1985-04-16CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AGENDA
APRIL 16, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order. " :?!3V
2. Roll Call. - ate
3. Adoption of Agenda._
4. Approval of Minutes, April 2nd.
5. Consent Calendar: -
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g•
Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement
Approval of the
Approval of the
of the March 12 Park and Recreation Commission minutes.
of the April 9 Park and Recreation Commission minutes.
of the March Treasurer's report.
of the Fire Department report for March.
t
of the January 16 NDC4 minutes.
List of Claims.
List of Licenses.
End of Consent Calendar.
6. Public Comments -
).„,/ av2trIL. -
7. Response to Citizen Comments
a. Memo on Proposed Parking Restrictions.
8. Metropolitan Council District 15 Representative, Mary Martin.
attached memo). -, ry�
9. HEARINGS
a Memo and Resolution on Clapp Thomssen Ivy Hills
attached hearing notice and proposed assessment
No. 85-28. 7:45 P.M.
b. Memo and Resolution on North
hearingnnnottice). Resolution
7/
10. Unfinished and New nusiness
4S/794 Memoand Resolution
b. Memo oroposal
(See
2nd Addition. (See
roll.) R of tion
End Street Improvements. (See attached
No. 85-29. 38:00 P.M.
041444,,,
Appointment of Civil E»gineer I (Resolution 85-30)
-
o'rXuter Application Study.,,:
d. Memo and Resolution on Lexington Bike Trail. (Resolution NO. 85-31) 7 /
e. Memo and Resolution on Watershjdd Mgmt. Organization MHO). Res. 85-32L
11. Response to Council Comments .D0.1 —
a. Memo on Trail Lighting.- r
7
April 16, 1985 Agenda
Page Two.
12. Council Comments 44--
13. Adjourn.
1 --to— -L tiir/ F51 --
/°-
. 741-
(f- 71
de,
-
arra
A' a. X1. cat
ti.
3
Lower Mississippi River
Watershed Management Organization
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
April 3, 1985
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING A WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
FOR THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED
The parties to this agreement are cities which have land that drain surface
water into the Mississippi River. This agreement is made pursuant to the authority
conferred upon the parties by Minn. Stat. 471.59 and 473.875, et.121.
1. Name. The parties hereby create and establish the Lower Mississippi
River Watershed Management Organization.
2. General Purpose. The purpose of this agreement is to provide an
organization to preserve and use the natural water storage and retention of the
Lower Mississippi River watershed to (a) reduce to the greatest practical extent
Capital expenditures necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff, (b)
improve water quality, (c) prevent flooding and erosion from surface flows, (d)
promote ground water recharge, (e) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat
and water recreational Facilities, (f) secure the other benefits associated with the
proper management of surface water, and (g) carry out all the duties and
responsibilities outlined in Minn. Stat. 473.875 through 473.883.
3. Definitions.
Subdivision 1. "Rate of Flow" means the discharge of surface water
runoff as a function of time which has been calculated according to the design
criteria identified in Section 8, Subdivision 6. The rate of flow shall apply to
the design and construction of open channels and storm sewer conduits.
Subdivision 2. "Volume of Flow" means the total discharge of all
surface water runoff which has been calculated according to the design criteria
identified in Section 8, Subdivision:6. The volume of runoff flow shall apply to
the design and construction of detention facilities.
Subdivision 3. "Allowable Flow" means the rate and volume of flow,
according to the design criteria identified in Section 8, Subd. b, at which a Member
community may discharge into the drainage system without financial obligation and as
the rate and volume of surface water runoff from a tributary area under natural
conditions, with a drainage system in place which has been designed and constructed
according to the criteria stated herein, excluding diverted waters. Current
topographic data that exists on the enactment date of this agreement shall be used
for the determination of the natural conditions and calculation of the allowable
flow.
Subdivision 4. "Excessive Flow" means that rate and volume of flow,
calculated according to the design criteria in Section 8, Subdivision 6, from a
Member which is in excess of the allowable flow of that Member.
Subdivision 5. "Board" means the Board of Managers of the WMO.
Subdivision 6. "Council" means the governing body of a governmental
unit which is a member of this WMO.
Subdivision 7. "Drainage Facilities" means any improvement construct-
ed for the conveyance or storage of surface water.
Subdivision 8. "Drainage System" means the combination of drainage
facilities required to safely control or convey runoff water from a major tributary
drainage area(s) to a point of final discharge into a water body.
Subdivision 9. "Governmental unit" means any city.
Subdivision 10. "Lower Mississippi River Watershed" or "watershed"
means the area within a line drawn around the extremities of all terrain whose
surface drainage is tributary to the Mississippi River and within the mapped areas
delineated on the map filed with the Water Resources Board pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 473.877, Subd. 2.
Subdivision 11. "Member" means a governmental'unit which enters into
this agreement.
Subdivision 12. "Natural Conditions" means the characteristics of the
land on the date of enactment without regard to any urban development including
structures, parking lots, or other man-made improvements.
Subdivision 13. "Watershed Management Organization or "WMO" means the
organization created by this agreement the full name of which is "Lower Mississippi
River Watershed Management Organization". It shall be a public agency of its
Members.
4. Membership. The membership of the WMO shall consist of the following
governmental units. Each Member shall be entitled to the following eligible votes:
City of Inver Grove Heights 3 votes
City of Lilydale 1 vote
City of Mendota 1 vote
City of Mendota Heights 2 votes
City of Saint Paul 2 votes
City of South St. Paul 2 votes
City of Sunfish Lake 1 vote
City of West St. Paul 2 votes
No change in governmental boundaries, structure, organizational status
or character shall affect the eligibility of any Member listed above to be
represented on the WMO, so long as such Member continues to exist as a separate
political subdivision. A majority of all eligible votes shall be sufficient for all
matters, unless otherwise provided for in this agreement. A majority vote of all
members, with each Member having one vote, shall be required for Section 7,
Subdivisions 1 and 7, and Section 8. A Member community may not cast a split
vote. Any Member that fails to contribute their share of the WMO annual
administration fund or their allocation of a capital improvement cost, shall be
declared ineligible for voting on all matters before the WMO, until such
contribution is made to the WMO.
5. Advisors. The following shall be requested to appoint a'non-voting
•
advisory member to the WMO: Dakota County; Ramsey County; Dakota County Soil and
Water Conservation District. The Counties and District shall not contribute funds
for the operation of the WMO, except as provided in Minn. Stat. 473.883, but may '
provide technical services.
6. Board of Managers.
. Subdivision 1. Appointment. The governing body of the WMO shall be.
• its Board. Each Member shall be entitled to appoint one representative and an
alternate on the Board, and said representative shall be called a "Manager". The
alternate shall have the right to vote in absence of their representative.
Subdivision 2. Eligibility or Qualification. The Council of each
Member,shall determine the eligibility or qualification of its representative on the
WMO.
Subdivision 3. Term. The members of the WMO Board of Managers shall
not have a fixed term, but shall serve at the pleasure of the governing body of the
local unit appointing such member to the WHO.
Subdivision 4. Managers shall serve without compensation from the
WMO, but this shall not prevent a Member from providing compensation for a manager
for serving on the Board.
Subdivision 5. At the first meeting of the Board and in January of
each year thereafter, the Board shall elect from its managers a chair, a vice chair,
a secretary, a treasurer and such other officers as it deems necessary to conduct
its meetings and affairs. At the organizational meeting or as soon thereafter as it
may be reasonably done, the WMO shall adopt rules and regulations governing its
meetings. Such rules and regulations may be amended from time to time at either a
regular or a special meeting of the WMO, provided that at least ten days' prior
notice of the proposed amendment has been furnished to each person to whom notice of
the Board meetings is required to be sent.
7. Powers and Duties of the WMO.
Subdivision 1. The WMO, acting by a majority vote of all members of
the Board with each member having one vote;
(a) Shall prepare and adopt a watershed management plan meeting the
requirements of Minn. Stat. 473:878;.
(b) Shall review and approve local water management plans as provided
in Minn. Stat. 473.879;
(c) Upon the adoption of the watershed plan, the WMO may exercise the
authority of a watershed district under Minn. Stat. Chapter 112 to regulate the use
and development of land when one or more of the following conditions exist:
(1) The local government unit exercising planning and zoning
authority over the land under Minn. Stat. 366.10 to 366.19, 394.21 to
394.37 or 462.351 to 462.364 does not have a local water management
plan approved and adopted in accordance with requirements of Minn.
Stat. 473.879 or has not adopted the implementation program described
in the plan.
(2) An application to the local governmental unit for a permit
for the use and development of land which requires a variance from the
adopted local water management plan or implementation program of the
local unit.
(3) The local governmental unit has authorized the WMO to
require permits for the use and development of land.
Subdivision 2. The WMO may employ such persons as it deems necessary
to accomplish its duties and powers.
Subdivision 3. The WMO may contract for space and for material and
supplies to carry on its activities either with a Member or elsewhere.
Subdivision 4. The WMO may acquire necessary personal and real
property to carry out its powers and its.duties.
Subdivision 5. The WMO may make necessary surveys or use other
reliable surveys and data, and develop projects to accomplish the purposes for which
the WMO is organized.
Subdivision 6. The WMO may cooperate or contract with the State of
Minnesota or any subdivision thereof or federal agency or private or public
organization to accomplish the purposes for which it is organized.
Subdivision 7. The WMO may acquire, operate, construct and maintain
the drainage system improvements delineated in the capital improvement program
adopted by the Board.
Subdivision 8. The WMO may contract for or purchase such insurance as
the Board deems necessary for the protection of the WMO.
Subdivision 9. The WMO may establish and maintain devices for
acquiring and recording hydrological and water quality data within the Lower
Mississippi watershed area, as defined by the Board.
Subdivision 10. The WMO may enter upon lands within or without the
watershed to make surveys and investigations to accomplish the purposes of the WMO,
and are liable for actual damages resulting from surveys and investigations per
Minn. Stat. 112.43, Subd. 1.
Subdivision 11. The WMO shall provide any Member with technical data
or any other information of which the WMO has knowledge which will assist the Member
in preparing land use classifications or local water management plans within the
watershed.
Subdivision 12. The WMO may provide legal and technical assistance in
connection with litigation or other proceedings between one or more of its members
4+,
and any other political subdivision, commission, board, agency, corporation or
individual relating to the planning or construction of facilities to drain or pond
storm waters or relating to water quality within the Lower Mississippi. River
watershed.
Subdivision 13. The WMO may accumulate reserve funds for the purposes
herein mentioned and may invest funds of the WMO not currently needed for its
operations.
Subdivision 14. The WMO'may collect money subject to the provisions
of this agreement, from its members and from any other source approved by the Board.
Subdivision 15. The WMO may'make contracts, incur expenses and make
expenditures necessary and incidental to the effectuation of its purposes and powers
subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. 471.345.
Subdivision 16. The WMO shall cause to be made an annual audit of the
books and accounts of the WMO and shall make and file a report to its Members at
least once each year including the following information:
(a) The financial condition of the WMO
(b) The status of all WMO projects and work within the watershed;
(c) The business transacted by the WMO and other matters which affect
the interests of the WMO. Copies of the report shall be transmitted to the clerk of
each Member by March 31 of each year.
Subdivision 17. The WMO's books, reports and records shall be
available for and open to inspection by its Members or their respective designated
representatives at all reasonable times.
Subdivision 18. The WMO may recommend changes in this agreement to
its Members. Any amendments shall require ratification by all Members.
Subdivision 19. The WMO may exercise all other powers necessary and
incidental to the implementation of the purposes and powers set forth herein and as
outlined and authorized by Minn. Stat. 473.875 through 473.883.
Subdivision 20. Each Member reserves the right to conduct separate or
.,:.concurrent studies on any matter under study by the WMO.
8. Construction of Improvements.
Subdivision 1. All construction, reconstruction, extension or
maintenance of the Lower Mississippi Watershed, including outlets, lift stations,
dams, reservoirs, or appurtenances of a surface water or storm sewer:system ordered
by the WMO which involve potential construction by or assessment against any Member
or against privately or publicly owned land within the watershed shall follow the
procedures outlined herein. The Board shall secure from its engineers or some other
competent person a preliminary report advising the Board whether the proposed
improvement is feasible, whether there are feasible alternatives, whether the
proposed improvement shall best be made as proposed or inconnection with some other
improvement, a determination of the quantity of storm and surface water contributed
to the improvement by each Member, the estimated cost of the improvement(s),
including maintenance, and the estimated cost to each Member. The Board shall then
hold a public hearing on the proposed improvement after mailed notice to the clerk
of each Member and published notice in the Board's official newspaper. The WMO shall
not be required to mail notice except by notice to the clerk. The notice shall be
mailed not less than 45 days before the hearing, shall state the time and place of
the hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the estimated total cost and the
estimated cost to each Member.
To order the improvement, a resolution setting forth the order shall
require a majority vote of all members of the Board, with each Member having one
vote. The order shall describe the improvement, shall allocate in percentages the
cost allocation among the Members, shall designate the engineers to prepare plans
and specifications, and shall designate who will contract for the improvement.
The Board shall allow an adequate amount of time and in no event less
than 90 days, nor more than 270 days, for each Member to conduct hearings in
accordance with the provisions of appropriate State Statutes or the charter: ,
requirements of any city, or to ascertain the method of financing which the Member
will use to pay its proportionate share of the costs of the improvement.
If the WMO proposes to use Dakota County's and/or Ramsey County's bonding
authority, or if the WMO proposes to certify all or any part of a capital
improvement to Dakota and/or Ramsey County for payment, then and in that event all
proceedings shall be carried out in accordance with Minn. Stat. 473.883.
The Board shall not order and no engineer shall prepare plans and
specifications before the Board has adopted a resolution ordering the improvement.
—8—
The Board may order the advertising for bids upon receipt of notice from each Member
who will be assessed that it has completed its hearing or determined its method of
payment, or upon expiration of 270 days after the mailing of the preliminary report
to the Members, whichever occurs first.
Subdivision 2. Any Member aggrieved by the determination of the Board as
to the allocation of the costs of an improvement shall have 30 days after the WMO
resolution ordering the improvement to appeal the determination. The appeal shall be
in writing and shall be addressed to the Board asking for arbitration. The
determination of the Member's appeal shall be referred to a Board of Arbitration.
Arbitration must be completed within the 270 day period provided for in Section 8,
Subdivision 1. The Board of Arbitration shall consist of three persons: one to be
appointed by the Board of Managers, one to be appointed by the appealing Member, and
the third person, appointed by the other two persons, shall not be a resident of any
Member. In the event the two persons so selected do not appoint the third person
within 15 days after their appointment, then the chief judge of the District Court
of Dakota County shall have jurisdiction to appoint, upon application of either or
both of the two earlier selected, the third person to the Board, after notice of
that application to Member cities. The third person selected shall not be a
resident of any Member and if appointed by the chief judge, shall be a person
knowledgeable in the subject matter. The arbitrators' expenses and fees, together
with the other expenses, not including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the
arbitration shall be divided equally between the WMO and the appealing Member.
Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act, Minn.
Stat. Chapter 572.
Subdivision 3. Contracts for Improvements. All improvement contracts
ordered by the Board shall be let in accordance with Minn. Stat. 429.041. The
bidding and contracting of the work may be let by any one of the Member or by the
Board as determined by the Board of Managers after compliance with the statutes.
Contracts and bidding procedures shall comply with the legal requirements applicable
to Member statutory cities.
Subdivision 4. Supervision. All improvement contracts shall be
supervised by the entity awarding the contract. The WMO shall also be authorized to
. —
observe and review the work in progress and the Members agree to cooperate with the
WMO in accomplishing its purposes. Representatives of the WMO shall have the right
to enter upon the place or places where the improvement work is in progress for the
purpose of making reasonable tests and inspections. The WMO shall report and advise
and recommend to the Board on the progress of the work.
Subdivision 5. Land Acquisition. The WMO shall have the power of
eminent domain. All easements or interest in land which are necessary will be
negotiated or condemned in accordance with Minn. Stat. Chapter 117 by the Board or,
if directed by the Board, by the Member where the land is located, and each Member
agrees to acquire the necessary easement or right of way or partial or complete
interest in land upon order of the Board to accomplish the purposes of this
agreement. All reasonable costs of the acquisition, including attorney's fees, shall
be considered as a cost oE the improvement, and shall be allocated according to the
formula for allocating Capital Improvement cost as found in Section 9, Subd. 6. If
a Member determines it is in the best interests of that Member to acquire additional
lands, in conjunction with the taking of lands for storm and surface drainage or
storage, for some other purposes, the costs of the acquisition will not be included
in the improvement costs of the ordered project. The Board in determining the amount
of the improvement costs to be assessed to each Member may take into consideration
the land use for which the additional lands are being acquired and may credit the
acquiring municipality for the land acquisition to the extent that it benefits the
other Members of this agreement. Any credits may be applied to the cost allocation
of the improvement project under construction or the Board if feasible and necessary
may defer the credits to. a future project.
-10
Members may not condemn or negotiate for land acquisition to pond or drain
storm and surface waters within the corporate boundaries of another Member within
the Lower Mississippi River Watershed except upon order of the Board.
Subdivision 6. Drainage Facility Design Criteria. For trunk sewer
construction, the design criteria shall be for a critical precipitation event that
has a probable frequency in any one year of 10% (ten year storm). For open channel
conveyance and/or detention basin construction, the design criteria shall be for a
24-hour precipitation event that has a probable frequency in any one year of 1% (100
year storm). Variances to this standard may apply in areas where inplace storm
sewers are designed for a five year storm frequency.
9. Finances.
Subdivision 1. The WMO funds may be expended by the Board in
accordance with this agreement in a manner determined by the Board. The Board shall
designate one or more national or state bank or trust companies authorized to
receive deposits of public monies to act as depositories for the WMO funds. In no
event shall there be a disbursement of WMO funds without the signature of at least
two Board members, one of whom shall be the treasurer. The treasurer shall be
required to file with the secretary of the Board a bond in the sum of at least
S10,000 or such higher amount as shall be determimed by the Board. The WMO shall
pay the premium on said bond.
Subdivision 2. General Administration. Each Member agrees to
contribute each year to a general fund, said fund to be used for general
administration purposes including, but not limited to: salaries, rent, supplies,
development of an overall_plan, insurance, bonds, and to purchase and maintain
devices to measure hydrological and water. quality data. Each Member's percentage
share of the total annual budget, shall be calculated each year and shall be equal
to the average of the following two percentages: .(1) the percentage of the
preceding year's total assessed valuation of all real property within the watershed
which lies within the Members' boundaries; and (2) the percentage of the total area
in the watershed which lies within the Member's boundaries. In no event shall the
annual administrative budget for the WMO exceed the amount which results when any
Member's share of the budget, as determined under this Subdivision, equals one—half
(1/2) mill of the assessed valuation of its territory in the watershed. No 'Member
shall be assessed fdi any additional annual administrative costs when any Member's
share reaches the 1/2 mill limit.
Subdivision 3. Maintenance. The WMO Board shall have the option of
funding maintenance work through the general administration budget, or funding as a
capital improvement in accordancewith Subdivision 5 of this Section. Maintenance
costs that are associated with a project in the approved Capital Improvement
Program, shall be allocated according to the same formula as is applicable for
allocating capital improvement costs as identified in Section 9, Subdivision 6. The
cities affected by the improvement shall decide on the level of maintenance to be
applied to the improvement. If the cities can not agree, the Board shall make the
decision.
Subdivision 4. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall
adopt a general administrative budget for the ensuing year and decide upon the total
amount necessary for the general fund. A majority of eligible votes shall be
sufficient to adopt the general administrative budget. The secretary of the Board
shall certify the budget on or before July 1 to the clerk of each Member, together
with.a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each Member. The
council of each Member agrees it will review the budget, and the Board shall upon
notice from any Member received prior to August 1, hear objections to the budget,
and may, upon notice to all Members and after a hearing, modify or amend the budget,
and then give notice to the Members of any and all modifications or amendments. Each
Member'agrees to provide the funds required by the budget by January 15 of each
year, and said determination shall be conclusive.
Subdivision 5. Capital Improvement.
.(a) All capital improvements ordered by the Board must be included in
the WHO's adopted capital improvement program. An improvement fund shall be
established for each improvement project ordered by the WMO. Each Member shall pay
its proportionate share of the engineering, legal and administrative costs as
determined by the amount to be assessed against each Member as a cost of the
improvement. The Board, or the Members awarding the contract, shall submit in
writing a statement to each Member, setting forth in detail the expenses incurred by
the WMO for each project.
Each Member further shall pay its proportionate share of the cost of
the improvement in accordance with the determination of the Board under Section 9,
Subdivision 6. The Board or the Member awarding the contract shall submit in writing
copies of the engineer's certificate authorizing payment during construction and the
Member being billed shall pay its proportionate share of.the costs within 30 days
after receipt of the statement. The Board or the Member awarding the contract shall
advise other contributing Members of the tentative time schedule of the work and the
estimated times when the contributions shall be necessary.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this
subdivision, the WMO may fund all or any part of the cost of a capital improvement
contained in the capital improvement program of the plan in accordance with Minn.
Stat. 473.883. The WMO and Dakota and/or Ramsey County may establish a maintenance
fund to be used for normal and routine maintenance of an improvement constructed in
whole or in part with money provided by Dakota and/or Ramsey County pursuant to
Minn. Stat. 473.883. The levy and collection of an ad valorem tax levy for mainten-
ance shall be by Dakota and/or Ramsey County based upon a tax levy resolution adopt-
ed by the WMO and remitted to the county(ies) on or before October 1st of each year.
If it is determined to levy for maintenance, the WMO shall be required to follow the
hearing process established by Minn. Stat. 112.611. Mailed notice shall also be sent
to the clerk of each Member municipality at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
Subdivision 6. Capital Cost Allocation of Improvements in the Board's
Watershed Management Plan. Al]. capital improvement costs of improvements designated
in the Board's adopted watershed management plan for construction by the Board which
the Board determines includes more than one Member shall be apportioned to Members
on the following basis:
(a) A Member shall be responsible for the costs of construction of
that portion of a drainage system that is located within its borders and that is
necessary to accommodate its allowable flow and the allowable flow of all other
tributary Members.
(b) A Member shall also be responsible for the proportionate share of
construction costs of a drainage system, whether or not that system is located
within its borders, that is necessary to convey excessive flows originating within
the borders of said Member.
(c) Increased costs of construction incurred for acquisition of
lands, easements and rights of way within natural watercourses shall be the
obligation of the Member in which the easement lies and shall not be apportioned to
other Members to the extent that such costs exceed costs which would have been
incurred if there had been no improvement on such lands, easements or rights of way.
(d) Costs of construction shall include all costs associated with a
WMO approved improvement (whether trunk sewer or natural conveyance and) whether or
not actually constructed, including but not limited to, project costs for design,
administration, construction supervision, legal fees, acquisition of lands and
improvements and actual construction and maintenance costs.
(e) The Watershed Management Organization shall consider any grant
money received or to be received by a Member city for sanitary/storm sewer
separation or for the construction, reconstruction or replacement of storm sewer
facilities before making cost allocations among Member cities and may consider the
application of any grant proceeds toward the cost of the project before allocating
costs between or among the cities involved, provided that such allocation would not
violate the terms and conditions of the grant..
-14-
•
(f) The attached Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and serves as
a compilation of general examples• of cost allocation under this agreement for the
hypothetical circumstances stated in the examples.
10. Special Assessments. The WMO shall not have the power to levy
special assessments. All such assessments shall be levied by the Member wherein the
land is located.
11. Duration.
Subdivision 1. Each Member agrees to be bound by the terms of
this agreement until January 1, 2000, and it may be continued thereafter upon the
agreement of all the parties.
Subdivision 2. Any Member may petition the Board to dissolve the
agreement. Upon 30 days' notice in writing to the clerk of each Member governmental
unit, the Board shall hold a hearing and upon a favorable vote by 11/14 of all
eligible votes of then existing Board members, the Board may by resolution recommend
that the WMO be dissolved. The resolution shall be submitted to each Member
governmental unit and if ratified by 3/4 of the governing bodies of all eligible
Members within 60 days, the Board shall file petition allowing for the creation of a
watershed district under Minn. Stat., Chapter 112.
12. Dissolution. Upon dissolution of the WMO, all property of the WMO
shall be transferred to the Chapter 112 Watershed District.
13. Effective Date. This agreement shall be in full force and effect
when all 8 potential Members, delineated in paragraph four of this agreement, file a
certified copy of a resolution approving this agreement and upon the execution of
this agreement by all the parties. All Members need not sign the same copy. The
resolution and signed agreement shall be filed with the city clerk of the City of
West St. Paul, who shall notify all Members in writing of its effective date and set
a date for the Board's first meeting. The first meeting shall take place at the
West St. Paul City Hall within 60 days after the effective date. Unless all 8
potential Members have signed this agreement by June 30, 1985, it shall be null and
void.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned governmental units, by action of
their governing bodies, have caused this agreement to'be executed in accordance with '
the authority of Minn. Stat. 471.59.
Approved by the City Council
, 1985.
(Date)
. Approved by the City Council
, 1985.
(Date)
Approved by the City Council
, 1985.
(Date)
Approved by the City Council
, 1985.
(Date)
•CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
By
Attest
CITY OF LILYDALE
By
Attest
CITY OF MENDOTA
By
Attest
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Attest
Approved by the City Council CITY OF ST. PAUL
, 1985. By
(Date) (Mayor)
Form Approved:
By
(Assistant County Attorney)
(Director Finance & Mgmt. Services)
Approved by the City Council CITY OF SOUTH ST. PAUL
, 1985. By
(Date)
Approved by the City Council
, 1985.
(Date)
Approved by the City Council
(Date)
'4•
, 1985.
Attest
CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE
By
Attest '
CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL
By
Attest
3/85
COST ALLOCATION
EXAMPLES FOR'JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A• Two Cities
B• Two Cities With Diversion In
C• Two Cities With Diversion Out
D• Three Cities
E• Added Ponding
1
LEGEND
Watershed Boundary
Drainage Facility
City Boundary
Detention Pond
Diverted Area
Exhibit A
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
6
03/85
EXAMPLE "A" - TWO CITIES
Project: Construct project (Segments "x"and"z")in City #7 to provide drainage
for Cities #6 and #7 under fully developed conditions.
Cost Allocation:
City #6: Cost share = QE6 x Total project cost for Ns.
QT
City #7: Cost share = Total project cost - (46 x Total project cost
Where:
•
QE6 = QT6 QA6;
QE6 is the design flow rate from City #6 which is in
excess of the allowable flow rate from City #6;
QA6 is the allowable flow rate from City #6;
QT6 is the total design flow rate from City #6;
QT is the total flow rate for.which the project is designed
in each Segment.
City #6: Cost share for Segment "y" = Zero dollar (no tributary flow).
tj
Exhibit A ,
Page 2 of 9 I,
JOINT•POWERS AGREEMENT
i
6
03/85
EXAMPLE "A" - TWO CITIES
Sample Calculations - For this sample, the "Rational" formulae (Q = CIA) was used.
Assume:
City #6 - Area of Watershed within City #6 = 175 acres
Full development runoff (QT5) = CIA = 0.40 x 2.0"/h x 175 = 140 cfs
Predevelopment runoff (QA6) = CIA = 0.15 x 2.0"/h x 175 = 52.5 cfs
1
Then:
Excess runoff (QE6 ) (from formulae: QE = QT - QA ) = 87.5 cfs
.) City #6 cost share for Segment "x" = 87'5 x project cost for "x" = .63 x Project cost
for "x". 140
(From formulae: share = QE x Project cost)
QT
Note: Segment "x" ends at first point of entry into the system from City #7.
Assume:
City #7 - Area of Watershed within City #7 = 250 acres and all flows'from City #7
enter system by way of Segment "y".
Full development runoff (QT7) = CIA = .50x1.8x250 t 225 cfs
Design flow for Segment "z" = Q T(SEG. "x») + QT7 = 140 + 225 = 365 cfs
2.) City #6 has no cost share obligation in Segment "y" when there is no tributary flow
from City #6.
(continued)
Exhibit A
Pane 1 of Q
Then:
3.) City #6 cost share for Segment "z" = 87'5 x Project cost for "i" = 0.24 Project
cost of "z".
365
(From formulae: Share = Q6 x Project cost)
QT
Note:
City #6 can reduce the excess flow (QE6) by detention ponding even to the amount
that the rate of flow from City #6 (QT6) is no greater than the allowable flow
rate (Q A6 )* Any reduction in the total rate from City #6 would be applied to
the excess rate and thereby reduce the obligation of City #6 to share in the cost
of constructing any conveyance system in City #7.
SUMMARY OF COSTS:
Segment "x":
City F,L6: Cost share =87.5
Project cost for "x".
140
City #7: Cost share = 52.5 x Project cost for "x".
140
Segment "z":
City #6: Cost share = 87'5 x Project cost for "z".
365
City #7: Cost share = 277'5 x Project cost for "z".
365
Segment "y":
City #6: Cost share = Zero dollar (no tributary flow).
City #7: Cost share = All of Project cost for "y".
Exhibit A
Page 4 of 9
3/85
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
EXAMPLE "B" - TWO CITIES WITH DIVERSION IN
Project: Construct Trunk facility "x" in City #2 only for Cities #2 and #3
under fully developed conditions.
Cost Allocation:
City #3: Cost share = QE3 x Total project cost for "x".
QT
Where: QE3 = QT3 - QA3
And QE3 is the design flow from City #3 as described in
Example "A" plus all flows coming from the area diverted.
All facilities within City #3 are constructed by City #3.
Detention in City #3 can reduce QE3;
QT and QA are as defined in Example "A".
Note: This case applies only where waters are diverted from one City to
another City or from one drainage district to another.
Exhibit A
Page 5 of 9
3/85
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
EXAMPLE "C" - TWO CITIES WITH DIVERSION OUT
Project: Construct Trunk Segments "y", "x", "z" in City #1 under fully
developed conditions.
Cost Allocation:
City #3: Cost share for Segment "x"
= QE3 x Total project cost for "x".
QT
Cost share for Segment "y" = Zero dollars
(all flows have been diverted away)
Where: QE3 is the excess flow from City #3 that is tributary
to Segment "x" only.
City #3: Cost share for Segment "z" = QE3 x Total project cost for "z".
Where:
QE3 is the excess flow from City #3 that is tributary to
Segment "z" calculated as QE3 tributary to "x" minus QA3
that would have been tributary to "y" had there been no
diversion out of the drainage district.
Qi and QA are as,defined in Example "At.
Note: This case applies only where waters are diverted from one City to another.
City or from onedrainage district to another. -, Exhibit A
Pam:, A evF 0
4
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
3
x
1
4
3/85
2
N
4mMIER 111•11.=111.
EXAMPLE "D" - THREE CITIES
(See Example "A" for QT, QA and QE )
Project: Construct Project (Segments "x", "y" and "z") in City #4 to provide
drainage for Cities #3, #4, and #5 under fully developed conditions.
Cost Allocations:
City #3: Cost share Segment "x" = Zero dollars (no tributary flow).
Cost share Segment "y" = QE3 x Project cost for "y".
Cost share Segment "z" = QE3 x Project cost for "z".
7F—
City #5 Cost share Segment "x" = 1:E5 x Project cost for "x".
T�
Cost share Segment "y" = Zero Dollars (no tributary flow).
Cost share Segment "z" = QE5 x Project cost for "z".
QT
Where: QT is the total flow rate for which each respective Segment
is designed.
CC2
Exhibit A
Page 7 of 9
3/85
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
EXAMPLE ."E" - ADDED PONDING
(See Example "A" for definition of QT , QA and QE)
Project: Construct Trunk "x", Detention Pond "y" and Outlet "z" for cities #5 and #6 under
fully developed conditions.
Cost Allocation:
City #5 (Trunk "x"): Cost share = (45 x Project cost of Trunk "x".
Qr
Where: Q is the total flow rate in Trunk "x".
City #5 (Pond "y"): Cost share = VE5 x Project cost of Pond "y".
VI
Where: VE5 is the design Volume of runoff from City #5 which is in
excess of the allowable Volume from City #5;
VT is the total Volume used in the design of the detention pond.
City #5 (Outlet "z"): Cost share = QE5 X Project cost of Outlet "z".
Where: QE5 is reduced from Trunk "x" Inlet QE5 by the ratio.of Outlet QT;
Inlet QT
Inlet QT is the summation of all flows into the pond;
Outlet QTis the total flow rate out of the pond under design conditions.
Note: See Page 9 for sample calculation.
Exhibit A
Page 8 of 9
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
WOW
EXAMPLE "E" - ADDED PONDING
Sample calculation for City #5 cost share for Outlet
Assume:
QE5 = 50 cfs
QT Pond inflow in Segnent "x" ' 500 cfs
QT Pond inflow from other areas = 200 cfs
£ QT Pond inflow = 700 cfs
QT Fbnd Outlet "z"
And:
QE5 (OUTLET) = QE5 (INLET)
= 100 cfs
X QT (OUTLET)
/
5
QT (INLET)
City #5 cost share = QE5 (OUTLET) x Project cost of "z".
QT (OUTLET)
., Then:
QE5 (for Segment "z") = 100 x 50 = 7.14 cfs
City #5 cost share = 7.14 x Project cost of Outlet "z"
100
Exhibit A
Page 9 of 9
DAKOTA COUNTY
TO:
PLANNING SERVICES/PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENIT CENTER
JEFFREY J. CONNELL
»mExrox
(6721437 0225
/omHvvv55'HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 5on3
MEMORANDUM
CITIES IN THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATERSHED
INVER GROVE HTS. ST. PAUL
LILYDALE SOUTH ST. PAUL
MENDOTA SUNFISH LAKE
r MENDOTA 8TS. WEST ST. PAUL
FROM: ALLEN MOE, DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING SERVICES
SUBJECT: JOINT POWERS AGREEMEMT
r'
DA?E1 APRIL 4, 1985
I am enclosing a copy of the Joint Powers Agreement drafted for the Lower
Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. The agreement is a result of
months of meetings with local officials, city administrators, engineers,
planners and attorneys. Several examples of projects were developed by city
engineers to help explain the cost allocation formula for the a8reement.
These examples are attached and referenced on Page 15, Subdivision 6 (f).
The na?c.t step of the process will be to present the document to your city
councils for review and approval. The agreement and state legislation
requires the adoption of the agreement by June 30, 1985, or another level of
government must take the responsibility for watershed management.
The Dakota County Board of Commissioners have stated that the local
communities should retain the responsibility for managing the surface vmter.
County staff have been assisting the communities involved to reach a workable
agreement. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Allen Moe
(437-0225) or Brian Christensen (463-8626).
AM:vk
Enclosures
"'...".^'.v.'"'^*"/".^^/.°,o
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER SHED
MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has reviewed
the proposed Lower Mississippi River Water Management Organization Joint
Powers Agreement dated April 3, 1985; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a verbal and written explanation
of the proposed agreement from the Public Works Director and the Assistant
City Attorney; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the proposed agreement is
proper and acceptable in all respects and that the execution of the proposed
agreement by the appropriate City officials would be in the best interest of
the City.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized and
directed to execute said proposed agreement on behalf of the City and the
appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to perform any
and all acts necessary or desireable in order to implement said proposed
agreement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of
April, 1985.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Robert G. Lockwood, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Friaseet0,71—
City Admin rator
April 4, 1985
SUBJECT: Registration of Dick Ploumen for Minnesota Public Works Association
Spring Conference
Included in this evening's check register is a $50 registration fee
for Public Works Superintendent Dick Ploumen to attend the MPWA Spring
Conference. I have also attached a copy of the Conference agenda. The
total cost for Dick to attend, including lodging and meals, will be,around
$200, and there are adequate funds in the Public Works budget to cover this
expense.
I am a very strong advocate of this kind of training, and concur with
Dick's request to attend. However, since this is the first time that we have
had a staff member in attendance at this conference, I wanted to make Council
aware of it.
KDF:madlr
CONFERENCE SERVICES
CONTINUING EDUCATION AND EXTENSION • UNIVERSITY OF MINNESO
MPWA Spring Conference
May 16 17, 1985
Grand View Lodge, Brainerd
SPONSORED BY:
City Engineers Association
Minnesota Public Works Association
Minnesota Street Superintendents Association
PROGRAM SCHEDULE
Wednesday, May 15
6:30-
8:30 p.m.
Smorgasbord (upon checking in)
Thursday, May 16
8:00 a.m. Breakfast
8:30 Final Registration
9:00 WHAT IS YOUR ENTREPRENEURIAL STYLE?
Robert Terry
11:15 Refreshment Break
11:30 STIMULATION OF INNOVATION IN
ENGINEERING . . . Charles Fairhurst
12:30 Lunch
1:30 MANAGEMENT OF RECORDKEEPING
- What Information Should You Collect
- Effective Use of Information
Russ Langseth
2:30 EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION OPTIONS
- Multiple Use vs. Single Use
- Reasonable Life of Equipment
Neal Robinson
3:30 Refreshment Break
3:45 Roundtable Discussion
4:30 Adjourn
6:00 Social Hour
7:00 Banquet
IN COOPERATION WITH:
Department of Professional Development
Continuing Education and Extension
University of Minnesota
Friday, Nay 17
8:00 a.m. Breakfast
9:00 COMPARABLE WORTH: JOB EVALUATION
SYSTEM Kaye P
10:00 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE . . .Joel Jamin►..
Gene Ofstead
11:00
11:15
12:00
FACULTY
Refreshment Break
Business Meeting
Adjourn
Lunch
Kaye Aho, Manager of Compensation Program
Development, Control Data Business Advisors,
Inc., Bloomington
Charles Fairhurst, Professor and Head, Civil and
Mineral Engineering Department, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis
Joel Jamnik, Legislative Counsel, League of
Minnesota Cities, St. Paul
Russ Langseth, Public Works Director, City of
Bloomington
Gene Ofstead, Director of Government Relations,
Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul
Neal Robinson, Street Superintendent, City of
Crystal
Robert Terry, Director of Reflective Leadership
Program, Humphrey Institute, University of
Minnesota
NOLTE CENTER FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION, 315 PILLSBURY DRIVE 5 E., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55455 (612) 373-4984
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
April 8, 1985
TO: Mayor, City Council and City A mad:
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Clapp-Thomssen Ivy Hills 2nd Addition
Assessment Roll
Job No. 8421
Improvement No. 84, Project No. 3
INTRODUCTION:
Clapp-Thomssen Ivy Hills 2nd Addition is a townhouse project consisting
of 4 units. City sewers and water service trenches were petitioned for by
Clapp-Thomssen.
DISCUSSION:
The improvement was completed in the fall of 1984 but not early enough
for certifying assessments at the County. The costs have come in as esti-
mated with total assessments for each unit at $6,278.78. These costs are to
be assessed at 10 percent.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Conduct the public hearing and based on input from the public make any
modifications to the assessment roll and then implement the roll by a motion
adopting Resolution No. 85- , Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assess-
ments for Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, and Water Service Trench Improvements
to Serve Clapp-Thomssen Ivy Hills 2nd Addition (Improvement No. 84, Project
No. 3)
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES, APRIL 9, 1985
The regular meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission was called to
order by Chairperson Stein at 7:30 P.M. The following members were present:
Stein, Schneeman, Leffert, Doffing, Singer. Knittig was absent. Also present
were Dewey Selander, Terry Blum and Jim Danielson.
APPROVAL OF Minutes of the March 12 meeting were approved with several
MINUTES changes added, one being that Bob Leffert will attend the
April 16th Council meeting, instead of Marsha Knittig.
ROSTER Terry Blum's name should be added to the Commission roster.
TRAIL LIGHTING The Commission agreed that due to cost and other reasons,
the bike trails should not have lighting at the present
time.
BIKETRAIL UPDATE There was some discussion on an alternate route. Public
Works Director Danielson was directed to secure bids on two
alternatives for the Curley property.
BIKE TRAILS A ground breaking ceremony for this summer's backbone bike
trail construction was reported an by Commissioner Doffing.
He noted that this would be some time in May.
WACHTLER PROPERTY There was some discussion regarding the proposed purchase
of the Wachtler property. The Commission was advised of
the death of Mrs. Mary Wachtler. Mayor Lockwood,
Chairperson Stein and City Administrator Frazell will again
be speaking with the family about the possible purchase of
the property.
PARK SURVEYS Surveys were distributed to the Commission members and results
of the tabulation were discussed.
T -BALL REGISTRATION Rec Director Selander noted that there were 75 children
registered for the 1:30 T -ball session and only 32 registered
for the 4:30 session.
VACANCY
The Commission agreed to conduct T -ball sessions only at
the 1:30 session, however, they will offer both times next
year for another review.
The Commission acknowledged a letter from Ms. Carol Damberg
relative to the current vacancy on the Park Commission. No
formal action was taken, but the Commission will attempt to
find an individual from the Roger's Lake area or from
Friendly Hills to fill the vacancy created by the
resignation of Mike Williams.
Page Two, April 9, 1985 Park and Recreation Minutes
MISCELLANEOUS
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
NEXT MEETING
COUNCIL ATTENDANCE
ADJOURN
Terry Blum reported that there are several court surfaces
that are in bad abape. Commission members then remembered
that they were going to resurface two courts each year
until all six courts were completed. For some reason,
resurfacing was omitted from the 1985 budget. After some
discussion and a report by Terry Blum, it was decided that
the Rogers Lake courts were in such bad condition that they
should be resurfaced in 1985.
Commissioner Singer moved to resurface Rogers Lake tennis
courts this year, with funds from the General Fund.
Commissioner Doffing seconded the motion.
The next meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission will
be on May 14tb, at 7:30 P.M.
Commissioner Doffing will attend the May 7th City Council
meeting.
There being no further business to come before the
Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Leffert, Secretary
_..O* \NNE�T4 .. —Minnesota.
Department of Transportation
o� District 9 :,
0
4/TOF TPxkclq :3485 HadIe\.7\VeIIue North; Box. 9050
North St. Vail, `M•iair esota 55109
Telephone 779-1121
April 9, 1985
Mr. James E. Danielson,•P.E.
Public Works Director
750 South Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120
Dear Mr. Danielson:
SUBJECT: Speed Zoning
Mendota Heights
We have completed a traffic and engineering investigation for speed
zoning on Mendota Heights Road from T.H. 149 to Lexington Avenue (Co.Rd.
43) in the City of Mendota Heights. This was requested by your Resolution
dated December 18, 1984. Our findings show that a 45 mph speed limit
is justified for this section of roadway and the authorization has
been sent to the Commissioner of Transportation for signature. You
should be receiving the authorization for proper signing installation
shortly.
This road was authorized 50 mph on January 29, 1975. However, the
posted speed limit remained at 40 mph all these years and it
is an illegal speed limit. We feel a 45 zone is a reasonable and safe
speed limit for this section of roadway. The basic physical features
and characteristics of the roadway have. remained virtually unchanged
since our last 1975 survey.
A radar check of speed was made on Mendota Heights Road. The average
speed measured was 46 mph with an 85th percentile speed of 51 mph.
The 85th percentile speed is normally the optimum speed limit. Eighty-seven
percent of the 270 vehicles measured were over 40 mph, 60 percent over
45 mph, and 23 percent over 50 mph. The results of this speed check
justify the proposed 45 mph speed limit.
Studies have shown that it is not the lower speed limit signs that
make the motorists drive slower, but rather the physical features they
encounter along the road. Motorists will slow down from the ideal
safe speed when children or pedestrians are present, during bad. weather,
or when other features change.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. James E. Danielson, P.E.
April 9, 1985
Page Two
It has also come to our attention that there is a 35 mph speed limit
posted on Huber Drive located west of Delaware Avenue in Mendota Heights.
After checking our records, we find this speed limit was never authorized
by the Commissioner of Transportation. It would be advantageous for
the City to have our office study this road for proper speed zoning.
If there are any questions regarding these matters, please contact
us.
Sincerely,
Micha 1 L. Robinson, P.E.
District Traffic Engineer
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Admini t`S ,/o
)--
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Lexington Bike Trail
Job No. 8410
April 10, 1985
DISCUSSION:
Staff has completed the plans and specifications for the Lexington
Avenue Backbone bike trail construction. (Plans are attached, specifica-
tions will be available at the meeting) Attempts have been made to obtain
both State and County participation in the costs however neither agency has
funds available in 1985. The Dakota County Park Department has indicated
that perhaps reimbursement could occur in a future year for funds expended
by the City in 1985 on the part along the County bikeway alignment. They
asked that a resolution formalizing that request be adopted and forwarded to
the County Board. The Mendota Heights Park and Recreation Commission ap-
proved the plans at their April meeting and are making arrangements for an
official ground breaking ceremony.
RECOMMENDATION:
City staff and the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the
Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize staff to accept
bids (Estimated Construction Costs = $63,500). The bid opening will be set
for 10:30 A.M., Thursday, May 16, 1985 and Council could review the bids and
award the contract at their May 21st regular meeting.
ACTION REQUIRED:
This is not an assessed project so if Council desires to implement the
recommendation they should pass a motion approving the plans and specifica-
tions and authorize staff to advertise for bids. They should also adopt
Resolution No. , Requesting County Funding of the Lexington Avenue Trail.
JED:dfw
Attachment
CITY OF MENDOTA'HEIGHTS
MEMO
April 10, 1985
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Frazell
City Administrator
SUBJECT: Appointment of Civil Engineer I
INTRODUCTION
We received 45 applications for the Civil Engineer I position. After
conducting interviews with six, staff recommends appointment of Klayton Eckles.
As this is a new position classification, Council will also need to adopt it
on the Pay Classification Schedule.
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE RECOMMENDED APPOINTEE
Klayton's resume is attached for your review. As you can see, he is
currently finishing up his BCE degree at the University of Minnesota. Most
impressive to us is the three years of summer and part-time experience he has
gained with the City of Maple Grove, doing work highly similar to that required
here. He comes with high recommendations of the City Engineer there.
CLASSIFICATION OF POSITION
In late 1983, Council adopted a pay plan for the non -represented employees
that placed each position on a Grade. Each Grade has 7 steps.
A - Beginning with minimum qualifications
B - 6 months
C - 1 year
D - 2 years
E - 3 years, and the "target" or expected salary for a fully trained
employee.
F and G - reserved for merit should the City ever institute a pay for
performance system.
The Grade placement of each position was determined by two factors:
External Comparison - with similar positions in the 5-10K range of Twin
Cities suburbs, and four selected largerDakota County cities.
Internal Comparison - with other city positions on a point evaluation
system. (A copy of that system is attached).
I have attached an analysis of the position, which shows an external market
comparable of $25,641, and an internal comparison of $23,184. As was our
precedent with other engineering positions, I am recommending that we look more
heavily to the market comparable.
-2
Based on this analysis, I recommend a Grade XIV placement, with target
salary of $25,716. Klayton will begin at Step A, $21,157, and progress up the
Steps over the next three years.
ACTION REQUIRED
Adoption of Resolution No. 85- , "RESOLUTION PLACING THE POSITION OF CIVIL
ENGINEER 1 ON THE EMPLOYEES PAY CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE", and appointment of
Klayton Eckles as Civil Engineer I at a starting salary of $21,157.
Respectfull submitted,
Kevin D. Frazell
City Administrator
KDF:madlr
attachments
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
April 10, 1985
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Frazell
City Administrator
SUBJECT: Proposal for Computer Application Study
INTRODUCTION
At the March 5th meeting, Council was presented with a proposal from our
auditor, Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell to assist us in developing a systems
information plan, at a cost of $7,100. For your review, an additional copy of
that proposal and my cover memo is attached.
Council asked that staff consider additional proposals, and also contact
other metro area cities that had recently revised their data processing
structure, to see how they made their decisions.
SURVEY OF OTHER CITIES
1 directly contacted four cities that I knew had or were changing their
computer applications from a strict LOGIS use. 1 found the following:
St. Louis Park - has set up their own internal management capabilities with
a full-time Management Information System (MIS) Coordinator. St. Louis
Park continues with many basic functions (i.e., accounting) on LOGIS,
but has augmented their personal computing capability with Hewlitt-
Packard PC's that interface with LOGIS.
Maplewood - has recently withdrawn from LOGIS altogether. They operate on
an IBM PC configuration that was prescribed and provided for them by
a vendor, Teleterminals.
Maple Grove - set up its original MIS on an in-house mainframe system
designed and serviced by LOGIS; LOGIS also acts as their software
support. This was LOGIS' first "distributed" site.
Coon Rapids - recently completed an in-depth MIS study by consultant David
S. McCauley. The result is that they are staying with LOGIS for basic
and police functions, but have installed a CPT mini -system for personal
applications such as word processing.
My conclusion, after completing this survey and being aware of other cities
decisions to stay in or leave LOGIS, is that there is no one right answer. Each
city that has considered a major change in its MIS approach, has conducted a
study in its own_way, and come to its own conclusions that make sense for it. My
opinion is that we need to do the same.
-2
ALTERNATIVE CONSULTANT PROPOSAL
At Council's request, we attempted to solicit some additional proposals for the
study. We contacted DSM Information Services, Inc., who did the Coon Rapids
study, and tried to reach Arthur Anderson Company, bot,to no avail. The DSM
proposal was submitted to you with your packet.
It appears to staff that the DSM proposal offers basically the same services
as the Peat, Marwick proposal, with one exceptioo. In Phase V of the DSM
proposal the consultant would actually assist in implementing the results of the
adopted strategy, by drawing up and distributing the DFP evaluating proposals,
negotiating a contract with the successful vendor, and overseeing the
installation and training phase. Staff is of the opinion that the use of a
consultant at the implementation stage should remain an option at this point.
FEES
The PMM proposal fee was $7,100. The DSM proposal, minus Phase V, is
$5,280. DSM Phase V is an additional $3,600, for a total cost of $8,800.
RECOMMENDATION ON CONSULTANT
Kathy, Larry, Dennis, and I met with McCauley to discuss our computing
situation. We were unanimously impressed by his practical knowledge of
applications in suburban communities, and his ability to deal with the issues in
non-technical terma. As you will note in the proposal, Dave is himself a former
Councilman and Moyor. In checking references, a particular strong point noted
was his ability to work well with the elected body in defining and deciding
issues.
For these reasons, plus the cost differential, staff recommends the DSM
proposal.
ALTERNATIVE
As discussed in my attached memo of February 25th, staff sees the need to
progress with our computer applications, most urgently in the Police department.
At the same time, we see alternatives to our present applications that should be
considered at the same time.
There would be several alternatives:
1. Do nothing - meaning we would remain on LOGIS for basic applications,
and likely be making future recommendations to acquire more IBM PC's for
personal computing applications. We would probably also be recommending
some type of stand-alone system for the police department.
2. Make our own decisions, working with vendors, about a new computing
strategy, including alternatives to continuation with LOGIS.
. Retain the services of a consultant to assist us in evaluating our
RECOMMENDATION
While alternatives 1 and 2 carry the allure of avoiding a sizeable front end
expense, they could be far more costly in the long run.
The major computing "cost concern" today is not acquisition of equipment.
Rather, it is wasted employee time from ill -designed and mismatched hardware and
software. Particularly if we are going to seriously consider alternatives to
LOGIS, I am concerned that we be well aware of any hidden costs and be able to
make an objective, rational decision. Very frankly, I think the staff is getting
too many ingrained biases to make the decision on its own, and I certainly don't
trust a vendor to be able to provide that level of objectivity.
Therefore, I recommend that we retain DSM Information Services, Inc., to
assist us in developing an information system plan.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council concurs, it should pass a motion accepting the proposal of DSM
for development of an information system plan, at cost not to exceed $5,280, and
appropriating $5,280 from General Fund unappropriated surplus.
An option to consider this evening would be to invite Mr..McCauley to the
next meeting to discuss his proposal with Council.
Respectfull submitted,
KDF:madlr
attachments
Kevin D. Frazell
City Administrator
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
April 10, 1985
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Ad i isttp'atior
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Lighting on Trails
Job No. 8502
DISCUSSION:
Per Council request the matter of City trail lighting was presented to the
Park and Recreation Commission at their April meeting. It was a consensus
of the members present that although they like lighting trails such as
Minneapolis and St. Paul have done, they want to use available funds to
complete the trails themselves before they think about lighting.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Presented for Council information only.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor, City Council, City Admi 441r
lull 10, 1985
FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Proposed Parking Restrictions
Discussion at the April 2nd meeting over a complaint about the
parking of a semi in a residential area resulted in direction to staff
to draft proposed ordinance provisions prohibiting such activities. As
you may recall, the 1985 work program includes a project titled
"Ordinance Revisions," the purpose of which is to identify issues (such
as parking restrictions) which should be addressed in the City's code
of ordinances as well as to review and recommend changes in several
existing ordinances.
It is our intent to begin reviewing and drafting proposed
ordinance provisions next week: the parking issue will be given top
priority. A proposed ordinance should be available for Council review
and consideration at the May 6th meeting.
Action Required
This memo is for informational purposes. No action is required.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Frazell
City Adminis
MEMO
orC<-/37/)--
April 10, 1985
SUBJECT: Mary Martin, Metropolitan Council District 15 Representative
As most of you know, Governor Perpich appointed a new District 15
representative at the beginning of the year, Mary Martin of West St. Paul.
Since her appointment, Mary has been attending City Council meetings in
her district to introduce herself and become acquainted with issues of
concern to the community.
Mary has asked for a few minutes on our agenda for Tuesday evening.
KDF:madlr
.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
April 11, 1985
TO: Kevin Frazell, City Administrator
FROM: James E. Daniels
Public Works Di
SUBJECT: Lift Station Mn"iticatioua Industrial Park
INTRODUCTION:
Dale Glowa of United Properties presented a new Planned Unit Develop-
ment proposal for an office warehouse at the March Planning Commission
meeting. The lot to be developed was the one with our sanitary sewer lift
station on it. It was suggested at the Planning Commission meeting by
Howard Dahlgren that the City and United Properties should investigate
alternatives for removing or otherwise camouflaging the lift station build-
ing.
DISCUSSION:
Dale Glowa and I met on the matter April lot. Dale wanted the City to
investigate puttib8 the building underground. He also wanted to look at
having the driveway access for the facility from United's parking lot so
that more bermin8 and landscaping could be installed between the facility
and the road. Financing a brief study on these suggested modifications was
discussed with Larry and you and it was decided that TIF could be used.
Engineering has now completed the brief study.
First we looked at removing the above part of the lift atatiou. The
building, constructed over a deep dry well, is there to house the emergency
generator that operates the sewage pumps automatically in the event of power
outages. There are two alternatives to removing the building:
I. Relocate the existing generator underground by constructing a new
underground building to house it. Estimated Cost = $60,000.
2. Remove the generator and power the lift station pumps during
outages by means of a mobile Qeuerator. Estimated cost = $40,000.
All the costs for either of these modifications would have to be to-
tally
I talked with Dick Ploumen and Tom Olund about these modifications and
they are opposed to them for the following reasons:
1. The existing system is a tried and true operation that requires no
special attention during an outage - generator now operates auto-
matically. In case of city-wide power outage, one more lift
station to serve with a portable generator could prove unfor-
tunate.
2. If the above ground building is removed, winter access to the
control panel will be down one level by use of a hatch cover.
Dick and Tom feel this would be unsafe. (Panel is checked on a
daily basis.)
Dale's second request of moving the driveway access for the facility to
be from United's parking lot, could be accomplished. All costs for this
modification would also have to be borne by United Properties and any new
proposals approved by staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Dick and Tom's opinion on not removing the existing building should be
honored. They are the ones who are most familiar with the operation of the
facility and will have to work the facility. Staff therefore recommends
against making any modifications to the building itself. We do feel that
driveway access from United's parking lot allow for more berming and
landscaping to camouflage the building would be acceptable.
•
Applicant
Name:
Address:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
PLANNING REQUEST
lAt.1.4-(2 P(006(---ViCS
ast First
Case No. 7
Date of Application 51 -71 -45 --
Fee Paid '..5137
3T0 (J
Number & Street City
Telephone Number: gg 3 -
Owner
Name:-
Initial
• I/\
VV\A,
State
Zip
Address:
Last
First Initial
Number & Street City State Zip
Street Location of Property in Question:
i‘fevLS04-ct 1-1Q.
Legal Description of Property:
Loh /,L, 14, C,
tee
ibev.,00-bi I5. IA J c.) ID 0. 04 -
Type of Request:
Rezoning
Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D.
Minor.Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision Approval
Plan Approval
Wetlands Permit
Other
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Ad
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
at or
April 11, 1985
SUBJECT: Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (WMO)
Job No. 8320
INTRODUCTION:
In 1982 the Minnesota State Legislature passed the Metropolitan Surface
Water Management Act requiring local governments in the metro area to form
Watershed Organizations to manage the surface waters in all watershed dis-
tricts within the metro area.
DISCUSSION:
Mendota Heights lies within three watershed districts:
1. Lower Minnesota River Watershed District - This district is al-
ready formed but it has little impact on Mendota Heights because
our portion is all in the Minnesota River Flood Zone.
2. Gun Club Lake - This district is basically all of Eagan therefore
they have been taking the lead on forming it, however with Eagan's
Public Works Director, Tom Colbert's departure there is some
question of whether this district will be formed in time to meet
the deadline.
3. Lower Mississippi River - Inver Grove Heights, Lilydale, Mendota,
St. Paul, South St. Paul, Sunfish Lake, and West St. Paul are all
involved in this district with Mendota Heights.
The Lower Mississippi WMO formed a group of city administrators,
engineers and attorneys that have been meeting regularly for some time and
now have a finished document that has been reviewed and approved by all City
staffs involved. (Attached) The legal deadline for adoption of this
"agreement is June 30, 1985, and that is rapidly approaching. If these
cities do not adopt this agreement, a watershed district will have to be
formed without a requirement for any of the participating communities input.
Dave Moran of Sherm's office and I have been attending the WMO meetings
and we will be prepared to give Council a brief description of the agreement
,at the April 16th meeting.
If upon reading the agreement before the meeting, there are any
questions Councilmembers want answered, please feel free to contact Dave or
myself by phone.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has been involved in the preparation of the attached WMO Joint
Powers Agreement and recommend adoption by the City Council as soon as
possible.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Hear staff's oral presentation on the WMO Joint Powers Agreement, ask
questions, make comments and if satisfied with the proposed agreement, pass
a motion adopting Resolution No. 85- , Approving the Lower Mississippi
River Water Shed Management Joint Powers Agreement.
.,
JED:dfw
Attachments
Case No. CAO f.5 -O3
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Dakota County, Minnesota
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
CRITICAL AREA DEVELOPMENT (Ordinance NO. 403)
Date of Application 1/2 -ES
Fee Paid LI -I./ -S'S - /00 CC
Receipt Number I a --1I D -
Applicant:
Name: Taurinskas P. James
Last
Address : 615 Stewart,
First Initial
South St. Paul, Minnesota 55075
Number & Street
Phone: 455-2362
Owner:
Name:
City State
451-9743
Zip Code
Home Work
Taurinskas
P. James
Last
Address : Same
First Initial
Number & Street City State Zip Code
Street Location of Property in Question:
Knollwood Lane
Legal Description of Property:
Lot 13, Block 1, Ivy Falls West Second Addition
CaDr) OcNs)
Type of Request:
X Variance
Site Plan Approval
Modified Site Plan Approval
• 11-1111111, fiti1
11
1
i/ /
/ / /
/
�' / /
i/•
L.
1 1.11 I III
an
no z lial.1111-0111. INE MN ME
FallIEs=`M.
mt.-e NMI MINM
o- ..Ft
is
y
111111
111111
11.41
..,v ouaV3
u
sumo -
1n
10.4
•
MEM
• me re.
• 4.44 Owe Wor I
MISS POI VW PTII
ern. /arr. MS
.34ra...�.yw
JooLd PU030S
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor, City Council and City A� r`inistato
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Street Construction
Northend Streets
Job No. 7843
Improvement No. 79, Project No. 3
April 12, 1985
DISCUSSION:
The public hearing for the Northend street and storm sewer project was
set for 8:00 P.M., April 16, 1985. The feasibility study recommended alter-
nate is $188,000 for street costs and $72,000 for storm sewer or approxi-
mately $6.40 per lineal foot for streets and $.095 per square foot for storm
tsewered area. There were 129 notices sent out. There is Community Devel-
opment Block Grant (CDBG) money available to assist lower income people with
,Uf} their assessments. (See attached memo from Dakota County HRA) A Dakota
air
q County HRA staff member will be present at the meeting to answer questions
"�� if needed. I will be prepared to give an oral presentation on the project
at the meeting. mix - 1t/3$ bb b -moi, 457.1o0o
RECOMMENDATION:
Because of Dakota County HRA assistance for low income residents and
Municipal State Aid (MSA) participation in the costs for Chippewa Avenue
reconstruction, we feel this proposal is as inexpensive as we can make it
for the affected residents. Staff recommends that Council order in this
project and authorize the preparation of plans and specifications.
III a 0
$oX /Yo,P.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Conduct the required public hearing informing the affected landowners
of the proposed improvements, hear and consider their comments. If Council
concurs with the staff recommendation a motion should be passed adopting
Resolution No. 85- , Resolution Ordering Improvement And Preparation of
Plans And Specifications For Construction Of Street Improvements And Appur-
tenances To Serve Chippewa Avenue, Ellen Street, Garden Lane, Hiawatha
Avenue, Fremont Avenue, Municipal State Aid Project No. 140-108-01 And
Adjacent Areas (Improvement No. 79, Project No. 3)
DAKOTA COUNTY
. •
'; nem ow
1
minim
HRA
DAKOTA CO UIVTY
HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
2496 - 145th STREET WEST
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 55068
612-423-4800
"Serving People and Communities
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kevin Frazell, City Administrator, City of Mendota Heights
FROM: Lee Smith, Community Development Specialist, Dakota County HRA
SUBJECT: CDBG FUNDING FOR NORTHEND STREET IMPROVEMENTS
DATE: April 11, 1985
194
The City of Mendota Heights has been awarded FY 1985 CDBG funds in the amount of $53,986
to be used in connection with the Northend Street Improvements project. Of this amount,
$3,781 iearmarked for Dakota County HRA administrative costs. The remaining $50,205 are
to be used for assessment abatement for eligible property owners affected by the project.
Dakota County HRA will be responsible for administering the assessment abatement program
for this project. The proposed procedures for this program are as follows:
1. The City would notify homeowners of the availability of assessment abatement funds and
refer them to the HRA at the time they are notified of the amount of the assessment
levied against their property.
2. Homeowners would apply to the HRA. HRA staff would make a determination of eligibi-
lity by verifying the applicant's annual income and ownership of the property to be
assessed. (Current income limits are attached.)
3. The assessment against property owned by eligible persons would be paid in full
directly to the City by the HRA.
4. A security lien in the form of a repayment agreement will be filed against the pro-
perty at the County Recorder's Office. The original principal amount of the abated
assessment will be required to be paid back at the time the property is sold, title
transferred, or the original applicant moves out. Any repaid amount shall be placed
in a revolving account to be used for other CDBG eligible activities within the City
of Mendota Heights.
We have been informed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that any
contracts let for the street improvements must be regulated by the labor standards provi-
sions of the Davis/Bacon Act, relating to job classifications, minimum wage rates, and
payroll reporting. We would suggest that we meet with the City engineering staff before
bids are let for this project to insure that all necessary contract requirements are met.
If you have any questions or comments concerning these issues, please call me. We are
looking forward to working with the City on this project.
Attachment
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Frazel
City Administr or
April 15, 1985
SUBJECT: Review of April 2nd Action on Linvill Building Permit
INTRODUCTION
At the April 2nd meeting, Council voted to grant a building permit for
construction of Dakota Business Plaza, conditioned among other things, on
dedication of 13.5 feet of right-of-way for Perron Road. Council also denied
the request for a 10 foot variance to the 20 foot parking lot setback requirement.
The practical effect of that action was to reduce by 2,000 square feet the amount
of space in the building that could be office versus warehouse.
At the meeting, the applicant's attorney and Councilmember Cummins questioned
the legal authority of the City to require the right-of-way dedication as a con-
dition of granting the building permit. City Attorney Tom Hart was asked to
research the matter. The result is that it is indeed questionable, whether this
is an appropriate condition, and Council should consider follow-up action.
DISCUSSION
The staff and Planning Commission recommendation to require the Perron Road
right-of-way dedication was based on City Planner Dahlgren's assertion that such
a requirement is commonplace throughout the metropolitan area, and is a reasonable
expectation in serving the new facility. Further legal research, however, has
revealed that while the practice may be commonplace, its legal basis of authority
is questionable. Therefore, Tom has recommended that we reconsider our action.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Accept the petitioner's offer to dedicate the right-of-way, in
exchange for the 10 foot setback variance.
2. Accept a right-of-way dedication, in exchange for a temporary variance
until such time as actual road construction takes place, at which time
10 feet of parking lot would be removed. The petitioner's attorney
has indicated that this alternative would be acceptable if the City
agrees not to require additional parking spaces or changes in building
use at that time. Essentially, we would have a non -conforming parking
lot.
3. Initiate a condemnation process for the 13.5 feet of Perron Road right-
of-way. In this case, Linvill would have to comply with all setback
requirements, but the City would ultimately have to compensate him
for the taken property. A conservative cost estimate would be $7,000.
- 2-
4. -
4. Let the action of April 2nd stand, and risk a legal challenge. City
Attorney Hart does not recommend this option.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that we follow alternative No. 1.
It is not known with any certainty when or in what configuration Perron
Road will need to be constructed to permanent status. Depending on develop-
ment of the Pabst property to the west, it is not inconceivable that Perron
Road may never be needed.
The proposed location of the Dakota Business Plaza parking lot will exceed
setback requirements from temporary Perron Road as it now exists. To expend
City funds to condemn the extra 13.5 feet at this time would seem premature.
By accepting the additional 13.5 feet as dedication in exchange for the 10 foot
variance, we would have the following options when and if Perron is upgraded.
1. Build on the new right-of-way, deciding that we can live with a
"closer than normal" parking lot.
2. Vacate that right-of-way and condemn right-of-way to the north on
the J. Bradner Smith property.
3. Down -size the roadway width.
ACTION REQUIRED
Council has already conditioned issuance of the building permit on the 13.5
foot right-of-way dedication.
The only further formal action needed to implement the recommendation
would be.to grant the 10 foot setback variance.
KDF:madlr
TO:
FROM:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Mayor and City Council
Kevin D. Fr e‘17/2)-
City
ll.- 2City Administrator
MEMO
April 15, 1985
SUBJECT: Selection of Architect for City Hall Study
DISCUSSION
We received 12 architectural proposals in
Wolf gram/Knutson
Boarman Architects
Urban Design Office
Shank Kleineman DeZelar
Lindberg Pierce, Inc.
Architectural Alliance
response to our RFP:
TKDA
Robert D. Burow
Pope Architects
Korsunsky Krank Erickson
Sessing
Kodet
A staff committee of Dennis Delmont, Gene Lange, Jim Danielson, Larry
Shaughnessy, Kathy Swanson, Mary Ann DeLaRosa, and I reviewed the proposals.
Based on the track records with similar projects, and our perception of
the overall quality of the proposals, the staff committee unanimously endorsed
the following as our top three:
Kodet
Architectural Alliance
Lindberg Pierce, Inc.
The proposal of Pope Associates came close to the above three in our rankings.
RECOMMENDATION
Because we were in strong agreement on our selections, and 3 or 4 "came
right to the top", we decided to skip the stage of staff interviews, and
recommend to you that we proceed to schedule interviews with a joint Council/
staff committee. A suggested date would be an off -meeting Tuesday evening in
May, the 14th or 28th.
ACTION REQUIRED
To select those firms to interview, and set a date for the interviews.
KDF: madlr ., -- - 41.r.ive- _ . _ .___
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Ai r�rlto
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Marie Avenue Lot Sale
DISCUSSION
April 15, 1985
Staff received one bid for the park lot on April 12, 1985 (attached). It
appears to be a good bid so the Council should now take the steps to officially
split the lot (see attached drawing). This lot division falls within Ordinance
No. 301, Section 11.3, Exceptions, because it is an existing lot whose division
does not cause the remaining portions of either new lot to be in violation of the
zoning ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council accept Premier Builders' bid of $34,550, and
authorize staff to take the necessary steps to finalize the sale. It is also
recommended that Council process a lot division under the provisions of Ordinance
No. 301, Section 11.3(1), Exceptions.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, they should pass
a motion adopting Resolution No. 85-33, "Resolution Approving the Subdivision of
the E. 208.93 feet of Out lot A, Lexington Heighland East", and pass a motion
authorizing staff to take the steps necessary to finalize the sale with Premier
Builders.
JED:mad1r
attachments
TO:
BID PROPOSAL
City of Mendota Heights
750 South Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
SUBJECT: Lexington Highland East - Park Lot Sale
Job No. 8429
Gentlemen:
The undersigned, being familiar with the east 200 feet of Outlot A,
Lexington Highlands East, Dakota County, Minnesota, and the terms and condi-
tions set forth hereinafter submit the following bid:
The City of Mendota Heights has a single family lot for sale at the
corner of Marie Avenue and Summit Lane in Mendota Heights, which is
approximately 100 feet by 200 feet. The City will receive sealed bids
that will be opened at 10:00 A.M., April 12, 1085, at the Mendota
Heights City Hall, 750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights.
The minimum bid shall be: $3,00110 down, witb3/" 5:5-0ou a Contract to
the City at ten percent (10%) interest based on year term ammnri-
oatioo withyear balloon. The City reserves the right to reject
any and all kids. The city will convey the property by Limited War-
ranty Deed to the successful bidder and shall pay all special assess-
ments out of the proceeds of the sale. The buyer shall be responsible
for, at buyer's cost, obtaining a policy of title insurance, naming the
buyer as the fee simple owner at the closing.
Proposals should be submitted in a sealed envelope marked "Proposal for
Lexington Highland East - Park Lot Sale".
Bidder's
Address �� 2�-
h^iv 7_6
677) . �� .
Name _��m / /7
LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 16, 1985
Excavating License
Mack's Excavating
Gas Piping License
Churchill's Home Heating and Cooling
Standard Heating
General Contractors' License
Timberline Builders, Inc.
Tollefson Builders, Inc.
Basic Builders, Inc.
Quality Exteriors, Inc.
Heating and Air Conditioning License
Standard Heating
Masonry License
Serice Construction, Inc.
Rosemount Cement, Inc.
L.W.T. Cement Construction, Inc.
Carlson Masonry
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Danielson
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
April 16, 1985
and Paul Berg
Public Works Director Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: Case #85-07, United Properties CUP for PUD
DISCUSSION:
United Properties has submitted the material for a sketch plan and
preliminary development plan approval for their third Planned Unit Develop-
ment for an office/service facility. Staff has reviewed the materials as
submitted and finds them satisfactory. Provided United Properties is
granted Planning Commission and City Council approvals, they intend to begin
construction immediately on building "A". At the pre -application meeting
in March, it was mentioned by Planner Dahlgren that the City's small lift
station facility located in front of building "A" was not aesthetically
compatible with the proposal. He suggested that alternatives for screening
or removal of the lift station should be investigated. Staff has completed
that study and it is attached to this memo.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Conduct a public hearing and based on input from the public and Planning
Commission members, make a recommendation to the City Council.
JD/PB:madlr
attachment
Page No. 2236
April 16, 1985
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, April 16, 1985
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City
Council, City of Mendota Heights, was held at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at City Hall,
750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
Mayor Lockwood called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following
members were present: Mayor Lockwood, Councilmembers Blesener, Cummins,
Hartmann and Witt.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Hartmann moved adoption of the agenda
for the meeting, exclusive of item 10c, including
additional items contained in the add-on agenda.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Mayor Lockwood moved approval of the minutes of the
April 16th meeting with correction.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Councilmember Witt moved approval of the consent
calendar as submitted and recommended for approval as
part of the regular agenda, along with authorization
for execution of all necessary documents contained
therein.
a. Acknowledgement of the minutes of the March 12th
Park and Recreation Commission meeting.
b. Acknowledgement of the minutes of the April 9th
Park and Recreation Commission meeting.
c. Acknowledgement of the Treasurer's report for
March.
d. Acknowledgement of the Fire Department monthly
report for March.
e. Acknowledgement of the minutes of the*January 16th
NDC -4 meeting.
f. Approval of the List of Claims dated April 16th
and totalling $1,550,351.27.
g.
Approval of the list of contractor licenses,
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
TRUCK PARKING
MISCELLANEOUS
granting licenses to:
Mack's Excavating
Churchill's Home Heating
and Cooling
Standard Heating
Timberline Builders, Inc.
Tollefson Builders, Inc.
Basic Builders, Inc.
Quality Exteriors, Inc.
Standard Heating
Serice Construction, Inc.
Rosemount Cement, Inc.
L.W.T. Cement
Construction.,Inc.
Carlson Masonry
Page No. 2237
April 16, 1985
Excavating License
Gas Piping License
Gas Piping License
General Contractor License
General Contractor License
General Contractor License
General Contractor License
Heating & Air Conditioning
License
Masonry License
Masonry License
Masonry License
Masonry License
Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion.
The Council acknowledged a memo:from the City Clerk
regarding preparation of truck parking restrictions.
Mr. Russell Wahl, present for the discussion, stated
that the semi tractor -trailer about which he had
complained on April 2nd was no longer parked on
Callahan Place but that the tractor is being parked in
a driveway on Callahan. He read a portion of the road
restriction ordinance for the Council and felt that
enforcement of the ordinance provisions would resolve
the problem. The matter was referred to staff.
Metropolitan Council District 15 Representative Mary
Martin was present to introduce herself to the Council
and to briefly review issues currently being
considered by the Metropolitan Council.
ASSESSMENT HEARING - Mayor Lockwood opened the meeting for the purpose of a
IMPROVEMENT 84-3 public hearing on the proposed assessment roll for the
Clapp-Thomssen Ivy Hills 2nd Addition sewer and water
improvements. Public Works Director Danielson briefly
reviewed the project.
Mayor Lockwood asked for questions and comments from
the audience.
There being no questions or comments, Councilmember
Cummins moved that the hearing be closed at 7:59 P.M.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
HEARING - NORTH END
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Page No. 2238
April 16, 1985
Councilmember Cummins moved the adoption of Resolution
No. 85- 28, "RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING
ASSESSMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND WATER
SERVICE TRENCH IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE CLAPP-THOMSSEN
IVY HILLS 2ND ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 84; PROJECT
NO. 3)."
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Mayor Lockwood opened the meeting for the purpose of a
public hearing on proposed street and storm sewer
improvements to serve Chippewa Avenue, Ellen Street,
Garden Lane, Hiawatha Avenue, Fremont Avenue and adja-
cent areas.
Mayor Lockwood stated that a public hearing on
proposed street, curb and gutter and storm sewer
improvements for the area had been held in 1984 but
that the cost projected for the improvements was
substantial. As the result of the hearing, Council
promised to do what it could to develop a plan to
improve the streets and drainage system which could be
constructed at a cost more acceptable to the property
owners. He informed the audience that since that
hearing, the City has been successful in its attempts
to get community development block grant funds and to
have Chippewa Avenue designated as a municipal state
aid street. As the result, CDBG funds will be
available for those property owners who qualify for
assistance and much of the cost of the proposed
Chippewa Avenue improvements would be supported by the
State M.S.A. program. Mayor Lockwood turned the
meeting over to Public Works Director Danielson for a
review of the proposed project.
Mr. Danielson stated that in 1978 several homeowners
on Hiawatha informed the Council of storm water
problems affecting their backyards and asked what
could be done to alleviate the problems. When staff
prepared a report on the matter they felt that area
streets should also be repaired at such time as
drainage improvements were made. The study projected
costs which the area residents found objectionable, no
action was taken on the matter and the streets have
continued to deteriorate. In 1984 the study was
updated and a public hearing was conducted. The
residents felt that the costs were still to great and
requested that staff research the potential for
Chippewa Avenue M.S.A. designation. In addition, the
Dakota County H.R.A. has set aside $50,000 to assist
qualified homeowners by paying off their assessments
with an interest-free loan to be paid at the time
Page No. 2239
April 16, 1985
those homeowners sell their homes.
Mr. Danielson stated that it is City policy to
construct all streets with curb and gutter and storm
sewers and when this policy was applied to the
proposed project the costs became very high. Total
project cost would be about $500,000, for assessment
rates of $14 per front foot for street, curb and
gutter and $0.13 per square foot for storm sewer.
In view of the projected cost, staff then studied the
possibility of installing curb and gutter only along
Chippewa and storm sewer along Chippewa to Annapolis
because of the M.S.A. assistance. He described the
proposed improvements consisting of the Chippewa
Avenue street, curb and gutter and storm sewer
improvements and bituminous resurfacing on Ellen
Street, Garden Lane, Hiawatha Avenue and Fremont
Avenue. Mr. Danielson estimated that storm sewer
construction will cost $72,000 and that street, curb
and gutter improvements will cost $188,000. The
M.S.A. program will finance $135,000 of the street
construction cost and $27,000 for storm sewer
improvements. It is proposed that all properties
affected by street improvements be assessed at $6.40
per front foot and $.095 per square foot for storm
sewer, and that those properties not abutting the
affected streets but which drain to the storm sewer be
assessed at the rate of $.095 per square foot.
Mr. Mark Uhlfers of the Dakota County H.R.A. briefly
reviewed the block grant program. He stated that as . Y
the result of a recent survey of the area, it has been
determined that approximately 61% of the 107 area
households would be eligible for assistance. He
stated that an 80 by 100 foot lot would be assessed
about $1400 under the proposed project and that the
$54,000 in CDBG monies would be enough to support the -
assessments for 35 to 40 households. Mr. Uhlfers
stated that eligibility for program participation is
limited to income maximums of $26,250 for four member
families and $21,000 for two member families. Once
notified of the assessment amount, people could come
to the HRA office and complete a form to verify that
they are income eligible. When the assessment becomes
due, the HRA would prepay the assessment and the
payment to the HRA by the property owner would be
deferred until the property is sold or transferred.
In response to a question from Councilmember Witt, he
stated that the City could apply to the district
(CDBG) committee for additional grant money next year.
Mayor Lockwood asked for questions and comments from
the audience.
Page No. 2240
April 16, 1985
Mr. Raymond Vecellio, 500 W. Annapolis, stated that he
lives in the special assessment district and asked if
there is a differential in the rate for properties
which directly abut the improvements and those which
do not. He stated that his home is in the project
area but he does not abut any of the streets.
Public Works Director Danielson responded that his
property would not be assessed for street improvements
'but that a small portion of the lot would be assessed
for storm sewer.
Mr. Peter Solberg, 1062 Chippewa, stated that Chippewa
has a very high crown near his property and that the
water drains to the east. He asked that the crown be
flattened or that the surface be tilted so that the
water drains toward Butler.
Mr. Donald Clifford, 1129 Dodd asked what type of
curbing is proposed for Chippewa.
Mr. Gordon Howe, 539 Hiawatha, stated that his
property has a bad drainage problem because of the
grade of Hiawatha and asked whether the existing
street surface will be removed.
Public Works Director Danielson responded that it is
proposed that only the bad portions of street surface
be removed. He also stated that the Howe property
will still experience some drainage problems but that
a good share of the surface water that now drains to
the property will be diverted to Chippewa.
In response to a request from Mayor Lockwood, Mr.
Robert Leffert described similar improvements
installed recently in the Ivy Falls area.
Mr. Steve Hanson, 540 Hiawatha, asked whether the
overlay proposed for Hiawatha will raise the street
grade and whether the property owners will be
responsible for adjusting approaches to their property
lines after the project is completed. Mr. Danielson
indicated that the City would repair the approaches
so that they will meet the street grade.
In response to a question from Mayor Lockwood, Mr.
Danielson stated that without curb and gutter
installation throughout the project, an optimum
solution to the drainage problems will not be
achieved: some problems will remain but drainage in
the area will be greatly improved.
Councilmember Blesener stated that the project
Page No. 2241
April 16, 1985
currently being considered is not a full storm sewer
system but that it is being recommended primarily
because it is less costly. She stated that the
Council needs feedback from the residents on whether
they are satisfied with the project as proposed or if
they would prefer a complete system, and expressed her
desire for a complete project rather than that
proposed.
In response to a question from the audience, Public
Works Director Danielson estimated that street, curb
and gutter for the entire area would cost about $14.00
per front foot and storm sewer would cost about $0.13
per square foot. w°=
Mr. Peter Vlaar, 1063 Chippewa, asked whether the City
will seal coat Chippewa on a regular basis after the
upgrading.
Mr. Steve Hanson stated that he has seen what an
improvement curb and gutter made in the area south of
his property. He felt that while the proposed project
may serve a purpose now, five years from now curb and
gutter improvements may be needed anyway. He asked
whether it would be possible to find out how many
property owners are in favor of a total project and
how he should voice his desire for a complete project.
Mayor Lockwood suggested that the best method to
determine area desires would be for Mr. Hanson to
circulate a petition for the complete project.
Ms. Elizabeth Plummer, 605 Garden Lane, asked whether"'
Garden Lane would be widened if a more extensive
project were approved.
Mr. Greg Nelson, 1261 Delaware, stated that the back
of his lot faces Chippewa and asked whether curbing on
the total project would affect his costs.
Mr. Robert Reedstrom, 530 Hiawatha, stated that
because of drainage problems his property experiences
he would be delighted with the project as proposed
because the proposed catch basins should relieve the
drainage problems. He stated that he has no
particular feeling about curb and gutter throughout
the project area.
Mr. Donald Suchomel, 531 Hiawatha, stated that he is
in favor of the project as proposed, without
additional curb and gutter.
Councilmember Blesener stated that she is not prepared
to support the project as proposed, that she is
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
•
Page No. 2242
April 16, 1985
uncomfortable—with the.fact that there are several
properties along Chippewa which would receive curb and
gutter improvements under the project and the property
owners would not be infavor of an increased project
because their assessment rates would be increased
without a change in benefits.
Mr. Vecellio asked when the project would be
completed. Mr. Danielson responded that if the
project were to be ordered tonight completion is
possible this year: if a decision is delayed or the
project is expanded, completion this year may not be
possible.
A member of the audience stated that he is the only
.property owner on Fremont present in the audience, and
probably the only one in the neighborhood who would
want curb and gutter.
Mr. Solberg stated that he fails to see why if the
people on Hiawatha and the other streets want curb and
gutter it would raise the costs for Chippewa area
property owners.
Mr. Howe stated that he is in favor of a total
project.
An informal poll of those present for the discussion
indicated a preference for the current proposal.
Councilmember Hartmann suggested that the Council
approach the project in the same manner as the Ivy
Falls area improvements: approve the project as
proposed and if owners of contiguous properties want
curb and gutters they could petition for it at the
front foot differential on a unit cost.
Public Works Director Danielson stated that such an
approach would be very difficult since the project can
only come from Chippewa. Mayor Lockwood requested
that staff determine a unit price for curb and gutter
in addition to the street construction cost.
. There being no further questions or comments,
Councilmember Blesener moved that the hearing be
closed.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Councilmember Cummins moved to table further
discussion on the matter to the May 7th meeting.
Mayor Lockwood seconded the motion.
PERSONNEL
(I Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
LINVILL BUILDING
PERMIT
Page No. 2243
April 16, 1985
Councilmember' Cummins moved the adoption of Resolution
No. 85-29, "RESOLUTION PLACING THE POSITION OF CIVIL
ENGINEER I ON THE EMPLOYEES PAY CLASSIFICATION PLAN,"
and appointment of Klayton Eckles as Civil Engineer I
at a starting salary of $21,157.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Mr. Eckles, present for the discussion, was introduced
to the Council and stated that he be able to start
work part-time on April 19th and full-time on June 20
or 21st.
The Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from the
City Administrator regarding the April 2nd discussion
and action taken on Mr. Ralph Linvill's application
for variance. Administrator Frazell recommended that
Council grant the requested 10 foot sideyard setback
variance in consideration of a 13.5 foot right-of-way
dedication for Perron Road.
Mayor Lockwood suggested that the Council could refuse
to grant the variance and purchase the right-of-way
with the understanding that the cost would ultimately
be assessed back against the property at such time as
Perron Road is constructed. He stated, however, that
the alternative of exchanging a temporary variance
until such time as road construction takes place, at
which time 10 feet of parking lot removal would occur,
is reasonable.
Coucnilmember Hartmann stated that in approving
alternative number 2, the Council would be agreeing to
a non -conforming parking lot, but he was in favor of
the alternative since it would provide for green space
if street construction occurs and the 10 foot (parking
lot removal area) is seeded.
Councilmember Blesener asked whether, if the applicant
feels that the additional 10 feet of parking area is
needed for the structure now, the building can
function should that parking area be eliminated in the
future.
Rollin Crawford, representing Mr. Linvill, stated that
the building could function without the additional
parking area but the additional 10 feet of parking
area would be a nice luxury. He stated that his
client agrees to alternative number 2 (elimination of
the parking area if Perron Road is built). He stated
that his client is willing to blacktop the ten foot
area because he feels that Perron will not be
constructed.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
COMPUTER STUDY
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
BIKE TRAIL
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Page No. 2244
April 16, 1985
Councilmember Cummins stated that he feels alternative
number 2 is a good solution but that he would prefer
the granting of a parking variance rather than a
setback variance.
City Attorney Tom Hart stated that if Council approves
the temporary variance on the basis that the parking
area be eliminated when Perron Road is constructed,
the agreement should be recorded at the County.
Councilmember Hartmann moved to grant a temporary
10 foot sideyard setback variance until such time as
Perron Road construction occurs, at which time 10 feet
of parking lot would be required to be removed, in
exchange for the dedication of a 13.5 foot right-of-
way dedication for Perron Road and contingent upon the
execution of all necessary legal documents binding all
parties to the agreement.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
The Council acknowledged and briefly discussed a memo
from the City Administrator regarding proposals for a
computer application study.
Councilmember Witt moved to accept the proposal from
DSM for development of an information system plan, at
cost not to exceed $5,280, and appropriating $5,280
from the General Fund unappropriated surplus.
Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion.
The Council reviewed plans and specifications for
construction of the Lexington Aavenue backbone bike
trail. Councilmember Blesener expressed concern about
the portion of trail going around the ponding area at
Lexington and Marie.
After discussion, Councilmember Witt moved approval of
the plans and specifications for the Lexington Bike
Trail along with authorization to advertise for bids
to be accepted on May 16th.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Councilmember Witt moved adoption of Resolution No.
85-30, "RESOLUTION REQUESTING COUNTY FUNDING OF THE
LEXINGTON AVENUE BIKE TRAIL."
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
WATER MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATION
ARCHITECT SELECTION
LOT SALE
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
FIRE MARSHAL
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Page No. 2245
April 16, 1985
Attorney Dave Moran, from the City Attorney's office,
reviewed a proposed Lower Mississippi River Watershed
Management Organization joint powers agreement.
Staff was directed to prepare a synopsis of the
agreement and place the matter on the May 7th agenda.
The Council discussed a memo from the City
Administrator regarding staff review of the 12 archi-
tectural proposals received for preparation of a City
Hall Study. Administrator Frazell recommended that
Council interview four firms, Architectural Alliance,
Kodet, Lindberg Pierce, Inc. and Pope Associates which
had been unanimously endorsed by a staff committee
after review of all of the proposals.
It was the concensus of the Council that staff be
authorized to proceed to set up interviews with the
four firms on May 14th.
The Council acknowledged a memo from the Public Works
Director recommending that Council accept a $34,550
bid from Premier Builders for the purchase of a
portion of Outlot A, Lexington Highlands East
Addition and approve the division of the property
under the provisions of Section 11.3(1) of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
Mayor Lockwood moved the adoption of Resolution No.
85-31, "RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION OF THE E.
208.93 FEET OF OUTLOT A, LEXINGTON HIGHLAND EAST," and
authorization to staff to take the steps necessary to
finalize the sale of a portion of the property to
Premier Builders.
Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion.
The Council acknowledged a memo on the appointment of
a Fire Marshal.
Councilmember Cummins moved to rescind the appointment
of Don Hove as Fire Marshal and appoint Paul M. Kaiser
Fire Marshal on the basis of a $12.50 per hour
retainer fee plus mileage.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
MISCELLANEOUS The Council acknowledged memos from the Public Works
Director regarding speed zones (on Mendota Heights
Road and Huber Drive) and trail lighting.
C
Page No. 2246
April 16, 1985
COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Hartmann asked about the status of the
street lighting issue.
ADJOURN
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
ATTEST:
Councilmember Witt asked whether there had been any
recent negotiations with the Wachtler family over City
acquisition of property.
Councilmember Blesener suggested that the Industrial
District density requirements be reviewed.
Councilmember Cummins reported on the status of
discussions with Mn/FSL.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, Councilmember Witt moved that the meeting be
adjourned.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:20 o'clock P.M.
Robert G. Lockwood
Mayor
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
April 16° 1985
'/1///2
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Ad is ator
FROM: James O. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Speed Zones
DISCUSSION:
Attached is Mn/DOT's response to our speed limit request on Mendota
Heights Road. When they were completing the study they were apparently
doing a little "snooping" around too and found Huber Drive to be posted at
35 mph without State authorization.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Mendota Heights Road be posted at the legal limit
and that Mn/DOT be requested to perform the necessary studies to assign an
official speed limit to Huber Drive (will probably be 40 mph).
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a
motion authorizing Mendota Heights Road to be posted for 45 mph and for
staff to forward a letter to Mn/DOT requesting that the appropriate studies
be conducted to assign a speed limit to Huber Drive.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-33
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION OF THE EAST 208.93 FEET
OF OUTLOT A, LEXINGTON HIGHLAND EAST, SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights, owner of Outlot A, Lexington Highland
East, Section 26, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, has
decided to split that lot into two (2) lots; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said lot split and finds the same
to be in order.
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota that the lot split submitted at this meeting be and
the same is hereby approved.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of April,
1985.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Robert G. Lockwood
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Fraz
City Administr r
SUBJECT: Add-on Agenda
April 16, 1985
Five items are recommended for addition to, and one for deletion from,
this evening's agenda.
3. Adoption of Agenda.
It is recommended that the agenda be adopted with the addition of Items
10,31/2, 10f, 10g, 10h, 10i, and the deletion of Item 10c.
10.31/2. Memo on Review of April 2nd Action on Dakota Business P
See attached memo.
10c. Memo on Utilities for Victoria Place (Lilydale).
This item was inadvertently placed on the agenda by mistake. The
petitioners have asked for a meeting with staff to discuss the arrangements.
10f. Memo on selection of architects for City Hall study.
See attached memo.
10g. Memo on Marie/Summit Lot Sale.
See attached memo, along with the drawings.
lOh. Memo on Appointment of Paul Kaiser as Fire Marshal.
For reasons that were described to Council in my memo of last Friday, Don
Hove, who was originally appointed as Fire Marshal, has now had to decline that
appointment. As a strongly qualified alternative, I am recommending appointment
of Paul M. Kaiser. Although Mr. Kaiser's resume was send to you Friday, the
qualification page is reporduced and attached for your reference. I am recommend-
ing the same $12.50 per hour retainer fee plus mileage that we offered Don.
ACTION REQUIRED
Motion to rescind previous action appointing Don Hove as Fire Marshal, and
appointing Mr. Paul M. Kaiser at a retainer rate of $12.50 per hour, plus mileage
reimbursement.
10i. Memo on Speed Postings for Mendota Heights Road and Huber Drive.
See attached memo.
attachments
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS
FOR SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND
WATER SERVICE TRENCH IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE
CLAPP-THOMSSEN IVY HILLS 2ND ADDITION
(IMPROVEMENT NO. 84, PROJECT NO. 3)
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights as
follows:
WHEREAS, the City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer, has
calculated the proper amount to be specially assessed for the costs incurred
to date with respect to Improvement No. 84, Project No. 3, construction of
sewer, water storm sewer, streets and curb and gutter improvements to serve
the following described property situated in the City of Mendota Heights,
Dakota County, Minnesota, more particularly described as follows:
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 1 of Clapp-Thomssen Ivy Hills 2nd Addition
WHEREAS, the proposed assessment roll has been on file with the Clerk and at
all times since its filing has been open for public inspection; and notice
thereof has been duly published and mailed as required by law. Said notice
stated the date, time and place of such meeting; the general nature of the
improvement; the area proposed to be assessed; that the proposed assessment
roll has been on file with the Clerk; and that written or oral objections
thereto by any property owner would be considered; and
WHEREAS, said hearing was held at 7:45 o'clock P.M. on April 16, 1985, at
the City Hall in the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor announced that the hearing was open for the consideration
of objections, if any, to said proposed assessments; and
WHEREAS, all persons present were then given an opportunity to present oral
objections, and all written objections theretofore filed with the Clerk were
presented and considered.
NOW THEREFORE, this Council, having heard and considered all objections so
presented, and being fully advised in the premises, and having made all
necessary adjustments and corrections, finds that each of the lots, pieces
and parcels of land enumberated in the proposed assessment roll was and is
specially benefited by the construction of said improvements in not less
than the amount of the assessment, as corrected, set opposite the descrip-
tion of each such lot, piece and parcel of land, respectively, and that such
amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots,
pieces and parcels of land therein described; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proposed assessment roll is hereby adopted
and confirmed as the proper special assessment for each of said lots, pieces
and parcels of land respectively, and the assesement against each parcel,
together with interest at the rate of 10 percent (10%) per annum accruing on
the full amount thereof from time to time unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent
with general taxes upon such parcel and all thereof. The total amount of
each such assessment as to sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and watermains
shall be payable in equal amounts extending over a period of nineteen (19)
years; the first of said installments, together with interest on the entire
assessment commencing thirty (30) days from the date hereof to December 31,
1985, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1985, collectible in
1986 (now designated as real estate taxes payable in 1986), and one of each
of the remaining installments, together with one year's interest on that and
all other unpaid installments, to be payable with general taxes for each
consecutive year thereafter until the entire assessment is paid; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that prior to May 16, 1985, the owner of any lot,
piece or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole of
such assessment, without interest to the City Treasurer; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk shall prepare and transmit to the
County Auditor a certified duplicate of said assessment roll with each then
unpaid installment and interest set forth separately, to be extended upon
the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall thereafter
collect said assessments in the manner provided by law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of
April, 1985.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Robert G. Lockwood, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -
RESOLUTION PLACING THE POSITION OF CIVIL ENGINEER I ON THE EMPLOYEES PAY
CLASSIFICATION PLAN
WHEREAS„ by Resolution No. 83-113, the City Council adopted a pay plan for
certain positions of city employment; and
WHEREAS, the City is now desirous of creating a new position of Civil
Engineer I which was not in existence at the time of adoption of Resolution
No. 83-113; and
WHEREAS, based on an analysis of the comparability of this position to other
city positions and similar positions of other employers, the City Administrator
has recommended placement at Grade Level XIV.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 83-113, Attachment
B, is hereby amended to add the position of Civil Engineer I at Grade XIV.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of
April, 1985.
CITY COUNCIL
r, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Robert G. Lockwood
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -
RESOLUTION REQUESTING COUNTY FUNDING OF THE LEXINGTON AVENUE TRAIL
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights as part of its backbone trail
construction in 1985 will be constructing a portion of a Dakota County
Bikeway Trail System; and
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a trail maintenance agreement with
the County that provides for County construction and City maintenance of
such trails.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights that the City hereby requests Dakota County participation in the
costs of that portion of the City's 1985 Trail construction that is on the
County Bikeway System.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of
April, 1985.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Robert G. Lockwood, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
SHERMAN WINTHROP
ROBERT R. WEINSTINE
THOMAS J. SEXTON
RICHARD A. HOEL
ROGER D. GORDON
STEVEN C. TOUREK
HART KULLER
DAVID P. PEARSON
THOMAS M. HART lY
DARRON C. KNUTSON
WENDY WILLSON LEGGE
MARK J. BRIOL
SANDRA J MARTIN
MICHELE D. VAILLANCOURT
JON J. HOGANSON
PEGGY A. NELSON
DAVID E. MORAN, JR.
DONALD J. BROWN
JAY R. NAFTZGER
SCOTT J. OONGOSKE
WILLIAM D. HITTLER
ROBERT 5. SOSKIN
JEFFREY W. COOK
WINTHROP, WEINSTI-1'E & SEXTON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
1800 CONWED TOWER
444 CEDAR STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
April 16, 1985
Mr. James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
City of Mendota Heights
750 South Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120
Re: 1760 Douglas Court
• Mendota Heights, Minnesota
Dear Jim:
TELEPHONE (612) 292-8110
TELECOPY (612) 292-9347
I am enclosing herewith a proposed Release with respect to the
release of the temporary construction easement which we discussed
last Friday relating to the above -referenced property. In my con-
versations with Ed Kishel several months ago, he indicated that
this temporary construction easement was no longer needed for any
purpose. I am also enclosing for your reference a copy of the
title opinion issued by Best and Flanagan referencing the subject
construction easement.
Assuming that the enclosed is acceptable to you, please have the
Mayor and Kathy sign in the spaces indicated, have the signatures
notarized and return the same to me for further handling.
Thanks for your help.
Very truly yours,
WINTHROP WEINSTINE & SEXTON
By -
TMH / j 1
Enclosure
M. Hart
RELEASE OF EASEMENT
The City of Mendota Heights (the "City"), a municipal corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, does hereby
release that certain temporary construction easement filed of
record on June 23, 1978 in the office of the Dakota County
Recorder as Document No. 97383 provided, however, that nothing
contained herein shall in any way be deemed or interpreted to
release, reduce, impair or vacate the permanent utility and
drainage easement in favor of the City created pursuant to said
Document No. 97383, which permanent easement the City hereby
expressly reserves and retains.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused its duly authorized repre-
sentatives to execute this instrument as of this day of
, 1985.
City of Mendota Heights
ATTEST: By
Its Mayor
City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
The foregoing Release of Easement was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1985 by
the Mayor of the City of Mendota Heights.
Notary Public
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Planning Commission
April 16, 1985
FROM: Jim Danielson Paul Berg
Public Works Director and Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: Case #85-05, Kurtz, Subdivision Approval
DISCUSSION:
Michael Kurtz, 1827 Hunter Lane, owns two houses on two lots just south
of the Hunter's new subdivision. Mr. Kurtz proposes to plat these two home -
sites into three buildable lots. Each of these homesites would have a "flag
lot" type of configuration with long driveways to Hunter Lane for access.
Staff planimetered the areas of the lots and finds them to be: north lot -
26,102 square feet; middle lot - 27,125 square feet; and the south lot - 30,940
square feet. All of them exceed the City's minimum requirement of 15,000 square
feet of lot area. The north lot has 92 feet of width at the established building
setback line, the middle lot has 85 feet of frontage at the proposed building set-
back line, and the south lot has 136 feet at the established building setback
line. This subdivision is located within the boundaries of the Critical Area
Overlay District (CAO). However, no review is being conducted at this time,
since no construction is being proposed.
It should be noted, however, that the possible building footprint as shown
on the middle lot is within 30 feet of the bluffline. A future variance to the
CAO will have to be considered.
City sewer has been stubbed in to the rear of lot 1 in the Phillips Hill
Addition, and could service the middle lot. A watermain is located in Hunter
Lane and a long service lead would have to be installed.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Conduct a public hearing and based on input, make a recommendation to the
City Council.
JD/PB:madlr
15-Engr 60 -Utilities
4/16/85 CLAIMS LIST
20 -Police 70 -Parks
.. CHECK REGISTER 30 -Fire 80 -Planning
40 -Code Enfc 90 -Animal Control
AMOUNT VEN000 ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV.
13.95
13.95
7.52
7.52 *-
390.22
390.22
15.30
15.30
30.60
75.00
75.30
30.38
73.30
30.00
3o.nr *-•
30.30
30 .3r3
30.09
*/
1.0.00
36.30 *1
30.00
*-
125.30
125.00
F9761.90
7,350.80
1 ,26.7Q
315.45
2,900.00
1 ,419.40
473.1 5
2,155.45
1,174.15
26,236.00
145.33
145.33
5,00
5.30
99.10
*
CREArIVECOLOR
ED ADRIAN
S N CORP
F7 & J TRODHIES
F & J TRODHIES
• C 9Y CO
FLOYD ARNDT
HUGO Bi- AC<FELLNER
LAURENCE BRIDGER
04V10 OLMSTEAD
ROGER PLAT H
EDWARD VAILLANCOURT
GOVT TR.NG SVC
E 6A CO
E 8 A CO
E 8 A CO
E 8 A CO
E 8 A CO
E B A C;0
• B A CO
E B A CI
E 6 A CO
PAINT
PARTS
TENNIS NETS
PLA OW:
PLA OUE
COPY MCH SPLYS
INS WH A DJ 3 M0S85
INS WH ACJ 3 M0S85
INS WH A DJ 3 F0S85
INS WH ADJ 3MOS85
INS WH AOJ 3MOS85
INS WH ADJ 3M0S85
REGR FEE CITY M6MT
8 MOS 85FPEM
8M05 85PREP
8mos 85PREM
8MOS 85 PREM
8 MOS 85FREM
8 MOS 85 PREP
8
MOS 85 PREM
8 MOS 85 PREM
8 MOS 85PREM
MN DDT BAL DUE AGREE59940
MINN FIRE INST ASSN 198 5 DUE. S
MIDWEST W4LSLE TIRE RPR /PARTS
01-4330-320-70 4
01-4330-460-30
01-4305-070-70 I
05-4490-105-15
23-4490-000-00
01-4300-030-30 11
31-.41 31..020.20
01-41 31-020-20
01...41 31...020...20
01..4131..020..20
01..41 31..020..20
01 ,/9131..020..20
01-4400-110-10
01-1 215-000-00
01-4133-020-20
01-.41 33-030.-30
01-.41 33-040...40
01-4133-050-50
01-41 33-070-70
01-4133-110-10
05-41 33-105-15
15..41 33-060-60
63-4460-937-00 5
01-4404-030-30
01-4330-490-70 5
4MOUNT
99.10
10.'^0
10.00
122.75
122,75
12.50
12.50
34.75
34.75
34.80
104.30
*
1,020.19
1,020.19 *-
270,97
277.97 *-
359.11
359.11 *�
10.01
46.'1
57.52 */
557.76
1,708.49
774.66
3,040.91 *-
140,15
24.40
164.55 *_
3,237.JC
3,237.30 *
36.12
5.24
52.00
6.3
12.75
40.74
152.85 *'
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR
AMM C 4ILLIAMS
NATL FIRE PROTECTION
DAKOTA COJNTY CC
K C I TURF PRODUCTS
K C I TURF PRODUCTS
K C I TURF PRODUCTS
COMM TRSPT
S E H
ST R EGIS
e 8 WHITACRE & CO
A 8 WHITACRE & CO
JOHNSON BROS
JOHNSON BROS
JOHNSON BROS
ALBINSON
ALBIVSON
ITEM DESCRIPTION
3/28 MTG
TRNG SPLYS
3/14MTG
HYPRO PUMP
HYPRO PUMP
HYPRO PUMP
R'R S 1108,149
WW STUDY
GUARD RAILS
PARTS
PARTS
RFD BAL ESCROW82-04
RFD BAL ESCRCW82-23
RFD BAL ESCROW82-24
SPLYSLAND USE MAP
SPLYS
ARNESON► FUEL OIL SVC NO LEAD
CITY MOTOR
CITY MOTOR
CITY MOTOR
CITY MOTOR
CITY MOTOR
CITY MOT02
SUPPLY
SUPPLY
SUPPLY
SUPPLY
SUPPLY
SUPPLY
A C
GATES
PARTS
GATES
BRAKE FLUID
MISC PARTS
ACCOUNT NO. t*
`01-4400-110—i%
01-4403-030-3437
01-4400-110-10
01-4335-310-5'0
01-4335-310-70
15-4335-310-60
01-4330-420-503
03-4220-000-004
01-4420-050-50/
01-4330-460—'01
01-4330-46( )1
01-2130-000-00
01-21 36-000-00
01-21 37-000-00
11-4490-080-80 1
05-4300-105-1 5 1
01-1210-000-00
01-4330-440-20 1
01-4330-460-30 1
01-4330-490-50 1
01-4330-490-70 1
15-4305-060
15-4305-060—_.,
!MOUNT
6.^8
6.28
4.70
17.76
74.15
74.1 5
118.65
59.32
59.32
385.59 *-'
1,242.:0
1,242.00 *-
29.15
2Q.15 *�
29.76
129.76
355.65
355.65 *i
187.'30
1A. J0.
196.35
365.35 *_-
1 32.31
66.19
198.50 *-
250.'0
250.10
CHECK REGISTER
VENDO'
COAST TO COAST
COAST TO CJAST
COAST TO COAST
CONTEL CREDIT CORP
CONTEL CREDIT CORP
CONT=L CREDIT CORP
CONT=L CREDIT CORP
CONTEL CREDIT CORP
OAHLGREINSHARDLOWUBAN
DANIELSON JAMES F
DAVIS ELECTRONIC SVC
DAVIS ELECTRONIC SVC
FRAZELL KEVIN
GOA CORPOPATION
GOA CORPORATION
GOA CORPORATION
ICMA RG
ICMA RG
IDS LIFE INS CO
10.30 KNUTH TOM
ITEM DESCRIPTION
KEYS
MISC PARTS
ROOF CEMENT
BAL MAR40
APR PYMT 41
APR PYMT 41
BAL MAR 40
APR PYMT 41
MARCH S V C
1 /31 THRU 4/1
RPRS/PARTS
PAGER
EXP NLC CONF
OIL
DRUM CREDIT
GREASE/OIL
4/12 PAYPCLL
4/12 PAYRCLL
APR PYMT
APRIL ALLOW
ACCOUNT NO. INV4
01-4305-030-30 A
01-4330-320-70 �
15-4305-477-60
01-4210-020-20
01-4210-020-20 i
01-4210-110-10 A
05-4210-105-15
05-4210-105-15 1
01-4221-135-80
0.5-4415-105-15
01-4330-450-30
01-4330.450-30
01-4400-110-10
01-1210-000-00
01-1210-000-00 i
01.1210-.000..00 1
01-2072-000-00
01-4134-110-10
01-2072-000-00 1
05-4415-105-15
AMOUNT
10.;0 *
1. 64
1.64
10.07
34.23
47.58
347.65
36.00
383.55 *_-
35.47
9.89-
38.1 3
9.62
16.66
88.99 *.-
9.30
0.90
9.03
27.00 */
63.25
62.40
62.40 */
101.60
26.88:
26.38
26.88
182.24 */
24.95
8.2,0
32.95 */
64.38
64.38 */
80.45
CHECK REGISTER
VE 00
• KULL*NDER GUY
KULLANDER GUY
KULLANDER GUY
KULLANDER GUY
LAKELAND CORD
LAKELAND FORD
LA"JGULA: HOWE
LANGUL'A HOWE
LAMGJLA' HJ WE
LANGULA HOWE
LANGULA Ft) WE
LEEF BROS INC
LEEF ARDS INC
LEEF BROS INC
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RUBBISH
FIDWiST S'REN SERV
MIDWEST WIRE -STEEL
MIDWEST WIRE -STEEL
MTOWEST W'RE-STEEL
MIDWEST( WIRE - STEL
MINN BENEFIT ASSN
MINN BENEFIT ASSN
M*NN DEPT OF REV
MINN FIRE INC
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MI THRU 419
MI THRU 4/9
SPLYS
MI THRU 4/9
RPR SLAB OR
RPRS
MAIL BX/LETTERS
MAR DISC
CHA IN /CONNECTOR
MISC
MISC PARTS
MAR SVC
MAR SVC
-MAR SVC
MAR SVC
APR C ONTR
POLES
GLOVES
GLOVES
GLOVES
APR PREM
APR PREM
MAR SPEC FUSS TAX
SPLYS
ACCOUNT NO. I NI
01-4415-050-50
01-4415-080-80
05-4305-105-15
05-4415-105-15
01-4330-460-30
01-4330-490-50
01-4305--030-30
01-4305-030-30
01-4305-030-30
01-4305-030-30
01-4305-030-30
01-4335-31t, �0
01-4335-310-70
15•.4335•.310•• 60
01-4280-310-50
01-4280-310-70
15-4280-310-60.
01-4280-315-30
07-4330-000-00
01-4420-050-50
01-4490-050-50
01-4490-070-70
15-4490-060-60
01-2074-000-00
01-4131-021-20
01-4320-05P
01-4305-030-30
AMOUNT
205.25
294,70 *
55.3B
55.38
158.65
55.3g
324.79 *
150.30
150.30
105.33
105.03
23.25
23.25 */
2..38
12.64
14.'2 *,
39,85
34.56
34.56
19.50
305.63
434.10
1,409,000.00
462.90
63,000.33
1.463.462.J0 *
48 • r-1 6
CHECK REGISTER
VEND(P
MINN FTRE INC
MINN MINING&MFG
MINN MINING&MFG
MINN MINING&MFG
MINN M/NI4G&MFG
MINN TEAMSTER-LOC320
MOTOR PARTS SERVICE
NELSO4 RADIO COMM
NORTHERN ST POWER CO
NORTHERN ST POWER CO
NORTHWESTrRN BELL
NORTHWESTERN BELL
NORTHWESTERN BELL
NORTHWESTERN BELL
NORTHWESTERN BELL
NORWEST BANKMPLS
NORWEST B4NKMPLS
NORWEST BANKMPLS
OXYGEN SERVICE CO
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PART
FIRE/BURG ALM SVC
FIRE/BURG ALM SVC
MISC ALM SVV
FIRE/BURG ALM SVC
APR DUES
PARTS 2293
APR CONTR
APR SVC
APR SVC
APR SVC
APR SVC
APR S VC
APR SVC
APR SVC
PRINC 5/1/82 GO BDS
AGENT FEES
INT 5/1/82 GO 805
COMPR AIR
ACCOUNT NO. L
01-4330-460 T
01.-4335-310-51
01-4335-310-71
15-4330-400-61
15-4335-310-61
01-2075-000-01
01-4330-460-T
01-4330-450-21
01-4212-320-71
15-4211-400-61
01-4210-020-21
01-4210-050-51
01-4210-070-71
05-4210-105-1'
15=4210-060-61
14-.2115-000=01
14-4226-000-01
14-4456-000-01
01-4305-030-31
'OUNT
7.80
7.63
63.49 * -
266.39
6.58
85 .1 3
6.76
364.86
278.25
278.25 *.
7.31
.71-
7.27
1.70
53.92
22.46
7.31
74.25
12.70
25.96
5.81
?17.98 at,
3.Q6
8.96 *-
1,122.95
1,637.5
537.29
18.16
46.35
173.52
96.59
141.39
178.70
58.17
5,010.17 *,
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR
OXYGEN SERVICE CO
OXYGEN SERVICE CO
PAYLESS CASHWAYS INC
PAYLESS CASHWAYS INC
PAYLESS CASHWAYS INC
PAYLESS CASHWAYS INC
DINE BEND PAVING INC
S&T
S&T
S&T
S&T
S&T
S&T
S&T
S&T
S&T
S&T
S&T
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
)FFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
PROD
PR00
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROD
SOUTHVIE W CHEVROLET
STATE
STAT:
STATE
STATE
STATE
STATE
STATE
STATE
STATE
STATE
TREAS
TREAS
TREAS
TRE4S
TREAS
TREAS
TREAS
TREAS
TREAS
TREAS
STATE TREIS
STATE TRE4S
STATE TREAS
PERA
PFRA
PrRA
PERA
PERA
PERA
PERA
PERA
PERA
PERA
ITEM DESCRIPTION
DEMURRAGE 3/15
0xY
BLDG SPLYS
BLDG SPLYS
BLDG SPLYS
BLDG SPLYS
MC MIX
DSK CAL
INDEX CARDS
TYPE RTBBCNS
TYPE RIBBONS
DISK TRAY EDP BOR
FILE TRAY
RIBBONS
DISKETTES
MISC SPLYS
MISC SPLYS
FILE FOLDERS
PARTS
3/29 'AYRCLL
3/29PAYRCLL
3/29 PAYRQLL
3f29PAYROLL
3/29PAYRCLL
3/29PAYROLL
3/29PAYROLL
3/29 PAYROLL
3/29PAYROLL
3/29PAYROLL
APR PPEM
APR PREM
APR,PREM
ACCOUNT NO. INV.A
01-4305-050-.5r
01-4305-050-5 4
16-4305-850-00 371:
16-4305-850-00 37V
16-4305-850-00 371
16-4305-850-00 371
01-4422-050-50 111
01-4300.020-20
01-4300-020-20
01-4300-050-50
01-4300-050-50
01-4300-110-10
01-4300-110-10
01-4300-110-10
01-4300-110-1
01-4300-110-16
05-4300-105-15
05.-4300-105-15
P3i
P3`.
P35
P3i
801
P3i
80;
)1
e3E
P3i
801
01-4330-490-50 10b
01..2062-000-00,
01-4134-020-20
01-4134-021-20
01-4134-030-30
01-4134-040-40
01-4134-050-50
01-4134-070-70
01-4134-110-10
05-41 34-105-15
15-4134-060-60
01-2074-000-0=
01-4131-021-21.
01-4131-110-10
AMOUNT
38.34
38.34 *
79.17
29.70
19.:0
9.90
138.57
50.00
50.00 *i
24.32
24.32 *-
267.46
284.36
551.82 *,,
42,542.02
270.97
2,627.21
62.40
1,463,462.30
1 ,908.79
364.86
15.30
145.33
38.34
CHECK REGISTER
VE ND03
SUN NEWSFAPERS
UNITED CENT TRUSTEE
UNITED CENT TRUSTEE
UNITED CENT TRUSTEE
UNITED CE'JT TRUSTEE
UNIV 3F MINN
ZIEGLER I'\C
ZIEGLER TITRE SVC CO
ZIEGL.ER TIRE SVC CO
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
1 ,511 ,43'.22 TOTAL
01
03
05
07
14
15
16
23
63
94
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
ITEM DESCRIPTION
HRG NOT 84-3
APRPREM
APRPREM
APR PREM
APRPREM
MPWA CONF PLOUMEN
CLIP/TUBE
TIRES2281
TIRES2290
GENERAL FUND
WATER REVENUE FUND
ENGR ENTERPRISE
CIVIL DEFENSE
CONSOLIDATED DEBT SERVIC
SEWER UTILITY
TID I79-7/81-4/82-2/82-6
CABLE TV FRANCHISE
179-13/82-3/82-4 49435E
I84-3 CL THOMP IVY HILL
ACCOUNT NO. IN1
94-4240-821-00
01-2071-000-00
01-4132-020-20
01-4132-050-50
01-41 32-070-70
01-4400-750-50
01-4330-490-50
01-4330-460-30
01-4330-460-30
MANUAL CHECKS
10732 26.00 City :lplwd Regr Spring Banquet
10733 289.37 U.S.POst Ofc _1st Qtr Swr
10734 100.00 Ramsey County Typewriter F.D.
10735 176.31 Prudential Ins April Prem Dental
10736 4,892.53 Dir Int Rev 3/29 Payroll W/H
10737 2,614.28• St Treas SS
10738 475.00 DC Bank 3/29 Bayroll Deductions
10739 1,323.72 SCCU
10740 23,717.54 City MH Pr Acct Net Payroll 3/29
10742 50.00 Cragun Conf Cntr Lodging Dep Frazell
10743 12.00 Mn Div IAI Regr. Lange
10744 3,366.00 MWCC March Sac
10745 194.27 M.H. Fird Dept Reimb Exp FS
10746 782,03 Gerald Nelson Labor/matls F.S.
10747 895.00 D C Hey Co Copy Machine F.D.
38,914.05
GT 1,550,351.27
page two
Resume - Paul M. Kaiser
QUALIFICATIONS:
.22% years with the Richfield Fire Department ( a full
time position)
19 of these years as a fire captain
8 of these years as a fire inspector
.Completed 120 hour Minn. State Fire Marshals Fire
Inspection school.
.Completed all requirements for an A/S degree in Fire
Science - Metropolitan Community College
.4 years instructor at State Fire School
.4 years coordinator Richfield Civil Defense fire reserves
.Past member of Metropolitan Fire Prevention Council
.Completed blueprint reading class, Hennepin County
Vo -tech.
.Attended many seminars, on inspections presented by
the National Fire Academy, various insurance companies,
and the Minnesota State Fire Marshals office.
.Investigated fires within my jurisdiction.
ASSESSMENT PERIOD
Sanitary Sewers - 19 years
Wtr. Service - 19 years
Storm Sewers - 19 years
PARCEL
N0.
27-17851-
010-01
27-17851-
020-01
27-17851-
030-01
27-17851-
040-01
REPUTED OWNER AND
DESCRIPTION
Clapp-Thomssen Company
4 E 4th Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Clapp-Thomssen Company
4 E 4th Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Clapp-Thomssen Company
4 E 4th Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Clapp-Thomssen Company
4 E 4th Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ASSESSMENT ROLL
CLAPP-THOMSSEN IVY HILL 2ND
IMPROVEMENT NO. 84-3
JOB NO. 8421
ADOPTED
SUBDIVISION LOT BLK
NO. NO.
Clapp-Thomssen
Ivy Hills 2nd
Addition
Clapp-Thomssen
Ivy Hills 2nd
Addition
Clapp-Thomssen
Ivy Hills 2nd
Addition
Clapp-Thomssen
Ivy Hills 2nd
Addition
2 1
3 1
4 1
ASSESSMENT RATES
San. Swrs. - 2997.12 per unit
Wtr. Services- 1874.42 per unit
Storm Sewers - 1407.24 per unit
SANITARY WATER STORM TOTAL
SEWERS SERVICES SEWERS
2997.12 1874.42 1407.24 6278.78
2997.12 1874.42 1407.24 6278.78
2997.12 1874.42 1407.24 6278.78
2997.12 1874.42 1407.24 6278.78
KLAYTON ECKLES RESUME OF QUALIFICATIONS
812 SE 4th Street, Apt. #103 Telephone: 612/379-3042
Minneapolis, MN 55414 612/420-3460
EDUCATION:
WORK HISTORY:
•1982 -Present
1979-1980
1977-1982
ACTIVITIES:
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Bachelor of Civil Engineering Degree - June 1985
Concentration in Water Resources Engineering. GPA is 3.38
in field of concentraiton. Academic scholarships 1981, 1982,
1983. Dean's List 1984. Paid for 100% of tuition.
Courses of Interest: Hydrologic Engineering, Water Resources,
Fluid Mechanics, Open Channel Flow, Water Quality Engineering,
Critical Soil Mechanics, Linear Structures, Design Metal
Structures, Thermodynamics, and Computer Science. Senior
Project involved designing an economically feasible water
treatment and distribution system.
ENGINEERING AIDE
City of Maple Grove, MN
Responsibilities include: Coordination and inspection of street
and utility projects, redesign and implementation of drainage
routing, a feasibility study for a water treatment plant, and
investigation of traffic flow. Worked extensively with city
personnel, private contractors, developers, and the public.
RETAIL SALES
Dayton's Garden Center, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota
Responsibilities include: Product marketing, customer service
and daily accounting and inventory records.
GROUNDS KEEPER
Winnetka Dental, New Hope, Minnesota
Worked throughout the academic year.
Vice President and Scholarship Chairman of Sigma Chi Fraternity
Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
Participant, triathlons and scuba diving
Volunteer Swim Coach
• Fund raisers for Children's Heart Fund
REFERENCES AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
INTERNAL COMPARABILITY
POSITION EVALUATION SYSTEM
This system provides a quantitative measure of the relative value of
each City position, based on four factors:
I. Minimum Education and Experience Required.
II. Independence and Impact of Judgement.
III. Interpersonal and Public Relations Skills Required.
IV. Supervisory Responsibility.
There are a total of 35 possible points, 10 each on factor I, II, and
IV, and 5 on factor III. Factors I and II are subdivided into two
parts, each worth up to 5 points; the two subparts are combined to
derive the total factor rating.
For each factor or sub -factor, the position earns the number of points
corresponding to the phrase most nearly describing the level of
qualification or responsiblity required.
FACTOR I - EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED
Education:
1. High School
2. High School, supplemented by some post secondary training.
3. 2 year A.A. or technical certification degree.
4. Bachelor's Degree.
5. Post graduate education.
Experience:
1. No previous experience.
2. 1 year previous experience.
3. 2 to 3 years previous experience.
4. 4 to 5 years previous experience.
5. Over 5 years, increasingly responsible experience.
Score - Add the two
FACTOR II - INDEPENDENCE AND IMPACT OF JUDGEMENT
Independence:
1. Carries out routine duties under close supervision; little
independent judgement.
2. Some independent judgement within well-defined limits and
procedures.
3. Independent and interpretive judgement required to execute
duties within general administrative guidelines.
4. General independence to carry out responsibilities within
broad City policies.
5. Responsible to address, define and recommend broad City
policies.
Impact of Judgement (Decisions Made):
1. Neglible
2. Limited
3. Important
4. Substantial
5. Strategic
Score - Add the two
FACTOR III - INTERPERSONAL AND PUBLIC RELATIONS SKILLS
1. Minimal or no contacts
2. Contacts requiring courtesy, and exchange of routine
information.
“
3. Contacts requiring ability to explain City programs and
policies tactfully, and to take complex information
accurately.
4. Contacts requiring representation of City policies tactfully
and successfully, frequently in a tense or confrontational
setting.
5. Public representation of the City and its policies to
citizens, elected officials, civic groups, businesses, and
other governmental agencies.
Score
FACTOR IV - SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITY
Position earns 1 point foreachdirectly supervised position, and
1/2 point for each indirectly supervised position, up to a maximum
10 possible points.
Scoring:
Factor I
Factor II
Factor III .
Factor IV
Total Points
Score
Position: Civil Engineer I
Incumbent: N/A
Current Salary: N/A
External Comparison:
The position compares almost identically to Stanton Job No. 17, Civil
Engineer I.
As there were no 5-10K cities, nor Dakota County cities with this position
reported, the comparison made is for the average of all reporting employees,
including State agencies. Compensation for this position does not vary much by
size or type of employer'.
The average reported Stanton salary (in 1985) . $25,641.
Internal Comparison:
Position point value =17, derived as follows:
Factor I
Sub -factor A = 4
Sub -factor B = 1
Factor II
Sub -factor A = 4
Sub -factor B = 4
Factor III
Factor IV
Total Points
=4
=0
=17
17 points at $1,237 each = $21,029 (1983). Updated for 1985, it equals $23,184.
CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATION
Grade XIV, 1985 target salary of $25,716.
JUSTIFICATION:
When we adopted the Comprehensive Pay Plan in 1983, we recognized that
market salaries for engineers and technicians were routinely higher than would be
indicated by the factors of internal comparison. In order to attract and retain
a competent engineering staff, we opted to classify these positions at market
competitive levels. The Grade XIV recommendation for the Civil Engineer I is
consistent with that precedent.
RESOLUTION -- ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
EMPLOYEES PAY CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE
GRADE AND STEP MATRIX
1985
GRADE A B C D E* F G
I 11,220 11,781 12,370 12,988 13,638 14,320 15,036
II 11,781 12,370 12,988 13,638 14,320 15,036 15,788
III 12,370 12,988 13,638 14,320 15,036 15,788 16,577
IV 12,988 13,638 14,320 15,036 15,788 16,577 17,406
V 13,638 14,320 15,036 15,788 16,577 17,406 18,276
VI 14,320 15,036 15,788 16,577 17,406 18,276' 19,190
VII 15,036 15,788 16,577 17,406 18,276 19,190 20,149
VIII 15,788 16,577 17,406 18,276 19,190 20,149 21,157
IX 16,577 17,406 18,276 19,190 20,149 21,157 22,215
X 17,406 18,276 19,190 20,149 21,157 22,215 23,325
XI 18,276 ' 19,190 20,149 21;157 22,215 23,325 24,491
XII 19,190 20,149 21,157 22,215 23,325 24,492 25,71'
XIII 20,149 21,157 22,215 23,325 24,492 25,716 27,C
XIV 21,157 22,215 23,325 24,492 25.316______21_002 28,35z
XV 22,215 23,325 24,492 25,716 27,002 28,352 29,770
XVI 23,325 24,492 25,716 27,002 28,352 29,770 31,258
XVII 24,492 25,716 27,002 28,352 29,770 31,258 32,821
XVIII 25,716 27,002 28,352 29,770 31,258 32,821 34,462
XIX 27,002 28,352 29,770 31,258 32,821 34,462 36,185
XX 28,352 29,770 31,258 32,821 34,462 36,185 37,994
XXI 29,770 31,258 32,821 34,462 36,185 37,994 39,894
XXII 31,258 32,821 34,462 36,185 37,994 39,894 41,889
XXIII 32,821 34,462 36,185 37,994 39,894 41,889 43,983
XXIV 34,462 36,185 37,994 39,894 41,889 43,983 46,182
XXV 36,185 37,994 39,894 41,889 43,983 46,182 48,491
* Target Salary
TABLE Qk CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Experience and Qualifications 1
B. Client References 2
C. Project Personnel 3
II. PROPOSED CONSULTING SERVICES 5
1. Needs Analysis 8
2. Information Planning 9
3. Strategy Evaluation 9
4. Requirements Analysis 10
5. Implementation 11
III. PROJECT PLAN 12
IV. FEE CALCULATION 15
V. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 16
Affidavit of No Conflict of Interest
Consulting Services Agreement
EXHIBITS
1. INFORMATION SYSTEMS PLANNING MODEL 7
2. TASK SCHEDULE 14
I. INTRODUCTION
This proposal is in response to a Request for Proposal to supply Consulting
Services to assist the City of Mendota Heights in the development of an
Information System for the City. The data contained herein is furnished by
DSM Information Services, Inc. and describes as accurately as possible the
methodology, resources and individuals proposed to be used by us to perform the
functions contemplated by the City.
A. Experience and Qualifications
DSM Information Services' mission is to provide professional consulting
services to both the public and private sector. We offer management
counseling, long range planning, information systems design, workshops
in data processing techniques, project management, and systems design
services.
The DSM consulting team offers a unique blend of professionals, brought
together to provide the necessary expertise to assist The City of Mendota
Heights throughout the development of their Information System. Dave
McCauley, our Principal Consultant, has served as both a Mayor and
Councilman. Dave understands how municipal government works and brings
that insight to your computerization effort.
Our clients are chiefly municipal governments and government related
organizations. During 1984 alone, we assisted in the selection and
acquisition of computing systems and applications software for 6 such
clients. As part of that process we maintain contacts with over 30
vendors offering data processing products to municipal government.
Our envolvement with municipal government and government vendors enables
us to furnish you with consulting services that include a broad and up-to-
date of view of the opportunities and problems associated with
computerization.
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 1
B. Client References
DSM has performed consulting services of a simliar nature for the the
following Minnesota Cities:
Blaine, Minnesota
Champlin, Minnesota (1)
Circle Pines, Minnesota
Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Elk River, Minnesota(1)
Newport, Minnesota
Richfield, Minnesota
Spring Lake Park, Minnesota(1)
Winsted, Minnesota
(1) Work performed as a sub -contractor to another consulting firm.
C. Project Personnel
Our organization offers the City experienced consultants, knowledgeable
in data processing, management and government. The individuals
available to the City for assignment on this project are:
DAVID MCCAULEY - Dave is the President and Principal Consultant at
DSM. Since 1983 Dave has led DSM's government consulting effort.
He has a wide range of technical and managerial experience in the field
of Management Information Systems; directing the planning,
designing, and implementation of major information processing
systems. He has assisted in the development of computer software
for professional office management and has extensive background in
information storage and retrieval using data base management
systems. In the field of small computers, Mr. McCauley led the
development of a successful nationwide mini -computer distributive
network for a large paper manufacturing firm and conducts a workshop
series dealing with the use of micro -computers in government and
small organizations.
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 2
A leading proponent of Long Range Strategic Planning for Management
Information Systems, Mr. McCauley has developed and uses a planning
methodology adaptable to both public and private sector
organizations. Drawn from 24 years experience data processing this
methodology is directed at providing a usable process that can be
operated by all levels of management.
In addition to his many years of data processing experience, Mr.
McCauley has a distinguished record of government service, serving as
both Mayor and City Councilman in Coon Rapids, Minnesota, a large
suburban metropolitan community. He has also served as a Planning
Commissioner, Charter Commission Chairman, Citizen's Tax Study
Commission Chairman, Anoka County Grand Jury Foreman and member of
the Governor's Loaned Executive Program.
Mr. McCauley is a graduate of the University of Minnesota, where he
earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration. He
has prepared and conducted workshops and seminars dealing with such
subjects as Computer Concepts, Long Range Planning, and Computer
Acquisition. He is a member of the Association of Systems
Management.
DOUG BROWN - In the past eighteen years Mr. Brown has worked as a
Programmer/Analyst, Application System Designer and Technical
Representative. During his career he specialized in computer user
education and data processing project management. He has conducted
training classes for technical and non-technical students, and has
developed a wide variety of procedures, manuals, forms and processes
for use within data processing organizations.
His background in computer applications systems design coupled with
his experience in training and procedures enable Doug to bring a unique
understanding of the users point of view to the solution of information
systems problems.
Mr. Brown possess extensive background in computer programming and
computer systems design. He is experienced in such programming
languages as COBOL, FOCUS, MARK -IV and EXFOR (an extended version of
FORTRAN). His applications background includes work in Banking,
Hospitalization, Manufacturing and Time- sharing industries. He has
been involved in the development of Payroll, Accounting, Patient
Records and Accounting, Personnel and Sales Analysis systems.
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 3
Mr. McCauley will be Principal Consultant for the City of Mendota Heights
and provide most of the consulting services. He will be assisted when
necessary by Mr. Brown.
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 4
I I . PROPOSED CONSULTING SERVICES
Planning is an essential ingredient to the effective operation of an
Information System. Without an accurate understanding of the direction of
your organization, its information needs, and the strategies employed to
satisfy those needs, your ability to gain maximum advantage from your
computer system is limited. Overcoming this problem is the primary purpose
of the Planning Methodology described here.
The planning model that we work from has been specifically designed for
implementing an Information System. The model focuses on developing
specific system objectives, based on predetermined City goals and strategies,
and then on organizing the implementation program to successfully accomplish
those objectives.
We, as consultants, provide the expertise, project management, and supply the
major work effort. However, we cannot provide the organizational dialogue and
feedback necessary to refine the direction and final product of the planning
process. For this reason, we recommend that the City consider forming a
Project Team to work with us throughout the process. This team should be
composed of management and staff. The successful implementation of the
Information System will then be a product of the entire City staff and will
reflect the attitudes and experience of the entire organization.
We recommend beginning the effort by conducting an in-depth workshop for the
Team. The workshop explains the planning process, helps the Team define
objectives and plan project. We expect to work closely with the Team members
and to consult them frequently as the project progresses.
There are five phases in the process and each phase is designed to produce a
deliverable product. The phases integrate the information produced in the
preceeding phases and the combined result is a complete Information Systems
Plan.
The first four phases of the process are directed at understanding the City's
information needs, and developing a feasible approach to supplying the data
processing services necessary to implement an Information System that will
satisfy those needs. This process allows a "top-down" approach to planning;
issues effecting the City organization and requiring management decisions are
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 5
addressed first (avoiding the necessity to re-plan which may happen if top
levels of the organization are involved last).
The outline that follows is a brief overview of the process and is intended to
introduce the planning concept and define each of the five planning steps:
Needs Analysis, Information Planning, Strategy Assessment, Requirements
Analysis, and Implemetation.
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 6
EXHIBIT .1 INFORkATION SYSTEMS PLANNING MODEL
CITY PROJECT TEAM
v
NEEDS
ANALYSIS
I
v
NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
REPORT
v
»>
v
INFORMATION
PLANNING
I
v
INFORMATION
PLAN
REPORT
»>
STRATEGY
ASSESSMENT
v
INFORMATION
PROCESSING
STRATEGY
REPORT
»>
v
REQUIREMENTS
NALYSIS
I
v
SYSTEM
SPECIFICATION
REPORT
v v
I
v
IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAM
v
REQUEST
FO
PROPOSAL
i
v
PROPOSAL
EVALUATION
v
HARDWARE
SOFTWARE
CONTRACTS
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 7
1. NEEDS ANALYSIS
The first step in the development of an over-all Information System is to
determine the factors which will effect the system's design and use. We
propose to carry out an investigation, focusing on specific areas effecting the
City's information needs:
Environment - We identify and evaluate factors which impact the City's
information needs - such items as:
Current City services and service levels
Potential for new services
Financial constraints
City growth and development
Internal Organization
LOGIS
Existing Micro -computers
Office space.
Issues - We search out specific problems and opportunities which should be
be addressed in the planning process. Areas such as - the City's
continued involvement with LOGIS, the change in the water utility, and so
on - will be examined to determine their relationship to any change in the
City's information processing system.
Existing Information System - We examine all processes presently used by
the City to collect, analyze, store and distribute information - policies,
procedures, forms, files, filing systems, reports, and existing data
processing applications.
Organization - All departments and activities are examined to determine
their role in the information process and to determine their information
requirements.
Assessing the impact of these factors on the City Government and their
subsequent impact on the Information System is the important first step in the
development of the System.
The results of our analysis are presented in a report - NEEDS ANALYSIS. This
report will contain the basic data for the next phase and it's recommendations
will describe the actions necessary to meet the City's information needs.
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 8
2. INFORMATION PLANNING
This phase provides a detailed understanding of the information requirements
of the City. Several analytical processes will be used to generate an
Information Architecture which will provide the base for the development of
the overall system.
The Consultants will conduct an examination of current information processes
and provide the City with a detailed report. This report will describe the
requirements for such items as:
- Information Processes (forms, files, procedures).
- Information System Architecture.
- Organizational Requirements.
- Staffing and Training.
- Office Layout and potential space requirements.
A second element in the development of an overall plan is to identify a set of
information system goals. The potential for successful implementation of an
Information System is greatly improved if the system designers define goals
before they begin.
Our approach is to work with the Project Team on preparation of goals of two
types: City Goals - which are externally oriented and directed toward the
services provided by the government to the residents, and Organization Goals -
which are internally oriented and directed toward management and staff
services.
Adopting a specific set goals, that the city organization can work toward
before the Information System is designed, insures that that the Plan will be
future oriented and more closely synchronized with the current and future
needs of the City. One benefit of this approach is to provide an on-going
mechanism for maintaining the consistency of the Information System to the
future goals of the City. As decisions are made, their effect on the System
can be determined through examination of the current goals - if the goals have
changed the plan may need to be updated.
3. STRATEGY EVALUATION
The element missing from many Information System Plans is a clear
understanding of what overall course of action should be used to implement the
plan. The evaluation and selection of specific strategies is a vital element
in the successful implementation of the plan.
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 9
A strategy is a broad course of action, selected to accomplish specific goals.
The process of developing and selecting the proper strategies requires that we
understand the environment (resources and constraints)) and that we have
selected specific goals. Knowledge of those two items enables the selection
of strategic alternatives for evaluation.
Once the Project Team has agreed on goals, we will develop a set of strategic
alternatives. Each alternative will be evaluated using such tools as
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS and SUCCESS FACTOR ANALYSIS.
Cost/benefit Analysis will insure the feasibility of the selected
alternatives.
Success Factor Analysis is a process that improves the probability of success
of the final selection by defining those elements that must be present in a
successful system and then examining each alternative to see how well they
supply those elements.
Our report will recommend a specific course of action for the City in the
selection and development of an Information System based on the alternatives
available and the our analysis.
4. REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
This phase of the project defines the specific elements of the Information
System. This definition is in the form of a SYSTEM SPECIFICATION which
describes the features and functions necessary for efficient and effective
operation of each element of the system. Elements included in the
Specification include:
- Operating characteristics
- Storage .volume requirements
- Forms and reports
- On-line access
- Equipment requirements.
The design of the Specification is such that it can be incorporated directly
into a bidding document when the City initiates the Implementation Process.
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 10
5. IMPLEMENTATION
If the City determines it is feasible to proceed and the recommended solution
includes the purchase of software, hardware or services, we propose to assist
the City throughout the process of implementing that decision.
We will begin by preparing a Request For Proposal (RFP). We will assist the
City in the distribution of that RFP by furnishing names of potential vendors
and researching potential hardware! software solutions.
After proposals are received, we will assist the City in the development of an
evaluation process. This evaluation will enable the City to determine which
Proposal most closely fulfils their requirements. The evaluation will also
include any lease/purchase calculations necessary to provide the City with an
accurate means of determining which proposals most cost effective.
Once the best proposal has been designated, the Consultant will assist in any
necessary contract negotiations and in the preparation of all contract
documents with respect to performance requirements, vendor support, system
maintenance and other technical requirements.
We will help the City during the actual installation of equipment and software,
and assist in the preparation of policies and procedures for managing and
operating the System.
After the installation process is complete we will perform a post -
implementation audit and report any recommended modifications which may be
required to help maintain an efficient and effective System.
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 11
<t,
III. PROJECT PLAN
The time estimates given for the project are based on our experience with
similar projects in the public sector and reflect the need to coordinate project
plans with the meeting schedules of staff and the City Council. The
availability of staff individuals must also be considered in defining
schedules; the one we recommend is designed to minimize interference with the
normal staff work load. We are flexible and willing to accommodate your
schedule.
PHASE I - NEEDS ANALYSIS.
1.1 Data Collection - Staff interviews and research.
1.2 Departmental analysis - analysis of existing systems operation
and user attitudes.
1.3 Report preparation and presentation.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION TIME - 4 WEEKS
PHASE II - INFORMATION PLANNING.
2.1 Goal development workshop.
2.2 Information Architecture development.
2.3 Develop Organization requirements.
2.4 Report preparation and presentation.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION TIME - 4 WEEKS
PHASE III - STRATEGY EVALUATION.
3.1 Project Team Workshop.
3.2 Evaluate processing options.
3.3 Review Technology issues.
3.4 Select Strategic Alternatives.
3.5 Cost/Benefit Analysis.
3.6 Success Factor Analysis.
3.7 Report preparation and presentation.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION TIME - 3 WEEKS
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 12
s.
PHASE IV - REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS.
4.1 Prepare system objectives.
4.2 Prepare System Specification.
4.3 Report preparation and presentation.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION TIME - 3 WEEKS
PHASE V - IMPLEMENTATION.
5.1 prepare Request For Proposal.
5.2 Proposal distribution.
5.3 Proposal evaluation.
5.4 Contract negotiation.
5.5 Training and Installation.
5.6 Policy and Procedure development.
5.7 Post -audit review.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION TIME - 20 WEEKS (Based on bidding requirements
and normal vendor delivery schedules of 90 days).
ESTIMATED TOTAL COMPLETION TIME - 34 WEEKS.
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 13
EXHIBIT 2 - TASK SCHEDULE
WEEK NUMBER
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
PHASE/TASK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
+ + + + +-----+ + + + + + +
PHASE 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
PHASE II
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.11
PHASE III
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.11
3.5
3.6
3.7
PHASE IV
4.1
11.2
11.3
PHASE V
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
X
X X
X X
R
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
R
X
X
X
R
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 14
X
X
X
R
IV. FEE CALCULATION
The schedule used to calculate fees is
PROJECT
PHASE
I
II
III
IV
VI
Principal Consultant
Consultant
NEEDS ANALYSIS
INFORMATION PLANNING
STRATEGY EVALUATION
REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
IMPLEMENTATION
TOTAL EFFORT
ESTIMATED COST
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE
as follows:
$60.00/hr
$45.00/hr
PRINCIPAL
CONSULTANT CONSULTANT
30 hrs
16
14
16
124 hrs
8 hrs
8
32 hrs
$7,440.00 $1,440.00
$8,880.00
We propose to complete the effort described in this proposal for total fee not to exceed
$8,880.00. Fees for each phase of the project shall be as follows:
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV
Phase V
TOTAL
$2,160.00
$960.00
$840.00
$1,320.00.
$3,600.00
$8,880.00
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 15
V. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
The following documents are an AFFIDAVIT OF NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST and our
standard CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT.
We feel that it is important that the City's interests are protected through
this process by engaging a firm that is not involved any activity related to the
sale of computer equipment or software. DSM believes that we can better
consulting services by concentrating all our efforts in that area.
We offer you our standard Consulting Agreement. We are willing to consider
any reasonable modifications that you may wish make to this agreement. You
will note that we quote a "cost not to exceed" amount. It is our experience
that this method of defining the project cost is in the best interest of both the
consultant - we are not under any pressure to scrimp on work effort and the City
need not be concerned about the consultant running up the cost.
City of Mendota Heights
Proposal Page 16
•
Se
7
",�
FF131./.0
O
fo
4
REMOVE 10' CHAIN LINK
FENCE SECTION AS
SPECIFIED
0
/
' —p.-� \\ %/
oop %
00
•/ - "
•
♦•
•
\
•
•
•
t)1/46
RoERS
1 1N,.Yy Col My Th.1 Thl. N.n W.. P..po*N Sy M. 0. UM., ..y
Oi,.cl e.....N1.l1 AM Th.11 AT A OWy R•11816fIld MI...Nno*
G,dh,.., Undo* Th. L... 01 The 71.1. 01 Ukm..t..
NORTH
SCALE.
Plan.
I11= 1001
REVISED TO SHOW
AS -BUILT CONDITIONS
Dale:
DRAWN BY: ,!�•
SHEET NO.
2 °f 5
BACKBONE TRAIL SYSTEM
Mendota Heights Rd to Wagon Wheel Trail
JOB No. 8410
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGIITS
750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights. Minnesota
ALTERNATE ROUTE
C.R. 43 LEXINGTON AVE.'
J
THERESA ST.
24
O±J4AZt
(Z)
ct-Qv
STH' 110 EB.
_______________�� I ,
i
i
I
1
I
L ,
w
a
J
a
0
LEXINGTON AVE.
9
TWIN CIRCLE DRIVE
ll
II
11
II
MARIE AVE
1 II.r..T C.rdN MN TM. PIM W.* TlrMarN Ay M. d UAM. My
O1.K1 a.I..N.MM And TAW 1 Am A OMIT a.ONl.r./ n..NWM1
WINN Undm Th L... Of TM 01.1. 01 .IN.MNI.,
40 a.r..lM.
:9+
C.R. 43
NOIITH
SCALE.
Plan:
111=1001
REVISED TO SNOW
AS -BUILT CONDITIONS
Dale:
t3RAWN BY: %»
SHEETNO.
3ot5
BACKBONE TRAIL SYSTEM
South of T.H.IIO to Marie Ave.
JOB No. 8410
ilkCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
760 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights. Minnesota
IT
18
19
B/k 4
20
21
22
CURL
EYS
L L (Y
V/EW
5
4
3
2
1
THERESA ST.
24
O±J4AZt
(Z)
ct-Qv
STH' 110 EB.
_______________�� I ,
i
i
I
1
I
L ,
w
a
J
a
0
LEXINGTON AVE.
9
TWIN CIRCLE DRIVE
ll
II
11
II
MARIE AVE
1 II.r..T C.rdN MN TM. PIM W.* TlrMarN Ay M. d UAM. My
O1.K1 a.I..N.MM And TAW 1 Am A OMIT a.ONl.r./ n..NWM1
WINN Undm Th L... Of TM 01.1. 01 .IN.MNI.,
40 a.r..lM.
:9+
C.R. 43
NOIITH
SCALE.
Plan:
111=1001
REVISED TO SNOW
AS -BUILT CONDITIONS
Dale:
t3RAWN BY: %»
SHEETNO.
3ot5
BACKBONE TRAIL SYSTEM
South of T.H.IIO to Marie Ave.
JOB No. 8410
ilkCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
760 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights. Minnesota
5
LFL�
6
It
•
27'- 36'
FUTURE CONSTRUCT TRAIL EXISTING TRAIL ON
ALONG R.O.W. TRAIL CITY STREETS
TRAIL
01,
/J
♦ fid/ w
'1111
. _ �o■�aDisov�
%Fines
i14ai-1i3�� .iabD11/RIE P41lii� 11 11 141.)11111114
•
•
•
CONSTRUCT TRAIL
ALONGSIDE LEXINGTON
r
1i 0
FI
z
0
11
it
•
TYPICAL SECTION A
4-
•
I
TYPICAL SECTION STA. 0+00 - 39+00
FROM MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD THRU CITY DARK TO WAGON WHEEL TRAIL
& CURLEY EASEMENT FROM MARY ADELE TO LEXINGTON (2301±)
10'
EASTING
BITUMINOUS
EXISTING
GRAVEL
SHOULDER
EXISTING
GROUND
TYPICAL SECTION B
STA 308.25 — 313+75 AND
STA 289+00 — 296+50
16'
EXISTING
BITUMINOUS
STRIP
TOPSOIL
OUT TO CI
COMPACTED
FILL
211 BIT.
WEARING
2341
STRIP
TOPSOX. OUT
T011
4" CLASS 5
CRUSHED ROCK
COMPACTED
SUBGRADE
COMPACTED
FILL
<>mi1NG
GROUND
A
N
IT
mis mon
In 10l -
N
•
SCALE /1•400'
00
Al
DO
.
•
•
•
•
.
.
•
4•
.
•
.
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
BACKBONE TRAIL SYSTEM
MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD — MARIE AVE.
JOB 8410
i /.«•.T C«tt/T Ttu1 TMs Pim W» P.M..*. h M. Or 464/.* MT
00.44 IIup...1.1•* tnt TMt t Mn A 0.14 0.10Ix.44 41.4.00.0
tntin..l Undo/ TM 1... 01 TM 14.4. 0/ MI....I..
/f(? -1-1.14--
m .[ i Ak w
Sheet
of 5