HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 12-08 City Council Meeting Packet
REVISED
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
6:30 P.M. Monday, December 8, 2008
City Hall, Council Chambers
Meeting No. 34-08
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1.Acknowledgementof Maplewood Residents Serving the Country.
C. ROLL CALL
Mayor?s Address on Protocol:
?Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all discussions civil
as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing or to address the
City Council, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and procedures and Rules of Civility,
which are located near the entrance. When you address the council, please state your name and
address clearly for the record. All comments/questions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. I
then will direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond to comments.?
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of November 24, 2008, City Council Meeting Minutes
F. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS ? PART I
(Note: Visitor Presentations shall not extend past 7:00 p.m.; if time is not available to complete this
item; all presenters will be instructed to remain at the meeting until this item is re-opened following
Award of Bids, or return to the next Regular Meeting of the Council.)
G. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
(Note: Items G-H shall not extend past 7:00 p.m.; if time is not available to complete these items,
they shall be extended by Council motion to the end of the meeting following Visitor Presentation ?
Part II.)
H. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
I. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
J. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 7:00 p.m. Truth in Taxation Hearing on 2009 Budget
a. Resolution Certifying Taxes Payable in 2009
b. Resolution Adopting 2009 Budget
K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Search Process for City Manager
a. Consider Calling Special Meeting for December 15, 2008, for the Purpose of
Selecting Final Candidates.
b. Consider Resolution Calling for Closure of Advisory Panel Meetings
2. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update. Action Requested:
a. Approval of Direction of the ?Stop Gap? Ordinance as Summarized by Staff.
b. Establish Density Ranges for Residential Land Use Categories.
c. Approval To Distribute Draft Comprehensive Plan to Adjacent and Affected
Jurisdictions.
L. NEW BUSINESS
1. Review and Consider Approval for Extension of City Attorney Contracts
a. Alan Kantrud for Prosecution and General Services
b. Chuck Bethel for Labor Attorney
2. Consider Canceling Regular Meeting Scheduled for December 22, 2008.
3. Consider Adoption of the 2009 Building Inspections and Community Development Fee
Schedules.
4. Richie Place Subdivision Proposal on LaBore Road. Action Requested:
a. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment to Change from OS (Open Space) to R1
(Single Family Residential) ? Four Fifths Vote Required
b. Approval of a Lot Division ? Simple Majority Vote Required.
5. Consider Approval of MCC Catering Contracts
6. Consider Establishing Citizen?s Task Force in 2009 for Budget and Tax Levy Input
(Councilmember Hjelle)
7. Approval of Claims
M. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of an Intoxicating Liquor License ? Melony Morris, Change in Manager for
Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar ? 3085 White Bear Avenue.
2. Consideration of Currency Exchange License Renewal ? Cashway Checking ? 2025 White
Bear Avenue.
3. Results from the Fall Clean Up ? (No Council Action Required).
4. CarMax/Mogren Addition Improvements, City Project 06-17, Consider Approval of
Resolution Reducing Retainage on Existing Construction Contract and Adjusting the
Budget to Reflect Maplewood Toyota Contribution.
5. Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 07-25, Consider Approval of Resolution
Reducing Retainage on Existing Construction Contract.
6. Consider Approval of Purchase of Single Axle Plow Truck.
7. Maplewood Community Center Improvements
a. Consider Contract for Painting of Conference Rooms and Hall
b. Consider Contract for Replacing Exterior Door
8. Consider Approval of Retirement Health Savings Plan for Non-Union Employees
N. AWARD OF BIDS
1. Award of Bid for Rubbish Hauling Contract for City Facilities
O.VISITORPRESENTATION ? PART II
(NOTE:This is a continuation of VISITOR PRESENTATIONS from earlier in the meetingand is intended to make time
available if the item is not completed by7:00p.m. -Not intended for new visitor presentation items.)
P. ADJOURNMENT
Sign languageinterpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for publichearings upon request. The request for this must
be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the CityClerk?s Office at 651.249.2001 to make arrangements. Assisted
Listening Devices are also available. Please checkwith the City Clerk for availability.
RULES OF CIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY
Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings ? elected officials,
staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simplerules, everyone?s opinions can be heard and understood in a
reasonablemanner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings,it is understood that everyone will follow
these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful
language.
AGENDA ITEM E1
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
6:30 p.m., Monday, November 24, 2008
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 33-08
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Longrie.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Diana Longrie, Mayor Present
Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
John Nephew, Councilmember Present
Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Staff and councilmembers requested that the following items be added to the agenda:
K1. Amended Report from Mr. Kantrud Mr. Ahl ? Mr. Ahl
L7. Amended Report for Ambulance Rates from Mr. Mittet ? Mr. Ahl
H1. LMC Regional Meeting ? Councilmember Nephew
H2. Wood Smoke ? Councilmember Juenemann
H3. Municipal Legislative Commission Meeting ? Mayor Longrie
H4. Update on Roselawn Traffic Study ? Mayor Longrie
H5. Chuck Wiger Update ? Mayor Longrie
H6. National League Of Conference Update ? Mayor Longrie
H7. City Manager Search Process Update ? Mayor Longrie
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All
The motion passed.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the November 10, 2008 Special Council Meeting
Minutes as submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? Councilmembers Hjelle,
Juenemann & Rossbach
Abstentions
?
Mayor Longrie,
Councilmember Nephew
The motion passed.
November 24, 2008 1
Packet Page Number
Page 4 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
Mayor Longrie requested that the bolding be removed on page 2 in the paragraph from
Councilmember Juenemann to be consistent with the rest of the minutes.
Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the November 10, 2008, City Council Meeting Minutes
as amended.
Seconded by Mayor Longrie. Ayes ? Councilmembers Hjelle,
Nephew & Rossbach
Abstentions
?
Mayor Longrie,
Councilmember Juenemann
The motion passed.
F. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS ? PART I
1. Elizabeth Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street North, Maplewood, addressed the council. Ms.
Sletten had inquired if Mayor Longrie had received the legal documents regarding the
Markham Retaining Pond dating back to the 1970?s that Mayor Longrie had requested.
Ms. Sletten said she had received the documents and was willing to share the information
with Mayor Longrie that she had received. Ms. Sletten read part of the document aloud.
2. Bob Zick, 2515 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood addressed the council. Mr. Zick spoke of
four issues at hand. The City Manager Hiring Process, Alternative Renewable Energy
Sources, Joint Power Agreement and Salvaged Commercial Businesses in Maplewood.
3. Yin Thong, Owner of Bambu Restaurant, 1715 Beam Avenue, Maplewood addressed the
council. She spoke regarding the lack of signage on the strip mall where her restaurant is
located at 1715 Beam Avenue. There are a limited number of signs that can be posted
due to the city sign ordinance. She said staff at the city told her that she had to apply for a
sign variance which is expensive. Ms. Thong asked if the council could waive the fee to
apply for the sign variance being that she is a small business owner in Maplewood and
because of economic times. It makes it very difficult for customers to see her business on
Beam Avenue in the strip mall and if she had a better sign posted on the street it would
help draw customers to her business easier.
4. Nancy Lazaryan, 2516 Linwood Avenue, Maplewood addressed the council. Ms. Lazaryan
filed an informal briefing regarding Chad Lemons and the property at Applewood Park.
Ms. Lazaryan gave her copy to Mayor Longrie and the council so they would understand
what she was referring to.
5. Peter Fischer, 2443 Standridge Avenue, Maplewood addressed the council. He spoke
regarding comments that were made in the Mayor?s article in the Maplewood News in
September regarding the Parks meeting.
6. David Schilling, 1955 Greenbrier Street, Maplewood addressed the council. He spoke
regarding the cost of running a city and the budget. He discussed tax statement and the
increased taxes for Ramsey County, the City of Maplewood and problems with the
economy.
November 24, 2008 2
Packet Page Number
Page 5 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
(Due to time constraints items G. Administrative Presentations and item H. Council Presentations
were moved to the end of the council meeting.)
G. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1. 2009 Budget ? Information Requested by City Council on Budget Reduction Options
H. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1. LMC Regional Meeting ? Councilmember Nephew
2. Wood Smoke ? Councilmember Juenemann
3. MLC Meeting ? Mayor Longrie
4. Update on Roselawn Traffic Study ? Mayor Longrie
5. Chuck Wiger Update ? Mayor Longrie
6. NLOC Conference Update ? Mayor Longrie
7. City Manager Search Process ? Mayor Longrie
I. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
J. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Consideration of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License ? Mai Lee Yang, New
License and Manager for Stargate Night Club.
a. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud addressed and answered questions of the council as
well as gave the report.
b. Maplewood Police Chief, Dave Thomalla answered questions of the council.
c. City Clerk, Director Citizen Services, Karen Guilfoile addressed and answered
questions of the council.
i. Mai Lee Yang, Applicant, residing in Lakeland, addressed and answered
questions of the council.
ii. Joseph Dudley, Attorney St. Paul, addressed and answered questions of
the council.
iii. Bill Sheehan, General Counsel representing the property owner of the strip
mall at 1700 Rice Street addressed and answered questions of the council.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Mai Lee
and the plan that was
Yang for the Stargate Night Club, 1700 Rice Street, Maplewood
discussed at the council meeting with the applicant and her lawyer.Furthermore directing
staff to meet with the applicant on a monthly basis and staff shall report back with an
administrative presentation to the council at 60 days from the purchase date and at 6
months regarding the transition.
Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? Mayor Longrie,
Councilmember Hjelle,
Juenemann & Nephew
Nay
? Councilmember Rossbach
November 24, 2008 3
Packet Page Number
Page 6 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
The motion passed.
moved to direct staff to look into revising the Liquor License
Councilmember Juenemann
ordinance to include language regarding three strikes and a possible revocation of the
license.
Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes - All
The motion passed.
L. NEW BUSINESS
1. Utility Easement Vacation by Lisa and Todd Thoms, 760 Sterling Street (4/5ths Vote
Required to Approve).
a. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the presentation and answered questions of
the council.
b. Tushar Desai, Planning Commissioner addressed the council and gave the
planning commission report.
Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the Utility Easement Vacation by Lisa and Todd
Thoms, 760 Sterling Street.
EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION 08-11-169
WHEREAS, Mr. and Ms. Thoms, of 760 Sterling Street, applied for the vacation of a
drainage and utility easement on their property. This easement is described as follows:
TH
The north 5 feet of Lot 7, Block 1 AMBER HILLS 5 ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The
city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property
owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present
written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations from
the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this request.
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2008, the city council reviewed this request after
considering the recommendations of staff and the planning commission.
WHEREAS, after the city passed this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to
the adjoining property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council passed the above-described vacation
because:
1. The easement would serve no public purpose after the applicants purchase 20 feet of property
from the neighbor to the north (2480 Linwood Avenue).
2. The city has administratively approved the lot division for the owner of 2480 Linwood Avenue to
sell their southerly 20 feet of property to the applicants.
This vacation is conditioned upon the following:
November 24, 2008 4
Packet Page Number
Page 7 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
1. The city not recording the resolution to vacate the easement until the owner of the neighboring
property to the north, 2480 Linwood Avenue has taken the new deeds for their lot split to Ramsey
County for recording.
2. The applicants dedicating a new five-foot-wide drainage and utility easement along the north five
feet of their future lot line. This has also been required as part of the lot division approval for
2480 Linwood Avenue.
The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution on November 24, 2008.
Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All
The motion passed.
2. T-Mobile Cell Phone Tower Proposal, 2220 Edgerton Street, Conditional Use Permit.
a. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the
council.
b. Tusar Desai, Planning Commissioner addressed and the council and gave the
planning commission report.
Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the conditional use permit revision for the proposed 75-
foot tall telecommunications monopole and ground equipment. Approval of the conditional use
permit revision is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following
conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out):
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach.
Councilmember Hjelle withdrew his motion because the applicant had not had an opportunity to
address the council yet.
Mayor Longrie asked the applicant to address the council.
th
Paul Harrington, T-Mobile, 8000 West 78 Street, Suite 400, Minneapolis, addressed and
answered questions of the council.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the conditional use permit revision resolution for the
proposed 75-foot tall telecommunications monopole and ground equipment. Approval of the
conditional use permit revision resolution is based on the findings required by ordinance and
subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out):
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION 08-11-170
WHEREAS, Paul Harrington of T-Mobile applied for a conditional use permit revision to install
a 75-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2220 Edgerton Street. The legal description is:
EX S 604 13/100 FT THE W 429 FT OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 (SUBJ TO HWY AND ST) IN SEC 8
TN 29 RN 22
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On November 6, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published
a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning
November 24, 2008 5
Packet Page Number
Page 8 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements.
The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning
commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit.
2. On November 24, 2008, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit
revision. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and
city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council passed the above-described
conditional use permit revision, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity
with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation
that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person
or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic
congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and
fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Revision is subject to the following conditions: (additions are underlined and deletions are
crossed out):
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
developmentPlanning staff may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or
the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. This conditional use permit is conditioned upon U.S. WestT-Mobile allowing the co-location of
other provider?s telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease
conditions.
The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution on November 24, 2008.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes ? All
November 24, 2008 6
Packet Page Number
Page 9 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
The motion passed.
Councilmember Nephew moved approval of the site, landscaping and design plans dated March
31, 2008, for a 75-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and ground equipment on the north
side of Trinity Baptist Church at 2220 Edgerton Street. Recommendation is based on the findings
required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following:
1. Applicant shall provide additional screening to the north and east of the monopole and
ground equipment subject to staff approval.
2. Repeating the review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project.
3. All work shall follow the approved plans. Community Development staff may approve
minor changes.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes ? All
The motion passed.
3. White Bear Avenue Improvements, City Project 08-13.
a. Consider Resolution Accepting Feasibility Study and Ordering Preparation of
Plans and Specifications and Calling for Public Hearing
b. Consider Approval of Cost-Share Agreement with Ramsey County
i. Acting Public Works Director, Michael Thompson addressed and answered
questions of the council as well as gave the report.
ii. Acting City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl addressed and
answered questions of the council.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the resolution accepting the report, authorizing the
preparation of plans and specifications, and calling for a public hearing for 7:00 p.m. on Monday,
th
December 15, and also approve the cost-share agreement with Ramsey County.
RESOLUTION 08-11-171
ACCEPTING REPORT, AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Agreement PW 2008-16
COST SHARING AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE
RECONSTRUCTION WHITE BEAR AVENUE (RAMSEY C.S.A.H. 65) FROM COUNTY ROAD D
TO RADATZ AVENUE S.P. 62-665-45 and S.P. 138-020-31
This Agreement is between Ramsey County (?County") and the City of Maplewood (?City?).
WHEREAS, the City, in cooperation with the County, desires to design and reconstruct
White Bear Avenue from County Road D to Radatz Avenue (?Project?); and
WHEREAS, this road segment is located within the City of Maplewood; and
WHEREAS, Ramsey County has jurisdiction over White Bear Avenue (Ramsey C.S.A.H.
65) in the City of Maplewood; and
November 24, 2008 7
Packet Page Number
Page 10 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
WHEREAS, the City and County have determined that a cooperative effort is desirable for
the public hearing and feasibility study and the professional final design services for the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the Project includes, in addition to other things, concrete paving, concrete
curb and gutter, storm sewer, concrete sidewalk construction, traffic signal systems, soil borings,
watermain, and utility adjustments; and
WHEREAS, CSAH funding has been identified for a public hearing and feasibility study
and the professional final design services for the Project, to the extent the County is responsible
for the cost of these services; and
WHEREAS, the City has obtained a proposal from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
(?Consultant?) for conducting a Public Hearing and preparation of a feasibility study for the Project
in an amount not to exceed $29,700.00; and
WHEREAS, the City has obtained a proposal from the Consultant for professional final
design services for the Project in an amount not to exceed $760,015.00; and
WHEREAS, Project management and construction costs for the Project will be shared by
the County and the City as determined in a cost share agreement to be executed when final
design of the Project is completed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED:
1. The Whereas recitals set forth in this Agreement are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if set
out in full.
2. The City and the Consultant will conduct a public hearing and feasibility study and will prepare the
final design which will include plans, specifications, and cost estimates for the Project.
3. The County shall take bids, award the contract for construction, and perform the construction
administration and inspection.
4. The County shall acquire all rights of way and easements required for the construction of the Project.
The County shall provide all compensation to property owners for acquired rights of way and
easements. In the event the City requests work not within the original plans, the City will be
responsible for costs for any additional rights of way required.
5. All County road rights of way and temporary easements will be in the name of the County, and
parking and other regulations will be controlled by the County. Any rights of way which cannot be
negotiated will be acquired through eminent domain proceedings by the County.
6. The City will compensate the Consultant for services related to the public hearing and feasibility
study in an amount not to exceed $29,700.00. The County will be responsible for 25% of the cost of
this phase of the Project and the City will be responsible for 75%. The County?s share is estimated to
be $7,425.00 and will be paid upon submission by the City of a properly documented invoice.
7. The City will compensate the Consultant for final design services in an amount not to exceed
$760,015.00. The County will reimburse the City for all payments made for these services upon
submission by the City of a properly documented invoice. Upon execution of a construction cost
sharing agreement the City and other entities participating in the Project will reimburse the County for
their share of these final design services, which shares will be based upon the low bid.
November 24, 2008 8
Packet Page Number
Page 11 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
8. The City and County shall indemnify, defend and hold each other harmless against any and all
liability, losses, costs, damages, expenses, claims, or actions, including attorney?s fees, which the
indemnified party, its officials, agents, or employees may hereafter sustain, incur, or be required to
pay, arising out of or by reason of any act or omission of the indemnifying party, its officials, agents or
employees, in the execution, performance, or failure to adequately perform the indemnifying party?s
obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver by the
County or the City of any statutory or common law immunities, limits, or exceptions on liability.
9. Notices. Whenever it shall be required or permitted by this Agreement that notice or demand be
given or served by either party to or on the other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered
personally or mailed by United States mail to the addresses hereinafter set forth by certified mail.
Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in
the mail in accordance with the above. The addresses of the parties hereto for such mail purposes
are as follows, until written notice of such address has been given:
As to the City: City Manager
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
As to the County: Public Works Director
Ramsey County Public Works Facility
1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive
Arden Hills, MN 55112
10. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until December 31, 2011.
RAMSEY COUNTY
By________________________________
Chair
Board of County Commissioners
Attest:_____________________________
Chief Clerk-County Board
Date_____________________________
Approved as to Form:
_________________________________
Assistant County Attorney
_________________________________
Recommended for Approval:
__________________________________
Kenneth G. Haider, P.E.
Public Works Director and County Engineer
November 24, 2008 9
Packet Page Number
Page 12 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes ? Councilmembers Hjelle,
Juenemann, Nephew
& Rossbach
Nay
? Mayor Longrie
The motion passed.
Mayor Longrie said she voted nay because she understands why the extra infiltration at the mall
is needed it still concerns her that this is setting a foundation for a policy for all commercial
properties throughout Maplewood. Without having a full discussion regarding that Mayor Longrie
said she didn?t feel comfortable in supporting this policy.
The Council requested a five-minute recess.
The Council reconvened at 9:20 p.m.
4. Discussion of Ordinance for Protection of City Open Space Properties
a. Councilmember Nephew gave the report.
b. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud addressed and answered questions of the council.
c. Acting City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl answered questions of the
council.
There was no action needed for this item.
5. Consider Approval of Resolution for Adoption of Citizen Services Rates for 2009.
a. Finance Director, Bob Mittet addressed and answered questions of the council as
well as gave the report.
b. City Clerk, Director Citizen Services, addressed and answered questions of the
council.
c. Maplewood Fire Chief, Steve Lukin addressed and answered questions of the
council.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the resolution approving the schedule of current and
proposed license, permit and registration charges for 2007-2009 setting the rates for 2009.
RESOLUTION 08-11-172
ADOPTION OF THE 2009 CITIZEN SERVICES RATES
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has established citizen services rates, and
WHEREAS, city staff has reviewed the citizen services rates.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that:
1. The updated citizen services rates shall become effective beginning January 1, 2009.
2. The updated citizen services rates are approved for all related citizen services
charges received on or after January 1, 2009.
November 24, 2008 10
Packet Page Number
Page 13 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
3. The updated citizen services rates shall become effective beginning January 1, 2009.
4. The rates shown will be reviewed by staff on an annual basis with recommendations
for revisions brought to the city council for consideration.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes ? All
The motion passed.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Business Registration Fee of $40 for 2008-2009.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes ? Councilmembers Hjelle,
Juenemann, Nephew
& Rossbach
Nay
? Mayor Longrie
The motion passed.
6. Adopt 2009 Assessment Rates, Public Works Permit Fees and Park Availability
Charges.
a. Acting Public Works Director, Michael Thompson addressed and answered
questions of the council as well as gave the report.
Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the resolution for Adoption of the 2009 Assessment
Rates, Public Works Permit Fees, and Park Availability Charges.
RESOLUTION 08-11-173
ADOPTION OF THE 2009 ASSESSMENT RATES, PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT FEES,
AND PARK AVAILABILITY CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has established assessment rates, permit fees, and
park availability charges, and
WHEREAS, city staff has reviewed the assessment rates, permit fees, and park
availability charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that:
1. The updated assessment and improvement rates shall become effective beginning January 1,
2009.
2. The updated public works fees are approved for all related permit applications received on or
after January 1, 2009.
3. The updated park availability charge shall become effective beginning January 1,2009.
4. The rates shown will be reviewed by staff on an annual basis with recommendations for
revision brought to the city council for consideration.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes ? All
November 24, 2008 11
Packet Page Number
Page 14 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
The motion passed.
7. Consider Approval of Resolution for Adoption of Ambulance Rates for 2009.
a. Finance Director, Bob Mittet addressed and answered questions of the council as
well as gave the report.
b. Acting City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl answered questions of the
council.
Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the resolution setting Ambulance rates for 2009 at
the present, 2008 rates.
RESOLUTION 08-11-174
ADOPTION OF THE 2009 AMBULANCE RATES
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has established ambulance rates, and
WHEREAS, city staff has reviewed the ambulance rates.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that:
1. The updated ambulance rates shall become effective beginning January 1, 2009.
2. The updated ambulance rates are approved for all related ambulance runs
received on or after January 1, 2009.
3. The updated ambulance rates shall become effective beginning January 1, 2009.
4. The rates shown will be reviewed by staff on an annual basis with
recommendations for revisions brought to the city council for consideration.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes ? Councilmembers Hjelle,
Juenemann, Nephew
& Rossbach
Nay
? Mayor Longrie
The motion passed.
8. Consider Approval of Resolution for Adoption of Electric Franchise Tax Rates for
2009.
a. Finance Director, Bob Mittet gave the report.
Mayor Longrie moved to approve the resolution Authorizing Continuation of the existing Electric
Franchise Fee for 2009.
RESOLUTION 08-11-175
ADOPTION OF THE 2009 ELECTRIC FRANCHISE TAX RATES
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has established electric franchise tax rates, and
WHEREAS, city staff has reviewed the electric franchise tax rates.
November 24, 2008 12
Packet Page Number
Page 15 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that:
1. The updated electric franchise tax rates shall become effective beginning January 1,
2009.
2. The updated electric franchise tax rates are approved for all related services
received on or after January 1, 2009.
3. The updated electric franchise tax rates shall become effective beginning January 1,
2009.
4. The rates shown will be reviewed by staff on an annual basis with recommendations
for revisions brought to the city council for consideration.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes ? All
The motion passed.
9. Consider Approval of Resolution for Adoption of Environmental Utility Fund (EUF)
Rates for 2009.
a. Finance Director, Bob Mittet addressed and answered questions of the council as
well as gave the report.
b. Acting City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl answered questions of the
council.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution Adopting a 7% increase in rates for
the Environmental Utility Fund (EUF).
RESOLUTION 08-11-176
ADOPTION OF THE 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND RATES
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has established Environmental Utility Fund rates, and
WHEREAS, city staff has reviewed the Environmental Utility Fund rates.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that:
1. The updated Environmental Utility Fund rates shall become effective beginning
January 1, 2009.
2. The updated Environmental Utility Fund rates are approved for all related charges
received on or after January 1, 2009.
3. The updated Environmental Utility Fund rates shall become effective beginning
January 1, 2009.
4. The rates shown will be reviewed by staff on an annual basis with
recommendations for revisions brought to the city council for consideration.
November 24, 2008 13
Packet Page Number
Page 16 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes ? Councilmembers Juenemann,
Nephew & Rossbach
Nays
? Mayor Longrie
& Councilmember Hjelle
The motion passed.
10. Consider Approval of Resolution for Adoption of Recycling and Sanitary Sewer
Rates for 2009.
a. Finance Director, Bob Mittet gave the report.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the resolution Authorizing Maintenance of 2008 rates
for 2009.
RESOLUTION 08-11-177
ADOPTION OF THE 2009 RECYCLING AND SANITARY SEWER RATES
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has established recycling and sanitary sewer rates, and
WHEREAS, city staff has reviewed the recycling and sanitary sewer rates.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that:
5. The updated recycling and sanitary sewer rates shall become effective beginning January 1,
2009.
6. The updated recycling and sanitary sewer rates are approved for all related recycling and
sanitary sewer services received on or after January 1, 2009.
7. The updated recycling and sanitary sewer rates shall become effective beginning January 1,
2009.
8. The rates shown will be reviewed by staff on an annual basis with recommendations for
revisions brought to the city council for consideration.
Seconded by Mayor Longrie. Ayes ? All
The motion passed.
11. Approval of Claims.
Councilmember Rossbach moved Approval of Claims.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:
$ 555,799.83 Checks # 76886 thru # 76948
Dated 11/03/08 thru 11/10/08
$ 302,571.43 Disbursements via debits to checking account
Dated 10/31/08 thru 11/07/08
November 24, 2008 14
Packet Page Number
Page 17 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
$ 168,981.39 Checks # 76949 thru # 77027
Dated 11/10/08 thru 11/18/08
$ 122,641.22 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 11/06/08 thru 11/14/08
__________________
$ 1,149,993.87 Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL
$ 510,186.23 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 11/14/08
$ 3,392.19 Payroll Deduction check #1006443 thru #1006444
dated 11/14/08
___________________
$ 513,578.42 Total Payroll
GRAND TOTAL
$ 1,663,572.29
Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? Mayor Longrie,
Councilmembers Juenemann,
Nephew & Rossbach
Nay
? Councilmember Hjelle
The motion passed.
M. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve items 1-4.
Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All
The motion passed.
1. Walking In Faith Church, 2385 Ariel Street, Conditional Use Permit Review Termination.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution terminating the conditional use
permit for Walking In Faith Church since it is no longer in operation.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TERMINATION RESOLUTION 08-11-178
WHEREAS, Mr. Paul Strong, of Walking In Faith Christian Ministries, received approval from the
Maplewood City Council on January 10, 2005, for a conditional use permit allowing for a church
to operate in an existing office building.
WHEREAS, Mr. Strong subsequently notified the City of Maplewood on November 14, 2008, that
Walking in Faith Christian Ministries no longer is in operation and therefore has no need for this
conditional use permit.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2385 Ariel Street. The legal description is:
Maplewood Retail Addition, subject to street, Outlot A. (PIN 11-29-22-31-0063)
November 24, 2008 15
Packet Page Number
Page 18 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit termination is as follows:
1. On November 24, 2008, the city council terminated this conditional use permit since
the applicant, Walking in Faith Christian Ministries, no longer operates a church in an
existing office building located at 2385 Ariel Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council terminate the above-described
conditional use permit because Walking in Faith Christian Ministries no longer operates a
church in an existing office building.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution of termination on November 24, 2008.
Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All
The motion passed.
2. Mounds Park Academy, 2051 Larpenteur Avenue East, Annual Conditional Use Permit
Review.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Annual Conditional Use Permit Review for
Mounds Park Academy, 2051 Larpenteur Avenue East and should be reviewed in the future if a
problem arises or if a major change is proposed to the site.
Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All
The motion passed.
3. Lark-Prosperity Area Street Improvements, City Project 07-15, Consider Approval of
Resolution Reducing Retainage of Existing Construction Contract.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution directing the City Engineer to
reduce retainage on the existing construction contract for the City Project 07-15 to 1%.
RESOLUTION 08-11-179
DIRECTING REDUCTION OF RETAINAGE ON EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
PROJECT 07-15
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has previously ordered
Improvement Project 07-15, Lark-Prosperity Area Street Improvements, and has let a
construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, the contractor, T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc, has requested a reduction in
contract retainage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA that the retainage within the construction contract is hereby authorized to be
reduced, at the discretion of the City Engineer, from 5% to 1%.
Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All
The motion passed.
November 24, 2008 16
Packet Page Number
Page 19 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
4. Kohlman Area Street Improvements, City Project 07-21, Consider Approval of Resolution
Reducing Retainage on Existing Construction Contract.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution directing the City Engineer to
reduce retainage on the existing construction contract for City Project 07-21 to 2%.
RESOLUTION 08-11-180
DIRECTING REDUCTION OF RETAINAGE ON EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
PROJECT 07-21
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has previously ordered
Improvement Project 07-21, Kohlman Lane Area Street Improvements, and has let a construction
contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, the contractor, C.W. Houle, Incorporated, has requested, by written notice, a
reduction in contract retainage,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA that the retainage within the construction contract is hereby authorized to be
reduced, at the discretion of the City Engineer, from 5% to 2%.
Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All
The motion passed.
N. AWARD OF BIDS
None.
(Due to time constraints items G. Administrative Presentations and item H. Council Presentations
were moved to the end of the council meeting.)
G. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1. 2009 Budget ? Information Requested by City Council on Budget Reduction Options
a. Acting City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl gave the report.
b. City Clerk, Director Citizen Services Karen Guilfoile answered questions of the
report.
c. Maplewood Police Chief, Dave Thomalla answered questions of the council.
d. Maplewood Fire Chief, Steve Lukin answered questions of the council.
H. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1. League of Minnesota Cities Regional Meeting ? Councilmember Nephew
Councilmember Nephew said he attended the League of Minnesota Cities Regional
Meeting in Bloomington. There was a short round table discussion about budget trends
and a discussion regarding the Sewer tool kit. Councilmember Nephew presented Acting
City Manager, Chuck Ahl with the information.
2. Wood Smoke ? Councilmember Juenemann
Councilmember Juenemann said she has been receiving many phone calls and emails
regarding her thoughts regarding the Wood Smoke issue. There are many inaccuracies
out there and she made her comments known to the public regarding Wood Smoke.
November 24, 2008 17
Packet Page Number
Page 20 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
3. Municipal Legislative Commission Meeting ? Mayor Longrie
Mayor Longrie said she attended a Municipal Legislative Commission Meeting in Maple
Grove and mentioned the newsletter for which Mayor Longrie handed out to the
councilmembers that had some valuable information in it.
4. Update on Roselawn Traffic Study ? Mayor Longrie
Mayor Longrie discussed the traffic study that was done for the Roselawn area. Mayor
Longrie stated if anyone wanted a hard copy of this study they can contact the office of
Acting City Manager, Chuck Ahl. Mayor Longrie then read aloud the traffic study
information conducted for the Roselawn area.
5. Senator Chuck Wiger Update ? Mayor Longrie
Mayor Longrie said there is a Legislative update that might be of interest regarding
Senator Chuck Wiger.
6. National League of Cities Conference Update ? Mayor Longrie
Mayor Longrie said there was a lot of great information shared at the National League of
Cities Conference that she attended and she would like to share more information
regarding the meeting at a later date.
7. City Manager Search Process ? Mayor Longrie
Mayor Longrie gave an update on the City Manager Search and explained who would be
involved in the process and the number of people that will be working with the search
panel process. She also stated the number of applications that have been received so far.
More information is to follow in December.
O. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS ? PART II
None.
P. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Longrie adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m.
November 24, 2008 18
Packet Page Number
Page 21 of 209
City Council Meeting Minutes
AGENDA: J-1
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager
FROM:
Finance Director
DATE:
December 2, 2008
RE: 7:00 pm Truth in Taxation Hearing on 2009 Budget
a. Resolution Certifying Taxes Payable in 2009
b. Resolution Adopting 2009 Budget
INTRODUCTION
Staff is asking City Council approval of two related matters concerning the levy certification of the final
taxes payable in 2009 as well as adoption of the proposed 2009 Budget for the City of Maplewood.
BACKGROUND - LEVY
On September 8, 2008, staff recommended preliminary certification of a tax levy totaling $16,481,820,
this amount representing a 6% increase over the final levy payable in 2008 ($15,546,450). Concern
was expressed by members of the City Council that 6% was too high and staff should find ways to
reduce the levy required to support the 2009 Budget. In support of the staff, however, the Council
approved the preliminary levy request.
Staff has, since that time, sought ways to reduce the budget to enable reduction of the levy. The
Council received a memorandum from Acting City Manager Ahl, dated October 30, 2008. This
memorandum outlined options to reduce the levy to different levels, from leaving the levy at 6%
increase to reducing the levy to no increase. The Council next received a memorandum from Mr. Ahl,
dated November 17, 2008 delineating specific recommendations from department heads as to how
they would achieve specified spending cuts.
Based on Council discussion in the workshops that have been held, staff is recommending a 3% levy
increase. This increase will support the proposed 2009 Budget that staff is recommending for
adoption.
The State enacted levy limit legislation in 2008 limiting levy increases for the years 2009 through
2011. Staff recommends that the General Fund levy follow the levy limit set by the State and the
proposed reduction to 3% be accomplished by a reduction of the debt levy with an accompanying
transfer of funds from the General Fund to the Debt Service Fund to meet the required debt service
funding of $3,779,340.
Staff has received citizen comments (attached) that speak to a range of levy increases from 0% to the
6% proposed in September.
Packet Page Number
Page 22 of 209
Attached to this memorandum are the results of an informal poll of cities? proposed levy increases.
This poll was conducted by the Bloomington Finance Department. Staff has taken the liberty of
adjusting the rate shown for Maplewood to the 3% level proposed herein. This indicates, subject to
other cities? adjustments, that Maplewood is working hard to keep property tax rates low.
BACKGROUND ? BUDGET
The proposed 2009 Budget is, as stated earlier, based on a 3% levy increase. This level of funding
will enable the City to accomplish its goals of delivering essential services, keeping wage/benefit
commitments and keeping a strong financial position minimizing exposure to future real estate
declines.
Overall, budgeted city employment remains the same as 2008. Differences in department budgets
are attributable to reorganization of functions between departments and general increases
anticipating increased payroll and benefits costs.
The most notable reorganization comes with the creation of a Community and Parks Development
Department. This department takes the former Inspections, Planning and Building Operations
Department and adds the Nature Center, Open Space and Recycling programs from Public Works.
Code Enforcement will be moved to the new Community and Parks Development Department from
Police. In addition, the Marketing program will be moved from Executive to Citizen Services.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the following two resolutions:
a. Resolution Certifying Taxes Payable in 2009
b. Resolution adopting 2009 Budget
Attachments:
a. Resolution Certifying Taxes Payable in 2009
b. Resolution Adopting 2009 Budget
c. Levy Certification ? Final Taxes Payable in 2009
d. Exhibit A ? Breakdown by Debt Service Fund
e. Citizen comments on tax levy
f. Bloomington Finance Department survey results
g. 2009 Proposed Budget (under separate cover)
h. Memorandum from Acting City Manager Ahl - Discussion of 2009 Budget ? Options for Levy
Reduction ? dated October 30, 2008
i. Memorandum from Acting City Manager Ahl ? 2009 Budget ? Information Requested by City
Council on Budget Reduction Options ? dated Nov. 17, 2008
Packet Page Number
Page 23 of 209
Attachment: a
RESOLUTION
CERTIFYING TAXES PAYABLE IN 2009
BE IT RESOLVED
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA that:
1. The following amounts of taxes will be levied for 2008, payable in 2009,
upon the net tax capacity in said City of Maplewood, for the following
purposes;
General $12,152,480
Community Center 300,000
Recreation Programs 250,000
Debt Services 2,908,155
TOTAL LEVY $15,610,635
2. In addition, there is a $403,500 market value based referendum levy for
2008 payable in 2009 to finance the debt service on the 2002 Open Space
Refunding Bonds.
3. The net tax capacity based levy of $2,908,155 for Debt Service and the
market value based referendum levy of $403,500 total $3,311,655. This
results in a total certified levy of $16,014,135. The breakdown by Debt
Service Fund follows as Exhibit A:
Packet Page Number
Page 24 of 209
Attachment: b
RESOLUTION
ADOPTION OF THE 2009 BUDGET
WHERAS, the City of Maplewood is required to prepare an annual budget;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that:
The 2009 Proposed Budget shall become effective beginning January 1, 2009.
Packet Page Number
Page 25 of 209
Attachment: c
COUNTY, CITY AND SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT LEVY CERTIFICATION
FINAL TAXES PAYABLE IN 2009
FOR _____________________________City of Maplewood
___________________________________
(Governmental Agency)
CERTIFIED FINAL
LEVY PURPOSE
TAX LEVY
NET TAX CAPACITY BASED LEVIES
1) General $12,152,480
2) Debt 2,908,155
3) Other (Please Specify)
4) Community Center 300,000
5) Recreation Programs 250,000
6)
7)
8)
9)
10) Total Net Tax Capacity Based Levies
(Total 1 through 9) $15,610,635
MARKET VALUE BASED LEVIES
11) Open Space Bonds ? 2002D
$ 403,500
12)
13)Total Market Value Based Referendum Levies
$ 403,500
(Total 11 & 12)
14)Total Certified Levy
(Total 10 & 13) $16,014,135
I, the authorized representative of the above mentioned Governmental Agency, certify that the foregoing
information is accurate to the best of my knowledge.
____________________
Signature of Authorized Representative Title Date
Phone Number of Contact Person
\TNT\Pay 2009\levycert
Packet Page Number
Page 26 of 209
Attachment: d
Breakdown by Debt Service Fund
City of MAPLEWOOD
===================
ADDITIONS ORCERTIFIED
ORIGINALDATEPAYABLE 2009REDUCTIONS BYDEBT
BOND ISSUES PRINCIPALISSUEDDEBT LEVYRESOLUTIONLEVY
=======================================================================================
GO IMP REFUNDING 1998B1,275,0001-Sep-98104,412.000.00104,412.00
GO IMP 1999A940,0001-Oct-9958,323.00-58,323.000.00
GO FIRE SAFETY 2000A3,540,0001-Jun-00313,431.00-313,431.000.00
GO IMP 2001B3,280,0001-Oct-01176,260.640.00176,260.64
GO IMP 2002A4,815,0001-Aug-02251,315.000.00251,315.00
GO IMP REFUNDING 2002B3,345,0001-Nov-02524,620.00-360,000.00164,620.00
GO TI REFUNDING 2002C5,185,0001-Dec-02729,921.000.00729,921.00
GO O SPACE REFUND 2002D3,425,0001-Nov-02403,489.0011.00403,500.00
GO IMP 2003A3,650,0001-Aug-03164,273.000.00164,273.00
GO REF 2004A2,940,0001-Apr-04314,783.99-300,000.0014,783.99
GO IMP 2004B13,010,0001-Aug-04309,439.8759,061.08368,500.95
GO TAX ABMT 2004C5,025,0001-Aug-04191,969.000.00191,969.00
GO IMP 2004D700,0001-Aug-0457,514.000.0057,514.00
GO IMP 2005A2,115,0001-Aug-0559,075.00-59,075.000.00
GO EQUIP CERT 2006B290,0001-Apr-0668,250.000.0068,250.00
GO IMP 2006A6,085,0001-Apr-06371,118.42-167,685.00203,433.42
GO IMP 2007A10,060,0001-Jul-07710,530.17-455,238.17255,292.00
GO IMP 2007B5,090,00015-Oct-07374,093.37-374,093.370.00
GO IMP 2008A9,970,0001-Jul-08858,514.13-767,925.1390,589.00
GO IMP REFUNDING 2008B1,070,0001-Jul-0867,021.000.0067,021.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------
$6,108,353.59-$2,796,698.59$3,311,655.00
=======================================
I hereby certify that the above schedule of
bond levies to be spread on the payable 2009
tax rolls agrees with the City records and is
true and correct. Copies of any resolutions
which increase or reduce these levies are
attached.
Signed: ___________________________________
Date: _______________
::
Packet Page Number
Page 27 of 209
Attachment: e
Packet Page Number
Page 28 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 29 of 209
Attachment: f
Metro Levy Survey of Planned Levy Increases
Levy Payable 2009
Sorted by RateSorted Alphabetically
% Total Levy% Total Levy
IncreaseIncrease
City2008 to 2009City2008 to 2009
White Bear Lake-7.500%Anoka3.020%
Mounds View-1.000%Apple Valley7.540%
Rosemount0.870%Arden Hills5.900%
Champlin1.500%Blaine5.400%
New Hope1.590%Bloomington6.000%
New Brighton2.030%Brooklyn Center3.670%
Cottage Grove2.150%Brooklyn Park4.400%
Chanhassen2.400%Burnsville3.700%
Hastings2.670%Champlin1.500%
Maplewood3.000%
Chanhassen2.400%
Anoka3.020%Chaska5.000%
Eden Prairie3.400%Coon Rapids5.990%
Brooklyn Center3.670%Cottage Grove2.150%
Burnsville3.700%Crystal4.480%
Shoreview3.800%Eagan5.100%
Hopkins3.900%Eden Prairie3.400%
Woodbury3.900%Edina7.010%
Forest Lake4.100%Excelsior5.000%
Brooklyn Park4.400%Forest Lake4.100%
Crystal4.480%Golden Valley6.090%
Chaska5.000%Hastings2.670%
Excelsior5.000%Hopkins3.900%
Little Canada5.000%Jordan13.671%
Eagan5.100%Little Canada5.000%
Savage5.236%Maple Grove7.690%
Maplewood3.000%
Blaine5.400%
Prior Lake5.510%Minnetonka5.700%
Minnetonka5.700%Mounds View-1.000%
St Louis Park5.800%New Brighton2.030%
Arden Hills5.900%New Hope1.590%
Coon Rapids5.990%Prior Lake5.510%
Bloomington6.000%Richfield10.460%
Golden Valley6.090%Rosemount0.870%
St Anthony6.900%Roseville8.200%
Edina7.010%Savage5.236%
Apple Valley7.540%Shoreview3.800%
Maple Grove7.690%St Anthony6.900%
Roseville8.200%St Louis Park5.800%
Richfield10.460%White Bear Lake-7.500%
Jordan13.671%Woodbury3.900%
Average
4.482%
Lakevilleunknown until 12/16
Packet Page Number
Page 30 of 209
Source: Survey conducted by Bloomington Finance Department, Nov. 2008
Attachment: h
AGENDA REPORT
TO
: City Council
FROM:
Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion of 2009 Budget ? Options for Levy Reduction
DATE: October 30, 2008
INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY
On September 8, 2008, the City Council adopted a resolution setting the maximum levy increase for the
2009 Budget at a 6.0% increase over the 2008 levy amount. In total dollars, this levy increase is:
$15,546,450 [08 Levy] X 6% = $935,370
A review of previous year?s levy amounts shows the following:
YEAR TOTAL LEVY $$$ % INCREASE DEBT SERVICE (w/i total levy)
2000 $ 7,568,830 - - - - $1,422,840
2001 $ 8,824,580 16.59% $1,776,580
2002 $10,348,230 17.27% $1,686,910
2003 $11,927,880 15.26% $2,191,930
2004 $12,831,520 7.58% $2,499,200
2005 $13,434,640 4.70% $2,818,000
2006 $14,106,370 5.00% $3,016,800
2007 $15,546,450 10.21% $3,140,800
2008 $15,546,450 0.00% $3,421,925
2009 (max.) $16,481,820 6.00% $3,779,340
Note: the debt service amount shown is included within the total levy.
Levy Reduction Options
The budget that has been presented to the City Council by the Department Heads over the past month, has
been based upon the maximum levy increase of 6.0%. As City Council may recall, we have levy limits that
keep our operating levy at a maximum 3.9% increase; however, there are exceptions that allow the City to
increase the operating portion to a 4.8% increase and debt service is outside the levy limit. The breakdown
of the 6.0% proposed maximum levy increases are as follows:
1) General Fund for operations: $507,955
2) Community Center operations: $ 70,000
3) Recreation Programs Fund: $ 0
4) Capital Improvements Fund: $ 0 (to be funded with one-time cash)
5) Debt Service Fund: $357,415
TOTAL LEVY INCREASE $935,370
After tabulation of all requests, it was determined that a fund balance percentage of 38.2% would result
from the proposed expenditures and revenues. Previous budgeted fund balances, which are used to
manage contingency expenses along with operating expenses as revenues are received, have ranged from
a low of 35.0% to 37.5%.
Packet Page Number
Page 31 of 209
Option #1 = 6.0% Levy Increase
This option is the presented budget from the staff. It includes $18,393,750 in proposed expenditures for all
departments as presented in the past month. Included is a $250,000 Additional Insurance fund to cover for
litigation, wage increases and unknown expenses for 2009. In addition, this provides for a fund balance
percentage of 38.2%. This option provides for no reductions in planned expenditures.
Option #2 = 4.5% Levy Increase
This option proposes that the levy be increased by 4.5% over the 2008 Total Levy. The following reductions
would be recommended under this option:
a) Savings from the Community Dev ? Parks Re-org - $ 23,220
b) Reduce the Additional Insurance Program by 84%: $209,970
Total Reduction for Option #2 $233,190
Discussion:
This option proposes that the savings from the re-assignment of duties that eliminated the Deputy
Director of Public Works position and created the Parks and Community Development Director
position be accounted for in this budget. The reported savings from this re-assignment of duties is
estimated at $23,220 for the General Fund, with savings in other Funds that do not impact the tax
levy. The reduction in the Additional Insurance Program is also recommended. As part of the
budget process, it was determined that additional one-time cash is available due to over-funding of
the Employee Benefits Fund. This money was returned to all the funds it was collected from, which
results in the one-time money. It was proposed to the Council in the setting of the maximum levy on
September 8, 2008, that this one-time money be used for planned Capital Improvements in 2009,
2010 and into 2011. This allocation of $348,780 provides an available source of cash, similar to the
Additional Insurance Program, which would allow the Council to revise priorities, should the situation
arrive that funds would be needed. In addition, there are no indications at this time, that the reasons
for the Additional Insurance Fund Program, will be forthcoming.
Option #3 = 3.0% Levy Increase [Manager Recommendation]
This option proposes that the levy increase be set at one-half the maximum levy set in September which
would be a 3.0% levy increase or $467,685 over the 2008 levy. The allocation would be:
1) General Fund for operations: $ 82,845
2) Community Center operations: $ 27,425
3) Recreation Programs Fund: $ 0
4) Capital Improvements Fund: $ 0 (to be funded with one-time cash)
5) Debt Service Fund: $357,415
TOTAL LEVY INCREASE $467,685
The following reductions would be necessary to implement this option:
a) Savings from the Community Dev ? Parks Re-org - $ 23,220
b) Reduce the Additional Insurance Program by 100%: $250,000
c) Reduce the Fund Balance to 37.5% $169,465
d) Fund the Deputy Police Chief position from Early Retire Savings: $ 25,000
Total Reduction for Option #3 $467,685
Packet Page Number
Page 32 of 209
Discussion:
This is the recommended program from the Acting City Manager. The savings from the
reorganization within Community Development and Parks has been previously discussed and the
elimination of the Additional Insurance Program is recommended, as other options are available for
that type of funding, if it becomes necessary, even though at this time, we do not anticipate the
needs for those funds in 2009.
A reduction in the Fund Balance to 37.5% is also an analysis of comfort in risk factors. As the 2009
Budget was reviewed and prepared, the staff evaluated a number of factors that could cause budget
problems in 2009:
a. Foreclosures and non-payments could be extensive. We have estimated a collection of
97.5% of the proposed levy, meaning that we anticipate that we will be unable to collect 2.5%
of the levied assessments in 2009. This is slightly above our historical collection rate, which
approaches between 98-99%. While we see this as a possibility, we believe that having a
fund balance which is 1.0?2.0 % higher than the historical Maplewood Budget average of 35
? 36%, should provide a cushion for this item. In addition, it appears that we may end 2008,
with more funds than anticipated, which will be carried forward to 2009, which will further
support this fund balance.
b. Building permit revenues could continue to decrease due to the stalled economy. We have
reduced the amount of revenue for permit fees to 2007 levels within this budget. Our
Building Official is working on a review of fees to offset any shortfall. We are confident in this
estimate. Should permit revenues continue to slide below estimates, a mid-year adjustment
in staffing levels for our Building Officials and Inspectors may be necessary. This is not
anticipated based upon some known projects.
c. Fuel and utility expenses could again sky-rocket. The budget is prepared based upon a 40%
increase in fuel expenses above the actual expenses that occurred in 2007. Again, mid-year
adjustments can be made to programs that could offset this amount.
d. Employee wage increases can also be another use for Fund Balance monies. At this time,
negotiations appear to be proceeding well, and funds should be available to meet all union
and association settlements.
e. Departmental Budget Expenditures may exceed estimates. In the past two years, each
department has been very diligent on watching expenditures and planning appropriately.
Departments have spent between 96 to 99.5% of their budgets. We do not expect this to be
a problem in 2009, as our finance staff and department heads watch expenditures and make
adjustments accordingly.
The final recommended reduction is to fund the proposed Deputy Police Chief position from internal
Police Department savings from the Early Retirement Program. It is anticipated that there will be a
couple of retirements and Chief Thomalla is confident that savings can be found through this
process to allow this reorganization of his staff to proceed that will not produce an additional
expense to the General Fund.
Option #4 = 2.0% Levy Increase
This option proposes that the levy increase be set at a 2.0% levy increase or $310,930 over the 2008 levy.
The allocation would be:
1) General Fund for operations: ($ 46,485)
2) Community Center operations: $ 0
3) Recreation Programs Fund: $ 0
4) Capital Improvements Fund: $ 0 (to be funded with one-time cash)
5) Debt Service Fund: $357,415
TOTAL LEVY INCREASE $310,930
Packet Page Number
Page 33 of 209
The following reductions would be necessary to implement this option:
a) Savings from the Community Dev ? Parks Re-org - $ 23,220
b) Reduce the Additional Insurance Program by 100%: $250,000
c) Reduce the Fund Balance to 37.0% $206,400
d) Fund the Deputy Police Chief position from Early Retire Savings: $ 25,000
e) Cut the new Building Maintenance Technician from budget: $ 45,900
f) Reduce the MCC operations subsidy to 2008 level: $ 27,425
g) Increase Recreation Program Fees by 8% $ 16,495
h) Plan for savings from the Early Retirement Program: $ 30,000
Total Reduction for Option #4 $624,440
Discussion:
Items a), b) and d) have previously been discussed. Item c) has previously been discussed at the
37.5% level. Management is not recommending reducing below this level, as we anticipate that
having a safe operation level at 37.5% is prudent given the uncertainties. Certainly, there are funds
for emergencies within the budget; however, some point needs to be established as a comfort level
based upon risk factors listed above. A reduction increases the likelihood that mid-year budget
adjustments may be needed, including staff reductions to meet unexpected expenditures.
Item e) is a new position planned within the budget to supplement our building maintenance staff.
The position was originally within the budget in 2006, but was eliminated in cost savings measures
when an employee left. Our building maintenance is in need of improvements, especially missing
has been the City?s efforts at recycling and green initiatives. Our investment in facilities has suffered
slightly due to the lack of preventive maintenance and cleaning. We do not recommend this position
be cut.
Item f) would mean further reductions in expenses at MCC. One option would be to explore the use
of one-time money to erase the ?loan? that is recommended at MCC. This would allow this to
proceed, but would reduce the future allocations to Capital Improvement Projects.
Item g) would involve raising fees for our recreation programs. Our staff feels that our fees are
competitive and that raising the fees could result in reduced participation. It is not recommended but
could be implemented.
Item h) is a possibility for 2009, but there is no certainty that any employees will signup for this
program. Savings could be realized from the program; however, these are not sustainable, unless
of course, positions are eliminated. That is not proposed, so this option is not more than a single
year fix.
Option #5 = 0.0% Levy Increase
This option proposes that the levy increase be set at a 2.0% levy increase or $310,930 over the 2008 levy.
The allocation would be:
1) General Fund for operations: ($229,485)
2) Community Center operations: $ 0
3) Recreation Programs Fund: $ 0
4) Capital Improvements Fund: $ 0 (to be funded with one-time cash)
5) Debt Service Fund: $229,485
TOTAL LEVY INCREASE $ 0
Packet Page Number
Page 34 of 209
The following reductions would be necessary to implement this option:
a) Savings from the Community Dev ? Parks Re-org - $ 23,220
b) Reduce the Additional Insurance Program by 100%: $250,000
c) Reduce the Fund Balance to 37.0% $206,400
d) Fund the Deputy Police Chief position from Early Retire Savings: $ 25,000
e) Cut the new Building Maintenance Technician from budget: $ 45,900
f) Reduce the MCC operations subsidy to 2008 level: $ 27,425
g) Increase Recreation Program Fees by 8% $ 16,495
h) Plan for savings from the Early Retirement Program: $ 30,000
i) Cut temporary staff from Community Development $ 19,100
j) Cut the 0.75 FTE Info Technician from IT Dept $ 30,000
k) Cut Part-time staff at Nature Center $ 20,000
l) Cut Maintenance Materials and Overtime from Public Works $ 36,000
m) Cut Overtime-Part-time in City Clerk and Deputy Registrar $ 9,500
n) Cut Overtime in Fire Department Budget $ 17,400
o) Cut Overtime in Police Department Budget $ 51,000
p) Use one-time cash for Debt Service Fund $127,930
Total Reduction for Option #5 $935,370
Discussion:
Items a) through h) have previously been discussed. Item i) would be a reduction of temporary staff
within our Community Development department that provide us service in providing minutes to
Commissions and Committees. If eliminated, these tasks would need to be assigned to existing
personnel and would result in delays with minute processing and reductions in service in other
areas.
Item j) is a major priority for our staff. We had four persons in our IT Department until 2005, when a
departure was left vacant. Our electronic needs have increased dramatically and the addition of this
staff person would improve overall operations.
Item k) would involve further reductions in programs, service and operating levels at our Nature
Center. Our part-time staff provides a high level of service and valuable functions to this area. It is
likely that service would be reduced at the nature center to 3-4 days per week.
Item l) is a reduction in maintenance materials for street repair and snow/ice control, along with a
reduction in service. Plowing of sidewalks after a snow event would be extended out during working
hours. Pothole repair and boulevard maintenance would be reduced.
Item m) would be a reduction in hours for our Deputy Registrar and City Clerk functions resulting in
longer lines at the counter, and delays in responding to data requests.
Item n) would be reduction in training hours and backup duties at our Fire Stations where our
personnel are supplemented by paid-per-call firefighters. A shift in priorities would be required.
Item o) would be a reduction in overtime for patrol and medics. This would reduce service to our
community and is not recommended.
Item p) would be a last resort. This would propose to use one-time funds that are dedicated to
Capital Improvement Projects and provide this year?s increase to the Debt Service Fund.
Packet Page Number
Page 35 of 209
Item p) is not a sustainable reduction and may impact our bond rating. The Moody?s rating service
on our most recent bond issue acknowledged that the city?s 0% levy increase did not impact our
sustained funding of debt service. One-time money would mean that the proposed increase in 2010
would need to be covered by a near doubling of funds. While many of the reductions are not
recommended, this option should be the last considered by the City Council.
Recommendation
As noted, the final budget will include a recommendation for Option #3 from the City Management.
The Council should review this information. No action is necessary at this time. We will be finalizing
our budget based upon this information. Staff will be available to answer questions on all the
options.
Packet Page Number
Page 36 of 209
Attachment: i
AGENDA REPORT
TO
: City Council
FROM:
Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager/Public Works Director
SUBJECT: 2009 Budget ? Information Requested by City Council on Budget
Reduction Options
DATE: November 17, 2008
INTRODUCTION
On November 3, 2008, the City Council received a report detailing options for reducing the levy increase
from the proposed 6.0% increase over the 2008 levy to 4 options for a lower increase. Those options were
a 4.5% increase, a 3.0% increase [which is the level recommended by the Acting City Manager], a 2.0%
increase and a 0.0% increase. Information was provided to the City Council on the impacts of each of
rd
these options within the November 3 Agenda Report.
As part of the discussion on the 0.0% increase option, the City Council requested that each department
head that was potentially impacted by the proposed reduction in this option provided additional analysis
and information on the reductions. That information is provided within this report for the City Council in
th
advance of the December 8 Truth-In-Taxation Public Hearing. No action is required on this item.
SUMMARY
Following are the suggested reductions from the proposed budget that would be necessary to implement a
0.0% levy increase in 2009:
Option #5 = 0.0% Levy Increase
The following reductions would be necessary to implement this option:
a) Savings from the Community Dev ? Parks Re-org - $ 23,220
b) Reduce the Additional Insurance Program by 100%: $250,000
c) Reduce the Fund Balance to 37.0% $206,400
d) Fund the Deputy Police Chief position from Early Retire Savings: $ 25,000
e) Cut the new Building Maintenance Technician from budget: $ 45,900
f) Reduce the MCC operations subsidy to 2008 level: $ 27,425
g) Increase Recreation Program Fees by 8% $ 16,495
h) Plan for savings from the Early Retirement Program: $ 30,000
i) Cut temporary staff from Community Development $ 19,100
j) Cut the 0.75 FTE Info Technician from IT Dept $ 30,000
k) Cut Part-time staff at Nature Center $ 20,000
l) Cut Maintenance Materials and Overtime from Public Works $ 36,000
m) Cut Overtime-Part-time in City Clerk and Deputy Registrar $ 9,500
n) Cut Overtime in Fire Department Budget $ 17,400
o) Cut Overtime in Police Department Budget $ 51,000
p) Use one-time cash for Debt Service Fund $127,930
Total Reduction for Option #3 $935,370
Packet Page Number
Page 37 of 209
Discussion:
Items a) through h) have previously been discussed and impacts explained in other options. Items
a) through d) are recommended, although item c) is recommended at a 37.5% level.
Following are the responses from the Department Heads on the remaining items:
Item i) would be a reduction of temporary staff within our Community Development department
Community Development - Parks Director Dewey Konewko:
If council were to decide to eliminate approximately $19,100 from the temporary staff line item in the
Community Development Department, It is my belief that the following services will be compromised;
1. The ability to adequately support the six commissions that the Community Development
Department is responsible for. This includes taking the minutes, packet preparation, and ensuring
that the website is current and up to date with agendas, packets, and minutes. This is a top priority
for the department in 2009 and the ability to deliver these services without these temporary wages
would result in a lesser product.
2. We also utilize temporary staff to provide support services to properly manage files and documents
within the department so they become more readily available to staff and residents/builders. The
elimination of this line item will likely result in files and documents not being scanned and processed
accordingly.
3. Temporary staff also supports the department with other functions that also would not occur if these
cuts were made.
In summary, the Community Development depends on these temporary staff wages to assist the
department with these services listed above.
Item j) is the elimination of a new position in our IT Department until 2005
IT Director Mychal Fowlds:
In short, not filling the .75 FTE IT Technician position will leave us with a 2-3 man crew (depending on the
system) to perform more and more tasks every day. This year alone we?ve taken over the complete
management of the phone system and of taping and replaying City meetings. That coupled with the much
higher standards set for our website means that we simply don?t have enough time. We need to have the
time to perform routine maintenance on our servers, test our backups and other departmental duties that
are becoming increasingly difficult due to the large workload. Not filling this position means that we
continue to try and do as much as we can. We will continue to be pulled towards being reactive rather than
having the time to be proactive.
Also, we need to take into consideration the fact that we can carry the load of duties that we have right now
because I have 2 very knowledgeable employees. They have a wealth of knowledge with the City?s
systems and within their respective fields. They?re willing to put in additional time and work the hours that
are needed to get things done. Without either one of them the IT department?s ability to carry that same
workload drops significantly. Filling this position will keep them doing the higher level tasks that they
should be doing which benefits both the City and the employee?s morale.
Packet Page Number
Page 38 of 209
IT Director Mychal Fowlds (continued from page two):
If we lose the funding for this position we?ll still try and find some money for part-time help in 2009.
However, the goal is to hire an employee that we would be able to train and retain with the City for years to
come. Hiring a temp or intern would not satisfy our needs. We have no money budgeted for part-time help
so this would have to come from not replacing outdated hardware or reducing services. Likely we would
simply wait until mid-year to see where we?re at financially and if we happen to have some additional funds
we would look to hire some part-time help at that time.
Item k) involves reductions in programs, service and operating levels at the Nature Center.
Community Development ? Parks Director Dewey Konewko:
If the Nature Center were required to cut part time staff in the amount of approximately $20,000, this would
potentially have a huge impact on the many services we provide at the Nature Center. The following
represents a list of the services that would very much be impacted by these cuts;
1. Nature Center hours would be cut;
2. The volunteer program and coordination activities would also be cut. Volunteer?s provider a
tremendous amount of support to the Nature Center and also support staff in a number of different
areas. Volunteers are critical to the success of the Nature Center.
3. The service and staff support we provide to the Friends Group would also likely be cut. This non-
profit organization has been extremely valuable in fund raising activities and even more importantly,
supporting the mission of the Nature Center.
4. Educational programs will also likely be cut;Outreach programs with schools would likely be cut;
5. The management of the entire Nature Center Preserve would also be cut. Part time staff is also
responsible for managing the grounds to ensure that visitors have a positive experience when
visiting the center.
Item l) is a reduction in maintenance materials for street repair and snow/ice control.
Public Works Director Chuck Ahl:
If $36,000 were removed from materials and overtime within the Public Works budget, we would be forced
to a reduction in service. Plowing of sidewalks after a snow event would be extended out during working
hours. We now currently are able to have all sidewalks plowed of snow within 48 hours of the snowfall
event ending. The elimination of this overtime would likely extend this to 72-96 hours. Pothole repair and
boulevard maintenance would be reduced if material expenditures are reduced. The price of bituminous
has not been reduced similar to gas prices which have recently fallen. The bituminous is currently in short
supply due to refineries making fuel, so our budget pothole repair is up over 100%. A reduction in
materials for this replacement would result in more potholes during the spring road repairs. Additionally,
we would likely reduce our repairs of boulevards in the spring caused by plow and winter driving damage.
Packet Page Number
Page 39 of 209
Item m) would be a reduction in hours for our Deputy Registrar and City Clerk functions.
Citizen Services Director Karen Guilfoile:
Cut overtime-part-time in city clerk and deputy registrar of $9,500
. The majority of overtime pay is due
to taking care of customers at the end of the day.As far as cutting any part-time pay, I don?t know where
we would be able cut in deputy registrar since we are already below our full compliment. The part-time
wages in city clerk are attributed to the administrative assistant and the receptionist. The $9,500 could be
cut if we reduced hours that we had staff at the reception desk.
Item n) would be reduction in training hours and backup duties in our Fire Department.
Fire Chief Steve Lukin:
The Fire Department reductions of $17,400 will need to come from the following areas:
Overtime: $10,000 hopefully we will be at full complement of staff for the year; we would need to manage
with a $10,000 reduction in this area.
Uniforms: $4,000 we would need to place an order to get by for one year only.
Equipment: $3,400 will cut back 2 sets of turn out gear from 12 sets to 10 sets. The 2008 budget had 10
sets. This would again delay our replacement of equipment.
Item o) would be a reduction in our Police Department.
Police Chief Dave Thomalla:
If required, I would propose the following cuts as an alternative to overtime cuts:
$26,000 for the hybrid SUV. With the little research we have done, it sounds as if this amount would not
cover the total coast, much less equipment and setup. This a replacement squad car
$17,000 out of fees for service; which we use for investigations.
$8,000 out of fuel; I?ll play the gamble that prices will stay low. If they go through the roof, we will mandate
officers park their cars for a portion of the shift as is being done in other cities. That will pose the situation
of whether people want to see squad cars or do they want to cut the budget.
Item p) was previously identified and discussed as part of the Debt study. It is not recommended
and should only be considered as a last resort.
Recommendation
No action is recommended.
Packet Page Number
Page 40 of 209
Agenda Item K1
AGENDA REPORT
TO
: City Council
FROM:
Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: Search Process for City Manager
a. Consider Calling Special Meeting for December 15, 2008, for the
Purpose of Selecting Final Candidates.
DATE: December 3, 2008
INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY
We are in the process of scheduling items for Council discussion on the City Manager search
process. Steve Bernard from The Par Group, the Council?s consultant assisting with the recruitment of
the new City Manager, reports that there are 48 applicants for the City Manager position. Mr. Bernard
is requesting time with the City Council to review these candidates and to narrow the list to finalists of
6-10 persons that would then proceed through the panel interview process. The names of the 48
applicants are confidential. Upon selection of the 6 ? 10 finalists, those individuals? names will
become public and available for release.
It is proposed that the City Council call a Special Meeting for 5:00 pm on December 15, 2008, for the
purpose of selecting the final candidates for City Manager. It is intended that the discussion of the 48
candidates be conducted in a closed session to protect the confidential nature of the employment
application process, with the Council then going to an open session to formally select the 6 ? 10
finalists.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion calling a Special Meeting for December 15,
2008 at 5:00 pm for the purpose of selecting final candidates for the position of City Manager.
Packet Page Number
Page 41 of 209
Amended Agenda Item K1b
AGENDA REPORT
TO
: City Council
FROM:
Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: Search Process for City Manager
b. Consider Resolution Calling for Closure of Advisory Panel
Meetings
DATE: December 4, 2008
INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY
The City Council adopted specific direction to follow in the City Manager Search Process that the
process be governed by the Open Meeting Law. A conflict has arisen with both panels as they begin
to prepare their questions and interview strategies. On Monday, December 1, 2008, the City Council
gave direction to continue allowing the meetings to proceed under open meeting provisions.
Council Members Rossbach and Nephew have requested that this item be revisited. The item is
being placed on the agenda for specific action by the Council.
The concern is that potential candidates will be able to know in advance the questions and strategies
that the panel is planning to use and ask, should the candidate do some homework in advance and
ask for copies of the meeting DVD or request copies of written materials.
Mr. Kantrud has provided an opinion [copy attached] that these meetings and subsequent materials
can be protected as under the statutory authorization for labor relations. The panels are requested to
proceed under the City Attorney?s approach, with the materials and meetings being closed as part of
labor relations protection. The meetings will continue to be audio-recorded and certainly available to
the City Council members.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution directing that the panel meeting
held for the purpose of developing questions for the purpose of interviewing candidates for City
Manager be closed.
Attachment:
1. Resolution
2. Previous Information
Packet Page Number
Page 42 of 209
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CLOSURE OF MEETING FOR LABOR
NEGOTATION PURPOSES PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. § 13D.03
WHEREAS, The Maplewood City Council acknowledges that the City of Maplewood
operates pursuant to the State?s grant of authority as a, ?Plan B,? form of government and;
WHEREAS, The Maplewood City Council, pursuant to it?s authority as a Plan B City,
acknowledges that it has only one, ?employee,? in the person of the City Manager and;
WHEREAS, The Maplewood City Council has been without a full-time City Manager
since approximately January 14, 2008 and;
WHEREAS, The Maplewood City Council has undertaken a, ?search process,? to
identify and hire a new City Manager and;
WHEREAS, The Maplewood City Council has constituted several, ?advisory panels,?
made-up of citizens and City employees to assist in the selection process and;
WHEREAS, The Maplewood City Council has directed staff to operate and organize all
meetings of the aforementioned panels pursuant to and compliant with Minnesota Statute § 13D
et seq., the Minnesota Open meeting Law and;
WHEREAS, The Maplewood City Council has authorized the aforementioned panels to
engage in substantive discussions regarding the qualifications desired of a City Manager and to
communicate those to the Council, and:
WHEREAS, The Maplewood City Council has also authorized the aforementioned
panels to develop questions that they would like to have asked of the potential City Manager
candidates during the vetting/interview process and;
WHEREAS, The Maplewood City Council would like to ensure that the discussion and
development of the questions is done in a frank and open manner and that the resultant questions
be kept confidential as they represent a strategic piece of the Council?s vetting and hiring process
of its only employee and;
WHEREAS, The Maplewood City Council has been advised that the aforementioned
panels may discuss the aforementioned strategies and questions in a closed meeting pursuant to
the Minnesota Open Meeting Law under § 13D.03.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Maplewood
Does then hereby call for the meetings of the Employee Advisory Panel and the Citizen Advisory
thth
Panel to be held on the 12 and 17 of December, 2008, respectively, to be CLOSED at such
time as the Chair(s) of the Panel(s) determine that the discussions will include strategy and
development of questions for the City Council?s search process.
The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution on December 8, 2008
Packet Page Number
Page 43 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 44 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 45 of 209
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager
FROM:
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development/Parks Director
SUBJECT: 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update; ?Stop-Gap? Ordinance
DATE:
December 1, 2008
INTRODUCTION
At the City Council meeting on November 10, 2008 staff was directed to begin working on a
?stop-gap? ordinance to protect the south Maplewood area and to ensure conservation principles
are used in the interim until the updated comprehensive plan is officially adopted. Staff has
prepared this memo and supporting concept diagrams to demonstrate our preliminary thoughts
for creating the ordinance and to solicit feedback from the council and receive authorization to
move forward with this ?stop-gap? ordinance.
DISCUSSION
After the council meeting, staff met to discuss an approach for creating a stop-gap ordinance to
support the existing land use designation from the 2002 Comprehensive Plan while responding
to the conservation principles that have been identified through this comprehensive plan update.
There will be approximately a year, possibly a bit more, until the comprehensive plan update is
completed, and this ordinance would ensure that conservation principles are upheld in south
Maplewood until the full comprehensive plan is updated.
In an effort to help describe the direction for the ordinance, we have prepared a set of graphics
that depict conceptually how the application of the conservation principles would work towards
the density allowed in the south Maplewood area. The ordinance will be complex to develop
and will include a new zoning district that will be applied to the south Maplewood area so all
developers and land owners understand the areas of interest for the new conservation based
ordinance. The following information describes the objectives and preliminary direction for the
ordinance.
Ordinance Objectives:
To create an ordinance that protects the natural resources and habitat in the south
Maplewood area.
To allow for development that allows for the maximum entitlement of 4.3 units/acre. This
is critical to ensure that the city is legally protected in the interim. (This will only apply
until the Comprehensive Plan Update is formally adopted, at which time the ordinance
will be revised to reflect the ranges identified on the updated Land Use Plan.)
To create a list of definitions that clearly describe the conservation principles we are
trying to achieve.
To create density incentives for developers and land owners that can only be achieved
through preservation and conservation principles as defined by the city.
Packet Page Number
Page 46 of 209
Preliminary Ordinance Structure:
Staff is proposing to create an ordinance with a 3-Tiered approach in which the developer will
need to achieve a predetermined number of conservation principles in order to achieve higher
densities. The following list identifies the conservation principles identified to date, but this list is
not static. We can continue to work through this list as the ordinance is developed. The list was
developed and compiled based on comments from the Planning Commission, the PTOS
Advisory Panel, the Environmental Commission and other interested stakeholders.
Table 1: Conservation Tools for Density Incentives
Enhance/Preserve Large Wooded Areas Prairie Restoration
Preserve Natural Greenway Corridors Enhance Wetlands, Create Management Plan
Tree Preservation Create/Develop Trail Connections
Dedicate Open Spaces Slope Buffer Preservation
Historic Preservation Create Passive Parks
Additional Shoreline Buffers Energy Efficiency
LEED Certified Buildings/Development Creek Restoration Management
Low Impact Development View Shed/Corridor Preservation
The proposed ordinance Tiers are identified in the following table. ALL properties would have
entitlement to the density in Tier 1, and would not be allowed the density in Tier 2 and Tier 3
without meeting the specified requirements. The three Tiers would apply to one Rural
Residential zoning district that would be created to support the Land Use in south Maplewood.
The table also includes a line that describes what could happen today on the site if no ordinance
was created with conservation incentives. This is included as a baseline from which to compare
the information in the Tiers.
In order to help explain how the density tiers would work we have identified a sample site that
currently has an application to the city for rezoning. A series of graphics are also included to
demonstrate how the table relates to what is developed on a site. The subject site is 5.22 acres,
and we are assuming that ALL acres on the site are buildable, this is just to generalize and
simplify (and not necessarily the case for the subject site), and that there are no ?deductions? so
net and gross density are the same.
As demonstrated by the table, if we consider the Sample Site, in order for the developer to gain
the number of lots in Figure 1, the developer would be required to achieve 4 ? 6 conservation
principles under the new ordinance which would end up looking more like Figure 4. If you look
at the graphic in Figure 1, you will see that no conservation principles are met under the current
ordinance; whereas in Figures 2 through 4 the amount of conservation and open spaces
preserved increase as the density increases which is how the stop-gap ordinance would be
structured. With the adoption of a conservation ordinance, the city can protect natural
resources, while still allowing the legal entitlement on the property. (Table 2 and Figures 1 ? 4
are found on the attached pages)
2
Packet Page Number
Page 47 of 209
SUMMARY
In conclusion the purpose of the stop-gap ordinance is to protect the high quality natural areas
and resources in south Maplewood, while allowing for the current land use entitlement of 4.3
units per acre. Upon council?s direction, staff intends to expeditiously create an ordinance that
protects the natural areas and the character of south Maplewood. Staff also recognizes that the
future direction of the Rural Residential land use has not been solidified (In the comprehensive
plan update). It is our intent to create an ordinance that can be revised to accommodate any
density range selected by the council, while still implementing conservation principles in the
city?s rural residential areas.
Timeline
It is essential to get the stop-gap ordinance in place as soon as possible. As a result, the
majority of this ordinance will be created before the end of 2008, and will be brought to the
environmental and natural resources commission and the planning commission on January 6,
2009. If necessary, the planning commission will also have the opportunity to review the
ordinance on January 20, 2009 prior to the council review. Staff?s goal is to have the city
council review the ordinance at the January 26, 2009 meeting, and have adoption early in
February. In conjunction with the ordinance, it will be necessary to rezone the properties in
south Maplewood to ensure that the stop-gap ordinance applies to the areas that the city wants
to protect. The public hearing for the ordinance will also include the public hearing for the
rezoning which should occur at the January 20, 2009 planning commission meeting.
3
Packet Page Number
Page 48 of 209
Table 2: Density Entitlements and Concept Site Plans
Sample
Site
Density IncentivesUnitsComments
( Net
Acres)
4.3 Units/Acre None5.2222 Units This scenario is the maximum
(ORDINANCE number lots on the site that
TODAY)could be developed under the
current ordinance (as
proposed today it is 14
See Figure 1
standard lots)
TIER 1: Baseline Entitlement 5.222 ? 7 Units This range would be the base
0.5 ? 1.5 U/A entitlement on the site,
without conservation
principles.
See Figure 2
TIER 2: Developer would need 5.228 ? 13 The developer will be
1.6 ? 2.6 U/A to select 3 Unitsrequired to work jointly with
Conservationthe city to identify the best
Principles from Table 1 conservation tools to
to develop in this implement on a site.
See Figure 3
range.
TIER 3: Developer would need 5.2214 ? 22 To achieve this tier, the
2.7 ? 4.3 U/A to select 3 more (total Unitsdeveloper will be required to
of 6) Conservation cluster the development and
Principles from Table 1 set a minimum of 50% of the
to develop in this land into open space.
range.Additionally, the appropriate
conservation tools will need
to be agreed upon with the
city.
See Figure 4
4
Packet Page Number
Page 49 of 209
Figure 1: Concept under Current Comprehensive Plan
Site:
5.22 Acres
Lots:
16
Density:
2.7 ? 3.0 U/A
Unit Type:
SF
Conservation Principles:
None
5
Packet Page Number
Page 50 of 209
Figure 2: Tier 1 Concept Plan
Site:
5.22 Acres
Lots:
4
Density:
0.5 ? 1.5
U/A
Unit Type:
Single Family
Conservation Principles:
Greenway Protection Area
6
Packet Page Number
Page 51 of 209
Figure 3: Tier 2 Concept Plan
Site:
5.22 Acres
Lots:
10
Density:
1.6 ? 2.5 U/A
Unit Type:
SF
Conservation Principles:
Greenway Protection, Low
Impact Development,
Woodlands Protection,
Clustering
7
Packet Page Number
Page 52 of 209
Figure 4: Tier 3 Concept Plan
Site:
5.22 Acres
Lots:
15
Density:
2.7 ? 4.3
U/A
Unit Type:
Mix of SF and
MF
Conservation Principles:
Greenway Protection, Low
Impact Development,
Woodlands Protection,
Clustering, 50% Open
Space, View Shed
Protection
8
Packet Page Number
Page 53 of 209
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager
FROM:
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
SUBJECT: 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update
DATE:
December 1, 2008
INTRODUCTION
The city council will continue its review of the entire draft 2030 comprehensive plan at
the December 8th meeting.
DISCUSSION
Land use has been the focus at the last several comprehensive plan related meetings. It
is expected that land use will again be heavily discussed on December 8th; however the
consultants and staff members who developed the other chapters in the comprehensive
plan will be available to answer any questions as the council moves towards approving
the document for distribution.
Staff is requesting that the council take three actions at the December 8th meeting. The
three requests are outlined below.
1. A decision on the density range for the Rural Low Density land use designation
for South Maplewood. The planning commission recommended 0.5 to 1.5 units
per net acre and staff had presented an option of 1.6 to 2.59 u.p.a. with the
stipulation that a new conservation tiered density zoning district be created.
2. A decision on the density range for the next highest, and largest, residential land
use designation, Low Density Residential. Staff has consistently recommended
2.6 to 6 units per net acre. The planning commission recommended to council
1.6 to 4.0 units per net acre. Staff continues to recommend the original density
as the designations don?t need to mathematically follow each other and the
density was derived from existing parcels within the current comprehensive plan,
and changing it would require a policy change including several parcels that
would then be excluded due to the new range and put into other land uses which
could significantly change neighborhoods and require future rezoning.
3. A vote to distribute the comprehensive plan and begin the adjacent and affected
jurisdictional review period. The review period can last up to six-months, but staff
will be actively working to ensure a shorter review timeframe. After the review
period the comprehensive plan will come back to the council for final adoption.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the draft 2030 comprehensive plan in order to continue the discussion and take
action on the three requests outlined above.
Attachments:
1. August 19, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes
2. September 16, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes
Packet Page Number
Page 54 of 209
%XXEGLQIRX
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2008
V. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 7:00 p.m. - 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Public Hearing
Rose Lorsung of MFRA gave a presentation on the draft plan of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan and
explained ground rules for the public hearing.
It was decided by the commissioners that they would hold their discussions until after the public
completes their comments as part of the hearing.
Chairperson Fischer reiterated the ground rules and opened the public hearing for comments. The
following people spoke:
Duane Goodnek, 2002 English Street, said his property abuts the Bruce Vento Trail. He referred to
the Light Rail Transit/Busway section of the Transportation chapter that refers to the feasibility of
future use of buses on the Vento Trail alignment. Mr. Goodnek said he reviewed the Ramsey County
Regional Rail Authority?s plan which states that the trail is not planned for bus use and has specifically
been purchased for future rail service. Mr. Goodnek asked the commission to eliminate the reference
to bus rapid transit use on the trails from the plan and also insert a statement to the rail authority that
recreational trails will not be used for a bus rapid transit way.
Tom Horton, 1970 Clarence Street, questioned whether a variance would be required to add a screen
porch to the property on a grandfathered-in property in a Mixed-Use area.
Gordon Anderson, 2255 Duluth Street, said he has lived at that address for 53 years and the adjacent
property is zoned residential, but his property is zoned commercial. Mr. Anderson said he would like
his property rezoned to residential.
Lettie Sageser, 1241 Frisbie Avenue, said her property abuts the Gladstone Savanna which has been
changed from an open space designation to a park designation and asked why this was done and
whether all the open space designations have been changed to park.
David Bartol, 1249 Frisbie Avenue, commented on the changes of the Gladstone Savanna use from
open space to a park designation, whether this gives the land less protection, and also referenced the
limited budget for the parks system.
Jim Valenciano, 1489 Sherren Avenue, commented that since the colors have been changed on the
new use map, it is difficult to compare the new map with the old. Mr. Valenciano said his property
abuts Highway 36 and the plan shows a new path between the highway and his property, but was not
clear how it would tie into White Bear Avenue. Mr. Valenciano asked how this path would affect his
property.
Leo Capeder spoke representing Truck Utilities at Highway 36 and English Street which is an
industrial use. Mr. Dieter asked how this would affect their taxes and said they are concerned with the
watershed problems and sewer problems. Mr. Capeder said they are concerned with how much water
will run across Highway 36 and through their back property to the other side of Gervais Area and into
the wetland area. Mr. Capeder said they want to make sure that their concerns are addressed.
Packet Page Number
Page 55 of 209
Planning Commission
-2-
Minutes of 08-19-08
Jim Svoboda, 2036 English Street, said his property is on the proposed Skillman Street has a
driveway easement. Mr. Svoboda said he wants to develop his property and displayed a letter from
Ramsey County Property Records and Revenue showing his property value has diminished but
shows his taxes have increased. Mr. Svoboda said his property has been determined to be land
locked and cannot be developed, but he intends to pursue developing his property.
Jonathon Buseng, 1247 Kohlman Avenue, said his property is proposed to be reclassified from
residential to commercial. Mr. Buseng asked that specific guidelines be added to the city ordinances
on what can and cannot be permitted on a nonconforming residence. He asked for specific
clarification on whether he could add such things as new siding or replace windows without this being
considered a special use permit process.
Michael Eller, 1581 Sexton Avenue, said his property is zoned residential and asked what is planned
for this area. He noted that there is vacant land behind his property and asked what is planned for
that area.
Ralph Sletten, 2747 North Clarence Street, said the city, Ramsey County and the Watershed District
have made changes by putting in dams, waterfalls and backing up water on 43 acres of KSTP?s
property. Mr. Sletten said the tower on that property has been compromised due to the backed up
water. Mr. Sletten said the Watershed District has previously paid to have one of the tower anchors
re-stabilized and another anchor needs to be fixed and causes grave concerns by the residents. He
said they want the anchor taken care of and the water moved back. Mr. Sletten also said that the
1950s Watershed District enacted the Waterways Act which prohibits the changing of water directions
and he wants that looked into.
John Wykoff, 2345 Maryland Avenue East, asked for the costs to tax payers for the comprehensive
plan, the parks, trails, and open space study, and the Gladstone project and mentioned that the city
would not let him build a garage.
There were no further comments from the public; the public hearing was then closed for comments
from the public.
Rose Lorsung suggested that the commission and staff consider the public?s comments in the order
that they were made.
Brandon Bourdon of Kimley-Horn Associates considered the first question regarding the Bruce Vento
Trail and the transit alternatives being considered. Mr. Bourdon said it is early in the process and
many trails including the Vento Trail will be considered for transit alternatives ranging from light rail to
commuter rail to bus rapid transit.
Acting city manager Chuck Ahl mentioned that the Vento Trail corridor is owned by the Ramsey
County Regional Rail Authority. Mr. Ahl said the Rail Authority is purchasing additional trail land for
expansion and will have a meeting for public comments on the future plans for the trail in mid
September. Mr. Ahl advised those interested residents to check the next issue of City News or call
city hall for the meeting date and attend that meeting.
Commissioner Boeser asked for clarification on whether the city has the ability to eliminate the
possibility of bus transit on the trail corridor.
Acting city manager Ahl responded the city does not have veto authority over this since the Rail
Authority is the owner of the property and has jurisdiction. Mr. Ahl said if the city is not in support of
bus transit on the trail, this should be made clear.
Packet Page Number
Page 56 of 209
Planning Commission
-3-
Minutes of 08-19-08
Duane Goodnek spoke again regarding his wish for this to be made clear in the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Goodnek said that since the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority?s plan states bus transit use
is not planned on recreational trails, this statement should be added to Maplewood?s plan or at a
minimum, delete the statement that bus rapid transit will be considered from the city?s plan.
Ms. Lorsung presented the second speaker?s question regarding grandfathering clauses and possible
additions or alterations to a nonconforming use property in a mixed use area. Ms. Lorsung said there
are local policies and state statutes that govern specific types of grandfathering, but usually precedent
establishes city requirements.
Senior planner Tom Ekstrand explained often times a judgment call needs to be made and as an
example he said past precedent would allow a home on property that is zoned to be commercial or
nonconforming to make minor changes such as new siding or windows. Mr. Ekstrand further
explained that in the past requests for additions or garages on these nonconforming properties have
required a Conditional Use Permit application for consideration by the city council. Mr. Ekstrand
commented that establishing guidelines for what would be allowable on these types of properties
would be helpful and a good idea.
Commissioner Boeser said guidelines are needed for these situations, but these nonconforming uses
are zoning related questions and after the comprehensive plan is updated, the zoning code will be
reviewed and these zoning questions will be considered at that time.
Rose Lorsung commented the city has to follow the state statute for nonconformities and
grandfathering clauses, but the city does have the opportunity to update the ordinance making it clear
and in line with what the statute says. Ms. Lorsung encouraged residents interested in grandfathering
clauses and nonconformities to go to the city?s website and view those sections of the city code.
Commissioner Boeser asked at what time a person?s land use officially changes when the land use is
to be changed. Ms. Lorsung responded the land use officially changes when the city council adopts
the plan and when that plan is published in a city newspaper.
Ms. Lorsung presented the next resident?s comments regarding his property on Duluth Street
designated as commercial in a residential area. Ms. Lorsung said the two properties being used as
residential were previously guided as future industrial and under the new plan will be reguided as
commercial as part of the cleanup to commercial use in that area.
Commissioner Desai suggested that since the property is being used as residential, the industrial
designation was possibly a mistake and that the designation could now be corrected to residential in
the updated plan.
Ms. Lorsung responded this is not the case even though the property is being used as residential,
since the property?s use designation fell within the highway corridor area designated at the time as
industrial use.
Commissioner Boeser said he would favor reguiding the property to residential use rather than
commercial use as the property owner requested, since the property to the east and south is
designated as residential use.
Commissioner Trippler moved to recommend changing the two parcels? designation to Low
Density Residential designation. Commissioner Martin seconded the motion.
Packet Page Number
Page 57 of 209
Planning Commission
-4-
Minutes of 08-19-08
Commissioner Martin asked how this resident could have his property designation changed and not
have been notified of the change. Acting city manager Ahl commented the city has gone through the
process of updating this plan five times over the 50-year history and the various commissions and
councils have used different procedures. Mr. Ahl mentioned residents were notified this year about
proposed land use changes affecting their designation, but this was not required or done in the past.
Ms. Lorsung commented the city is not required by law to notify individual property owners of land use
changes, but are required to notify residents of proposed zoning changes.
The commission then voted as follows regarding the above motion to change the two parcels?
designation to Low Density Residential: Ayes - all
Ms. Lorsung reintroduced the next comments regarding the Gladstone Savanna property being
designated as Park. Ms. Lorsung apologized saying this was an administrative error on their part and
the Gladstone Savanna property would be corrected from Park designation to Open Space
designation.
Commissioner Boeser asked Ms. Lorsung for further information on the differences between Park and
Open Space designations. Ms. Lorsung referred to the land use plan and parks, trails and open space
plan for further clarification on these designations, but explained that open space parcels were
purchased with referendum funds and have been designated for protection and preservation.
Acting city manager Ahl further clarified the city wants to protect and enhance its open space parcels
describing them as jewels in the community and said the city is looking to find a means to be able to
enhance these natural parcels.
Ms. Lorsung introduced the next resident comments regarding the changing of map colors. Ms.
Lorsung explained the previous plan had many more color designations than is usual for a
community. Ms. Lorsung said the map color designations were reduced from approximately 25 color
designations to 10 as part of the cleanup of this update of the plan. Ms. Lorsung further explained the
individual colors used do not have any specific meaning.
Ms. Lorsung explained the second part of this resident?s comments regarding a proposed path or trail
between his property and Highway 36. Ms. Lorsung commented that a consultant is looking at a
possible trail in that area, but there are a number of studies that still need to be completed before that
question is resolved.
Acting city manager Chuck Ahl clarified this trail will run along the south side of Highway 36 from
Hazelwood Avenue to the Vento Trail bridge in order to eliminate the dangerous crosswalk at
Hazelwood. Mr. Ahl further clarified this trail is not proposed for study, but rather construction
contracts have been signed and the trail will be built in the next two months.
Ms. Lorsung presented the next resident?s question and asked that resident to come forward for
clarifications. Mr. Capeder said his business is a light manufacturer located on Highway 36 and
English Street. Mr. Capeder said his property designation is proposed from industrial to commercial
designation and asked what affect this would have on his property. Ms. Lorsung responded
addressing the land use designation change from industrial to commercial designation is part of the
cleanup process of the plan. Ms. Lorsung further explained that Mr. Capeder is one of those industrial
businesses that are operating under a Conditional Use Permit and can operate until the end of time
under the mandatory conditions of the conditions use permit.
Packet Page Number
Page 58 of 209
Planning Commission
-5-
Minutes of 08-19-08
Mr. Capeder asked if there would be any change to his tax base. Acting city manager Ahl responded
typically the tax assessor looks at uses of property and if significant value was added to land, if value
was added due to a land use change or if there are a number of other properties in the area
beginning to redevelop, this may have an impact. Mr. Ahl said that over his 25 years of experience, he
considers that land use plan changes do not impact the tax assessment and if Mr. Capeder does not
change his use and continues the overall use of his property, it should not significantly change the
value of his property.
Mr. Ahl further explained the Department of Transportation did a study to look at redevelopment of the
English and Highway 36 intersection, which has the only signal between Century Avenue and
Highway 280. Mr. Ahl said the DOT is planning sometime over the next twenty years to redevelop that
intersection, which may involve Mr. Capeder?s property at some time in future years. Mr. Ahl also
mentioned that the city and Watershed District are both well aware of the drainage issues in the area
of Gervais Avenue and north of English and Highway 36 and has proposed a future storm water
improvement as part of the city?s capital improvement plan.
Mr. Svoboda again spoke regarding the problems he?s had with trying to redevelop his property on
Skillman. Mr. Svoboda said his taxes were scheduled to increase considerably in 2009, but after a tax
assessor?s review of his property, the taxes were then reduced. Mr. Svoboda said the city?s planning
department is not allowing him to redevelop the property that he owns. Consultant Lorsung explained
there were no land use designation changes proposed to Mr. Svoboda?s property due to the current
updating of the comprehensive plan. Ms. Lorsung explained his property was and still is designated
as Low Density Residential. Ms. Lorsung further explained that Mr. Svoboda?s property problems are
issues with zoning and access and do not have anything to do with land use designation with the
updating of the comprehensive plan.
Ms. Lorsung discussed with the resident his questions regarding what improvements might be made
by a property owner to a nonconforming property.
Ms. Lorsung commented the next property owner?s question regarding a change in land use
designation would not include the property owner?s land. Regarding the property owner?s second
question, Ms. Lorsung said everything on Germain Street is still guided as Low Density Residential
which means it does not have any change in designation and she explained to the property owner
what development would be allowed on his property.
Tom Lavar, 1655 Sexton, asked if trucks will be allowed to go west past Gervais if the commercial
zoning is changed. Ms. Lorsung responded the discussion tonight is on the land use plan and not
zoning and generally land use designations have little to do with access or truck movement. Mr. Ahl
said he would not recommend connecting Gervais through English Street and that actually the access
at Hazelwood to Highway 36 may be closed.
In response to the next question on wetland issues, Mr. Ahl said this question is a long time issue and
pertains to land designated under the wetland ordinance and this land is used in the control of water
quality in the Kohlman/Keller/Gervais Lakes system.
Commissioner Boeser asked if there is a structural problem with any of the KSTP towers in that area.
Mr. Ahl responded the towers are stringently monitored and are required to have periodic
maintenance and the city has had no indication of any structural problems.
Robert Davis, 1313 Kohlman Avenue, asked if the land use designation will be changing on KSTP?s
property. Ms. Lorsung said there are no changes proposed for Mr. Davis? property, but the property
along Highway 61 is to be reguided from Industrial to Commercial designation.
Packet Page Number
Page 59 of 209
Planning Commission
-6-
Minutes of 08-19-08
George Farr, 2437 Clarence Street, asked why the property that is designated Commercial use is not
designated as wetland if the property is being used as wetland. Ms. Lorsung said properties are
guided by tax parcel, not by what is actually on the ground, and this entire property is not a wetland
but also has another use.
Ms. Lorsung responded to the next question regarding the costs to the taxpayers for the plan studies
done and mentioned this is public information and asked this resident to call acting city manager
Chuck Ahl for this information.
Vick Eisenberg, 1851 Ide Street, asked if he received the meeting notice because of land use
changes on Frost Avenue. Ms. Lorsung responded that his notice was due to the Gladstone area,
which has been and will remain a mixed use designation. Mr. Ahl mentioned that the Mixed Use
findings from the two-year Gladstone study are now being implemented with this plan update.
Betty Cody, 1751 Grandview, asked if it makes it easier for developers to come into residential areas
and acquire land when the zoning is changed from residential. Ms. Lorsung responded that there
were no changes to residential land use, but the changes were from properties already being used as
commercial.
At this time, planner Tom Ekstrand added to the record a letter from Azure Properties requesting that
their property at Hazelwood north of the Freedom service station on Beam Avenue remain Industrial
designation and not be changed to Commercial and that they also own property south of St. John?s
Hospital on Beam Avenue and they are in favor of the new Commercial designation on that property,
rather than the current Business Commercial Modified designation.
Commissioner Boeser commented the vacant property at Hazelwood north of the Freedom station is
all commercial development and he would not be in favor of designating this as industrial use but
could be developed as an industrial use. Commissioner Trippler mentioned a new industrial use
would not be allowed under a commercial designation.
Ms. Lorsung responded the definition of commercial in the comprehensive plan could include adding
light industrial uses to allow for those uses to go in under a Conditional Use Permit. Chair Fischer
asked if the commissioners objected to adding this information to the plan; no commissioners
objected.
Commissioner Trippler moved to add under the Commercial heading on page 516 of the plan a
statement at the end of that item to also include Light Industrial uses by Conditional Use
Permit.
Commissioner Pearson seconded
Commissioner Desai suggested a description should be added with examples of what Light Industrial
includes. Ms. Lorsung responded this could be discussed, but it will also be very clearly discussed in
the zoning plan update. Ms. Lorsung said there are many factors that determine light manufacturing,
but uses usually include manufacturing that includes office space with not many truck trips per day
and relatively few bays.
Commissioner Boeser said he is not in favor of adding light industrial use for one undeveloped parcel.
Commissioner Pearson said that medical related light industrial uses might be developed in this area,
since there many medical businesses existing in the area.
Packet Page Number
Page 60 of 209
Planning Commission
-7-
Minutes of 08-19-08
The question was called and the commission voted as follows: Ayes ? 5
Nays ? 2
Abstention - Fischer
The motion passed.
Ms. Lorsung suggested the information under Commercial Industrial on page 516 of the plan be
generalized and some of the specific uses be removed and the specifics be added in the zoning
update when it is revised.
Commissioner Boeser mentioned he previously proposed the property on Gervais south of the park
be changed from commercial to government use. It was discussed this post office business may be
renting the land and not be the property owner. It was decided the property should remain designated
Commercial.
Commissioner Trippler suggested on page 2 of chapter 4 on housing adding under the first and the
fifth goals that the city should ?promote? rather than ?develop,? correct or delete the last line of Table
5.2 on page 512, and add ?region? to the information in the last bullet on page 6-5.
Commissioner Fischer requested the percentage column on page 2.3 be corrected and questioned
why the number of Maplewood employees is not included in the chart on page 2.5. Ms. Lorsung said
the chart is from the state but the number of employees could be added and that the percentage
column would be reviewed. Ms. Fischer asked that the color designation for the townhomes on
Furness Street be checked. Ms. Lorsung commented that the color designations were checked, but
that they would review them again. Regarding comments on parking lot location to buildings, it was
suggested that a paragraph concerning sign design, adequate parking and parking lot placement
relative to building location be added. Ms. Fischer suggested that the word ?buffer? relating to
wetlands and natural resources in the Glossary be amended with a further description. Ms. Lorsung
said this would be reviewed. Ms. Fischer mentioned that a correction to add ?include? to the second
line of Residential Acre regarding major transportation rights of way.
Commissioner Walton said he does not think the proposed density in south Maplewood allows the
conservation goals to be realized, that large lots do not necessarily mean rural character, and that the
density needs to be increased. Ms. Lorsung explained that after much discussion and review of
information, the commission voted for a 1- to 2-acre net density rather than the 2-to 3-acre net density
recommended by the consultants.
Acting city manager Ahl said city staff has debated the commission?s recommended density and will
most likely not be agreeing with it, since staff believes the density is not feasible and cannot be
supported or developed under market conditions. Mr. Ahl suggested the commission reconsider and
try to get closer to the consultant?s recommended density.
Commissioner Walton questioned whether this density requirement could be considered to constitute
a taking if the land is not able to be developed due to the density. Ms. Lorsung responded this is an
important question, since the commission?s proposed net density is a large shift from what the gross
density on the property was previously.
Commissioner Walton said he is concerned that if the new density is challenged by a developer, the
end result might be much higher densities than are desired. Mr. Yarwood said he is not comfortable
with the 1 to 2.6 density gap and he feels this needs to be closed somehow.
Packet Page Number
Page 61 of 209
Planning Commission
-8-
Minutes of 08-19-08
Commissioner Yarwood asked if the commission is comfortable with raising the range to 2 to 2.5. Mr.
Ahl suggested the range could be raised from 1 to 2-2.5 looking at the net density and the same thing
could be accomplished with the city not being exposed to a taking claim for property in that area.
Commissioner Boeser suggested that with the natural resource land items taken out of the calculation
and using net acres instead of the previously used gross acres, the end result of the increased
density would be the same with much less development allowed on the land.
Acting city manager Ahl said if the commission desires to reassess this issue there is time to bring
back the consultant?s evaluation done of this area with specific numbers for further review.
Commissioners asked the consultants to bring back specific acreage numbers and to also have the
Metropolitan Council?s response with approved numbers.
Commissioner Yarwood moved to table the comprehensive plan update for further discussion at a
time when the requested information is received.
Commissioner Walton seconded Ayes ? Desai, Fischer, Walton, Yarwood, Martin, Boeser
Nays ? Pearson, Trippler
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number
Page 62 of 209
%XXEGLQIRX
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Comprehensive Plan Update Continued Discussion
Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report for continuing discussion on the comprehensive plan
update.
Commissioner Yarwood commented the planning commission agrees that low density in south
Maplewood is desired and that the current R1 land use designation is not appropriate. Mr. Yarwood
assured residents the commission is in agreement with wanting low density in south Maplewood, but
the question to resolve is how to achieve this.
Rose Lorsung, the city?s consultant from MFRA, explained background information discussed at
previous meetings and explained the desire to keep this area rural and low density.
Commissioner Hess asked Ms. Lorsung to comment on the Metropolitan Council?s plans and
recommendation for making sewer viable in south Maplewood. Ms. Lorsung responded the overall
density calculation is what is important to the Metropolitan Council. Ms. Lorsung explained since the
city has an overall net density of 6 units per acre and is over the 3 units per acre required by the
Metropolitan Council, the Council has at this time encouraged Maplewood to pursue sewering one- to
two-acre lots in south Maplewood. Ms. Lorsung noted the Metropolitan Council has not done an
analysis of the area and is not aware that only 63% of guided land in south Maplewood is designated
buildable land and developable.
Commissioner Walton asked Ms. Lorsung to further explain how the zoning designation would work
together with the land use designation in south Maplewood. Ms. Lorsung explained cluster
developments and possible zoning districts that would work with the land use designation in that
area.
Commissioner Pearson said the city does not have an obligation to the Metropolitan Council on
housing unit numbers, since the city is doing well with overall housing numbers and there remain a
low number of required units to be met by 2030. Mr. Pearson said he does not support any change
from the current .5 density per acre in south Maplewood. Mr. Pearson said even though the public
hearing was previously closed, he would be interested in hearing comments from those people in the
audience.
The commission agreed to hear comments from the audience; the following people spoke:
Michaele Bailey, 1615 South Sterling, encouraged the south Maplewood residents in the audience to
take this opportunity to come forward and make comment to the commission. Ms. Bailey said she
agreed with Mr. Pearson regarding the differences in the existing land types in south Maplewood and
that the rural feeling was not talked about.
Fredrica Musgrave, 1949 Greenbriar Street, said she is a member of the environmental and natural
resources commission and said she does not believe there is a consensus of what type of density
development is desired in south Maplewood. Ms. Musgrave said the parks, trails and open space
task force members were not asked what they wanted to do to save south Maplewood. Ms.
Musgrave said it would have been less costly to include the public in this debate from the beginning
Packet Page Number
Page 63 of 209
Planning Commission
-2-
Minutes of 09-16-08
and there seems to be a conspiracy or collusion to put the city in a financially awkward and
embarrassing state.
Commissioner Yarwood clarified his earlier comments explaining the planning commission
consensus he mentioned referred to preserving the low density and rural character of south
Maplewood, but how to get to there is not a matter of consensus and that is why they are meeting
tonight.
Commissioner Trippler asked staff to comment on the many open meetings that were held previously
asking for comments from the public regarding the south Maplewood area. Mr. Ekstrand explained
this has been a very public process with notifications of many public meetings asking for citizen
comments and the implication that this has been a closed process is not true in any manner. Mr.
Ekstrand reviewed the many open meetings where the public was invited to attend and give
comments.
Jim Carradin, 2620 Carver Avenue, said he feels the planning commission has listened and heard
the concerns of the neighbors and they all agree they want to see a lower density. Mr. Carradin said
his concern is that the city council may have a preconceived notion of what they want to see in this
area and will disregard the planning commission?s recommendation and the input by the residents.
Mark Bonitz, 1635 South Sterling, said he has attended many meetings and after many comments by
residents, city staff is now responding poorly saying that they do not support this since this density is
unworkable. Mr. Bonitz said the biggest if with this plan is what the council wants and votes for. Mr.
Bonitz asked the commission to take a stand and keep the density low.
Keith Buttleman, 2503 Haller Lane, urged the commission not to compromise on the goal of
maintaining rural character and not to make recommendations based on what the Metropolitan
Council might do.
Julie Binko, 1949 Greenbriar, said she is a member of the parks commission and encouraged the
commission to keep the low density planning in south Maplewood.
Roger Anderson, 2730 Carver Avenue, said he attended the first public meeting at the fire station
and did not get any information from the meeting and left early. Mr. Anderson said there is only one
inlet and outlet in the area and there will be serious traffic problems.
Steve Menarchek, 1364 Dorland Road South, said his property backs up to the Copar property and
according to their plan he will have ten townhomes across from the back of his home. Mr. Menarchek
thanked the commission for their work to keep the area looking like it does now. Mr. Menarchek
questioned if Copar should default on this project or decide to sell the land, whether the
comprehensive plan will revert back to where the Copar property is now.
Ms. Lorsung responded that the current plan for the Copar site is in line with the approved density,
but the planning commission could reguide the property to rural low density if Copar should default
and the property were to go back on the market and the next property owner could develop the
property on a net per acre basis between 2.6 and 6 units per acre.
Joe Bailey, 1615 South Sterling, said that as a citizen he feels he has been heard and appreciates
that the city had many meetings to hear the neighbors? concerns. Mr. Bailey said he supports the
idea that this neighborhood should remain rural and that the city take to heart what the citizens are
saying.
Packet Page Number
Page 64 of 209
Planning Commission
-3-
Minutes of 09-16-08
Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue, spoke about the history of south Maplewood. Mr. Cockriel said
there is a national park in Maplewood and this should be used a marketing tool for Maplewood. Mr.
Cockriel said the south Maplewood area should be protected. Mr. Cockriel mentioned a
neighborhood meeting planned for October 4 at the St. Paul Ski Jump land.
Claire Jensen, 2533 Haller Lane, said she is concerned with the amount of traffic on Sterling and
asked that their little bit of country in the city remain as it is.
Carolyn Petersen, 1801 Gervais Avenue, said she was on the original open space task force that
ranked 55 parcels of land for open space purchases. Ms. Petersen said the Copar land in south
Maplewood was ranked seventh. Ms. Petersen asked if Ms. Lorsung?s comments on the natural
resources in south Maplewood could be included as part of the comprehensive plan. Ms. Lorsung
responded that each part of the comprehensive plan was derived with natural resources in mind first
and this information is intended to convey the importance of the preservation requirements and
professionally she is not in favor of doing anything to negatively affect south Maplewood.
George Gonzales, 2359 Heights Avenue, said his property is in the area to be developed by Copar,
but that he is speaking to give his support to his neighbors and to the planning commission and
requests the commission stand by its convictions for rural low density.
There were no further comments from the public.
Commissioner Trippler noted for the record that the only reason he has heard from the city council or
city that they could not justify .5 units per acre is that it is not economically feasible. Mr. Trippler said
this is ludicrous, there is no basis for this and there are other local communities that have developed
at .5 units per acre or less.
Commissioner Pearson said his opinion has been and remains in support of .5 units per acre and he
heard nothing tonight from the neighbors to change his opinion.
Commissioner Trippler moved the commission designate the properties south of Carver Avenue
previously designated R1R (single dwelling rural residential) in the current comprehensive plan as
Rural Low Density in the new comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Yarwood seconded Ayes ? Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Walton,
Yarwood
Nays ? Martin
The motion passed.
Commissioner Pearson moved the commission define Rural Low Density as .5 units per acre.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Hess moved the commission designate the Rural Low Density as .5 to 1.5 units per
net acre.
Commissioner Yarwood seconded Ayes ? Desai, Fischer, Hess, Martin, Trippler, Walton,
Yarwood
Nays ? Pearson
The motion passed.
Commissioner Trippler moved the commission define the Low Density Residential designation as 1.6
to 4 units per net acre.
Packet Page Number
Page 65 of 209
Planning Commission
-4-
Minutes of 09-16-08
Commissioner Desai seconded Ayes ? all
The motion passed.
Commissioner Trippler moved the commission send the comprehensive plan to the city council with
the commission?s recommendation, comments and changes for the council?s approval and then to be
forwarded to the Metropolitan Council.
Commissioner Desai seconded Ayes ? all
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number
Page 66 of 209
Agenda Item L1
AGENDA REPORT
TO
: City Council
FROM:
Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: Review and Consider Approval for Extension of City Attorney Contracts
a. Alan Kantrud for Prosecution and General Services
b. Chuck Bethel for Labor Attorney
DATE: December 3, 2008
INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY
The contracts with City Attorneys Alan Kantrud and Chuck Bethel were two-year contracts signed in
October 2006. Mr. Kantrud and Mr. Bethel have been continuing to provide their services during the
past 5 weeks on extensions. Formal approval of these extensions is recommended.
The proposed contracts for Mr. Kantrud and Mr. Bethel are attached. They provide for a continuation
of their service through the end of 2009. The length of the term for their service is based upon an
assumed starting of a new City Manager during the early months of 2009. This provides the new
Manager an opportunity to work with each of the Attorneys to determine his/her preferences and to
evaluate their services. The new Manager would then have adequate time to solicit other services or
other staffing arrangements if desired. This term also provides some security for Mr. Kantrud and Mr.
Bethel to know that their services will be contracted for the entire year.
As Acting City Manager, I have found both Mr. Kantrud and Mr. Bethel to be professional and
responsible in the performance of their duties. They both are regular members of our Management
Team and the staff are comfortable in dealing with each of them on issues. Both serve as excellent
resources for our staff on legal issues and guidance to avoid or resolve potential disputes. I do not
have any reasons to suggest switching attorneys at this time.
The cost of the service for both attorneys is equal to that provided in the 2006 contracts with the
exception that both individuals are requesting a paid membership to the Maplewood Community
Center, which is approximately $700 in total expenses. An additional request from Mr. Kantrud is that
the City provide a work space [likely to be a work cubical] for his administrative assistant. This
arrangement should work well with our Police Department to coordinate prosecutions and is not
believed to be a major cost issue.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion extending the contracts for legal services with
Alan Kantrud and Labor Relations Attorney services with Chuck Bethel through December 31, 2009 at
the rates indicated within the proposed agreements and authorize the Acting City Manager to execute
said agreements.
Attachments:
1. Contract for Attorney Services ? Alan Kantrud
2. Contract for Attorney Services ? Chuck Bethel
Packet Page Number
Page 67 of 209
City of Maplewood Contract for Attorney Services
st
This AGREEMENT entered into this 1 day of October, 2008, (the ?Effective Date?) by
and between the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as ?City?) and H.
Alan Kantrud (hereinafter referred to as ?Kantrud? or ?Attorney?).
WHEREAS, in 2006 the City originally put forth a Request for Proposals (?RFP?) to
contract out its legal services for 2 years and in response to that RFP retained Attorney as
its City Attorney and Prosecutor on or about September 11, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the City has continuously contracted with Kantrud as its City Attorney and
Prosecutor since October 1, 2006 at a current rate of $16,500.00 monthly; and
WHEREAS, the City has found Attorney?s performance as City Attorney to be
competent and professional and has continued to retain his services; and
WHEREAS, the City?s original term of two years as set forth in the RFP has now
expired; and
WHEREAS, the City is now in the process of seeking to retain a new City Manager who
is expected to start sometime in 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City believes it is in the best interests of the City to maintain consistency
in its legal representation throughout the process of selecting and retaining a new City
Manager; and
WHEREAS, the City also believes it is in the best interests of the City that the new City
Manager have sufficient time to work with the City Attorney in 2009 to determine
whether he or she believes that the current City Attorney is a good fit, but not be
obligated beyond 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City now desires to enter into a contract for the services of Attorney as
City Attorney to assure his continued performance of that position through 2009; and
WHEREAS, Attorney is agreeable to entering into a contract with the City pursuant to
the understated proposed terms and conditions
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the
parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Duties
The City hereby agrees to retain Attorney as City Attorney and Prosecutor to perform the
functions and duties of City Attorney and Prosecutor and such other legally permissible
and proper functions and duties as the Acting City Manager, City Manager and City
Council from time to time shall assign. Said duties shall be consistent with and guided
by the course-of-conduct established through the previous period of representation and
1
Packet Page Number
Page 68 of 209
the parties hereto agree that the established duties thereof are mutually satisfactory.
Section 2. Term
It is agreed the start date will be October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009.
Section 3. Salary
The City agrees to pay Attorney for his services rendered pursuant hereto at the same
monthly rate of $16,500.00 per month that is currently paid payable to attorney in the
same manner as it is currently paid - in monthly installments of $16,500.00. The City
shall provide a small workspace for Attorney?s assistant to enhance the efficiency of the
interaction and reduce costs to the City for CSO and vehicle time. The City shall provide
Attorney membership at the MCC at no charge, for each month or partial month that
Attorney performs services hereunder.
General Provisions
A. The text herein shall constitute the entire Agreement between the parties hereto.
B. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs at law and
executors of Attorney.
C. If any provision or portion thereof contained in this Agreement shall be held
unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, it shall be deemed severable and the remainder
of this Agreement shall not be affected and shall remain in fill force and effect.
D. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise
interfere with the right of the City to terminate the services of
Attorney at any time,because of malfeasance, nonfeasance or gross
misconduct.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties here to have signed and executed this Agreement,
both in duplicate, effective on the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MAPLEWOODATTORNEY
__________________________________ _____________________________
Date: _____________________________ Date: ________________________
__________________________________
Date: _____________________________
2
Packet Page Number
Page 69 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 70 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 71 of 209
Agenda Item L2
AGENDA REPORT
TO
: City Council
FROM:
Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: Consider Canceling Regular Meeting Scheduled for December 22, 2008
DATE: December 3, 2008
INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY
The meeting of December 22, 2008 is currently scheduled for holiday week. Staff has reviewed items
currently being prepared and determined there is nothing pressing for the agenda on this evening.
The Council can consider canceling this meeting. Earlier in the agenda, the Council will be
conducting the Truth in Taxation Hearing. If additional debate time is required on the budget, this
meeting is available for that purpose. Otherwise, if the Council has no items for discussion, staff
suggests canceling the meeting as part of this item so that advanced notice can be provided.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion canceling the Regular Meeting for December
22, 2008.
Packet Page Number
Page 72 of 209
Agenda Item L3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager
FROM: DuWayne Konewko, Community Development/Parks Director
SUBJECT:Resolution for Community Development Fees
DATE: November 24, 2008
INTRODUCTION
City fees are adjusted at the beginning of each year. The fees charged by the
Community Development Department include fees for building permits and associated
charges (mechanical permits, electrical permit fees and the like), planning fees (zoning
and land use applications) and restaurant inspection fees. Staff is proposing the
community development service charges and permit fees be adjusted and increased as
stated below by January 1, 2009.
Previous Fee Adjustments
In 2004, the city conducted a User Fee Study to determine if the city was charging an
adequate amount of money to cover service costs for Community Development
Department fees. Based on the study all fees were increased. However, the increases
were proposed over a five-year period to avoid a drastic spike in cost to the public for
these services. The end of 2007 was an exception, however, when the fees were raised
to the top end of the 5-year fee chart.
DISCUSSION
Building Permits and Associated Fees
In previous years, the building permit fee schedule has been specified by the code
adopted by the State of Minnesota and thus the City of Maplewood. The newly adopted
International Code Council (ICC) does not have a fee schedule incorporated in the code.
Thus, by adopting the ICC, the State of Minnesota no longer has a fee schedule for
cities to automatically adopt. Therefore, Maplewood is now required to set its own fees
for building permits. These fees should be based on job-cost valuation. The building
official should make the determination of the value or valuation.
The City shall collect permit fees for work governed by the ordinance as adopted by the
City of Maplewood. In Maplewood?s building ordinance, fees are currently required to be
adopted by resolution. The proposed resolution will adopt the fees from the Table A-1
Building Permit Fees. This is the fee schedule currently used in Maplewood. A copy is
attached for approval. The proposed Building Permit Fee Schedule represents a three-
percent increase over the 2008 fee schedule. The three percent suggested increase
was arrived at because staff examined the previous years increases and in some cases
staff believed the increases were too aggressive and therefore, did not support the
Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Governments (IPD-SLG) Index of 6.7%.
Packet Page Number
Page 73 of 209
Planning Fees
As stated above, the planning fees were set as the result of the 2004 User-Fee Study.
Staff spent a considerable amount of time reviewing and discussing the planning fees.
The outcome of these discussions focused on simplifying the existing fee schedule so it
was more user friendly and understandable and to also look at the fee schedule
comprehensively to ensure the fees reflected staff and support time inputs. To this end,
staff is proposing a fee schedule that includes some minor increases (in almost all cases
less then 3%) and is more understandable for the public to interpret.
Staff is however, proposing a new fee for restaurant plan reviews. An existing remodel
of a restaurant is proposed at $325.00 and the fee for a new restaurant is proposed at
$675.00. The intent of this new restaurant plan review fee is to help offset the costs
associated with ensuring that these plans are in compliance with state and local rules.
The City of Maplewood is the only city/county that does not have a fee in place for
reviewing restaurant plans.
Administrative approvals such as lot divisions, administrative variances and house-
setback reviews are being reduced to $500 from an average of $1,212.00 since these
fees were found to be excessive based on the amount of staff time needed to process
these applications.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution setting the 2009 Building Permit Fees and the 2009 Community
Development Service Charges.
p:com_dvpt\Dave\2009 fees memo te (11 08)
Attachments:
1. Planning/Building Permit Fees Resolution
2. Table A-1 Building Permit Fees
3. 2009 Community Development Service Charges
2
Packet Page Number
Page 74 of 209
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO.____
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES
WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council has performed their annual
evaluation of the fees charged by the city for building permits, planning reviews
and restaurant inspections;
WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council hereby sets the following fees
listed in the table entitled Table A-1 Building Permit Fees;
WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council hereby sets the Community
Development Service Charges for planning and health related fees as outlined
on the fee chart entitled 2009 Community Development Service Charges;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Maplewood adopt
the above mentioned 2009 fee amounts.
Maplewood City council _________ this resolution on ___________, 2008.
3
Packet Page Number
Page 75 of 209
Attachment 2
Proposed 2009 Permit Fees and Increases
Table A-1 Building Permit Fees:
TOTAL VALUATION FEE
$1.00 to $500.00 $27.50
$501.00 to $2,000.00 $27.50 for the first $500.00 plus $3.54 for each additional $100.00,
or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $80.60 for the first $2,000.00 plus $16.10 for each additional
$1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $450.90 for the first $25,000.00 plus $11.73 for each additional
$1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00
$50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $744.15 for the first $50,000.00 plus $8.19 for each additional
$1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00
$100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $1153.65 for the first $100,000.00 plus $6.55 for each additional
$1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00
$500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,773.65 for the first $500,000.00 plus $5.46 for each additional
$1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00
$1,000,001.00 and up $6,503.65 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $4.37 for each additional
$1,000.00, or fraction thereof
Other Inspections and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours??????????$100.00 per hour
(minimum charge ? two hours)
2. Re-inspection fees ????????????????????.. $100.00 per hour
3. Re-inspection fees from Health Officer on Pools...???????.....$100.00 per hour
4. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated???????.$100.00 per hour
(minimum charge ? one-half hour)
5. Interior preparation fee ???????????????????$100.00
6. For use of outside consultants for plan checking, inspections
1
and similar costs.........................................................................................Actual costs
1
Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs.
Demolition Permit Fee:
Structures not connected to utilities $75.00
Structures connected to city utilities $200.00
Electrical Permit Fee:
Set through contract with Contract Electrical Inspector
80% of the permit as it has been
Add $9.50 Admin Fee to all electrical permits.
Certificate of Occupancy Fee:
Conditional Certificate of Occupancy $100.00
Temporary / Seasonal C of O $100.00
Occupancy permit $100.00
Packet Page Number
Page 76 of 209
Investigation Fee:
Work without a Permit
If work for which a permit is required by the code has been commenced without first obtaining a permit, a
special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for the work. An investigation fee, in
addition to the permit fee, shall be collected. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit
fee required. The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other
provisions of the city code nor from any penalty prescribed by law.
Manufactured Home Permit Fee:
New installation or replacement $165.00
Moving Building Permit Fee:
Building Relocation $65.00
Investigation fee $100.00/hour
Plumbing Permit Fee:
Residential - Minimum fee $45.00
Residential $45.00 Plus, $10.00 for each fixture opening
Commercial work 2.15 % of estimated job cost plus $91.00
Plan Review Fee:
When a building permit is required and a plan is required to be submitted, a plan review fee shall be paid. Plan
review fees for all buildings shall be sixty five percent (65%) of the building permit fee, except as modified in
M.S.B.C. Section 1300.
The plan review fees specified are separate fees from the permit fees specified and are in addition to the permit
fees.
When submittal documents are incomplete or changed so as to require additional plan review or when the
project involves deferred submittal items an additional plan review fee shall be charged at the above rate.
Expiration of plan review. Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of
application shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned
to the applicant or destroyed by the building official.The building official may extend the time for action by
the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days on request by the applicant showing that circumstances
beyond the control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. No application shall be extended
more than once. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans
and pay a new plan review fee.
Refund Fee:
The building official may authorize refunding of any fee paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or
collected.
The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the permit fee paid when no work
has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code.
The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an
application for a permit for which a plan review fee has paid is withdrawn or canceled before any plan review is
done.
The building official shall not authorize refunding of any fee paid except on written application filed by the
original permittee not later than 180 days after the date of fee payment.
Packet Page Number
Page 77 of 209
Swimming Pool Permit Fee:
Above Ground $115.00
Below Ground $170.00
Residential Permit Flat Fee
(Windows, Decks, Roofs, Siding):
Windows $115.00
Deck $115.00
Residential roofs $115.00
Residential siding $115.00
Utility structures (over 120s.f. but not greater than 200s.f.) $115.00
Miscellaneous Fees:
Replacement inspection record card $50.00
Re-stamping job site plan sets $50.00
Mechanical Permit Fee:
Residential
Minimum fee $40.00
Gas piping ? Repair or new installation $40.00
Gas or oil fired furnace or boiler $40.00
Warm air furnace or hot water heating system $40.00
Construction or alt.of any warm air furnace per unit $40.00
Construction or alteration of each hot water system $40.00
Installation or replacement of each hot water system per unit $40.00
Per unit heaters based on first 100,000 BTU input $40.00
Air conditioning ? new or replacement $40.00
Wood burning furnace per unit $40.00
Swimming pool heater per unit $40.00
Air exchanger $40.00
Gas or oil space heater per unit $40.00
Gas direct vent heater per unit $40.00
Gas fireplace, Gas log or insert $40.00
In floor Heat system $40.00
Other $40.00
Commercial
All commercial work Proposed 1.85 % of estimated job cost Plus $78.00
Mechanical plan review 25% of the permit fee
building permit fees 2009 Nov 24 2008
Packet Page Number
Page 78 of 209
Attachment 3
2009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICE CHARGES
PLANNING FEES
Administrative Variances:500
Building Relocation:925
Comprehensive Plan Amendment:*1,650
Conditional Use Permit:*1,650
Conditional Use Permit Revision:*1,000
Final Plat:430
Front Yard Setback Authorization:500
Home Occupations:1,385
Lot Divisions:*500
Planned Unit Development:*2,735
Preliminary Plat:2,050
Preliminary Plat Revision or Time Extension:990
Public Vacations:*1,200
Rezoning:*1,650
Variances:*1,385
Woodlot Alteration Permit:375
Community Design Review Board:
Commercial/Multi-family reviews 1,650
Minor Construction Project500
Residential500
Revision500
Comprehensive Sign Plan500
SIGNS
Billboard Sign Permit500
Dynamic Display Sign 175
Freestanding Sign Permit175
Temporary Sign Permit45
Wall Sign Permit110
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE CHARGES
Contractor License130
On-site Sewage Systems150
Project Notification Sign200
Truth-In-Housing Evaluators License130
Truth-In-Housing Filing Fee30
Zoning Compliance Letter100
HEALTH FEES
Restaurant Plan Review - Existing325
Restaurant Plan Review - New675
*Plus a surcharge for each affected property to pay for the County's filing fee for resolutions.
Packet Page Number
P:\OFFICE\2009 FEESPage 1
Page 79 of 209
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager
FROM:
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Lot Division
APPLICANTS:
Lauren Development and Company
LOCATION:
South of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street
DATE:
December 1, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Lauren Development and Company is proposing to develop 16 single-family detached homes in
Maplewood and Little Canada. Thirteen lots would be within Little Canada, south of Labore Road.
The remaining 3 lots would be in Maplewood, northwest of the Kohlman Marsh Open Space.
Requests
In order to proceed with the project the applicants are requesting the following city approvals:
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The lot is currently guided by the Comprehensive Plan
as ?OS ? Open Space.? The request is to have the lot guided as ?R1 ? Single Dwelling? in
order to be consistent with the existing zoning and residential areas nearby.
2. Lot Division: Subdivision approval to split the existing lot into three single-family lots.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting to divide an existing lot in order to create 3 individual lots. City
ordinance allows for city staff to review any lot division request that results in the creation of three
or fewer lots. However, in this instance staff felt it was necessary to bring this request to the
planning commission because the three lots are part of a larger subdivision in Little Canada and
also needs a comprehensive plan amendment.
DISCUSSION
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The city?s comprehensive plan currently guides the lot as OS ? Open Space. Staff feels that this
was inadvertently done during the last Comprehensive Plan Update as the land is in private
ownership. With the Hidden Marsh Neighborhood Preserve and Kohlman Marsh Open Space
adjacent to the subject lot it is staff?s assertion that it was unintentionally guided as Open Space.
By approving this comprehensive plan amendment the lot would be guided with a more appropriate
Future Land Use and would also be consistent with existing zoning.
If the city council approves this plan amendment, city staff must forward the council?s action to the
Metropolitan Council for their acceptance. This motion would be subject to that review process. It
should also be noted that during the planning commission?s work on the proposed 2030
Packet Page Number
Page 80 of 209
Comprehensive Plan this lot was guided ?Low Density Residential.? This was one of the several
parcels identified as having inconsistencies between the future land use guide and zoning.
City Attorney Comments
City Attorney Alan Kantrud provided a memo in reference to this comprehensive plan amendment
request. His memo is attached to this report.
Lot Division
Lot Division
The minimum lot width for interior lots within the R1 zoning district is 75 feet at the established
building setback line, not less than 60 feet at the front lot line, except that lots located on the bulbs
of cul-de-sacs shall be no less than 40 feet in width at the front lot line. The minimum lot size
within the R1 zoning district is 10,000 square feet. The three proposed lots in Maplewood would
meet and exceed these requirements.
The majority of the parcel being proposed to be divided is within the Shoreland Overlay District.
The city has classified Gervais Lake, to the southwest, as a Class II water which requires a
minimum lot width of 75 feet for lots with sanitary sewer and a minimum lot size of 10,000 square
feet for lots without water frontage. The city has classified Kohlman Lake, to the southeast, as a
Class IV water which requires a minimum lot width of 75 feet for lots with sanitary sewer and a
minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet for lots without water frontage. Under the Shoreland
Overlay regulations, the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed for the proposed lots
would be 30 percent. This requirement would be reviewed and enforced when building permits are
applied for. The three proposed lots meet and exceed all of the Shoreland Overlay District lot
requirements.
The required setbacks in the R1 Zoning District are as follows:
Front Yard ? 30 feet minimum and 35 feet maximum
Side Yard ? 10 feet minimum
Rear Yard ? 20 Percent of Lot Depth
The applicant?s site plan dated August 25, 2008, shows that the required setbacks would be met.
Utilities
Sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be located within the proposed street right-of-way
which is completely within the City of Little Canada. Little Canada approved the utilities plan as
part of the preliminary plat on October 24, 2007.
Density
The proposed gross density for the site within Maplewood is approximately 1.36 units per acre.
The proposed density for this division would be consistent with the R1, single dwelling, Future
Land Use category. This proposed subdivision would be consistent with the large lot, single-family
homes to the north.
2
Packet Page Number
Page 81 of 209
Access
Access to the site is proposed via a 1,050 foot public street extending south from Labore Road with
a 50-foot right-of-way. The street itself is proposed to be 29 feet in width, measured from the back
of the curb. Maplewood streets require a 60-foot right-of-way, and local residential streets are to
be 32 feet in width between faces of curbs. However, the road is entirely within the City of Little
Canada and meets that city?s width requirements. The City of Little Canada approved a 550 foot
variance for the length of the cul-de-sac. The City of Maplewood?s maximum cul-de-sac length is
1,000 feet.
Department Comments
Engineering Comments
Staff engineer Steve Kummer has prepared a report that discusses issues relating to storm water
runoff, grading and general drainage patterns, pond grading design, and pond treatment design.
Please refer to his report dated November 5, 2008, which is attached to this memo. Also attached
is a report from Mr. Kummer dated April 3, 2008, which included several comments and
recommendations and compelled the developer to make several revisions to its subdivision
proposal.
Environment Planner Comments
Environmental planner Shann Finwall has prepared a report that discusses tree preservation,
slopes and wetland buffers. Please refer to Ms. Finwall?s report dated December 1, 2008, which is
attached to this memo.
Open Space Coordinator Comments
An open space area is proposed for the southern portions of the proposed three lots. The
applicant should be required to dedicate conservation easements over the southern portion of the
three proposed lots to preserve the open space areas to the southeast and southwest.
Open Space Coordinator Virginia Gaynor has prepared a report that discusses plant species
selection within the subdivision. Please refer to Ms. Gaynor?s report dated November 10, 2008,
which is attached to this memo.
Fire Department Comments
Maplewood?s Fire Chief Steve Lukin said the fire department would have no issue serving the three
lots. Chief Lukin did not see any problems with the length of the cul-de-sac as long as there would
be hydrants at the required placements as with any street. The overall utilities plan dated August
25, 2008, shows the proposed placement of hydrants along the street in the City of Little Canada.
However, Chief Lukin did point out that it might make more sense for the homes to be served by
Little Canada to help alleviate confusion in the immediate area as to what city serves which home.
The provision of fire, police and utilities would be worked out between the cities of Maplewood and
Little Canada through a joint powers agreement if this subdivision is approved by both
communities.
3
Packet Page Number
Page 82 of 209
Police Department Comments
Lt. Kevin Rabbett stated that in general the Police Department would have no issue with the length
of the cul-de-sac or accessing the homes through Little Canada. Lt. Rabbett also mentioned that
the Police Department currently uses routes that travel through North Saint Paul in order to serve
areas in Maplewood.
City of Little Canada Process
The City of Little Canada has approved the Richie Place Preliminary Plat. A Final Plat has yet to
be submitted to the City of Little Canada. The cities of Little Canada and Maplewood would need
to arrange a development agreement to work out financial and services issues with the subdivision.
A lawsuit has been filed against the City of Little Canada by Maplewood residents John and Jolene
Gores (2870 Arcade Street) claiming Little Canada?s approval of a variance for cul-de-sac length
was inappropriate. On October 28, 2008, Ramsey County District Court awarded Summary
Judgment to the City. The order was signed by Judge J. Thomas Mott. There is an opportunity for
this ruling to be appealed.
CONCLUSION
Regarding any environmental concerns such as complying with issues concerning wetlands, tree
removal/replacement and building on or near a slope, staff has made the following determinations:
Tree Removal/replacement: The developer is proposing to replace 45 caliper inches of significant
trees on the site by planting 15 3-caliper inch trees. Staff recommends that in order to accurately
assess this development?s tree replacement requirement per city code, the applicant must revise
the tree replacement plan to show that all trees which will be preserved are being protected to a
minimum of the critical root zone.
Slopes: The city?s engineering department has reviewed the development proposal to ensure the
slope ordinance is being met, and have found that appropriate erosion control and grading
measures are in place to feasibly develop near the slope as proposed.
Wetlands: There is a Class 1 (highest quality) wetland located on the west side of the
development. The city?s wetland ordinance requires a 100-foot buffer around a Class 1 wetland.
Several members of the planning commission expressed concern over development near a slope
adjacent one of Maplewood?s highest classified wetlands during their review of the project. For this
reason, a motion was made to recommend approval of the lot division on the condition that only
two buildable lots are created, and that Lot 2 be included in the wetland buffer easement to ensure
no development occurs near the slope. The motion did not pass but city staff finds this
recommendation merits further review by the city council.
In order to protect wetlands from development on or near a slope, the environmental and natural
resources commission have recommended the revised wetland ordinance, which the city council
will review once again in early 2009, have an increased wetland buffer of 10 feet beyond the apex
of a slope, when a slope exists in the buffer. The purpose for this requirement was due to the fact
that erosion control measures on a slope, while feasible, are difficult to monitor and have a higher
probability of failing due to the slope. Failed erosion control measures on a slope could negatively
impact the wetland. With the proposed wetland ordinance the additional buffer would deem Lots 2
and 3 of Richie Place unbuildable without a variance to the wetland buffer. Therefore, it could be
4
Packet Page Number
Page 83 of 209
reasonable for the council to consider requiring the developer to remove Lot 2 from the subdivision
proposal in order to protect the Class 1 wetland adjacent the property.
Wetland Recommendation 1 and a portion of Wetland Recommendation 5 pertain only if the
council were to find it reasonable to remove Lot 2 from the subdivision proposal.
Wetland Recommendations:
1. In order to protect the Class 1 wetland adjacent the property, the developer must submit a
revised subdivision removing Lot 2 as a buildable lot and including that land in the
proposed conservation easement.
2. The developer must submit a plan for the re-establishment of all areas graded within the
wetland buffer with native plants. This plan must be approved by the city?s naturalist.
3. The developer must submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover the re-establishment of
the wetland buffer with native plants.
4. The developer must sign a wetland buffer re-establishment maintenance agreement with
the city which will require the developer to ensure the native plants are established within
the buffer within a three-year period.
5. The conservation easement must be revised as a wetland protection buffer easement. The
location of the easement must be revised to ensure that all areas within the development
that are within 100 feet of the wetland edge (buffer) are included in the easement (not just
the most westerly portion of the development) and that Lot 2 in the current subdivision
proposal is included in the easement as well. The easement must be prepared by a land
surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing,
cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this
easement before the city will issue a grading permit.
6. Prior to approval of a grading permit the developer shall install city approved wetland signs
at the edge of the wetland buffer that specify that no building, mowing, cutting, grading,
filling or dumping be allowed within the easement. These signs must be placed every 100-
feet along the edge of the wetland buffer easement, or at every property line, whichever is
closer.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS
Planning Commission
October 7, 2008: The planning commission reviewed this proposal and tabled further review and
action. The planning commission directed staff to provide additional information concerning: their
review authority, impacts on wetlands, slopes and tree loss/replacement.
November 18, 2008: The planning commission reviewed the proposal with additional information
provided by staff. The planning commission also received more comments from the public at the
meeting. The planning commission voted to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan
amendment. The planning commission?s motion in relation to the lot division failed due to a tie.
5
Packet Page Number
Page 84 of 209
Historic Preservation Commission
Historic Preservation Commission member Ron Cockriel spoke at the November 18, 2008 planning
commission meeting. Mr. Cockriel said he did not see any artifacts on the property. Mr. Cockriel
said he also researched the Minnesota Historical site and did not see where any burial grounds
would have existed on the property. Mr. Cockriel?s comments are further detailed in the planning
commission minutes attached to this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt the resolution approving a comprehensive land use plan amendment from OS ?
Open Space to R1 ? Single Dwelling for the 2.24-acre site, located south of Labore Road
and East of Arcade Street. Approval is based on the following guiding principles and
reasons as noted in the comprehensive land use plan:
a. The proposed Future Land Use Guide would be consistent with existing zoning.
b. The proposed development would provide a wider range of housing types in this
neighborhood.
c. The proposed future land use guide would be consistent with the comprehensive
plan of Little Canada.
This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan
Council.
2. Approve the lot division request to subdivide the 2.24 acre lot located south of Labore Road
and East of Arcade Street. This lot division approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr. Kummer, dated
November 5, 2008.
b. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Finwall, dated
December 1, 2008.
c. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report by Ms. Gaynor, dated November
10, 2008.
d. Receive approval of final plat from the City of Little Canada for the rest of the 16-unit
development.
e. The applicant shall pay cash connection charges for the new vacant single-family
lots for connection to the water main and sanitary sewer main.
f. Deeds describing the three new legal descriptions, including the required drainage
and utility easement descriptions, must be drafted and stamped by the city.
Ramsey County requires this acknowledgment of approval to record the deeds.
These must be recorded with Ramsey County within one year of the date of the lot
division approval or the lot split will become null and void (city code requirement).
6
Packet Page Number
Page 85 of 209
g. The City of Maplewood entering into a joint powers agreement with the City of Little
Canada for the provision of police and fire services and utilities.
h. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the new homes on the new lots
the following must be submitted to staff for approval:
1) Proof that Ramsey County has recorded the lot division.
2) A signed certificate of survey showing the location of all property lines and
the location of the new homes.
3) Grading and drainage plan.
4) All necessary permits for sanitary sewer and water must be obtained.
7
Packet Page Number
Page 86 of 209
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Undeveloped Lot in Little Canada
East: Kohlman Marsh Open Space
South: Kohlman Marsh Open Space
West: Single-Family House and Neighborhood Preserve
PLANNING
Land Use: OS ? Open Space
Zoning: R1 ? Single Dwelling
Application Date
The city received the complete application for lot division request on August 25, 2008. The initial
60-day review deadline was October 23, 2008. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the
city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary in order to complete the review of an
application. Therefore, the revised, extended deadline for the City of Maplewood to complete the
review and take action on the request will be December 22, 2008.
P:\SEC4\Richie Place - Lot Split\Richie Place_CC_120208.doc
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Future Land Use Map
4. Shoreland Overlay Map
5. Mr. Kummer?s Report, November 7, 2008
6. Mr. Kummer?s Report, April 3, 2008
7. Ms. Finwall?s Report, December 1, 2008
8. Ms. Gaynor?s Report, November 10, 2008
9. Mr. Kantrud?s Report, December 2, 2008
10. October 7, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes
11. November 18, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes
12. Little Canada City Council Minutes October 24, 2007
13. Land Use Plan Amendment Resolution
14. Richie Place Subdivision Plans, date stamped August 25, 2008 (separate attachment)
8
Packet Page Number
Page 87 of 209
Attachment 1
Richie Place ? Request for Comp Plan Amendment
and Lot Division
Richie Place
Kohlman Lake
Figure One?Location Map
City of Maplewood
November 5, 2008
NORTH
Packet Page Number
Page 88 of 209
Attachment 2
Richie Place ? Request for Comp Plan Amendment
and Lot Division
Richie Place?
Zoned Single Dwelling
Gervais Lake
Figure Two ? Zoning Map
City of Maplewood
November 5, 2008
NORTH
Packet Page Number
Page 89 of 209
Attachment 3
Richie Place ? Request for Comp Plan Amendment
and Lot Division
Richie Place?
Guided Open Space (OS)
Gervais Lake
Kohlman Lake
Figure Three ? Future Land Use Map
City of Maplewood
November 5, 2008
NORTH
Packet Page Number
Page 90 of 209
Attachment 4
Richie Place ? Request for Comp Plan Amendment
and Lot Division
Richie Place
Gervais Lake
Kohlman Lake
Figure Four ? Shoreland Overlay
City of Maplewood
November 5, 2008
NORTH
Packet Page Number
Page 91 of 209
%XXEGLQIRX
Maplewood Engineering Comments ? Supplemental Narrative and Comments
11-5-08
1 of 3
Page
Engineering Plan Review ? Supplemental Narrative and Comments
PROJECT: Richie Place Subdivision
PROJECT NO: 08-04
COMMENTS BY: Steve Kummer, P.E. ? Staff Engineer
DATE: 11-5-08
PLAN SET: City Submittal Set: Civil/Landscape Drawings
Dated 7-30-07 and revised 1-25-08
COMPS: Stormwater Management Plan by Auth Consulting Assoc.
Revised Computations Dated 8-20-08
The following is a supplemental narrative addressing concerns raised at the Maplewood
Planning Commission Meeting on 10-7-08 regarding the Richie Place development proposal.
Storm Water Runoff
Concerns were raised regarding the amount of runoff from the development and whether the
proposed development meets Maplewood Engineering standards. The basis for meeting this
requirement is to verify that the runoff from the proposed development does not exceed pre-
development conditions.
Auth Consulting, the developer?s engineering consultant, submitted drainage computations for
review. The report bases their conclusions regarding runoff utilizing a HydroCAD model for the
2-year, 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. City staff concludes that their engineering
assumptions and HydroCAD computations to be reasonable given the types of ground cover in
both the existing and proposed conditions. Following are the total runoff rates comparing
existing vs. proposed runoff conditions:
Runoff Rate Comparison
Storm Event Pre Developed Rate Post Developed Rate
(cfs)(cfs)
2-year (2.8 in) 0.68 0.53
10-year (4.2 in) 6.35 3.80
100-year (6.0 in) 18.52 10.91
With the storm water rate control and treatment measures proposed for the development, the
post developed runoff rates are less than the pre-developed rates which meets city of
Maplewood engineering standards.
Grading and General Drainage Patterns
Concerns were raised about runoff of water from the development onto neighboring properties.
Of particular concern are impacts of runoff to the property at 2870 Arcade Street (John and
Jolene Gores) and 2970 Labore Road (David Himmelbach).
Packet Page Number
Page 92 of 209
Maplewood Engineering Comments ? Supplemental Narrative and Comments
11-5-08
2 of 3
Page
The pre-developed drainage patterns map from the drainage computations indicates the
following:
10.07 acres, which includes the two properties at 2932 and 2934 Labore Road, is
o
sloped toward and generally drains toward the Gore?s property from the
developer?s parcel.
1.27 acres, which is exclusively from the developer?s parcel, drains toward the
o
Himmelbach property.
The proposed grading plan reduces the drainage area from the developer?s property toward
the Gore?s property to 3.60 acres.
o
the Himmelbach property to 0.54 acres.
o
Therefore, the proposed development effectively reduces overland drainage toward the two
properties as noted above.
The storm water pond itself has an outlet pipe that drains to the northeast corner of the site and
into the Kohlman Marsh. The drainage from this pipe does not enter neighboring properties and
does not revise the ultimate drainage patterns of the area.
Pond Grading Design
A specific concern that was raised about the pond is that if the pond were to overflow, the
drainage would run off into the Gore?s property.
A typical design measure for any type of pond is an emergency overflow route. In case of a
plugged outlet condition or a rainfall event beyond the design capacity of the pond, any overflow
from the pond can take a route to prevent damage to surrounding buildings.
The proposed grading plan does address this. The proposed emergency overflow route will be
to the proposed low-point of the street near street station 9+30. The top elevation of the pond at
which the overflow will occur is an 888.30.
The engineering plans also show a 2 foot berm on the west side of the cul-de-sac and pond
area with a top elevation of 890.50. Any pond overflow will go the route of the established
emergency overflow point prior to topping this berm. The city?s standard freeboard requirement
is a minimum of 1 foot of elevation difference between a nearby critical elevation or building and
the pond overflow route. The design meets this standard.
Pond Treatment Design
There were concerns that the pond did not meet City of Maplewood treatment or infiltration
standards.
The developer is utilizing the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District?s Volume Control
Worksheet, which requires a developer to infiltrate 90% of the first 1 inch of runoff from a rainfall
Packet Page Number
Page 93 of 209
Maplewood Engineering Comments ? Supplemental Narrative and Comments
11-5-08
3 of 3
Page
event for all new impervious surfaces for development sites over 1 acre. The City of
Maplewood engineering staff abides by this standard when reviewing plans.
Based on the volume control worksheet, the developer is required to infiltrate 8,494 cubic feet of
storm water through the proposed rain garden. The rain garden provides 8,587 cubic feet of
storage for this purpose, which meets the treatment requirement and also meets city of
Maplewood standards.
The developer will also be required to enter into a storm water maintenance agreement with the
City of Maplewood for regular maintenance of the rain water garden.
Packet Page Number
Page 94 of 209
Attachment 6
Engineering Plan Review
PROJECT: Richie Place Subdivision
PROJECT NO: 08-04
COMMENTS BY: Steve Kummer, P.E. ? Staff Engineer
REVIEWERS: Virginia Gaynor ? Staff Naturalist
John DuCharme ? Senior Technician / Inspector
DATE: 4-3-08
PLAN SET: City Submittal Set: Civil/Landscape Drawings
Dated 8-14-07 rev. 1-10-08
COMPS: Stormwater Management Plan by Auth Consulting Assoc.
Dated 1-29-08
Lauren and Company Development is proposing to develop the formerly owned Richie property
in Little Canada into 16 single-family detached townhomes. A portion of the property overlaps
into Maplewood, where three (3) of the 16 lots will be developed.
Most of the storm water drainage from the proposed site appears to be captured by an on-site
pond on the Little Canada portion of the parcel. The pond is proposed to discharge into an
existing wetland south of the site. The wetland is part of the Kohlman Lake watershed area.
Sanitary sewer and water main service will be designed to Little Canada standards and will be
owned and maintained by the City of Little Canada.
These Engineering comments, for the most part, refer to the parcel that will be developed within
the City of Maplewood. However, a majority of the drainage from the Little Canada parcel will
be discharged into Maplewood. An examination of the hydrology of this site will also be done as
part of this engineering review.
Wetland Hydrology
1. Existing Kohlman Lake tributary wetland to the south of the development is considered a
Class 1 wetland according to the existing Maplewood Ordinance Sec 12-310. According
to Sec 12-310 Subpart (h)(3), a Class 1 wetland requires an average buffer width of 100
feet with a minimum no-disturb buffer width of 100 feet. Project shall show a 100-foot
buffer width from the delineated wetland edge.
2. The new storm sewer outfall B and installation of the associated 12-inch pipe should be
realigned such that there is no disturbance to the 100-foot buffer area. The full design
flow from the outfall shall not exceed 1 ft/s velocity and will be maintained at the 865.00
elevation. The City understands that the current pipe alignment assists in energy
dissipation and that erosion into the wetland will be a concern if the outlet is flared above
the water level of the wetland. A drop manhole at B1 may be required to reroute the
alignment out of the buffer. If rerouting the storm sewer is not practical and disturbing
the buffer will be a necessity, contact Steve Kummer (651) 249-2418 to discuss.
Pond
Packet Page Number
Page 95 of 209
Maplewood Engineering Comments
4-3-08
2 of 4
Page
Several questions about the proposed pond were raised by our City Naturalist, Ginny Gaynor
and shall be addressed:
1. Plant species selected
a. Mesic Plant Species? species selected are appropriate
b. Dry Plant Species
i. Sedum ?Autumn Joy? is a non-native ornamental so is typically not used in
a prairie planting. If designer is using this massed on the edge and
maintaining that portion as perennial garden, it is fine to use it. If it is part
of the prairie mix, I recommend using a native prairie species instead.
ii. Rudbeckia hirta ? This is a short-lived perennial. If only 6 species are
used on the slopes, I recommend selecting a longer-lived native prairie
plant.
c. # of species ? This is a very large garden and it has only 12 species.
QUESTION: Is there a design reason for using so few species? If yes, what it
that? If no, please increase to at least 10-12 species on bottom and 10-12
species on slopes. It does not cost any more to add diversity.
d. What is the ratio of grasses/sedges to flowers? (Equal amounts of all species
listed?)
2. Size -- It looks like the garden is some where in the 10,000-15,000 sq ft range. At 1?
centers this means they will plant 10,000-15,000 plugs. Please confirm this is the
intent. If not, please explain.
3. Pond establishment: What time of erosion control measures are going to be used to
establish the pond? This seems to be a very large area to mulch with wood chips
and with the amount of water that will be entering.
4. First year plant maintenance. Who is maintaining this garden? Will they water
seedlings during early establishment? Will there be weed management the first
year?
5. Filtering outlet should be built on outfall from ponding area prior to discharge into
wetland.
Grading and Drainage
1. Grading for the house pads shall not encroach upon the 100-foot wetland buffer.
2. Future Lot 3 Block 4 shall be graded such that drainage is directed away from the Gores?
property to the west.
Construction Site Sediment and Erosion Control Plan / SWPPP
Packet Page Number
Page 96 of 209
Maplewood Engineering Comments
4-3-08
3 of 4
Page
1. Heavy-duty silt fence reinforced with a compost log shall be utilized for drainage toward
wetland areas. Silt fence shall be doubled-up for 100 ft in each direction at low points.
2. The entire site slopes to the south and the graded roadway will act like a channel for
water in a partially constructed state. One row of silt fence at the bottom of the hill will
fail with a heavy rainfall and will not be sufficient to contain the site. An adequate
erosion control phasing plan for this site will need to be submitted to the City showing
efforts to be taken by the developer to prevent sedimentation into the wetland. Berming
of dirt and adequate checks need to be in place for this to occur. Contact John
DuCharme at (651) 249-2411 to discuss.
3. Locations of onsite storage of topsoil, backfill and borrow material shall be shown on the
SWPPP. The plans shall also indicate the methods of erosion and sediment protection
on slopes and stockpiles (i.e. seed/blanket, silt fence, straw wattles, etc.)
4. The project plans shall identify the locations for equipment/material storage, debris
stockpiles, vehicle/equipment maintenance, fueling, and washing areas. The plans also
must show the contain area and specify that all materials stored on site shall have
proper enclosures and/or coverings.
5. The project plans shall identify the locations and provide details for concrete truck
washout areas.
6. Identify (on the plans) the quantity of materials that the contractor will be importing to or
exporting from the site (cu-yd) along with site cut and fill quantities.
7. The project plans or their details shall describe the measures (e.g... temporary sediment
basin, etc) the contractor will use during the rough grading process to intercept and
detain sediment-laden run-off to allow the sediment to settle. They also must describe
how the contractor will dewater the settled storm water and how it will be introduced to
the public drainage system.
8. The erosion and sediment control plans should refer to Maplewood Plate No.350 for
approved methods of erosion and sediment control.
Utilities
1. Trash guards are not allowed on flared-end sections with a diameter of 18 inches or less.
Trees
1. Refer to Tree Preservation Plan Review comments by Shann Finwall.
Agency Submittals and Permitting
Packet Page Number
Page 97 of 209
Maplewood Engineering Comments
4-3-08
4 of 4
Page
1. The owner and project engineer shall get all necessary permits and shall satisfy the
requirements of all permitting agencies.
Miscellaneous
1. The Owner shall enter into a developer?s agreement with the City of Maplewood for the
completion of all private site improvements. As part of the developer?s agreement, the
owner shall provide a letter of credit or cash escrow for 125% of the cost for all site
improvements that will be serving the Maplewood portion of the development. The cost
shall include excavation for the pond and the storm sewer outfall from the pond. An
estimate of the total cost of improvements shall be provided to engineering staff.
2. The Maplewood lots and proposed drainage and utility easement shall be shown on the
preliminary plat.
3. The developer shall submit a letter to the City of Maplewood indicating the responsibility of
maintenance of utilities including the storm sewer system.
Packet Page Number
Page 98 of 209
Attachment 7
Tree Preservation, Slopes and Wetland Buffer Review
Project: Richie Place Subdivison
Date of Plan: August 25, 2008
Date of Review: December 1, 2008
Reviewer: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
(651) 249-2304; shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us
Background:
The Richie Place Subdivision proposes to subdivide a parcel of land lying
south of Labore Road in Little Canada and north of Kohlman Marsh Open Space in
Maplewood. Three of the proposed 16 lots will be located within Maplewood.
A.Tree Preservation Ordinance: The city?s tree preservation ordinance describes a
significant tree as a hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in diameter, an
evergreen tree with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and a softwood tree with
a minimum of 12 inches in diameter.
The ordinance requires any significant tree removed to be replaced based on a
tree mitigation calculation. The calculation takes into account the size of a tree
and bases replacement on that size. In essence, the ordinance requires
developers to plant a greater amount of smaller replacement trees because they
removed a significant number of large trees.
Tree Removal and Required Replacement:Tree replacement is based on the
following calculation:
Ordinance Calculation: [(A/B ? 0.20) x C] x A = D
Legend Richie Place Total
A = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees Lost 449.0
B = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees on Site 1735.5
C = Tree Replacement Constant (1.5) 1.5
D = Replacement Trees (Number of Caliper Inches) 39.54
Richie Place Calculation: 449/1735.5 - .20 x 1.5 x 449 = 39.54 Cal. Inches
Required Replacement Trees: 39.54/2 caliper inch replacement trees = 20 trees
The tree planindicates that there are 1735.5 caliper inches of significant trees on
the site (322 trees), and 449 caliper inches of significant trees (186 trees or 57
percent) removed with the development.Based on these figures, the city?s tree
replacement calculation requires the developer to replace 39.45 caliper inches
(20, 2 caliper inch trees). The reason the developer only has to replace 20 trees
(6.2 percent) of the 57 percent removed is due to the fact that there are a large
number of trees on the site. The tree replacement calculation takes into account
that not as many trees can be planted on a site that is already heavily forested.
Packet Page Number
Page 99 of 209
Tree Preservation Plan: City code states that the tree protective areas shall be
located around a tree a minimum of the critical root zone (circular area
surrounding the tree trunk with a radius distance of 1 foot per 1 inch of tree
diameter). When reviewing the grading plan versus the location of the trees, it
appears that approximately 30 preserved trees have grading encroaching into
this critical root zone, which could cause the tree to die off after grading is
complete.
Proposed Tree Replacement: The developer is proposing to replace 45 caliper
inches of significant trees on the site by planting 15, 3-caliper inch trees.
Tree Preservation Recommendation: In order to accurately assess this
development?s tree replacement requirement per city code, the applicant must
revise the tree replacement plan to show that all trees which will be preserved
are being protected to a minimum of the critical root zone.
B.Slopes: The environmental protection ordinance regulates development on
slopes. The ordinance applies to slopes 12 percent or greater which encompass
at least 200 feet in length (top to bottom) by 500 feet in width (side to side).
There is a slope that averages 20 percent grade which runs the entire width of
the southern portion of the development (5,600 feet) and is 200 feet in length.
Grading of the house on Lot 2 encroach into this slope. The following regulations
would apply to the development of Lot 2 in relation to the slope:
Development on a slope in excess of 12 percent must meet the following
conditions:
1. Controls exist uphill to ensure structures, or streets would be struck by
falling rock, mud, sediment from erosion, uprooted trees or other
materials.
2. The city engineer may require the developer to provide a soils engineer to
certify the stability of potentially unstable slopes.
The city?s engineering department has reviewed the development proposal to
ensure the slope ordinance is being met, and have found that appropriate
erosion control and grading measures are in place to feasibly develop near the
slope as proposed.
C.Wetland Ordinance: There is a Class 1 (highest quality) wetland located on the
west of the development. The city?s wetland ordinance requires a 100-foot buffer
around a Class 1 wetland.
Grading Plan: The grading plan shows that the development will maintain the
required 100-foot buffer with the grading of the new single family homes.
However, the plan calls for the construction of a storm pipe within the buffer area.
City code allows for the construction of utilities within a buffer where there is no
other practical alternative. The city?s engineering department has reviewed and
approved of this storm water utility as being the best location.
2
Packet Page Number
Page 100 of 209
Site Plan:The site plan calls out a conservation easement to be located on the
western side of the development. The conservation easement is proposed as a
wetland buffer protection to ensure no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling,
or dumping within the easement.
Possible Impacts to Wetland with Slope Development:The city?s wetland
ordinance states that a wetland buffer is measured from the edge of a wetland
outward to lands surrounding the wetland. In this case, there is a required 100-
foot setback from the wetland edge to any allowed disturbance from the
development. In addition to this requirement, the ordinance states that the city
may require a variable buffer to protect adjacent habitat that is valuable to the
wetland, stream, wildlife or vegetation.
Several members of the planning commission expressed concern over
development near a slope adjacent one of Maplewood?s highest classified
wetlands during their review of the project. For this reason, a motion was made
to recommend approval of the lot division on the condition that only two buildable
lots are created, and that Lot 2 be included in the wetland buffer easement to
ensure no development occurs near the slope. The motion did not pass but city
staff finds that this recommendation merits further review by the city council.
In order to protect wetlands from development on a slope, the environmental and
natural resources commission have recommended that the revised wetland
ordinance, which the city council will review once again in early 2009, have an
increased wetland buffer of 10 feet beyond the apex of a slope, when a slope
exists in the buffer. The purpose for this requirement was due to the fact that
erosion control measures on a slope, while feasible, are difficult to monitor and
have a higher probability of failing due to the slope. Failed erosion control
measures on a slope could negatively impact the wetland. With the proposed
wetland ordinance the additional buffer would deem Lots 2 and 3 of Richie Place
unbuildable without a variance to the wetland buffer. Therefore, it could be
reasonable for the council to consider requiring the developer to remove Lot 2
from the subdivision proposal in order to protect the Class 1 wetland adjacent the
property.
Wetland Recommendation 1 and a portion of Wetland Recommendation 5
pertain only if the council were to find it reasonable to remove Lot 2 from the
subdivision proposal.
Wetland Recommendations:
1. In order to protect the Class 1 wetland adjacent the property, the
developer must submit a revised subdivision removing Lot 2 as a
buildable lot and including that land in the proposed conservation
easement.
2. The developer must submit a plan for the re-establishment of all areas
graded within the wetland buffer with native plants. This plan must be
approved by the city?s naturalist.
3
Packet Page Number
Page 101 of 209
3. The developer must submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover the
re-establishment of the wetland buffer with native plants.
4. The developer must sign a wetland buffer re-establishment maintenance
agreement with the city which will require the developer to ensure the
native plants are established within the buffer within a three-year period.
5. The conservation easement must be revised as a wetland protection
buffer easement. The location of the easement must be revised to
ensure that all areas within the development that are within 100 feet of
the wetland edge (buffer) are included in the easement (not just the most
westerly portion of the development) and that Lot 2 in the current
subdivision proposal is included in the easement as well. The easement
must be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the
buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or
dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement
before the city will issue a grading permit.
6. Prior to approval of a grading permit the developer shall install city
approved wetland signs at the edge of the wetland buffer that specify that
no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping be allowed within
the easement. These signs must be placed every 100-feet along the
edge of the wetland buffer easement, or at every property line, whichever
is closer.
4
Packet Page Number
Page 102 of 209
Attachment 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael Martin, Planner
FROM: Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Coordinator
RE: Richie Place Subdivision, Project 08-04
DATE: November 10, 2008
The Maplewood Planning Commission requested clarification on two comments in the
Engineering Report for Richie Place Subdivision regarding vegetation in the infiltration basin
proposed (comments 1c and 1d).
1.Original comment 1c: ?Number of species ? This is a very large garden and it has only
12 species. QUESTION: Is there a design reason for using so few species? If yes,
what it that? If no, please increase to at least 10-12 species on bottom and 10-12
species on slopes. It does not cost any more to add diversity.?
Response and clarification: This comment questions the developer about the number
of plant species proposed for the infiltration basin. Staff recommended increasing the
number of species used because the basin is over 1200 square feet. In the revised
plan, the developer increased the number of species as requested.
2.Original comment 1d: ?What is the ratio of grasses/sedges to flowers? (Equal
amounts of all species listed?)?
Response and clarification:In native prairie and wetland plantings, both grasses and
flowers are used. The original plan did not list the number of each species being planted
so this question was asking the developer what the ratio of grasses to flowers would be.
The revised landscape proposal (08/25/08 version) addressed some of the staff comments
regarding vegetation in the infiltration basin. In addition, staff recommends:
1. The landscape plan notes should indicate plug spacing be 12?-18? (not 1?-2?).
2. The landscape plan notes should indicate that final species list will be approved by
Maplewood engineer or naturalist. A few of the species listed required shade and we
need better information on how much shade the basin will have before approving the
species.
3. The landscape plan notes should indicate whether blanket or mulch will be used in the
basin. Mulch is preferred on the slopes.
4. The landscape plan notes should indicate that weeding maintenance will be necessary
during the first planting season and beyond. The notes should also indicate who is
responsible for maintenance during the first season ? after planting and before the
project is accepted.
Packet Page Number
Page 103 of 209
%XXEGLQIRX
Packet Page Number
Page 104 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 105 of 209
%XXEGLQIRX
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2008
V. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 7:01 p.m. ? Richie Place Lot Split, LaBore Road East of Arcade Street
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment ? OS (open space) to R1
(single dwelling)
Lot Division
Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report for the proposal to develop 16
single-family detached townhomes in Maplewood and Little Canada. Three of
the 16 lots are within the City of Maplewood?s boundaries and the remaining 13
lots are in Little Canada. Staff is bringing this proposal before the planning
commission due to the majority of the project being in Little Canada and due to
the proposed open space land use. Staff said it is unclear why this private
property was originally planned as open space. Staff said the city attorney has
advised that the city should not be planning private properties as open space
and it is appropriate that these private property designations be changed to
single dwelling.
Commissioner Hess asked whether the requirements of the sewer standards
would be the same in Little Canada as in Maplewood since Little Canada will
be installing the sewer for the project. Staff engineer Steve Kummer responded
saying that the drainage going into the pond would be the same as if
Maplewood had reviewed the plan. Mr. Kummer said that the pipe layout was
not out of the ordinary and is within Maplewood?s standards.
Commissioner Martin asked about street assessments for improvements on a
Little Canada street with the house being in Maplewood. Mr. Kummer said that
the two cities would need to create a joint powers agreement for city services.
Phil Solby of Lauren and Company Development, the applicant for the project,
explained plans for this proposal. Mr. Solby discussed the current down trend in
the housing market and the applicant?s desire to increase the value and
marketability of this land. Mr. Solby said that no improvements would be done
until there were a significant number of lots sold and all improvements could be
done at one time.
Commissioner Ledvina asked the applicant what measures would be taken to
protect the wetland when the development begins. Mr. Solby responded that
they would follow all of the guidelines and requirements requested by the city.
Mr. Solby said that in addition there is a natural buffer of trees and vegetation
on the edge of the wetland that will help protect the wetland.
The public hearing was opened for comments. The following people spoke:
Packet Page Number
Page 106 of 209
David Himmelbach, 2970 Labore Road, Little Canada, said a notice of
foreclosure was pinned to his door last week. Mr. Himmelbach said the
foreclosure notice included the applicant?s property included in this proposal.
John Gores, 2870 Arcade Street, Maplewood, said that he and his wife Jolene
Gores have filed a lawsuit with the City of Little Canada claiming that an
approved variance for a cul-de-sac length was inappropriate. Mr. Gores also
presented to the commission a copy of the Little Canada engineer?s drainage
plan for this project, a copy of a notice of foreclosure, and a report from Shann
Finwall discussing tree preservation and wetland buffer review. Mr. Gores
asked that this request be denied by the commission due to legal and
economic issues.
Bill Schorn, 2940 Labore Road, Little Canada, said he owns the property west
of the proposed development. Mr. Schorn commented that it would not be
unusual for a homeowner with property that is designated open space use to
not be able to build on that property and yet be required to pay taxes on the
property. Mr. Schorn said the foreclosure issue is very important for
consideration.
Gary Kuam, 2934 Labore Road, Little Canada, said he is an adjacent property
owner and understands that this property will be developed eventually, even if
not developed by Mr. Solby. Mr. Kuam noted his concerns with this
development including safety issues, length and design of the cul-de-sac and
space for turnaround for fire trucks, water run off and the holding pond and
swale and protection of wetlands and Gervais Lake.
Bill Hanson, 2836 Keller Parkway, said he is against this proposal for many of
the reasons previously addressed tonight.
Mr. Batista, 951 Beam Avenue, said he is against this proposal. Mr. Batista
noted that an engineer told him it would be cheaper to install sewer lift stations
to Labore Road than to continue installing the sewer line to Arcade Street.
David Himmelbach spoke again regarding the previous owner?s excavation of
the site and soil pollution issues with the property. Mr. Himmelbach said that in
the past he had requested soil testing of the property by the MPCA, but was
told there was no funding available to do the testing.
John Gores spoke again regarding the open space designation of this property
and reminded the commission that the 60-day time limit is now in effect for this
proposal and it needs to be considered and addressed within that time limit.
Packet Page Number
Page 107 of 209
Phil Solby, the applicant for this proposal, said they are trying to cap losses
with this project. Mr. Solby further explained that there is a voluntary
foreclosure with confidential lender agreements in place. Mr. Solby said they
have agreed to see this project through and that he will continue to act as the
developer to complete this project if possible. Mr. Solby asked the commission
to look at this request solely on its merits and what is relevant.
Bill Schorn again spoke against this request and said Mr. Solby failed to retain
his letter of credit.
Commissioner Boeser noted that approval of the lot split plan for three or
fewer lots is staff?s purview and asked staff whether they can move forward
with approval of this lot split if the commission rejects it. Mr. Ekstrand
responded negatively that this request would go forward and noted that this
request also includes a proposed land use plan amendment.
Jolene Gores, 2870 Arcade Street, said that the city of Little Canada never
approved detached townhomes for this property. Ms. Gores said Mr. Solby?s
financial qualification is relevant.
Commissioner Yarwood said that the financial issues pertaining to the
applicant discussed tonight are not the commission?s purview and the
commission can only consider the request before them.
There were no further comments from the public; the public hearing was
closed.
Commissioner Martin moved to table this request in order to get a legal
opinion from the city attorney.
Commissioner Trippler seconded and requested the following information on:
1) whether the drainage was adequately designed, 2) whether pond
calculations were correct, 3) whether the cul-de-sac criteria was met, 4) issues
with the elevations and slopes on the three lots in Maplewood and whether
they could be developed without having an adverse impact on the wetlands,
the tree preservation matter, and the storm sewer outlet structures.
Commissioner Boeser suggested that with all the issues needing clarification
this request should be denied and the applicant can reapply. Commissioner
Boeser suggested that if this item is tabled, it should not come back to the
planning commission for consideration until after November 18, 2008.
The commission then voted Ayes ? all
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number
Page 108 of 209
Commissioner Boeser said he felt that he had the wool pulled over his eyes on
this project. Mr. Boeser said it was a great oversight on the part of staff,
whether intentional or not, to not inform the commission of an intent to
foreclose on this property. Mr. Boeser said it doesn?t have to do with the
financial viability of the current owner of the property, but it has to do with the
standing of them as the owner of the property or the interested party in the
property. Mr. Boeser said to be quite honest, this would have been a very easy
decision coming forward, if we had notice that a foreclosure was going to
occur on a property; we obviously don?t want to make a decision on a property
until we know that the owner is going to be there long term. Mr. Boeser said he
was angry that he didn?t receive the full deal from staff and asked if staff had a
reason he should let him know.
Mr. Ekstrand responded to Mr. Boeser saying that he learned about the
financial issues and foreclosure at exactly the same moment as everyone else
at tonight?s meeting heard it and clarified that he had no previous knowledge
of the foreclosure and he was not clouding or keeping anything from the
commission.
Commissioner Martin questioned whether this issue is with the property or the
property owner and said he does not feel that staff needs to do a credit check
on applicants.
Commissioner Yarwood said the commission?s responsibility is to make
decisions based on the most appropriate land use regardless of who the
applicant is.
Packet Page Number
Page 109 of 209
%XXEGLQIRX
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2008
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Richie Place Lot Division and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Planner Mike Martin presented the staff report for this request from Lauren
Development and Company to develop 16 single-family detached homes in
Maplewood and Little Canada. Three of the lots would be in Maplewood
northwest of Kohlman Marsh Open Space.
Commissioner Martin asked staff to comment on whether the issue of drainage
from the slope flowing into the Gores? property as discussed previously has
been reviewed. Staff engineer Steve Kummer responded that the grading plan
shows that the grade of the slope to the Gores? property to the west will be
reduced. Mr. Kummer explained that most of the grades will now flow to the
street and through catch basins into the pond.
Commissioner Hess asked if the 45.7-foot cul-de-sac diameter dimension
applies to the Little Canada code. Mr. Kummer responded that Maplewood
code calls for a 90-foot diameter for a cul-de-sac. Mr. Hess asked whether
there would be enough room for fire truck access in the cul-de-sac. Mr.
Kummer said that the fire chief has verified in his comments that safe and
efficient fire service can be provided.
Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the city could recommend that the
subdivision be split into two single-family lots and designate Lot Two as an
outlot and nonbuildable. Planner Martin said that it is a recommendation that
can be given if that is the commission?s desire.
Commissioner Walton asked staff to comment on drainage controls needed to
be made to Lot Two to protect the wetland area. Planner Shann Finwall
responded that the impacts on Lot Two would be bound by the city?s slope
ordinance. Ms. Finwall said the engineering department reviewed the erosion
control measures for development on the slope and found that appropriate
erosion control and grading measures are in place as proposed.
Commissioner Martin asked if the open space land designation can be used
only for publicly owned land. Planner Martin responded that there is not a set
definition of what open space means by the Metropolitan Council, but open
space designation has been used within the city as public land exclusively.
Commissioner Desai asked if the staff conditions recommended for
engineering, wetlands, tree and open space would be included in lot division
approval. Ms. Finwall responded that usually these staff requirements are
Packet Page Number
Page 110 of 209
noted in the recommendation, but staff could list these requirements in the
recommendation specifically if desired. Mr. Desai commented that since this is
such a serious situation, he would personally prefer that they be listed
specifically to ensure they are complied with.
Commissioner Pearson asked staff whether there have been soil borings done
of the three lots. Staff engineer Kummer responded that the building code
specifically requires that compressible soils would need to be excavated and
filled, but it is the developer?s responsibility to come up with a plan from a
structural engineer to present to the building official.
Commissioner Martin asked at what point the foundation is inspected by the
building inspectors. Mr. Kummer responded that the contractor needs to call for
a foundation inspection before the footings are covered.
Chair Fischer asked the developer, Phil Soby, if he was in agreement with the
conditions of the staff report. Mr. Soby replied affirmatively. Commissioner
Trippler asked the developer if he was okay with making Lot Two an outlot. The
developer responded that creating an outlot would be a problem, since this lot
has met the conditions for development.
Commissioner Hess asked the developer if soil borings have been done on the
site. He responded that multiple borings were done on the property early in the
process and there were no ?bad soils? within any of the lots on the property.
The commission agreed by consensus to open the public hearing for comments
on the additional new information that has been supplied since the last public
hearing was held. The following people spoke:
John Gores, 2870 Arcade Street, said the Richie Place property in Maplewood
being considered for development tonight was sold at a sheriff?s sale today. Mr.
Gores said it seems moot to be going forward with this issue. Jolene Gores,
2870 Arcade Street, said this property was intended to be open space in 1986.
John and Jolene Gores said they do not want the commission to recommend
approval of this proposal.
Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the developer is no longer the owner of
this property, do they have an interest in bringing this forward. Planner Martin
responded that if a new owner desired not to go forward with this proposal they
could simply pull the plans from consideration and that would be the end of the
application. Planner Martin said that as it stands now, the city has accepted the
developer?s application and is now obligated to act on this application as it is.
Tom Roikraft, 2910 Arcade Street, Little Canada, said that during a 1996
consideration of a proposal for a lot development, the City of Maplewood
determined that there was no feasibility to develop due to the soils and now say
that this was not correct or didn?t happen.
Ron Cockriel, chairperson for the Maplewood Area Historical Commission, said
Packet Page Number
Page 111 of 209
he walked the site on the request of some of the neighbors. Mr. Cockriel said
he did not see any artifacts on the property. Mr. Cockriel said he also
researched the Minnesota Historical site and did not see where any burial
grounds would have existed on the property. Mr. Cockriel said he feels the
property should remain guided open space and should be pursued as open
space land.
Commissioner Yarwood asked staff if the commission?s recommendation for
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update was to be guided residential. Planner
Martin responded that the commission?s recommendation was to guide this
parcel as low density residential.
William Hanson, 2836 Keller Parkway, asked the commission to turn down this
application.
Ron Brown, 2776 Keller Parkway, asked how much area of the land is open
space. Planner Martin said the total acreage of the lots is 2.24 acres with a
portion of the acreage on the south of each lot to be converted to a wetland
buffer easement.
There were no further comments so the extended public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Yarwood said the open space designation is appropriate for this
site and that there is a reasonable argument to keep it guided open space.
Commissioner Fischer commented that in past situations where a land owner
may have wanted to develop a property with the city wanting to keep it guided
open space, then the city would need to purchase the land if there is money
available for purchase.
Commissioner Hess said he is in agreement with Mr. Yarwood?s comments and
additionally with the wetland buffer easement and soils question it has yet to
prove the land is buildable.
Commission Martin commented that it is not within the purview of the planning
commission to consider the ownership of the property or whether the soil
borings have been done and the commission should stay within their purview.
Commissioner Trippler said the open space designation has not changed and
the fact that if someone new owns the property it does not change the open
space designation. Mr. Trippler suggested the commission recommend that the
council explore the possibility of acquiring this parcel. Mr. Trippler also
suggested that if it is zoned R-1 the city approve the split into two single-family
lots with Lots Three and Four with Lot Two as an outlot.
Commissioner Yarwood corrected Commissioner Trippler that the property is
already zoned R-1, but is being considered tonight for land use designation
change from open space to R-1.
Packet Page Number
Page 112 of 209
Commissioner Martin said as this property is privately owned he does not feel it
should have a land use designation of open space.
The developer spoke saying they have been working with the lender for both
ownership and development of the property. He referred to comments from
John Gore and explained that the sheriff?s sale was the standard procedure for
the lender to get back into ownership of the property. The developer further
explained that the lender, as the owner, wants to see this property developed
as proposed and will not be satisfied with half of the amount of lots.
Commissioner Yarwood moved to deny the resolution approving a
comprehensive land use plan amendment from OS (open space) to R1 (single
dwelling) for the 2.24-acre site, located south of Labore Road and East of
Arcade Street.
Commissioner Hess seconded
Commissioner Yarwood said his motion to deny is because he thinks it is
reasonable to keep this land open space based on the surrounding land uses.
Commissioner Trippler said since it is private property and Lots Three and Four
are developable, the city may find itself in dire straits if it tried to keep this
property as open space. Mr. Trippler said he would support the motion if it
included the city attempting to acquire the property to become city open space
property.
Commissioner Desai asked Mr. Trippler if the city council would not consider
acquiring this land, would the land designation revert to changing it from open
space to R-1. Mr. Trippler responded affirmatively that they would have to.
Commissioner Yarwood said he would accept the friendly amendment to his
motion to have the city look into the possibility of acquiring the property so the
open space designation would be appropriate for that.
Planner Finwall explained that it has not been the city?s policy to place an open
space designation on privately owned lands and it could be perceived as a
taking if the land is developable.
Commissioner Fischer said that in the past there have been changes in what
was designated as open space. Ms. Fischer said that at one point cemeteries
were designated open space, but when the cemeteries were recognized as
being privately owned then the open space designation was changed.
The commission then voted: Ayes ? Yarwood, Trippler, Hess
Nays ? Martin, Pearson, Fischer, Desai,
Walton
The motion to deny failed.
Packet Page Number
Page 113 of 209
Commissioner Pearson said he feels that as part of the commission?s update of
the 2030 comprehensive plan that they attempted to guide privately held open
space land to a residential designation. Mr. Pearson said if the city was
interested in this property for purchase as open space land they should have
been proactive before now and with the city?s financial situation he does not
think purchase will be possible. Mr. Pearson said he feels that who exists as
the owner of this property is irrelevant to the commission and they need to act
on this request tonight as it is proposed.
Commissioner Pearson moved:
1. Adoption of the resolution approving a comprehensive land use plan
amendment from OS (Open Space) to R1 (Single Dwelling) for the 2.24-acre
site located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street. Approval is
based on the following guiding principles and reasons as noted in the
comprehensive land use plan:
a.The proposed future land use guide would be consistent with existing
zoning.
b.The proposed development would provide a wider range of housing
types in this neighborhood.
c. The proposed future land use guide would be consistent with
the comprehensive plan of Little Canada.
This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the
Metropolitan Council.
2. Approval of the lot split site plan date-stamped August 25, 2008, for a lot
division request to subdivide the 2.24-acre lot located south of Labore Road
and East of Arcade Street into three single family lots. This lot division approval
is subject to the following conditions:
a.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr.
Kummer, dated November 5, 2008.
b.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms.
Finwall, dated November 7, 2008.
c. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by
Ms. Gaynor, dated November 10, 2008.
d.Receive approval of final plat from the City of Little Canada for the rest
of the 16-unit development.
e.The applicant shall pay cash connection charges for the new vacant
single-family lots for connection to the water main and
Packet Page Number
Page 114 of 209
sanitary sewer main.
f. Deeds describing the three new legal descriptions, including
the required drainage and utility easement descriptions,
must be drafted and stamped by the city. Ramsey
County requires this acknowledgment of approval to record the deeds.
These must be recorded with Ramsey County within
one year of the date of the lot division
approval or the lot split will become null and void (city code
requirement).
g.The City of Maplewood entering into a joint powers agreement with the
City of Little Canada for the provision of police and fire
services and utilities.
h.Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the new homes on
the new lots the following must be submitted to staff for
approval:
1) Proof that Ramsey County has recorded the lot division.
2) A signed certificate of survey showing the location of all
property lines and the location of the new homes.
3) Grading and drainage plan.
4) All necessary permits for sanitary sewer and water must
be obtained.
Commissioner Desai seconded
Commissioners Pearson and Desai accepted a friendly amendment to divide
the motion and vote separately on Item 1 and Item 2.
The commission then voted on the above Item 1:
Ayes ? Desai, Fischer, Martin, Pearson, Walton
Nays ? Yarwood, Trippler, Hess
.
The motion passed
Commissioner Yarwood said his reason for voting no is he thinks it is
appropriate to keep it open space based on surrounding land uses.
Commissioner Trippler said his reason for voting no is he wants to send a clear
message to the city that he would like to see the city acquire the property and
keep it open if possible.
Commissioner Hess said his reason for voting no echoes Mr. Yarwood?s and
Mr. Trippler?s reasons.
Commissioner Trippler suggested that Item 2 be changed to say ?subdivide the
Packet Page Number
Page 115 of 209
2.24-acre lot located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street into two
single family lots (Lots 3 and 4) and one outlot (Lot 2).?
This friendly amendment and the commission voted on the
was not accepted
above Item 2 as stated:
The commission then voted on the above Item 2:
Ayes ? Desai, Fischer, Martin, Pearson
Nays - Walton, Yarwood, Trippler, Hess
.
The vote was tied and the motion failed
Packet Page Number
Page 116 of 209
Attachment 12
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 24, 2007
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the
City Council of Little Canada, Minnesota was convened on the
24th day of October, 2007 in the Council Chambers of the City
Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City.
PRELIMINARY
The City Attorney reported that at its September 26, 2007 meeting
PLAT &
the City Council continued action on the proposed the Richie Place
VARIANCE ?
Preliminary Plat until this evening?s meeting. The Attorney also
noted
th
RICHIE
since the September 26 meeting, Lauren Development applied
for a
PLACE
Variance for cul-de-sac length.That variance request has been
reviewed by the Planning Commission. The City Attorney noted
that the Richie Place Preliminary Plat is now before the City
Council for consideration, and the Variance request should be
considered by the Board of Adjustments & Appeals.
The City Attorney indicated that in considering the Variance
request, the Board of Adjustments & Appeals must consider
Section 1010.010 of the Subdivision Code, which is laid out in the
City Planner?s report dated October 5, 2007. This sections requires
that a hardship exists in order to warrant the granting of a variance.
Any action granting a variance should be supported by specific
findings.
Mayor Blesener recommended that the Council convene as the
Board of Adjustments & Appeals in order to consider Lauren
Development?s variance request.
Mr. Montour introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-10-275 ? RECESSING AS THE CITY
COUNCIL AND CONVENING AS THE BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
THE LAUREN DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE REQUEST
The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw.
Ayes (5).
Packet Page Number
Page 117 of 209
Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted.
Blesener opened the Public Hearing to consider Lauren
Development?s request for a Variance from the Subdivision Code
requirement which limits permanent cul-de-sac length to a
maximum of 500 feet.
The City Planner reported that the Variance requested is to extend
a cul-de-sac within Richie Place approximately 1,050 feet in
length. The Planner noted that there are two sections of the Code
relative to cul-de-sac length. The first limits permanent cul-de-sac
length to a maximum of 500 feet. The second requires the
developer to extend streets within the plat to provide future
development access to neighboring unsubdivided properties. The
City Planner indicated it does not appear there are any alternatives
to provide future development access to the properties adjoining
Richie Place other than the long cul-de-sac. This cul-de-sac
provides for future street connections to both the east and west.
The City Planner also noted that storm water management plan for
Richie Place improves this storm water management within the
area.
The City Planner indicated that it was his opinion that the Richie
Place Preliminary Plat is consistent with the goals of the City?s
Comprehensive Plan and that it meets Single-Family Residential
(R-1) Zoning District standards. The Planner also indicated it was
his opinion that the requested Variance for cul-de-sac length was
consistent with the hardship requirements outlined in the
Subdivision Code. The City Planner recommended approval of
both the Preliminary Plat and the Variance.
The City Administrator noted that in addition to the materials
contained in the agenda packets, there was a considerable amount
of materials that have been submitted by various parties. These
materials are contained in the Additions to the Agenda packet.
Kip Johnson, AC Associates, project engineer for the developer,
indicated that it is Lauren Development?s position that the cul-de-
sac as proposed is necessary in order to provide development
access for properties to the east and west of Richie Place. Johnson
reviewed in detail the letter submitted by Phil Soby, Lauren
Development, outlining the history of the Richie Place
development proposal as well as the justification for the Variance
request. Johnson also reviewed the Richie Place plat design as
well as development options for the adjacent properties on the east
Packet Page Number
Page 118 of 209
and west. It was noted that the future easterly extension of the
road would connect to the Beam Avenue/Kohlman Lane area.
Allan asked if an easterly extension would benefit the Scully
property. Blesener replied that it would. He also noted that
extension of the road to the east would allow utilities to be looped
through the area. The City Engineer reported that Little Canada is
working with the City of Maplewood to loop both sewer and water
main through this area. Looping of sanitary sewer will eliminate
the need for lift stations.
Johnson presented a diagram of a typical 500 foot cul-de-sac and
noted that the City?s R-1 standards would allow for a 16 lot
development. Even though the Richie Place cul-de-sac is proposed
at 1,050 feet in length, the density is at 16 lots, 13 of which are in
Little Canada and 3 in Maplewood.
Christopher Kalla, attorney representing Lauren Development,
noted that the 500-foot diagram presented could not be developed
on the Richie property given the width of the property. The
diagram was being presented for illustration purposes.
Allan asked if there is any chance that Maplewood will not
approve the three lots proposed in that City. Johnson reported that
he has had discussions with the Maplewood Planner who appears
to be in support of the plat.
Blesener noted for the record a July 31, 2007 letter from the
Watershed relative to wetland determination in the LaBore Road
area. He also noted the email from Tina Carstens of the Watershed
relative to the wetland delineation for the Richie Place
development. Carstens noted that she reviewed this delineation
with Lynda Peterson of the Board of Water & Soil Resources and
Tom Peterson of the Ramsey Conservation District and both agree
with her approval of the delineation. Blesener also noted for the
record, a letter from three property owners to the west of proposed
Richie Place asking that their property not be landlocked.
At this point the meeting was opened to comments from the
general public.
John and Jolene Gores, 2870 Arcade Street in Maplewood,
appeared. John Gores indicated that throughout this process, the
City of Little Canada has taken the position that a variance was not
necessary for the Richie Place proposed cul-de-sac length at 1,050
feet. Gores also noted that the City Council denied the Richie
Packet Page Number
Page 119 of 209
Place Preliminary Plat on September 26, 2007. Blesener noted that
the plat was not denied; a resolution to approve the plat failed.
Gores indicated that now the developer has requested a Variance
when the City said a Variance was not necessary. Gores pointed
out that the basis for a variance has to be based on inequities
related to the subject property such as topography or soils. Gores
noted that the developer has stated that his reason for applying for
a variance is to avoid litigation. Gores pointed out a copy of the
Variance application noting that no reasons for the Variance
request are listed on the application. Gores indicated that the City
Planner stated at the Planning Commission meeting that he could
give the reasons for the Variance and that he did it all the time.
Gores noted that this evening the developer has submitted a hand-
written letter outlining his reasons for requesting a Variance.
Gores noted that the stub road to the east stops at the edge of a
ridge. He also noted that the City?s ordinance prohibits dead-end
streets. Gores reported that he has discussed the Richie Place
Preliminary Plat with former Mayor Hanson and indicated that
Hanson noted that when Minnesota Street was first developed, it
was a dead end street that ended at a ravine. A car had driven off
the end of the street and one of the people in the vehicle was killed.
Gores felt that the stub road proposed in the Richie Plat was setting
up a highly dangerous situation.
Gores reported that at the Planning Commission meeting, there
was no explanation given for the Variance, and the Planning
Commission was told to apply the wrong standard in their
consideration of the Variance. Gores noted that the Code requires
that an extreme hardship be present to warrant granting a Variance.
He outlined the standards that must be met as outlined in the
Zoning Code. Gores felt there were no special or highly unique
circumstances affecting this property that would warrant the
Variance. He also felt that this particular property was no different
that the neighboring properties. Gores felt that the only unique
circumstance is that the Richie property is close to former Mayor
Fahey?s property and that Fahey wants to develop his property.
Gores indicated that this is not a hardship or a special or unique
circumstance to the land. Gores also felt that the fact that the
developer must plan for future development is not a hardship.
Gores indicated that the developer only has to provide an
opportunity for future development of adjacent properties, and
does not have to bring a road to the property edge. It is up to the
adjacent land owners as to how to developer their land.
Packet Page Number
Page 120 of 209
Gores felt that holding Lauren Development to the 500 foot cul-de-
sac maximum does not prevent the developer from the reasonable
use of his land. Gores noted that a previous concept submittal by
the developer showed a 500 foot cul-de-sac. The neighborhood
was in support of that concept.Gores noted that in reviewing that
concept the City Planner indicated that a future road connection to
the west could be provided adjacent to Lot 10. The Planning
Commission pointed out that a future road connection to the east
could be provided with the loss of one lot. Gores pointed out that
there are alternatives that would allow the development of the
Richie property, providing development potential to the east and
west, while maintaining a 500 foot limit on the cul-de-sac. Gores
indicated that Lauren Development has not shown that he cannot
make reasonable and minimum use of the land without the
Variance.
Blesener pointed out that the City of Maplewood has a maximum
cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet. Gores indicated there are other
issues the development will have to address with the City of
Maplewood.
Gores pointed out that the Variance is also detrimental to public
health and safety noting James Benshoff?s, Traffic Engineer, report
dated September 26, 2007 relative to emergency vehicle access.
Gores pointed out that it only takes one incident where an
emergency vehicle cannot get into an area. Gores stated that he
realizes Mayor Blesener lives on a long cul-de-sac, but pointed out
that that street was developed before the 500 foot maximum was
put in place. Gores noted that the Richie property is a border
property on steep, hilly, and wooded land. He noted the existence
of Ramsey County and Maplewood open space in this area. Gores
again raised the public safety concern, and asked why the City
would want to take the chance of allowing a long cul-de-sac. He
noted that a member of the Planning Commission indicated that he
lived on a long cul-de-sac in St. Louis and did not have any
problems. Gores pointed out that this is not St. Louis.
Gores further noted that the area is environmentally sensitive. He
noted that the neighbors have serious concerns with the wetland
delineation that was done. Gores questioned the soil borings that
were done which did not reflect the Seeleyville muck that is in this
area. Gores noted that there is Seeleyville muck at the spot that
the Richie Place cul-de-sac ends to the west.
Gores asked why Little Canada would want to grant a variance for
a 1,050 cul-de-sac when the additional length only benefits
Packet Page Number
Page 121 of 209
Maplewood property. He also noted that Little Canada will have to
pay for the maintenance of this cul-de-sac section that serves
Maplewood properties. He pointed out that access can be provided
to the east and west without a Variance for cul-de-sac length.
Gores also felt a shorter cul-de-sac would be preferable from an
environmental standpoint. Gores commented that it appears that
the City is trying to get roads to the Michael Fahey property.
Gores felt that the road design would only force Mr. Quam to
develop his land in a way that he might not want to.
It was Gores? opinion that the Preliminary Plat as proposed would
devalue the area. He pointed out that the long cul-de-sac only
serves property in Maplewood and that Little Canada will pay for
the maintenance of that road. Gores felt that the Preliminary Plat
conflicted with the character of Little Canada.
Gores reviewed Exhibit 21 of the Howard Roston correspondence
th
dated October 10, noting that the average cul-de-sac length in the
northwest quadrant of Little Canada was 422.89 feet long. He
noted that there are some longer cul-de-sacs in this area of the
City, but they were put in before the current ordinance was in
place. Gores noted that the Canadian Woods Preliminary Plat was
granted a cul-de-sac variance of 50 feet, but the basis for that was
to align the road so that Mr. Johnson could develop his property.
Gores again stated that the Variance for cul-de-sac length results in
a plat that is out of character with the area and undermines
property values. This Variance is not being requested to correct
inequities from an extreme hardship. Gores pointed out that there
is no hardship present to justify the Variance. He also noted that if
adjacent property owners want to develop their land, they can get
together and do so. Gores stated that it was his opinion that none
of the hardship tests have been met. However, he realizes that the
Council will approve the Preliminary Plat anyway. Gores
indicated that the developer applying for a Variance to avoid
litigation, has pretty much guaranteed that litigation will occur.
Gores pointed out that the developer has provided no reasons for
the Variance, however, the City Planner has.
Jolene Gores noted that Mike Fahey had an opportunity to develop
his property in the 1990?s when he subdivided a lot for Jim Olson.
Blesener noted that the fact that Mike Fahey was the Mayor of
Little Canada has no basis for how the Council acts on this
Preliminary Plat. Blesener pointed out that Fahey pays property
taxes and has the same rights as anyone else in the City. Blesener
Packet Page Number
Page 122 of 209
also noted that Lauren Development also has a right to developer
this land.
McGraw questioned Mrs. Gores? statement and asked where in the
Code it states that someone only gets one chance to develop their
property. Jolene Gores pointed out that there are ways to develop
the Richie property that do not require a Variance and comply with
City Codes. Gores noted that the City is considering a Variance
for a cul-de-sac that is more than twice the maximum allowed
under the Code. Mrs. Gores noted that the City first indicated that
a Variance was not necessary for the cul-de-sac length, and is now
considering a Variance for the cul-de-sac length.
Mrs. Gores stated that they are concerned about drainage and water
issues. Mrs. Gores felt that adding rooftops and a street next to
their property will have an adverse impact on drainage. Montour
pointed out that pond that is part of this development. Gores
indicated that they would like to have the engineering verified on
this pond. Gores noted that there is a ravine on the west side of
this property that is lower than the proposed pond.
Montour noted that if the cul-de-sac is held to a 500 foot length, a
new Council could change the Code and increase maximum cul-
de-sac lengths. Gores felt that this was speculative and indicated
that the City has to deal with the Code that is on the books today.
Gores also noted that the Code says that the City must provide for
future road connections, not bring the pavement to the edge of
adjoining property.
Keis noted that the City must consider how to connect future
streets in this area. The other option would be to allow the area to
develop with a series of 500 foot cul-de-sacs.
Mrs. Gores again noted the Seeleyville muck at the end of the
proposed cul-de-sac. Mrs. Gores indicated that this area is
saturated. She reported that they currently do not get flooding on
their property from the Richie property, but was concerned that
this would change given the soil types.
Allan asked if the Gores have discussed their concerns with the
developer. Mrs. Gores reported that the developer has not spoken
with them, and has only had contact with Mr. Quam after he cut
down his trees. Allan pointed out that the trees were not cut down.
Mrs. Gores indicated that it looked like the developer?s contractor
drove over the trees.
Packet Page Number
Page 123 of 209
The Gores pointed out that in approving the development as
proposed, the City is only speculating that the adjacent properties
want to develop in the manner that will be dictated by the road
connections from Richie Place. Mrs. Gores asked who will pay for
the road connection. Allan replied that the developer will be
required to pay for street improvements within the plat.
Keis stated that he appreciates the Gores? opinion, but noted that
50 different developers could propose 50 different concept plans.
Keis stated that he does not know what the best plan would be, but
pointed out that the plan being considered by the Council looks to
be a good one.
The City Engineer indicated that the soil borings done by the
developer did not indicate Seeleyville muck in the area of the
proposed cul-de-sac. A boring was done in a location that would
be next to the cul-de-sac curb line. The Engineer pointed out,
however, that the soil conditions further west are not known. The
Engineer also reported that there are ways to deal with muck. The
much could be subcut and replaced and the area surcharged.
Blesener asked about run-off rates. The City Engineer pointed out
that the developer must maintain current rates of discharge. He
noted that the drainage will be improved given the Watershed?s
requirements for infiltration and on-site retention. The Engineer
noted that the developer is required to ensure that the first inch of
run-off does not leave the site. In the event of a larger storm, run-
off must be treated and no more than currently occurs. The
Engineer pointed out that the overflow for the proposed pond is
away from the Gores property. Water ends up in the wetland area
to the south of the Richie property as currently occurs.
Blesener asked about the proposed street stub to the east, asking if
it would be blacktopped and curbed right away or left as a grassy
area. The City Planner recommended that it be left grassy until the
point that it is extended east to serve adjacent properties.
The City Administrator recommended that the City escrow funds
to provide for construction of this future connection to the property
line. The City Administrator noted Mr. Gores? earlier comments
that the developer submitted a hand written letter outlining his
reasons for requesting a Variance. The Administrator noted that
the letter was typed, not hand written. With regard to Gores?
comments about the road to service Maplewood lots, the
Administrator noted that there are two options. Either the City
enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with Maplewood relative to
Packet Page Number
Page 124 of 209
the maintenance of this road, or that portion of the development
located in Maplewood be annexed to Little Canada. The
Administrator also noted that Mr. Benshoof?s report mentioned by
Mr. Gores said that a 1,000 foot cul-de-sac was less safe than a 500
foot cul-de-sac. He did not say that the cul-de-sac would be
unsafe. The Administrator also noted that Mr. Benshoof said that
the road connection to LaBore Road would not impose a traffic
problem. With regard to Mr. Gores? comments about cul-de-sac
length in the northeast quadrant of the City, the Administrator
pointed out that Beam Avenue is a very long cul-de-sac. He felt
adding that cul-de-sac length into the average number quoted by
Mr. Gore would increase that average number substantially.
Blesener noted that Beam Avenue is a street that is maintained by
the City of Maplewood. It is an extremely long cul-de-sac serving
several lots. Approximately 5 or 6 of these lots are located in
Little Canada. Blesener also noted that the eventual connection of
Richie Place to the Beam Avenue area will allow Little Canada to
bring water main into the Beam Avenue neighborhood.
The City Administrator pointed out that Little Canada and
Maplewood are undertaking a feasibility study relative to the
looping of water main through the area by Little Canada and
sanitary sewer main through the area by Maplewood. Bringing
Maplewood sewer into this area will avoid the need for multiple
lift stations.
Bill Schorn appeared before the Council and stated that he agreed
with the concerns raised by Mr. and Mrs. Gores. Schorn
questioned the validity of the wetland delineation that was done,
and pointed out that given the muck to the west, it is unlikely that
the road will ever be extended that direction. Schorn also pointed
out that there are wetlands to the east that will make development
difficult. Schorn felt that the City was skirting the issues based on
their desire for a road in this area. Schorn felt that the City will
continue to extend the maximum length of cul-de-sacs until Mike
Fahey can develop his property.Schorn felt that there was no
hardship present to justify granting a Variance. He also noted that
if there is a conflict in the City Code relative to cul-de-sac length,
the City is obligated to apply the most restrictive of the clauses.
Schorn noted, however, that the City wants the street developed
and will cram it down the neighborhood?s throats just to give Mike
Fahey what he wants. Schorn also noted that when Bill Richie
subdivided his property, the City required a covenant be signed by
Mr. Richie that there would be no further development of his land.
Packet Page Number
Page 125 of 209
However, the City did not follow through and put the covenant in
place.
The City Administrator reviewed the history of the property
divisions of the Richie property.He noted that a property division
was approved in February, 2000 and lapsed because Mr. Richie did
not finalize the property division recording. That property division
was reconsidered and approved in May of 2001. A covenant was
drafted, but not executed because, again, Mr. Richie did not
finalize the recording of the property division. In September of
2001, Mr. Schorn approached the City regarding subdivision of
another lot from the Richie property. The covenant was discussed
at that time and a motion was passed ?Approving the concept of
eliminating covenant agreement for Richie property based on Mr.
Bill Schorn?s interest in subdividing a lot on the east end of this
property?? The reason that the covenant was no longer deemed
necessary is the determination had recently been made not to adopt
a thoroughfare plan for the area.
Bill Schorn could not recall these specifics, and the City
Administrator indicated that Mr. Schorn should contact him and
the documentation would be provided to him. Schorn stated that
the law is the law and noted that he has always had to abide by the
City Code. Schorn felt that a Variance should not be approved for
the Richie Place cul-de-sac as there is no hardship present. He
suggested that some compromise be worked out on this
development. Schorn noted that one of the concepts presented by
the developer had a 500 foot cul-de-sac. It was only after the City
indicated the need for road connections to the east and west and the
cul-de-sac length was proposed at 1,050 feet. Schorn noted that
this cul-de-sac length does not meet City Ordinance requirements.
Schorn felt that approval of the Variance will put the City at risk
for litigation and that the developer would be named in that
litigation.
Tom Roycraft, Arcade Street, indicated that he agrees with the
comments of Mr. Gores and Mr. Schorn. He noted that the
neighborhood did not have an issue with the concept that proposed
a 500 foot cul-de-sac, and noted that it was the City that then
expanded the development. Roycraft stated that he is amazed at
the verbiage of the City Planner on this. Roycraft noted that when
he served on the City?s Planning Commission, a Variance was an
exception that was based on a hardship. Roycraft felt that the City
Planner was providing the developer with the basis of his Variance
request, and Roycraft took exception to that.
Packet Page Number
Page 126 of 209
Roycraft pointed out the City Engineer?s previous report that
indicates that there are poorer soils as the property gets nearer to
Arcade Street. Roycraft felt that the City was forgetting this fact
because it wants to get development beyond the Richie Plat.
Roycraft urged the Council to limit the cul-de-sac length to 500
feet and stated that there is no hardship present to justify a
Variance. Roycraft also stated that he is disappointed with the
meetings that have been held on this matter and felt that the City
Planner has displayed a lack of professionalism. Roycraft stated
that he would like to be present the next time the City Planner?s
contract is considered for renewal.
Gary Quam, 2920 LaBore Road, reported that the developer did
make an honest mistake when he cut across a corner of his
property and plowed over some trees. Quam reported that the
developer did apologize for it.Quam reported that he does not
have any designs for the future development of his property. He
indicated that he likes his neighbors and would not want to see
their property landlocked. Quam felt that his neighbors did have
the right to develop in the future. Quam stated that his position
was that he wanted to be sure that as development of the area
proceeds that it is done right. Quam also expressed concern about
the current Watershed model and felt it was not working. Quam
pointed out some of the retention pond leading into Gervais Lake
and indicated that the quality of the water in these ponds is very
poor, thus Gervais Lake water quality is deteriorating. Quam also
noted that the holding pond in the Gervais Hills development is
full, and thought that part of the purpose of this pond was for
infiltration. Quam noted the need for holding ponds and water
treatment when vegetation is being replaced with hard surface. He
also pointed out the existence of a ravine through the Richie
property as well as his own that is lower than the proposed holding
pond in the Richie plat. Quam again pointed out that the existing
Watershed models are not working.He noted that this is a very
sensitive area, and wanted to make sure the project was done
correctly.
Blesener stated the he did not necessarily disagree, but pointed out
that the Richie plat as proposed meets the City?s Code
requirements. He pointed out that the Council held a workshop
meeting to discuss Codes and the need for more stringent standards
in environmentally sensitive areas. However, the Richie Place plat
can only be held to the Codes that are in effect today.
Packet Page Number
Page 127 of 209
Quam pointed out that the current Code limits maximum cul-de-
sac length to 500 feet, and felt that this limitation could be used for
force a compromise with the developer. Quam indicated that he
will probably not develop his property, and pointed out that he
would not be opposed to new standards for the area that would
require larger lots, more tree preservation, and better wetland
control.
McGraw questioned how the holding pond will work given that the
ravine is lower. Quam replied that the developer will have to
severely change the grades in this area which will result in the loss
of a significant amount of trees. Quam informed the Council how
some driveway improvements he made on his property changed
the water dynamics on his property.
The City Engineer indicated that the Watershed has reviewed the
grading and drainage plans to ensure that run-off will flow into the
pond. The Engineer stated that there are some back yard areas
along Lots 1 through 5 that will drain to the swamp. The majority
of the run-off from this development flows to the road and into the
pond providing rate control and storm water treatment. The
Engineer noted that drainage and ponding requirements have
changed over the years becoming more restrictive. The Engineer
felt these requirement changes will continue in the more restrictive
direction.
Roycraft again pointed out that soils conditions worsen toward the
west and asked how much fill would be necessary to correct those
soils. The City Engineer was not sure, and noted that while
property owners have indicated there is muck to the west, the soil
borings do not show much on the Richie property. The Engineer
noted that at some point it is not economically feasible to do soil
corrections
Roycraft felt that if the Richie Place plat goes through, there
should be soil improvements done to the west. He noted that there
is a sink hole on the Battista property that is eroding onto his land.
Blesener suggested that Roycraft discuss this situation with the
City Engineer.
Christopher Kalla, attorney representing Lauren Development,
reminded the Council that one of the primary issues is developing
land to its highest and best use. He noted the need to access the
triangular piece of property in the City of Maplewood, as well as
the fact that the City Code requires developers to provide future
connections to adjacent undeveloped property. To accomplish this,
Packet Page Number
Page 128 of 209
Lauren Development has submitted a 16 lot single family
development. Kalla noted Mr. Gores contention that to provide
access to an adjacent property does not mean that a road must be
paved to the edge of the parcel.Kalla pointed out that a stub road
to the east could be gated. Kalla also pointed out Gores?
comments that this was speculative planning. Kalla stated that he
called it planning for the future, and felt that was a goal of the City.
Kalla noted that the property is zoned single-family residential, and
a long cul-de-sac is proposed to fully access the developable
property as well as plan for the future development of adjacent
properties.
John Sculley, LaBore Road, pointed out that the developer
proposed a concept that did not include development of the
Maplewood property. He asked why the change. Blesener replied
that the original wetland delineation was done utilizing aerial
photography, and it has been determined that this delineation was
not correct. Another delineation was done, walking the property,
and the wetland boundaries were decreased. After completion of
that delineation, the developer realized that the Maplewood
property was developable. Blesener also noted that the City had
asked that the developer provide future street access for the
undeveloped parcels on the east and west of the Richie property.
Sculley noted that at a previous Council meeting Dave
Himmelbach asked that the City require the developer to clean up
an area on the shared boundary of the Himmelbach and Richie
property. The City Council had suggested that this was a civil
matter. Sculley indicated that it would not be a hardship to the
developer to clean up this area and suggested that the City
encourage the developer to do so. Montour noted that Lauren
Development did not cause the problem. Sculley agreed, but
pointed out that Lauren Development purchased the property and
everything that comes with it.
Sculley noted the traffic on LaBore Road and asked if the City
could discuss with the County the possibility of putting in a right-
turn lane to the new street. The City Administrator pointed out
that LaBore Road is now a City street, and stated that this
suggestion could be explored.
Blesener asked if Mr. Sculley wanted to develop his property at
some point. Sculley replied that he did. Blesener noted that
providing road access to the east in the Richie plat would provide
the opportunity for future access to the Sculley property. Sculley
Packet Page Number
Page 129 of 209
noted that the street would first go through the Himmelbach and
then the Battista property.
The City Attorney noted for the record the additional documents
received by the City that are included in the Additions to the
Agenda. These are:
Lauren & Company ? Documentation for Variance
Request;
th
September 7 Planner?s Report;
Lauren & Company ? Tree/Landscaping Proposal;
Letter from David Himmelbach;
Additional Neighborhood Submittals
(Gores/Roycraft/Schorn);
Planner?s Response to Additional Neighborhood
Submittals;
Maplewood Interest in Cooperative Utility Project.
Dave Himmelbach asked that his letter be read aloud, which the
Mayor did.
The City Attorney noted the standards relative to undue hardship
as cited in the case of Nolan versus the City of Eden Prairie filed
on May 23, 2000, and indicated that this case controls those
standards. The Attorney recommended that at the conclusion of
the Public Hearing, the Council acting as the Board of Adjustment
& Appeals make a determination on the cul-de-sac Variance
requested by Lauren Development.
There was no one else present wishing to comment on the
Variance.
Upon motion by McGraw, seconded by Keis, the public hearing
was closed.
Blesener noted that the Planning Commission, City Planner, and
the City Attorney have indicated that hardship test to warrant the
granting of this variance has been met.
Montour noted that there has been a lot of discussion relative to
this Variance request. Montour felt that the City had to look
toward the future and plan for the development of this area. He
noted that the developments being presented to the City Council
are getting harder and harder to review given that there are just the
more difficult areas of the City that are undeveloped. Montour
stated that he supported the Variance request.
Packet Page Number
Page 130 of 209
McGraw felt that the Council had to do what is right for the City
into perpetuity. He also thanked Mr. Quam for his courtesy and
respect that he showed the City throughout this process.
Allan felt that the residents? concerns that have been presented to
the Council are heartfelt, and indicated that the Council shares
many of these concerns. She noted that the Council will be
working to change some aspects of the ordinance requiring larger
lots, more tree preservation, etc. in sensitive areas. However, these
Codes have not been changed as of yet.
McGraw pointed out that this is a difficult decision for the Council,
given that the interests of all involved are so different. Some
people are seeking to protect their property, and others are seeking
to develop their property. McGraw indicated that he will vote in
favor of the Variance.
Keis stated that he will also vote to support the Variance and he
agreed with the comments made by the other Council Members.
The City must look to the future and provide for road connections
to the adjacent undeveloped properties. Keis stated that he
respects all the opinions that have been voiced throughout this
process. While he may not agree with all the opinions, Keis
indicated that he appreciated the input.
Blesener noted that the City must look toward the future and
consider what is best for both the Richie property and the
surrounding properties. Blesener pointed out past actions of the
City when street access was not provided because property owners
indicated that they would never develop. He specifically noted the
Melancon property and the now pending development of that land.
Blesener felt that the City would be short-sighted in not providing
for the future development of the properties adjacent to the Richie
land. Blesener felt the Richie development was a proper
development and that the Variance was justified.
Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-10-276 ? APPROVING A VARIANCE
FROM THE SUBDIVISION CODE ALLOWING A CUL-DE-
SAC LENGTH OF 1,050 FEET FOR THE RICHIE PLACE
CUL-DE-SAC AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT
RELATIVE TO THIS VARIANCE AS PRESENTED BY THE
CITY PLANNER
Packet Page Number
Page 131 of 209
Findings of Fact for Approval
Cul-de-Sac Length Variance
Richie Place
Little Canada, Minnesota
1.Richie Place is a proposed plat of single family lots, all
of which meet the zoning ordinance regulations for
area, width, and other applicable zoning standards.
2.The proposed platted area is guided by the
Comprehensive Plan for low density residential uses.
3.The proposed Richie Place plat is consistent with the
land use plan.
4.Each of the proposed lots exhibits a buildable area
consistent with the zoning requirements for single
family homes.
5.The proposed plat complies with all requirements of the
City?s ordinances, and was recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission, with the conditions as
follows:
a.Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, the applicant provides a
landscaping plan for ponding area acceptable to
the City.
b.Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, the applicant provides a tree
preservation and replacement plan acceptable to
the City.
c.Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, the applicant complies with all
final recommendations of the City Engineer.
d.Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, a final resolution for joint
utility services for the area is reached with the
City of Maplewood.
6.The plat?s proposed street, at a length of approximately
1,050 feet, is eligible for a variance to the Subdivision
Ordinance maximum of 500 feet, based on findings as
follows:
Packet Page Number
Page 132 of 209
a.The Subdivision Ordinance requires that
subdividers extend streets within a proposed plat
to neighboring property to provide opportunity
for future development, per Subdivision
Ordinance Section 1006.030 (a). This results in
an undue hardship pursuant to Subdivision
Ordinance Section 1010.010 (a).
b.There are no other options for access to this
property that would provide the opportunity for
full development of the subject property, nor to
adjoining property that would be consistent with
the Subdivision Ordinance as required by
Subdivision Ordinance Section 1006.030 (a).
This results in an undue hardship pursuant to
Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (a).
c.Undue hardship is present in putting the
property to a reasonable use if strict compliance
with the 500 foot cul-de-sac regulation is
required, per Subdivision Ordinance Section
1010.010 (c).
d.Without the variance, the applicant will not be
able to put his property to reasonable use since
much of the area will be inaccessible, per Section
1060.030 (c). This results in an undue hardship
pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Sections
1010.010 (a) and (c).
e.The proposed cul-de-sac is temporary in nature,
with the possibility that the street would be
extended into adjoining property in the future,
per Subdivision Ordinance Section 1060.030 (b)
and (d). This finding is consistent with
Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (b).
f.When the stub-street is extended to Beam
Avenue to the east, the cul-de-sac will no longer
exceed the 500 foot regulation in accordance
with Subdivision Ordinance Section 1006.030
(b). This finding is consistent with Subdivision
Ordinance Section 1010.010 (b).
7.The development of the proposed plat will provide an
opportunity to extend both public sanitary sewer and
water systems to other properties in the area which do
not have access to full services, consistent with City
policy, and Subdivision Ordinance Section 1008. This
finding is consistent with Subdivision Ordinance
Section 1010.010 (b).
Packet Page Number
Page 133 of 209
8.Per City Comprehensive Plan policy, the lack of current
public sanitary sewer and water in the area constitutes
a hazard to environmental conditions and public safety.
This finding is consistent with Subdivision Ordinance
Section 1010.010 (b).
9.The plat provides future access to other portions of the
neighboring properties which would otherwise be
landlocked and unusable as required by Subdivision
Ordinance Section 1006.030 (a). This finding is
consistent with Subdivision Ordinance Section Sections
1010.010 (a) and (c).
10.The proposed plat improves stormwater runoff, water
quality, and flooding conditions in the area through the
use of detention and infiltration ponding to divert and
control stormwater which is currently a threat to
adjoining property, consistent with Subdivision
Ordinance Section 1006.050. This finding is consistent
with Subdivision Ordinance Section Sections 1010.010
(b).
11.The conditions cited herein constitute special and
unique circumstances with would deprive the applicant
of the reasonable use of his land, consistent with the
requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section
1010.010 (a).
12.The granting of the variance will not only not be
detrimental to public health, welfare, and nearby
properties, but will improve conditions of stormwater,
flooding, and utility services, consistent with
Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (b).
13.The variance is intended to correct inequities resulting
from extreme hardship, including topography and soils
which limit location of potential connecting roads, and
other physical factors including shape of the property as
required by Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010
(c).
14.The applicant has complied with the City?s requests for
information and met the requirements for Preliminary
Plat and variance applications as required by
Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.020.
Packet Page Number
Page 134 of 209
The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Montour.
Ayes (5).
Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted.
Ms. Allan introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-10-277 ? ADJOURNING AS THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS AND
RECONVENING AS THE CITY COUNCIL
The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw.
Ayes (5).
Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted.
Mayor Blesener brought back to the table consideration of the
application for Preliminary Plat for Richie Place consisting of 16
single-family lots, 13 of which are located in Little Canada.
Blesener noted that the City Planner and the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat. He noted that at
th
the City Council?s September 26 meeting a motion to approve the
Preliminary Plat failed. A subsequent motion recommended
reconsideration of the Preliminary Plat at a future Council meeting.
Blesener noted that the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat was
th
closed on September 26. However, the Council would consider
additional comments this evening.
Dave Himmelbach asked if side yard setbacks greater than 7 ½ feet
could be required by the Board of Adjustments & Appeal.
Blesener noted that the Board only considered the Variance
request. With regard to previous comments about the dumping
done by Mr. Richie, Himmelbach indicated that he was not exactly
sure where the property line was until this spring when the survey
was done.
Jolene Gores questioned whether the proposed pond was in the
best location. Blesener noted that all engineering requirements
will have to be complied with as part of the final plat. Kip
Johnson, engineer for the developer, indicated that the pond will
work in the location that is proposed. Blesener asked about the
ravine that is currently lower than the proposed pond. Johnson
reported that grade corrections will be done so that water will drain
into the pond. He also noted that storm sewer will be installed as
will curb and gutter.
Packet Page Number
Page 135 of 209
McGraw asked about the impact of the grading on existing trees.
McGraw stated that he was concerned that grading on the Richie
property will damage the root systems of trees on adjacent
properties. Johnson stated that they will be doing a tree inventory,
and could locate additional trees on the Quam property, if Mr.
Quam will allow them to do so. This inventory will identify trees
that must be saved and help identify grade limits.
Keis asked if the lot areas will be clear cut. He also asked that the
developer save as many trees as possible. Johnson again indicated
that a tree inventory will be done and the developer will save as
many trees as possible. If necessary, retaining walls could be
added to help save trees. Johnson pointed out that it is to the
benefit of the developer to save as many trees as possible as this
makes the lots more valuable.
The City Attorney noted that the Public Hearing on the Preliminary
th
Plat for Richie Place was closed at the September 26 Council
meeting.
Tom Roycraft indicated that whatever action the Council takes
with regard to this plat is a vote for the future. Roycraft felt that to
allow a cul-de-sac over 1,000 feet in length would be opening up a
Pandora?s box. Roycraft also expressed concern on whether or not
the developer had the financial wherewithal to see this
development through to completion. Blesener noted that the City
will require a letter of credit to ensure that infrastructure
improvements are completed and put in to meet City standards.
John Gores asked if the stub street to the east would be paved.
Montour replied that it would likely stay as a grass area. Gores
stated that he would like to see the engineering that has been done
for the drainage, noting that the ravine area runs across his
property. The City Administrator indicated that the City Engineer
can furnish the Gores with the data that it has at this point. He
noted that this information will likely be revised as the project
moves to Final Plat.
Gores indicated that he wanted all comments that he has made at
previous meetings of the Planning Commission and the City
Council relative to Richie Place incorporated into the record.
Quam felt that the Preliminary Plat as proposed would change the
feel of the area. He did not believe the density was right for this
environmentally sensitive area, and encouraged the Council to
Packet Page Number
Page 136 of 209
deny the plat. Blesener noted that the lots as proposed meet the
City?s Code requirements.
Quam indicated that if current Watershed models are not working,
it is up to the people in the area to try to force the issue. Quam felt
that this was the situation with this proposed plat.
Allan asked if the developer would consider reducing the lot
density. Kalla replied that the developer is not prepared to reduce
the number of lots. He noted that these are difficult times for
developers, and the reduction of even one lot has a significant
financial impact.
Allan stated that she would like to see the density reduced,
however, noted that the plat meets the City?s Code requirements.
Allan stated that it was her understanding that the artifacts that Mr.
Himmelbach has mentioned at previous meetings are lost. Mr.
Himmelbach stated that they are not lost; he just does not know
exactly where they are. Mrs. Gores reported that she has contacted
the Minnesota Historical Society relative to the artifacts, but they
have not returned her call. She suggested that the City contact
them.
Keis indicated that he was not happy with the density of the
development, but agreed with Council Member Allan that the
development meets City Code requirements. Keis indicated that
the Council has been in discussions about changing the Code for
future developments, but at this point must measure the project
against the Code that is currently in place. McGraw that density is
an issue and urged the developer to work to save as many trees as
possible. He also asked that the developer be extremely careful
and not damage any of the trees on adjacent properties.
Mr. Montour introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-10-278 - APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RICHIE PLACE CONSISTING
OF SIXTEEN (16) LOTS, THIRTEEN (13) OF WHICH ARE
LOCATED IN LITTLE CANADA, AND ADOPTING THE
FINDINGS OF FACT RELATIVE TO THE APPROVAL OF
THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT AS STATED BELOW, AND
FURTHER SUBJECT TO:
Packet Page Number
Page 137 of 209
*COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
CITY PLANNER AS OUTLINED IN HIS REPORT DATED
SEPTEMBER 7, 2007;
*SUBJECT TO THE COOPERATION OF MR. DAVID
HIMMELBACH WITH THE MINNESOTA HISTORICAL
SOCIETY ON THE ISSUE OF ARTIFACTS IN THIS AREA;
*SUBJECT TO THE CITY OF LITTLE CANADA ENTERING
INTO A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
MAPLEWOOD ON UTILITIES ISSUES OR THE
DETACHMENT OF THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN
MAPLEWOOD AND ANNEXING IT TO LITTLE CANADA
Findings of Fact for Approval
Preliminary Plat
Richie Place
Little Canada, Minnesota
1.Richie Place is a proposed plat of single family lots, all
of which meet the zoning ordinance regulations for
area, width, and other applicable zoning standards of
the R-1, Single Family Residential District.
2.The proposed platted area is guided by the
Comprehensive Plan for low density residential uses.
3.The proposed Richie Place plat is consistent with the
land use plan.
4.Each of the proposed lots exhibits a buildable area
consistent with the zoning requirements for single
family homes.
5.With the exception of the street length (as discussed in
finding of fact number 7) the proposed plat complies
with all requirements of the City?s ordinances, and was
recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission, with the conditions as follows:
a)Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, the applicant provides a
landscaping plan for ponding area acceptable to
the City.
b)Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, the applicant provides a tree
Packet Page Number
Page 138 of 209
preservation and replacement plan acceptable to
the City.
c)Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, the applicant complies with all
final recommendations of the City Engineer.
d)Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, a final resolution for joint
utility services for the area is reached with the
City of Maplewood.
6.The plat?s proposed street, at a length of approximately
1,050 feet provides access to adjoining unsubdivided
tracts as required by Subdivision Ordinance Section
1006.030 (a).
7.The 1,050 foot long street exceeds the 500 foot length for
cul-de-sacs but meets the standards for, and has
received, a variance to exceed this length pursuant to
the procedures and requirements of the applicable
Subdivision Ordinance Variance process found in
Section 1010. Approval of the preliminary plat
conditioned upon separate approval of the variance
8.The proposed street has been provided with the
required temporary cul-de-sac per Subdivision
Ordinance Section 1006.030 (d).
9.The development of the proposed plat will provide an
opportunity to extend both public sanitary sewer and
water systems to other properties in the area which do
not have access to full services, per the requirements of
Subdivision Ordinance Section 1008.040.
10.The lack of current public sanitary sewer and water in
the area constitutes a hazard to environmental
conditions and public safety.
11.The plat provides future access to other portions of the
neighboring properties which would otherwise be
landlocked and unusable.
12.The proposed plat improves stormwater runoff, water
quality, and flooding conditions in the area through the
use of detention and infiltration ponding to divert and
control stormwater which is currently a threat to
Packet Page Number
Page 139 of 209
adjoining property as required by Subdivision
Ordinance Section 1006.050.
13.The applicant has complied with the City?s requests for
information and met the requirements for Preliminary
Plat and variance applications.
The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw.
Ayes (5).
Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted.
Packet Page Number
Page 140 of 209
Attachment 13
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Lauren Development and Company has applied for a change to the
City of Maplewood?s land use plan from OS (Open Space) to R1 (Single Dwelling) for a
proposed single-family subdivision.
WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located south of Labore Road
and East of Arcade Street. The legal description is:
SECTION 4, TOWN 29, RANGE 22, COM AT NE COR OF GOVT LOT 1 TH W ON NL
SD LOT 300 FT TO BEG TH SWLY TO PT ON SLY EXT OF WL OF E 1/2 OF SW1/4
OF NW 1/4 OF SEC 4 537FT S OF NL OF GOVT LOT 1 TH N ON SD LINE 537 FT TO
NL OF SD LOT 1 TH E TO BEG BEING PART OF SEC
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1. On October 7, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The
city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent
notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission
gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council
approve the land use plan change.
2. On ____________, the city council discussed the land use plan change.
They considered reports and recommendations from the planning
commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ___________ the
above described change for the following reasons:
a. The proposed Future Land Use Guide would be consistent with existing
zoning.
b. The proposed development would provide a wider range of housing types
in this neighborhood.
c. The proposed future land use guide would be consistent with the
comprehensive plan of Little Canada.
This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the
Metropolitan Council.
The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on _________, 2008.
Packet Page Number
Page 141 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 142 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 143 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 144 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 145 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 146 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 147 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 148 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 149 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 150 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 151 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 152 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 153 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 154 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 155 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 156 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 157 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 158 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 159 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 160 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 161 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 162 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 163 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 164 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 165 of 209
Packet Page Number
Page 166 of 209
Item L5
MEMORANDUM
To: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager
From: Karen Guilfoile, Director Citizen Services
Date: December 2, 2008
Subject: Maplewood Community Center Request for Proposal for Food
Catering Services
Introduction:
At the October 27, 2008, council meeting staff was authorized to proceed with a
request for proposal for food catering services for the Community Center.
In 2006, council approved agreements with five caterers for catering services
which began January 1, 2007. Having five caterers has not produced the results
that staff at that time had hoped. The agreement with Prom Catering as the sole
beverage provider has worked well and staff is recommending no change in this
area.
Background:
The Maplewood Community Center banquet facility can accommodate up to 350
individuals and annually hosts approximately 25 wedding receptions, 6 large
community events and over 500 meetings/events.
The catering agreements provide the city with a percentage of revenue from
gross sales as follows:
8% Monday ? Thursday, 6:00 am - 4:30 pm
12% Monday ? Thursday, 4:30 pm - 11:30 pm
15% Friday ? Sunday and Holidays, 6:00 am - 11:00 pm
In addition to the above, the new agreements will also include food minimums for
wedding events by requiring food options starting at $15.00 per person, either
plated or buffet style. The regular room rental fee will still apply.
The city received catering proposals from the following firms which have been
provided to you under separate cover:
Aesop?s Table, Catering Minnesota, Classic Catering, Cossetta Eventi, Creative
Catering, Kane?s Catering Service, Prom Catering and Soup Du Joor.
Packet Page Number
Page 167 of 209
After review of the proposals, staff believes that Classic Catering, Kane?s
Catering Services and Soup Du Joor fit our needs at this time. Currently, Classic
Catering and Kane?s Catering Service have agreements with the MCC and are in
good standing with 2009 events booked. We are very impressed with Soup Du
Joor. They have a wide variety of offerings that Classic Catering and Kane?s do
not have and are highly recommended from their references and experiences.
Recommendation:
After review of the proposals, staff is recommending the council approve Classic
Catering, Kane?s? Catering Services and Soup Du Joor as Maplewood
Community Center caterers effective January 1, 2009 for a three-year period.
Packet Page Number
Page 168 of 209
L-7
AGENDA NO.
AGENDA REPORT
TO:City Council
FROM:Finance Director
RE:APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
December 8, 2008
DATE:
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:
$614,695.24Checks # 77028 thru # 77095
dated 11/17/08 THRU 11/25/08
$284,093.55Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 11/14/08 thru 11/21/08
$394,489.59Checks # 77096 thru # 77137
dated 12/02/08
$155,683.58Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 11/20/08 thru 11/28/08
$1,448,961.96Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL
$472,404.18Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 11/28/08
$3,350.17Payroll Deduction check # 1006489 thru # 1006490
dated 11/28/08
$475,754.35Total Payroll
$1,924,716.31GRAND TOTAL
Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 651-249-2902 if you have any questions on the
attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if necessary.
kf
attachments
Packet Page Number
Page 169 of 209
Check Register
City of Maplewood
11/21/2008
CheckDateVendorDescriptionAmount
7702811/17/200801574T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INCPROJ 07-14 FERNDALE-GERANIUM 135,270.53
7702911/17/200800396DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETYTITLE & LICENSING- ABANDONED 45.00
7703011/18/200800396DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETYTRANSFER TITLE OF ABANDONED 30.00
7703111/20/200802464US BANKFUNDS FOR ATM8,000.00
7703211/25/200800585GOPHER STATE ONE-CALLNET BILLABLE TICKETS - OCT978.75
11/25/200800585GOPHER STATE ONE-CALLNET BILLABLE TICKETS - SEPT883.95
7703311/25/200801337RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REVMULCH FOR PROJ498.42
11/25/200801337RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REVMULCH FOR PROJ332.28
11/25/200801337RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REVPLANTS FOR WHITE BEAR AVE204.48
11/25/200801337RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REVMULCH FOR PROJ166.14
7703411/25/200801546SUBURBAN SPORTSWEARPROG SHIRTS AND UNIFORMS890.25
7703511/25/200801190XCEL ENERGYELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY494.06
7703611/25/200801798YOCUM OIL CO.DIESEL FUEL / COLD WEATHER PLUS11,053.50
7703711/25/200802324APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICESCONSULTING FEES - OCT1,410.00
7703811/25/200802104BDS LAUNDRY SYSTEMSREPAIR WASHERS190.75
7703911/25/200801936CHAD BERGOREIMB FOR INTERNET 11/1 - 11/1763.16
7704011/25/200800181BERWALD ROOFING CO INCREFUND ROOFING PERMIT BL-08-19881110.50
7704111/25/200803738BETHEL & ASSOCIATES, PARETAINER FOR LEGAL SERVICES - DEC6,600.00
7704211/25/200800211BRAUN INTERTEC CORP.PROJ 08-12 PROF SRVS THRU 10/313,536.75
7704311/25/200803486BUBERL BLACK DIRT INCBLACK DIRT FOR HAZELWOOD PARK31.95
7704411/25/200804085C.W. HOULE, INC.PROJ 07-21 KOHLMAN LN PARTPMT#79,201.98
7704511/25/200800494CHILDREN HOME & FAMILY SERVICEYOUTH DIVERSION PROG - OCT3,526.08
7704611/25/200804155CIVICPLUSPROJECT MANAGEMENT, DESIGN AND10,500.00
7704711/25/200804183E.G. RUD & SONS, INC.PROJ 06-16 SURVEY WORK775.50
7704811/25/200800003ESCROW REFUNDESCROW RELEASE LARP 1688 WHITE 1,000.00
7704911/25/200800003ESCROW REFUNDESCROW REL LARSON EXCAVATING 800.00
7705011/25/200800003ESCROW REFUNDESCROW REL CAPRAS UTILITIES 2300775.00
7705111/25/200800477ESS BROTHERS & SONS INCPROJ 06-16 SEAL MANHOLES7,220.70
7705211/25/200802396SHANN FINWALLREIMB FOR TUITION & BOOKS 9/3 - 10/221,439.17
7705311/25/200800543GE CAPITALMONTHLY LEASE RICOH 3500 COPIER374.28
7705411/25/200802407H & B SPECIALIZED PRODUCTSREPAIR B- BALL LIFT ASSEMBLY1,990.30
7705511/25/200803988JODI HALWEGDIRECT DEPOSIT SAVINGS ACCT 150.00
7705611/25/200803597MARY JO HOFMEISTERREIMB FOR MILEAGE 10/31 - 11/1412.37
7705711/25/200802995INTEGRATED LOSS CONTROL INCSAFETY PROG ELECTRONIC UPGRADE875.00
11/25/200802995INTEGRATED LOSS CONTROL INCSAFETY PROG ELECT UPGRADE130.00
7705811/25/200803934LISA KROLLREIMB FOR MILEAGE 8/1 - 11/535.68
7705911/25/200800393 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRYMONTHLY SURTAX - OCT 53401230351,646.08
7706011/25/200804182M H AADVERTISING HOME SCHOOL 320.00
7706111/25/200803611M K MECHANICAL SERVICEREPAIR HEATING SYS STATION 1325.00
7706211/25/200800932MAPLEWOOD BAKERYBAKERY FOR EVENTS AT MCC158.83
11/25/200800932MAPLEWOOD BAKERYBAKERY FOR GROUPS116.52
7706311/25/200803018MEDICA CHOICEREFUND PMT AMB 08276681.66
7706411/25/200800985METROPOLITAN COUNCILWASTEWATER - DECEMBER206,197.53
7706511/25/200800986METROPOLITAN COUNCILMONTHLY SAC - OCTOBER152,067.50
7706611/25/200802617ALESIA METRYREIMB FOR CLOTHING 11/4191.96
11/25/200802617ALESIA METRYREIMB FOR CLOTHING & SHOES 10/18-98.92
7706711/25/200804148MINNESOTA REVENUEPATROL & BOARDING FEES 10/6 - 11/23,448.60
7706811/25/200801961NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONSNEXTEL CHARGES 10/10 - 10/096,821.16
7706911/25/200801175CITY OF NORTH ST PAULMONTHLY UTILITIES2,796.14
7707011/25/200803585NORTHWAY IRRIGATION INCREPAIR IRRIGATION SYS 2920 WHITE 799.00
7707111/25/200801202NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INCCITY NEWS & RECREATION PROG PUB9,906.28
7707211/25/200800001ONE TIME VENDORJ KLIETHERMES DRIVEWAY 3,540.00
7707311/25/200800001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND B BILLINGSLEY BASKETBALL109.00
7707411/25/200800001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND A VAZQUEZ HP BENEFIT80.00
7707511/25/200800001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND M KRAUS FALL SOCCER62.00
Packet Page Number
Page 170 of 209
7707611/25/200800001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND H SANCHEZ MEDICA20.00
7707711/25/200801289PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INCHERBICIDE TREATMENT - JOY PARK225.00
7707811/25/200801295PREMIER BANKSAFE DEPOSIT BOX 0054980.00
11/25/200801295PREMIER BANKSAFE DEPOSIT BOX 0054380.00
11/25/200801295PREMIER BANKSAFE DEPOSIT BOX 0052480.00
11/25/200801295PREMIER BANKSAFE DEPOSIT BOX 0042780.00
7707911/25/200804184MICHELLE PRONSATIZUMBA CLASS INSTRUCTOR515.60
7708011/25/200800396DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETYTRAINING REGISTRATION60.00
7708111/25/200800396DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETYINCIDENT RESPONSE ACT FEE25.00
7708211/25/200803359RECYCLING ASSN OF MNRECYCLING CONTAINERS440.00
7708311/25/200804043SCHWAN FOOD COMDSE FOR RESALE62.93
7708411/25/200801463SISTER ROSALIND GEFREMCC MASSAGES - OCTOBER1,121.00
7708511/25/200801836CITY OF ST PAULTRAINING REGISTRATION250.00
11/25/200801836CITY OF ST PAULGSOC LOCATE AT CONWAY & CENTURY147.81
11/25/200801836CITY OF ST PAULTRAINING REGISTRATION125.00
11/25/200801836CITY OF ST PAULCRIME LAB SERVICES - OCT40.00
11/25/200801836CITY OF ST PAULRADIO SERVICE & MAINT - OCT23.43
7708611/25/200802853JOANNE SVENDSENREIMB FOR MILEAGE 7/14 -11/1343.41
7708711/25/200801574T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INCVARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS1,842.54
7708811/25/200800150TALLEN & BAERTSCHISUBSCRIPTION FEE115.00
7708911/25/200803776TRAILSOURCE LLCBRIDGE FOR APPLEWOOD PRESERVE850.00
7709011/25/200800449TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INCPROJECT MGMT & TOP - LICENSE FEES1,430.00
7709111/25/200803753VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICESFALL CLEANUP EVENT7,897.84
7709211/25/200801732WAKOTA MUTUAL AID ASSOC.WAKOTA DUES50.00
7709311/25/200801750THE WATSON CO INCMDSE FOR RESALE276.77
7709411/25/200803948AARON WULFFBALLROOM CLASS INSTRUCTION331.20
7709511/25/200803809CASIE WYFFELSINSTRUCTOR FEES120.00
614,695.24
68Checks in this report.
Packet Page Number
Page 171 of 209
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
TransmittedSettlement
DateDatePayeeDescriptionAmount
11/14/0811/17/08MonMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)9,925.60
11/14/0811/17/08ICMA (Vantagepointe)Deferred Compensation3,658.23
11/14/0811/17/08PERAPERA75,681.92
11/14/0811/17/08US TreasurerFederal Payroll Tax (FICA)93,340.24
11/14/0811/17/08Orchard Trust/ Great WestDeferred Compensation23,519.00
11/14/0811/17/08MN Dept of Natural ResourcesDNR electronic licenses492.00
11/17/0811/18/08TuesMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)13,871.43
11/17/0811/18/08MN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)4,851.70
11/17/0811/18/08MN State TreasurerState Payroll Tax18,767.95
11/17/0811/18/08WI Dept of RevenueState Payroll Tax1,024.04
11/17/0811/18/08ARC AdministrationHRA Flex plan1,407.65
11/17/0811/18/08Labor UnionsUnion Dues2,014.00
11/18/0811/19/08WedMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)9,779.70
11/19/0811/20/08ThuMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)10,027.38
11/19/0811/20/08ARC AdministrationDCRP & Flex plan payments8,576.21
11/20/0811/21/08FriMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)7,156.50
TOTAL284,093.55
*Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached.
Packet Page Number
Page 172 of 209
Check Register
City of Maplewood
11/25/2008
CheckDateVendorDescriptionAmount
7709612/02/200803576EUREKA RECYCLINGRECYCLING - NOVEMBER18,507.31
7709712/02/200800687HUGO'S TREE CARE INCSTORM DAMAGE TREE TRIMMING & 798.75
12/02/200800687HUGO'S TREE CARE INCSTORM DAMAGE TREE TRIMMING & 794.49
12/02/200800687HUGO'S TREE CARE INCPROJ 07-21 TREE TRIMMING745.50
12/02/200800687HUGO'S TREE CARE INCSTORM DAMAGE TREE TRIMMING & 639.00
12/02/200800687HUGO'S TREE CARE INCPROJ 07-26 TREE TRIMMING298.20
7709812/02/200802728KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INCPROJ 08-13 PROF SRVS THRU 10/3125,384.35
12/02/200802728KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INCPROJ 07-25 PROF SRVS THRU 10/3120,834.09
12/02/200802728KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INCPROJ 07-26 PROF SRVS THRU 10/3113,260.06
12/02/200802728KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INCPROJ 08-16 PROF SRVS THRU 10/317,592.25
7709912/02/200801819PAETECLOCAL PHONE SERVICE 10/16 - 11/151,492.63
7710012/02/200801190XCEL ENERGYELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY6,426.16
12/02/200801190XCEL ENERGYGAS UTILITY1,676.59
12/02/200801190XCEL ENERGYMETERED SPEED SIGN10.62
7710112/02/200804145ALL SAFE INC.CERT OF FIRE EXTINGUISHERS171.17
7710212/02/200804185BANK CHEROKEEESCROW RELEASE 2344 HIGHWOOD6,094.22
7710312/02/200803513BRIAN BIERDEMANK-9 MAINTENANCE - DECEMBER35.00
7710412/02/200800230BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC.BASE FOR GOODRIDGE PARK 2,289.36
7710512/02/200804156ECOLAB INC.LAUNDRY SOAP416.74
7710612/02/200803516ANTHONY GABRIELK-9 MAINTENANCE - DECEMBER35.00
7710712/02/200800543GE CAPITALLEASE FOR RICOH 3500 COPIER352.28
7710812/02/200801965HEALTH PARTNERSREFUND DUP PMT AMB 0833431,483.04
7710912/02/200802945HEALTHEAST VEHICLE SERVICES18 - COMPUTER MOUNTING STANDS AND 9,575.58
12/02/200802945HEALTHEAST VEHICLE SERVICESCOMPUTER POWER SUPPLY696.58
12/02/200802945HEALTHEAST VEHICLE SERVICESHP PRINTER MOUNTS436.18
7711012/02/200800719INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #622CARVER COOPERATIVE USE 28,391.07
7711112/02/200804005JOHN A DALSIN & SON, INCREPAIR LEAKS PUBLIC WORKS ROOF904.92
7711212/02/200803729KNAAK & KANTRUD PAPROSECUTION & LEGAL SERVICES - DEC16,500.00
7711312/02/200804186LEAURE OF WI MUNICIPALITIESWEB PAGE ADVERTISEMENT100.00
7711412/02/200803997MFRACOMP PLAN - LAND USE3,569.59
7711512/02/200803622MN OFFICE OF ENTERPRISE TECHWIDE AREA NETWORK - OCT392.00
7711612/02/200801961NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONSNEXTEL CHARGES 11/10 - 11/144,462.12
12/02/200801961NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONSNEXTEL CHARGES 10/10 -11/09929.68
7711712/02/200801202NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INCCITY NEWS PUBLICATION & SCHOOL 3,987.78
7711812/02/200800001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND G HOFFMAN AMB 072038613.00
7711912/02/200800001ONE TIME VENDORREIMB M NOVAK SEWER BACKUP 494.14
7712012/02/200800001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND B ROSLEE AMB 06014139335.00
7712112/02/200800001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND H HERNANDEZ AMB 072231315.68
7712212/02/200800001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND M PORTZ AMB 07001255305.30
7712312/02/200800001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND T BERTHIAUME AMB 06007638293.74
7712412/02/200800001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND C CANFIELD AMB 07003076262.22
7712512/02/200800001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND A CAULKINS AMB 06018311198.74
7712612/02/200800001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND J WARNER AMB 07108993.80
7712712/02/200800001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND A BURNS MEMBERSHIP 37.37
7712812/02/200801284POSTMASTERMAILING JAN CITY NEWS PERMIT 49034,500.00
7712912/02/200800396DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETYTRAINING REGISTRATION FEE225.00
7713012/02/200801373AUDRA ROBBINSREIMB FOR MILEAGE 10/2 - 11/2465.72
7713112/02/200803879SANSIOEMS RUNSHEETS & SUBSCRIPTION - 614.59
7713212/02/200801565SWEEPER SERVICESELGIN STREET SWEEPER PARTS1,009.53
7713312/02/200803598PAUL THEISENREIMB FOR MEALS & PARKING 11/17 - 43.16
7713412/02/200801635TOWER ASPHALT INCPROJ 07-25 HAZELWOOD ST PARTPMT#4204,803.64
7713512/02/200804131TROPICAL BALLROOMBALLROOM INSTRUCTION 10/18 - 11/22460.80
7713612/02/200803026UPPER MIDWEST COMM POLICINGTRAINING REGISTRATION FEES147.00
7713712/02/200801750THE WATSON CO INCMDSE FOR RESALE388.85
394,489.59
42Checks in this report.
Packet Page Number
Page 173 of 209
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
TransmittedSettlement
DateDatePayeeDescriptionAmount
11/20/0811/21/08FriMN Dept of Natural ResourcesDNR electronic licenses5.50
11/21/0811/24/08MonMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)9,525.08
11/21/0811/24/08Pitney BowesPostage2,985.00
11/21/0811/25/08TuesMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)21,407.24
11/22/0811/25/08MN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)3,307.00
11/25/0811/26/08WedMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)15,653.44
11/25/0811/26/08US Bank VISA One Card*Purchasing Card Items61,883.09
11/26/0811/28/08FriMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)13,740.00
11/26/0811/28/08ICMA (Vantagepointe)Deferred Compensation3,658.23
11/26/0811/28/08Orchard Trust/ Great WestDeferred Compensation23,519.00
TOTAL155,683.58
*Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached.
Packet Page Number
Page 174 of 209
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK DATEEMPLOYEE NAMEAMOUNT
CHECK #
11/28/08HANSEN, JOHN270.00
11/28/08HJELLE, ERIK416.42
11/28/08JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN416.42
11/28/08NEPHEW, JOHN416.42
11/28/08ROSSBACH, WILLIAM416.42
11/28/08CHRISTENSON, SCOTT2,032.48
11/28/08FARR, LARRY2,467.88
11/28/08JAHN, DAVID1,737.97
11/28/08MORIN, TROY140.25
11/28/08ARNOLD, AJLA1,152.00
11/28/08RAMEAUX, THERESE3,272.90
11/28/08FORMANEK, KAREN1,717.87
11/28/08MITTET, ROBERT3,468.22
11/28/08ANDERSON, CAROLE2,503.39
11/28/08DEBILZAN, JUDY1,008.64
11/28/08JACKSON, MARY2,075.46
11/28/08KELSEY, CONNIE2,554.86
11/28/08CAREY, HEIDI2,309.35
11/28/08GUILFOILE, KAREN3,641.26
11/28/08KROLL, LISA1,634.03
11/28/08NEPHEW, MICHELLE1,400.55
11/28/08PENN, CHRISTINE660.00
11/28/08SCHMIDT, DEBORAH2,214.91
11/28/08SPANGLER, EDNA1,081.98
11/28/08CORTESI, LUANNE949.52
11/28/08JAGOE, CAROL1,786.97
11/28/08KELLY, LISA1,137.39
11/28/08LARSON, MICHELLE1,107.23
11/28/08MECHELKE, SHERRIE1,082.10
11/28/08MOY, PAMELA1,167.86
11/28/08OSTER, ANDREA1,781.18
11/28/08WEAVER, KRISTINE1,949.35
11/28/08CORCORAN, THERESA1,776.55
11/28/08PALANK, MARY1,778.86
11/28/08POWELL, PHILIP2,800.78
11/28/08SVENDSEN, JOANNE1,982.90
11/28/08THOMALLA, DAVID4,699.27
11/28/08YOUNG, TAMELA1,776.55
11/28/08ABEL, CLINT2,737.80
11/28/08ALDRIDGE, MARK3,000.02
11/28/08BAKKE, LONN3,120.53
11/28/08BARTZ, PAUL4,236.50
11/28/08BELDE, STANLEY2,689.06
11/28/08BENJAMIN, MARKESE2,576.86
Packet Page Number
Page 175 of 209
11/28/08BIERDEMAN, BRIAN4,120.63
11/28/08BOHL, JOHN3,121.56
11/28/08BUSACK, DANIEL2,937.39
11/28/08COFFEY, KEVIN2,890.96
11/28/08CROTTY, KERRY3,001.20
11/28/08DEMULLING, JOSEPH2,082.84
11/28/08DOBLAR, RICHARD4,413.10
11/28/08FRITZE, DEREK2,306.51
11/28/08GABRIEL, ANTHONY3,080.14
11/28/08HAWKINSON JR, TIMOTHY2,123.73
11/28/08HEINZ, STEPHEN3,067.06
11/28/08HER, PHENG1,775.17
11/28/08HIEBERT, STEVEN2,689.06
11/28/08JOHNSON, KEVIN4,278.10
11/28/08KALKA, THOMAS798.28
11/28/08KARIS, FLINT4,157.32
11/28/08KONG, TOMMY2,664.43
11/28/08KREKELER, NICHOLAS726.58
11/28/08KROLL, BRETT2,591.58
11/28/08KVAM, DAVID3,864.56
11/28/08LANGNER, TODD2,658.43
11/28/08LARSON, DANIEL2,800.86
11/28/08LU, JOHNNIE2,591.58
11/28/08MARINO, JASON2,760.90
11/28/08MARTIN, JERROLD2,737.80
11/28/08MCCARTY, GLEN2,977.67
11/28/08METRY, ALESIA2,591.58
11/28/08NYE, MICHAEL2,697.99
11/28/08OLSON, JULIE3,002.92
11/28/08PALMA, STEVEN2,932.77
11/28/08RABBETT, KEVIN3,864.56
11/28/08RHUDE, MATTHEW2,586.24
11/28/08SHORTREED, MICHAEL3,768.98
11/28/08STEFFEN, SCOTT3,959.57
11/28/08STEINER, JOSEPH2,344.84
11/28/08SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM2,921.03
11/28/08SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS3,404.83
11/28/08TRAN, JOSEPH2,591.58
11/28/08WENZEL, JAY3,311.40
11/28/08XIONG, KAO2,568.50
11/28/08BERGERON, JOSEPH3,572.03
11/28/08DUGAS, MICHAEL3,117.75
11/28/08ERICKSON, VIRGINIA3,042.39
11/28/08FLOR, TIMOTHY3,887.86
11/28/08FRASER, JOHN3,040.14
11/28/08LANGNER, SCOTT2,786.54
11/28/08THEISEN, PAUL3,115.04
11/28/08THIENES, PAUL2,835.28
11/28/08BAUMAN, ANDREW2,450.38
11/28/08DAWSON, RICHARD3,167.94
11/28/08DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT293.39
11/28/08EVERSON, PAUL3,004.33
11/28/08FOSSUM, ANDREW2,677.08
11/28/08HALWEG, JODI2,431.68
Packet Page Number
Page 176 of 209
11/28/08JUNGMANN, BERNARD3,037.77
11/28/08NOVAK, JEROME3,070.23
11/28/08OLSON, JAMES3,379.91
11/28/08PERBIX, CHARLES2,321.23
11/28/08PETERSON, ROBERT3,117.01
11/28/08RICHARDSON, ANDREA2,243.74
11/28/08SEDLACEK, JEFFREY3,105.73
11/28/08STREFF, MICHAEL2,321.23
11/28/08SVENDSEN, RONALD3,314.24
11/28/08GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE3,342.04
11/28/08LUKIN, STEVEN4,260.90
11/28/08ZWIEG, SUSAN2,108.55
11/28/08AHL, R. CHARLES5,253.00
11/28/08FINWALL, SHANN3,080.65
11/28/08KNUTSON, LOIS1,796.55
11/28/08KONEWKO, DUWAYNE3,963.44
11/28/08NIVEN, AMY1,332.42
11/28/08PASSI, CRYSTAL352.50
11/28/08PRIEFER, WILLIAM2,601.27
11/28/08BRINK, TROY2,055.15
11/28/08BUCKLEY, BRENT1,804.95
11/28/08DEBILZAN, THOMAS2,058.15
11/28/08EDGE, DOUGLAS2,026.15
11/28/08HAMRE, MILES272.25
11/28/08JONES, DONALD2,006.15
11/28/08MEISSNER, BRENT1,579.75
11/28/08MEYER, GERALD2,118.59
11/28/08NAGEL, BRYAN3,015.02
11/28/08OSWALD, ERICK2,563.53
11/28/08RUNNING, ROBERT2,388.45
11/28/08TEVLIN, TODD2,032.15
11/28/08BURLINGAME, NATHAN1,710.95
11/28/08DUCHARME, JOHN2,558.86
11/28/08ENGSTROM, ANDREW2,108.55
11/28/08GAYNOR, VIRGINIA2,182.95
11/28/08JACOBSON, SCOTT2,108.55
11/28/08JAROSCH, JONATHAN2,367.75
11/28/08KREGER, JASON1,925.30
11/28/08KUMMER, STEVEN2,727.01
11/28/08LINDBLOM, RANDAL2,561.17
11/28/08LOVE, STEVEN2,599.00
11/28/08O'CONNOR, DONOVAN97.60
11/28/08THOMPSON, MICHAEL3,403.98
11/28/08ZIEMAN, SCOTT112.20
11/28/08EDSON, DAVID2,047.76
11/28/08HINNENKAMP, GARY2,019.26
11/28/08MARUSKA, MARK3,000.18
11/28/08NAUGHTON, JOHN2,006.15
11/28/08NORDQUIST, RICHARD2,006.15
11/28/08NOVAK, MICHAEL2,006.15
11/28/08SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES2,008.46
11/28/08BIESANZ, OAKLEY1,225.55
11/28/08DEAVER, CHARLES436.83
Packet Page Number
Page 177 of 209
11/28/08GERNES, CAROLE129.64
11/28/08HAYMAN, JANET1,301.93
11/28/08HUTCHINSON, ANN2,472.00
11/28/08WACHAL, KAREN738.49
11/28/08FRY, PATRICIA1,844.46
11/28/08HALL, KATHLEEN49.50
11/28/08SINDT, ANDREA1,921.35
11/28/08THOMPSON, DEBRA775.51
11/28/08EKSTRAND, THOMAS3,600.06
11/28/08MARTIN, MICHAEL2,277.35
11/28/08BRASH, JASON1,798.97
11/28/08CARVER, NICHOLAS3,027.38
11/28/08FISHER, DAVID3,580.28
11/28/08RICE, MICHAEL2,414.95
11/28/08SWAN, DAVID2,486.15
11/28/08WELLENS, MOLLY1,354.41
11/28/08JOHNSON, GENE920.00
11/28/08BERGER, STEPHANIE362.25
11/28/08BJORK, BRANDON176.00
11/28/08JANASZAK, MEGHAN731.25
11/28/08KOHLMAN, JENNIFER294.75
11/28/08ROBBINS, AUDRA2,439.86
11/28/08RYCHLICKI, NICHOLE156.00
11/28/08SHERRILL, CAITLIN454.25
11/28/08TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS3,115.54
11/28/08TAYLOR, JAMES2,007.26
11/28/08ADAMS, DAVID1,506.95
11/28/08GERMAIN, DAVID2,015.39
11/28/08HAAG, MARK2,006.15
11/28/08NADEAU, EDWARD3,384.18
11/28/08SCHULTZ, SCOTT2,202.15
11/28/08ANZALDI, MANDY1,800.89
11/28/08BERGLUND, DANIEL251.50
11/28/08BRENEMAN, NEIL1,741.11
11/28/08CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND712.50
11/28/08DICKS, JOHN418.50
11/28/08EVANS, CHRISTINE1,084.28
11/28/08FABIO-SHANLEY, MICHAEL174.66
11/28/08GLASS, JEAN1,982.54
11/28/08GROPPOLI, LINDA396.03
11/28/08HANSEN, LORI2,490.13
11/28/08HER, CHONG312.00
11/28/08HER, PETER266.40
11/28/08HIX, MELINDA121.00
11/28/08HOFMEISTER, MARY989.79
11/28/08NAGEL, BROOKE403.00
11/28/08PELOQUIN, PENNYE520.09
11/28/08SCHOENECKER, LEIGH529.00
11/28/08STAPLES, PAULINE3,212.78
11/28/08VANG, KAY96.00
11/28/08VANG, TIM307.00
11/28/08AICHELE, MEGAN146.25
11/28/08BAUDE, SARAH204.00
11/28/08BEITLER, JULIE102.00
Packet Page Number
Page 178 of 209
11/28/08BENJAMIN, AYLA56.70
11/28/08BIGGS, ANNETTE118.75
11/28/08BRUSOE, AMY145.10
11/28/08BRUSOE, CRISTINA126.38
11/28/08CAMPBELL, JESSICA226.00
11/28/08CLARK, PAMELA108.00
11/28/08DEMPSEY, BETH122.50
11/28/08DEVRIENDT, KARA65.00
11/28/08DUNN, RYAN887.39
11/28/08ERICKSON-CLARK, CAROL23.75
11/28/08FLACKEY, MAUREEN85.50
11/28/08FONTAINE, KIM82.66
11/28/08GIEL, NICOLE76.00
11/28/08GRUENHAGEN, LINDA251.50
11/28/08HOLMBERG, LADONNA420.00
11/28/08HORWATH, RONALD2,439.87
11/28/08JOHNSON, JAMES273.76
11/28/08JOYER, JENNA147.28
11/28/08KOEHNEN, AMY52.10
11/28/08KOGLER, RYAN126.00
11/28/08KRONHOLM, KATHRYN391.65
11/28/08KURZHAL, ALISON64.13
11/28/08LAMEYER, ZACHARY28.90
11/28/08MATESKI, WAYNE56.00
11/28/08MATHEWS, LEAH298.31
11/28/08MCCANN, NATALIE108.00
11/28/08MCCARTHY, ERICA44.88
11/28/08NADEAU, KELLY18.56
11/28/08OBRIEN, JULIE40.00
11/28/08OLSON, SANDRA73.50
11/28/08PEHOSKI, JOEL60.00
11/28/08PROESCH, ANDY833.85
11/28/08RHODY, DIANE114.00
11/28/08RICHTER, DANIEL106.50
11/28/08RICHTER, NANCY1,242.48
11/28/08RONNING, ISAIAH129.50
11/28/08SCHAEFER, NATALIE126.00
11/28/08SCHREIER, ROSEMARIE136.00
11/28/08SCHUNEMAN, GREGORY115.70
11/28/08SKUNES, KELLY70.88
11/28/08SMITH, ANN178.20
11/28/08TUPY, ELIANA34.00
11/28/08TUPY, HEIDE212.00
11/28/08TUPY, MARCUS264.60
11/28/08WARNER, CAROLYN352.10
11/28/08WEDES, CARYL112.50
11/28/08WICKNER, KRISTY34.69
11/28/08WOLFGRAM, TERESA181.67
11/28/08WOODMAN, ALICE138.00
11/28/08YOUNCE, BLAISE70.00
11/28/08ZALK, IDA88.34
11/28/08BOSLEY, CAROL270.60
11/28/08HOLMGREN, STEPHANIE193.38
Packet Page Number
Page 179 of 209
11/28/08LANGER, CHELSEA71.75
11/28/08LANGER, KAYLYN44.00
11/28/08SATTLER, MELINDA22.00
11/28/08BEHAN, JAMES2,195.86
11/28/08DOUGLASS, TOM1,277.72
11/28/08GROPPOLI, JOE414.00
11/28/08PATTERSON, ALBERT1,379.52
11/28/08PRINS, KELLY1,162.62
11/28/08REILLY, MICHAEL2,071.99
11/28/08VALERIO, TARA268.25
11/28/08AICHELE, CRAIG2,064.39
11/28/08PRIEM, STEVEN2,256.55
11/28/08WOEHRLE, MATTHEW1,922.15
11/28/08BERGO, CHAD2,499.19
11/28/08FOWLDS, MYCHAL2,996.06
11/28/08FRANZEN, NICHOLAS2,083.07
1006456
11/28/08LONGRIE, DIANA473.15
1006457
11/28/08THOMFORDE, FAITH48.12
1006458
11/28/08ANDERSON, CHRISTINA18.50
1006459
11/28/08WELCHLIN, CABOT2,904.43
1006460
11/28/08ERICKSON, AMANDA169.00
1006461
11/28/08ERICKSON, AMY143.00
1006462
11/28/08GRAVES, CONNIE70.00
1006463
11/28/08GREER, ABIGAIL169.00
1006464
11/28/08HELM, STACY52.00
1006465
11/28/08JUGOVICH, CARALYNN299.00
1006466
11/28/08KRENZ, CASSANDRA104.00
1006467
11/28/08LINDA, KELLIE198.00
1006468
11/28/08MULLEN, REBECCA52.00
1006469
11/28/08ROBBINS, CAMDEN89.25
1006470
11/28/08RUBBELKE, JAMIE130.00
1006471
11/28/08VUE, LOR PAO268.25
1006472
11/28/08BUESING, DYLAN115.50
1006473
11/28/08FENGER, JUSTIN287.98
1006474
11/28/08GRANT, MELISSA417.25
1006475
11/28/08HANSON, MATTHEW166.75
1006476
11/28/08LAMSON, KEVIN42.00
1006477
11/28/08MCLAURIN, CHRISTOPHER187.60
1006478
11/28/08MORIS, RACHEL102.38
1006479
11/28/08OLSON, SHELBY18.00
1006480
11/28/08ROSTRON, ROBERT327.50
1006481
11/28/08SAUCERMAN, MICHAEL153.20
1006482
11/28/08SCHAEFER, JAMES192.01
1006483
11/28/08SCHMIDT, JOHN206.21
1006484
11/28/08HER, SHILLAME58.00
1006485
11/28/08ZAGER, LINNEA187.88
1006486
11/28/08BOWMAN, MATTHEW284.00
1006487
11/28/08SCHULZE, KEVIN380.00
1006488
11/28/08STEFFEN, MICHAEL56.00
TOTAL 472,404.18
Packet Page Number
Page 180 of 209
Trans DatePosting DateMerchant NameTrans AmountName
11/07/200811/10/2008FRANKLINCOVEYPRODUCTS$68.15R CHARLES AHL
11/19/200811/19/2008U OF M CCE$225.00R CHARLES AHL
11/06/200811/10/2008ANDON BALLOONS INC -$112.09MANDY ANZALDI
11/08/200811/10/2008CUB FOODS, INC.$10.26MANDY ANZALDI
11/10/200811/11/2008TARGET 00011858$30.90MANDY ANZALDI
11/10/200811/11/2008PARTY AMERICA 1008$11.96MANDY ANZALDI
11/10/200811/11/2008PARTY CITY #768$131.57MANDY ANZALDI
11/10/200811/12/2008TOYS R US #6046$98.42MANDY ANZALDI
11/10/200811/12/2008ORIENTAL TRADING CO$260.47MANDY ANZALDI
11/15/200811/17/2008JO-ANN STORE #1865$8.48MANDY ANZALDI
11/20/200811/21/2008PARTY CITY #768$16.84MANDY ANZALDI
11/06/200811/10/2008AQUA LOGIC INC$381.46JIM BEHAN
11/10/200811/11/2008MINVALCO INC$296.42JIM BEHAN
11/13/200811/17/2008WAL-MART #2087$63.79JIM BEHAN
11/18/200811/19/2008HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE$35.20JIM BEHAN
11/18/200811/19/2008PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS$64.69JIM BEHAN
11/19/200811/20/2008MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER$205.49JIM BEHAN
11/07/200811/10/2008S&S WORLDWIDE$91.86NEIL BRENEMAN
11/07/200811/10/2008CUB FOODS, INC.$5.97NEIL BRENEMAN
11/09/200811/10/2008GLOW STICK FACTORY$24.71NEIL BRENEMAN
11/17/200811/19/2008GLOW STICK FACTORY$112.88NEIL BRENEMAN
11/18/200811/19/2008STEICHENS SPORTING$54.89NEIL BRENEMAN
11/18/200811/19/2008PETSMART INC 461$42.67NEIL BRENEMAN
11/19/200811/21/2008S&S WORLDWIDE$70.48NEIL BRENEMAN
11/13/200811/14/2008HEJNY RENTAL$69.29TROY BRINK
11/13/200811/17/2008HEJNY RENTAL($17.32)TROY BRINK
11/12/200811/14/2008SUREFIRE LLC$653.95DAN BUSACK
11/10/200811/11/2008MOMTALK.COM$780.00HEIDI CAREY
11/10/200811/12/2008ANCHOR PAPER EXPRESS$28.20HEIDI CAREY
11/13/200811/14/2008YELLOW BOOK USA$192.93HEIDI CAREY
11/14/200811/18/2008INNOVATIVE COLOR PRINTING$620.23HEIDI CAREY
11/18/200811/19/2008MYFONTS.COM C/OBITSTREAM$29.00HEIDI CAREY
11/19/200811/20/2008PRICE CHOPPER INC$1,858.51HEIDI CAREY
11/06/200811/10/2008THE HOME DEPOT 2801$60.71SCOTT CHRISTENSON
11/07/200811/10/2008VIKING ELEC-CREDIT DEPT.$306.17SCOTT CHRISTENSON
11/10/200811/12/2008CUMMINS NPOWER, LLC #100$75.97SCOTT CHRISTENSON
11/10/200811/13/2008KATH AUTO PARTS NSP$180.57SCOTT CHRISTENSON
11/17/200811/19/2008THE HOME DEPOT 2801$170.45SCOTT CHRISTENSON
11/19/200811/21/2008THE HOME DEPOT 2801($58.00)SCOTT CHRISTENSON
11/19/200811/21/2008THE HOME DEPOT 2801$25.03SCOTT CHRISTENSON
11/11/200811/12/2008G & K SERVICES 006$48.22CHARLES DEAVER
11/19/200811/20/2008MENARDS 3022$20.51CHARLES DEAVER
11/12/200811/13/2008EDEN PRAIRIE TUITION OFFI$185.00ROBERT J DOLLERSCHELL
11/18/200811/19/2008MENARDS 3059$243.99DOUG EDGE
11/19/200811/21/2008THE HOME DEPOT 2801$55.37DOUG EDGE
11/18/200811/20/2008OXYGEN SERVICE CO INC$64.88DAVE EDSON
11/19/200811/20/2008MENARDS 3059$126.10DAVE EDSON
11/07/200811/10/2008RED WING SHOE STORE$2.00ANDREW ENGSTROM
11/19/200811/20/2008HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE$13.11PAUL E EVERSON
11/07/200811/10/2008AE SIGN SYSTEMS$36.11LARRY FARR
11/07/200811/10/2008WALDOR PUMP & EQUIPMENT C$809.60LARRY FARR
Packet Page Number
Page 181 of 209
11/07/200811/12/2008WEBER & TROSETH INC$1,256.97LARRY FARR
11/08/200811/10/2008KOHL'S #0055$352.51LARRY FARR
11/11/200811/12/2008G & K SERVICES 006$444.98LARRY FARR
11/11/200811/12/2008G & K SERVICES 006$923.20LARRY FARR
11/12/200811/13/2008KOHL'S #0052$29.99LARRY FARR
11/14/200811/17/2008KOHL'S #0055($59.98)LARRY FARR
11/14/200811/17/2008TWIN CITY HARDWARE HADLEY$5.34LARRY FARR
11/14/200811/17/2008TWIN CITY HARDWARE HADLEY$175.11LARRY FARR
11/14/200811/17/2008ZERO REZ OF MINNEAPOLIS$2,499.40LARRY FARR
11/13/200811/14/2008CURTIS 1000$583.04KAREN FORMANEK
11/14/200811/17/2008COMPUTERSUP$60.88KAREN FORMANEK
11/19/200811/21/2008CURTIS 1000$47.83KAREN FORMANEK
11/08/200811/10/2008CTO*GOTOMYPC.COM$33.90MYCHAL FOWLDS
11/10/200811/11/2008METRO SALES INC$34.22MYCHAL FOWLDS
11/10/200811/12/2008DE LAGE LANDEN OP01 OF 01$294.10MYCHAL FOWLDS
11/12/200811/12/2008PAYPAL INC$59.95MYCHAL FOWLDS
11/13/200811/14/2008BLK*BOX CORP$76.24MYCHAL FOWLDS
11/14/200811/17/2008SPRINT *SPRINTNEXTELWB$1,605.25MYCHAL FOWLDS
11/14/200811/17/2008AT&T *8310000707190$1,032.95MYCHAL FOWLDS
11/14/200811/17/2008GOVDOCS.COM, INC.$410.00MYCHAL FOWLDS
11/14/200811/18/2008CITY OF ROSEVILLE CITY HA$865.00MYCHAL FOWLDS
11/17/200811/19/2008SOFTWARE HOUSE INTL$287.55MYCHAL FOWLDS
11/17/200811/19/2008SOFTWARE HOUSE INTL$28.76MYCHAL FOWLDS
11/11/200811/12/2008SYX*TIGERDIRECT.COM$197.55NICK FRANZEN
11/13/200811/13/2008HP DIRECT-PUBLICSECTOR$2,475.39NICK FRANZEN
11/19/200811/21/2008CVS PHARMACY #1751 Q03$9.06NICK FRANZEN
11/07/200811/10/2008MENARDS 3059$8.52CLARENCE GERVAIS
11/07/200811/11/2008LARRY REIDS WHITE BEAR D$56.87CLARENCE GERVAIS
11/11/200811/13/2008ASPEN MILLS INC.$123.45CLARENCE GERVAIS
11/13/200811/14/2008FEDEX KINKO'S #0617$227.22CLARENCE GERVAIS
11/07/200811/10/2008OFFICE DEPOT #1090$230.54JEAN GLASS
11/17/200811/18/2008OFFICE DEPOT #1090$253.69JEAN GLASS
11/19/200811/21/2008OFFICE DEPOT #1090$20.78JEAN GLASS
11/08/200811/10/2008KNOWLANS #2$5.35JANET M GREW HAYMAN
11/18/200811/20/2008OFFICE MAX$13.33JANET M GREW HAYMAN
11/06/200811/10/2008DUNN'S OFFICE SOLUTIONS$363.71KAREN E GUILFOILE
11/12/200811/13/2008CUB FOODS, INC.$23.55KAREN E GUILFOILE
11/14/200811/17/2008VZWRLSS*APOCC VISN$92.55KAREN E GUILFOILE
11/17/200811/19/2008AMERICAN RED CROS01 OF 01$1,636.23KAREN E GUILFOILE
11/17/200811/19/2008INT'L INST OF MUNI CLE$175.00KAREN E GUILFOILE
11/12/200811/13/2008CLOVER SUPER FOODS$287.23LORI HANSON
11/17/200811/19/2008NIHCA NATIONAL INDEPENDEN$150.00LORI HANSON
11/17/200811/19/2008NIHCA NATIONAL INDEPENDEN$50.00LORI HANSON
11/19/200811/20/2008ARAMARK MINNEAPOLIS OCS$643.02LORI HANSON
11/17/200811/18/2008WALGREENS #01751$8.06PATRICK HEFFERNAN
11/20/200811/21/2008TARGET 00011858$11.73PATRICK HEFFERNAN
11/20/200811/21/2008MENARDS 3059$24.80PATRICK HEFFERNAN
11/07/200811/10/2008LESCO SC 0530$456.62GARY HINNENKAMP
11/06/200811/17/2008AMERICAN RED CROSS TWIN C$51.52RON HORWATH
11/07/200811/17/2008AMERICAN RED CROSS TWIN C$51.52RON HORWATH
11/12/200811/13/2008NOTEWORTHY INDUSTRIES$109.80ANN E HUTCHINSON
11/13/200811/14/2008EDUCATIONAL INNOVATIONS I$51.57ANN E HUTCHINSON
Packet Page Number
Page 182 of 209
11/17/200811/18/2008KNOWLANS #2$9.89ANN E HUTCHINSON
11/11/200811/12/2008DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC$282.25DAVID JAHN
11/14/200811/17/2008DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC$68.53DAVID JAHN
11/20/200811/21/2008DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC$105.08DAVID JAHN
11/08/200811/10/2008CUB FOODS, INC.$4.07KEVIN JOHNSON
11/12/200811/13/2008MENARDS 3059$358.10DON JONES
11/12/200811/13/2008MENARDS 3059$284.89DON JONES
11/07/200811/10/2008TARGET 00011858$195.98BERNARD R JUNGMANN
11/07/200811/10/2008FRATTALLONE'S ACE HDWE$9.87BERNARD R JUNGMANN
11/07/200811/10/2008MENARDS 3022$29.04BERNARD R JUNGMANN
11/11/200811/12/2008BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC$622.74BERNARD R JUNGMANN
11/11/200811/13/2008ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER IN$104.50BERNARD R JUNGMANN
11/12/200811/12/2008TRI-ANIM HEALTH SERVICES$12.00BERNARD R JUNGMANN
11/13/200811/17/2008OXYGEN SERVICE CO INC$75.00BERNARD R JUNGMANN
11/13/200811/20/2008JERRYS TRANSMISSION$46.34BERNARD R JUNGMANN
11/15/200811/17/2008TARGET 00021352$22.58BERNARD R JUNGMANN
11/18/200811/20/2008MED ALLIANCE GROUP$1,005.30BERNARD R JUNGMANN
11/19/200811/20/2008BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC$1,076.09BERNARD R JUNGMANN
11/13/200811/14/2008RAINBOW FOODS 00088617$34.98TOM KALKA
11/13/200811/14/2008THE UPS STORE #2171$13.72TOM KALKA
11/10/200811/12/2008THE HOME DEPOT 2801$1.91NICHOLAS KREKELER
11/10/200811/11/2008OFFICE DEPOT #1090$13.65LISA KROLL
11/10/200811/12/2008LEEANN CHIN #017 MAPLERID$165.35LISA KROLL
11/11/200811/13/2008OFFICE DEPOT #1090$150.99LISA KROLL
11/11/200811/13/2008SHRED-IT$46.89LISA KROLL
11/12/200811/13/2008LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAPE$1,307.16LISA KROLL
11/13/200811/14/2008CALENDARS$128.45LISA KROLL
11/17/200811/18/2008ARVEY PAPER & OFFICE PRO$1,531.65LISA KROLL
11/11/200811/12/2008OVERHEAD DOOR OF NORTH$259.70STEVE LUKIN
11/12/200811/14/2008ROAD RESCUE EMERGENCY VE$29.85STEVE LUKIN
11/15/200811/17/2008DE LAGE LANDEN OP01 OF 01$379.14STEVE LUKIN
11/17/200811/19/2008AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL$449.79STEVE LUKIN
11/18/200811/20/2008ASPEN MILLS INC.$44.95STEVE LUKIN
11/14/200811/17/2008CUB FOODS, INC.$154.96GORDON MALLORY
11/11/200811/12/2008G & K SERVICES 006$579.88MARK MARUSKA
11/19/200811/20/2008APOLLO HVAC$70.16MARK MARUSKA
11/19/200811/20/2008HUNT ELECTRIC CORPORATION$1,488.57MARK MARUSKA
11/12/200811/14/2008SPORTSMANS WAREHOUSE 141$154.98BRENT MEISSNER
11/11/200811/13/2008SHRED-IT$20.25ROBERT MITTET
11/12/200811/13/2008VZWRLSS*APOCC VISN$177.83ROBERT MITTET
11/13/200811/14/2008PAYPAL *SPRINGSTED$125.00ROBERT MITTET
11/13/200811/14/2008MENARDS 3059$11.29ED NADEAU
11/12/200811/13/2008NORTH HEIGHTS HARDWARE IN$27.21JOHN NAUGHTON
11/11/200811/12/2008G & K SERVICES 006$995.61AMY NIVEN
11/11/200811/12/2008G & K SERVICES 006$317.90AMY NIVEN
11/11/200811/12/2008G & K SERVICES 006$196.70AMY NIVEN
11/13/200811/17/2008OFFICE DEPOT #1090$106.86MARY KAY PALANK
11/13/200811/17/2008OFFICE DEPOT #1091$23.04MARY KAY PALANK
11/14/200811/17/2008OFFICE DEPOT #1091($23.04)MARY KAY PALANK
11/17/200811/18/2008OFFICE DEPOT #1090$373.32MARY KAY PALANK
11/17/200811/18/2008OFFICE DEPOT #1090$17.27MARY KAY PALANK
11/14/200811/17/2008IAPE$50.00PHILIP F POWELL
Packet Page Number
Page 183 of 209
11/14/200811/17/2008MEDCO SUPPLY$67.41PHILIP F POWELL
11/17/200811/18/2008ABACUS PLUS SERVICES INC$217.77PHILIP F POWELL
11/19/200811/21/2008PEAVEY CORPORATION$98.35PHILIP F POWELL
11/06/200811/10/2008U OF M PARKING AND TRANS$11.00WILLIAM J PRIEFER
11/14/200811/17/2008S S TREE AND HORTICULTUR$562.50WILLIAM J PRIEFER
11/19/200811/21/2008S S TREE AND HORTICULTUR$302.50WILLIAM J PRIEFER
11/06/200811/10/2008KATH AUTO PARTS NSP$19.17STEVEN PRIEM
11/06/200811/10/2008ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS$1,596.44STEVEN PRIEM
11/07/200811/10/2008KATH AUTO PARTS NSP$26.73STEVEN PRIEM
11/07/200811/10/2008KATH AUTO PARTS NSP$76.47STEVEN PRIEM
11/07/200811/10/2008ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS$456.73STEVEN PRIEM
11/10/200811/11/2008HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE$26.38STEVEN PRIEM
11/10/200811/11/2008HUNT ELECTRIC CORPORATION$202.00STEVEN PRIEM
11/11/200811/13/2008BOYER TRUCK PARTS$11.18STEVEN PRIEM
11/11/200811/13/2008BOYER TRUCK PARTS$37.64STEVEN PRIEM
11/12/200811/14/2008FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19$260.91STEVEN PRIEM
11/13/200811/14/2008POMPS TIRE SERVICE$529.95STEVEN PRIEM
11/13/200811/14/2008H & L MESABI COMPANY$1,246.05STEVEN PRIEM
11/13/200811/14/2008H & L MESABI COMPANY$830.70STEVEN PRIEM
11/13/200811/17/2008GILLUND ENTERPRIZES$120.16STEVEN PRIEM
11/13/200811/17/2008FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19$260.91STEVEN PRIEM
11/14/200811/17/2008STANDARD TRUCK$39.00STEVEN PRIEM
11/17/200811/18/2008FASTENAL CO-RETAIL$8.57STEVEN PRIEM
11/17/200811/20/2008KATH AUTO PARTS NSP$8.33STEVEN PRIEM
11/18/200811/20/2008KATH AUTO PARTS NSP$87.16STEVEN PRIEM
11/18/200811/20/2008CATCO PARTS&SERVICE$243.24STEVEN PRIEM
11/19/200811/21/2008BAUER BULT TRE33200023$167.55STEVEN PRIEM
11/07/200811/10/2008SUBWAY 00073700$175.60KEVIN RABBETT
11/10/200811/11/2008HEALTHEAST TRANSPORTATN$57.59KEVIN RABBETT
11/11/200811/13/2008SHRED-IT$49.95KEVIN RABBETT
11/13/200811/13/2008COMCAST CABLE COMM$34.00KEVIN RABBETT
11/19/200811/21/2008SHRED-IT$49.95KEVIN RABBETT
11/13/200811/14/2008ICMA$400.00TERRIE RAMEAUX
11/19/200811/20/2008MN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH$461.50TERRIE RAMEAUX
11/08/200811/10/2008DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC$763.38MICHAEL REILLY
11/20/200811/21/2008DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC$31.93MICHAEL REILLY
11/11/200811/13/2008THE HOME DEPOT 2801$25.90NANCY RICHTER
11/17/200811/18/2008GAI*GAIAM AMERICAS$195.70NANCY RICHTER
11/07/200811/10/2008TARGET 00011858$89.88AUDRA ROBBINS
11/07/200811/10/2008WALGREENS #2936$12.68AUDRA ROBBINS
11/12/200811/13/2008WAL-MART$188.10AUDRA ROBBINS
11/18/200811/19/2008TARGET 00011858$26.52AUDRA ROBBINS
11/18/200811/19/2008RED CROSS STORE$112.52AUDRA ROBBINS
11/12/200811/13/2008MENARDS 3059$908.29ROBERT RUNNING
11/12/200811/14/2008MILLS FLEET FARM #27$163.42ROBERT RUNNING
11/13/200811/17/2008MILLS FLEET FARM #27$8.53ROBERT RUNNING
11/18/200811/20/2008THE HOME DEPOT 2801$26.56ROBERT RUNNING
11/20/200811/21/2008MENARDS 3059$72.70ROBERT RUNNING
11/20/200811/21/2008MENARDS 3059$953.17ROBERT RUNNING
11/12/200811/14/2008MILLS FLEET FARM #27$21.24JAMES SCHINDELDECKER
11/14/200811/17/2008THE HOME DEPOT 2801$60.77JAMES SCHINDELDECKER
11/10/200811/11/2008VZWRLSS-MYACCT VN$38.79DEB SCHMIDT
Packet Page Number
Page 184 of 209
11/14/200811/17/2008N WATER WORKS SPLY #2518$1,652.97SCOTT SCHULTZ
11/06/200811/10/2008LASER LABS, INC$815.00MICHAEL SHORTREED
11/07/200811/10/2008UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC$98.50MICHAEL SHORTREED
11/07/200811/10/2008CUB FOODS, INC.$20.95MICHAEL SHORTREED
11/08/200811/10/2008UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC$98.50MICHAEL SHORTREED
11/10/200811/11/2008THE UPS STORE #2171$221.76MICHAEL SHORTREED
11/10/200811/12/2008UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC$98.50MICHAEL SHORTREED
11/11/200811/13/2008UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC$98.50MICHAEL SHORTREED
11/12/200811/13/2008SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GRP$537.10MICHAEL SHORTREED
11/12/200811/13/2008SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GRP$286.33MICHAEL SHORTREED
11/12/200811/13/2008SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GRP$318.78MICHAEL SHORTREED
11/12/200811/13/2008SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GRP$799.00MICHAEL SHORTREED
11/12/200811/13/2008SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GRP$518.82MICHAEL SHORTREED
11/12/200811/14/2008WOLF CAMERA #1530$85.23MICHAEL SHORTREED
11/18/200811/20/2008OFFICE MAX$39.47MICHAEL SHORTREED
11/06/200811/10/2008OFFICE DEPOT #1090$174.72ANDREA SINDT
11/07/200811/10/2008S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS($72.68)JOANNE M SVENDSEN
11/07/200811/10/2008CUB FOODS, INC.$26.24JOANNE M SVENDSEN
11/12/200811/13/2008CUB FOODS, INC.$12.65JOANNE M SVENDSEN
11/13/200811/14/2008NAPA AUTO PARTS 3279016$19.19TODD TEVLIN
11/07/200811/10/2008THE TIN FISH GAS LAMP$17.19DAVID J THOMALLA
11/07/200811/10/2008NWA AIR 0122606566438$15.00DAVID J THOMALLA
11/07/200811/10/2008SILVER CAB INC$15.00DAVID J THOMALLA
11/11/200811/13/2008BUSTERS BEACH HOUSE$17.25DAVID J THOMALLA
11/12/200811/14/2008MARION'S FISH MARKET &$11.00DAVID J THOMALLA
11/14/200811/17/2008MARRIOTT 337J8 SD MARINA$1,682.16DAVID J THOMALLA
11/14/200811/17/2008NWA AIR 0122606800062$15.00DAVID J THOMALLA
11/13/200811/13/2008U OF M CCE$225.00MICHAEL THOMPSON
11/10/200811/12/2008OFFICE DEPOT #1090($10.00)SUSAN ZWIEG
11/17/200811/19/2008LINENSNTHINGS #0478$12.80SUSAN ZWIEG
11/19/200811/21/2008OFFICE DEPOT #1105($9.61)SUSAN ZWIEG
TOTAL$61,883.09
Packet Page Number
Page 185 of 209
Agenda Item M1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager
FROM: Karen Guilfoile, Citizen Services Manager
DATE: December 1, 2008
elony Marie Morris, New
SUBJECT: On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License ? M
Manager, Buffalo Wild Wings
Introduction
Melony Marie Morris has completed an application for an intoxicating liquor license for
Noodles & Company located at 3085 White Bear Avenue.
Background
Melony was raised in White Bear Lake and received her diploma in 2000. She then
moved to Siren, WI where she was a nanny for a year. She returned to the Twin Cities
and started working at Buffalo Wild Wings in December 2002 at the Roseville site. She
was promoted to Manager at the Coon Rapids site in January 2005. She was then
promoted to Assistant General Manager of the Maplewood site in May 2007. She has
now been promoted to General Manager of the Maplewood site.
As required by City ordinances, the necessary background investigation was completed
by the Police Department on Ms Morris. In the course of this investigation, state criminal
history files were checked along with contacts and warrants in the cities of Coon Rapids,
Blaine, Roseville, White Bear Lake and Maplewood along with the Burnett County in
Wisconsin and Ramsey County, there was nothing found that would prohibit Ms Morris
from holding the liquore license.
Ms Morris has met with Chief Thomalla to discuss measures to eliminate the sale of
alcohol to underage persons, general security and retail crime related issues; and the
Maplewood Liquor Ordinances.
Consideration
It is recommended that the City Council approve the request for change in manager by
Ms Morris at Buffalo Wild Wings in Maplewood.
Packet Page Number
Page 186 of 209
Agenda Item M2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager
FROM:
Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
RE:
Annual Renewal Currency Exchange
DATE:
December 2, 2008
Introduction
Cashway Checking, a currency exchange licensee, made application with the State to
renew its currency exchange license to operate at 3035 White Bear Avenue.
Background
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 53A.04 requires the Department of Commerce to submit any
application for licensure as a currency exchange to the governing body of the
municipality in which the currency exchange conducts business.
After consulting with Chief Thomalla, there is nothing on record that would prohibit
council from renewing the annual currency exchange license. They are a good member
of the business community.
Recommendation
It is recommended that council approve the annual renewal license for Cashway
Checking.
Packet Page Number
Page 187 of 209
Agenda Item M3
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager
FROM:
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development & Parks Director
Bill Priefer, Public Works Operations Analyst/Recycling Coordinator
SUBJECT: Fall 2008 Clean-up Event Summary
DATE:
November 25, 2008
INTRODUCTION
The Fall 2008 Clean-up Event was held on October 18, 2008 at Gethsemane Lutheran Church. The
following summarizes the event.
BACKGROUND
The Fall Clean-up event was well attended. Two hundred and fifty residents disposed of an assortment of
trash, tires, appliances, TV?s and e-waste. This represented a 24% increase in participation over fall of
2007 when 202 residents participated. The increase in participation may be due to the fact that we did not
charge for e-waste disposal this fall, while in 2007 we charged $15 per item for computers, monitors and
TV?s. Forty-eight residents disposed of e-waste in 2007, while 114 residents disposed of e-waste this fall.
In all, 22,697 pounds of e-waste, or over 11 tons, was recovered at the fall event.
The bicycle shop, Re-Cycle, collected 23 bicycles that will be returned to the road. This represents about
650 pounds of steel and will help reduce carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 8,000 pounds, and
even more if the bicycles are ridden in lieu of driving a car.
Two hundred pounds of foods and $17 cash were collected for the Second Harvest Heartland food shelf as
a part of the Clean-up Event. This is about the same as 2007, when 198 pounds of food and $51 in
contributions were collected.
A special thank you should go out to the Maplewood Police Reserves who once again provided excellent
traffic control which minimized the long lines and reduced the idling and wait times.
RECOMMENDATION
No action is required on this item.
Packet Page Number
Page 188 of 209
Agenda Item M4
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager
FROM:
Michael Thompson, Acting Public Works Director
SUBJECT: CarMax/Mogren Addition Improvements, City Project 06-17, Consider
Approval of Resolution Reducing Retainage on Existing Construction Contract
and Adjusting the Budget to Reflect Maplewood Toyota Contribution
DATE:
November 26, 2008
INTRODUCTION
The construction contract with Frattalone Companies for this project is nearly completed. Frattalone has
requested a full reduction in contract retainage. The council will consider the attached resolution
authorizing the city engineer to reduce the contract retainage and also adjust the project budget to reflect
construction activities performed on the Maplewood Toyota site.
BACKGROUND
th
On May 14, 2007, the council awarded Frattalone Companies a construction contract for utility and
roadway improvements in the amount of $2,374,426.30. The approved construction contract amount is
currently $2,421,256.58 due to the following change orders:
Change Order No.1 Final $ 12,067.50
Change Order No.2 Final $ 34,985.00
Change Order No.3 Final $ -151.94
Change Order No.4 Final $ -70.28
DISCUSSION
The contractor, city, and consultant are working on getting the final paperwork assembled in order to issue
the final payment to the contractor which will allow the city to accept the project.
Regarding the budget adjustment; Change Order No.2 reflected re-alignment of the sanitary sewer on
Beam Avenue in front of the Maplewood Toyota property. When this change order was passed it also
informed the finance director to adjust the budget to reflect a Maplewood Toyota share of $17,500.00.
Maplewood Toyota?s actual share for improvements came out to be $37,841.02. Therefore the budget
needs to be adjusted to account for the difference. A budget increase of $20,341.02 should be adopted to
reflect Maplewood Toyota?s increased contribution.
BUDGET IMPACT
The full retainage reduction does not affect the budget as it is money owed to the contractor in the
approved construction contract. However an adjustment in the budget is needed to reflect an increased
funding share by Maplewood Toyota in the amount of $20,341.02. No city funds are required in the
adjustment.
Packet Page Number
Page 189 of 209
Agenda Item M4
As an overview; the current approved budget is $4,436,341.02 with current expenditures at $3,397,977.00.
With the increased Maplewood Toyota share the approved budget will increase to $4,453,841.02.
Once final payment is made to the contractor and final project costs are calculated the budget will be
adjusted down accordingly to reflect the savings.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution directing the city engineer to reduce
retainage on the existing construction contract for City Project 06-17 to 0%, and adjust the project budget
to reflect the increased funding share from Maplewood Toyota.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Location Map
Packet Page Number
Page 190 of 209
Agenda Item M4
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION
DIRECTING REDUCTION OF RETAINAGE ON EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
AND ADJUSTING OF THE BUDGET
PROJECT 06-17
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has previously ordered Improvement
Project 06-17, CarMax/Mogren Addition Improvements, and has let a construction contract pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, the contractor, Frattalone Companies has requested a reduction in contract retainage,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA that the retainage within the construction contract is hereby authorized to be reduced, at the
discretion of the city engineer, from 5% to 0%, and
FURTHERMORE, the finance director is hereby directed to adjust the budget to reflect an additional
contribution from Maplewood Toyota in the amount of $20,341.02. The revised project budget is
$4,453,841.02.
Packet Page Number
Page 191 of 209
Agenda Item M4
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number
Page 192 of 209
Agenda Item M5
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager
FROM:
Michael Thompson, Acting Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 07-25, Consider
Approval of Resolution Reducing Retainage on Existing Construction Contract
DATE:
November 26, 2008
INTRODUCTION
The construction contract with Tower Asphalt for the Hazelwood Street Improvements (City Project 07-25)
is nearly complete. The contractor has requested reduction in the contract retainage from 5% to 1%. The
council will consider the attached resolution authorizing the city engineer to reduce the contract retainage.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Improvements to Hazelwood Street between Highway 36 and Frost Avenue started after the council
awarded a construction contract to Tower Asphalt on May 12, 2008 in the amount of $1,241,296.25. The
approved construction contract is currently $1,327,981.00 as a result of two change orders.
To date the contractor has completed work in the amount of $1,171,475.50. The contractor has minor
punch list items remaining and staff feels that a reduction in contract retainage is justified.
BUDGET
An adjustment in retainage does not increase or decrease the total approved contract amount. No contract
or budget adjustments are needed.
As an overview; the current approved overall budget is $2,352,000.00 with expenditures currently at just
over $1,700,000.00. In 2009 when the final payment is made to the contractor and final project costs are
calculated the budget will be adjusted down accordingly to reflect the savings.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution directing the city engineer to reduce
retainage on the existing construction contract for City Project 07-25 to 1%.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Location Map
Packet Page Number
Page 193 of 209
Agenda Item M5
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION
DIRECTING REDUCTION OF RETAINAGE ON EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
PROJECT 07-25
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has previously ordered Improvement
Project 07-25, Hazelwood Street Improvements, and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, the contractor, Tower Asphalt has requested a reduction in contract retainage,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA that the retainage within the construction contract is hereby authorized to be reduced, at the
discretion of the city engineer, from 5% to 1%.
Packet Page Number
Page 194 of 209
Agenda Item M5
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number
Page 195 of 209
Agenda Item M6
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager
FROM:
Michael Thompson, Acting Public Works Director
Ed Nadeau, Utility/Fleet Superintendent
SUBJECT:ConsiderApproval of Purchase of Single Axle Plow Truck
DATE:
December 1, 2008
INTRODUCTION
The council will consider authorizing the purchase of a 2009 single-axle plow truck to allow for meeting a
deadline of January 1, 2009 for final orders of this truck model. This is a planned replacement identified
within the approved CIP.
BACKGROUND
The approved 2009 - 2013 Public Works Capital Improvement Plan includes the replacement of one 1994
single axle plow/dump truck. The 1994 single axle plow/dump truck has high mileage and the dump body
has deteriorated beyond repair. The state bid price from Boyer Trucks, Inc. to replace the truck chassis is
$70,801.68, including tax, license, and registration. Upon delivery of the truck chassis, state bids will be
requested for the plow/wing attachments and truck body. The 1994 Ford truck will be traded or sold at
state auction. The total budget to replace this truck is $137,300.00, which includes the chassis and the
attachments that will be bid out for the truck body and attachment.
BUDGET
The approved 2009-2013 CIP (PW08.010) allocated $137,300 from the fleet management fund for this
purchase. At this time $70,801.68 needs to be authorized for the purchase of the chassis. Attachments
and the truck body would be obtained at a later time and would be kept within the allocated CIP budget.
Any proceeds from the sale of the old truck would be allocated into the fleet management fund.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council authorize entering into a contract with Boyer Ford, Inc, under State
Contract #439006 for the purchase of a 2009 Sterling L-8500 truck chassis for $ 70,801.68 and dispose of
the 1994 Ford truck through trade-in or at state auction.
Attachments
1. Boyer Ford Quotation
Packet Page Number
Page 196 of 209
Agenda Item M6
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number
Page 197 of 209
Agenda Item M6
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number
Page 198 of 209
Agenda Item M6
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number
Page 199 of 209
Agenda Item M7a
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager
FROM:
Larry Farr, Chief Building Engineer
SUBJECT: Maplewood Community Center Improvements:
a. Consider Contract for Painting of Conference Rooms and Hall
DATE:
December 2, 2008
INTRODUCTION
The council will consider approving a contract for painting services with Swanson & Youngdale in the
amount of $16,435. The request is being submitted for council approval because it exceeds $10,000.
BACKGROUND
The MCC Conference Rooms and Theater Hallway area have been painted and touched up over the years
due to wear and tear. The paint color has not been changed and the current color makes the areas look
dark and uninviting. The areas have not been freshened up to meet the current décor. Staff has
determined the need to paint the MCC Conference Rooms and Theater Hallway.
DISCUSSION
The Conference Rooms and Theater Hallway area are in need of painting and it is recommended to
change the color scheme to reflect modern colors that lighten up and make the areas brighter and more
inviting. Staff is reviewing color charts to determine the best colors to go with the existing carpet and
furniture colors. This project will be spread out over several weeks which will go into 2009 and will be
performed to minimize the impact on the usage of the rooms.
There is one bidder for this project, Swanson & Youngdale, as the second company has closed. Swanson
& Youngdale have been low bidder on several large painting projects for the City of Maplewood and staff is
comfortable with past work performance.
With the project being finished in 2009 the funds will need to be encumbered from 2008 for 2009. The
expense for this project is $16,435 and is within the repair and maintenance budget (602-614-000-4410
Repair & Maintenance of Buildings).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the council approve the contract of $16,435 for painting services with Swanson and
Youngdale for the Maplewood Community Center painting improvements.
Attachments: Swanson & Youngdale Proposal
Packet Page Number
Page 200 of 209
Agenda Item M7a
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number
Page 201 of 209
Agenda Item M7b
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager
FROM:
Larry Farr, Chief Building Engineer
SUBJECT: Maplewood Community Center Improvements
:
b. Consider Contract for ReplacingExterior Door
DATE:
December 2, 2008
INTRODUCTION
The council will consider approving a contract for replacing the Maplewood Community Center
exterior door with Brin Northwestern Glass in the amount of $15,550. The request is being
submitted for council approval because it exceeds $10,000.
BACKGROUND
The upper west entry exterior doors at the Maplewood Community Center (MCC) are failing and
repairs are becoming more frequent. The poor conditions of the doors also creates a security issue
when they fail to lock or when a person can be pull them open from the locked position. On
December 11, 2006, the council approved the 2007 budget which included the replacement of the
exterior doors at the MCC. Building Operations received bids in 2007 to replace the lower east
entry and upper south entry doors of the MCC and the work was completed by Brin Northwestern
Glass in October 2007. The upper west entry is now in the same condition and needs to be
replaced. Building Operations has worked on the upper west entry doors trying to maintain them
as long as possible.
DISCUSSION
The exterior and interior vestibule doors at the MCC were installed in 1993 when the facility was
constructed. These doors were designed with the hardware for the doors on interior of the door
frames. This is a poor design. When the doors are hit or an attempt is made to open them when
locked, the mechanisms and support pieces become bent requiring frame repair and hardware
replacement. There also has been damage to the hinges, door frames, and door sill plates over
the years. The frames are starting to fail and need reinforcement to operate correctly. Parts for
these doors are being discontinued so they will not available in the near future. To correct this
situation, staff solicited and received bids from Harmon Glass and Brin Northwestern Glass
Company in 2007. With Brin Northwestern Glass doing the installation of the other entries they are
the only bidder where the design and style are consistent. The updated bid is attached to this
report. It will take the contractor six weeks to order and install the replacement doors after council
approval. This project will be completed in 2009 so the funds will need to be encumbered from
2008 for 2009. The funds are allocated in the operating budget for this planned improvement (602-
614-000-4410 Repair & Maintenance of Buildings).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the city council approve the contract in the amount of $15,500 for the upper
west exterior door replacement improvements by Brin Northwestern Glass as outlined in line items
2 and 3 of the attachment.
Attachment:
1. Brin Northwestern Glass Company Proposal
Packet Page Number
Page 202 of 209
Agenda Item M7b
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number
Page 203 of 209
Agenda Item M7b
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number
Page 204 of 209
AGENDA ITEM M-8
AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
December 3, 2008
TO:
Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager
FROM:
Terrie Rameaux, Human Resource Coordinator
SUBJECT: Retiree Health Savings Plan?Non-Union
BACKGROUND
The City currently has four Retiree Health Savings Plans in which employees can
make tax-free contributions to an account for retiree medical expenses. This can be
done on an annual basis and/or upon termination of employment with severance
pay. One of these plans was formerly the Non-Union Plan. With the formation of
the Maplewood Confidential and Supervisory Association (MCSA), the Non-Union
RHS plan became the MCSA plan, which is part of that current labor agreement. At
that time, all non-union employees became members of MCSA.
Since the Acting City Manager is no longer a member of MCSA and now a non-
union employee, he has requested that a new plan be established for non-union
employees, as he is no longer able to make annual contributions to the MCSA RHS
plan since he is no longer a member of any bargaining group. The Public Works
Director position will be a non-union employee upon the hiring of a permanent City
Manager. In addition, this plan will be available to the new City Manager. We will
work with the Plan Administrator at ICMA to set up the new plan. There is no cost to
the City for this plan.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Retiree Health
Savings Plan for Non-Union Employees.
Attachment:
1. RHS Plan for Non-union Employees
Packet Page Number
Page 205 of 209
RHS PLAN FOR NON-UNION EMPLOYEES
Participant and benefit eligibility criteria:
1. Must be full-time employee, no
minimum or maximum age and no years of service requirement.
Benefits will be limited to insurance premiums only
2. (health, dental, long-term
care premiums, Medicare Part B, and Medicare supplements).
The RHS plan will be funded by severance pay as follows:
3.
a. 100% of eligible severance pay for sick leave and deferred sick leave
would be deposited into the RHS plan if the employee is age 50 or above
at the time of separation from service.
b. 100% of accrued annual leave and personal holidays would be deposited
into the RHS plan if the employee?s balance is at least 80 hours at the
time of separation from service and the employee is at least age 50. If
under 80 hours or under age 50, nothing would go in.
c. 100% of accrued vacation and personal holidays would be deposited into
the RHS plan if the employee is at least age 50 and their vacation balance
is at lease 80 hours at the time of separation from service. If under 80
hours or age 50, nothing would go in.
The RHS plan will be funded with annual deposits as follows:
4.
a. Employees who are eligible for annual leave and are at least age 50, will
have the cash value of 16 hours of annual accrued but unused annual
leave deposited into the RHS plan if the annual leave balance is at least
240hours on the last payroll in December. In addition, there would be an
annual deposit of the cash value of all hours over 300 hours - as of the
last payroll in December. (Under the first part of this provision, if an
employee uses all of their annual accrual in a particular year, nothing will
go into the plan that year. If they use all but 10 hours, the 10 would go in.)
b. Employees that have a vacation balance of 160 or more hours on the last
payroll in December, and are at least age 45, will have the cash value of
16 hours of annual accrued but unused vacation deposited into the RHS
plan. In addition, employees of any age will have the cash value of all
vacation hours in excess of the carryover limit (1.5 times annual accrual)
deposited into the RHS plan. (If an employee uses all the vacation they
earn that year or their balance did not exceed the carryover limit, nothing
would go in.)
c. All employees will have the cash value of all personal holiday hours
unused as of December 31 deposited into the RHS plan.
Packet Page Number
Page 206 of 209
Agenda Item N1
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager
FROM:
Larry Farr, Chief Building Engineer
SUBJECT: Award of Bid for Rubbish Hauling Contract for City Facilities
DATE:
December 2, 2008
INTRODUCTION
The council will consider awarding a bid for rubbish hauling services to Waste Management. The
five year contract will provide a savings to the city of approximately $75,000.
BACKGROUND
The City of Maplewood has multiple Rubbish Hauling (Waste Hauling) contracts for city facilities
which are maintained by different departments. The decision was made to combine all of the
facilities under one contract to help reduce costs and have one contract with one person
responsible for maintaining them.
Due to the existing situation several of the contracts have expired and the facilities are on a month
to month basis where the pricing is more susceptible to increased adjustments. Therefore staff
wanted to reduce costs by consolidating.
DISCUSSION
Staff has determined it to be in the best interest of the City of Maplewood to combine all rubbish
hauling contracts for city facilities into one main contract. This contract would cover the city
campus, fire stations, parks and miscellaneous events throughout the year. With this decision in
mind, staff went out for bid and received two bids out of the seven licensed rubbish haulers
approved by the city. The bidders are Waste Management and Allied Waste Services. Staff has
reviewed the bids and the five year contract of Waste Management is the most economical with
only a $708.35 increase from the two year contract. There is no increase for years 3-5. There are
only two existing contracts that will need to be worked into the new main contract.
BUDGET
Currently the city is paying $3,276 per month ($39,312 per year) for the services the finance
department noted. With the current bid, the new amount would be $2,027 per month ($24,320 per
year) equating to a savings of $14,992 per year. Expenses would continue to be paid out of the
respective departments? operating budgets.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the council award the bid to Waste Management of Minnesota for the five
year contract, and the distribution of expenses will be monitored by Building Operations and
approved by the appropriate department with the correct general ledger number.
Attachments:
1. Waste Management of Minnesota
2. Allied Waste Services
Packet Page Number
Page 207 of 209
Agenda Item N1
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number
Page 208 of 209
Agenda Item N1
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number
Page 209 of 209