HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-26 City Council Meeting PacketAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, June 26, 2017
City Hall, Council Chambers
Meeting No. 12-17
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 June 12, 2017 City Council Workshop Minutes
2.Approval of the June 12, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes
F.APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1.Administrative Presentations
a.Council Calendar Update
2.Council Presentations
3.2017 Guardian of the Flame Award Presented to Maplewood Police Department by
MN Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics
4.Presentation of Awards for Series of Homicide Investigations
a.Special Commendation to Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Special Agent
C. Michael Phill;
b.Unit Citation to Maplewood Police Department Investigations Team
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 to Maintain the Statutory Tort Limits for Liability Insurance
Proposed
3.Approval of Transfer to Close Debt Service Fund #362
4.Approval to Purchase 800 MHz Radios
5.Approval of Services for 2040 Comprehensive Plan Technical Chapters, Project
17-08
6.Approval of the 2017 Spring Clean Up Summary
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, everyone’s
opinions can be heard and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when
appearing at Council meetings, it is understood that everyone will follow these principles:
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 mem bers,
staff or others in public.
Be respectful of each other’s time keeping remarks brief, to the point and non-repetitive.
7. Approval of Resolution for a Lawful Gambling Premises Permit for Merrick Inc. to
Conduct Gambling Activities at Gulden’s, 2999 Maplewood Drive
8. Approval of a Temporary Lawful Gambling - Local Permit for Carver Elementary
PTO at 2680 Upper Afton Road
9. Approval of Resolution to Conduct Off-Site Gambling for Merrick, Inc. at Light It Up
Maplewood - July 4th Event, 1663 County Road C
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Rush Line Corridor, Project 15-06
a. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
b. Consider Approval of Resolution of Support for the Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA)
I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Consider Options for Community Conversations at City Council Meetings
J. NEW BUSINESS
None
K. AWARD OF BIDS
None
L. ADJOURNMENT
E1
June 12, 2017
City Council Workshop Minutes
1
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
4:30 P.M. Monday, June 12, 2017
Council Chambers, City Hall
A.CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to
order at 4:36 p.m. by Mayor Slawik.
B.ROLL CALL
Nora Slawik, Mayor Present
Marylee Abrams, Councilmember Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
Bryan Smith, Councilmember Present
Tou Xiong, Councilmember Present
C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Slawik opened the council workshop meeting. Assistant City Manager/HR Director
Funk gave the introduction report for the interview process for the Director of Public Safety
position.
D.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
E.NEW BUSINESS
1.Interviews with Director of Public Safety Finalist Candidates – No Report
a.4:30 Paul Hoppe
b.5:15 Michael Shortreed
c.6:00 Scott Nadeau
The council interviewed candidates Paul Hoppe, Michael Shortreed and Scott
Nadeau; applicants for the Director of Public Safety position.
F.ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Slawik adjourned the meeting at 6:48 p.m.
Packet Page Number 1 of 103
E2
June 12, 2017 1
City Council Meeting Minutes
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, June 12, 2017
City Hall, Council Chambers
Meeting No. 11-17
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called
to order at 7:09 p.m. by Mayor Slawik.
Mayor Slawik reported on the opening ceremony of the Tuj Lub Court in Maplewood that
occurred on Saturday, June 10, 2017. Councilmember Xiong gave additional information
about the opening of the Tuj Lub Court.
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 Present
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to the agenda under Appointments and Presentations,
Council Presentations:
Traffic Award
Green Step City Award
Bus Rapid Transit Trip
Historical Preservation Commission Meeting
Gun Range Update
Rush Line
Councilmember Xiong moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All
The motion passed.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of May 22, 2017 City Council Workshop Minutes
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the May 22, 2017 City Council Workshop
Minutes as submitted.
Packet Page Number 2 of 103
E2
June 12, 2017 2
City Council Meeting Minutes
Seconded by Councilmember Abrams Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2.Approval of May 22, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember Smith moved to approve the May 22, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes
as submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All
The motion passed.
F.APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1.Administrative Presentations
a.Council Calendar Update
City Manager Coleman gave the update to the council calendar.
Councilmember Smith requested an item be put on a workshop agenda to discuss
the upcoming budget process.
2.Council Presentations
Traffic Award
Councilmember Juenemann reported on the traffic award from the MN Department of
Public Safety to the Maplewood Police Department for the 2016 Minnesota TZD (Towards
Zero Deaths) Commissioners Award. Commander Shortreed gave detailed information
about the award.
Green Step City Award
Councilmember Juenemann reported that the City has achieved step five of the Green
Step City Award that will be awarded at the 2017 League of MN Cities Conference.
Assistant City Manager/HR Director Funk reported that the City of Maplewood will be
honored by the League of Minnesota Cities and be presented the Racial Equity
Presidential Award for the cities work on racial equity.
Bus Rapid Transit Trip
Councilmember Smith reported on the Bus Rapid Transit Trip to Eugene, Oregon that he
and Mayor Slawik went on with other city and county leaders. Mayor Slawik gave
additional information about the trip.
Historical Preservation Commission Meeting
Councilmember Xiong reported that the Historical Preservation Commission Meeting
Packet Page Number 3 of 103
E2
June 12, 2017 3
City Council Meeting Minutes
scheduled for June 8, 2017 was cancelled. The next HPC meeting is scheduled for
Thursday, July 13, 2017.
Gun Range Update
Councilmember Xiong reported that the gun range bonding bill was not passed during the
2017 legislative session.
Rush Line
Mayor Slawik reported that there will be a Public Hearing for the Rush Line on June 26,
2017. She further reported there will be hot dogs on the trial on Monday, June 19, 2017 at
the Gladstone Fire Station off the trail.
3. Housing Presentation by League of Women Voters
Councilmember Juenemann introduced the report and the members from the Roseville
Area League of Women Voters. Rachel Geiser from the LWV, Roseville Area addressed
the council and gave the housing presentation. Mindy Greiling from the LWV, Roseville
Area also addressed the council to give additional information on the housing
presentation.
G. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Abrams moved to approve agenda items G1-G7.
Seconded by Councilmember Smith Ayes – All
The motion passed.
1. Approval of Claims
Councilmember Abrams moved to approve the approval of claims.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:
$ 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
Packet Page Number 4 of 103
E2
June 12, 2017 4
City Council Meeting Minutes
$ 268,983.86 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 05/30/17 thru 06/02/17
$ 2,045,050.66 Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL
$ 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
Seconded by Councilmember Smith Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2.Approval of Resolution Accepting Tree Planting Donation
Councilmember Abrams moved to approve the resolution accepting the tree planting
donation in the amount of $112 to the City of Maplewood.
Resolution 17-06-1465
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.
Seconded by Councilmember Smith Ayes – All
The motion passed.
3.Approval to Purchase Two 3M Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR)
Councilmember Abrams moved to approve the purchase of two 3M ALPR systems in the
amount of $31,675 for the Maplewood Police Department.
Seconded by Councilmember Smith Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 5 of 103
E2
June 12, 2017 5
City Council Meeting Minutes
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
Councilmember Abrams moved to approve 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.
Resolution 17-06-1466
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.
Packet Page Number 6 of 103
E2
June 12, 2017 6
City Council Meeting Minutes
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.
Seconded by Councilmember Smith Ayes – All
Packet Page Number 7 of 103
E2
June 12, 2017 7
City Council Meeting Minutes
The motion passed.
5. Approval of a Resolution for City Approval to Conduct Off-Site Gambling
Within City Limits for the White Bear Avenue Business Association
Councilmember Abrams moved to 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.
Resolution 17-06-1467
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.
Seconded by Councilmember Smith Ayes – All
The motion passed.
6. Approval of Resolution for 2017 and 2018 Pay Rates for Non-union, Non-
contract Employees
Councilmember Abrams moved to approve the Resolution for a wage adjustment of 2.5%
for 2017 and 2018 for Non-Union, Non-Contract Employees.
Resolution 17-06-1468
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,
Packet Page Number 8 of 103
E2
June 12, 2017 8
City Council Meeting Minutes
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.
Seconded by Councilmember Smith Ayes – All
The motion passed.
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
Councilmember Abrams moved to approve the 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.
Resolution 17-06-1469
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.
Seconded by Councilmember Smith Ayes – All
The motion passed.
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
Packet Page Number 9 of 103
E2
June 12, 2017 9
City Council Meeting Minutes
J. NEW BUSINESS
1. Consider Acceptance of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Year
Ended 12/31/2016
Finance Director Paulseth introduced the staff report. Steve Wischmann, Audit Partner
with BerganKDV, Ltd. addressed the council to give the presentation and answer questions
of the council.
Councilmember Abrams moved to approve the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report for the Year Ended 12/31/2016 and approve the City’s responses to the audit
findings.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2. Consider Approval of Ordinance Amendment Authorizing Sunday Sales for
Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments, Section 6-116. - Hours of Sale
City Clerk Sindt gave the staff report.
Councilmember Smith moved to approve Ordinance Amendment Authorizing Sunday Sales
for Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments, Section 6-116. - Hours of Sale.
Ordinance No. 975
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):
Packet Page Number 10 of 103
E2
June 12, 2017 10
City Council Meeting Minutes
(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.
Seconded by Councilmember Xiong Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council
Member Abrams, Smith and
Xiong
Nays – Councilmember Juenemann
The motion passed.
3. Consider Approval of Tartan Arena JPA Dissolution
a. Dissolution Agreement
b. Bill of Sale
c. Quit Claim Deed
City Manager Coleman gave the staff report. Councilmember Smith gave additional
information on the Tartan Arena JPA Dissolution.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Tartan Joint Powers Board Dissolution
Agreement.
Seconded by Councilmember Smith Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Bill of Sale.
Seconded by Councilmember Smith Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Quit Claim Deed.
Seconded by Councilmember Smith Ayes – All
The motion passed.
K. AWARD OF BIDS
None
L. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Slawik adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m.
Packet Page Number 11 of 103
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
DATE: June 20, 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. July 10th
a. Workshop: Racial Equity Program Update, Review 2018 Budget Process and
Calendar, Continuation of CIP Discussion (if needed)
2. July 24th
a. Workshop: Cable Franchise Update, Rice & Larpenteur Project Update
3. July 31st
a. Special Workshop: 2018 Budget Presentations, Marketing Strategies for Londin
Lane Fire Station
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 12 of 103
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
DATE: June 20, 2017
SUBJECT: 2017 Guardian of the Flame Award Presented to Maplewood Police Department
by MN Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics
Introduction/Background
The 2017 Guardian of the Flame Award will be presented to the Maplewood Police Department.
The following individuals will be in attendance when the award is presented:
Sgt. Jim Nystrom – University of Minnesota Police Department & Director of the MN Law
Enforcement Torch Run
Bill Fish – Vice President of Development, Special Olympics MN
Molly Swanson – Development Associate, Special Olympics MN
Alyssa Wesley – Torch Run Coordinator, Special Olympics MN
Budget Impact
None
Recommendation
No action required.
F3
Packet Page Number 13 of 103
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Kerry Crotty, Interim Chief of Police
Michael Shortreed, Commander
DATE: June 20, 2017
SUBJECT: Presentation of Awards for Series of Homicide Investigations
Introduction
The Maplewood Police Department will be presenting significant awards to Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension Special Agent C. Michael Phill, and Maplewood Police Department’s Investigation
Team.
Background
Between March 2014 and November 2015, the Maplewood Police Department responded to a
total of eight homicide calls. Per capita, this number exceeded the homicide rate of any city in
Ramsey County and challenged the whole of the investigations team in investigating,
prosecuting and resolving these cases.
The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension provided investigative human and forensic resources,
support, and consultation in all eight of these cases. In particular, Special Agent Phill was
assigned to the majority of these cases and spent countless hours involved in the cases. For
this reason, he will be presented with a Special Commendation.
Every member of the Maplewood Police Department Investigations Division, including sworn
and non-sworn personnel, participated during this demanding time. Their actions embody the
hard work and dedication expected of the department and community. For their coordinated
teamwork, skill and professionalism, the Investigations team will be presented with a Unit
Citation.
Budget Impact
Information only.
Recommendation
None.
Attachments
1. Award Certificates
F4a-b
Packet Page Number 14 of 103
,-fi:l-.T\
frleUst of
bnecfs[ ff,ommen[stton
Maplrwoon PoltcB DppaRrutNr
PRT,ST]N'I'I)D TO
AWARDED oN
JUNE 26,2017
FOR ASSISTING THE MAPLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE
RESPONSE TO AND HE I-IANDLING OF EIGHT HOMICIDE
INVESTIGATIONS BEGINNINC MARCH 24, 20I4
THROUGI] NOVEMBER 7, 20I 5
rW
WT i ffir
E '!r.v:.
rt
BCA STECUI. ACUNT C. MTCHEUI PHNI
KriRr{Y CRol't Y.Cr Iur of PoLICE F4a-b, Attachment 1Packet Page Number 15 of 103
Wntt [,itutton 9,fisr[I
lrt
tffi
(
(
t
i:.i
Between 2014 and 2015, the Maplewood Police Department responded to a total of eight homicide calls.
Per capita, this number exceeded the homicide rate ofany city in Ramsey County and challenged the whole ofthe
investigations team in investigating, prosecuting and resolving these cases.
Many oflicers and staff members participated to some extent during this demanding time in Investigations.
Theit actions embody the hard work and dedication expected ofthe department and the community.
IxvnsuGATIoNS TEAM
d
{*t
IN
,>-.:dlFt
&i+r,W
Ww
Commander Michael Shorlreed
Sergeant Dan Busack
Detective Derek Fritze
Detective Todd Langner
Detective Virginia Erickson
Officer Lonn Bakke
Investigative Case Aide Cassie Fisher
Commander Dave Kvam
Detective Paul Bartz
Detective Paul Theisen
Detective Brad Rezny
Detective Alesia Metry
Evidence Technician Tammy Wylie F4a-b, Attachment 1Packet Page Number 16 of 103
)
ru
t'. .. '
l\
.],. i
,.:l
.)
$i
#'r^
(
D;
$
a
ffi
ffi
MaplBwooo Por.rcp DBpaRrueNt
PRESENTED TO
FOR COORDINATED TEAMWORK, SKILL AND PROFESSIONALISM
IN THE RESPONSE TO AND THE HANDLING OF EIGHT HOMICIDE
d
W.J ?.,:K
tY;ffioFPoLrcl
u
p
Wntt {,ttutton thur[
INVESTIGATIONS UNIT
INVESTICATIONS BEGINNING MARCH 24, 2OI4
THROUGH NOVEMBER 7, 20I5
AWARDED ON
JUNE 26,2017
,,trtrl'('liz')r",1 a"
(l)r/i ) . ,i
)((
I F4a-b, Attachment 1Packet Page Number 17 of 103
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page Number 18 of 103
TO:Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM:Ellen Paulseth, Finance Director
DATE:
SUBJECT:Approval of Claims
130,277.77$ Checks # 99804 thru #99846
dated 06/13/17
579,847.72$ Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 06/5/17 thru 06/09/17
669,214.09$ Checks #99847 thru #99887
dated 06/20/17
290,466.86$ Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 06/12/17 thru 06/16/17
1,669,806.44$ Total Accounts Payable
560,593.47$ Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 06/16/17
1,697.03$ Payroll Deduction check # 99102753 thru # 99102756
dated 06/16/17
562,290.50$ Total Payroll
2,232,096.94$ 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 19, 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 19 of 103
Check Description Amount
99804 05114 GIS ASSSISTANCE - NEW PROJECTS 1,752.00
99805 04137 KARATE INSTRUCTION APRIL-MAY 1,228.50
99806 00585 NET BILLABLE TICKETS - MAY 915.30
99807 05598 PROSECUTION SERVICES - MAY 16,250.00
99808 05311 SOFTBALL UMPIRES 5/30 - 6/04 594.00
99809 04845 RECYCLING FEE - MAY 42,831.25
99810 05013 SPRING HVAC MAINT-CENTRAL FS #2 384.25
05013 SPRING HVAC MAINT-NORTH FS #3 262.25
05013 SPRING HVAC MAINT-SOUTH FS 262.25
05013 SPRING HVAC MAINT-PARK MAINT 256.25
05013 SPRING HVAC MAINT-NATURE CENTER 140.25
99811 01047 ROLL GOODS FOR SIGN FABRICATION 382.82
01047 ROLL GOODS FOR SIGN FABRICATION 74.25
99812 00008 MEMBERSHIP DUES - STEVE LUKIN 130.00
99813 04987 CHANNEL POST - SIGN INSTALLATION 1,624.65
99814 05559 ONLINE BENEFITS ADMIN FEE- JUNE 314.65
99815 04886 VOLLEYBALL ASSIGNMENTS 04/05 - 05/03 270.00
99816 05318 MN PUBLIC SAFETY-POST OFFER TEST 830.00
99817 00271 ON-SITE 3/27-3/30 J HEITMAN EXPENSES 507.52
99818 05823 E911 PHONE LINE REPAIR LABOR 200.00
99819 05369 ULTRA CLEAN SRVS - CITY HALL 588.80
99820 02909 ROAD SALT~8,574.22
02909 ROAD SALT~8,250.69
99821 01871 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 04/05 - 05/03 324.00
99822 03311 LATITUDE RUGGED 14 LAPTOPS 19,392.64
99823 05618 LEASE CHARGES FIRE & PD VEHICLES 3,031.74
99824 03330 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SRVS - APRIL 4,037.12
99825 03538 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 04/05 - 05/03 405.00
99826 00827 CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE LMC GL 17871 (15/16)990.00
99827 00857 ANNUAL CONFERENCE - N SLAWIK 450.00
00857 CLERKS CONFERENCE - A SINDT 275.00
99828 05809 SUPPORT FOR NC SECURITY CAMERA 87.50
99829 01136 INSPECTION OF FM200 SYS-SERVER RM 482.00
99830 00001 SPARKLE AUTO - TUNE-UP PROGRAM 1,800.00
99831 00001 C CLIPPERT-ATTORNEY'S FEES HARRIS 1,300.27
99832 00001 DOG HOUSE BAR & GRILL-TUNE-UP PROG 1,175.23
99833 05609 BOULEVARD MAINTENANCE~4,700.00
99834 05103 MEDICAL EVALUATION-MASK FIT 175.00
99835 05549 HR TESTING FEES 560.00
99836 01261 EMS REPORTING SOFTWARE - MAY 738.67
99837 02663 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 04/05 - 05/03 81.00
99838 05498 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 04/05 - 05/03 81.00
99839 04883 NEW HIRE EXAM 1,150.00
99840 01522 IPAD WORKSHOP 05/24 - AJLA 225.00
99841 05320 BADGE S HEINZ- REIMB RECEIPT 70125 100.75
99842 05824 ACCESS ICRIMEFIGHTER.COM THRU 2017 500.00
99843 01594 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PINS 67.95
99844 05822 MONITORING SOFTWARE 06/2017-06/2018 1,200.00
99845 05755 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 04/05 - 05/03 243.00
99846 05771 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 04/05 - 05/03 81.00
ONE TIME VENDOR
06/13/2017 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/13/2017 OUTDOOR LAB LANDSCAPE DESIGN
06/13/2017
06/13/2017 BOLTON & MENK, INC.
06/13/2017 THE EDGE MARTIAL ARTS
06/13/2017 CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC
06/13/2017 3M
06/13/2017 YALE MECHANICAL LLC
06/13/2017 YALE MECHANICAL LLC
06/13/2017 YALE MECHANICAL LLC
06/13/2017
PERFORMANCE PLUS LLC
06/13/2017 MARCO TECHNOLOGIES LLC
06/13/2017 NARDINI FIRE EQUIP CO INC
06/13/2017 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/13/2017
Check Register
City of Maplewood
06/09/2017
Date Vendor
TENNIS SANITATION LLC
YALE MECHANICAL LLC
06/13/2017 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL
06/13/2017 KELLY & LEMMONS, P.A.
06/13/2017 YALE MECHANICAL LLC
06/13/2017
06/13/2017 WILLIE MCCRAY
06/13/2017 3M
06/13/2017 A M E M
06/13/2017 ADVANTAGE SIGNS & GRAPHICS INC
06/13/2017 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA INC.
06/13/2017 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA INC.
06/13/2017 KENNETH COOPER
06/13/2017 DELL MARKETING LP
06/13/2017 ENTERPRISE FM TRUST
06/13/2017
06/13/2017 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC
06/13/2017
06/13/2017 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
06/13/2017 APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
06/13/2017 KAREN MARIE BOWMAN
06/13/2017 L M C I T
PATRICK JAMES HUBBARD
06/13/2017 CAMPION, BARROW & ASSOCIATES
06/13/2017 CENTURYLINK
06/13/2017 CINTAS CORPORATION #470
06/13/2017 RICHARD A. SCHMIDT
06/13/2017 SPRING LAKE PARK FIRE DEPT INC
06/13/2017 STATE OF MINNESOTA
06/13/2017 PERSONNEL EVALUATION, INC.
06/13/2017 PHYSIO-CONTROL, INC.
06/13/2017 CARL SAARION
06/13/2017 SUN BADGE CO
06/13/2017 SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY GROUP LLC
06/13/2017 TERRYBERRY COMPANY LLC
06/13/2017 PETER ZWACH
06/13/2017 U-SELECT-IT
06/13/2017 JOANN WILSON
130,277.7743Checks in this report.
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 20 of 103
Settlement
Date Payee Description Amount
6/5/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 57,459.52
6/5/2017 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 2,476.23
6/5/2017 U.S. Treasurer Federal Payroll Tax 120,002.17
6/5/2017 P.E.R.A.P.E.R.A.112,277.00
6/5/2017 MN State Treasurer State Payroll Tax 24,985.27
6/5/2017 Labor Unions Union Dues 2,248.88
6/5/2017 MidAmerica - ING HRA Flex plan 14,179.24
6/5/2017 Empower - State Plan Deferred Compensation 29,351.00
6/6/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 52,694.16
6/6/2017 Delta Dental Dental Premium 798.00
6/7/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 57,188.26
6/8/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 29,586.40
6/9/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 74,663.59
6/9/2017 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 1,045.50
6/9/2017 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 892.50
579,847.72
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 21 of 103
Check Description Amount
99847 02324 PRAIRIE FARM RESTORATION CPL GRANT 2,555.50
99848 05805 CRADLEPOINT ROUTER/ANTENNA/MGR 27,575.00
99849 05028 CITY HALL SOLAR SYSTEM LEASE-JUNE 397.00
05028 MCC SOLAR SYSTEM LEASE - JUNE 369.00
99850 04572 ROOF REPAIRS - CITY HALL 385.00
99851 00393 MONTHLY SURTAX - MAY 1230352017 9,194.11
99852 05353 CONTRACT GASOLINE - MAY 8,622.50
05353 CONTRACT DIESEL - MAY 5,966.13
05353 CONTRACT GASOLINE - MAY 1,563.82
99853 05311 SOFTBALL UMPIRES 6/5 - 6/11 777.00
99854 05647 SUPPORT CONTRACT LASERFICHE 07/18 13,768.00
99855 01337 2017 VOTING SYSTEM PMT 12,708.01
99856 01409 PROJ 17-01 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 12,425.90
01409 17-01 MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS 6,806.40
01409 PROJ 17-02 NATURE CTR IMPROVEMENTS 4,065.90
01409 PROJ 17-02 NATURE CTR IMPROVEMENTS 3,880.00
01409 GRANIT RIDGE/FURNESS CONSULTING 2,070.24
01409 PROJ 16-08 CH HVAC UPGRADES 1,212.50
01409 PROJ 12-15 3M CAMPUS DEV PROJ 574.05
99857 01546 TBALL, POP UP, SOFTBALL SHIRTS 1,720.05
01546 TBALL, POP UP, SOFTBALL SHIRTS 848.38
99858 05488 PREMIUM - LIFE,LTD,STD - JUNE 8,021.03
99859 01574 PROJ 16-13 HILLWOOD-CRESTVIEW ST 351,965.00
01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS~8,413.66
01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS~2,612.36
01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS~356.72
99860 01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 2,197.33
01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 1,973.06
01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 176.14
01190 FIRE SIRENS 55.40
99861 01048 LICENSE PLATE READER/SOFTWARE 16,137.50
99862 05806 PD VEH CLEANING/DETAILING-MAY 125.00
99863 05229 GPS TRACKING RENEWAL 6/1/17-5/31/18 1,200.00
99864 05283 SCBA FLOW TEST 3,730.00
05283 GAUNTLET WRIST GLOVES 1,304.97
99865 00550 REPLACEMENT BRIDGE EDGERTON PARK 3,362.22
99866 05577 PLANTS - CITY HALL/RAINGARDENS 1,644.75
99867 05798 TRANSPORT STORAGE BIN - AUCTION 60.00
05798 PICK UP STORAGE CONTAINER-AUCTION 60.00
99868 05572 SOFTWARE LIC RENEWAL 7/1/17-6/30/18 13,367.00
99869 05649 PETTING ZOO - MOVIE EVENT AT BARN 550.00
99870 05825 PROJ 03-35 WOODHILL LANDSCAPING 5,970.45
99871 00857 RACE EQUITY COURSE - N SLAWIK 100.00
99872 04584 TRAINING SUBSCRIPTION 6,152.00
99873 00532 HR ATTORNEY FEE ARB & ADMIN-MAY 1,461.30
00532 HR ATTORNEY FEE LITIGATION-MAY 755.95
00532 HR ATTORNEY FEE LABOR REL-MAY 69.26
99874 00986 MONTHLY SAC - MAY 91,025.55
99875 01136 ALARM SYSTEM INSPECTION FS#2 369.00
01136 ALARM SYSTEM INSPECTION FS#1 89.00
99876 05356 VIDEOGRAPHER SRVS - KID CITY 1,605.00
05356 VIDEOGRAPHER SRVS - MAY 961.40
99877 00001 REFUND E JOHNSON - ADULT SOFTBALL 50.00
06/20/2017 NORTH SUBURBAN ACCESS CORP
06/20/2017 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/20/2017 NARDINI FIRE EQUIP CO INC
06/20/2017 NARDINI FIRE EQUIP CO INC
06/20/2017 NORTH SUBURBAN ACCESS CORP
06/20/2017 MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN, LLP
06/20/2017 MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN, LLP
06/20/2017 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
06/20/2017 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
06/20/2017 LEXIPOL LLC
06/20/2017 MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN, LLP
06/20/2017 NEOGOV GOVERNMENTJOBS.COM,INC.
06/20/2017 HASSE FAMILY ENTERPRISES LLC
06/20/2017 JMW LAWN AND LANDSCAPE
06/20/2017 3M
06/20/2017 CAR WASH PARTNERS
06/20/2017 COVERT TRACK GROUP INC.
Check Register
City of Maplewood
06/15/2017
Date Vendor
06/20/2017
06/20/2017 APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
06/20/2017 AXON ENTERPRISE, INC.
ETTEL & FRANZ ROOFING CO.
06/20/2017 ENERGY ALTERNATIVES SOLAR, LLC
06/20/2017 ENERGY ALTERNATIVES SOLAR, LLC
06/20/2017 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL
06/20/2017 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY
06/20/2017 MANSFIELD OIL CO
06/20/2017 OPG-3, INC.
06/20/2017 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
06/20/2017 S E H
06/20/2017
06/20/2017 S E H
06/20/2017 SUBURBAN SPORTSWEAR
06/20/2017 S E H
06/20/2017 S E H
06/20/2017 S E H
06/20/2017 S E H
06/20/2017 S E H
06/20/2017 SUBURBAN SPORTSWEAR
MANSFIELD OIL CO
06/20/2017 MANSFIELD OIL CO
06/20/2017 WILLIE MCCRAY
06/20/2017 XCEL ENERGY
06/20/2017 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
06/20/2017 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
XCEL ENERGY
06/20/2017 XCEL ENERGY
06/20/2017
06/20/2017 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
T A SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
06/20/2017 XCEL ENERGY
06/20/2017
06/20/2017 EMERGENCY RESPONSE SOLUTIONS
06/20/2017 EMERGENCY RESPONSE SOLUTIONS
06/20/2017 GAMETIME
06/20/2017 GERTENS
06/20/2017 GO MINI MSP
06/20/2017 GO MINI MSP
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 22 of 103
99878 00001 REFUND C URBANSKI - ADULT SOFTBALL 50.00
99879 01289 BRUSH CUTTING AT JIM'S PRAIRIE 715.01
99880 03271 STRUCTURAL REPAIR-BLOCK-CITY HALL 12,917.00
99881 03446 DEER PICK UP - MAY 145.00
99882 04578 TREE INSPECTION SERVICES 127.50
99883 01836 TRAF LTG-SERVICES-LAB & EQUIP 4,464.50
01836 RADIO MAINT & SRVS - APRIL 80.00
01836 TRAF LTG-MATERIAL 50.14
99884 01550 ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS - MAY 2,749.40
99885 01669 FORFEITED VEHICLE TOWING 480.00
01669 FORFEITED VEHICLE TOWING 230.00
99886 02464 PAYING AGENT FEE & ACCEPTANCE FEE 800.00
99887 05622 LICENSING FEE-LPR OCT 16 - SEPT 17 3,000.00
669,214.0941Checks in this report.
06/20/2017 TWIN CITIES TRANSPORT &
06/20/2017 US BANK
06/20/2017 VIGILANT SOLUTIONS, INC.
06/20/2017 ST PAUL, CITY OF
06/20/2017 SUMMIT INSPECTIONS
06/20/2017 TWIN CITIES TRANSPORT &
06/20/2017 S & S TREE SPECIALISTS
06/20/2017 ST PAUL, CITY OF
06/20/2017 ST PAUL, CITY OF
06/20/2017 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
06/20/2017 R J MARCO CONSTRUCTION INC
06/20/2017 RICK JOHNSON DEER & BEAVER INC
06/20/2017 ONE TIME VENDOR
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 23 of 103
Settlement
Date Payee Description Amount
6/12/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 35,161.07
6/13/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 33,473.62
6/14/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 48,795.53
6/14/2017 Delta Dental Dental Premium 1,730.19
6/15/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 74,618.87
6/16/2017 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 39,217.18
6/16/2017 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 1,252.00
6/16/2017 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 987.16
6/16/2017 ICMA (Vantagepointe)Deferred Compensation 4,425.00
6/16/2017 Pitney Bowes Postage 2,000.00
6/16/2017 US Bank VISA One Card*Purchasing card items 48,806.24
290,466.86
*Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 24 of 103
Transaction Date Posting Date Merchant Name Transaction Amount Name
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 VERITIV EXPRESS $332.02 REGAN BEGGS
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 VERITIV EXPRESS $221.35 REGAN BEGGS
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 VERITIV EXPRESS $553.37 REGAN BEGGS
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 VERITIV EXPRESS $30.25 REGAN BEGGS
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 VERITIV EXPRESS $770.12 REGAN BEGGS
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 GETTY IMAGES $4,100.00 CHAD BERGO
05/31/2017 06/01/2017 CREATIVELIVE INC $188.00 CHAD BERGO
06/05/2017 06/06/2017 FEDEXOFFICE 00000828 $69.92 CHAD BERGO
05/30/2017 06/01/2017 LAW ENFORCEMENT TARGETS $111.46 BRIAN BIERDEMAN
06/05/2017 06/07/2017 MENARDS MAPLEWOOD MN $11.18 BRIAN BIERDEMAN
06/06/2017 06/08/2017 HOLIDAY STNSTORE 0001 $6.09 BRIAN BIERDEMAN
06/06/2017 06/07/2017 PETSMART # 0461 $25.96 OAKLEY BIESANZ
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 SUNRAY TRUE VALUE $11.28 OAKLEY BIESANZ
05/30/2017 05/31/2017 MILLS FLEET FARM 2700 $126.98 BRENT BUCKLEY
05/31/2017 06/01/2017 NARDINI FIRE EQUIPMENT $842.50 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/31/2017 06/02/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $39.06 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/31/2017 06/02/2017 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY $301.17 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/31/2017 06/02/2017 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY WABASH $334.71 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/05/2017 06/07/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $78.17 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 HENRIKSEN ACE HDWE $4.98 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/07/2017 06/09/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 ($10.44)SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/07/2017 06/09/2017 TWIN CITY FILTER SERVICE $26.12 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 OAKDALE RENTAL CENTER $214.00 DOUG EDGE
05/25/2017 05/29/2017 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $426.14 PAUL E EVERSON
05/31/2017 06/02/2017 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $729.98 PAUL E EVERSON
06/02/2017 06/05/2017 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $271.98 PAUL E EVERSON
05/25/2017 05/29/2017 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INC.$703.96 MYCHAL FOWLDS
06/02/2017 06/02/2017 APL* ITUNES.COM/BILL $107.11 MYCHAL FOWLDS
06/02/2017 06/05/2017 BEST BUY MHT 00000109 $308.46 MYCHAL FOWLDS
06/06/2017 06/07/2017 VZWRLSS*APOCC VISB $8,202.63 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 UPS*2954L1FQ46O $5.80 NICK FRANZEN
05/31/2017 06/01/2017 ZOHO CORPORATION $76.00 NICK FRANZEN
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 BESTBUYCOM795052003328 $881.00 NICK FRANZEN
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 CDW GOVT #JCR6036 $1,299.52 NICK FRANZEN
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 CDW GOVT #JCS7157 $759.93 NICK FRANZEN
06/05/2017 06/07/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $20.22 VIRGINIA GAYNOR
05/31/2017 06/01/2017 CAROLINA BIOLOGIC SUPPLY $166.52 CAROLE GERNES
06/02/2017 06/05/2017 CUB FOODS #1599 $27.83 CAROLE GERNES
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 SQ *KINNICKINNIC NA $385.00 CAROLE GERNES
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 SQ *KINNICKINNIC NA $64.00 CAROLE GERNES
06/05/2017 06/06/2017 MILLS FLEET FARM 2700 $59.78 MARK HAAG
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 LTG POWER EQUIPMENT $183.90 TAMARA HAYS
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 BCA TRAINING EDUCATION $25.00 JENNY HENDRICKS
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 HENRIKSEN ACE HDWE $6.99 GARY HINNENKAMP
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 MILLS FLEET FARM 2700 $27.78 GARY HINNENKAMP
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 WHITE BEAR TAXIDERMY $425.00 ANN HUTCHINSON
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 DALCO ENTERPRISES $741.43 DAVID JAHN
06/02/2017 06/05/2017 DALCO ENTERPRISES $208.05 DAVID JAHN
06/06/2017 06/08/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $28.24 DAVID JAHN
05/31/2017 06/02/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1080 $9.19 MEGHAN JANASZAK
05/31/2017 06/02/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $5.39 MEGHAN JANASZAK
06/01/2017 06/05/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $169.42 MEGHAN JANASZAK
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $44.59 ELIZABETH JOHNSON
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $47.78 ELIZABETH JOHNSON
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 CULVER'S OF ROSEMO $90.73 KEVIN JOHNSON
06/06/2017 06/08/2017 MENARDS MAPLEWOOD MN $59.88 DON JONES
05/31/2017 06/01/2017 PANERA BREAD #601305 $5.35 LOIS KNUTSON
05/31/2017 06/01/2017 PANERA BREAD #601305 $149.55 LOIS KNUTSON
06/06/2017 06/07/2017 THE STAR TRIBUNE CIRCULAT $133.75 LOIS KNUTSON
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 CUB FOODS #1599 $11.76 LOIS KNUTSON
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 25 of 103
05/30/2017 06/01/2017 THE HOME DEPOT #2801 $43.76 DUWAYNE KONEWKO
06/05/2017 06/06/2017 HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS 612 $21.30 NICHOLAS KREKELER
06/06/2017 06/08/2017 MENARDS MAPLEWOOD MN $41.68 NICHOLAS KREKELER
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 THOMSON WEST*TCD $404.25 DAVID KVAM
06/02/2017 06/05/2017 HENRIKSEN ACE HDWE $10.66 JESSICA LANDEROS CRUZ
06/01/2017 06/05/2017 GREEN STUFF OUTDOOR SE $155.06 CHING LO
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 WPSG. INC 800-852-6088 $110.58 STEVE LUKIN
06/02/2017 06/02/2017 AIRGASS NORTH $38.75 STEVE LUKIN
06/02/2017 06/05/2017 COMCAST CABLE COMM $2.27 STEVE LUKIN
06/05/2017 06/06/2017 AIRGASS NORTH $71.44 STEVE LUKIN
06/05/2017 06/06/2017 AIRGASS NORTH $241.82 STEVE LUKIN
06/06/2017 06/07/2017 NFPA NATL FIRE PROTECT $315.00 STEVE LUKIN
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 ASPEN MILLS INC.$349.00 STEVE LUKIN
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC $181.00 STEVE LUKIN
06/02/2017 06/05/2017 KOHL'S #0054 $238.30 BRYAN NAGEL
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 HENRIKSEN ACE HDWE $32.47 JOHN NAUGHTON
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 SITEONE LANDSCAPE S $811.60 JOHN NAUGHTON
06/04/2017 06/05/2017 AUTOZONE3948 $15.20 MICHAEL NYE
06/07/2017 06/09/2017 MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT FIN $15.00 ELLEN PAULSETH
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC $887.00 STEVEN PRIEM
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 HENRIKSEN ACE HDWE $24.27 STEVEN PRIEM
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $677.14 STEVEN PRIEM
05/31/2017 06/01/2017 AUTO PLUS-LITTLE CANADA $30.95 STEVEN PRIEM
05/31/2017 06/01/2017 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $140.37 STEVEN PRIEM
05/31/2017 06/01/2017 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $254.34 STEVEN PRIEM
05/31/2017 06/02/2017 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE $56.84 STEVEN PRIEM
06/01/2017 06/02/2017 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $21.82 STEVEN PRIEM
06/01/2017 06/02/2017 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $2.99 STEVEN PRIEM
06/01/2017 06/02/2017 POLAR CHEVROLET MAZDA $230.66 STEVEN PRIEM
06/01/2017 06/05/2017 FRONTIER INC $752.29 STEVEN PRIEM
06/01/2017 06/05/2017 DAVIS EQUIPMENT $59.28 STEVEN PRIEM
06/02/2017 06/05/2017 HENRIKSEN ACE HDWE $24.43 STEVEN PRIEM
06/02/2017 06/05/2017 HENRIKSEN ACE HDWE $12.75 STEVEN PRIEM
06/02/2017 06/05/2017 PIONEER RIM AND WHEE $13.38 STEVEN PRIEM
06/05/2017 06/06/2017 POMP'S TIRE #021 $1,653.60 STEVEN PRIEM
06/05/2017 06/06/2017 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC $1,716.00 STEVEN PRIEM
06/05/2017 06/06/2017 AUTO PLUS-LITTLE CANADA $72.95 STEVEN PRIEM
06/05/2017 06/07/2017 NUSS TRUCK GROUP INC $68.54 STEVEN PRIEM
06/06/2017 06/07/2017 AUTO PLUS-LITTLE CANADA $102.59 STEVEN PRIEM
06/06/2017 06/07/2017 TRI-STATE BOBCAT $92.34 STEVEN PRIEM
06/06/2017 06/08/2017 TURFWERKS EAGAN $102.20 STEVEN PRIEM
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 COMO LUBE AND SUPPLIES $88.38 STEVEN PRIEM
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 AUTO PLUS-LITTLE CANADA $23.96 STEVEN PRIEM
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $12.94 STEVEN PRIEM
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC $458.00 STEVEN PRIEM
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $661.77 STEVEN PRIEM
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $757.01 STEVEN PRIEM
06/06/2017 06/08/2017 MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HE $195.20 TERRIE RAMEAUX
06/06/2017 06/08/2017 MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HE $1,278.00 TERRIE RAMEAUX
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $30.00 MICHAEL RENNER
06/01/2017 06/05/2017 OFFICEMAX/OFFICE DEPOT616 $99.97 MICHAEL RENNER
06/02/2017 06/05/2017 TARGET 00011858 $16.07 AUDRA ROBBINS
06/04/2017 06/05/2017 WAL-MART #2087 $62.99 AUDRA ROBBINS
06/06/2017 06/07/2017 AMZ*PRICE CHOPPER WR $51.50 AUDRA ROBBINS
06/09/2017 06/09/2017 PITNEY BOWES PI $828.00 JOSEPH RUEB
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 SITEONE LANDSCAPE S $38.19 RICK RUIZ
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #2518 $585.36 ROBERT RUNNING
05/31/2017 06/01/2017 WALMART.COM $37.65 DEB SCHMIDT
06/01/2017 06/05/2017 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $144.06 DEB SCHMIDT
05/27/2017 05/29/2017 CINTAS 60A SAP $301.18 SCOTT SCHULTZ
05/27/2017 05/29/2017 CINTAS 60A SAP $141.13 SCOTT SCHULTZ
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 26 of 103
05/30/2017 06/01/2017 SPOK INC $16.11 SCOTT SCHULTZ
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 G&K SERVICES AR $723.35 SCOTT SCHULTZ
05/26/2017 05/29/2017 GRAFIX SHOPPE $3,312.00 MICHAEL SHORTREED
05/27/2017 05/29/2017 GALLS $455.05 MICHAEL SHORTREED
06/01/2017 06/02/2017 SQ *RADIO1033, LLC $420.00 MICHAEL SHORTREED
06/05/2017 06/06/2017 HEALTHEAST TRANSPORTATN $31.79 MICHAEL SHORTREED
06/06/2017 06/08/2017 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC.$139.01 MICHAEL SHORTREED
06/06/2017 06/08/2017 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC.$1,061.02 MICHAEL SHORTREED
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 LOVE YOUR PETS $163.35 JOSEPH STEINER
05/31/2017 06/02/2017 BROWNPAPERTICKETS COM $37.22 CHRIS SWANSON
06/01/2017 06/02/2017 THE WEBSTAURANT STORE $95.44 KAREN WACHAL
06/02/2017 06/02/2017 ULINE *SHIP SUPPLIES $133.25 TAMMY WYLIE
06/06/2017 06/06/2017 ULINE *SHIP SUPPLIES $51.76 TAMMY WYLIE
06/07/2017 06/08/2017 AERKO INTERNATIONAL $395.00 TAMMY WYLIE
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 OFFICESUPPLY.COM $25.91 TAMMY WYLIE
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 WESTIN KIERLAND RESORT $290.43 TAMMY WYLIE
06/08/2017 06/09/2017 WESTIN KIERLAND RESORT $290.43 TAMMY WYLIE
$48,806.24
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 27 of 103
CHECK #CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME
123.78
12.66
24,688.89
456.30
06/16/17 SLAWIK, NORA 518.43
06/16/17 SMITH, BRYAN 456.30
06/16/17 LARSON, MICHELLE 2,133.01
06/16/17 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 3,428.97
06/16/17 SINDT, ANDREA 3,136.56
06/16/17 HANSON, MELISSA 1,009.07
06/16/17 MOY, PAMELA 1,708.23
06/16/17 CRAWFORD, LEIGH 2,092.99
1,357.67
06/16/17 CARNES, JOHN 359.40
06/16/17 BURT-MCGREGOR, EMILY 820.00
06/16/17 BUSACK, DANIEL 4,030.94
06/16/17 BERGERON, ASHLEY 2,155.89
06/16/17 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 4,030.95
06/16/17 BELDE, STANLEY 3,827.17
06/16/17 BENJAMIN, MARKESE 3,722.83
06/16/17 BAKKE, LONN 3,488.96
06/16/17 BARTZ, PAUL 4,897.43
06/16/17 ABEL, CLINT 3,224.58
06/16/17 ALDRIDGE, MARK 3,928.89
06/16/17 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 4,623.74
06/16/17 WYLIE, TAMMY 1,973.00
06/16/17 SHEA, STEPHANIE 1,762.60
06/16/17 HENDRICKS, JENNIFER 1,638.40
06/16/17 KVAM, DAVID 4,756.87
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
Exp Reimb,
Severance,
Conversion
incl in Amount
06/16/17 BEGGS, REGAN 1,024.19
06/16/17 EVANS, CHRISTINE 2,132.99
06/16/17 RUEB, JOSEPH 3,736.76
06/16/17 ARNOLD, AJLA 2,070.83
06/16/17
2,644.03
06/16/17 CHRISTENSON, SCOTT 2,532.37
06/16/17 COLEMAN, MELINDA 5,852.68
AMOUNT
06/16/17
06/16/17 OSWALD, BRENDA 2,222.47
06/16/17 PAULSETH, ELLEN 4,797.19
06/16/17 HERZOG, LINDSAY 1,410.97
06/16/17 RAMEAUX, THERESE 3,466.16
06/16/17 JAHN, DAVID 2,140.86
06/16/17
06/16/17 FUNK, MICHAEL 6,494.72
06/16/17
06/16/17 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN
PRINS, KELLY 2,738.45
ABRAMS, MARYLEE 456.30
06/16/17 KNUTSON, LOIS
ANDERSON, CAROLE
06/16/17 OSTER, ANDREA 2,142.22
06/16/17 RICHTER, CHARLENE
06/16/17 BERG, TERESA 945.00
06/16/17 CORCORAN, THERESA 2,135.29
XIONG, TOU 456.30
1,796.91
06/16/17 DEBILZAN, JUDY 2,384.20
06/16/17 VITT, SANDRA 1,205.88
06/16/17 WEAVER, KRISTINE 2,919.08
06/16/17 SCHNELL, PAUL 32,400.49
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 28 of 103
306.02
06/16/17 HALE, JOSEPH 281.96
06/16/17 HALWEG, JODI 3,062.64
06/16/17 DAWSON, RICHARD 3,650.99
06/16/17 EVERSON, PAUL 4,420.72
06/16/17 CRUMMY, CHARLES 347.81
06/16/17 DABRUZZI, THOMAS 3,316.21
06/16/17 CAPISTRANT, JOHN 517.57
06/16/17 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 3,169.95
06/16/17 BEITLER, NATHAN 212.00
06/16/17 BOURQUIN, RON 211.93
06/16/17 BASSETT, BRENT 29.81
06/16/17 BAUMAN, ANDREW 4,008.75
06/16/17 ANDERSON, BRIAN 506.81
06/16/17 BAHL, DAVID 370.80
06/16/17 XIONG, TUOYER 464.00
06/16/17 ZAPPA, ANDREW 3,424.55
06/16/17 WENZEL, JAY 3,626.52
06/16/17 XIONG, KAO 3,591.07
06/16/17 THIENES, PAUL 4,981.14
06/16/17 VANG, PAM 3,061.66
06/16/17 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 3,858.50
06/16/17 TAUZELL, BRIAN 4,116.64
06/16/17 STARKEY, ROBERT 2,727.58
06/16/17 STEINER, JOSEPH 4,930.11
06/16/17 REZNY, BRADLEY 3,951.17
06/16/17 SLATER, BENJAMIN 4,220.25
06/16/17 PARKER, JAMES 3,271.73
06/16/17 PETERSON, JARED 2,694.48
06/16/17 OLDING, PARKER 3,271.75
06/16/17 OLSON, JULIE 3,459.48
06/16/17 MURRAY, RACHEL 820.00
06/16/17 NYE, MICHAEL 4,225.21
06/16/17 MOE, AEH BEL 464.00
06/16/17 MULVIHILL, MARIA 2,987.71
06/16/17 METRY, ALESIA 3,521.73
06/16/17 MICHELETTI, BRIAN 3,546.62
06/16/17 MARINO, JASON 3,239.64
06/16/17 MCCARTY, GLEN 3,599.12
06/16/17 LENERTZ, NICHOLAS 2,102.63
06/16/17 LYNCH, KATHERINE 3,200.32
06/16/17 LANGNER, SCOTT 3,224.58
06/16/17 LANGNER, TODD 3,854.39
06/16/17 KROLL, BRETT 1,131.54
06/16/17 LANDEROS CRUZ, JESSICA 565.50
06/16/17 KONG, TOMMY 3,702.37
06/16/17 KREKELER, NICHOLAS 1,115.73
06/16/17 JAMES JR, JUSTIN 464.00
06/16/17 JOHNSON, KEVIN 4,256.76
06/16/17 HOEMKE, MICHAEL 385.28
06/16/17 HOFMEISTER, TIMOTHY 248.00
06/16/17 HER, PHENG 3,619.12
06/16/17 HIEBERT, STEVEN 3,488.96
06/16/17 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 4,725.78
06/16/17 HAWKINSON JR, TIMOTHY 3,596.64
06/16/17 FORSYTHE, MARCUS 3,209.82
06/16/17 FRITZE, DEREK 3,643.60
06/16/17 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 3,903.46
06/16/17 FISHER, CASSANDRA 2,158.60
06/16/17 DEMULLING, JOSEPH 4,019.14
06/16/17 DUGAS, MICHAEL 5,130.58
06/16/17 CROTTY, KERRY 4,357.61
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 29 of 103
925.51
06/16/17 SAKRY, JASON 2,001.67
06/16/17 NAUGHTON, JOHN 2,473.75
06/16/17 ORE, JORDAN 2,207.29
06/16/17 HINNENKAMP, GARY 2,771.00
06/16/17 HUMMEL, SAMUEL 792.00
06/16/17 HAMRE, MILES 2,154.40
06/16/17 HAYS, TAMARA 2,207.29
06/16/17 ZIEMAN, SCOTT 1,024.00
06/16/17 RHODES, KELLY 672.00
06/16/17 LOVE, STEVEN 4,552.91
06/16/17 THOMPSON, MICHAEL 5,411.16
06/16/17 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 3,608.22
06/16/17 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 3,303.67
06/16/17 DUCHARME, JOHN 3,077.51
06/16/17 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 3,239.45
06/16/17 TEVLIN, TODD 2,429.59
06/16/17 BURLINGAME, NATHAN 2,971.02
06/16/17 RUIZ, RICARDO 2,237.29
06/16/17 RUNNING, ROBERT 2,696.78
06/16/17 NAGEL, BRYAN 4,140.60
06/16/17 OSWALD, ERICK 2,471.90
06/16/17 JONES, DONALD 2,461.67
06/16/17 MEISSNER, BRENT 2,457.29
06/16/17 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,992.09
06/16/17 EDGE, DOUGLAS 2,416.90
06/16/17 BRINK, TROY 2,826.79
06/16/17 BUCKLEY, BRENT 2,449.37
06/16/17 CORTESI, LUANNE 2,122.61
06/16/17 JANASZAK, MEGHAN 2,402.01
06/16/17 LO, CHING 1,203.08
06/16/17 LUKIN, STEVEN 6,139.68
06/16/17 TROXEL, REID 318.00
06/16/17 ZAPPA, ERIC 2,612.86
06/16/17 STREFF, MICHAEL 3,414.04
06/16/17 SVENDSEN, RONALD 3,862.43
06/16/17 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO 2,969.86
06/16/17 SEDLACEK, JEFFREY 3,501.90
06/16/17 POWERS, KENNETH 3,706.70
06/16/17 RANGEL, DERRICK 185.50
06/16/17 PACHECO, ALPHONSE 586.31
06/16/17 PETERSON, ROBERT 3,748.47
06/16/17 NOWICKI, PAUL 188.81
06/16/17 OPHEIM, JOHN 189.27
06/16/17 NIELSEN, KENNETH 370.80
06/16/17 NOVAK, JEROME 3,769.52
06/16/17 MORGAN, JEFFERY 290.59
06/16/17 NEILY, STEVEN 622.32
06/16/17 MERKATORIS, BRETT 19.88
06/16/17 MONDOR, MICHAEL 4,774.52
06/16/17 LINDER, TIMOTHY 4,282.90
06/16/17 LOCHEN, MICHAEL 1,134.67
06/16/17 KUBAT, ERIC 3,414.04
06/16/17 LANDER, CHARLES 3,286.34
06/16/17 KERSKA, JOSEPH 1,060.02
06/16/17 KONDER, RONALD 409.50
06/16/17 KANE, ROBERT 590.97
06/16/17 KARRAS, JAMIE 646.81
06/16/17 IMM, TRACY 725.01
06/16/17 JANSEN, CHAD 212.02
06/16/17 HAWTHORNE, ROCHELLE 3,432.51
06/16/17 HUTCHINSON, JAMES 405.56
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 30 of 103
194.41
99102751
99102752
06/16/17 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 4,101.33
06/16/17 WILBER, JEFFREY 2,204.31
06/16/17 HAAG, MARK 2,969.09
06/16/17 JENSEN, JOSEPH 2,104.09
06/16/17 FAIRBANKS, GEORGE 3,370.40
06/16/17 ADAMS, DAVID 2,363.04
06/16/17 WHALEN, NOAH 119.00
06/16/17 BERGO, CHAD 3,691.09
06/16/17 ROBBINS, AUDRA 4,390.25
06/16/17 ROBBINS, CAMDEN 63.25
06/16/17 KUCHENMEISTER, GINA 1,480.32
06/16/17 NEUMANN, BRAD 47.50
06/16/17 BRENEMAN, NEIL 3,063.20
06/16/17 ETTER, LAURA 130.00
06/16/17 WELLENS, MOLLY 2,079.88
06/16/17 BJORK, BRANDON 46.00
06/16/17 SWANSON, CHRIS 2,264.19
06/16/17 WEIDNER, JAMES 2,441.79
06/16/17 DEWEY, MARK 1,152.00
06/16/17 SWAN, DAVID 3,130.89
06/16/17 MARTIN, MICHAEL 3,893.48
06/16/17 BRASH, JASON 3,404.19
06/16/17 ADADE, JANE 789.36
06/16/17 FINWALL, SHANN 3,602.20
06/16/17 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 5,347.80
06/16/17 KROLL, LISA 2,135.29
06/16/17 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 3,672.65
06/16/17 JOHNSON, ELIZABETH 1,817.79
06/16/17 WACHAL, KAREN 1,293.73
06/16/17 WOLFE, KAYLA 144.00
06/16/17 HUTCHINSON, ANN 3,003.58
06/16/17 TROENDLE, CATHY JO 400.00
06/16/17 GERNES, CAROLE 1,592.37
06/16/17 HER, KONNIE 136.00
06/16/17 BALLANDBY, JOSEPH 588.00
06/16/17 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,899.52
06/16/17 SALCHOW, CONNOR 828.00
06/16/17 WOEHRLE, MATTHEW 2,520.48
06/16/17 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,747.69
06/16/17 WISTL, MOLLY 283.50
06/16/17 COUNTRYMAN, BRENDA 1,548.00
06/16/17 HARRER, NATALIE 1,360.13
06/16/17 XIONG, BOON 2,067.68
06/16/17 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 4,324.35
06/16/17 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 3,526.44
06/16/17 VANG, DONNA 82.50
560,593.47
06/16/17 GERONSIN, ALEXANDER 2,217.12
06/16/17 RENNER, MICHAEL 2,512.34
06/16/17 LEE, DAVID 84.00
G1, Attachments
Packet Page Number 31 of 103
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Ellen Paulseth, Finance Director
DATE: June 26, 2017
SUBJECT: Approval to Maintain Statutory Tort Liability Limits
Introduction
Cities obtaining liability coverage from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust must
decide each year whether or not to waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of the
coverage purchased. The decision to waive or not to waive the statutory limits has the following
effects:
•If the city does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant would be able to
recover no more than $500,000 on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The
total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the
statutory tort limits apply would be limited to $1,500,000. These statutory tort limits would
apply regardless of whether or not the city purchases the optional excess liability
coverage.
•If the city waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability coverage,
a single claimant could potentially recover up to $1,500,000 on a single occurrence. The
total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the
statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to $1,500,000, regardless of the number of
claimants.
•If the city waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a single
claimant could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased.
The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which
the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to the amount of coverage purchased,
regardless of the number of claimants.
Claims to which the statutory municipal tort limits do not apply are not affected by this decision.
This decision must be made by the City Council.
The City has elected to not waive the statutory tort limits in the past, which would limit recovery
to $500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 per occurrence for the upcoming policy period. A
resolution is required each year to affirm the City’s decision.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the council adopt the attached resolution affirming that the City does not
waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04.
Attachment
1.Resolution to Maintain the Statutory Tort Limits for Liability Insurance Proposed
G2
Packet Page Number 32 of 103
A RESOLUTION TO MAINTAIN THE
STATUTORY TORT LIMITS FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE PROPOSED
WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust annually requests
member cities to make an election to waive or not waive the tort liability limit established by
Minnesota Statutes 466.04; and
WHEREAS, the City has three choices: to not waive the statutory limit, to waive
the limit but to keep insurance coverage at the statutory limit, and to waive the limit and to add
insurance to a new level;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Map lewood hereby elects to not waive the statutory tort liability limit established by Minnesota
Statutes 466.04.
G2, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 33 of 103
G3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Ellen Paulseth, Finance Director
DATE: June 26, 2017
SUBJECT: Approval of Transfer to Close Debt Service Fund #362
Introduction
A transfer of residual cash is needed to close the debt service fund for the 2010A G.O.
Improvement Build America Bonds because the bonds were refunded by the 2015C G.O.
Improvement Refunding Bonds and a new fund was created.
Background
The 2010A G.O. Improvement Build America Bonds were refunded in 2015 by the 2015C G.O.
Improvement Refunding Bonds. The cash transfer shown below will close the debt service fund
by transferring the residual cash to the new 2015C G.O. Improvement Refunding Bond Fund.
The original bond issue was a federally subsidized Build America Bond. Therefore, any
remaining funds should be transferred to the refunding bond fund.
From To
Amount Fund Series Fund Series
$4,168.84 362 2010A Bonds 373 2015C Bonds
Budget Impact
There is no financial impact to the city as the proposal is to transfer money between funds.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Council authorize the following:
(1) Close Debt Service Fund 362 with a transfer of $4,168.84 from fund 362 (Series 2010A) to
fund 373 (Series 2015C).
Attachment
None
Packet Page Number 34 of 103
G4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Steve Lukin Fire Chief
DATE: June 08, 2017
SUBJECT: Approval to Purchase 800 MHz Radios
Introduction
This is year two of the radio replacement program. The new 800 MHz radios will be split
between police and fire departments to continue the radio replacement process. The City
Council approved $76,800 in the 2017 CIP funding for the purchase of new 800 MHz radios.
Background
The new 800 MHz radios will be purchased from the state bid form ANCOM, a Motorola
representative, as previously done. The radios will be purchased through the state bid for the
lowest possible cost. Last year, ANCOM offered a promotion of a $500 rebate per new radio
purchased for every old radio, in any condition, turned in. Once again, ANCOM has approved
this promotion for this year’s radio purchase.
Budget Impact
The funds are available in the 2017 CIP to purchase 24 new radios. The rebate promotion
allows us to purchase two additional radios. The total cost is $78,534. Of this amount, $76,800
will be paid with the funding from the 2017 CIP. The remaining balance of $1,734 will be paid by
the police and fire 2017 general fund budget.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve and authorize the expenditure of $78,534 to
ANCOM for the purchase of 24 new 800 MHz radios.
Attachments
None.
Packet Page Number 35 of 103
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Michael Thompson, Director of Public Works
DuWayne Konewko, Director of Environment and Economic Development
DATE: June 21, 2017
SUBJECT: Approval of Services for Comprehensive Plan Technical Chapters, Project 17-08
Introduction
The City Council will consider approval of services related to the revisions and updates of the
technical chapters of the comprehensive plan.
Background / Discussion
On February 27, 2017 the City Council approved a contract with HKGi for comprehensive
planning services in an amount of $107,100. In that contract the technical chapters such as
transportation, sanitary sewer, and surface water management were identified as integrated
from other sources. Attached is the agenda report from the February 27th approval which also
depicts work services HKGi is performing vs. others (integrated from other sources).
The technical chapters of the comprehensive plan were always identified as being provided by
others and HKGi would be coordinating that information into the overall comprehensive plan
update. When HKGi was selected the staff was identifying the technical work that could be
provided by in-house staff vs. outside. This review and ability of internal staff to provide a
portion of this work allowed for the reduction in consulting costs of over $20,000.
Budget Impact
The Public Works Department has allocated $10,000, split between utility enterprise funds 601-
508 and 604-512, from its existing 2017 operations budget, while EEDD already allocated
$10,000 from 101-702 in its operational budget. The remaining funds come from a portion of
the Met Council grant ($20,000) and personnel savings ($30,000) in EEDD from an unfilled staff
position for half of 2017. Both the Public Works Director and EEDD Director have met with and
discussed the budget impacts with the Finance Director.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve Services for Comprehensive Plan Technical
Chapters as identified in the attached contract with Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., and
G5
Packet Page Number 36 of 103
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a contract in a not-to-exceed amount of
$69,400.
Attachments
1. Professional Services Contract with Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. for Technical Chapters
2. Council Report on Approval of HKGi Services from February 27, 2017
G5
Packet Page Number 37 of 103
rev 2/02 1
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER NUMBER 52 (FIFTY-TWO)
Describing a specific agreement between Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (the Consultant), and the City of
Maplewood (the Client) in accordance with the terms of the Master Agreement for Continuing Professional
Services dated December 9, 2002, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Identification of Project:Comprehensive Plan Update (Engineering Chapters)
City Project 17-08
General Category of Services: Sanitary, Transportation and Water Resources Planning Services
Specific Scope of Basic Services: Prepare an update of the City’s Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan,
Transportation Plan and Surface Water Management Plan as
detailed in the attached Scope of Services (Exhibit A).
Additional Services if Required: None identified at this time.
Deliverables:Comprehensive Plan Update and Comprehensive Surface Water
Management Plan Update
Method of Compensation:To be billed on an Hourly (Cost Plus) basis as detailed in the
attached Estimated Costs summary (Exhibit B).
Schedule:See attached Project Schedule (Exhibit C)
Special Terms of Compensation:None
Other Special Terms of
Individual Project Order:None
ACCEPTED:
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
BY:BY:
TITLE:TITLE:
DATE:DATE:
BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
G5, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 38 of 103
rev 2/02 2
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER (IPO) NO. 52
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE (ENGINEERING CHAPTERS)
CITY PROJECT 17-08
Kimley-Horn’s Scope of Services for the project includes the preparation of updated planning
documents for three sections of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update: Sanitary Sewer System
Plan, Transportation System Plan and the Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan (Plan
or CSWMP). The CSWMP is part of the overall Comprehensive Plan as well as a stand-alone
document necessary to address Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR)
requirements enacted in 2015 under Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410. The specific tasks and
subtasks are as follows.
1.Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer System Plan Update
A.Review Existing Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Related Information
Kimley-Horn will review existing Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan information,
including the following:
·2030 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan
·City Zoning Map Information
·City Land Use Map Information
·City Sanitary Sewer System Map
B.Conduct Review of Sewer Districts
Kimley-Horn will conduct a review of each of the City’s 74 sewer districts as follows:
·Existing land uses will be compared with the existing zoning for each district.
·Districts will be identified where existing land use areas are different than current
zoning areas. We will estimate changes in sanitary sewer flows resulting from future
land use changes to match the existing zoning.
·Identify areas within districts that are likely to be rezoned in the future. It is expected
that this will require some involvement from the City’s planning department.
Determine sanitary sewer flow changes, if any, resulting from the zoning changes.
·Identify areas within districts that are likely to be developed/redeveloped in the future.
It is expected that this will require some involvement from the City’s planning
department. Determine sanitary sewer flow changes, if any, resulting from future
development/redevelopment.
G5, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 39 of 103
rev 2/02 3
C.Review Estimated Flow Assumptions
Review past assumptions used to estimate flows from the individual sewer districts and
update assumptions as needed.
D.Review Past and Future Sanitary Sewer System Improvements
Kimley-Horn will review sanitary sewer system improvements completed since the prior
plan update and work with City staff to determine future system improvements. The
result of this task will be the preparation of a 20-year CIP for sanitary sewer system
improvements.
E.Prepare Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Report
Kimley-Horn will prepare a report detailing the results of the tasks completed above. It is
assumed that the report will include the following:
·Summary of Past Comprehensive Plan and Update
·Summary of Results of Review of Individual Sewer Districts
·Summary of Updated Estimated Flow Projections
·Summary of Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS)
·Summary of Inflow/Infiltration Program
·Summary of 20-year CIP for Sanitary Sewer System Improvements
·Updated Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer System Map
Based on the previous plan, we will prepare a Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and
submit it to City staff for review.
F.Meetings
·Comprehensive Plan Team Meetings/Coordination. Kimley-Horn will coordinate these
Plan updates with efforts currently being performed by HKGI on the overall
Comprehensive Plan Update. Based on discussion with HKGI, we have assumed that
we will need to attend selected meetings with City staff, the City Council and
Commissions, and/or representatives of review agencies. We have estimated our
meeting attendance for this section as follows for our key technical area staff lead:
o Staff Meeting/Workshop (2)
o Steering Committee Meetings (1)
·Engineering Staff Meetings. In addition to coordination meetings for the overall
Comprehensive Plan Update, we will need to meet with City engineering staff and
G5, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 40 of 103
rev 2/02 4
technical review agencies to complete the engineering sections. We have estimated our
meeting attendance for this section as follows for our key technical area staff lead:
o Engineering Staff Meetings (1)
2.Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
A.Review Existing Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Related Information
Kimley-Horn will review existing Comprehensive Transportation Plan information,
including the following:
·2030 Transportation Comprehensive Plan
·City Zoning Map Information
·City Land Use Map Information
We will conduct a kick-off meeting with City staff to discuss proposed changes to the Plan
and further define the necessary modifications.
B.Evaluate Transportation Needs/Improvements
·Review forecasted population, household, and employment growth by Transportation
Analysis Zones (TAZ).
·Review future development areas
C.Comprehensive Transportation Plans Elements
We will address the following key elements as a part of the Comprehensive Transportation
Plan according to the Metropolitan Council’s Checklist of Minimum Requirements:
·Roadways
o Map existing and future functional classification
o Incorporate Living Streets Plan elements
·Transit
o Gold Line
o Rush Line
·Bicycling
o Pedestrian / Bicycle Network Priority Improvements, consistent with the City’s
Park Master Plan
o Regional Bicycle Transportation Network
·Walking
o Update City Sidewalk and Trail Map
D.Prepare a Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Based on the previous plan, we will prepare a Comprehensive Transportation Plan and
G5, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 41 of 103
rev 2/02 5
submit it to City staff for review.
We have assumed that the update will not require any new traffic modeling or analysis.
We have assumed that any necessary traffic engineering information will be taken from
other documents recently completed.
B.Meetings
·Comp Plan Team Meetings/Coordination. Kimley-Horn will coordinate these Plan
updates with efforts currently being performed by HKGI on the overall
Comprehensive Plan Update. Based on discussion with HKGI, we have assumed that
we will need to attend selected meetings with City staff, the City Council and
Commissions, and/or representatives of review agencies. We have estimated our
meeting attendance for this section as follows for our key technical area staff lead:
o Staff Meeting/Workshop (1)
·Engineering Staff Meetings. In addition to coordination meetings for the overall
Comprehensive Plan Update, we will need to meet with City engineering staff and
technical review agencies to complete the engineering sections. We have estimated our
meeting attendance for this section as follows for our key technical area staff lead:
o Engineering Staff Meetings (1)
3.Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan Update
A.Review Existing CSWMP Related Information
Kimley-Horn will review existing CSWMP-related information, including the following:
·Surface Water Management Plan | December 2009
·Ramsey-Washington-Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) | 2017-2026 Plan Draft
·Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) | 2010 Plan and 2015 Mid-Term Review
·Valley Branch Watershed District | 2015-2025 Plan
·City of Maplewood | Surface Water Related Standards and Guidelines
·City of Maplewood | Zoning Map Information
·City of Maplewood | Land Use Map Information
·Metropolitan Council | System Statement
B.Identify Required and Desired Plan Updates and Changes
Kimley-Horn will facilitate discussions with City staff (ENG, PW, Planning, Parks) and
with the watershed organizations to identify and prepare a list of required and potential
Plan changes. Potential Plan changes may involve a range of topics including CIP items,
policies and/or standards changes, overall theme and goals of the Plan, and the format for
G5, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 42 of 103
rev 2/02 6
delivery of the plan contents to end users. Based on the initial list of required and potential
Plan changes, City staff will select which items will be included in the Plan update. Our
scope of work does not include significant plan changes in terms of background
information and overall goals and policies. We anticipate that new plan subsections for
topics such as sustainability may be included for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
main themes. These new sections will not be created from scratch but will be heavily based
on similar sections from other cities plans that city staff or KH staff is familiar with and
has experience with.
C.Develop/Update Goals, Policies and an updated Capital Improvements Plan
·Goals and Policies: Will be reviewed against updated watershed plans and
Metropolitan Council and aligned with applicable overall City initiatives and/or themes
of the Comprehensive Plan. New goal sections and related policies may be added and
old sections combined or deleted as part of this process.
·Capital Improvements Plan (CIP): One important outcome of the plan will be to serve
as a guide for future actions and activities, including ongoing program efforts such as
the City’s NPDES MS4 Permit Program, addressing localized flooding areas and
identifying needs and opportunities for implementation that help the City achieve its
water resources goals. The CIP will not identify every surface water related action or
activity, but instead focus on priority implementation projects that address the major
goals of the plan (e.g., improve water quality, reduce damages due to flooding, etc.).
An important consideration in developing the CIP will be to consider where
geographically and what types of projects the City may look to pursue stormwater
grant funding on. Special areas or initiatives including the following will be discussed.
o Rice-Larpenteur Area
o Gateway Corridor
o Living Streets
o Sustainability
o Regional Investments and Water Reuse as identified by Met Council
We have assumed that the update will not require any new surface water system modeling
or analysis. Any modeling needs and/or other more detailed assessments will be
incorporated into the CIP items with the intent to use the local watershed models, if
available at that time, as a starting point.
D.Prepare CSWMP Document and Obtain Approvals
Kimley-Horn will prepare three Draft versions of a stand-alone CSWMP document. Prior
to preparation of Draft 1, we will ask City staff for input and ideas on the current plan
(technical content, format, etc.). Draft 1 will be an internal Staff Review draft, Draft 2 will
be provided to the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission for their review and
Draft 2 will be the Agency Review that will be delivered to the required review and
approval agencies according to the schedule outlined in in Exhibit C. Following the
G5, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 43 of 103
rev 2/02 7
required statutory review process, Kimley-Horn will prepare the final document including
an Executive Summary that will serve as the Comprehensive Plan Chapter for Surface
Water Management.
Plan preparation will include updating the informational sections of the Plan such as the
Introduction Section; Background, History and Physical Environment Section; Surface
Water Resources Section; and the Plan Amendments Section. These updates are largely
administrative in nature including efforts including updating rainfall data to the new
Atlas 14 format and updating water quality trends on local water bodies, for example.
BWSR requirements enacted in 2015 under Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 require that
local plans (i.e., City Plans) in the seven-county metropolitan area be updated and adopted
prior to December 31, 2018. The Rule changes further provide that this update, and future
updates, will be completed essentially once every ten years in alignment with the overall
Comprehensive Plan update schedule.
E.Project Management / Meetings
·Comp Plan Team Meetings/Coordination. Kimley-Horn will coordinate these Plan
updates with efforts currently being performed by HKGI on the overall
Comprehensive Plan Update. Based on discussion with HKGI, we have assumed that
we will need to attend selected meetings with City staff, the City Council and
Commissions, and/or representatives of review agencies. We have estimated our
meeting attendance for this section as follows for our Surface Water Plan staff lead:
o Staff Meeting/Workshop (1)
o City Council and Commissions (1)
·Engineering Staff Meetings. In addition to coordination meetings for the overall
Comprehensive Plan Update, we will need to meet with City engineering staff and
technical review agencies to complete the engineering sections. We have estimated our
meeting attendance for this section as follows for our Surface Water Plan staff lead:
o Engineering Staff Meetings (1)
o Watershed Management Organization Meetings (3 conference calls)
G5, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 44 of 103
rev 2/02 8
EXHIBIT B
ESTIMATED COSTS
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER (IPO) NO. 52
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE (ENGINEERING CHAPTERS)
CITY PROJECT 17-08
Kimley-Horn proposes to perform all services for the project on an hourly (cost plus) basis using
the attached hourly rate schedule. The following is a summary of the estimated cost to complete
the Comprehensive Plan updates.
Task Estimated Fee
1.Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer System Plan Update $ 19,000
2.Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update $ 22,500
3.Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan Update $ 24,000
Subtotal $ 65,500
Reimbursable Expenses $ 3,900
Total $ 69,400
The total estimated not-to-exceed amount to complete the Comprehensive Plan (Engineering
Chapters) update is $69,400, including estimated fees and reimbursable expenses.
G5, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 45 of 103
rev 2/02 9
EXHIBIT C
SCHEDULE
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER (IPO) NO. 52
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE (ENGINEERING CHAPTERS)
CITY PROJECT 17-08
Work shall be completed based upon a schedule agreed upon with the City of Maplewood. A
preliminary schedule for the project is as follows:
Begin Work June 2017
Transportation Plan and Sanitary Sewer Plan
City Review Draft #1 (Staff)October 2017
City Review Draft #2 (Planning Commission)December 2017
Agency Review Draft (MET TR)April 2018
Surface Water Management Plan*
City Staff Provide Current Plan Comments June 26, 2017
Deliver City Review Draft #1 (Staff)July 12, 2017
Deliver City Review Draft #2 (PNRC)Oct. 4, 2017
Agency Review Draft #3 Delivered Dec. 15, 2017
Metropolitan Council (45-day review)
Ramsey County (45-day review)
RWMWD, CRWD, VBWD (60-day review)
Agency Comments Due Feb. 14, 2018
Agency Approvals Feb. – Mar. 2018
City Council Adopts Final Plan April 2018
*Surface Water Plan has a separate review process than the Comprehensive Plan and must be
adopted prior to Comp Plan review by Metropolitan Council.
G5, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 46 of 103
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, Economic Development Coordinator
DuWayne Konewko, Environmental & Economic Development
Department Director
DATE: February 21, 2017
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Proposal to Enter Into Contract with HKGi
for Comprehensive Planning Services
Introduction
Every 10 years, all Twin Cities metro communities are required to update its
comprehensive plan to ensure compatibility with the plans adopted by the Metropolitan
Council. Chapters and areas of focus include land use, housing, sustainability, parks,
natural resources, transportation, historical resources, surface water and sanitary sewer.
To that end, staff is requesting approval of a Planning Services Contract with HKGI in
the amount of, but not-to-exceed, $107,100.
Background
At the November 28, 2016 workshop, staff provided the city council an outline on what is
required to complete the comprehensive plan update.
At the November 28, 2016 regular meeting, the city council approved a grant agreement
with the Metropolitan Council for $32,000 to be used for the comprehensive plan update.
Discussion
Overview
The city’s existing 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted on January 25, 2010. As
required by state law, Maplewood must update its comprehensive plan to meet policies
established by the Metropolitan Council’s Thrive MSP 2040 policy plans. The city
actually began this process when it adopted the Maplewood Parks System Plan in
January of 2015. This parks plan replaced the chapter adopted with the comprehensive
plan in 2010 and will be incorporated in the updated 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
At the onset of the development of the parks plan the city issued a request for proposals
so it could review bids from consultants who would lead the city through the parks
planning process. After this rigorous review process, the city selected HKGi, a leading
Twin Cities planning consulting firm. HKGi led a parks planning process that was
focused on community input in which more than 800 Maplewood residents participated.
HKGi also led a planning process that made sure to involve employees from the city’s
G5, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 47 of 103
various departments and incorporated a task force made up of representatives from
each of the city’s volunteer boards and commission. HKGi was also one of the firms that
worked with the city starting in 2004 assisting with the planning efforts in the Gladstone
neighborhood. A good portion of the work HKGi assisted the city with in developing the
Gladstone Master Plan is what we have seen being implemented over the last few
years.
Staff is looking to continue the successful planning efforts established in the
development of the parks plan and is recommending the city continue its working
relationship with HKGi to complete the remaining areas of the required comprehensive
plan update. HKGi’s work program, which is attached to this report, outlines its
intentions to make citizen involvement and feedback the forefront of all the required
planning processes. Also a Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee will be
established which will again be made up of members from the city’s volunteer boards
and commissions. Staff has made it clear to HKGi we expect citizen involvement to
drive this comprehensive planning process.
Community Engagement
HKGi’s work plan proposes three phases throughout the plan to ensure citizen
involvement is embedded into this plan. The three phases include:
Phase 1 - Inform and Listen
Phase 2 – Consult and Collaborate
Phase 3 – Report, Discuss, and Agree
Each phase is defined and escribed in the attached work plan but the intent is for
engagement to occur over the course of the plan update. HKGi has a proven track
record of conducting community engagement in Maplewood and staff is excited to see
what they can do for the city’s comprehensive plan.
Work Plan
Maplewood is required to submit its updated comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan
Council for review by the end of 2018. Prior to this submittal, the city must allow affected
and adjacent jurisdictions to review and comment on Maplewood’s plan for up to six
months prior to Metropolitan Council submittal. HKGi is proposing a work plan what will
last through the midway point of 2018. This work plan is divided into eight tasks. These
eight tasks are highlighted below and also explained in the attached work program.
Task 1 - Organize the effort
Task 2 - Understand the context
Task 3 - Engagement Phase 1 - understand what is desired
Task 4 - Explore the possibilities
Task 5 - Update the plan elements
Task 6 - Engagement Phase 2 - consult and collaborate
Task 7 - Assemble the final plan and seek approvals (Engagement Phase 3)
Task 8 - Prepare plan for distribution and agency approvals
G5, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 48 of 103
Budget Impact
The city has budgeted $50,000 in 2017 (101-702) and intends to budget an additional
$50,000 in 2018 for comprehensive planning purposes. This is augmented by the
$32,000 grant the city is receiving from the Metropolitan Council.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending that the City Council accept the Comprehensive Planning
Services Contract Proposal with HKGi in the amount of, but not-to-exceed, $107,100
and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with HKGi.
Attachment
1. HKGi’s Proposal for 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
G5, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 49 of 103
QUalifiCations
Comprehensive Plan Elements - HKGi Responsibility
Comprehensive Plan Elements - Integrated from Other Sources
Mark koegler
PrinciPal in charge
rita traPP
Project Manager
city of MaPlewood
city council, planning and Zoning commission, city staff
coMPrehensive Plan
review coMMittee
coMMunity MeMbers
and stakeholders
coMMunity
engageMent
rita trapp
Jess vetrano
natural
resources
housing
rita trapp
Britt palmberg
transPortation
econoMic
coMPetitiveness
Britt palmberg
resiliency
rita trapp
Jesse thornsen
surface water
land use
Jesse thornsen
Britt palmberg
sanitary sewer
Parks, trails &
oPen sPace
rita trapp
Jess vetrano
historical
resources
iMPleMentation
mark koegler
rita trapp
city of MaPlewood
2040 coMPrehensive Plan uPdate
2040 Comprehensive plan Update proposal6
G5, Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 50 of 103
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Chris Swanson, Environmental Specialist
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Approval of the 2017 Spring Clean Up Summary
Introduction
The Spring Clean Up event was held on Saturday, April 22, 2017 at Aldrich Arena. The City
worked with Tennis Sanitation, LLC, as the main contractor for this event. This memorandum
summarizes the attendance and materials collected during the event.
Background
Clean Up Comparisons
Following is a comparison of attendance and materials collected during clean up events since
2013.
Attendance and # of Items Collected
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring
Attendance (# of vehicles)252 550 307 564 580
Garbage /MSW/Construction (Tons)19.14 49.52 28.39 43.57 40.74
Appliances (#) 115 177 60 142 129
Tires (# from yard and event)170 192 90 385 290
Electronic Waste 14,695 lbs 24,002 lbs 9,104 lbs 22,721 lbs 20,457 lbs
Mattresses Recycled (#)65 80 51 159 120
Furniture Collected for Reuse 6,000 lbs 200 lbs 1,000 lbs 6,000 lbs 474 lbs
Carpet Recycled 4,750 lbs 3,410 lbs 2,195 lbs 3,288 lbs 2,361 lbs
Bicycles Collected for Reuse (# of bikes) 850 lbs (29) 1,800 lbs (73) 600 lbs (25) 2,000 (82)1,275 (51)
Small Engines N/A N/A 500 lbs 11,000 lbs 12,000 lbs
Food (Second Harvest Heartland) 76 lbs 0 42 lbs 411 lbs 378 lbs
Donations (Second Harvest Heartland) $30 $0 $0 $298.90 $65
Medicine – unwanted, expired, unused N/A 74.5 lbs 50 lbs 97.5 lbs 10.7 lbs *
Year
*In spring of 2017, a free medicine drop site was opened at City Hall for Ramsey County
residents. This caused a significant decrease in the amount of unused medicine collected at the
spring cleanup event.
G6
Packet Page Number 51 of 103
Materials Collected
Paper Shredding: Residents were able to have their sensitive documents (old bank accounts,
credit card statements, medical records, etc.) shredded for free at the event. The City
contracted with Shred-N-Go for this service. During the event the City collected over 7,474
pounds of material for shredding and recycling. With the recent very public data breaches,
residents expressed their support for this service.
There continues to be an increase in screens collected (222 screens) during the event. This is
directly related to the move by Best Buy to start charging $25 per screen for electronics drop off
last year. This may cause an increase in cost to the city for future cleanup events.
Every year Ramsey County operates a household hazardous waste collection location during
the event. During the Spring Cleanup there were 402 visits by residents with a total of 21,306
lbs of hazardous material collected at the event. That is a significant increase from the 2016
collection amount of 6,979 lbs.
Volunteers and Staff
Thank you to the volunteers who donated their time and resources to the Spring Clean Up event
including Mayor Slawik, and Councilmembers Abrams, Juenemann, and Smith.
Acknowledgement of Maplewood staff who worked during the event include Maplewood Police
Officer Alesia Metry for organizing the medicine collection, the Maplewood Police Reserves for
assisting with layout and traffic control, and the Environment and Economic Development and
Public Works staff that assisted with the event.
2017 Fall Clean Up Campaign and 2018 Spring Clean Up Event
The 2017 Fall Clean Up Campaign will be held throughout the month of October. The City will
partner with Republic Services, the City’s residential trash hauler, to collect bulky items curbside
at a reduced rate.
The 2017 Spring Clean Up event is tentatively scheduled for April 21, 2018 at Aldrich Arena.
Budget Impact
Since 2010 the City has subsidized approximately 60 percent of the disposal cost associated
with the drop-off clean up events (an average of $9,000 per event). The cost for the 2017
Spring Clean Up was $14,155.53, which was funded through the City’s recycling program.
SUMMARY
No action is required on this item.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Spring Cleanup Poster
G6
Packet Page Number 52 of 103
Maplewood Spring Clean Up Saturday,
April 22, 2017
8 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Aldrich Arena, 1850 White Bear Avenue
Items Accepted: Miscellaneous junk, construction debris, bulky metals, tires, appliances, electronics, furniture
(including mattresses), carpet, bicycles, car seats, and other assorted items for free or a small fee (see fee schedule
below). Payment can be made via cash or check.
Household Hazardous Waste: Ramsey County will be collecting household hazardous waste (HHW) like paint,
chemicals, oil, and other household items free of charge at the event. For more information on items
collected and additional HHW hours and drop off sites visit RamseyAtoZ.com.
Unwanted Medicine: Residents can dispose of medicine for free at the event. The Maplewood Police
Department will be in attendance to collect items such as pills, capsules, gel packs, IVs, inhalers, creams, and
other items. Used needles, syringes, or lancets will not be accepted at the event but can be disposed of at the
Ramsey County Sheriff’s year-round drop off site. For a complete list of medicine accepted and information
on the drop off sites visit RamseyAtoZ.com.
Paper Shredding: Protect your identity and credit by shredding private documents. Residents can bring
sensitive documents (old bank accounts, credit card statements, old medical records, etc.) and have the
documents shredded for free. Paper shredding will be from 8 A.M. to noon .
Second Harvest Heartland Food Drive: Residents are encouraged to make a nonperishable food or cash
donation at the entry gate to the event. These donations support Second Harvest Heartland, a local food shelf
(www.2harvest.org).
Items Not Accepted: Leaves, branches, and other yard waste will not be accepted at the event. Please contact
Republic Services, the City’s contracted trash and yard waste hauler, at 651.455.8634 to set up yard waste service
or dispose yard waste at one of Ramsey County’s yard waste sites (RamseyAtoZ.com).
Type of Load and Fee
Vehicle Loads
o Pick-Up Truck $25.00
o 4’ x 8’ Trailer $30.00
o Car $15.00
o Mini Van $20.00
Bulky Items*
o Appliances**$20.00
o Electronics (w/screen) $15.00
o Car Tires $5.00
o Furniture Which $10.00
Cannot Be Reused
(couches, mattresses, chairs)
* Bulky item charge in addition to load charge.
** Appliances with ammonia subject to increased
charge.
Additional Materials Collected at No Charge
Furniture Which Can Be Reused (lightly used)
Disabled Americans Veterans– (www.davmn.org)
Bicycles (any condition) - Re-Cycle (www.re-
cycle.com)
Carpet (dry carpet and foam padding, maximum 6-
foot wide roll) – Bro-Tex
(www.brotex.com/carpetrecycling)
Small Engines (lawn mower, snow blower, etc., any
condition) – Small Engine Doctors
Household Hazardous Waste – Ramsey County
(RamseyAtoZ.com)
Information:
Chris Swanson, Environmental Specialist at 651.249.2305 or chris.swanson@maplewoodmn.gov
Maplewood Spring Clean Up Webpage, www.maplewoodmn.gov/cleanups
G6, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 53 of 103
G7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Andrea Sindt, City Clerk
Deb Schmidt, Deputy City Clerk
DATE: June 16, 2017
SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution for a Lawful Gambling Premises Permit for Merrick Inc. to
Conduct Gambling Activities at Gulden’s, 2999 Maplewood Drive
Introduction
On June 7, 2017, Wendy Busch submitted an application requesting approval of a premises
permit for Merrick, Inc. to conduct lawful gambling at Gulden’s Restaurant & Bar, 2999
Maplewood Drive in Maplewood.
Background
Merrick, Inc. is a non-profit organization dedicated to proving day treatment, habilitation and
work opportunities for adults with developmental disabilities. The organization has been in
existence 1973.
Minnesota Statute §349.213 subd.2 requires that premises permits, issued by the Gambling
Control Board, may not be issued unless approval by resolution is received from the City
Council of the city in which the premises is located.
Budget Impact
None
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council approve the resolution for a lawful gambling premises permit for
Merrick, Inc. to conduct gambling activities at the Gulden’s Restaurant & Bar, 2999 Maplewood
Drive, Maplewood.
Attachments
1. Resolution for a Lawful Gambling Premises Permit
Packet Page Number 54 of 103
G7 Attachment 1
RESOLUTION ___
LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISES PERMIT FOR
MERRICK, INC. AT GULDEN’S RESTAURANT & BAR, 2999 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the
premises permit for lawful gambling is approved for Merrick, Inc.to conduct gambling activities at
Gulden’s Restaurant & Bar, 2999 Maplewood Drive, Maplewood, MN.
FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness
of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213.
FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control
Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in
compliance with Minnesota Statute §349.213.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of
Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval.
Packet Page Number 55 of 103
G8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Andrea Sindt, City Clerk
Deb Schmidt, Deputy City Clerk
DATE: June 16, 2017
SUBJECT: Approval of a Temporary Lawful Gambling - Local Permit for Carver Elementary
PTO at 2680 Upper Afton Road
Introduction
An application for a temporary Lawful Gambling – Local permit has been submitted by Clara
Rusch on behalf of Carver Elementary PTO to allow a raffle to be conducted. The permit will be
used at Carver Elementary School, 2680 Upper Afton Road, Maplewood on October 13, 2017
from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Proceeds will be used to enhance educational experience of
students, field trips, technology in class, scholarships, etc.
Budget Impact
None
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the temporary Lawful Gambling – Local permit for
Carver Elementary PTO on October 13, 2017 to be used at Carver Elementary School, 2680
Upper Afton Road, Maplewood.
Attachment
None
Packet Page Number 56 of 103
G9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Andrea Sindt, City Clerk
Deb Schmidt, Deputy City Clerk
DATE: June 20, 2017
SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution to Conduct Off-Site Gambling for Merrick Inc. at Light It
Up Maplewood–July 4th Event, 1663 County Road C
Introduction
An application has been submitted by Wendy Busch on behalf of Merrick, Inc. requesting city
approval to conduct off-site gambling within city limits during the Light It Up–July 4th Event on
Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at Hazelwood Park, 1663 County Road C.
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 Council approve the Resolution for City Approval to Conduct Off-Site
Gambling Within City Limits for Merrick, Inc. on Tuesday, July 4, 2017 during the Light It Up
Maplewood–July 4th Event at Hazelwood Park, 1663 County Road C.
Attachments
1. Resolution for City Approval to Conduct Off-Site Gambling Within City Limits for Merrick, Inc.
Packet Page Number 57 of 103
G9, Attachment 1
Resolution
City Approval to Conduct Off-Site Gambling Within City Limits
Merrick, Inc.
WHEREAS, Merrick, Inc. has submitted an Application to Conduct Off-Site Gambling at
the Light It Up Maplewood–July 4th Event, 1663 County Road C in Maplewood, MN 55109; and
WHEREAS, the off-site gambling will take place during the Light It Up Maplewood–July
4th Event on Tuesday, July 4, 2017.
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the
Application to Conduct Off-Site Gambling is approved for Merrick, Inc. during the date 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 58 of 103
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Michael Thompson, Director of Public Works
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Rush Line Corridor, Project 15-06
a. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
b. Consider Approval of Resolution of Support for the Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA)
Introduction
The council will hold a public hearing to gather additional citizen input and then consider a Resolution of
Support for the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Rush Line Corridor, Project 15-06. This vote
requires a simple majority.
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:
H1
Packet Page Number 59 of 103
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 this past Monday, June 19, 2017, the City hosted an informal grill out at the
Maplewood Fire Station located at 1955 Clarence Street from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. This was an
additional opportunity to listen to residents and answer questions.
Budget Impact
There is no budget impact with this action.
Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council:
a. Hold the Public Hearing
b. Approve the Resolution of Support for the Locally Preferred Alternative
Attachments
1. Resolution of Support
2. Route Map
3. Summary and Stats
4. Engagement Summary
5. Economic and Property Value Research
6. Tier 2 Technical Evaluation Summary
H1
Packet Page Number 60 of 103
Page 1 of 3
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
H1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 61 of 103
Page 2 of 3
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.
H1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 62 of 103
Page 3 of 3
LPA Figure
H1, Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 63 of 103
H1, Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 64 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 65 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 66 of 103
Draft LPA: Public Engagement Highlights
January 5, 2017 – May 4, 2017
As of April 28, 2017
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
H1, Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 67 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 68 of 103
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.
H1, Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 69 of 103
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.
H1, Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 70 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 71 of 103
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:
•Cla ssifying 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 val ue of a
sin gle-family hom e in a
sta tion are a has inc reased
more tha n $5,000,and the
ave rage val ue of a mul ti-
family hom e in a sta tion
are a has inc reased mor e
than$15,500.”
—Ed Goetz
H1, Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 72 of 103
•Defining the timeframe. Re searchers
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
H1, Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 73 of 103
1TIER 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
TIER 2 ANALYSIS
SUMMARY REPORT
SPRING 2017
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 74 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 75 of 103
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.
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 76 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 77 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 78 of 103
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
+
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 79 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 80 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 81 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 82 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 83 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 84 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 85 of 103
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:
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 86 of 103
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.
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 87 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 88 of 103
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.
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 89 of 103
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.
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 90 of 103
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.
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 91 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 92 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 93 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 94 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 95 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 96 of 103
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
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 97 of 103
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).
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 98 of 103
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.
H1, Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 99 of 103
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page Number 100 of 103
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Ron Batty, City Attorney
George Fairbanks, Communications Manager
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Consider Community Conversations Format at City Council Meetings
Introduction/Background
As part of our Coordinated Communications Strategic Objective, staff reviewed the purpose and
format of the Visitor Presentation portion of the City Council meetings. This was discussed with
the City Council at the March 13th meeting. The purpose of Visitor Presentation portion of the
meeting is to allow residents to bring forth issues or concerns to the Council for further action or
review. Staff reviewed several ideas for the restructuring of the visitor presentation to allow for
more conversation and open dialog within established guidelines.
Several options were outlined for Council consideration. They are as listed below.
Option 1
• The first scenario would have public comments moved to the top of the meeting with a
15-minute cap, broken into 3-minute allotments. This will allow the Mayor to move the
meeting forward after the 15 minutes so the Council can move to regular city council
business and it also may attract other residents to participate because they won’t have
to wait through the entire meeting to participate in a “community conversation”.
• In this scenario, Councilmembers would decide based on the comments made by the
speaker, to respond at some point during the meeting, such as Council presentations,
forward to staff to respond at a later date, ask to have placed on an upcoming agenda
for consideration or simply thank the speaker for their comments. There may also be
comments made that require no response from the Council.
• Within this proposal we would also recommend not allowing people to sign-up others for
a speaking spot. Along with this, preference would be given to people who haven’t
spoken previously to go first.
• Council could also discuss whether to have the cameras/broadcast on or off for this
portion of the meeting.
Option 2
• Eliminate a public component completely. There is no legal requirement to hold a public
comment session during meetings.
• If the Council was to choose this option, we could create several new avenues for public
comments. We already have Twitter and Facebook, which both allow for unfettered
public comment whenever a resident has something to express. We could also create a
new email alias, along the lines of: comments@maplewoodmn.gov, and even a
voicemail box where residents could register complaints, suggestions, and insight.
I1
Packet Page Number 101 of 103
• Even before the potential addition of a voicemail box and new email address, there are
currently several ways for residents to reach Councilmembers and City staff.
• With this option, there could be an opportunity during the meeting (or every other) for
staff or council members to respond to questions or comments received via the web or
otherwise. This could be added as an agenda item. Negative and positive comments
would be reported.
Option 3
• Take a break from having Visitor Presentation for a set amount of time. This trial period
would allow the Council more time to formulate a permanent new plan.
• This would also be the ideal time for the Council to get a sense of how important or
meaningful the public comment item is at a meeting. If several meetings occurred
without a resident requesting to address the Council, it may be appropriate to support
Option 2.
Option 4
• Schedule public comments only at work sessions. This option would require strict time
limits as workshops have a restricted timeframe in which to conduct other city business.
It would likely require that all workshops start at 5 pm and that has been somewhat
difficult for those on Council with full time jobs to arrive by 5 pm.
Option 5
• The Council could create an opportunity for Community Conversations with the public
once per month or once per quarter. These could happen at the City Council meeting,
the workshop or another venue or local business.
Option 6
• The Council could also choose to hold a special meeting once or twice per year that
could essentially be an open house format where residents could come to chat directly
with Council. This could be done in the Council Chamber or another space of the
Council’s choice.
Council Action on March 13th
The Council adopted Option 3- take a break from having Visitor Presentation for 3 months.
It is now time to review the Visitor Presentation item on the Council agenda and assess whether
to bring it back or pursue other resident engagement strategies.
Updated options
Option 1
• Stay with the status quo; the discontinuation of Visitor Presentation. The Council has
had time to evaluate the role of Visitor Presentation and how it has or has not played out
in communications with their constituents. Staff has not received any comments except
from the group who were regular users of this forum. Council should share their
ref lections on this and report as to the number of residents they heard from about this
issue. It would seem that lack of reaction to the change may indicate that the city has
effectively provided opportunities for residents to communicate with Council.
I1
Packet Page Number 102 of 103
Option 2
• Bring Visitor comments back. They could be moved to the front of the meeting for 15
minutes or return to placing them at the end of the agenda where they previously
resided.
Option 3
• Have visitor presentation at 6:30, once a month for informal discussions in the gallery.
This would allow for one on one chats with the Council.
• Another consideration would be to reserve 15 minutes prior to every Council meeting for
Council members to meet and greet the residents or others who are coming to do
business or address the Council at the regular meeting. This is happening currently and
staff has noticed a positive impact for the council and the attendees. It is welcoming and
shows our interest in the business ahead.
Option 4
• Create an open house format monthly or quarterly where Council would host a meet and
greet at a local restaurant or coffee shop. Residents could attend for refreshments and
have informal conversations with members of the Council. This would also be a way to
promote our local business community.
Option 5
• Continue to promote our numerous means of reaching Council members and city staff:
website, social media, email and phone.
• Expand this with our new video technology whereby the Council and staff will have an
opportunity to participate in short videos that will go out on our TV channel and other
platforms.
Budget Impact
None
Recommendation
This information is for Council consideration to enhance community engagement and
conversation with our residents. Any option or variation of the proposal could be adopted by the
City Council as a Council Policy Amendment.
Attachments
None.
I1
Packet Page Number 103 of 103