/23/2017 ESCROW REFUND
05/23/2017 XCEL ENERGY
05/23/2017 YMCA
05/23/2017 CAMPION, BARROW & ASSOCIATES
05/23/2017 CAPERS
05/23/2017 CENTURY FENCE CO
05/23/2017 CORPORATE MARK, INC.
05/23/2017 GFOA
05/23/2017 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY
05/23/2017 MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN, LLP
05/23/2017 ESCROW REFUND
05/23/2017 ESCROW REFUND
05/23/2017 FROST INC.
05/23/2017 NORTH SUBURBAN ACCESS CORP
05/23/2017 NORTH SUBURBAN ACCESS CORP
05/23/2017 NOVACARE REHABILITATION
05/23/2017 MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN, LLP
05/23/2017 MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN, LLP
05/23/2017 MEDICA
05/23/2017 STEVEN REED
05/23/2017 S & S TREE SPECIALISTS
05/23/2017 ST PAUL REGIONAL WATER SRVS
05/23/2017 ONE TIME VENDOR
05/23/2017 PARTY TIME LIQUOR
05/23/2017 RAMSEY COUNTY
05/23/2017 NATE SVENDSEN
05/23/2017 UNIVERSAL ATHLETIC SERVICE INC
05/23/2017 UNIVERSAL ATHLETIC SERVICE INC
05/23/2017 ST PAUL, CITY OF
05/23/2017 ST PAUL, CITY OF
05/23/2017 STERNBERG LIGHTING, INC
125,562.9536Checks in this report.
05/23/2017 WHAT WORKS INC
05/23/2017 WHAT WORKS INC
05/23/2017 WHITE BEAR AREA YMCA
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 36 of 144
Settlement
Date Payee Description Amount
5/15/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 39,856.81
5/16/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 48,478.29
5/17/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 74,080.20
5/17/2017 Delta Dental Dental Premium 3,021.13
5/18/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 53,983.99
5/19/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 30,738.92
5/19/2017 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 2,792.94
5/19/2017 US Bank VISA One Card*Purchasing card items 42,937.71
5/19/2017 Pitney Bowes Postage 2,000.00
5/19/2017 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 356.05
5/19/2017 ICMA (Vantagepointe)Deferred Compensation 4,219.00
302,465.04
*Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 37 of 144
Transaction Date Posting Date Merchant Name Transaction Amount Name
04/27/2017 05/01/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $57.44 REGAN BEGGS
04/27/2017 05/01/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $29.88 REGAN BEGGS
04/27/2017 05/01/2017 ST PAUL STAMP WORKS INC $197.19 REGAN BEGGS
05/05/2017 05/08/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $53.63 REGAN BEGGS
05/10/2017 05/12/2017 PAKOR, INC.$641.52 REGAN BEGGS
05/05/2017 05/08/2017 B&H PHOTO 800-606-6969 $269.95 CHAD BERGO
05/09/2017 05/11/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $43.63 CHAD BERGO
05/09/2017 05/11/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1127 $16.19 CHAD BERGO
05/10/2017 05/11/2017 WALMART.COM 8009666546 $38.79 CHAD BERGO
05/10/2017 05/11/2017 B&H PHOTO 800-606-6969 $172.95 CHAD BERGO
05/01/2017 05/02/2017 SUREFIRE, LLC $817.52 BRIAN BIERDEMAN
05/01/2017 05/03/2017 COMO PARK ANIMAL HOSPITAL $286.70 BRIAN BIERDEMAN
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 KNOWLAN'S MARKET #2 $6.98 OAKLEY BIESANZ
05/04/2017 05/05/2017 WALMART.COM 8009666546 $35.37 OAKLEY BIESANZ
04/30/2017 05/01/2017 FACEBK NRUT4AWGN2 $19.59 NEIL BRENEMAN
05/02/2017 05/04/2017 TWIN CITY FILTER SERVICE $603.20 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/03/2017 05/04/2017 STANDDESK, INC $707.55 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/03/2017 05/04/2017 STANDDESK, INC $462.09 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/03/2017 05/04/2017 STANDDESK, INC $462.09 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/04/2017 05/08/2017 TWIN CITY FILTER SERVICE $65.42 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/09/2017 05/09/2017 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $156.50 JOHN DUCHARME
05/09/2017 05/12/2017 HOLIDAY STNSTORE 0216 $29.35 MICHAEL DUGAS
05/01/2017 05/03/2017 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $795.34 PAUL E EVERSON
05/05/2017 05/08/2017 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $205.09 PAUL E EVERSON
05/08/2017 05/09/2017 APPLIANCESMART #232 $214.24 PAUL E EVERSON
05/08/2017 05/10/2017 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $155.20 PAUL E EVERSON
05/08/2017 05/10/2017 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $406.23 PAUL E EVERSON
05/08/2017 05/10/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $81.09 PAUL E EVERSON
05/10/2017 05/12/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 ($34.99)PAUL E EVERSON
05/10/2017 05/12/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $10.69 PAUL E EVERSON
05/10/2017 05/12/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $41.68 PAUL E EVERSON
04/27/2017 05/01/2017 CARIBOU COFFEE CO #155 $10.71 SHANN FINWALL
05/04/2017 05/05/2017 BAMBU ASIAN CUISINE $172.00 CASSIE FISHER
05/04/2017 05/05/2017 ZOHO CORPORATION $540.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/04/2017 05/05/2017 US INTERNET CORP $394.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/06/2017 05/08/2017 VZWRLSS*APOCC VISB $8,103.51 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/11/2017 05/12/2017 AT&T*BILL PAYMENT $33.25 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/02/2017 05/03/2017 AMAZON.COM AMZN.COM/BILL $163.84 NICK FRANZEN
05/10/2017 05/11/2017 IDU*INSIGHT PUBLIC SEC $79.50 NICK FRANZEN
05/01/2017 05/03/2017 GRANDVIEW LODGE AND TENNI $248.34 MICHAEL FUNK
05/10/2017 05/11/2017 BURGER KING #3970 $10.73 MICHAEL FUNK
05/10/2017 05/11/2017 HEJNY RENTAL INC $311.71 TAMARA HAYS
05/01/2017 05/02/2017 FASTENAL COMPANY01 $48.23 GARY HINNENKAMP
05/03/2017 05/04/2017 FASTENAL COMPANY01 $168.80 GARY HINNENKAMP
05/04/2017 05/08/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $51.52 GARY HINNENKAMP
05/05/2017 05/08/2017 HENRIKSEN ACE HDWE $104.97 GARY HINNENKAMP
05/08/2017 05/09/2017 SITEONE LANDSCAPE S $341.40 GARY HINNENKAMP
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 KNOWLAN'S MARKET #2 $19.35 ANN HUTCHINSON
05/02/2017 05/03/2017 MINNESOTA HUMANITIES CENT $90.00 ANN HUTCHINSON
05/05/2017 05/08/2017 U OF M PARKING $6.00 ANN HUTCHINSON
05/08/2017 05/09/2017 USPS PO 2683380009 $49.00 ANN HUTCHINSON
05/11/2017 05/12/2017 TARGET 00021352 $48.93 ANN HUTCHINSON
05/03/2017 05/04/2017 WW GRAINGER $185.63 DAVID JAHN
05/10/2017 05/11/2017 DALCO ENTERPRISES $412.76 DAVID JAHN
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 38 of 144
05/10/2017 05/11/2017 ALL GLIDES $42.50 DAVID JAHN
05/01/2017 05/03/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $127.92 ELIZABETH JOHNSON
04/30/2017 05/01/2017 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $34.54 LOIS KNUTSON
05/03/2017 05/04/2017 PARTY CITY #1018 $17.09 LOIS KNUTSON
05/03/2017 05/05/2017 OFFICEMAX/OFFICEDEPOT #63 $18.20 LOIS KNUTSON
05/06/2017 05/08/2017 SHRED-IT USA LLC $59.40 LOIS KNUTSON
05/08/2017 05/10/2017 BAMBU ASIAN CUISINE $132.63 LOIS KNUTSON
05/03/2017 05/03/2017 GALLS $72.00 NICHOLAS KREKELER
05/09/2017 05/11/2017 OFFICEMAX/OFFICE DEPOT616 $32.13 NICHOLAS KREKELER
05/09/2017 05/11/2017 PENN CYCLE WOODBURY $289.93 NICHOLAS KREKELER
05/02/2017 05/03/2017 STREICHER'S MO $2,198.99 DAVID KVAM
05/06/2017 05/08/2017 GALLS $2,334.53 DAVID KVAM
05/06/2017 05/08/2017 CARIBOU COFFEE#1197 $29.97 DAVID KVAM
05/09/2017 05/10/2017 THOMSON WEST*TCD $404.25 DAVID KVAM
05/03/2017 05/05/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $159.23 CHING LO
05/03/2017 05/05/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $16.09 CHING LO
05/11/2017 05/12/2017 DALCO ENTERPRISES $193.65 CHING LO
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 ASPEN MILLS INC.$115.70 STEVE LUKIN
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 ASPEN MILLS INC.$139.99 STEVE LUKIN
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 ASPEN MILLS INC.$57.70 STEVE LUKIN
04/29/2017 05/01/2017 MSP AIRPORT PARKING $96.00 STEVE LUKIN
05/02/2017 05/02/2017 AIRGASS NORTH $35.20 STEVE LUKIN
05/02/2017 05/03/2017 COMCAST CABLE COMM $2.27 STEVE LUKIN
05/03/2017 05/04/2017 AIRGASS NORTH $181.81 STEVE LUKIN
05/03/2017 05/04/2017 AIRGASS NORTH $198.27 STEVE LUKIN
05/10/2017 05/11/2017 CUB FOODS #01591 $11.99 STEVE LUKIN
05/10/2017 05/11/2017 CUB FOODS #1599 $107.61 STEVE LUKIN
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 PEN*FDIC/FIRE ENGINEER $60.00 MICHAEL MONDOR
04/29/2017 05/01/2017 JW MARRIOTT INDIANAPOL $1,716.39 MICHAEL MONDOR
05/02/2017 05/03/2017 IN *BECKER FIRE & SAFETY $49.00 MICHAEL MONDOR
05/08/2017 05/09/2017 FOREST PRODUCTS SUPPLY $520.00 MICHAEL MONDOR
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 SITEONE LANDSCAPE S $574.20 JOHN NAUGHTON
05/01/2017 05/02/2017 HENRIKSEN ACE HDWE $4.49 JOHN NAUGHTON
04/29/2017 05/01/2017 VORTEX OPTICS $149.99 MICHAEL NYE
05/09/2017 05/11/2017 EMERALD INN $80.00 MICHAEL NYE
05/10/2017 05/11/2017 LANCER SYSTEMS LP $206.84 MICHAEL NYE
05/08/2017 05/09/2017 PATIO TOWN $95.60 ERICK OSWALD
05/08/2017 05/09/2017 BROCK WHITE 180 $390.00 ERICK OSWALD
05/01/2017 05/03/2017 MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT FIN $15.00 ELLEN PAULSETH
04/27/2017 05/01/2017 NORTHERN TOOL+EQUIP $162.96 STEVEN PRIEM
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 POMP'S TIRE #021 $149.92 STEVEN PRIEM
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 METRO PRODUCTS INC $29.08 STEVEN PRIEM
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE $110.20 STEVEN PRIEM
05/01/2017 05/02/2017 AUTO PLUS-LITTLE CANADA $218.39 STEVEN PRIEM
05/02/2017 05/03/2017 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $110.81 STEVEN PRIEM
05/02/2017 05/04/2017 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE $56.84 STEVEN PRIEM
05/02/2017 05/04/2017 ROAD MACHINERY AND SUPPLI $318.08 STEVEN PRIEM
05/02/2017 05/04/2017 ROAD MACHINERY AND SUPPLI $44.83 STEVEN PRIEM
05/04/2017 05/05/2017 OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY,$385.88 STEVEN PRIEM
05/04/2017 05/05/2017 POMP'S TIRE #021 $34.85 STEVEN PRIEM
05/04/2017 05/05/2017 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $50.16 STEVEN PRIEM
05/05/2017 05/08/2017 TRANS AUTO TRANSMISSION $429.20 STEVEN PRIEM
05/08/2017 05/09/2017 AUTO PLUS-LITTLE CANADA $405.80 STEVEN PRIEM
05/09/2017 05/10/2017 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $49.37 STEVEN PRIEM
05/10/2017 05/11/2017 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $198.37 STEVEN PRIEM
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 39 of 144
05/10/2017 05/11/2017 AUTO PLUS-LITTLE CANADA $181.89 STEVEN PRIEM
05/11/2017 05/12/2017 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $5.87 STEVEN PRIEM
05/11/2017 05/12/2017 POLAR CHEVROLET MAZDA $26.84 STEVEN PRIEM
05/02/2017 05/03/2017 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 703127 $37.24 KELLY PRINS
05/02/2017 05/04/2017 MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HE $582.00 TERRIE RAMEAUX
05/03/2017 05/04/2017 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $35.68 MICHAEL RENNER
05/08/2017 05/09/2017 BATTERIES PLUS #31 $26.95 MICHAEL RENNER
05/09/2017 05/10/2017 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $21.00 MICHAEL RENNER
05/11/2017 05/12/2017 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $158.00 MICHAEL RENNER
05/11/2017 05/12/2017 AMAZON.COM $85.70 MICHAEL RENNER
05/11/2017 05/12/2017 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $29.94 MICHAEL RENNER
05/01/2017 05/02/2017 TARGET 00011858 $61.49 AUDRA ROBBINS
05/02/2017 05/03/2017 PARTY CITY #768 $241.33 AUDRA ROBBINS
05/02/2017 05/03/2017 MICHAELS STORES 2744 $58.81 AUDRA ROBBINS
05/03/2017 05/04/2017 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $29.97 AUDRA ROBBINS
05/04/2017 05/05/2017 CUB FOODS #1599 $15.36 AUDRA ROBBINS
05/05/2017 05/08/2017 CUB FOODS #1599 $48.31 AUDRA ROBBINS
05/09/2017 05/10/2017 CTC*CONSTANTCONTACT.COM $95.00 AUDRA ROBBINS
05/01/2017 05/02/2017 SITEONE LANDSCAPE S $266.88 RICK RUIZ
05/10/2017 05/11/2017 HEJNY RENTAL INC $140.00 RICK RUIZ
05/11/2017 05/12/2017 HEJNY RENTAL INC $24.50 RICK RUIZ
05/01/2017 05/03/2017 MENARDS MAPLEWOOD MN $19.36 ROBERT RUNNING
05/02/2017 05/03/2017 SITEONE LANDSCAPE S $192.05 ROBERT RUNNING
05/11/2017 05/12/2017 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAPER $83.88 DEB SCHMIDT
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 OFFICEMAX/OFFICE DEPOT616 $32.13 PAUL SCHNELL
05/04/2017 05/05/2017 IN *ENCOMPASS TELEMATICS,$676.00 PAUL SCHNELL
05/06/2017 05/08/2017 NS *NUTRI SYSTEM $336.98 PAUL SCHNELL
05/08/2017 05/10/2017 PETRO PLUS #101 $34.15 PAUL SCHNELL
05/10/2017 05/12/2017 HOLIDAY STNSTORE 0254 $34.00 PAUL SCHNELL
04/27/2017 05/01/2017 HOMEDEPOT.COM $80.69 SCOTT SCHULTZ
04/29/2017 05/01/2017 CINTAS 60A SAP $114.24 SCOTT SCHULTZ
04/29/2017 05/01/2017 CINTAS 60A SAP $226.53 SCOTT SCHULTZ
05/02/2017 05/04/2017 SPOK INC $16.11 SCOTT SCHULTZ
05/05/2017 05/08/2017 G&K SERVICES AR $684.65 SCOTT SCHULTZ
05/01/2017 05/02/2017 HEALTHEAST TRANSPORTATN $1,329.61 MICHAEL SHORTREED
05/01/2017 05/02/2017 SQ *RADIO1033, LLC $420.00 MICHAEL SHORTREED
05/01/2017 05/03/2017 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC.$1,229.88 MICHAEL SHORTREED
05/03/2017 05/04/2017 GRAFIX SHOPPE $237.50 MICHAEL SHORTREED
05/11/2017 05/12/2017 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $79.80 MICHAEL SHORTREED
04/30/2017 05/01/2017 DICK'S CLOTHING&SPORTING $196.39 RONALD SVENDSEN
05/03/2017 05/04/2017 ORIGINAL MATTRESS FACT $30.00 RONALD SVENDSEN
05/09/2017 05/11/2017 MENARDS OAKDALE MN $73.61 RONALD SVENDSEN
05/01/2017 05/02/2017 REPUBLIC SERVICES TRASH $1,205.09 CHRIS SWANSON
05/01/2017 05/03/2017 MENARDS MAPLEWOOD MN $19.39 TODD TEVLIN
05/09/2017 05/11/2017 GRANDVIEW LODGE AND TENNI $516.96 MICHAEL THOMPSON
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $14.78 KAREN WACHAL
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $50.47 KAREN WACHAL
05/01/2017 05/03/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $9.99 KAREN WACHAL
05/02/2017 05/04/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $1.98 KAREN WACHAL
05/01/2017 05/02/2017 HOMEFRONT $195.00 TAMMY WYLIE
05/02/2017 05/02/2017 ULINE *SHIP SUPPLIES $58.76 TAMMY WYLIE
05/10/2017 05/10/2017 CONNEY SAFETY $62.84 TAMMY WYLIE
05/11/2017 05/11/2017 ULINE *SHIP SUPPLIES $134.01 TAMMY WYLIE
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 40 of 144
$42,937.71
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 41 of 144
Check Description Amount
99731 02464 FUNDS FOR THE CITY HALL ATM 10,000.00
99732 05114 GIS ASSSISTANCE - NEW PROJECTS 9,939.00
99733 02728 WAKEFIELD PARK IMPROVE-NEW BLDG 17,961.66
99734 05311 SOFTBALL UMPIRES 5/15 - 5/21 302.00
99735 00985 WASTEWATER - JUNE 262,873.85
99736 04316 AUTO PAWN SYSTEM - APRIL 775.80
99737 04244 2017 FORD POLICE INTERCEPTOR 26,838.95
04244 2017 FORD POLICE INTERCEPTOR 26,838.95
04244 2017 FORD POLICE INTERCEPTOR 26,838.95
04244 2017 FORD POLICE INTERCEPTOR 26,838.95
99738 01202 MAPLEWOOD LIVING/INSERT - MAY 8,776.53
99739 01819 LOCAL PHONE SERVICE 04/15 - 05/14 720.21
99740 04502 REIMB FOR TUITION & BOOKS 03/06 -04/28 1,667.28
99741 05305 CONTRACT 500-0371999 878.32
05305 CONTRACT 500-0371083 656.92
05305 CONTRACT 500-0395052 287.52
05305 CONTRACT 500-0395065 112.48
05305 CONTRACT 500-0373496 84.57
05305 CONTRACT 500-0380041 79.50
99742 04192 EMS BILLING - APRIL 4,935.00
99743 04992 2016 AUDIT 27,000.00
99744 00230 LANDSCAPE ROCK - CH RESTORATION 400.43
99745 00036 CR THE MAPLEWOOD MONARCHS CENTRA 1,200.00
99746 05819 SEWER BACKUP SRVS 1842 FURNESS 3,069.88
05819 SEWER BACKUP SRVS 1846 FURNESS 1,230.47
99747 05514 HVAC CLEANING CITY HALL INTAKES 2,574.00
99748 03965 JR POLICE OFFICER STICKER BADGES 809.77
99749 05379 FACILITATION OF USE OF FORCE GROUP 800.00
99750 00671 ATHLETIC FIELD MARKING PAINT 1,387.50
99751 05744 USE OF FORCE WORKGROUP FACILITATIO 400.00
99752 00896 MEMBERSHIP FEE - M COLEMAN 204.00
99753 05648 MEMBERSHIP DUES 100.00
99754 05741 LEGAL FEES CABLE MATTERS - APRIL 4,548.60
99755 05804 VEHICLE WASHES - APRIL 67.26
99756 01175 MONTHLY UTILITIES - APRIL 3,625.58
01175 FIBER OPTIC ACCESS CHG - MAY 1,000.00
99757 05817 GREEN HOUSE GAS INVENTORY UPDATE 1,600.00
99758 05818 TOW CARS FOR AUOT EXTRICATION CLAS 300.00
99759 01538 GAS MASKS & ACCESSORIES 23,626.00
01538 GAS MASKS & ACCESSORIES 2,670.00
99760 01578 SAFETY GLOVES 647.40
01578 SAFETY GLOVES 296.60
99761 01669 FORFEITED VEHICLE TOWING 100.00
01669 TOWING OF VEHICLE 70.00
99762 02464 PAYING AGENT FEES 825.00
99763 01876 PD ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 3,420.00
05/22/2017 US BANK
05/30/2017 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Check Register
City of Maplewood
05/25/2017
Date Vendor
05/30/2017 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS RECEIVABLES
05/30/2017 NELSON AUTO CENTER
05/30/2017 BOLTON & MENK, INC.
05/30/2017 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC
05/30/2017 WILLIE MCCRAY
05/30/2017 NELSON AUTO CENTER
05/30/2017 NELSON AUTO CENTER
05/30/2017 NELSON AUTO CENTER
05/30/2017 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC
05/30/2017 PAETEC/WINDSTREAM
05/30/2017 BRADLEY REZNY
05/30/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1)
05/30/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1)
05/30/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1)
05/30/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1)
05/30/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1)
05/30/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1)
05/30/2017 TRANS-MEDIC
05/30/2017 BERGANKDV
05/30/2017 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC.
05/30/2017 CHARITABLE GAMBLING
05/30/2017 CLEAN RESPONSE, INC.
05/30/2017 CLEAN RESPONSE, INC.
05/30/2017 COIT COMMERCIAL SERVICES
05/30/2017 CORPORATE MARK, INC.
05/30/2017 ETHICAL LEADERS IN ACTION, LLC
05/30/2017 HIRSHFIELD'S
05/30/2017 JASON SOLE CONSULTING, LLC
05/30/2017 M C M A
05/30/2017 MN ALLIANCE ON CRIME
05/30/2017 MOSS & BARNETT
05/30/2017 NM CLEAN 1, LLC
05/30/2017 CITY OF NORTH ST PAUL
05/30/2017 CITY OF NORTH ST PAUL
05/30/2017 PALE BLUE DOT LLC
05/30/2017 STILLWATER TOWING INC.
05/30/2017 STREICHER'S
05/30/2017 STREICHER'S
05/30/2017 T R F SUPPLY CO.
05/30/2017 T R F SUPPLY CO.
05/30/2017 TWIN CITIES TRANSPORT &
509,378.9333Checks in this report.
05/30/2017 TWIN CITIES TRANSPORT &
05/30/2017 US BANK
05/30/2017 WHAT WORKS INC
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 42 of 144
Settlement
Date Payee Description Amount
5/22/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 65,458.72
5/22/2017 MN Dept of Revenue Sales Tax 248.00
5/22/2017 MN Dept of Revenue Fuel Tax 255.36
5/22/2017 U.S. Treasurer Federal Payroll Tax 96,344.22
5/22/2017 P.E.R.A.P.E.R.A.100,196.51
5/22/2017 MN State Treasurer State Payroll Tax 20,309.20
5/22/2017 Labor Unions Union Dues 3,884.67
5/22/2017 MidAmerica - ING HRA Flex plan 14,062.57
5/22/2017 Empower - State Plan Deferred Compensation 29,151.00
5/23/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 47,398.76
5/24/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 57,484.90
5/24/2017 Delta Dental Dental Premium 3,154.17
5/25/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 47,230.99
5/26/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 36,591.03
5/26/2017 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 1,744.00
5/26/2017 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 389.74
523,903.84
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 43 of 144
Check Description Amount
99764 02324 PRAIRIE FARM RESTORATION CPL GRANT 8,944.68
99765 02149 GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES - MAY 4,000.00
99766 00348 9'2" BOSS V-XT V-PLOW 6,588.50
99767 04572 ROOF REPAIRS - -CITY HALL 672.00
99768 00687 TREE & STUMP REMOVALS 2,425.00
00687 TREE REMOVAL - 2001 LEE ST 350.00
00687 TREE TRIMMING - 1777 PHALEN PLACE 150.00
99769 02728 WAKEFIELD PARK IMPROVE-NEW BLDG 8,808.58
99770 05311 SOFTBALL UMPIRES 5/22 - 5/25 615.00
99771 01160 ALUMINUM BLANKS FOR SIGNS 633.24
99772 04252 DUMP BODY, SANDER, AND EQUIPMENT 34,547.25
99773 01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 14,782.48
01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 7,328.52
01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 1,324.60
01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 764.51
01190 GAS UTILITY 268.23
01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 103.68
01190 GAS UTILITY 51.73
01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 48.64
01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 15.67
01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 15.30
99774 05013 SPRING HVAC MAINT - CITY HALL 1,482.25
05013 SPRING HVAC MAINT- PUBLIC WORKS 1,238.25
99775 05026 2017 - TENNIS INSTRUCTION 294.00
99776 01985 REFUND FOR TRANS MEDIC MW5005172 88.21
99777 00100 NEW PAGERS 1,411.00
99778 04848 MONTHLY PREMIUM - JUNE 311.37
99779 05821 KIDS SAFETY GIVE AWAYS 1,229.38
99780 05369 ULTRA CLEAN SRVS - CITY HALL 555.96
05369 CLEANING SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/PARKS 140.67
05369 CLEANING SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/PARKS 140.67
99781 05786 MONTHLY PREMIUM BCN:4677316- MAY 267.04
99782 05283 EQUIPMENT 309.78
05283 EQUIPMENT 113.35
99783 05820 PAPER ROLLS-DVS CR CARD MACHINE 95.93
99784 05798 STORAGE UNIT RENTAL FEE 5/24-6/23 180.00
99785 00610 MPCA BLDG TUNE-UP PROGRAM 473.33
99786 02137 ATTORNEY FEES - APRIL 11,195.19
99787 05533 REPAIRS TO ENGINE #323 416.30
99788 04310 REGISTRATION FEE 60.00
99789 04310 MEMBERSHIP FEES 40.00
99790 03818 MONTHLY PREMIUM - JUNE 173,403.67
99791 01088 HAZARDOUS WASTE ANNUAL FEE (2016 W 261.63
99792 01126 MONTHLY PREMIUM - JUNE 448.00
99793 05788 GLADSTONE SAVANNA TEXT & PHOTOS 3,600.00
99794 00001 REFUND SFM - TRANS MEDIC 1,340.03
99795 00001 REFUND AIRTECH H&C MECH PERMIT 129.00
99796 05103 PHYSICAL & MEDICAL EVALUATION 9,212.50
99797 05670 CONSULTING SERVICES FOR PD/FIRE 1,169.22
05670 CONSULTING SERVICES FOR PD 944.22
99798 02001 PHONE SERVICE - APRIL 2,699.17
02001 PHONE SERVICE - MAY 2,699.17
99799 01418 MEMBERSHIP FEES 150.00
06/06/2017 PETERSON COUNSELING/CONSULTING
06/06/2017 PETERSON COUNSELING/CONSULTING
06/06/2017 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
06/06/2017 NCPERS MINNESOTA
06/06/2017 NIENOW CULTURAL CONSULTANTS
06/06/2017
06/06/2017 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
06/06/2017 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT
Check Register
City of Maplewood
06/02/2017
Date Vendor
06/06/2017 APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
06/06/2017 HEIDI CAREY
06/06/2017 CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIP INC
06/06/2017 ETTEL & FRANZ ROOFING CO.
06/06/2017 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC
06/06/2017 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC
06/06/2017 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC
06/06/2017 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC
06/06/2017 WILLIE MCCRAY
06/06/2017 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS
06/06/2017 TOWMASTER, INC.
06/06/2017 XCEL ENERGY
06/06/2017 XCEL ENERGY
06/06/2017 XCEL ENERGY
06/06/2017 XCEL ENERGY
06/06/2017 XCEL ENERGY
06/06/2017 XCEL ENERGY
06/06/2017 XCEL ENERGY
06/06/2017 XCEL ENERGY
06/06/2017 XCEL ENERGY
06/06/2017 XCEL ENERGY
06/06/2017 YALE MECHANICAL LLC
06/06/2017 YALE MECHANICAL LLC
06/06/2017 ADVANTAGE SPORTS LLC
06/06/2017 AETNA
06/06/2017 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC
06/06/2017 AVESIS
06/06/2017 BROWN & BIGELOW
06/06/2017 CINTAS CORPORATION #470
06/06/2017 CINTAS CORPORATION #470
06/06/2017 CINTAS CORPORATION #470
06/06/2017 COLONIAL LIFE PROCESSING CTR
06/06/2017 EMERGENCY RESPONSE SOLUTIONS
06/06/2017 EMERGENCY RESPONSE SOLUTIONS
06/06/2017 GENERAL CREDIT FORMS, INC.
06/06/2017 GO MINI MSP
06/06/2017 GULDEN'S RESTAURANT & BAR
06/06/2017 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED
06/06/2017 KIRVIDA FIRE
06/06/2017 MCFOA
06/06/2017 MCFOA
06/06/2017 MEDICA
06/06/2017 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/06/2017 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/06/2017 PERFORMANCE PLUS LLC
MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 44 of 144
99799 01418 TREATS/SUPPLIES FOR DANCE DAD/DAUG 143.20
01418 ADMIN FEE 50.00
01418 TRAY FOR BIKE RODEO 13.74
99800 04074 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION 05/24 - 07/26 204.00
99801 00198 WATER UTILITY 1,983.89
99802 04207 COT PARTS 1,550.48
99803 05528 CONTRACT 7950665-005 433.75
05528 CONTRACT 7950665-011 419.95
05528 CONTRACT 7950665-002 280.89
05528 CONTRACT 7950665-004 270.07
05528 CONTRACT 7950665-003 246.07
05528 CONTRACT 7950665-013 208.65
05528 CONTRACT 7950665-001 203.34
05528 CONTRACT 7950665-012 117.58
05528 CONTRACT 7950665-010 93.53
314,756.0440Checks in this report.
06/06/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (2)
06/06/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (2)
06/06/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (2)
06/06/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (2)
06/06/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (2)
06/06/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (2)
06/06/2017 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT
06/06/2017 ELAINE SCHRADE
06/06/2017 ST PAUL REGIONAL WATER SRVS
06/06/2017 STRYKER SALES CORP.
06/06/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (2)
06/06/2017 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT
06/06/2017 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT
06/06/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (2)
06/06/2017 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (2)
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 45 of 144
Settlement
Date Payee Description Amount
5/30/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 59,045.44
5/31/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 26,177.45
6/1/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 47,481.30
6/1/2017 US Bank Merchant Services Credit Card Billing fee 2.50
6/1/2017 Delta Dental Dental Premium 1,913.07
6/2/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 83,704.54
6/2/2017 US Bank VISA One Card*Purchasing card items 45,312.01
6/2/2017 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 1,121.55
6/2/2017 ICMA (Vantagepointe)Deferred Compensation 4,226.00
268,983.86
*Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 46 of 144
Transaction Date Posting Date Merchant Name Transaction Amount Name
05/18/2017 05/19/2017 HENRIKSEN ACE HDWE $29.94 DAVE ADAMS
05/15/2017 05/17/2017 ST PAUL STAMP WORKS INC $16.85 REGAN BEGGS
05/15/2017 05/16/2017 B&H PHOTO 800-606-6969 $199.00 CHAD BERGO
05/16/2017 05/17/2017 MONOPRICE, INC.$39.60 CHAD BERGO
05/18/2017 05/19/2017 B&H PHOTO 800-606-6969 $122.49 CHAD BERGO
05/24/2017 05/26/2017 LYNDA.COM, INC.$34.99 CHAD BERGO
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 GOPRO PLUS $4.99 CHAD BERGO
05/19/2017 05/22/2017 CULVER'S OF ROSEMO $62.05 BRIAN BIERDEMAN
05/24/2017 05/24/2017 TI *TASER INTL $573.95 BRIAN BIERDEMAN
05/24/2017 05/24/2017 AMAZON.COM $26.70 BRIAN BIERDEMAN
05/13/2017 05/15/2017 SUN RAY LANES $384.10 NEIL BRENEMAN
05/13/2017 05/15/2017 CUB FOODS, INC.$32.12 NEIL BRENEMAN
05/23/2017 05/24/2017 DICK'S CLOTHING&SPORTING $74.97 NEIL BRENEMAN
05/16/2017 05/18/2017 MENARDS OAKDALE MN $91.30 TROY BRINK
05/17/2017 05/18/2017 WW GRAINGER $6.36 TROY BRINK
05/17/2017 05/18/2017 WW GRAINGER $126.16 TROY BRINK
05/18/2017 05/19/2017 DAVIS LOCK & SAFE $18.00 TROY BRINK
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 SITEONE LANDSCAPE S $88.81 BRENT BUCKLEY
05/23/2017 05/24/2017 RED WING SHOE #727 $276.24 NATHAN BURLINGAME
05/15/2017 05/16/2017 G&K SERVICES AR $484.20 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/15/2017 05/17/2017 MUSKA ELECTRIC CO.$286.80 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/17/2017 05/18/2017 VIKING ELECTRIC-CREDIT DE $68.03 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/23/2017 05/25/2017 OAKDALE OPTICAL CENT $440.00 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/23/2017 05/25/2017 TWIN CITY FILTER SERVICE $122.10 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/24/2017 05/26/2017 TWIN CITY FILTER SERVICE $27.60 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/18/2017 05/22/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $85.99 THERESA CORCORAN
05/18/2017 05/22/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $28.33 THERESA CORCORAN
05/19/2017 05/22/2017 ARBYS 8092 $34.74 KERRY CROTTY
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 MIKES LP GAS INC $25.96 TOM DOUGLASS
05/11/2017 05/15/2017 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $1.64 PAUL E EVERSON
05/22/2017 05/23/2017 THE STAR TRIBUNE CIRCULAT $0.99 GEORGE FAIRBANKS
05/18/2017 05/22/2017 IMPARK00200091A $22.00 SHANN FINWALL
05/17/2017 05/17/2017 IACA $10.00 CASSIE FISHER
05/22/2017 05/24/2017 HOBBY LOBBY #587 $59.84 CASSIE FISHER
05/13/2017 05/15/2017 IDU*INSIGHT PUBLIC SEC $8,833.39 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/16/2017 05/16/2017 COMCAST CABLE COMM $4.51 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/18/2017 05/19/2017 IDU*INSIGHT PUBLIC SEC $45.96 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/22/2017 05/22/2017 COMCAST CABLE COMM $140.92 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/24/2017 05/26/2017 US INTERNET CORP $394.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 IDU*INSIGHT PUBLIC SEC $4.07 NICK FRANZEN
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 IDU*INSIGHT PUBLIC SEC $8,121.24 NICK FRANZEN
05/15/2017 05/16/2017 TWIN CITIES HUMAN RESOURC $95.00 MICHAEL FUNK
05/15/2017 05/17/2017 SHRM*MEMBER600677350 $199.00 MICHAEL FUNK
05/16/2017 05/18/2017 MCTC PARKING RAMP $5.00 MICHAEL FUNK
05/22/2017 05/23/2017 COSTCO WHSE #1021 $157.49 MICHAEL FUNK
05/15/2017 05/16/2017 AM LEONARD $53.96 VIRGINIA GAYNOR
05/16/2017 05/18/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $411.06 VIRGINIA GAYNOR
05/22/2017 05/24/2017 MENARDS STILLWATER MN $49.58 VIRGINIA GAYNOR
05/23/2017 05/25/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2810 $13.00 VIRGINIA GAYNOR
05/17/2017 05/18/2017 GARY CARLSON EQUIPMENT $39.18 MARK HAAG
05/22/2017 05/23/2017 OLSEN CHAIN AND CABLE $50.32 MARK HAAG
05/22/2017 05/23/2017 MILLS FLEET FARM 2700 $79.14 MARK HAAG
05/23/2017 05/24/2017 MILLS FLEET FARM 2700 ($24.63)MARK HAAG
05/23/2017 05/24/2017 MILLS FLEET FARM 2700 $21.26 MARK HAAG
05/10/2017 05/16/2017 HEJNY RENTAL INC ($209.18)TAMARA HAYS
05/16/2017 05/17/2017 LTG POWER EQUIPMENT $50.88 TAMARA HAYS
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 47 of 144
05/16/2017 05/17/2017 LTG POWER EQUIPMENT $50.88 TAMARA HAYS
05/17/2017 05/18/2017 HENRIKSEN ACE HDWE $13.98 TAMARA HAYS
05/17/2017 05/18/2017 HENRIKSEN ACE HDWE $4.49 GARY HINNENKAMP
05/15/2017 05/17/2017 KEEPRS $199.99 TIMOTHY HOFMEISTER
05/11/2017 05/15/2017 MENARDS OAKDALE MN $74.07 ANN HUTCHINSON
05/15/2017 05/16/2017 G&K SERVICES AR $13.50 ANN HUTCHINSON
05/18/2017 05/22/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $45.73 DAVID JAHN
05/19/2017 05/22/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 ($15.76)DAVID JAHN
05/19/2017 05/22/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $29.97 DAVID JAHN
05/23/2017 05/24/2017 FASTENAL COMPANY01 $694.79 DON JONES
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 RED WING SHOE #727 $229.49 DON JONES
05/12/2017 05/15/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $133.27 LOIS KNUTSON
05/12/2017 05/15/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $13.98 LOIS KNUTSON
05/12/2017 05/15/2017 LABOR ARBITRATION INST $275.00 LOIS KNUTSON
05/17/2017 05/19/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $16.22 NICHOLAS KREKELER
05/18/2017 05/18/2017 GALLS $49.99 NICHOLAS KREKELER
05/18/2017 05/18/2017 GALLS ($175.74)DAVID KVAM
05/26/2017 05/26/2017 GALLS ($12.35)DAVID KVAM
05/15/2017 05/16/2017 CUB FOODS #1599 $133.51 STEVE LUKIN
05/16/2017 05/17/2017 CUB FOODS #1599 $230.88 STEVE LUKIN
05/16/2017 05/18/2017 MENARDS MAPLEWOOD MN $32.11 STEVE LUKIN
05/22/2017 05/24/2017 SEARS ROEBUCK 1122 $89.96 STEVE LUKIN
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 ASPEN MILLS INC.$18.85 STEVE LUKIN
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 ASPEN MILLS INC.$27.85 STEVE LUKIN
05/11/2017 05/15/2017 ABM PARKING UNION DEPOT 8 $10.00 MIKE MARTIN
05/18/2017 05/22/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $58.68 MIKE MARTIN
05/15/2017 05/16/2017 PANERA BREAD #601305 $91.29 MICHAEL MONDOR
05/15/2017 05/16/2017 CVS/PHARMACY #01751 $6.43 MICHAEL MONDOR
05/12/2017 05/15/2017 MENARDS OAKDALE MN $77.13 JOHN NAUGHTON
05/12/2017 05/15/2017 MOGREN LANDSCAPING $210.60 JOHN NAUGHTON
05/12/2017 05/15/2017 MOGREN LANDSCAPING $210.60 JOHN NAUGHTON
05/15/2017 05/17/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $278.00 JOHN NAUGHTON
05/16/2017 05/17/2017 FASTENAL COMPANY01 $448.13 JOHN NAUGHTON
05/18/2017 05/19/2017 SITEONE LANDSCAPE S $269.40 JOHN NAUGHTON
05/18/2017 05/22/2017 NAPA STORE 3279016 $17.32 JOHN NAUGHTON
05/19/2017 05/22/2017 FASTENAL COMPANY01 ($448.13)JOHN NAUGHTON
05/19/2017 05/22/2017 FASTENAL COMPANY01 $418.32 JOHN NAUGHTON
05/22/2017 05/23/2017 SITEONE LANDSCAPE S $59.02 JORDAN ORE
05/11/2017 05/15/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $13.90 ROBERT PETERSON
05/15/2017 05/17/2017 OFFICEMAX/OFFICE DEPOT616 $179.99 ROBERT PETERSON
05/12/2017 05/15/2017 WHEELCO BRAKE &SUPPLY $107.34 STEVEN PRIEM
05/15/2017 05/16/2017 POMP'S TIRE #021 $1,378.00 STEVEN PRIEM
05/15/2017 05/16/2017 AUTO PLUS-LITTLE CANADA $22.98 STEVEN PRIEM
05/16/2017 05/18/2017 DIESEL COMPONENTS INC-MOT $40.87 STEVEN PRIEM
05/17/2017 05/18/2017 POMP'S TIRE #021 $962.00 STEVEN PRIEM
05/17/2017 05/18/2017 AUTO PLUS-LITTLE CANADA $20.11 STEVEN PRIEM
05/17/2017 05/18/2017 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $759.61 STEVEN PRIEM
05/17/2017 05/19/2017 METRO PRODUCTS INC $87.40 STEVEN PRIEM
05/18/2017 05/19/2017 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $461.29 STEVEN PRIEM
05/18/2017 05/19/2017 AUTO PLUS-LITTLE CANADA $30.00 STEVEN PRIEM
05/18/2017 05/19/2017 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $697.04 STEVEN PRIEM
05/18/2017 05/19/2017 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $6.55 STEVEN PRIEM
05/19/2017 05/22/2017 AUTO PLUS-LITTLE CANADA $243.66 STEVEN PRIEM
05/22/2017 05/23/2017 FASTENAL COMPANY01 $19.08 STEVEN PRIEM
05/22/2017 05/23/2017 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $28.76 STEVEN PRIEM
05/23/2017 05/24/2017 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $2.88 STEVEN PRIEM
05/23/2017 05/24/2017 NATIONAL PARTS CORP $482.43 STEVEN PRIEM
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 48 of 144
05/23/2017 05/24/2017 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $1,514.02 STEVEN PRIEM
05/24/2017 05/25/2017 AUTO PLUS-LITTLE CANADA $35.74 STEVEN PRIEM
05/24/2017 05/25/2017 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $94.98 STEVEN PRIEM
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $5.88 STEVEN PRIEM
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $68.52 STEVEN PRIEM
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $4.56 STEVEN PRIEM
05/22/2017 05/23/2017 DALCO ENTERPRISES $39.97 KELLY PRINS
05/22/2017 05/23/2017 DALCO ENTERPRISES $40.12 KELLY PRINS
05/24/2017 05/26/2017 PAKOR, INC.$286.10 MICHAEL RENNER
05/24/2017 05/26/2017 PAKOR, INC.$1,727.30 MICHAEL RENNER
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $69.03 MICHAEL RENNER
05/16/2017 05/17/2017 MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY CENTE $160.69 AUDRA ROBBINS
05/22/2017 05/23/2017 BANNERS.COM $221.72 AUDRA ROBBINS
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 FEDEXOFFICE 00006171 $64.19 AUDRA ROBBINS
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 TARGET 00011858 $11.26 AUDRA ROBBINS
05/21/2017 05/23/2017 PARAMOUNT CAFE RESTAURANT $36.32 JOSEPH RUEB
05/21/2017 05/23/2017 RTD EAST DIA $18.00 JOSEPH RUEB
05/24/2017 05/25/2017 SUNCTRYAIR 3377973652954 $30.00 JOSEPH RUEB
05/24/2017 05/26/2017 RTD DUS COM RAIL $18.00 JOSEPH RUEB
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 HILTON GARDEN INN $718.50 JOSEPH RUEB
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 HILTON GARDEN INN $718.50 JOSEPH RUEB
05/17/2017 05/19/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $237.76 ROBERT RUNNING
05/18/2017 05/19/2017 FASTENAL COMPANY01 $24.12 ROBERT RUNNING
05/18/2017 05/19/2017 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #2518 $784.39 ROBERT RUNNING
05/11/2017 05/15/2017 PROMOTIONS NOW $315.00 PAUL SCHNELL
05/15/2017 05/16/2017 REPUBLIC SERVICES TRASH $1,127.24 SCOTT SCHULTZ
05/18/2017 05/19/2017 EPASALES $246.95 SCOTT SCHULTZ
05/22/2017 05/24/2017 ON SITE SANITATION INC $1,769.72 SCOTT SCHULTZ
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 WORKBOOTSUSA $264.95 STEPHANIE SHEA
05/11/2017 05/15/2017 LITTLE VENETIAN $25.00 MICHAEL SHORTREED
05/14/2017 05/15/2017 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $498.00 MICHAEL SHORTREED
05/15/2017 05/16/2017 IN *RICE STREET CAR WASH $48.00 MICHAEL SHORTREED
05/18/2017 05/22/2017 STORCHAK CLEANERS $32.52 MICHAEL SHORTREED
05/18/2017 05/22/2017 STORCHAK CLEANERS $16.26 MICHAEL SHORTREED
05/19/2017 05/22/2017 FOOT LOCKER 25032 $124.00 MICHAEL SHORTREED
05/22/2017 05/24/2017 FOOT LOCKER 25032 $182.00 MICHAEL SHORTREED
05/22/2017 05/24/2017 HOLIDAY STNSTORE 0301 $23.56 RONALD SVENDSEN
05/24/2017 05/25/2017 TESSMAN COMPANY SAINT $129.15 RONALD SVENDSEN
05/16/2017 05/17/2017 REPUBLIC SERVICES TRASH $1,223.39 CHRIS SWANSON
05/16/2017 05/17/2017 NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY $20.00 KAREN WACHAL
05/18/2017 05/22/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $49.20 KAREN WACHAL
05/18/2017 05/22/2017 OFFICEMAX/OFFICEDEPT#6874 $14.09 KAREN WACHAL
05/19/2017 05/22/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $1.04 KAREN WACHAL
05/19/2017 05/22/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $38.33 KAREN WACHAL
05/19/2017 05/22/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $7.90 KAREN WACHAL
05/19/2017 05/22/2017 OFFICEMAX/OFFICEDEPT#6874 $42.27 KAREN WACHAL
05/12/2017 05/15/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $16.71 TAMMY WYLIE
05/12/2017 05/15/2017 GRANDVIEW LODGE AND TENNI $339.18 TAMMY WYLIE
05/16/2017 05/16/2017 ULINE *SHIP SUPPLIES $155.55 TAMMY WYLIE
05/17/2017 05/18/2017 HOMEFRONT ($195.00)TAMMY WYLIE
$45,312.01
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 49 of 144
CHECK #CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME
05/19/17
2,281.45
2,245.25
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
Exp Reimb,
Severance,
Conversion
incl in Amount
05/19/17 COLEMAN, MELINDA 5,852.67
05/19/17 FUNK, MICHAEL 5,067.75
05/19/17 SMITH, BRYAN 456.30
05/19/17 XIONG, TOU 456.30
AMOUNT
05/19/17 ABRAMS, MARYLEE 456.30
05/19/17 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 456.30
SLAWIK, NORA 518.43
05/19/17
05/19/17 KNUTSON, LOIS
05/19/17 OSWALD, BRENDA 2,168.03
05/19/17 PAULSETH, ELLEN 4,494.56
05/19/17 HERZOG, LINDSAY 1,376.78
05/19/17 RAMEAUX, THERESE 3,381.91
JAHN, DAVID
05/19/17 PRINS, KELLY 2,305.39
2,579.60
05/19/17 CHRISTENSON, SCOTT
05/19/17 RUEB, JOSEPH 3,416.50
05/19/17 ARNOLD, AJLA 2,021.23
05/19/17 ANDERSON, CAROLE 2,140.85
05/19/17 DEBILZAN, JUDY 2,327.39
05/19/17 LARSON, MICHELLE 2,082.61
05/19/17 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 3,346.37
05/19/17 BEGGS, REGAN 1,945.79
05/19/17 EVANS, CHRISTINE 2,082.59
05/19/17 HANSON, MELISSA 945.41
05/19/17 MOY, PAMELA 1,667.91
05/19/17 SINDT, ANDREA 3,060.57
05/19/17 CRAWFORD, LEIGH 2,043.39
05/19/17 VITT, SANDRA 1,213.72
05/19/17 WEAVER, KRISTINE 2,816.40
05/19/17 OSTER, ANDREA 2,091.82
05/19/17 RICHTER, CHARLENE 1,244.67
05/19/17 HENDRICKS, JENNIFER 1,598.40
05/19/17 KVAM, DAVID 4,641.48
05/19/17 BERG, TERESA 1,400.00
05/19/17 CORCORAN, THERESA 2,084.89
05/19/17 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 4,511.95
05/19/17 WYLIE, TAMMY 1,926.59
05/19/17 SCHNELL, PAUL 5,379.15
05/19/17 SHEA, STEPHANIE 1,720.99
05/19/17 BAKKE, LONN 3,488.96
05/19/17 BARTZ, PAUL 3,743.02
05/19/17 ABEL, CLINT 3,343.44
05/19/17 ALDRIDGE, MARK 4,004.00
05/19/17 BERGERON, ASHLEY 2,077.63
05/19/17 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 4,069.27
05/19/17 BELDE, STANLEY 3,488.96
05/19/17 BENJAMIN, MARKESE 3,611.44
05/19/17 CROTTY, KERRY 4,251.23
05/19/17 BUSACK, DANIEL 4,297.57
05/19/17 CARNES, JOHN 359.40
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 50 of 144
05/19/17 DEMULLING, JOSEPH 3,654.91
05/19/17 FISHER, CASSANDRA 2,107.39
05/19/17 FORSYTHE, MARCUS 3,551.91
05/19/17 DUGAS, MICHAEL 4,905.49
05/19/17 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 3,496.67
05/19/17 HAWKINSON JR, TIMOTHY 3,563.20
05/19/17 HER, PHENG 3,509.37
05/19/17 FRITZE, DEREK 3,366.78
05/19/17 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 3,818.88
05/19/17 HOFMEISTER, TIMOTHY 372.00
05/19/17 JAMES JR, JUSTIN 493.00
05/19/17 HIEBERT, STEVEN 4,164.95
05/19/17 HOEMKE, MICHAEL 385.28
05/19/17 KREKELER, NICHOLAS 1,083.47
05/19/17 KROLL, BRETT 1,131.54
05/19/17 JOHNSON, KEVIN 4,376.48
05/19/17 KONG, TOMMY 3,640.59
05/19/17 LANGNER, TODD 3,567.59
05/19/17 LYNCH, KATHERINE 3,209.82
05/19/17 LANDEROS CRUZ, JESSICA 464.00
05/19/17 LANGNER, SCOTT 3,224.58
05/19/17 METRY, ALESIA 3,299.07
05/19/17 MICHELETTI, BRIAN 3,537.46
05/19/17 MARINO, JASON 3,373.16
05/19/17 MCCARTY, GLEN 3,525.95
05/19/17 OLDING, PARKER 3,221.54
05/19/17 OLSON, JULIE 3,459.48
05/19/17 MULVIHILL, MARIA 2,584.52
05/19/17 NYE, MICHAEL 4,433.25
05/19/17 REZNY, BRADLEY 4,197.64
05/19/17 SLATER, BENJAMIN 3,592.80
05/19/17 PARKER, JAMES 3,422.48
05/19/17 PETERSON, JARED 2,892.42
05/19/17 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 3,224.58
05/19/17 TAUZELL, BRIAN 3,576.37
05/19/17 STARKEY, ROBERT 2,204.25
05/19/17 STEINER, JOSEPH 4,380.67
05/19/17 WENZEL, JAY 1,553.65
05/19/17 XIONG, KAO 3,343.44
05/19/17 THIENES, PAUL 3,861.81
05/19/17 VANG, PAM 2,694.48
05/19/17 ANDERSON, BRIAN 344.50
05/19/17 BAHL, DAVID 618.00
05/19/17 XIONG, TUOYER 464.00
05/19/17 ZAPPA, ANDREW 2,966.65
05/19/17 BEITLER, NATHAN 371.01
05/19/17 BOURQUIN, RON 706.43
05/19/17 BASSETT, BRENT 185.50
05/19/17 BAUMAN, ANDREW 4,052.29
05/19/17 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 3,057.42
05/19/17 CRUMMY, CHARLES 344.50
05/19/17 CAPISTRANT, JOHN 216.32
05/19/17 COREY, ROBERT 79.51
05/19/17 EVERSON, PAUL 3,569.24
05/19/17 HALE, JOSEPH 216.30
05/19/17 DABRUZZI, THOMAS 3,270.01
05/19/17 DAWSON, RICHARD 3,440.27
05/19/17 HUTCHINSON, JAMES 30.90
05/19/17 IMM, TRACY 556.52
05/19/17 HALWEG, JODI 2,984.54
05/19/17 HAWTHORNE, ROCHELLE 3,908.41
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 51 of 144
49.99
05/19/17 KERSKA, JOSEPH 1,007.02
05/19/17 KONDER, RONALD 821.50
05/19/17 KANE, ROBERT 741.60
05/19/17 KARRAS, JAMIE 318.00
05/19/17 LINDER, TIMOTHY 3,921.74
05/19/17 MONDOR, MICHAEL 4,480.47
05/19/17 KUBAT, ERIC 4,077.85
05/19/17 LANDER, CHARLES 2,774.30
05/19/17 NOVAK, JEROME 3,364.55
05/19/17 NOWICKI, PAUL 185.50
05/19/17 MORGAN, JEFFERY 172.20
05/19/17 NEILY, STEVEN 530.01
05/19/17 PETERSON, ROBERT 3,948.97
05/19/17 POWERS, KENNETH 3,075.16
05/19/17 OPHEIM, JOHN 602.55
05/19/17 PACHECO, ALPHONSE 390.88
05/19/17 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO 3,496.16
05/19/17 SAUERWEIN, ADAM 296.26
05/19/17 RAINEY, JAMES 722.15
05/19/17 RANGEL, DERRICK 344.50
05/19/17 SVENDSEN, RONALD 5,593.04
05/19/17 TROXEL, REID 457.14
05/19/17 SEDLACEK, JEFFREY 3,351.24
05/19/17 STREFF, MICHAEL 2,984.54
05/19/17 LUKIN, STEVEN 5,088.01
05/19/17 CORTESI, LUANNE 2,072.20
05/19/17 ZAPPA, ERIC 2,723.32
05/19/17 LO, CHING 984.47
05/19/17 BUCKLEY, BRENT 2,369.69
05/19/17 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,944.89
05/19/17 JANASZAK, MEGHAN 2,343.36
05/19/17 BRINK, TROY 2,783.85
05/19/17 MEISSNER, BRENT 2,369.70
05/19/17 NAGEL, BRYAN 4,045.40
05/19/17 EDGE, DOUGLAS 2,341.30
05/19/17 JONES, DONALD 2,371.99
05/19/17 RUNNING, ROBERT 2,609.29
05/19/17 TEVLIN, TODD 2,375.99
05/19/17 OSWALD, ERICK 2,395.31
05/19/17 RUIZ, RICARDO 2,155.30
05/19/17 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 3,024.49
05/19/17 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 3,521.79
05/19/17 BURLINGAME, NATHAN 2,744.00
05/19/17 DUCHARME, JOHN 3,003.91
05/19/17 THOMPSON, MICHAEL 5,279.50
05/19/17 ZIEMAN, SCOTT 392.00
05/19/17 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 3,003.91
05/19/17 LOVE, STEVEN 4,442.26
05/19/17 HINNENKAMP, GARY 2,728.51
05/19/17 NAUGHTON, JOHN 2,371.99
05/19/17 HAMRE, MILES 1,547.10
05/19/17 HAYS, TAMARA 2,213.87
05/19/17 BALLANDBY, JOSEPH 620.00
05/19/17 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,528.39
05/19/17 ORE, JORDAN 2,155.29
05/19/17 SALCHOW, CONNOR 920.00
05/19/17 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,930.89
05/19/17 TROENDLE, CATHY JO 128.00
05/19/17 GERNES, CAROLE 1,751.05
05/19/17 HER, KONNIE 586.50
05/19/17 WACHAL, KAREN 1,053.96
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 52 of 144
128.89
99102714
99102715
99102716
99102717
05/19/17 JOHNSON, ELIZABETH 1,774.59
05/19/17 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 5,042.36
05/19/17 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 3,583.43
05/19/17 MARTIN, MICHAEL 3,609.86
05/19/17 BRASH, JASON 3,321.59
05/19/17 KROLL, LISA 2,084.89
05/19/17 FINWALL, SHANN 3,643.88
05/19/17 WEIDNER, JAMES 2,383.39
05/19/17 WELLENS, MOLLY 1,899.21
05/19/17 SWAN, DAVID 3,056.49
05/19/17 SWANSON, CHRIS 2,210.59
05/19/17 ETTER, LAURA 110.00
05/19/17 GORACKI, GERALD 160.00
05/19/17 BJORK, BRANDON 51.75
05/19/17 BRENEMAN, NEIL 2,610.16
05/19/17 NEUMANN, BRAD 28.50
05/19/17 ROBBINS, AUDRA 3,677.59
05/19/17 LARSON, MARIAH 30.88
05/19/17 LO, SATHAE 33.25
05/19/17 WHALEN, NOAH 98.00
05/19/17 BERGO, CHAD 3,180.39
05/19/17 ROBBINS, CAMDEN 143.75
05/19/17 VUKICH, CANDACE 90.00
05/19/17 HAAG, MARK 2,611.59
05/19/17 JENSEN, JOSEPH 1,960.10
05/19/17 FAIRBANKS, GEORGE 3,320.80
05/19/17 ADAMS, DAVID 2,431.09
05/19/17 WISTL, MOLLY 75.00
05/19/17 COUNTRYMAN, BRENDA 1,720.00
05/19/17 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 4,002.21
05/19/17 WILBER, JEFFREY 2,055.59
05/19/17 WOEHRLE, MATTHEW 2,733.27
05/19/17 XIONG, BOON 2,007.29
05/19/17 HARRER, NATALIE 1,404.00
05/19/17 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,666.30
05/19/17 GERONSIN, ALEXANDER 2,163.50
05/19/17 RENNER, MICHAEL 3,421.13
05/19/17 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 4,219.45
05/19/17 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 3,462.01
05/19/17 LEE, DAVID 84.00
05/19/17 VANG, DONNA 82.50
502,290.04
05/19/17 DIEZ, ANTONIO 35.00
05/19/17 KRUEGER, SCOTT 40.00
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 53 of 144
CHECK #CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME
144.45
17.96
06/02/17 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 456.30
06/02/17 SLAWIK, NORA 518.43
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
Exp Reimb,
Severance,
Conversion
incl in AmountAMOUNT
06/02/17 ABRAMS, MARYLEE 456.30
06/02/17 COLEMAN, MELINDA 6,352.67
06/02/17 FUNK, MICHAEL 5,575.47
06/02/17 SMITH, BRYAN 456.30
06/02/17 XIONG, TOU 456.30
06/02/17 JAHN, DAVID 2,888.09
06/02/17 PRINS, KELLY 2,649.60
06/02/17 KNUTSON, LOIS 3,237.77
06/02/17 CHRISTENSON, SCOTT 2,785.99
06/02/17 OSWALD, BRENDA 2,739.51
06/02/17 PAULSETH, ELLEN 5,028.93
06/02/17 HERZOG, LINDSAY 1,730.21
06/02/17 RAMEAUX, THERESE 4,237.93
06/02/17 RUEB, JOSEPH 4,299.47
06/02/17 ARNOLD, AJLA 2,442.47
06/02/17 ANDERSON, CAROLE 2,295.77
06/02/17 DEBILZAN, JUDY 2,923.87
06/02/17 LARSON, MICHELLE 2,614.68
06/02/17 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 4,192.46
06/02/17 BEGGS, REGAN 2,054.73
06/02/17 EVANS, CHRISTINE 2,614.64
06/02/17 HANSON, MELISSA 1,173.82
06/02/17 MOY, PAMELA 2,113.20
06/02/17 SINDT, ANDREA 3,978.52
06/02/17 CRAWFORD, LEIGH 2,565.15
06/02/17 VITT, SANDRA 1,550.06
06/02/17 WEAVER, KRISTINE 3,465.99
06/02/17 OSTER, ANDREA 2,623.88
06/02/17 RICHTER, CHARLENE 1,793.78
06/02/17 KVAM, DAVID 5,813.15
06/02/17 SCHNELL, PAUL 5,379.15
06/02/17 CORCORAN, THERESA 2,616.93
06/02/17 HENDRICKS, JENNIFER 2,015.54
06/02/17 WYLIE, TAMMY 2,425.04
06/02/17 ABEL, CLINT 3,581.16
06/02/17 SHEA, STEPHANIE 2,157.79
06/02/17 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 5,650.66
06/02/17 BARTZ, PAUL 4,279.70
06/02/17 BELDE, STANLEY 3,488.96
06/02/17 ALDRIDGE, MARK 3,861.44
06/02/17 BAKKE, LONN 3,488.96
06/02/17 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 5,941.58
06/02/17 BUSACK, DANIEL 4,993.71
06/02/17 BENJAMIN, MARKESE 3,480.26
06/02/17 BERGERON, ASHLEY 2,077.63
06/02/17 DEMULLING, JOSEPH 3,524.12
06/02/17 CARNES, JOHN 397.40
06/02/17 CROTTY, KERRY 5,365.35
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 54 of 144
39.99
30.14
06/02/17 DUGAS, MICHAEL 5,781.52
06/02/17 FORSYTHE, MARCUS 3,181.69
06/02/17 FRITZE, DEREK 3,336.02
06/02/17 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 3,526.80
06/02/17 FISHER, CASSANDRA 2,677.71
06/02/17 HER, PHENG 3,980.34
06/02/17 HIEBERT, STEVEN 3,488.96
06/02/17 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 4,081.56
06/02/17 HAWKINSON JR, TIMOTHY 4,044.26
06/02/17 JAMES JR, JUSTIN 652.50
06/02/17 JOHNSON, KEVIN 5,949.51
06/02/17 HOEMKE, MICHAEL 385.28
06/02/17 HOFMEISTER, TIMOTHY 496.00
06/02/17 KROLL, BRETT 1,131.54
06/02/17 LANDEROS CRUZ, JESSICA 232.00
06/02/17 KONG, TOMMY 3,258.62
06/02/17 KREKELER, NICHOLAS 1,324.44
06/02/17 LENERTZ, NICHOLAS 2,052.63
06/02/17 LYNCH, KATHERINE 3,114.80
06/02/17 LANGNER, SCOTT 3,224.58
06/02/17 LANGNER, TODD 4,382.98
06/02/17 METRY, ALESIA 3,774.93
06/02/17 MICHELETTI, BRIAN 3,647.41
06/02/17 MARINO, JASON 3,417.93
06/02/17 MCCARTY, GLEN 3,400.52
06/02/17 NYE, MICHAEL 5,224.74
06/02/17 OLDING, PARKER 3,578.88
06/02/17 MOE, AEH BEL 464.00
06/02/17 MULVIHILL, MARIA 2,987.71
06/02/17 PETERSON, JARED 2,694.48
06/02/17 REZNY, BRADLEY 3,336.02
06/02/17 OLSON, JULIE 3,459.48
06/02/17 PARKER, JAMES 3,271.73
06/02/17 STEINER, JOSEPH 4,540.74
06/02/17 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 3,224.58
06/02/17 SLATER, BENJAMIN 3,290.07
06/02/17 STARKEY, ROBERT 2,319.97
06/02/17 VANG, PAM 2,904.96
06/02/17 WENZEL, JAY 1,795.75
06/02/17 TAUZELL, BRIAN 3,212.33
06/02/17 THIENES, PAUL 4,900.81
06/02/17 ZAPPA, ANDREW 3,230.57
06/02/17 ANDERSON, BRIAN 377.63
06/02/17 XIONG, KAO 3,358.50
06/02/17 XIONG, TUOYER 464.00
06/02/17 BAUMAN, ANDREW 2,959.04
06/02/17 BEITLER, NATHAN 159.01
06/02/17 BAHL, DAVID 266.51
06/02/17 BASSETT, BRENT 384.26
06/02/17 COREY, ROBERT 447.22
06/02/17 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 3,920.39
06/02/17 BOURQUIN, RON 750.57
06/02/17 CAPISTRANT, JOHN 370.82
06/02/17 DAWSON, RICHARD 3,344.79
06/02/17 EVERSON, PAUL 3,503.74
06/02/17 CRUMMY, CHARLES 182.19
06/02/17 DABRUZZI, THOMAS 3,420.10
06/02/17 HALWEG, JODI 2,984.54
06/02/17 HAWTHORNE, ROCHELLE 3,104.58
06/02/17 HAGEN, MICHAEL 655.88
06/02/17 HALE, JOSEPH 370.80
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 55 of 144
06/02/17 JANSEN, CHAD 483.63
06/02/17 KANE, ROBERT 811.13
06/02/17 HUTCHINSON, JAMES 393.97
06/02/17 IMM, TRACY 79.50
06/02/17 KONDER, RONALD 818.19
06/02/17 KUBAT, ERIC 2,984.54
06/02/17 KARRAS, JAMIE 337.00
06/02/17 KERSKA, JOSEPH 1,076.59
06/02/17 LOCHEN, MICHAEL 702.02
06/02/17 MERKATORIS, BRETT 636.02
06/02/17 LANDER, CHARLES 2,731.80
06/02/17 LINDER, TIMOTHY 3,765.54
06/02/17 NEILY, STEVEN 225.25
06/02/17 NIELSEN, KENNETH 629.59
06/02/17 MONDOR, MICHAEL 5,781.12
06/02/17 MORGAN, JEFFERY 466.38
06/02/17 OPHEIM, JOHN 212.44
06/02/17 PACHECO, ALPHONSE 566.45
06/02/17 NOVAK, JEROME 4,184.39
06/02/17 NOWICKI, PAUL 380.94
06/02/17 RANGEL, DERRICK 344.50
06/02/17 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO 2,759.36
06/02/17 PETERSON, ROBERT 3,252.51
06/02/17 POWERS, KENNETH 3,952.44
06/02/17 STREFF, MICHAEL 3,701.53
06/02/17 SVENDSEN, RONALD 3,820.22
06/02/17 SAUERWEIN, ADAM 43.06
06/02/17 SEDLACEK, JEFFREY 4,136.52
06/02/17 LO, CHING 1,389.70
06/02/17 LUKIN, STEVEN 6,372.58
06/02/17 TROXEL, REID 251.76
06/02/17 ZAPPA, ERIC 2,723.32
06/02/17 BRINK, TROY 3,359.75
06/02/17 BUCKLEY, BRENT 3,072.71
06/02/17 CORTESI, LUANNE 2,604.24
06/02/17 JANASZAK, MEGHAN 2,911.93
06/02/17 JONES, DONALD 3,004.31
06/02/17 MEISSNER, BRENT 3,009.68
06/02/17 DOUGLASS, TOM 2,448.74
06/02/17 EDGE, DOUGLAS 3,711.42
06/02/17 RUIZ, RICARDO 2,724.97
06/02/17 RUNNING, ROBERT 3,311.80
06/02/17 NAGEL, BRYAN 5,074.12
06/02/17 OSWALD, ERICK 3,041.42
06/02/17 DUCHARME, JOHN 3,775.86
06/02/17 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 3,797.05
06/02/17 TEVLIN, TODD 2,997.78
06/02/17 BURLINGAME, NATHAN 3,464.53
06/02/17 LOVE, STEVEN 5,573.96
06/02/17 THOMPSON, MICHAEL 6,816.58
06/02/17 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 4,453.86
06/02/17 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 3,775.90
06/02/17 HAYS, TAMARA 2,689.20
06/02/17 HINNENKAMP, GARY 3,264.38
06/02/17 ZIEMAN, SCOTT 680.00
06/02/17 HAMRE, MILES 2,657.51
06/02/17 SAKRY, JASON 1,859.90
06/02/17 SALCHOW, CONNOR 460.00
06/02/17 NAUGHTON, JOHN 3,160.19
06/02/17 ORE, JORDAN 2,701.03
06/02/17 BALLANDBY, JOSEPH 736.00
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 56 of 144
99102734
99102735
99102736
06/02/17 GERNES, CAROLE 1,983.42
06/02/17 HER, KONNIE 552.50
06/02/17 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 2,301.01
06/02/17 WACHAL, KAREN 1,355.96
06/02/17 WOLFE, KAYLA 360.00
06/02/17 HUTCHINSON, ANN 3,680.31
06/02/17 TROENDLE, CATHY JO 264.00
06/02/17 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 6,610.18
06/02/17 KROLL, LISA 2,617.93
06/02/17 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 4,490.59
06/02/17 JOHNSON, ELIZABETH 2,226.29
06/02/17 BRASH, JASON 4,162.06
06/02/17 DEWEY, MARK 1,280.00
06/02/17 FINWALL, SHANN 4,442.75
06/02/17 MARTIN, MICHAEL 4,523.09
06/02/17 WEIDNER, JAMES 2,994.69
06/02/17 WELLENS, MOLLY 2,523.64
06/02/17 SWAN, DAVID 3,836.79
06/02/17 SWANSON, CHRIS 2,762.19
06/02/17 GORACKI, GERALD 80.00
06/02/17 ROBBINS, AUDRA 4,608.07
06/02/17 BJORK, BRANDON 40.25
06/02/17 BRENEMAN, NEIL 3,275.81
06/02/17 VUKICH, CANDACE 100.00
06/02/17 WHALEN, NOAH 98.00
06/02/17 ROBBINS, CAMDEN 149.50
06/02/17 RUSS, KAYLA 60.00
06/02/17 ADAMS, DAVID 3,516.69
06/02/17 HAAG, MARK 3,294.94
06/02/17 BERGO, CHAD 4,136.21
06/02/17 FAIRBANKS, GEORGE 4,159.08
06/02/17 WILBER, JEFFREY 2,690.39
06/02/17 WISTL, MOLLY 438.25
06/02/17 JENSEN, JOSEPH 2,517.84
06/02/17 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 5,015.54
06/02/17 PRIEM, STEVEN 3,348.44
06/02/17 WOEHRLE, MATTHEW 3,115.78
06/02/17 COUNTRYMAN, BRENDA 1,634.01
06/02/17 HARRER, NATALIE 1,335.75
06/02/17 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 4,314.75
06/02/17 GERONSIN, ALEXANDER 2,724.68
06/02/17 XIONG, BOON 2,526.70
06/02/17 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 5,489.36
579,089.09
06/02/17 LEE, DAVID 84.00
06/02/17 VANG, DONNA 146.25
06/02/17 RENNER, MICHAEL 2,811.85
06/02/17 HUMMEL, SAMUEL 440.00
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 57 of 144
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Michael Thompson, Public Works Director
Audra Robbins, Parks and Recreation Manager
DATE: June 6, 2017
SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution Accepting Tree Planting Donation
Introduction
A donation of $112 was given to the City of Maplewood to plant trees in city parks. This
donation was from St. Paul and Ramsey County Friends of the Parks and Trails.
Minnesota State Statute 465.03 states that gifts to municipalities shall be accepted by the
governing body in the form of a resolution by a two-thirds vote.
Budget Impact
This is a donation and no matching funds are required.
Recommendation
Approve the resolution accepting the tree planting donation in the amount of $112 to the City of
Maplewood.
Attachments
1.Resolution Accepting Tree Planting Donation
G2
Packet Page Number 58 of 144
RESOLUTION
ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
WHEREAS the City of Maplewood has received a donation of $112 for planting trees at
city parks from St. Paul and Ramsey County Friends of the Parks and Trails; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council authorizes the
City of Maplewood to accept this donation.
G2, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 59 of 144
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Dave Kvam, Police Commander
DATE: June 3, 2017
SUBJECT: Approval to Purchase Two 3M Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR)
Introduction
The Maplewood Police Department was awarded $16,680 through an auto theft grant
announced by the Minnesota Department of Commerce for fiscal year 2015-2016 and $19,962
for fiscal year 2016-2017. The police department has been using LPRs for the past several
years and this purchase will allow the agency to add two LPR units to its fleet of vehicles and
update to a newer product.
Background
In a collaboration with several Ramsey County communities, the Maplewood Police Department
has been the recipient of previous automated license plate readers (ALPR) that are currently in
use. In an effort to expand the use of ALPR the police department participated in a the 2015-
2016 fiscal year auto theft grant through the Minnesota Department of Commerce. As part of
that grant, Maplewood was awarded $16,680 for the purchase of an ALPR unit. More recently,
the police department applied for its own grant for the fiscal year 2016-2017 in which it was
awarded $19,962.
ALPR grants are offered because of their effectiveness in automatically scanning license plates
and running those plates against the Minnesota “hot list” of stolen vehicles and license plates.
ALPR is also an effective method of identifying those subject to arrest warrants.
Police department staff previously received approval to participate in the auto theft grants and
are now asking for approval to expend $31,675 in order to purchase two 3M ALPR systems,
which includes the plate alert software system.
Budget Impact
Ongoing expenses would be licensing and maintenance of the units, which can be covered in
the department’s budget.
Recommendation
It is recommended that City Council approval be given to the police department to purchase two
3M ALPR systems.
Attachment
1. SX4 & Plate Alert Quote
G3
Packet Page Number 60 of 144
3M Center, Bldg 225-4N-14
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000
P: 1-877-777-3571
E: 3mtssdorders@mmm.com
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN with a customer contact center in Austin, Texas
Terms: Net 30 days
F.O.B. Freight will be prepaid by 3M and billed to customer
Shipping Costs: 3M to prepay and add to invoice
Warranty: One year return-to-depot included with purchase
Conditions of This Sale:
Prices quote herein are firm fixed prices for your project and are valid for 90 days, unless otherwise specified.
Pricing is based on supplying the designated item(s) shown. Any changes in quantities or item descriptions will require new pricing to
evaluate the Quotation without written consent from 3M Traffic Safety and Security Division.
USD 31,675.00Grand Total
USD 31,675.00Total Price
1830 E COUNTY RD B
Mapelwood, Minnesota 55109
United States
Ship To
CITY OF MAPLEWOODShip To Name
1830 E COUNTY RD B
MAPLEWOOD, Minnesota 55109
United States
Bill To
CITY OF MAPLEWOODBill To Name
dave.kvam@maplewoodmn.govEmail
(651) 249-2603Phone
Dave KvamContact Name
lwershaw@mmm.comEmail
877-777-3571 Option 2 for Public SafetyPhone
Louis WershawPrepared By
8/31/2017Expires On
6/2/2017Created Date
SX4 & Plate Alert- CITY OF MAPLEWOODQuote Name
00012523Quote Number
Quantity Product Code Product Product Description List Price Discount
%
Total
Price
Total
S &
H
2.00 75030218210
3 CAM
WHELEN/JUSTICE
MOUNTING ASSEMBLY
Mounting assembly for three-camera mobile
system
USD
1,700.00 25.00 USD
2,550.00
USD
0.00
4.00 75030254512 3M™ Plate Alert Basic 1
YR for 4-10 devices USD
450.00 USD
1,800.00
USD
0.00
2.00 75030236949 Mob/Port Installation
Service per car BO USD
1,200.00 USD
2,400.00
USD
0.00
2.00 75030255352
Mobile
3-CAMP634-810-25-25-08
VP - SX4
USD
13,950.00 25.00 USD
20,925.00
USD
0.00
2.00 75030253084
MOBILE SYSTEM
COMMISSIONING
BILLING ONLY
USD
1,300.00 USD
2,600.00
USD
0.00
1.00 75030236972 Software Group Training
3HR Session BO
ALPR software training for up to 25 people. Can
be used for 3M™ Software Training (BOSS,
LPCS and/or Portal). Travel Zone may apply.
Each implies one session up to 3 hours in
length.
USD
300.00 USD
300.00
USD
0.00
1.00 75030236923 Travel Fee- Zone One
Billing Only USD
1,100.00 USD
1,100.00
USD
0.00
G3, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 61 of 144
3M Center, Bldg 225-4N-14
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000
P: 1-877-777-3571
E: 3mtssdorders@mmm.com
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN with a customer contact center in Austin, Texas
The prices quoted exclude any applicable taxes and duties, including local sales taxes
3M reserves the right to revise this Quotation in the event that any of the terms and conditions set forth are varied.
An estimated delivery date range will be provide for all non-budgetary quotes. Due to resourcing requirements and the nature of the
identity management business the delivery estimates are subject to change.
Additional 3M terms and Conditions of Sales are attached
Information for PO:
Provide your corporate Tax ID number or Tax Exempt Certificate
‘Ship To’, ‘Bill To’, Deliver to Contact Name and Phone Number
Acknowledgement of shipping and handling to be added to Invoice at time of shipment and/or charge freight collect against customer’s
account (provide account #)
Terms and Conditions of Sale
These Terms and Conditions of Sale (“Terms”) apply to every order (“Order”) of products or services (“Products”) by 3M Traffic Safety and
Security Division (“3M”). 3M’s acceptance of each Order is expressly conditioned on the Buyer’s acceptance of all the Terms. If any 3M
proposal is construed as an offer, that offer is expressly limited by these Terms. Any notice of different or additional terms, including, without
limitation, any terms on a Buyer’s purchase order, or any Buyer notice of rejection of the Terms, is hereby rejected. If any 3M action regarding
a proposal from Buyer, including 3M’s shipment of Products, is construed as an acceptance of Buyer’s offer, such acceptance is expressly
conditioned on Buyer’s acceptance of these Terms.
Pricing is as provided in the 3M quotation or applicable 3M price page (“Quotation”). Prices quoted by 3M are valid1. Pricing and Shipping:
for 90 days after the date of the Quotation. Any changes in quantity or release dates may result in a change in pricing. Prices are F.O.B. point
of shipment and exclude shipping, taxes, and any applicable duties.
Payment terms are net 30 days from the date of 3M invoice.2. Payment Terms:
3M may, in its sole discretion at any time, change or limit the amount or duration of credit extended to the Buyer. 3M may cancel any3. Credit:
Orders or delay shipment of an Order, if the Buyer fails to meet payment schedules or other credit or financial requirements established by 3M.
: Delivery lead times will be quoted at the time of Order. 3M will use reasonable efforts to ship within quoted lead times, but is4. Lead Times
not liable for delivery delays.
Policy: Returns are subject to 3M’s then current Returned Goods Policy. In all instances, authorization must be received5. Returned Goods
from your 3M customer service representative before any returns will be accepted.
Products are delivered within the United States. The ultimate destination of any Products purchased for6. Export Control Compliance:
export or re-export must be disclosed to 3M at the time of order. Buyer is responsible for complying with all applicable export control laws.
The technical information, recommendations and other statements relating to the Products are based upon7. Product Selection and Use:
tests or experience that 3M believes are reliable, but the accuracy or completeness of such information is not guaranteed. Many factors
beyond 3M’s control and uniquely within Buyer’s knowledge and control can affect the use and performance of a Product in a particular
application Given the variety of factors that can affect the use and performance of a Product, Buyer is solely responsible for evaluating the 3M
product and determining whether it is fit for a particular purpose and suitable for Buyer’s method of application.
Any information supplied by 3M in response to Buyer’s request for quotation will not be used for any purpose other than to8. Confidentiality:
evaluate 3M’s proposal and, except as required by law, may be not be disclosed or used for any other purpose.
THE FOLLOWING IS MADE IN LIEU OF ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE9. Warranty and Limited Remedy:
IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 3M warrants that its 3M Security Systems
Division products will meet 3M’s written specifications at the time of shipment. 3M’s obligation and your exclusive remedy shall be, at 3M’s
option, to replace or repair the 3M product or refund the purchase price of the 3M product. IN NO EVENT WILL 3M BE LIABLE FOR ANY
INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF PROFITS, IN ANY
WAY RELATED TO THE PRODUCTS REGARDLESS OF THE LEGAL THEORY ASSERTED.
3M is selling commercial items as defined in FAR 2.101. If an Order is issued under a Federal Government contract or10. Federal Contracts:
higher-tier subcontract, the following additional terms and conditions apply to the extent that the terms and conditions are applicable based on
their FAR or DFARS prescriptions for commercial item procurements, as of the date of the Order: FAR 52.212-5(e) when the buyer's
government contract is for commercial items or services, FAR 52.244-6 when the buyer's government contract is for noncommercial
items/services, and additionally, DFARS 252.212-7001(c) when the buyer's contract is with the Department of Defense.
The FAR and DFARS specify that for the acquisition of commercial items, prime contractors (Buyer) are not required to flow down any FAR
clauses other than those listed above. Therefore, acceptance of any order placed by Buyer does not constitute acceptance by 3M of any other
government contract provision other than those listed above, regardless of terms and conditions included on Buyer boilerplate order
documents, and any such provisions are expressly rejected as a condition of these Terms.
3M reserves the right to amend, modify, or supplement these Terms as to future orders or shipments. No action by Buyer may11. Changes:
G3, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 62 of 144
3M Center, Bldg 225-4N-14
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000
P: 1-877-777-3571
E: 3mtssdorders@mmm.com
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN with a customer contact center in Austin, Texas
US SGBG TSSD ALPR Direct
Customer to provide server for Plate Alert software w/ remote access for installation.
Customer to provide remote access to mobile systems for commissioning and programing of competitors systems.
amend, modify, reject, supplement, or waive these Terms in any manner whatsoever (including course of dealing or of performance or usage
of trade) except as agreed upon in a writing signed by an authorized representative of 3M.
Any failure or delay by either Party in exercising any right or remedy provided by or relating to the Quotation or these Terms in one12. Waiver:
or more instances does not constitute a waiver and shall not prohibit a Party from exercising such right or remedy at a later time or from
exercising any other right or remedy available.
: If any provision of the Quotation or these Terms shall, for any reason, be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by a court or13. Severability
tribunal of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed severable and such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect
any other provision of the Quotation or these Terms which shall be enforced in accordance with the intent of this Agreement.
The Quotation and these Terms constitute the entire agreement between the Parties and supersede and terminate14. Complete Agreement:
any and all prior agreements and understandings, whether written or oral, between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of the Order.
Each Party agrees that it has not relied on any representation, warranty, or provision not expressly stated herein and that no oral statement
has been made to either Party in any way tends to waive any of the these terms. The UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods shall
not apply.
Notes:
G3, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 63 of 144
G4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Ellen Paulseth, Finance Director
DATE: June 12, 2017
SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on the Issuance
of an Educational Facilities Revenue Refunding Note and Authorizing
the Publication of a Notice of the Hearing for the Hill-Murray School
Project
Introduction
Minnesota Statutes § 469.152 through 469.165 gives municipalities the power to issue revenue
debt obligations (also known as conduit debt) for 501(c)(3) organizations. The City is not legally
responsible for the conduit debt and there is no financial impact to the City, except that the City
charges a fee to the organization requesting the conduit debt issuance.
Background
Hill-Murray School requested that the City of Maplewood issue conduit debt on their behalf for
the purpose of refinancing conventional loans and refunding existing debt at lower interest rates.
As a small issuer, Maplewood issues less than $10M in debt annually to obtain the lowest “Bank
Qualified” (BQ) rates and maintain the IRS imposed limits of a small issuer. Maplewood does
not have enough remaining BQ capacity to issue the bonds for Hill-Murray in 2017. Therefore,
the City of Pine Springs will be issuing the bonds for Hill-Murray. The City of Maplewood must
give “host approval” for Pine Springs to issue the bonds because the facility is in Maplewood.
And, the Maplewood City Council must hold a public hearing on the financing of the Hill-Murray
project. The proposed public hearing will be at the July 10th City Council meeting, at which time
members of the public may appear and express their views on the financing proposal.
Budget Impact
There is no budget impact for the City of Maplewood related to the Hill-Murray proposal, and the
City is not legally obligated in any way for the debt.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on the Issuance of an
Educational Facilities Revenue Refunding Note and Authorizing the Publication of a Notice of
the Hearing for the Hill-Murray School Project.
Attachments
1. Resolution Calling for Public Hearing on the Issuance of an Educational Facilities
Revenue Refunding Note and Authorizing the Publication of a Notice of the Hearing
Packet Page Number 64 of 144
G4, Attachment 1
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE OF
AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES REVENUE REFUNDING NOTE AND
AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF THE HEARING
(HILL-MURRAY SCHOOL PROJECT)
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.165, as amended,
relating to municipal industrial development (the “Act”), gives municipalities the power to issue
revenue obligations for the purpose of promoting the welfare of the state by the active attraction
and encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce to prevent so
far as possible the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (“Maplewood”), has received
from Hill-Murray Foundation, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization (the
"Borrower"), a proposal that the City of Pine Springs, Minnesota undertake a program to assist in
financing, among other things, a Project described in Exhibit A, which is located in Maplewood,
through the issuance of a revenue note or obligation (in one or more series) (the “Note”) pursuant
to the Act; and
WHEREAS, Maplewood has been advised that a public hearing and City Council
approval of the financing of the Project is required under the Act and Section 147(f) of the Internal
Revenue Code because the facilities to be financed by the Note are located in Maplewood:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows:
1. A public hearing on the proposal of the Borrower will be held at the time and place
set forth in the Notice of Public Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing to be given
one publication in the official newspaper of Maplewood and a newspaper of general circulation
available in Maplewood, not less than 14 days nor more than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the
hearing, substantially in the form of the attached Notice of Public Hearing.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, this 12th day
of June, 2017.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Page Number 65 of 144
G4, Attachment 1
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON A PROPOSAL FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES REVENUE REFUNDING NOTE FOR THE
HILL-MURRAY SCHOOL PROJECT
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota
(the “City”) will meet at the City Hall, 1830 County Road B East in the City, at 7:00 p.m. on
Monday, July 10, 2017 to consider giving host approval to the issuance by the City of Pine Springs,
Minnesota (“Issuer”) of a revenue obligation, in one or more series (the “Note”), under Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.165, as amended (the “Act”), in order to finance the cost
of a project located in the City.
Hill-Murray Foundation, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3)
organization (the "Borrower"), proposes to (i) refinance certain conventional loans of the Borrower
used to finance the renovation of certain art and science classrooms located on the southeast side
of the second floor academic wing of the facility leased to the Hill-Murray School, a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation (the "School"), located at 2625 Larpenteur Ave E in the City (the "Classroom
Renovation Project") and (ii) refund the City’s outstanding Educational Facilities Revenue Note
(Hill-Murray School Project) Series 2010, as amended, the proceeds of which were used to
refinance the outstanding principal balance of the $3,300,000 Educational Facilities Revenue Note,
Series 2005 (Hill-Murray School Project) issued by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
the City of Maplewood, Minnesota and certain additional conventional loans procured by the
Borrower which were used to finance (a) the acquisition of approximately 40 acres of land which
is the current footprint of the School, along with an additional 4 acres of land located at 2625
Larpenteur Avenue East in the City, (b) construction and equipping of an athletic facility, and (c)
construction and equipping of an auditorium for the School (the "Original Project" and, together
with the Classroom Renovation Project, the "Project"). The Borrower owns the Project and the
School operates the Project.
The maximum estimated principal amount of the Note to be issued to finance the
Project is $5,500,000.
The Note, if and when issued, will not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance
upon any property of the City or the Issuer, except the Project, and such obligation will not be a
charge against the general credit or taxing powers of the City or the Issuer but will be payable from
sums to be paid by the Borrower pursuant to a revenue agreement.
At the time and place fixed for the public hearing, the City Council will give all
persons who appear at the hearing an opportunity to express their views with respect to the
proposal. Written comments will be considered if submitted at the above City office on or before
the date of the hearing.
Packet Page Number 66 of 144
G5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Andrea Sindt, City Clerk
DATE: June 7, 2017
SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution for City Approval to Conduct Off-Site Gambling Within
City Limits for the White Bear Avenue Business Association at the Ramsey
County Fair
Introduction
An application has been submitted by Les Nelson on behalf of the White Bear Avenue Business
Association for City Approval to Conduct Off-Site Gambling Within City Limits during the
Ramsey County Fair from Wednesday, July 12, 2017 through Sunday, July 16, 2017 from 12:00
p.m. to 12:00 a.m. at Ramsey County Fair Grounds located at 2020 White Bear Avenue.
The Application to Conduct Off-Site Gambling is required by MN Statute §349.165 and is
processed and approved by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. In order for the Board to
approve an application to conduct off-site gambling, approval of the attached resolution from the
City is required.
Budget Impact
None
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the Resolution for City Approval to Conduct Off-Site
Gambling Within City Limits for the White Bear Avenue Business Association from Wednesday,
July 12, 2017 through Sunday, July 16, 2017 during the Ramsey County Fair, 2020 White Bear
Avenue.
Attachments
1. Resolution for City Approval to Conduct Off-Site Gambling Within City Limits for the White
Bear Avenue Business Association
Packet Page Number 67 of 144
G5, Attachment 1
Resolution
City Approval to Conduct Off-Site Gambling Within City Limits
White Bear Avenue Business Association
WHEREAS, White Bear Avenue Business Association has submitted an Application to
Conduct Off-Site Gambling at the Ramsey County Fair Grounds, 2020 White Bear Avenue in
Maplewood, MN 55109; and
WHEREAS, the off-site gambling will take place during the Ramsey County Fair on
Wednesday, July 12, 2017 through Sunday, July 16, 2017.
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that
Application to Conduct Off-Site Gambling is approved for White Bear Avenue Business
Association during the dates stated above.
FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control
Board approve said permit application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute §349.213.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of
Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Board for their approval.
Packet Page Number 68 of 144
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Mike Funk, Assistant City Manager/Human Resource Director
DATE: June 6, 2017
SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution for 2017 and 2018 Pay Rates for Non-Union, Non-
Contract Employees
Introduction/Consideration
To authorize a general wage adjustment for non-union, non-contract employees for fiscal years’
2017 and 2018.
Background
All full-time and part-time benefit earning employees are represented by unions, except for the
following four (4) positions: City Manager, Director of Public Safety, Finance Director, and
Assistant City Manager/Human Resources Director. The City Manager and Assistant City
Manager/Human Resource Director’s compensation and benefits are authorized through their
employment contract with the City.
The remaining two (2) positions of Director of Public Safety Director and Finance Director are
considered non-union, non-contract employees. It is recommended that the City Council
approve an annual general wage adjustment for these positions that is consistent with the
collective bargaining agreements.
The City’s past practice is to offer consistent and equitable wage adjustments across the
organization by providing non-union, non-contract positions the same general wage adjustments
as it does with the City’s collective bargaining groups. At the May 22, 2017 Council meeting,
the City Council approved two-year contracts for four (4) of the seven (7) collective bargaining
groups.
Employees represented by AFSCME, MCSA, MSA, and LELS (Police Sergeants) will receive a
general wage adjustment increase of 2.5% on January 1 of 2017 and 2.5% general wage
adjustment on January 1 of 2018.
Budget Impact
The approved 2017 budget reflects the general wage adjustment of 2.5%, therefore there is no
budget impact.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution.
G6
Packet Page Number 69 of 144
Attachment
1. Resolution for 2017 and 2018 Non-Union, Non-Contract Employees
G6
Packet Page Number 70 of 144
RESOLUTION APPROVING WAGE ADJUSTMENTS FOR NON-UNION, NON-CONTRACT
CITY EMPLOYEES FOR 2017 AND 2018
WHEREAS, The City’s past practice is to offer consistent and equitable general wage
adjustments across the organization by providing non-union, non-contract positions the same
escalations as it does with the City’s collective bargaining groups; and,
WHEREAS, For 2017 and 2018, union employees belonging to AFSCME, MSA, MCSA,
and LELS (Police Sergeants) will receive the following wage adjustments; 2.5% on January 1,
2017 and 2.5% on January 1, 2018, and,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Public Safety Director and Finance Director
receive wage adjustments of 2.5% on January 1, 2017 and 2.5% on January 1, 2018; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this resolution shall supersede any previous resolution
setting pay rates for these pay classifications.
__________________________________
Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________
City Clerk
G6, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 71 of 144
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Michael Thompson, Director of Public Works
DATE: June 5, 2017
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Resolution Calling Public Hearing for June 26th, 2017 at 7:00 p.m.,
Rush Line Corridor Locally Preferred Alternative, Project 15-06
Introduction
The council will consider ordering a public hearing to be held on June 26, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in order to
consider the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Rush Line Corridor.
Background / Discussion
The proposed Rush Line Corridor is at the phase in which cities along the corridor must consider
supporting the locally preferred alternative (LPA). The LPA defines both the mode and route. The
mode in this case is dedicated bus rapid transit, with select segments including mixed traffic. The main
route generally runs from White Bear Lake and extends to the Union Depot in Saint Paul as shown
here:
G7
Packet Page Number 72 of 144
Rush Line Proposed Route
The attachments to this report include extensive information on project statistics, engagement overview
for the LPA, detailed background on the technical decision making process, and property value and
economic research literature in regards to transit projects.
It should be noted that prior to the LPA Public Hearing, the City will be hosting an informal meet and
greet BBQ at the Maplewood Fire Station located at 1955 Clarence Street on Monday June 19th from
5:00 to 6:30 p.m. This will be an opportunity to provide another one on one interaction with residents to
answer general questions and listen to concerns. There will be no formal presentation.
Budget Impact
There is no budget impact with this action.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing
for 7:00 p.m. on June 26, 2017 for the Rush Line Corridor Locally Preferred Alternative, Project 15-06.
Attachments
1. Resolution Calling for Public Hearing
2.Route Map
3.Draft LPA Resolution to Be Considered at June 26, 2017 Public Hearing
4.Summary and Stats
5. Engagement Summary
6. Economic and Property Value Research
7. Tier 2 Technical Evaluation Summary
G7
Packet Page Number 73 of 144
RESOLUTION
CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, the Pre-Project Development Study has been completed for the Rush Line
Corridor, and
WHEREAS, Maplewood is one of the cities that must consider submitting a Resolution of
Support for the locally preferred alternative, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA that a Public Hearing shall be held on the proposed Locally Preferred Alternative for the
Rush Line Corridor on the 26th day of June, 2017 in the council chambers of city hall at 7:00 p.m., and
the clerk shall give published notice of such hearing.
Adopted by the Maplewood City Council this 12th day of June, 2017.
G7, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 74 of 144
G7, Attachment 2Packet Page Number 75 of 144
Resolution of the City of Maplewood
Ramsey County, Minnesota
Resolution transmitting the City of Maplewood’s support for the Locally Preferred Alternative for the
Rush Line Corridor to the Rush Line Corridor Task Force, the Ramsey County Regional Railroad
Authority and the Metropolitan Council
WHEREAS, the Rush Line Corridor is an 80-mile travel corridor between St. Paul and Hinckley Minnesota,
consisting of urban, suburban and rural communities; and
WHEREAS, a Pre-Project Development Study has been completed to analyze bus and rail alternatives in
the 30-mile study area between St. Paul and Forest Lake, which has the greatest potential for significant
transit improvements in the near term; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Rush Line Corridor Project is to provide transit service that satisfies the
long-term regional mobility and accessibility needs for businesses and the traveling public and catalyzes
sustainable development within the 30-mile study area; and
WHEREAS, the Pre-Project Development Study was a joint local and regional planning effort conducted
by the Rush Line Corridor Task Force and led by the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority; and
WHEREAS, after a thorough technical analysis of 55 potential route segments and 7 transit modes and
extensive public engagement through the Pre-Project Development Study Alternative 1 has been
identified as the locally preferred alternative; and
WHEREAS, Alternative 1 best meets the project’s purpose and need and would likely qualify for Federal
Transit Administration New Starts funding; and
WHEREAS, the Locally Preferred Alternative includes the definition of the mode, conceptual alignment
and general station locations which can be refined through further environmental and engineering
efforts; and
WHEREAS, Alternative 1 is defined as Bus Rapid Transit within a dedicated guideway generally along
Phalen Boulevard, Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority right-of-way and Trunk Highway 61,
extending approximately 14 miles, and connecting Union Depot in downtown St. Paul to the east side
neighborhoods of St. Paul and the Cities of Maplewood, Vadnais Heights, Gem Lake and White Bear Lake
(see attached figure); and
WHEREAS, Alternative 1 would be co-located with the Bruce Vento Trail through the portion of the
route that utilizes the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority right-of-way; and
G7, Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 76 of 144
WHEREAS, the next phase of the project will include environmental analysis under the Federal and State
environmental review processes to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts while maximizing
mobility, accessibility and surrounding economic development opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the public will continue to be engaged throughout the environmental review process and
subsequent design, engineering and construction phases to ensure that the project is reflective of the
needs of the diverse communities within the Rush Line Corridor; and
WHEREAS, a connector bus from White Bear Lake to Forest Lake and other bus service improvements
will continue to be explored during the environmental analysis phase of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the comments submitted by agencies, adjacent communities, the business sector and the
public during the Locally Preferred Alternative comment period and throughout the duration of the Pre-
Project Development Study will be addressed accordingly in the environmental analysis phase of the
Project; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Maplewood supports the selection of Alternative 1 as
the locally preferred alternative, and the layout and design the Bruce Vento Trail co-location within the
Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority right-of-way shall be made in such a manner that involves local
community input and collaboration.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Maplewood commits to undertaking and developing station
area plans for the proposed BRT station areas within its jurisdiction based on market conditions,
community input and Metropolitan Council guidelines and expectation for development density, level of
activity and design. This process shall also involve local community input and collaboration to ensure
the station areas also reflect the needs of the local community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Maplewood supports the planned Route 54 extension and
exploration of other transit improvements within the study area by others including, but not limited to,
improved bus service along 35E and to the northern portion of the Rush Line Corridor, the future
conversion of Route 54 to Arterial BRT and the consideration of a potential Modern Streetcar along E. 7th
St to create a more comprehensive transit system.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution adopted by the City of Maplewood be forwarded to the
Rush Line Corridor Task Force, the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority and the Metropolitan
Council for their consideration.
G7, Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 77 of 144
LPA Figure
G7, Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 78 of 144
RUSH LINE PRE-PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STUDY DRAFT LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
SPRING 2017
STUDY PROCESS
Referred to as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
IDENTIFY TRANSIT INVESTMENT THAT BEST
MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE CORRIDOR
IDENTIFY TRANSPORTATION
NEEDS OF CORRIDOR1.
DEVELOP AND EVALUATE
VEHICLES & ROUTES3.
DEVELOP PURPOSE &
NEED STATEMENT2.PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTOrange Line BRT, Los Angeles, CA
VEHICLE
ROUTE
The draft Rush Line locally preferred alternative is dedicated
guideway bus rapid transit from Union Depot in St. Paul to
White Bear Lake, generally along Robert Street, Phalen Boulevard,
Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority right-of-way (Bruce
Vento Trail), and Highway 61.
Photo Credit: Los Angeles Metro
Dedicated Guideway Bus Rapid Transit
G7, Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 79 of 144
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE STATISTICS
Greatest development potential due to permanence
of dedicated guideway
No private property acquisitions are anticipated
Why Phalen/Robert into downtown St. Paul?
Serves the most jobs and equity populations
(zero-car households, households below poverty)
Shortest travel time
Highest potential ridership
Convenient transfer to METRO Green Line expands
transit access within the region
Why Highway 61 north of I-694?
More cost effective than using BNSF Railway
right-of-way
Serves more jobs
More than 5,000 people participated in the Rush Line
study through community events, business outreach,
presentations, pop-up events, social media, and
online engagement forums.
Dedicated guideway bus rapid transit will share
the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority
right-of-way with the Bruce Vento Trail.
The locally preferred alternative is a cost-effective
solution that meets federal transit administration
benchmarks for funding
The locally preferred alternative best meets the
needs of the corridor
Why bus rapid transit?
Similar level of service, but half the cost of light rail
Fast and frequent
Reliable and convenient
Catalyst for economic development
Why the Ramsey County Regional Railroad
Authority right-of-way?
Less costly due to public ownership of right-of-way
Highest potential ridership
Shortest travel time
NEXT STEPS
APRIL 2017
Public hearing to receive
feedback on the draft LPA
MAY 2017
Project committees review public
input and vote on the final LPA
SUMMER/FALL 2017
County and cities along the route
will be asked to confirm their
support for the LPA
APPROX. LENGTH: 14 MILES
DEDICATED GUIDEWAY: 85-90%
(transit-only) *important to catalyze economic development
NUMBER OF STATIONS: 20
includes Union Depot and Maplewood Mall Transit Center
SCHEDULE: 5A–12A | 7 DAYS/WEEK
starts at 6a on Sunday
FREQUENCY:
RUSH HOUR: EVERY 10 MIN.
NON-RUSH HOUR: EVERY 15 MIN.
CAPITAL COST ($2021): $420M
(+$55M for other transit routes in guideway)
ANNUAL O&M COST ($2015): $7.8–8M
AVERAGE DAILY RIDERSHIP (2040): 5,700–9,700
higher ridership if other transit routes are in the guideway
TRAVEL TIME: 50 MIN.
one way, White Bear Lake > Union Depot in downtown St. Paul
TRAVEL TIME: 14 MIN.
one way, White Bear Lake > Maplewood Mall
TRAVEL TIME: 36 MIN.
one way, Maplewood Mall > Union Depot in downtown St. Paul
# PEOPLE LIVING IN STATION AREAS (2040): 60,200
# JOBS IN STATION AREAS (2040): 106,700
# PEOPLE LIVING BELOW POVERTY
IN STATION AREAS (2014): 11,700
Sign up for email updates. Provide comments. Ask questions. Learn more.
facebook.com/rushline @rushlinetransit651-266-2760info@rushline.orgwww.rushline.org
G7, Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 80 of 144
Event/Organization Date Location Engagement
Method
Estimated
Contacts
Saint Paul Area Chamber of
Commerce –
Public Affairs Committee
January 10, 2017 Securian Presentation 21
Columbus City Council Update January 11, 2017 City of Columbus Presentation 15
Friends of the Parks and Trails
of St. Paul and Ramsey County January 19, 2017 Episcopal Homes Presentation 18
Roosevelt Homes
Resident Council January 23, 2017 Roosevelt
Community Center Presentation 45
White Bear Lake Economic
Development Corporation February 9, 2017 The Waters
Senior Living Presentation 13
Lower Pha len Creek Project
Board Meeting February 21, 2017 East Side
Enterprise Center Presentation 10
Bring Transit to the People:
Dayton’s Bluff District Council
Event
Feb ruary 28, 2017 Dayton’s Bluff
Recreation Center Presentation 15
White Bear Township
Annual Town Meeting March 14, 2017 Otter Lake
Elementary Presentation 50
Merrick Community Service
Food Shelf April 17, 2017 Merrick Community
Services Pop-up 35
Lafayette Park Earth Week
Community Fair April 20, 2017 Ramsey County Law
Enforcement Center Pop-up 20
Maplewood Community
Center/YMCA April 20, 2017 Maplewood
Community Center Pop-up 25
Metropolitan Council
Transportation Committee April 24, 2017 Metropolitan
Council Presentation 10
Maplewood City Council
Workshop April 24, 2017 Maplewood
Community Center Presentation 5
Mt. Airy Resident Council
Meeting April 25, 2017 Mt. Airy Residential
Homes Presentation 50
Rush Line Open House and
Public Hearing April 27, 2017 Our Redeemer
Lutheran Church
Open house and
Public hearing 85
Total Estimated Number of Contacts 417
G7, Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 81 of 144
Draft Locally Preferred Alternative: Route
Opportunities
Provides a one-seat ride between downtown Saint Paul and White Bear Lake, which is preferred
Will decrease traffic congestion and get more people to use transit
Route will support people who live and work in downtown Saint Paul; connect people to jobs in White Bear Lake,
Maplewood, and along Phalen Blvd and in downtown Saint Paul
Relieved to hear that Bruce Vento Trail will remain in the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA)
right-of-way and share the corridor with the BRT guideway
Much needed route to improve transit accessibility for transit reliant residents on the East Side
Preference for RCRRA right-of-way: Less impact to business corridors; good connection to jobs and employment
centers; RCRRA owns the property
Challenges
Concern with potential impacts to private property: lower property value and quality of life
Too close to homes; impacts nature and current aesthetic of Bruce Vento Trail; loss of green space
Concern about safety with buses ; safety for kids crossing the trail to school and pedestrians
Preference for alternative routes along Hwy 61 and/or White Bear Avenue to support existing businesses instead
of traveling through residential neighborhoods
Concern about ridership since not many people travel to downtown Saint Paul during non-rush hour, and the
route does not provide direct service to Minneapolis
Concern about access to transit for trail users and park and ride users
Draft Locally Preferred Alternative: Vehicle
Opportunities
Consider using electrical (hybrid) buses instead of traditional diesel buses
Dedicated Bus Rapid Transit is a cheaper option compared to Light Rail Transit, and a better performing vehicle
compared to traditional buses and Arterial Bus Rapid Transit
Challenges
Concern that population density does not support vehicle choice
Potential negative impacts to neighborhood and current trail: noise and visual impacts
Light Rail Transit would encourage more development/redevelopment compared to Bus Rapid Transit
Concern about how Dedicated Bus Rapid Transit will operate in downtown St. Paul
Concern about cost of fare and return on investment
Draft Locally Preferred Alternative: Stations
Connection to the Green Line and amenities are important
A preference for having a stop at Maryland Ave; it would connect to existing routes
Consider putting a station at the old 3M campus to increase economic development potential
Concern about below grade stop at Phalen Blvd and Arcade St; ADA accessibility and safety
Adding more stops will increase travel time
Other Comments
Transit, in general, will support seniors and transit dependent communities
Keep the bicycle and pedestrian trail, and preserve and enhance the multiple benefits of the existing corridor
Consider replacing green space/open space if current trail is impacted.
Many people expressed a preference for prairie style planting versus turf along the RCRRA right-of-way
Consider improving current bus system first and invest in resurfacing roads and bridges instead
Concern about length of time for construction of transit guideway and construction impacts to the Bruce
Vento Trail
Concern about the cost of landscaping along the route and maintenance requirements
Overview of Public Comments from Engagement Activities and Open House/Public Hearing
G7, Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 82 of 144
Letters from Organizations
All Parks Alliance for Change
Draft LPA will improve accessibility for underrepresented communities and transit dependent communities;
promote sustainable, vibrant, and healthy communities specifically nearby manufactured home parks
Transit access within a half -mile of manufactured home parks in Ramsey County and Washington County are
minimal
Dedicated Bus Rapid Transit should align with the region’s existing bus routes
Pleased that Rush Line is making effort to engage underrepresented communities
HealthEast St. John’s Hospital
Expressed the importance for proposing a transit line connecting people to St. John’s Hospital existing and new
health care facilities
Consider strategically placing stations near health care facilities that will improve access to health care services
Lower Phalen Creek Project
Concern about the loss of green space; c onsider fostering community ownership and landscaping strategies that
will sustain nature and wildlife, and reduce environmental impacts along the Ramsey County right-of-way and
Bruce Vento Trail
Appreciate the Policy Advisory Committee for listen ing to the public and removing route that will transect Swede
Hollow Park
Sherman Associates, Inc.
Dedicated Bus Rapid Transit along the Bruce Vento Trail will provide transit access to existing and future
residents in Maplewood; connecting people to jobs, recreation, and health services.
Reliable and good transit access will encourage additional redevelopment opportunities in the Gladstone
Redevelopment Area
St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce
Improves transit connection between East Metro urban centers and suburban centers; increasing connectivity to
jobs, services, new development and other amenities and opportunities
Improved transit will facilitate increased growth opportunities for businesses and employees; supporting
sustainable growth
Reliable transit is a valuable resource for people who live, work, shop and visits north -end suburbs and Saint Paul
Maplewood Mall
Consider placing proposed stations in location accessible by park and rides, shopping centers, services and other
amenities
Draft Locally Preferred Alternative will c onnect people to Maplewood’s major economic hub
White Bear Economic Development Corp
Draft Locally Preferred Alternative is a good investment for connecting White Bear Lake with other municipalities
Improved transit will connect residents to jobs, education, shopping, recreation, arts and culture, and health care
facilities; enhancing vibrancy and livability
Hwy 61 (north of I-694) serves ar eas with recent investments; transit access will guide redevelopment decisions in
the area
Consider placing stations near park and rides, other amenities and in areas that will promote economic growth
St. Paul Bicycle Coalition
Cautiously supports the proposed co-location of rapid bus and trail north of Phalen Blvd
Prioritize retention and improvement of the trail's shade canopy: assists with comfort and safety
Between Jackson, Pennsylvania Ave and University Ave: explore creative solutions to accommodate all users
within the limited right-of-way.
Right-of-way south of Valley St. is narrow: consider options to expand the street into adjacent city-owned
property, or combine the two sidewalks into a multiuse trail on the west side.
G7, Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 83 of 144
Project Background
In coming years, bus rapid transit (BRT) will play a grow-
ing role in the Twin Cities transit system. In 2016 the
A Line will open in the central metro, the Metro Red Line
(in the south metro) continues to grow, and plans for ad-
ditional BRT lines are advancing.
“One of the drivers behind the transitway build-out is
to increase employment access by transit,” says Andrew
Guthrie, research fellow with the Humphrey School of
Public Affairs. ”Achieving that to the fullest extent pos-
sible requires job growth in station areas. Even if the same
number of jobs would have been added elsewhere in the
region without the transitway, jobs that are easily acces-
sible by transit have additional social benefits.”
This project examined the conditions that lead to job
growth at station areas. The research aims to help Twin
Cities policymakers better understand these factors and
maximize the impact of public investment in transitways.
Project Design
Researchers compared job-change rates around dedi-
cated guideway BRT, arterial BRT (in which buses oper-
ate primarily in mixed traffic), and light-rail transit (LRT)
corridors before and after implementation in 15 regions
around the nation. The 15 study regions were Twin Cities
peer regions (as defined by the Metropolitan Council) as
well as Eugene, Oregon, and Las Vegas, Nevada, which
were added to increase the number of dedicated-guide-
way BRT stations studied. BRT corridors in the 15 regions
include some mix of high-amenity stops or fixed stations,
signal priority, and off-board fare collection. (All Twin Cit-
ies BRT lines will have all these features.)
The researchers separated jobs into different sector cat-
egories defined by skill level and type of work: blue collar
(low-skilled, production), pink collar (low-skilled, service),
and white collar (high-skilled, professional). In addition,
they separately considered differences between jobs
paying an annual wage less than $40,000 and jobs paying
more than that.
Job Growth Impacts of Bus Rapid Transit
Transitway Impacts Research Program (TIRP) Research Brief
“In a regional transit system, each new transitway station plays a role in supporting job growth at others.”
—Andrew Guthrie, Principal Investigator
Photo: Metro Transit
Key Findings
•The most significant factor in encouraging job growth
is total street mileage near station areas, underscoring
the importance of street connections between
stations and their surroundings.
•Job impacts vary by transitway mode. The greatest
difference in job growth was between some type
of fixed infrastructure and no continuous fixed
infrastructure at all.
•Regional factors such as economic development
policies were highly important in determining
changes in station-area job growth.
G7, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 84 of 144
The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion,
national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. This publication is available in alternative formats upon request.
cts.umn.edu/Research/Featured/Transitways
“Our project is unique because it uses a con-
sistent, comparable national sample of transit-
way stations and directly studies job growth
and loss, as opposed to less direct measures of
economic activity such as commercial prop-
erty values,” says Guthrie.
Findings and Policy Implications
• Connectivity is key. Total street mileage
(excluding limited access highways) was
a significant, positive predictor of jobs,
and the most important factor of those
examined in this study.
“Total street mileage is a measure of
transportation network density—which
indicates a well-connected street network,”
Guthrie says. “This finding underscores the
importance of fine-grained connectivity
between transitway stations and their
surroundings. It bodes well for the planned
A Line, which primarily serves areas with
a dense street grid. It also indicates that
providing street connections to stations
in suburban areas will be a critical step for
attracting jobs.”
Streetscape improvements to help
pedestrians get to and from stations may
also be important to consider, he adds.
• Fixed infrastructure matters. The greatest
difference in station-area job change was
between some type of fixed infrastructure
and no continuous fixed infrastructure at all.
Arterial BRT stations were associated with
significantly less job growth than otherwise
similar LRT stations.
“Promoting a corridor identity along any
transit corridor is an important strategy to
attract job growth,” says Guthrie. “This is
particularly important along arterial BRT
projects to create public awareness of these
lines.”
• Job sector and wage are factors. Overall
job growth was strongest near stations
closest to downtown areas. Growth varied,
however, by job type: distance from the
central business district was a strong
negative predictor of both white-collar and
high-wage job growth, while dedicated
guideway BRT was a negative predictor for
pink-collar jobs.
“This fact seems to potentially reinforce
a pattern of high-status jobs in the urban
core, juxtaposed against lower-status jobs
further out,” Guthrie says. “This shows a need
to consider the types of jobs attracted to
station areas in different parts of the region.”
• Context counts. Regional factors, such
as population growth and economic
development policies, are highly important
in determining job changes near stations.
“This speaks to the importance of broad,
regional policies that support economic
growth or that at least avert obstacles to it,”
Guthrie says.
About the Research
The study’s principal investigator was Andrew
Guthrie, a research fellow in the Humphrey School
of Public Affairs; Yingling Fan, an associate profes-
sor in the Humphrey School, was co-investigator.
CTS Research Brief
2016-02 May 2016
TIRP Sponsors and
Supporters:
Anoka County
Center for
Transportation Studies,
University of Minnesota
Center for Urban
and Regional Affairs,
University of Minnesota
Central Corridor
Funders Collaborative
City of Bloomington
City of Minneapolis
City of Saint Paul
Dakota County
Federal Transit
Administration
Hennepin County
Hennepin–University
Partnership
Metropolitan Council
Metro Transit
Minnesota Department
of Transportation
Ramsey County
State and Local Policy
Program, Humphrey
School of Public Affairs,
University of Minnesota
University Metropolitan
Consortium, University
of Minnesota
Washington County
“Planned BRT corridors already serve 500,000 jobs as well as businesses that collect half of
the region’s sales tax revenue. But these corridors often suffer from slow transit speeds and
a lack of fixed stations. Upcoming BRT improvements will improve regional job access and
position these corridors for planned development.”
—Charles Carlson, Senior Manager for BRT, Metro Transit
G7, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 85 of 144
Project Background
This study examines the economic impacts of transitways—
specifically, the impacts of the Hiawatha Light-Rail Transit Line,
which stretches from downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota, to its
southern suburbs. Researchers explored how construction of the
light-rail line and rail transit stations affects residential property
values, land use patterns, and housing investment.
Project Design
The project design addresses three primary research challenges:
• Classi fying stations and defining station area. Researchers
classified the stations based on four different station
types: the downtown commercial business district, the
neighborhood district, the institutional stations, and the
Bloomington commercial district. The study focused mainly
on the neighborhood district, because this area had the
greatest mix of land use. The station area was defined as a
half-mile radius from each transit station.
• Defining the control area. Two control areas were defined for
this project. One control area was a quarter-mile band outside
the defined half-mile impact zone. The second control area
was the entire neighborhood of eastern south Minneapolis,
one of the city’s distinct housing markets.
Understanding the Impacts of Transitways
The Hiawatha Line: Impacts on Land Use
and Residential Housing Value
A Transitway Impacts Research Program (TIRP) Research Brief
Project Fast Facts
After construction of the Hiawatha
Line:
• The area along the Hiawatha
Line realized an increase of $47.1
million in residential property
value between 2004 and 2007.
• Single-family homes near the line
sold for 4.2 percent more than
homes in the comparison area.
• Homes located closer to stations
experienced higher property
values due to increased transit
accessibility.
• The negative effect on property
values near the light-rail line due
to nuisances like noise was much
smaller than the positive effect on
those properties.
• The average value of each single-
family home located near a light-
rail station increased more than
$5,000.
• The average value of each multi-
family property located near a
light-rail station increased more
than $15,500.
• A significant amount of
new housing construction
occurred—183 percent more than
would be expected.
“The average value of a
single -family home in a
statio n area has increa sed
more than $5,000,and the
averag e value of a multi-
f amily home in a statio n
area has increa sed more
than$15,500.”
—Ed Goetz
G7, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 86 of 144
• Defining the timeframe. Rese archers
considered when impacts of the rail line
could be expected to occur. To do this, they
charted the number of times “light rail” and
“Hiawatha” were mentioned in major local
newspapers. Based on this analysis, the year
the line opened—2004—was selected as the
best time to begin gauging the Hiawatha
line’s impacts.
Project Conclusions
Impacts on Land Use
So far, the Hiawatha Line has had little impact
on land use. However, researchers only had
access to land use data up to 2005. Greater land
use changes may occur in the future.
Impacts on Development
There has been a significant amount of new
housing construction next to the Hiawatha
Line—183 percent more than would be expected
based on the control area. Altogether, there
were 67 residential properties built within 300
feet of the light-rail tracks after funding for the
Hiawatha line was announced in 1997. While
the number of building permits issued for the
rail-line impact zone mirrors the number issued
for the control area, the value and scale of the
building activity within the impact zone was far
greater than building activity in the control area
between 2000 and 2007.
Impacts on Property Values
The Hiawatha Light-Rail Line has positively
affected residential property values. The positive accessibility effect of station access
outweighed the smaller nuisance effect of the rail line on property values. Positive
property value impacts were only realized for properties on the west side of the rail line,
which is primarily residential. The industrial land use properties on the line’s east side
did not benefit from proximity to the line. The industrial corridor on the line’s east side
effectively blunted any positive accessibility effect created by the Hiawatha Line.
The average value of a single-family home in a station area has increased more than
$5,000, and the average value of a multi-family home in a station area has increased
more than $15,500. The area along the Hiawatha Line realized an increase of $47.1
million in residential property value between 2004 and 2007.
About the Research
The research was conducted by University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute professor
Ed Goetz and funded by the Transitway Impacts Research Program (TIRP).
Program Supporters:
Anoka County
Center for Transportation
Studies, University of
Minnesota
Center for Urban
and Regional Affairs,
University of Minnesota
City of Minneapolis
City of Saint Paul
Dakota County
Federal Transit
Administration
Hennepin County
Itasca Group
Metropolitan Council
Minnesota Department
of Transportation
Ramsey County
State and Local Policy
Program, Humphrey
Institute of Public Affairs,
University of Minnesota
University Metropolitan
Consortium, University of
Minnesota
Washington County
The Hiawatha Line Neighborhood
Corridor
This study focused on the neighbor-
hood corridor of the Hiawatha Line,
stretching from the Cedar Riverside
Station to the north and the V.A.
Medical Center Station to the south.
CTS Research Brief
2009-02
The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without
regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.
This publication is available in alternative formats upon request.
www.cts.umn.edu/Research/Featured/Transitways
G7, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 87 of 144
1TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
TIER 2 ANALYSIS
SUMMARY REPORT
SPRING 2017
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 88 of 144
2TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
OVERVIEW OF THE RUSH LINE PRE-PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STUDY ....3
WHAT IS THE PRE-PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STUDY .................................4
WHY IS TRANSIT INVESTMENT IN THE RUSH
LINE CORRIDOR NEEDED? ..........................................................................5
WHAT ARE THE PROJECT GOALS?..............................................................6
HOW IS THIS PROCESS ALIGNED WITH THE FEDERAL
EVALUATION PROCESS? .............................................................................8
WHAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED TO DATE? ..................................................9
WHAT ALTERNATIVES HAVE BEEN ANALYZED IN TIER 2? ....................10
HOW WERE THE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED? .......................................14
OVERALL TIER 2 ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT ........................................19
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ...............................................................20
HOW IS THE PUBLIC INVOLVED? .............................................................25
WHAT IS NEXT IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS? ..........................26
CONTENTS
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 89 of 144
3TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
WHAT IS THE RUSH LINE CORRIDOR?
The Rush Line Corridor is a transportation corridor extend-
ing 80 miles from Hinckley to Union Depot in downtown St.
Paul, roughly following Interstates 35 and 35E and Trunk
Highway (TH) 61. The corridor extends through portions of
Ramsey, Washington, Anoka, Chisago, and Pine counties.
Previous studies concluded that the portion of the Rush
Line Corridor extending between downtown St. Paul and
Forest Lake has the greatest potential for significant transit
improvements in the near term.
WHAT IS THE RUSH LINE PRE-PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT STUDY?
A Pre-Project Development (PPD) Study was initiated to
pick-up from where the previous studies left off. The focus
of the PPD Study is to identify a Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA) to carry into subsequent phases of project design and
ultimately construction.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE RUSH LINE
PPD STUDY?
Four needs for transit investment in the Rush Line Corridor
were identified by stakeholders:
Sustainable growth and development
Serve people who rely on transit
Sustainable travel demand options are limited
Increasing demand for transit
The purpose of the study is to provide transit service that
satisfies the long-term regional mobility needs for busi-
nesses and the traveling public and catalyzes sustainable
development within the study area.
WHAT ARE THE RESULTS OF THE
TIER 2 ANALYSIS?
Following completion of the Tier 1 phase of the PPD process
(results available at www.rushline.org), this Tier 2 evaluation
was conducted with the goal of identifying a recommended
alternative for consideration by the Rush Line Corridor Task
Force and Metropolitan Council as the LPA. The comprehen-
sive evaluation and public engagement process documented
in this report led to the identification of the alternative on the
right for refinement and consideration as the LPA.
1
2
3
4
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
Construct Dedicated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along the
County/Rail corridor from Union Depot in Downtown St. Paul
to Downtown White Bear Lake. The BRT would share the
Bruce Vento Trail. In addition, connector bus service on High-
way 61 from Downtown White Bear Lake to Forest Lake will
continue to be explored.
Strong Development
Potential
Longest route
with dedicated
guideway, maximizing
development potential
Limited Property
Impacts
Least amount of
private property
impacts of all dedicated
guideway options
Fast Travel Time
Shortest travel time
between St. Paul and
White Bear Lake
Cost Effective
Cost per rider, with
further refinement,
could qualify for
federal funding
WHAT’S INCLUDED IN THE REMAINDER OF
THIS TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT?
This Tier 2 Summary Report provides an overview of the
activities completed to date as part of the Rush Line Corridor
Pre-Project Development Study. This report describes the
decision making process, how the public was engaged, the
purpose and need for transit improvements in the Rush Line
corridor, the project goals, the alternatives development and
evaluation process, the recommended alternative, and the
next steps in the study process.
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 90 of 144
4TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
additional transit services (such as new circulator and connec-
tor routes or extensions of existing transit routes to meet the
proposed route), estimated costs of the project, general station
locations, and the forecasted ridership. The entire process is
guided by extensive public engagement activities.
The PPD Study is a joint local and regional planning effort
conducted by the Rush Line Corridor Task Force and led by the
Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA). The Rush
Line Corridor Task Force (Task Force) is a 23-member board
of local and regional representatives charged with exploring
transit alternatives that support mobility, economic develop-
ment and community and environmental enhancement within
the Rush Line corridor.
WHAT IS THE PRE-PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT STUDY?
The PPD Study is analyzing bus and rail alternatives within
the 30-mile study area between Forest Lake and Union Depot
in downtown St. Paul. As shown in the figure below, the PPD
is the first step in the broader Project Development process
that is required to build major transit projects through Fed-
eral Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts or Small Starts
Capital Investment Program.
The PPD Study includes a detailed analysis of different transit
vehicles and routes and concludes with the identification of
the LPA. The LPA will define the transit vehicle, the route, any
Anoka County Regional Railroad Authority
Chisago County Regional Railroad Authority
Pine County Regional Railroad Authority
Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority
Washington County Regional Railroad Authority
BNSF
Canadian Pacific Railroad
City of Centerville
City of Columbus
City of Forest Lake
City of Gem Lake
City of Harris
City of Hinckley
City of Hugo
City of Lino Lakes
City of Little Canada
City of Maplewood
City of North Branch
City of Pine City
City of Rush City
City of Sandstone
City of St. Paul
City of Stacy
City of Vadnais Heights
City of White Bear Lake
City of Wyoming
East Central Regional Development Commission
East Metro Strong
East Side Area Business Association
Forest Lake Area Chamber of Commerce
Metropolitan State University
Metro Transit
Metropolitan Council
Minnesota Commercial Railroad
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota Historical Society
St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce
St. Paul Port Authority
Union Pacific Railroad
White Bear Lake Area Chamber of Commerce
White Bear Township
Rush Line PPD Study Policy Advisory Committee and
Technical Advisory Committee Organizations
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 91 of 144
5TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
WHY IS TRANSIT INVESTMENT IN
THE RUSH LINE CORRIDOR NEEDED?
An early task completed in the PPD Study was the creation of a Purpose and
Need Statement, a document that identified the transportation needs of the
corridor which, in turn, led to development of the alternatives (vehicles and
routes) that could meet these needs.
Rush Line Corridor’s Pre-Project Development Study has identified the
project purpose as:
Provide transit service that satisfies the long-term regional
mobility needs for businesses and the traveling public and
catalyzes sustainable development within the study area.
Development of the project purpose also identified the four following
project needs:
PROJECT NEED #1
SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
Study area communities—and the surrounding region—need transportation
options that are supportive of sustainable growth and development patterns.
The overall corridor population will increase 24% by 2040. Area employment will increase by 30% with 70,000 jobs added by 2040. Major residential, commercial and mixed-use activity centers are planned
throughout the study area.
PROJECT NEED #2
PEOPLE WHO RELY ON TRANSIT
Study area demographics are shifting toward households that must or choose
to rely on transit to meet their mobility needs.
The population is growing older and additional mobility options are
needed to support quality of life for the aging population that cannot or
chooses not to drive. Average household income has decreased and the number of people
living below the poverty line has increased. Multi-modal mobility options
offer travelers a lower user-cost alternative to car ownership while main-
taining mobility and accessibility. The number of households without a car has increased in the areas with
the least amount of transit service. Shifts in generational preferences are
increasing the number of households that choose not to own a car.
DEVELOP & EVALUATE
IDENTIFY TRANSIT
INVESTMENT THAT BEST MEETS
THE NEEDS OF THE CORRIDOR
CORRIDOR POPULATION
IS INCREASING
VEHICLES & ROUTES
IDENTIFY TRANSPORTATION
NEEDS OF CORRIDOR
DEVELOP PURPOSE &
NEED STATEMENT
Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
RUSH LINE PROCESS
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 92 of 144
6TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
Increase the use of transit and
its efficiency and attractiveness
for all users
Develop and select an
implementable and community-
supported project
Contribute to improving regional
equity, sustainability, and quality
of life
Improve sustainable travel options
between and within study area
communities
Enhance connectivity of
the corridor to the regional
transportation network
Support sustainable growth and
development patterns that reflect
the vision of local and regional
plans and policies
PROJECT NEED #3
SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL OPTIONS ARE LIMITED
The existing transportation network is insufficient to accommodate
projected demand.
Study area commute times are increasing. Improvements to the study
area transit network will provide options and may encourage commut-
ers to shift from driving to transit service that offers consistent and
competitive commute times. Traffic volumes are growing. The scale of roadway expansion required to
mitigate this growth in traffic volume and resulting congestion is unlikely
to be financially feasible, environmentally sensitive, or aligned with the
region’s vision for growth.
PROJECT NEED #4
INCREASING DEMAND FOR TRANSIT
Corridor bus ridership trends indicate increasing demand for express,
suburban local and northern-oriented bus routes. Additional transportation
network investment that matches these emerging transit demand patterns
will improve mobility within the study area, improve connectivity to the
regional transit network, and increase transit system ridership.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECT GOALS?
As part of the development of the project’s purpose and needs, six project
goals were developed to describe the outcomes that the LPA hopes to
deliver. Evaluation criteria were developed to assist in understanding the
degree to which each alternative would meet these project goals. The Tech-
nical Advisory Committee and Policy Advisory Committee provided input
into what information would be useful in determining an alternative’s ability
to meet the project goals and used as evaluation criteria to determine key
differentiators between the alternatives.
MORE PEOPLE ARE
COMMUTING FOR LONGER
TRANSIT DEMAND
IS INCREASING
BUS RIDERSHIP
+
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 93 of 144
7TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
PROJECT GOAL—INCREASE TRANSIT USE
Daily ridership on the Rush Line Corridor, overall ridership
within the study area, transit travel time, and the number of
new transit riders and transit dependent riders were calcu-
lated to determine the ability of each alternative to meet the
goal of increasing transit use.
Daily ridership estimates the total number of riders that will
use each alternative. Transit travel time calculates how long
a one-way trip on each alternative would take. Travel time
influences the numbers of riders – the longer a transit trip
takes, the less likely people are to use transit. The number of
new transit riders captures how many new users (including
drivers) would be attracted to each alternative. The number
of transit-dependent riders helps decision-makers to ensure
that the alternative would expand the mobility of people who
rely on transit to meet their everyday needs.
PROJECT GOAL—DEVELOP AN
IMPLEMENTABLE PROJECT
The evaluation considered construction costs, operating and
maintenance costs, and the FTA cost effectiveness calculation
to assist in determining whether an alternative is imple-
mentable (from a local funding perspective) and eligible for
FTA’s New Starts or Small Starts Capital Investment Program
(from a federal perspective).
PROJECT GOAL—IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE
Determining whether an alternative will improve quality of
life for residents is critical to ensure that both benefits and
adverse impacts are measured. Quality of life criteria include
consideration of water resources, noise and vibration issues,
potential parkland and cultural resource impacts, as well as
increasing services to transit-dependent populations, such as
households below poverty level and zero-car households.
PROJECT GOAL—IMPROVE SUSTAINABLE
TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS
Sustainable transit options maximize the connectivity of bicy-
clists and pedestrians to the transit system. This increased
access is measured by determining the number of residents
within reasonable walking and biking distance of stations and
the degree to which the routes to the stations are comfort-
able for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Increase Transit Use ImplementableProject Improves Quality of life
Improves Sustainable Travel Options
EnhancesRegionalConnectivity
Supports Local Vision
Ridership
New Transit Riders
Transit-Dependent Riders
Travel Time
Construction Costs
Operations & Maintenance Costs
Cost Effectiveness
Wetland/WaterResources
Noise/Vibration
Parkland
Cultural/HistoricProperties
Traffic Safety
Below Poverty Households
Transit-Dependent Households
Population at Stations
Bike/Ped Access
Bike/Ped Level of Travel Stress
Access Changes
Traffic Operations
Transit Connectivity
Parking
Corridors with Constrained Right-of-Way
Employment at Stations
Potential for Transit-Oriented Development
Development Potential Survey
PROJECT GOALS & TIER 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 94 of 144
8TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
PROJECT GOAL—ENHANCE REGIONAL
CONNECTIVITY
It is important to understand that transit is part of a larger
transportation network, and must work well with drivers,
bicyclists, and pedestrians, as well as the existing transit
network. This criterion was designed to measure potential
impacts to drivers and transit users by identifying the number
of driveways and local roadways intersecting each alternative,
calculating the level of existing traffic congestion on corridor
roadways, inventorying the number of existing transit routes
the service could connect with, and counting the potential
number of parking spaces impacted by each alternative.
PROJECT GOAL—SUPPORTS THE
LOCAL VISION
To support the local vision for sustainable development
patterns, a transit alternative should minimize impacts to
adjacent property while encouraging future development.
It should also focus service to areas with the highest levels
of forecast population and employment growth, and com-
plement the development plans of the communities in the
corridor by maximizing development potential near the
transit corridor.
HOW IS THIS PROCESS ALIGNED
WITH THE FEDERAL EVALUATION
PROCESS?
While project funding still needs to be deter-
mined, it is likely that project sponsors will apply
for capital funding through the FTA’s New Starts
or Small Starts Capital Investment Program. This
program uses predefined criteria to evaluate
applicant projects, and the Rush Line evaluation
process has been designed to incorporate these
criteria into the local evaluation process.
The Rush Line PPD Study evaluation process was
designed to identify which alternatives meet local
needs and also complete a high-level review of
the eligibility for federal funding. The FTA criteria
will continue to be refined and reviewed through
the Tier 2 refinement phase of the study.
Ridership
New Riders (%)
Transit-Dependent Riders (%)
Travel time
Capital & O&M costs
FTA Cost Effectiveness
Calculation
Bike/Ped Access
Bike/Ped Comfort
Environmental
(Natural & Cultural/Historic)
Equity
Safety
Traffic
Parking
Transit Connectivity
Employment Access &
Development Potential
Right-of-Way
Mobility (Ridership)
Congestion Relief
(New Riders)
Cost Effectiveness
(Balance of Cost & Ridership)
Environmental Benefits
(Benefits Compared to Costs)
Environmental Benefits
(Benefits Compared to Costs)
Mobility (Ridership)
Congestion Relief
(New Riders)
Economic Development
Effects (Future Development)
Land Use (Existing Conditions)
STUDY CRITERIA
EVALUATION CRITERIA COMPARISON
FEDERAL CRITERIA
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 95 of 144
9TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
WHAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED TO DATE?
In order to evaluate the initial group of transit vehicles and
route options, the Rush Line PPD Study followed a three-step
method.
The first step (“Tier 1 Evaluation”) entailed the assess-
ment of each transit vehicle and route relative to overall
implementation viability. This step applied fewer and
broader measures, including information from previous
corridor/area studies. The analysis largely relied on or-
der-of-magnitude estimates and the outcomes of similar
transit projects from around the country. The second step (“Tier 2 Evaluation”) assessed the
transit vehicle/route pairings that passed the Tier 1 Eval-
uation and compare the benefits and impacts of each.
As summarized in this report, this step applied more
detailed and alternative-specific evaluation results The alternative(s) that fare(s) best against the detailed
criteria in this second step will be further refined in the
third step (“Tier 2 Refinement”). This three-step process will result in the identification of
an LPA that not only meets locally identified project pur-
pose and needs, but is also eligible for FTA’s New Starts
or Small Starts Capital Investment Program funding.
The Tier 1 technical analysis included applying environmental,
land use, capital cost and travel time criteria. In addition, ex-
isting transit/transportation policies and plans were reviewed
and compared to the results of the technical analysis. The
purpose of this analysis was to determine whether each of
the alternatives is viable for implementation not just from
a technical perspective, but is consistent with existing plans
and policies and meets the project’s purpose and need. More
information on the Tier 1 technical analysis and results can be
found on the Rush Line website (www.rushline.org).
Based on the Tier 1 technical analysis, the following
alternatives were recommended for further study in Tier 2:
Dedicated BRT to Downtown Forest Lake and LRT / DMU
to White Bear Lake along the County/Rail corridor Arterial BRT to White Bear Lake along White Bear Avenue
and US Highway 61 Downtown Routes included 13 segments carried forward
for further review in the Tier 2 analysis
The results of the Tier 1 analysis were presented at public
meetings in September 2015. After reviewing the results
and public comments the PAC, at its November 2015 meet-
ing, approved the inclusion of Dedicated BRT and Light Rail
Transit (LRT) on White Bear Avenue to White Bear Lake as an
additional alternative to carry forward into the Tier 2 analysis.
This alternative was added in response to public comment
heard at the Tier 1 open houses related to potential impacts
along the County/Rail corridor. Studying both the County/
Rail corridor and White Bear Avenue would enable a clear,
comparative evaluation of the benefits and costs in transit
investments within either corridor.
Tier 1Evaluation
Tier 2Evaluation
Tier 2Refinement
Selectthe LPA
Public Engagement
Public Engagement
Public Engagement
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 96 of 144
10TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
WHAT ALTERNATIVES HAVE BEEN ANALYZED IN TIER 2?
Using suggestions from community meetings and direction from the TAC and
PAC, the Tier 2 analysis added additional details to the recommended routes
and transit vehicles that were carried forward from the Tier 1 analysis and
more definition to how they would be analyzed, such as:
Station locations based on federal and regional spacing guidelines, the
desire to access employment or public activity centers, and connections
to other major transit routes Feeder, connector or circulator bus services were identified to enhance
the Rush Line corridor transit service Mixed traffic options, where the transit vehicle uses an existing travel
lane with current traffic, should be used, if needed, to minimize property
impacts Impacts to environmental and culturally important landmarks should be
reviewed and potential impacts determined
Additional detail and refinement resulted in four alignment alternatives for
the North/South portion of the corridor (between Phalen Village and Forest
Lake) along with eight options for routing into downtown to the Union Depot.
INITIAL NORTH/SOUTH ALTERNATIVE 1
Alignment uses the County/Rail corridor from Phalen Village to Forest Lake
with Dedicated BRT transit option. Alignment is 23 miles long and includes 12
station locations.
INITIAL NORTH/SOUTH ALTERNATIVE 2
Alignment uses the County/Rail corridor from Phalen Village to White Bear
Lake with either Dedicated BRT, LRT or Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU). Alignment
is 9 miles long and includes 9 stations. Alternative includes a connector bus
service from Downtown White Bear Lake to Downtown Forest Lake.
INITIAL NORTH/SOUTH ALTERNATIVE 3
Alignment uses a combination of Maryland Avenue, White Bear Avenue and
County/Rail corridor from Phalen Village to White Bear Lake with LRT or Dedi-
cated BRT transit options. Alignment is 11 miles long and includes 15 stations.
Alternative includes a connector bus service from Downtown White Bear Lake
to Downtown Forest Lake.
INITIAL NORTH/SOUTH ALTERNATIVE 4
Alignment uses Arcade Street, Maryland Avenue, White Bear Avenue and TH
61 to White Bear Lake with Arterial BRT, which operates in mixed traffic, as the
transit options. Alignment is 12 miles long and includes 19 stations.
ARTERIAL BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)
Peak Frequency: 10 Minutes
Mixed Traffic
System Length: 5-15 Miles
Capital Costs: $
Station Spacing: ¼–½ Mile
Dimension: 60’ x 8.5’
Fuel: Hybrid (diesel/electric)
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT)
Peak Frequency: 10 Minutes
Mixed Traffic & Dedicated Guideway
System Length: 10-30 Miles
Capital Costs: $$$
Station Spacing: 1 Mile
Dimension: 90-100’ x 8.57’
Fuel: Electric
DEDICATED GUIDEWAY BRT (DBRT)
Peak Frequency: 10 Minutes
Mixed Traffic & Dedicated Guideway
System Length: 10-30 Miles
Capital Costs: $$
Station Spacing: 1 Mile
Dimension: 60’ x 8.5’
Fuel: Hybrid (diesel/electric)
DIESEL MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU)
Peak Frequency: 10 Minutes
Dedicated Guideway
System Length: 20-40 Miles
Capital Costs: $$$
Station Spacing: 1 Mile
Dimension: ~134’ x 9.7’
Fuel: Diesel
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 97 of 144
11TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
DBRT
DBRT ABRT
LRT
LRT
DMU
INITIAL
ALTERNATIVE 1
COUNTY/RAIL ROW
INITIAL
ALTERNATIVE 3
WHITE BEAR AVENUE
& COUNTY/RAIL ROW
INITIAL
ALTERNATIVE 2
COUNTY/RAIL ROW
INITIAL
ALTERNATIVE 4
WHITE BEAR AVENUE
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 98 of 144
12TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
DOWNTOWN ROUTING OPTIONS
Three downtown routing workshops (see box on the right)
were held to develop and analyze the routes into downtown
St. Paul from Phalen Village, the southern end of the North/
South Alternatives. The first two workshops focused on taking
the 13 segments that were moved from Tier 1 into the Tier 2
analysis and creating routes to connect to the Union Depot.
In addition, it was discussed what transit vehicle types should
be applied to each of the routes depending on the feasibility
of implementation. For example, the DMU vehicle is most
valuable in existing rail corridors, since the benefit of the vehi-
cle is its ability to share tracks with freight trains. Based on
these discussions, the community members agreed to have
eight routing options, shown on the following page, analyzed
in the Tier 2 analysis:
OPTION 1:
Dedicated BRT on Phalen Boulevard, Pennsylvania Avenue
and Jackson Street. Route is 2.3 miles long and includes
8 station locations.
OPTION 2:
Dedicated BRT or LRT on Phalen Boulevard, Olive Street,
Lafayette Road and East 7th Street. Route is 2.1 miles long
and includes 6 stations.
OPTION 3:
Dedicated BRT or LRT via Phalen Boulevard and East 7th
Street. Route is 1.9 miles long and includes 6 stations.
OPTION 4:
Arterial BRT via Arcade Street and East 7th Street. Route is
1.6 miles long and includes 5 stations.
OPTION 5:
DMU via Union Pacific RR. Route is 2.5 miles long and includes
6 stations.
OPTION 6:
Dedicated BRT or LRT or DMU via Swede Hollow. Route is
2.1 miles long and includes 4 stations.
OPTION 7:
Dedicated BRT via E. 7th Street, Mounds Boulevard, Kellogg
Boulevard. Route is 1.5 miles long and includes 4 stations.
OPTION 8:
LRT via Phalen Boulevard, Olive Street, University Avenue,
and 12th Street. Route is 2.0 miles long and includes sharing
track with the existing Green Line LRT line and has 8 stations,
including two existing Green Line Stations at 10th Street
and Central.
What are Connector &
Circulator Bus Services?
Each of these alternatives include supporting bus
service that will enhance connectivity between the
proposed stations and the residential, commercial,
and office land uses in the communities within the
corridor. For example, for alternatives that end dedi-
cated guideway at downtown White Bear Lake, a con-
nector bus service is planned that would run on Hwy
61 to downtown Forest Lake. Once in Forest Lake, the
bus circulates around downtown, providing service
to more areas. These bus routes will be coordinated
to minimize the transfer time between the connector
and dedicated guideway services.
What were the Downtown
Routing Workshops?
Community representatives, including District Coun-
cil members, Chamber of Commerce and Business
associations, and community groups, were asked to
participate in three workshops that evaluated the
downtown routing options carried forward from the
Tier 1 analysis. Participants discussed the proposed
routes, reviewed demographic data, assessed the
feasibility of different types of transit vehicles, and
reviewed travel times. Small group discussion and
presentations from the Rush Line staff provided
opportunities for representatives to make recom-
mendations on route preferences.
The group’s recommendations, that included pref-
erence for Options 1, 2, 3, and 8, was considered
along with the other evaluation criteria as a part of
the TAC and PAC decision-making process.
Option 1 serves residents living near Arcade/
Phalen and in the Mt. Airy neighborhood Option 2 serves residents living near Arcade/
Phalen and reaches the jobs near Lafayette
Business Park Option 3 serves the residents and small busi-
nesses along East 7th Street Option 8 serves the residents living near
Arcade/Phalen and offers direct connections to
the Green Line
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 99 of 144
13TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
MAPLEWOOD MALL SUB-OPTION
For the alternatives using the County/Rail corridor (Alternative
1 and 2), the sub-option would deviate from the County/Rail
corridor at Beam Avenue, continue east to Southlawn Avenue
at Maplewood Mall, and use County Road D to reconnect to
the County/Rail corridor. This sub-option is being considered
to make a direct connection to Maplewood Mall and Transit
Center that was identified early in the study as a key destina-
tion and employment center. The route would also directly
connect to St. John’s Hospital.
TH 61 SUB-OPTION
The option to use TH 61 north from Maplewood Mall to White
Bear Lake applies to all alternatives. For Alternatives 2 and 3,
this provides an alternative route to the BNSF-owned rail cor-
ridor. For Alternative 4, the sub-option would provide an al-
ternative to using White Bear Avenue north of Beam Avenue.
MIXED TRAFFIC SUB-OPTION
For the mixed traffic sub-option, segments of the LRT and
Dedicated BRT alternatives would no longer use a dedicated
guideway. Instead the transit vehicle would use existing travel
lanes on the roadways. This sub-option is being considered
along segments where existing roadway right of way is limited
and significant property impacts along one or both sides of
the roadway would be needed to accommodate a dedicated
guideway.
Locations where this sub-option is being considered for the
North/South alternatives include:
Maryland Avenue between Arcade Street to
White Bear Avenue White Bear Avenue south of Larpenteur Avenue
to Maryland Avenue E. 7th Street from Phalen Boulevard into
Downtown St. Paul TH 61 between County Road F and Downtown
White Bear Lake
NORTH/SOUTH ALTERNATIVE SUB-OPTIONS
In addition to the four base North/South Alternatives, there were three sub-options considered, including:
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 100 of 144
14TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
HOW WERE THE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED?
To facilitate the Tier 2 process, a series of initial assessments were conducted to evaluate and screen the remaining options,
sub-options, and transit vehicle types in an effort to reduce the potential number of “end-point to end-point” alternatives. For
these initial assessments, transit vehicle and routes options were evaluated against each other, and
options that best met the project goals were retained.
A total of SIX INITIAL ASSESSMENTS were completed; each is summarized below.
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 101 of 144
15TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
Based on this analysis, Options 3, 5, 6 and 7 ranked Low.
• Option 3 using E 7th Street south of Phalen Boulevard,
had low ranking for the significant parking and road-
way access impacts, provides only moderate access to
employment centers and is completely within a highly
constrained right-of-way corridor.
• Option 5 which uses the Union Pacific Railroad corridor,
had low access to equity populations and employment
access and high costs for required DMU-related railroad
improvements.
• Option 6, through Swede Hollow, had low access to
equity populations, pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Similar to Option 3, Option 7 uses E 7th along with
Mounds Boulevard and Kellogg Boulevard and has the
similar cost and property impacts on E 7th.
The PAC voted at the September 8th, 2016 meeting, to
remove Option 5 on the Union Pacific Railroad corridor,
Option 6 through Swede Hollow and Option 7 along E. 7th
Street, Mounds Boulevard and Kellogg Boulevard. The
PAC action also redefined Option 3 as mixed-traffic only
operation increasing its overall ranking to medium due to
reduction in property and parking impacts.
INITIAL ASSESSMENT #1 REVIEW OF DOWNTOWN ROUTING
OPTIONS
The eight downtown routing options were evaluated based
on their performance in meeting the project goals and input
from the Downtown Stakeholder Workshops. Each of the
eight downtown routing options were ranked Low, Medium
or High for meeting project goals based on how well the
routes meet the project’s goals and objectives using the
evaluation criteria. One-page summaries were developed to
provide individual routing results and can be viewed on the
project website: www.rushline.org. Mixed Traffic
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 102 of 144
16TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
INITIAL ASSESSMENT #2 REVIEW OF TRANSIT VEHICLES
The second assessment compared the four transit vehicle types (DMU, LRT,
Dedicated BRT and Arterial BRT) to review how the transit options performed
considering the project goals. Based on the results of the evaluation, DMU
performed lower than the other three vehicles:
DMU would be more expensive than LRT on the County/Rail corridor because
DMU requires more bridges to cross existing freight corridors near downtown. The ridership for the DMU alternative would be lower than the LRT on the
County/Rail corridor. DMU would be a new transit vehicle for the region and would have a higher
risk of unknown operations and maintenance costs, compared to the LRT and
BRT options. DMU would be confined to the County/Rail or existing freight corridor, (UP
alignment) and therefore is not able to link directly to Maplewood Mall or
follow one of the preferred downtown routing options. This type of transit
vehicle typically does not operate in mixed traffic, which limits its design and
operational flexibility.
At the September 8th, 2016 PAC meeting, the PAC voted to remove
DMU from further consideration for the Rush Line Corridor.
INITIAL ASSESSMENT #3 DEDICATED GUIDEWAY NORTHERN END
Alternative 1 is the only alternative with a dedicated guideway
option between White Bear Lake and Forest Lake. All other
alternatives end at White Bear Lake and provide connector
bus service to Forest Lake. The following information pro-
vides a comparison between ending the dedicated guideway
at Forest Lake versus White Bear Lake:
The alternative with dedicated guideway to Forest Lake
would be 14 miles longer than the other three North/
South alternatives. The alternative to Forest Lake would only attract 14 per-
cent more riders per day than the Dedicated BRT alterna-
tive that ends in White Bear Lake. Construction costs to Forest Lake would 70 percent high-
er and operations and maintenance costs would be 37
percent higher than the Dedicated BRT alternative that
ends in White Bear Lake. The alternative to Forest Lake had the highest number of
wetland, noise sensitive receptors, parkland and cultural
resources within the buffer of all alternatives (due to the
longer alignment).
Due to the higher cost and limited additional ridership,
the PAC, at its October 2016 meeting, voted to modify the
northern end of Alternative 1, ending dedicated guideway
at White Bear and continuing a connector bus service to
Forest Lake with the following transit service:
The redefined Alternative 1 will consist of all-day dedicat-
ed guideway bus rapid transit service between downtown
Saint Paul and White Bear Lake, with feeder bus service
running all-day every 30 minutes in both directions in
mixed traffic on Highway 61 between White Bear Lake
and Forest Lake. All-day connector bus service between White Bear Lake
to Forest Lake will serve residents living in this section of
the project more efficiently and increase the competitive-
ness of the project for federal funds.
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 103 of 144
17TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
INITIAL ASSESSMENT #4 MIXED TRAFFIC SUB-OPTIONS
From Arcade to White Bear Avenue and Maryland Avenue
and White Bear Avenue between Maryland and Lar-
pentuer Avenue have less than 70 feet of right-of-way.
This narrow width would require private property acquisi-
tions along one side of the roadway to fit both travel
lanes in each direction and a dedicated guideway within
the corridor. Because of this potential impact, a combina-
tion of dedicated guideway and mixed-traffic operations
were considered for Alternative 3. If mixed-traffic opera-
tions were used:
• Property impacts could be reduced by almost 75%
on White Bear Avenue south of Larpenteur and
Maryland Avenue. • There would be a capital cost decrease of 5% to
14%, depending on the transit vehicle, since dedi-
cated guideway infrastructure would not be needed.• There would be an increase in travel time of 2 min-
utes. This increase in time reduces ridership by 2%
and increases operating costs by 2%. Given the reduced property impacts and cost savings
associated with the mixed traffic option, the PAC, at its
October 2016 meeting, voted to assume mixed traffic
operations for the segments on Maryland Avenue
and White Bear Avenue south of Larpentuer Avenue. Another location with limited right-of-way is TH 61 north
of County Road F as the highway goes through Goose
Lake and into Downtown White Bear Lake. Due to the
limited public right-of-way plus BNSF Railway’s ownership
of the rail right-of-way, this section of the alternatives is a
pinch point. Continued discussions with BNSF Railway
and evaluation of the mixed traffic option are needed
before a decision will be made by the PAC.
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 104 of 144
18TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
INITIAL ASSESSMENT #6 HWY 61 SUB-OPTIONS
The Hwy 61 sub-options would use the Hwy 61 corridor
instead of the BNSF Railway corridor north of I-694; this
segment of the corridor is an active freight corridor owned by
the BNSF Railway. For Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 the sub-option
would use the County/Rail corridor north of Buerkle Avenue.
For Alternative 4, the sub-option would connect to Hwy 61 at
Beam Avenue. Compared to the BNSF Railway corridor, Hwy
61 generates:
No difference in equitable access and population access
at stations Better connections to jobs for Alternative 4 (the Arterial
BRT alternative) on Highway 61 compared to White Bear
Avenue north of Beam Avenue; there is no difference for
Alternatives 2 and 3 Reduction in noise impacts by 20-50 fewer impacted
properties Higher potential water resources impacts with using Hwy
61 that goes through Goose Lake
Ongoing discussions with the BNSF Railway have identified
some areas of constrained right-of-way and the possibility
of freight interactions as challenges using the BNSF Railway
corridor.
At this time, there has been no decision between the
County/Rail corridor and the Hwy 61 corridor. Both
options will move forward into refinement stage of
the study.
INITIAL ASSESSMENT #5 MAPLEWOOD MALL SUB-OPTIONS
Maplewood Mall was identified early in the study as a key cor-
ridor destination. Alternatives 1 and 2 included potential con-
nections via sub-options on Beam Avenue, Southlawn Avenue
and County Road D. Compared to staying on the County/Rail
corridor, the Maplewood Mall sub-option would:
Increase ridership by 6%, even with a 3-6 minute increase
in travel time, depending on which downtown routing
option is used. Increase construction costs by 13 to 16%, depending on
the transit vehicle used, and operating costs by 10%. Increase access by households below the poverty line,
people of color, and zero-car households, compared to
staying in the County/Rail corridor. Increase access to employment by 20% and
improve connections to existing transit at the Mall’s
existing park-and-ride facility. Increase potential property impacts by 20 to 25 parcels.
The benefits of increasing access to jobs, improving exist-
ing transit connections, and expanding equitable access
to transit led the PAC to vote to approve using the direct
connection to the Mall as the preferred route moving
forward at the October 2016 meeting.
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 105 of 144
19TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
OVERALL TIER 2 ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT
Based on the results of the initial assessments, the remaining
North/South Alternatives were paired with the Downtown
Routing Options to create full corridor alternatives from
Union Depot in St. Paul to Forest Lake. The overall Tier 2
assessment categorizes the project goals in two groups: (1)
goals and evaluation criteria that is influenced by the type of
transit vehicle and (2) goals and criteria that are directly tied
to the route chosen. For example, the development potential
analysis found that the amount of new development is direct-
ly related to type of transit vehicle chosen. Vehicle options
that have either dedicated guideway or embedded rail having
the most positive impact on development. In comparison,
travel time is directly tied to the route chosen.
Each alternative was reviewed looking at the goals in these
two categories and benefits or disadvantages were highlight-
ed for each. Based on this overall assessment, recommen-
dations were made on either to move an alternative forward
into further refinement or remove from further consideration
were presented to the PAC in November 2016. The overall
Tier 2 Assessment results are summarized below.
ALTERNATIVES 3a & 3b
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 106 of 144
20TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
ALTERNATIVE 1
DEDICATED BRT ON COUNTY/RAIL ROW TO WHITE BEAR LAKE/
SHARES THE BRUCE VENTO TRAIL, CONNECTOR BUS TO FOREST LAKE
Good access to employers at station locations; dependent on
downtown route; 13,700 jobs within station areas.
PROPERTY IMPACTS
Least private property impacts of all dedicated guideway
options because it operates in the County/Rail ROW.
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONADVANCE FOR FURTHER RECOMMENDATION
• Longest route with dedicated guideway, maximizing development potential
• Least private property impacts of all dedicated guideway options
• Shortest travel time between St. Paul and White Bear Lake
• Cost per rider, with further refinement, could qualify for federal funding
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 107 of 144
21TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
RIDERSHIP
6,400–9,500 riders per day, 62% of these are new riders.
ON-STREET PARKING / ACCESS,
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
Limited impacts to existing parking and access since route within
County/Rail ROW; average access to existing transit routes.
EMPLOYMENT
Good access to employers at station locations; dependent on
downtown route; 13,700 jobs within station areas.
PROPERTY IMPACTS
Least private property impacts of all dedicated guideway
options because it operates in the County/Rail ROW.
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Higher costs ($1.2 Billion+) compared to other dedicated guideway options; higher
O&M costs than other options; cost per rider unlikely to qualify for federal funding.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Moderate level of potential impacts; they can likely be mitigated.
TRAVEL TIME
Shortest travel time; depending on downtown routing options (37-42 min).
PED/BIKE CONNECTIVITY
Good accessibility at stations for pedestrians and bicyclists. 76,000 people
within walking/biking distance.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Longest route within dedicated guideway of all options; likely to
increase development potential around stations
EQUITY
Good accessibility at stations; 900 zero-car households, 3,400 households
living below poverty, and 9,500 people of color within station areas.
DO NOT ADVANCE
• Similar route benefits as Alternative 1
• Does not meet the project goals as well as other alternatives
• Cost per rider would not qualify for federal funding
PRELIMINARYRECOMMENDATION
ROUTE
TRANSITVEHICLE
LRT
ALTERNATIVE 2
LRT ON COUNTY/RAIL ROW TO WHITE BEAR LAKE/CONNECTOR BUS TO FOREST LAKE
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONDO NOT ADVANCE
• Does not meet the project goals as well as other alternatives
• Greatest property impacts (businesses and residents on White Bear Avenue)
• The route has the longest travel time—over 10 minutes longer than the County/Rail ROW
• Cost per rider unlikely to qualify for federal funding
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 108 of 144
22TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
RIDERSHIP
4,900 riders per day; lowest ridership of all alternatives 70% are new riders.
ON-STREET PARKING / ACCESS,
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
Limited impacts to existing parking and access since majority of route
within County/Rail ROW; average access to existing transit routes.
EMPLOYMENT
Good access to employers at station locations; dependent on
downtown route; 19,400 jobs within station areas.
PROPERTY IMPACTS
Greatest private property impacts of all dedicated guideway options.
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Higher costs ($900 Million+) compared to other dedicated guideway BRT options;
average O&M costs compared to other options; cost per rider unlikely to qualify
for federal funding.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Moderate level of potential impacts; they can likely be mitigated.
TRAVEL TIME
Longer travel time; depending on downtown routing options (46-51 min).
PED/BIKE CONNECTIVITY
Good accessibility at stations for pedestrians and bicyclists; 100,000
residents within walking/biking distance.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Less dedicated guideway than County/Rail ROW alternatives; dedicated
guideway alternatives likely to increase development.
EQUITY
Highest level of accessibility at stations; 1,800 zero-car households, 7,200
households below poverty, and 17,000 people of color within station areas.
DO NOT ADVANCE
• Does not meet the project goals as well as other alternatives
• The route has the greatest property impacts
• The route has the longest travel time―up to 14 minutes longer than the County/Rail ROW route
• The cost per rider would not qualify for federal funding
PRELIMINARYRECOMMENDATION
ROUTE
TRANSITVEHICLE
DBRT
ALTERNATIVE 3A
DEDICATED BRT ON WHITE BEAR AVENUE TO WHITE BEAR LAKE/CONNECTOR BUS TO
FOREST LAKE
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONDO NOT ADVANCE
• Does not meet the project goals as well as other alternatives
• The route has the greatest property impacts
• The route has the longest travel time—up to 14 minutes longer than the County/Rail ROW route
• The cost per rider unlikely to qualify for federal funding
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 109 of 144
23TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
RIDERSHIP
6,400-9,500 riders per day; 59% are new riders.
ON-STREET PARKING / ACCESS,
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
Limited impacts to existing parking and access since majority of route
within County/Rail ROW; average access to existing transit routes.
EMPLOYMENT
Good access to employers at station locations; dependent on
downtown route, not north/south route; 19,400 jobs within station areas.
PROPERTY IMPACTS
Greatest private property impacts of all dedicated guideway options.
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Higher costs ($1.6 Billion+) of all options; higher O&M costs compared to
others; cost per rider unlikely to qualify for federal funding.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Moderate level of potential impacts; they can likely be mitigated.
TRAVEL TIME
Longer travel time; depending on downtown routing options (46-51 min).
PED/BIKE CONNECTIVITY
Good accessibility at stations for pedestrians and bicyclists; 100,000
residents within walking/biking distance.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Less dedicated guideway than County/Rail ROW alternatives; dedicated
guideway alternatives likely to increase development.
EQUITY
Highest level of accessibility at stations; 1,800 zero-car households, 7,200
households below poverty, and 17,000 people of color within station areas.
DO NOT ADVANCE
• Does not meet the project goals as well as other alternatives
• Greatest property impacts (businesses and residents on White Bear Avenue)
• The route has the longest travel time—over 10 minutes longer than the County/Rail ROW
• Cost per rider would not qualify for federal funding
PRELIMINARYRECOMMENDATION
ROUTE
TRANSITVEHICLE
LRT
ALTERNATIVE 3B
LRT ON WHITE BEAR AVENUE TO WHITE BEAR LAKE/CONNECTOR BUS TO FOREST LAKE
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONDO NOT ADVANCE
• Similar route benefits as Alternative 1
• Does not meet the project goals as well as other alternatives
• Cost per rider unlikely to qualify for federal funding
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 110 of 144
24TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
ALTERNATIVE 4
ARTERIAL BRT ON WHITE BEAR AVENUE TO WHITE BEAR LAKE/CONNECTOR BUS TO FOREST LAKE
RIDERSHIP
5,700-6,000 riders per day; 34% are new riders. Less new riders because the
service replaces the planned Route 54 service along White Bear Ave.
ON-STREET PARKING / ACCESS,
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
Limited impacts to existing parking and access since route within
County/Rail ROW; good access to existing transit routes.
EMPLOYMENT
Good access to employers at station locations; 17,700 jobs within
station areas.
PROPERTY IMPACTS
Least private property impacts because it uses existing roadway.
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Lower costs ($75 Million) of all options; average O&M costs compared to
others; cost per rider likely eligible for federal funding.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Lowest potential for environmental impact due to staying within current
roadway footprint.
TRAVEL TIME
Longest travel time (56 min).
PED/BIKE CONNECTIVITY
Good accessibility at stations for pedestrians and bicyclists; 115,000
residents within walking/biking distance.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
No dedicated guideway ; likely to have limited influence on development
potential around stations.
EQUITY
Highest level of accessibility at stations; 2,600 zero-car households, 11,400
households below poverty, and 24,600 people of color within station areas.
DO NOT ADVANCE
• Does not meet the project goals as well as other alternatives
• Lowest number of new riders and total corridor ridership
• Lowest potential to generate economic development due to lack of a fixed
guideway investment
• Planned Route 54 extension to provide similar service
• Recommend not advancing as part of Rush Line project; potential to be pursued by others
as a separate project after monitoring performance of Route 54
PRELIMINARYRECOMMENDATION
ROUTE
TRANSITVEHICLE
ABRT
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONDO NOT ADVANCE
• Does not meet project goals as well as other alternatives
• Lowest number of new riders and total corridor ridership
• Lowest potential to generate economic development due to lack of a dedicated guideway investment
• Planned Route 54 extension to provide similar service
• Recommend not advancing as part of Rush Line project; potential to be pursued by others as a
separate project after monitoring performance of Route 54
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 111 of 144
25TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
HOW IS THE PUBLIC INVOLVED?
Public outreach activities include neighborhood meetings,
open houses, pop-up events, bus stop interviews, presenta-
tions made to community and stakeholder groups, and public
open houses. In total, over 150 events have been held with
over 4,000 people participating since the beginning of the
PPD Study.
Providing equal transit opportunities to all community mem-
bers is a key goal of the project. This resulted in engagement
events being targeted to communities that are traditional
underrepresented; households below the poverty level,
populations of color, and zero-car households. These events
(80 out of 150) were at convenient locations, such as commu-
nity events, bus stops, grocery stores and libraries reaching
over 2,000 members of communities that are traditionally
underrepresented.
In addition, meetings, including a Developer Forum, a
series of Downtown Routing Workshops and Policy
Advisory Committee meetings were open to the public with
opportunities for the public to provide input into decision-
making process.
Members of the public were asked to provide their input on
the results of the Tier 2 evaluation at a series of three open
houses in December 2016; this input—in combination with all
input received during Tier 2—was summarized and reported
to the project committees, and helped to guide the selection
of the Recommended Alternative. Comments were collected
through January 4, 2017. For a full document on these com-
ments, visit the project website (www.rushline.org).
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 112 of 144
26TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
WHAT IS NEXT IN THE DECISION-MAKING
PROCESS?
Following completion of the open houses in November and
December 2016, the Technical and Policy Advisory Commit-
tees will review the public comments on all of the alterna-
tives and begin to refine and optimize the recommended
alternative coming out of Tier 2. These refinements and
modifications are likely to include determining the preferred
routing into downtown St. Paul and whether to use Hwy. 61
or County/Rail ROW north of 694, as well as, optimizing the
service plan and finding ways to reduce costs and maximize
ridership. At the completion of this refinement/modification,
the recommended alternative is anticipated to become the
recommended LPA.
At the conclusion of the PPD Study, it is anticipated that the
Metropolitan Council will adopt the recommended LPA into
the region’s long-range transportation plan, the Transporta-
tion Policy Plan (TPP). The adoption process would start with
the Rush Line PPD Study Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
recommending the LPA to the project Policy Advisory
Committee (PAC).
The PAC will take public comment on the LPA to gain addi-
tional input before making an LPA recommendation to the
Task Force, who would then adopt and recommend it to the
cities and county regional railroad authorities through which
the LPA passes for their adoption.
Following their own public comment processes, the cities and
county regional railroad authorities would approve resolu-
tions of support, and the RCRRA, as the lead agency for the
Rush Line PPD Study, would compile the public comments
and resolutions of support, and submit them to the Metropol-
itan Council. The Metropolitan Council will then seek addition-
al public comment to inform its decision on the adoption of
the LPA into the TPP.
Adoption of the LPA would allow the Rush Line project to
continue to pursue approval to complete additional project
development. The PPD Study is scheduled for completion
in spring 2017. Please see the Purpose and Need Report
(available under a separate cover) for additional information
regarding the process for approval of the LPA on project
website (www.rushline.org).
PROCESS TO APPROVE THE LPA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
TAC recommends the
LPA to the PAC.
PAC holds a public
hearing on the draft
LPA, then makes a final
LPA recommendation to
Rush Line Task Force.
Rush Line Task Force
adopts the LPA and
recommends it to
cities and county rail
authorities—this is
the end of the Rush
Line PPD Study.
Cities and county rail
authorities hold pub-
lic hearings, consider
drafting resolutions of
support, and compile
all input; submit input
to Met Council.
Met Council seeks
additional public
comment, then may
choose to adopt the
LPA into the Transpor-
tation Policy Plan; this
adoption allows the
project to continue in
the federal funding
process.
G7, Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 113 of 144
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page Number 114 of 144
J1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Ellen Paulseth, Finance Director
DATE: June 12, 2017
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - 2016
Introduction
The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the City has been completed for the
year-ended December 31, 2016. The CAFR is the City’s official annual report and is prepared
by the Finance Department. It has been audited by the certified public accounting firm of
BerganKDV and their unmodified opinion on the fair presentation of the financial statements is
included within the CAFR. The CAFR includes the Independent Auditor’s Report and the
Reports on Compliance with Government Auditing Standards Uniform Grant Guidance. A
separate Legal Compliance Report and Communications Letter has also been included. There
were no audit findings.
Members of the City Council have received a copy of the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR) and an electronic version will be available on the City’s website.
A presentation on significant aspects of the CAFR will be given to the Council by a
representative of BerganKDV at the meeting tonight.
Budget Impact
None.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Council accept the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
for the Year Ended 12/31/2016 and approve the City’s responses to the audit findings.
Attachments
1. BerganKDV PowerPoint
Packet Page Number 115 of 144
City of MaplewoodAudit PresentationSteve Wischmann, CPA, CFF, CFE, MAFFJune 12, 2017J1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 116 of 144
2Auditor’s Report•Opinion on the City’s Basic Financial Statements–Unmodified•Report on the results of testing on Minnesota Legal Compliance–no compliance findings reported•Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on a Audit of the Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards –one material audit adjustment•Communications Letter –required communication, financial analysis and emerging issues (GASB 75)J1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 117 of 144
3Financial Highlights•Overall Net Position increased $6,154,412 to $129,998,953•Overall PERA Pension Liability allocated to city totaled $16,878,309, an increase of $3,904,484 from 2015. City’s required statutory contributions were met for 2016.•Overall Long‐Term Bonds decreased from $70,269,630 in 2015 to $68,623,529 in 2016.•General Fund Balance decreased $102,459 to $7,604,070 at December 31, 2016.J1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 118 of 144
4General Fund Revenues2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Miscellaneous$127,358 $193,388 $117,747 $96,219 $106,314Investment Income (Loss)32,660 9,701 21,905 44,021 42,586Fines and Forfeits272,808 270,308 236,294 220,951 193,934Charges for Services3,515,821 3,627,478 3,392,814 2,878,857 2,614,717Special Assessments25,106 430 99,940 1,510 1,708Intergovernmental872,791 1,079,224 870,239 936,437 944,311Licenses and Permits1,501,875 1,255,644 2,274,134 1,351,543 1,434,651Taxes12,294,788 12,260,851 12,148,784 12,351,161 13,060,118 $- $2,500,000 $5,000,000 $7,500,000 $10,000,000 $12,500,000 $15,000,000 $17,500,000 $20,000,000General Fund RevenuesJ1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 119 of 144
5General Fund Revenues Budget and ActualTaxesLicenses andPermitsIntergovernmentalSpecialAssessmentsCharges forServicesFines and ForfeitsInvestmentIncomeMiscellaneousBudget$13,012,010 $1,242,340 $909,710 $800 $2,952,380 $229,000 $121,440 $89,050Actual13,060,118 1,434,651 944,311 1,708 2,614,717 193,934 42,586 $106,314 $- $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,0002016 General Fund Revenues Budget and ActualJ1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 120 of 144
6General Fund Expenditures20122013201420152016Capital Outlay$233,947 $280,865 $175,799 $51,299 $21,219Investment Management Fees23,998 23,701 25,569 24,011 23,270Public Works2,946,069 3,123,871 3,655,261 3,559,151 3,695,679Police7,894,160 7,973,344 8,012,368 8,072,681 8,385,169Parks and Recreation450,604 470,659 493,714 526,431 513,210Legislative147,746 152,021 156,121 154,906 154,963Fire1,682,247 1,853,243 1,870,529 1,843,316 1,922,854Finance677,998 719,342 725,587 674,011 634,440Executive827,270 904,595 850,817 989,799 1,064,370Environmental & Economic Development1,127,625 1,180,179 1,172,396 1,067,683 1,085,160Citizen Services1,071,824 1,129,505 1,144,168 1,176,853 1,287,686Building Operations531,791 644,346 - - - $- $2,500,000 $5,000,000 $7,500,000 $10,000,000 $12,500,000 $15,000,000 $17,500,000 $20,000,000General Fund ExpendituresJ1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 121 of 144
7General Fund Expenditures Budget and Actual CitizenServicesEnvironmental& EconomicDevelopmentExecutive Finance Fire LegislativeParks andRecreationPolice Public WorksInvestmentManagementFeesCapital OutlayBudget$1,266,150 $1,012,650 $1,054,958 $670,690 $1,885,454 $164,090 $524,650 $8,545,594 $3,798,884 $32,000 $-Actual1,287,686 1,085,160 1,064,370 634,440 1,922,854 154,963 513,210 8,385,169 3,695,679 23,270 21,219 $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,000,0002016 General Fund Expenditures Budget and Actual J1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 122 of 144
8General Fund Operations0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%100.0%120.0% $- $2,500,000 $5,000,000 $7,500,000 $10,000,000 $12,500,000 $15,000,000 $17,500,000 $20,000,00020122013201420152016Revenues$18,643,207 $18,697,024 $19,161,857 $17,880,699 $18,398,339Expenditures17,615,279 18,455,671 18,282,329 18,140,141 18,788,020Fund Balance8,431,416 8,027,244 8,364,322 7,706,529 7,604,070Fund Balance asa Percent of theYear's Revenues45.2%42.9%43.7%43.1%41.3%General Fund OperationsJ1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 123 of 144
9Tax Capacity, Levy and Rates$41,453,118 $38,704,160 $39,035,149 $42,096,087 $42,412,493 $17,853,523 $18,528,400 $18,528,400 $18,991,610 $19,435,208 44.06%48.66%48.39%46.35%48.51%0.00%40.00%80.00% $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 $45,000,000 $50,000,000 $55,000,0002012 2013 2014 2015 2016Tax Capacity, Levy, and RatesTotal Tax CapacityCertified Tax LevyTax Capacity RateJ1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 124 of 144
10Ambulance Service Fund$2,170,537 $2,384,187 $2,456,823 $2,572,825 $2,545,412 $2,244,532 $2,352,932 $2,449,553 $2,569,626 $2,561,506 $(73,995)$31,255 $7,270 $3,199 $(16,094)$(7,348)$97,902 $61,845 $69,269 $38,270 $(500,000) $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,00020122013201420152016Ambulance Service Fund Total Operating RevenuesOperating ExpensesOperating Income (Loss)Operating Income Excluding DepreciationJ1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 125 of 144
11Community Center Fund$1,874,655 $1,920,051 $1,860,417 $1,844,842 $1,444,850 $2,554,555 $2,559,677 $2,595,284 $2,549,329 $2,109,964 $(679,900)$(639,626)$(734,867)$(704,487)$(665,114)$(404,833)$(385,865)$(476,313)$(446,874)$(355,506) $(1,000,000) $(500,000) $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,0002012 2013 2014 2015 2016Community Center FundTotal Operating RevenuesOperating ExpensesOperating LossOperating Loss Excluding DepreciationJ1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 126 of 144
12Environmental Utility Fund$2,103,053 $2,328,676 $2,447,669 $2,521,597 $2,606,420 $1,923,241 $1,722,295 $1,889,418 $2,002,836 $1,910,566 $179,812 $606,381 $558,251 $518,761 $695,854 $660,512 $1,140,589 $1,109,079 $1,092,284 $1,269,377 $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,0002012 2013 2014 2015 2016Environmental Utility FundTotal Operating RevenuesOperating ExpensesOperating IncomeOperating Income Excluding DepreciationJ1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 127 of 144
13Recycling Project Fund$439,860 $559,177 $549,248 $566,002 $609,852 $555,368 $518,308 $631,436 $651,075 $740,698 $(115,508)$40,869 $(82,188)$(85,073)$(130,846) $(200,000) $(100,000) $- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,0002012 2013 2014 2015 2016Recycling Project FundTotal Operating RevenuesOperating ExpensesOperating Income (Loss)J1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 128 of 144
14Sanitary Sewer Fund$5,075,864 $5,260,764 $5,206,275 $5,029,707 $4,924,559 $3,905,740 $4,088,793 $4,270,073 $4,494,013 $4,664,188 $1,170,124 $1,171,971 $936,202 $535,694 $260,371 $1,557,077 $1,557,927 $1,341,667 $928,803 $652,791 $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,00020122013201420152016Sanitary Sewer FundTotal Operating RevenuesOperating ExpensesOperating IncomeOperating Income Excluding DepreciationJ1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 129 of 144
15Street Light Utility Fund$287,636 $294,811 $476,269 $477,280 $496,562 $209,361 $226,422 $224,975 $205,481 $338,378 $78,275 $68,389 $251,294 $271,799 $158,184 $- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,0002012 2013 2014 2015 2016Street Light Utility FundTotal Operating RevenuesOperating ExpensesOperating IncomeJ1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 130 of 144
QuestionsSteve Wischmann, CPA, CFF, CFE, MAFFsteve.wischmann@bergankdv.com952.563.6880J1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 131 of 144
City of Maplewood
Ramsey County, Minnesota
Reports on Compliance with
Government Auditing Standards
and Legal Compliance
December 31, 2016
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
City of Maplewood
Table of Contents
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and
Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in
Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 1
Report on Legal Compliance 3
Schedule of Findings and Responses on Internal Control 4
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
1
BerganKDV, Ltd.
bergankdv.com
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an
Audit of Financial Statements Performed in
Accordance with Government Auditing Standards
Independent Auditor's Report
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Maplewood
Maplewood, Minnesota
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United
States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial
statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund and
the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2016, and the related notes to financial statements, which
collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements and have issued our report thereon
dated June 6, 2017.
Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City's
internal control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures
that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the
financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of
the City's internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of
the City's internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not
allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material
weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there
is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City's financial statements will
not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a
deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a
material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with
governance.
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
2
Internal Control over Financial Reporting (Continued)
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first
paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control
that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore, material
weaknesses may exist that were not identified. We did identify a certain deficiency in
internal control, described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Responses on
Internal Control that we consider to be a material weakness as finding 2016-001.
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's financial statements are
free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain
provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which
could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts.
However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of
our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests
disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported
under Government Auditing Standards.
City's Response to Findings
The City's response to the findings identified in our audit are described in the accompanying
Schedule of Findings and Responses on Internal Control. The city's response was not
subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and,
accordingly, we express no opinion on it.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control
and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the
effectiveness of the City's internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of
an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the
City's internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for
any other purpose.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
June 6, 2017
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
3
BerganKDV, Ltd.
bergankdv.com
Report on Legal Compliance
Independent Auditor's Report
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Maplewood
Maplewood, Minnesota
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United
States of America, and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial
statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund and
the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2016, and the related notes to financial statements which
collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report
thereon dated June 6, 2017.
The Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities, promulgated by the State Auditor
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 6.65, contains seven categories of compliance to be tested:
contracting and bidding, deposits and investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness,
claims and disbursements, miscellaneous provisions, and tax increment financing. Our audit
considered all of the listed categories.
In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the
City of Maplewood, Minnesota failed to comply with the provisions of the Minnesota Legal
Compliance Audit Guide for Cities. However, our audit was not directed primarily toward
obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance. Accordingly, had we performed additional
procedures, other matters may have come to our attention regarding the City's
noncompliance with the above referenced provisions.
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and
the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compliance. Accordingly, this
communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
June 6, 2017
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
City of Maplewood
Schedule of Findings and Responses on
Internal Control
4
CURRENT YEAR INTERNAL CONTROL FINDING:
Material Weaknesses:
Audit Finding 2016-001 – Material Audit Adjustment
During the course of our engagement, we proposed a material audit adjustment that would
not have been identified as a result of the City's existing internal control system and
therefore could have resulted in material misstatements of the City's financial statements.
CITY'S RESPONSE:
The City will continue monitoring the reconciling and reporting process to ensure all journal entries
are made prior to the audit.
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
For the Permanent Record
Meeting Date: 06/12/2017
Agenda Item: J1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Andrea Sindt, City Clerk
DATE: June 6, 2017
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Ordinance Amendment Authorizing Sunday Sales for Off-Sale
Intoxicating Liquor Establishments, Section 6-116. – Hours of Sale
Introduction
On March 7, 2017 Minnesota Legislature signed into law a bill lifting the Sunday sales ban of
alcohol in liquor stores. Effective July 2, 2017 liquor stores may be open on Sunday between the
hours of 11:00am to 6:00pm. Additionally, state statute was amended to not allow for the presence
of wholesalers at retail locations on Sunday.
Discussion
Historically, municipalities were only allowed to be more restrictive on the hours of sale and not
the days of sale that are authorized per MN Statute Sec 340A.504, sub. 6. During the 2017 First
Special Session this was changed to allow the municipalities to be more restrictive on both of days
and hours of sale.
Currently, Maplewood’s ordinance specifically prohibits the sale of off-sale intoxicating liquor on
Sunday. The council has three options: leave the Sunday restriction in place; amend the
ordinance to remove the ban of Sunday sales but further restrict the hours; or amend the
ordinance to allow the Sunday sales between 11:00am to 6:00pm.
Staff is proposing council amend the ordinance to allow Sunday sales between 11:00am to
6:00pm. The adoption of the state’s wording into Maplewood’s liquor ordinance will reflect the
change to Minnesota Statute Sec. 340A.504, subd. 4 for both the hours of sale at off-sale
intoxicating liquor establishments and the restriction of wholesaler activity at retail locations on
Sunday.
Budget Impact
None
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council approve the proposed amendments to Chapter 6, Article III, Section 6-
116 – Hours of sale.
Attachments
1.Ordinance Amendment Authorizing Sunday Sales for Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor
Establishments, Section 6-116. – Hours of Sale
J2
Packet Page Number 132 of 144
ORDINANCE No. _____
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING SUNDAY SALES FOR OFF-SALE
INTOXICATING LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS, SECTION 6-116. – HOURS OF SALE
The Maplewood City Council approves the following revisions to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances:
Section 1. Chapter 6, Article III, Section 6-116, subsection (b) is hereby
amended to read as follows (additions are underlined):
(b)No sale of intoxicating liquor may be made by an off-sale licensee:
(1)On Sundays; except between the hours of 11:00 am and 6:00 pm
(2)Before 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday;
(3)On Thanksgiving Day;
(4)On Christmas Day, December 25; or
(5)After 8:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve, December 24.
Section 2. Chapter 6, Article III, Section 6-116 is hereby amended by adding a
subsection (c):
(c)No delivery of alcohol to an off-sale licensee may be made by a wholesaler or
accepted by an off-sale licensee on a Sunday. No order solicitation or
merchandising may be made by a wholesaler on a Sunday.
J2, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 133 of 144
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
DATE: June 6, 2017
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Tartan Arena JPA Dissolution
a) Approve the Tartan Joint Powers Board Dissolution Agreement
b) Approve the Bill of Sale
c) Approve the Quit Claim Deed
Introduction and Background
The City of Maplewood entered into a Joint Powers Agreement on January1, 1996 to construct,
operate, use, maintain and repair a Joint Ice Arena. At the time of the agreement, the School
District issued $1,950,000 General Obligation Bonds to finance the construction of the Tartan
Arena on or about July 30, 1996.
The JPA provided for the creation of a Joint Powers Board to exercise all powers which were
common to Oakdale, Maplewood and the School District and which was necessary and
appropriate for the construction, operation, use, maintenance and repair of the Tartan Arena.
Since the inception of the JPA, all costs, fixtures, furnishings and equipment and all other
improvements have been shared equally among the School District, Oakdale and Maplewood.
In February of this year, the Bonds were fully paid. In discussion with the Joint Powers Board, it
was noted that Oakdale and Maplewood no longer wish to continue participating in the JPA. The
School District indicated their desire to take possession of the Tartan Arena.
Budget Impact
For the price of $1.00, the City of Maplewood will quit claim all of its right, title and interest with
respect to its individual one-third interest in the real property, described in Exhibit A of
Attachment 1. There will be no further financial obligations for Maplewood following the
Dissolution.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following three recommendations:
a) Approve the Tartan Joint Powers Board Dissolution Agreement
b) Approve the Bill of Sale
c) Approve the Quit Claim Deed
Attachments
1. Tartan Joint Powers Board Dissolution Agreement
2. Bill of Sale
3. Quit Claim Deed
J3
Packet Page Number 134 of 144
TARTAN ARENA JOINT POWERS BOARD
DISSOLUTION AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made among and between the City of Oakdale, a Minnesota municipal
corporation (“Oakdale”), the City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(“Maplewood”), and Independent School District No. 622, a Minnesota public school
corporation (“School District), collectively referenced as “the Parties”.
RECITALS
WHERAS, the Parties entered into a Joint Powers Agreement (“JPA”) with an effective date
of January 1, 1996, thereby creating a Joint Powers Board to construct, operate, use, maintain
and repair a Joint Ice Arena; and
WHEREAS, the JPA provided for Oakdale to issue bonds in an amount not to exceed
$1,200,000 to finance the construction of a Joint Ice Arena (“Tartan Arena”) on School District
real property; and
WHEREAS, the JPA provided for Oakdale and Maplewood to obtain a one-third undivided
interest in the real property owned by the School District and upon which the Tartan Arena
was constructed; and
WHEREAS, the JPA was amended by the Parties on or about April 11, 1996 to provide for
the School District rather than Oakdale to issue bonds and authorize the School District to
issue $1,950,000 General Obligation Recreational Facility Revenue Bonds to finance the
construction of Tartan Arena; and
WHEREAS, all other provisions of the April 11, 1996 amended JPA remained in full force
and effect; and
WHEREAS, the School District issued $1,950,000 General Obligation Recreational Facility
Revenue Bonds, Series 1996B to finance the construction of Tartan Arena on or about July 30,
1996; and
WHEREAS, the JPA provided for the creation of a Joint Powers Board (“Joint Powers Board”)
to exercise all powers which were common to Oakdale, Maplewood and the School District
and which were necessary and appropriate for the construction, operation, use, maintenance
and repair of Tartan Arena; and
J3, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 135 of 144
WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Board consisted of two members of the Oakdale City Council,
two members of the Maplewood City Council and two members of the School Board of the
School District; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Board’s Bylaws provide that the Joint Powers Board shall exist
in accordance with the JPA; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Board entered into a Management Agreement for the Tartan
Arena (“Management Agreement”) with the School District on or about November 10, 2010;
and
WHEREAS, under the Management Agreement, the School District performed all of the duties
associated with the operation of Tartan Arena at no charge to the Joint Powers Board, with the
exception of emergency, unforeseen, or extraordinary costs; and
WHEREAS, the Management Agreement provides that it shall terminate upon the dissolution
of the JPA; and
WHEREAS, since inception, the costs of all fixtures, furnishings, equipment and other
personal property and improvements located in or on the real property upon which Tartan
Arena is situated have been shared equally among the School District, Oakdale and
Maplewood; and
WHEREAS, the $1,950,000 General Obligation Recreational Facility Revenue Bonds, Series
1996B, were fully paid in February 2017;
WHEREAS, Tartan Arena is in need of significant repairs and upgrades to align it with ice
arenas in the Twin Cities Metro Area; and
WHEREAS, Oakdale and Maplewood do not wish to continue participating in the JPA; and
WHEREAS, the School District desires to take possession of Tartan Arena; and
WHEREAS, for the price of $1.00 Oakdale will quit claim all of its right, title and interest with
respect to its individual one-third interest in the real property described in Exhibit A attached
hereto, which includes the real property upon which Tartan Arena is situated; and
J3, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 136 of 144
WHEREAS, for the price of $1.00 Maplewood will quit claim all of its right, title and interest
with respect to its individual one-third interest in the real property described in Exhibit A
attached hereto, which includes the real property upon which Tartan Arena is situated; and
WHEREAS, for the price of $1.00 Oakdale will sell to the School District all of its individual
right, title and interest in all fixtures, furnishings, equipment and other personal property and
improvements presently in and on the real property upon which Tartan Arena is situated; and
WHEREAS, for the price of $1.00 Maplewood will sell to the School District all of its
individual right, title and interest in all fixtures, furnishings, equipment and other personal
property and improvements presently in and on the real property upon which Tartan Arena is
situated; and
WHEREAS, the only issue that will remain following dissolution on June 30, 2017 will be the
operational costs and expenses of Tartan Arena still owed and unpaid as of that date;
WHEREAS, a financial audit of the JPA books and records will be conducted in approximately
October 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to terminate the JPA, as amended, on the terms set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein and other good and valuable consideration, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto
as follows:
1. Termination. The JPA, as amended, is hereby terminated as of June 30, 2017.
2. Records and Accounts of JPA. The Joint Powers Board and its designees are directed
to take all reasonably necessary steps to transfer records and accounts of the Joint
Powers Board to the School District.
3. Distribution of Real Property. For the price of $1.00, Oakdale will quit claim all right,
title and interest in its respective one-third undivided interest in the real property
described in Exhibit A attached hereto, including Tartan Arena situated thereon, to the
School District effective June 30, 2017.
For the price of $1.00, Maplewood will quit claim all right, title and interest in its
respective one-third undivided interest in the real property described in Exhibit A
J3, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 137 of 144
attached hereto, including Tartan Arena situated thereon, to the School District
effective June 30, 2017.
4. Distribution of Physical Assets. For the price of $1.00, Oakdale will sell all of its right,
title and interest in its respective one-third interest in all fixtures, furnishings,
equipment and other personal property, and improvements presently on located in or
on the real property upon which Tartan Arena is situated.
For the price of $1.00, Maplewood will sell all of its right, title and interest in its
respective one-third interest in all fixtures, furnishings, equipment and other personal
property, and improvements presently on located in or on the real property upon which
Tartan Arena is situated.
5. Operating Fund Balances. The School District has served as the fiscal agent for the
JPA and will continue to separately retain and administer the current account balances
to pay outstanding obligations related to the JPA incurred through June 30, 2017,
notwithstanding that the invoice or billing statement is received after June 30, 2017.
6. Residual Financial Responsibility. Each of the Parties shall remain liable for expenses
and liabilities incurred through June 30, 2017. The regular annual audit will occur in
October 2017. Following completion of the annual audit, each of the Parties will be
invoiced on December 31, 2017 for one-third (1/3) of any outstanding expenses and
liabilities incurred through June 30, 2017 that remain unpaid and outstanding, or were
paid in full by the School District, as a result of the funds maintained for the operation
of Tartan Arena having been exhausted.
7. Closing. Closing on the transfer of the real property shall occur on or before June 30,
2017. At closing, Oakdale and Maplewood shall quitclaim any and all interest in the
real property to the School District for the price of $1.00. Oakdale and Maplewood
shall be responsible for any deed tax on the quitclaim deeds conveying their interests
to the School District to the extent it is determined to be due.
8. Joint Powers Board. In accordance with the By-Laws of the Ice Arena Joint Powers
Board, Article VIII, Section 1, the Joint Powers Board will expire and no longer exist
upon termination of the JPA as provided by this Agreement.
9. Management Agreement. The Management Agreement for the Tartan Arena provides
at Section 6 that it will terminate upon the dissolution of the JPA.
J3, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 138 of 144
10. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
11. Judicial Amendment. If any one or more of the terms of this Agreement are deemed
to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of law, the validity, enforceability, and
legality of the remaining provisions will not, in any way, be affected or impaired
thereby.
12. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between and
among the parties and supersedes any prior understandings and agreements among
them respecting the subject matter of this Agreement. Any amendments to this
Agreement must be made in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement
of that amendment is sought.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date
set forth below:
[signatures appear on next page]
J3, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 139 of 144
Dated:______________________ CITY OF OAKDALE
By__________________________________
Its: Mayor
By__________________________________
Its: City Administrator
Dated:________________________ CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
By________________________________
Its: Mayor
By________________________________
Its: City Manager
Dated:________________________ INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.
622, NORTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
By________________________________
Its: Chair
By________________________________
Its: Clerk
J3, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 140 of 144
EXHIBIT A
The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW ¼ of NE
¼) of Section Thirty-One (31), Township Twenty-Nine (29)
North, Range Twenty-One (21) West, according to the United
States Survey Thereof, excepting therefrom the North Three
Hundred Seventy (370) feet of the West Four Hundred Sixty-
Eight (468) feet thereof.
J3, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 141 of 144
BILL OF SALE
In consideration of the sum of one dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City of Maplewood, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (“Seller”) sells and delivers to Independent School District
No. 622, a public corporation (“Purchaser”), its interest in all fixtures, furnishings, equipment
and other personal property, and improvements presently on the real estate (collectively, the
“Property”) located in the Tartan Arena and/or on the School District property legally
described as follows:
The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW ¼ of NE
¼) of Section Thirty-One (31), Township Twenty-Nine (29)
North, Range Twenty-One (21) West, According to the United
States Survey Thereof, excepting therefrom the North Three
Hundred Seventy (370) feet of the West Four Hundred Sixty-
Eight (468) feet thereof.
The Property is being sold as-is and with-all-faults, and the Seller disclaims any and all
warranties, whether expressed or implied as to the condition, merchantability of, or fitness for
a particular purpose.
The Purchaser, by executing this Bill of Sale, agrees that it has had the opportunity to
inspect the Property and accepts it in its present condition.
SELLER
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA
By:___________________________
Its:______________________
By:___________________________
Its:______________________
PURCHASER
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 622
NORTH ST. PAUL-OAKDALE-
MAPLEWOOD
By:___________________________________
Its:_____________________________
By:__________________________________
Its:_____________________________
J3, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 142 of 144
J3, Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 143 of 144
J3, Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 144 of 144