The URL can be used to link to this page

2017-05-02 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA May 2, 2017 – 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of April 18, 2017 City Council Minutes b. Approve Personnel Action -- Acceptance of Police Officer Resignation c. Approve Resolution 2017-34 Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation d. Approve Resolution 2017-33 Calling for Public Hearing on MnDOT Highway 149 Rehabilitation Project e. Rogers Lake Aquatic Weed Treatment f. Approve Out of State Travel Request – Fire Chief g. Approve Ordinance 509 Amending City Code Section 7-2 Fire Code h. Acknowledge March 2017 Building Activity Report i. Approval of March 2017 Treasurer’s Report j. Approval of Claims List 6. Public Comments 7. Presentations - none 8. Public Hearing - none 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2017-35 Calling for a Public Hearing regarding the Creation of a Redevelopment District for the Mendota Motel/Larson Greenhouse Site b. Resolution 2017-31 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Randy and Becky Pentel, 815 Deer Trail Court c. Resolution 2017-32 Approving the Final Plat of The Oaks of Mendota Heights, 2511 – 2525 Condon Court d. Council Direction of a Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Pylon/Freestanding Signs in the B-1 and B-1A Commercial Districts e. Authorize Request for Proposals for the Completion of a Job Classification and Compensation Study f. Set City Council W orkshop Date for Goal Setting Session 10. Community Announcements 11. Council Comments 12. Adjourn CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, April 18, 2017 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers Miller, Petschel, and Paper were also present. Councilmember Duggan was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilmember Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilmember Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein a. Approval of March 28, 2017 City Council Minutes b. Approve Temporary 3.2 Malt Liquor License for Mendota Elementary PTA for Apr 22, 2017 c. Approve Temporary Liquor License for St. Thomas Academy for April 29, 2017 d. Approve Resolution 2017-30 Accept Bids-Award Contract for 2017 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Televising Project – Pipe Services Corporation e. Approve 2017 Workers Compensation Insurance Renewal f. Approve Resolution 2017-29 Designating ICMA-RC Plan Coordinator, Assistant City Administrator g. Approve Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) With Dakota County for Pictometry h. Approve Mold Remediation Contractor - ShelterTech i. Acknowledge March 2017 Fire Synopsis j. Approval of Claims List page 3 Councilmember Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. PRESENTATIONS A) RECOGNITION OF GAROLD “JERRY” MURPHY COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD RECIPIENT Councilmember Petschel explained that she served on the Jerry Murphy Award Committee and she introduced Mr. Brian Convery and Ms. Jenny Fordham to assist with the presentation of this award. Councilmember Petschel shared the background of Jerry Murphy and the contributions he made to the City. She noted the criteria nominees should have to be considered for this award. Sergeant Brian Convery shared his thoughts and memories from working with Jerry. Ms. Jenny Fordham, who nominated Mr. Kronschnabel for this award, explained her reasons for nominating him. Councilmember Petschel then presented Mr. Kronschnabel with his award plaque. A permanent display has been created in the Mendota Heights City Hall lobby. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Megan Ramirez, 668 1st Avenue, addressed the issue of cars speeding on 1st Avenue. This street is considered a cut-through between Highway 149 and Interstate 35E. She mentioned there are 19 children living on this street and no sidewalks. She addressed this issue with the City Administrator in 2015 and the Police Department’s speed cart was placed on this street which deterred speeding for a short time. She stated this issue is on the agenda for the next Traffic Safety Committee meeting, a date which is yet to be determined. She was also directed to speak to the Dakota County Highway Department, who informed her that they want to hear from the City on this. Neighbors from the area were in attendance to support the concerns raised. Ms. Gayra Ostgaard-Eliou, 651 1st Avenue, is home during the day and has seen semi-trucks using 1st Avenue as a cut-through. These trucks travel fast making their cargo hauls dangerous. page 4 Ms. Rhonda Simonson, 1399 Clement Street (corner of 1st & Clement), her husband came before the Council in early 1980’s to address this issue. She recommended a public service campaign advocating good manners when traveling through neighborhoods. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that he would work with Mr. Ruzek to get a Traffic Safety Committee meeting scheduled by the middle of May. Mr. Jack Koegel, Swan Drive, noted that on Wagon Wheel there are people that fish on each side of the road. There were seven people there last night at 9:30 p.m., and the kids run back and forth across the street. The previous City Engineer stated he was going to post 20 mph signs there. The residents put up fencing last year, which was torn down. He said that the situation has gone from bad to worse. Mr. Michael Toth, 849 Cheri Lane, also a member of the Park-Rec Commission, stated that Rogers Lake Association members have many concerns about people fishing at Rogers Lake. He cited concerns. He suggested that the fencing and a barrier be installed at the ‘fishing spot’ on Wagon Wheel and another pier be installed on Rogers Lake as the current pier gets overcrowded. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) PRESENTATION BY ROGERS AVENUE RESIDENTS RE: SENIOR RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that several months ago the City received a building permit application for a senior residential facility to be located near the intersection of Rogers Avenue and Lake Drive. The residents of that area asked for this item to be put on the agenda tonight. Ms. Annie Broos, 2360 Rogers Avenue, summarized the neighbors’ concerns. She made it clear that everyone supports the mission of this service. The concept has their full support. Their concern is that this is not the right location for this type of place. Mr. Patrick Mathews, 2357 Rogers Avenue, noted the business purpose bothers him but most concerning to him was that there was no notice given to the neighbors. Most of them were unaware that something like this could be built in their neighborhood. There are concerns about parking, children who play in the area being exposed to an increase in traffic levels, and they would like to maintain the residential feel of the neighborhood. Mr. Bernard Miller, 2371 Rogers Avenue, greatly appreciates the environment to be had in their neighborhood, wonderful neighbors with young families; however, they also appreciate the need for good group homes and hospice care and the kind of services they provide. He feels the neighbors do not have information necessary to make an informed and intelligent decision. Ms. Sarah Herschbach, 2344 Kressin Avenue, asked what the formality is for this business to be located in a residential district. City Attorney Tom Lehmann replied that the state legislature has specifically set out in the zoning code, which this Council is bound to follow, just like any other municipality, an exception to this type of business that says ‘to the extent that they meet the requirements – which sets out what sort of business it is – a group home that deals with elderly or deals with other things (other page 5 than sex offenders or juveniles that have issues) it is a permitted use in an R-1 zoning district. There are no requirements that require a notice to the public and there are no requirements that talk about this being a business. Unfortunately, those are questions that should be directed to the legislature that designed this law. There are requirements for other types of businesses, such as a hair salon, etc., however, this specific business – residential care facility for the elderly – is a permitted use in the R-1 zoning district. There are limitations as to how many residents can reside in a group home (up to 6), but there are no limitations in how many facilities can be located in a particular area. He said that the matter that the Council is facing is that they are obligated to follow the state law and the law allows this as an exception to businesses operating in a residential area. Ms. Herschbach noted concerns about other group homes in the area. City Planner Tim Benetti replied that there are a number of different levels of group homes throughout the community which do provide different residential services for elderly, for people with mental issues, for recovering addiction services. To qualify, all are licensed by the State of Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). Once a home has been established or wants to be established, an applicant will submit an application to DHS, and they then go through a strict vetting process. Once the state issues a license, they typically notify the city. Mr. Benetti stated that Heart to Home has not been issued a license for this location yet. Currently, it is only applying for a building permit. After the house is built, if it chooses to go through the application process, it may do that. The state may inspect and issue a license. Councilmember Miller asked if DHS takes into consideration the number of facilities in an area when reviewing an application. Mr. Benetti replied that he is not sure, although they typically do not view that as a factor in their determination for issuing a license. He also noted that the application process for these licenses is very arduous. The typical home is usually not equipped to be a home with services because they have to be fully ADA compliant and brought up to a high standard for code and energy requirements. In this case, Heart to Home is going to build a six bedroom house with the intent of providing elderly care services. Ms. Patty Mathews, 2357 Rogers Avenue, requested that the City be very thorough when dealing with this decision. She also asked that they review the presentation information from the neighbors. She said that she felt that Mendota Heights could be the one to take the lead on changing this legislation. Mr. Don Sullivan, Bluebill Drive, recalled a time when the code stated no one could operate a business out of their home; this facility goes way beyond that. He believes that considerations need to be made for Visitation and St. Thomas – schools that are near this business – and Rogers Lake, a preserved natural entity. Mr. Sullivan said that the interchange at Dodd Road and I-494 was built inadequately and cited concerns with Condon Court and future traffic from the Vikings development in Eagan. He said that he felt that the legislature needs to review the ramifications of their decisions on the residents. Ms. Lisa Johnson, 2371 Kressin Avenue, stated when they purchased their home, they had the intent of raising a family there. However, with this proposal, they are considering moving out of the neighborhood because of the facility across the street. In regards to transparency, they received no notice page 6 even though they share a lot line with the property. She said that having a group home in the neighborhood detracts new families from wanting to move in. Mr. Eddy Drieman, 2356 Swan Drive, stated the fact that Heart to Home does not have a license yet but are being allowed to build this six bedroom facility that really cannot be used as a single-family residence in the future, has to be an eye-opener for the community. He questioned the quantity of these senior places and group homes. An unidentified person asked if these group home facilities pay taxes. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that they are taxed just like any other residential property. Mr. Doug Hennessy, 2351 Swan Drive, a member of the Planning Commission, stated he understood the concerns raised by his neighbors; however, he is in support of this proposal. He has lived near a group home and never had a problem. When his sister was in a similar setting, his family came and went, they were very quiet and respectful, and they did not see a lot of traffic issues. He felt that the proponents of this proposal would like to see the same kind of setting, so that people in the final stages of their lives can be dealt with, with dignity and in the right kind of setting. He encouraged the Council to abide by the state law on this request and move forward. Josh Cesaro-Moxley and Paulette Vrem, owners of Heart to Home, noted that they are very proud of being a part of Mendota Heights for the last ten years. They built their first house on South Bailey Road. Their goal was to help serve a population of seniors that fall through the cracks at big facilities. Their mission is not to become the biggest provider but the best provider. They have accomplished that by good staff to resident ratios, allowing normalcy for seniors. Their other homes in Mendota Heights have been welcomed. At their newest facility on Highway 110, they have asked staff to park completely off the street and out of site, as Heart to Home likes to hold itself to a higher standard. The staff consists of certified nursing assistants or nurses. They do not use temporary workers or independent contractors. Hospice services are allowed on-site if the resident so choses. Concerning property values, Mr. Cesaro-Moxley referenced the home on South Bailey Road, where they were the first people to build a house in that neighborhood since the mid-1980’s. They built that house ten years ago and since that time, there have been five new houses built in the vicinity. Heart to Home sent a letter to the Rogers Avenue residents because it wanted to introduce itself. It has become a resource to neighbors when it has someone in need of placement. The majority of the Heart to Home residents are from Mendota Heights, and their children live in Mendota Heights. Heart to Home owners clarified that it is not a ‘group home’; it is a ‘residential care facility’. This setting works very well for a lot of people. It does not plan on having more than four facilities in Mendota Heights because it is a family-run business. Mr. Jeff Parker, 692 South Freeway Road, noted that he lives near another facility and sees people walking their elderly family members down the street in wheelchairs. He believes that putting this facility on a very busy street would be detrimental and would discourage family members from taking page 7 their loved ones outside to enjoy the weather. They are a business but the facility is actually a large house. They have been very good neighbors to him. Mr. Nathan Herschbach, 2344 Kressin Avenue, noted there is a lot of traffic from St. Thomas, and now adding this facility would increase it. He would like to see Mendota Heights put a limit on the number of these facilities that can be located here. Councilmember Petschel commented that she received a call from former Councilmember Jack Vitelli. His parents have lived in a similar facility and the facility looks just like a regular home. Mr. Vitelli said that his parents have been taken care of with immense dignity. Many of the employees have graduated from St. Thomas Academy, Visitation, or Henry Sibley high schools. Mr. Vitelli asked that a statement be made on his behalf that he believes this would be an asset to the neighborhood and an asset to the City. Mayor Garlock stated that Mr. Vitelli called him noting that he has enjoyed the convenience of being able to drive a short distance to spend time with his parents. He was very complimentary of the service that his parents have received. City Attorney Tom Lehmann clarified that, although he is not an expert on DHS regulations for these licenses, he would think that they would have certain requirements as to how many licenses they could issue in a specific area. This is something the City could look at. This is a legislative decision and specific to the extent that it talks about how it is a permitted use in an R-1 zone. It is something that the Council – and any resident – can address with their local legislator. Currently, owners of facilities are not required to give notice to the residents when they are proposing a new facility. The City is obligated to follow state statutes as they are currently written. The facility will be required to follow all of the requirements of an R-1 zone, just like any other neighbor. If they meet all of the requirements for the zoning, the City cannot deny the request. Administrator McNeill asked for clarification that implementing a density cap has to go through the state, not the local municipality. Attorney Lehmann confirmed. Administrator McNeill noted that he served on a legislative policy committee for cities. This is certainly not the first neighborhood that has expressed concerns about a residential care facility. Discussion has been had at the legislature, and for better or worse, they have determined that group facilities and residential care facilities are something that are beneficial to society and, therefore, have said to cities that these are permitted uses. Mr. Tom Novitzski came forward and stated that he has given his legal time on a pro bono basis to the neighborhood group. He offered his time to the City to assist City Attorney Tom Lehmann and each of the Councilmembers with this issue. He continued by sharing a chart referenced by Ms. Broos in her presentation on the number of anticipated visits to the proposed group home; approximately 10,000 visits per year conservatively. Unfamiliar people coming and going in this small neighborhood with five houses on each side of the street would be a problem. He recognized the need for these services, however, the location is in page 8 question. This will cause irreversible impacts to the neighborhood because once the facility is built, most likely, and it will not revert back to a single family home. He also shared Minnesota Statute 462.357 – Official Controls: Zoning Ordinances and explained what it meant; that cities can regulate the use of the buildings, the structures, and purposes. He pointed out that the statute that governs this has 140 words in the subdivision; however, only 14 of those words deal with ‘housing with services’. This statute then refers the reader to statute 144B which he said is confusing, with inconsistencies, ambiguities, and conflicts. He ended by stating that the City does have the authority to control what comes into the City, and offered 40 hours of pro bono work to assist. City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that, at this point, there is no application for the Council to take action. City Attorney Tom Lehmann explained that this was a presentation at the request of the neighbors. He did hear from Heart to Home that they are willing to sit down with the affected neighbors for further discussion. B) AUTHORIZED THE VILLAGE LOTS PURCHASE AND SALES AGREEMENT City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that this was a request to approve a Purchase and Sales Agreement (PSA) for property owned by the City, which would provide for the site of an apartment building proposed by the Trammel Crow Development Company. This would comprise of three undeveloped lots in The Village, plus the adjacent Outlot D, and a portion of Maple Street to be vacated. He said that Trammel Crow is proposing to construct a five-level apartment building, which would have between 150 and 164 units. The development would be for active seniors, who at least 55 years of age and who are at a point in their life where they want to downsize. The developer anticipates the average age of residents to be 72. Administrator McNeill shared an image of what the site would look like after development with all of the lots being consolidated and the vacation of Maple Street. The development would contain two levels of underground parking. He further explained that the action before the Council was a follow-up from the Letter of Intent that was approved at the March 21, 2017 Council meeting. The City is the property owner and this action would approve the Purchase and Sales Agreement. It would give the developer some assurances that they can continue to have studies completed and obtain the necessary information so the City Council can make an informed decision. From the City’s standpoint, the drawback would be that the City would not be able to market the property for the duration of this application process, which would be approximately six months. Administrator McNeill shared a rendering of what the developer proposes with a view from Dodd Road. The City has had an appraisal completed on the property, which determined the value of the property to be $813,200. That appraisal amount has been accepted by the developer. The developer has also indicated that a traffic study is being completed, and would be available by May 4, 2017. page 9 A community meeting, being hosted by the developer, is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 15, 2017 at St. Paul’s United Methodist Church. This proposal would then move on to the Planning Commission for their consideration at their regular Tuesday, May 23, 2017 meeting. Councilmember Miller stated the Council is destined to have many opportunities to debate the differences between its vision of what this City can become. He sought the expertise of a local real estate developer. He came to understand that this deal falls far short of what they should expect. He said that Mendota Heights is an exceptional city and this is an exceptionally bad business deal. He listed the following facts for consideration: • The average unit cost for a developer in the Twin Cities is between $10,000 and $20,000 per unit, with larger projects like this one falling into the upper ends of that range. This PSA with Trammel Crow comes in at less than $9,500 per unit. That is approximately half of what the City could get for this property. • As the economy continues to strengthen, including the Viking’s facility development, the interest in this lot is only going to increase. He believes it is the Council’s duty to seek out the best deal for Mendota Heights. At this point he is confident that this deal is not it. Councilmember Paper stated that he has received feedback concerning the height of the building and the traffic on Dodd Road. He understands the City needs to progress forward to get accurate information to make informed decisions. Councilmember Paper stated that the project fits a need, but the scale and scope of it is concerning. If these studies do not move forward then questions cannot be answered and discussions cannot continue. Administrator McNeill stated that staff is very interested in seeing the results of the traffic study as it is a major concern of many residents and others involved. Having the study would determine if this proposed project would work – or not; and having the results would enable the Council to make an informed decision. If it is determined that the project would not work, then the Purchase and Sales Agreement would be terminated. Councilmember Miller asked for confirmation that if the City were to pass on this request and another company came around and said they wanted to put up a smaller unit complex, three stores maximum, etc., the City could negotiate a traffic study with that developer. Administrator McNeill replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Petschel commented that regardless of this project, the traffic on Dodd Road has been a discussion and a problem for a long time. She believes there are a number of things that can be done about it. This Council needs to take some leadership to go to MnDOT and to get something done. She would not want to lose track of the traffic issue whether or not this project moves forward. It is not the project that would cause a problem on Dodd Road; that problem already exists and needs to be addressed with MnDOT. She continued by stating that if the discussion is regarding what would belong on the site, with a facility that is aimed more at seniors there would be some people who do not drive, some who do not have cars, people would not be going to nine-to-five jobs, etc. With this type of facility, as long as Dodd Road continues to be an issue, it would put less impact on Dodd Road. page 10 Councilmember Petschel continued by stating there is a need for this housing and the City needs to find a way to meet it. There is also a need for something resembling a walkable community. Hopefully with the underpass being installed the City can finally make that happen. Councilmember Miller agreed that the City has a need; however, it is because of that need that the Council needs to proceed cautiously because it needs to be the right fit not only from a housing standpoint, but it needs to be a right fit from an economic standpoint and an aesthetic standpoint. Mayor Garlock stated that he also has received many phone calls from concerned citizens. The study shows that the City needs this type of development. He agreed that the City did not need to jump at the first plan and they need to be diligent in making decisions. Councilmember Petschel added that she has an issue with the City asking the developer to expend money if there is not a consensus to support their plans, or a conviction to move forward with it. The City has owned this property for a long time and has had proposals for development and the City has always said no or they walked away to another community before the City could finalize anything. That is also something that the City is going to have to be very careful of going forward. Anything done here is going to be a change and people are going to be uncomfortable. Councilmember Miller concurred that asking someone to spend money may be unreasonable. He would argue, however, the developer did not seem willing to negotiate on the development plans – like the height of the building, changing the façade to make it more in-line with what is already there. The City needs to take ownership to be able to negotiate those types of things. Councilmember Petschel noted that the question was asked of the developer as to why they could not take off a story from their proposed plan. She said that they had replied that they would be employing a lot of extra staff in this building because of the a-la-cart living-to-servicing years and they needed that for that income to support the staff. Councilmember Petschel made a motion not to authorize the Purchase and Sales Agreement with Trammell Crow for Lots A, B, C, and Outlot D of Mendota Heights Town Center, and a portion of Maple Street. Councilmember Miller seconded the motion. Mr. Craig Konat, 715 Linden Street, presented comments from the adjacent Homeowners Association. He asked the Council to approve the motion on the table, that being to not enter into a purchase agreement. He stated he felt that the City does not have a shared vision for what to do with this property. The residents would be happy to participate in trying to create a vision. He suggested that the City take a proactive leadership role in determining what they would like to see there. He said that the Association is not opposed to the project being proposed by Trammel Crow; it did have concerns with the mass of the project. Mr. Konat read prepared comments. The three areas of concern include the need for transparency and community involvement, the traffic impact, the scale and density of the proposed development. page 11 Mr. John Maczko, 751 Cheyenne Lane, echoed the concerns already expressed. He encouraged the Council to include the public in the discussions. He likes the direction of the vision because it was how it was created in the first place. As a resident, he supports the motion to deny. Mr. Mitch Berg, 715 Linden Street, commented that he appreciated the Council saying that The Village is a jewel of the City and it needs to be something that the citizens can be proud of. He feels the residents should be involved in helping to form the vision. He then commented on the traffic study. Councilmember Petschel mentioned that the traffic study had not been done yet. Mr. Berg noted that the residents count on the City Council and administrators to protect them. 160 units may be too high of density. Mr. Jake Jacobson, 706 Linden Street, requested that the focus be on what the City’s vision is and not on the developers’ vision. He said that this is a massive project, and is way out of scope. The Village is a great place for a senior housing project, just not one of this size and scale. Mayor Garlock called for the vote. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) Councilmember Petschel observed that it would be a mistake to not pursue a solution to Dodd Road traffic with MnDOT, and that it needed to go the top of the Council’s work plan. She also commented that the Council has been made aware of the needs of the seniors in the City to provide adequate housing opportunities, and to provide for a more walkable community. C) CITY HALL SOLAR PANEL LOCATIONS City Administrator Mark McNeill said that the City has received two grants from the Made in Minnesota Solar Program to fund the installation of solar energy panels – one at City Hall and the other at Public Works. This would allow the City to place solar arrays which would generate up to 40 kilowatts of electricity at each location. The City is also in the Xcel Energy program to add another 20 kilowatts of generating capacity each at City Hall and Public Works, and 20 kilowatts each at the fire station and at the Par 3 golf course. The action requested of Council this evening was to decide on the locations of the array at City Hall. He then shared the pros and cons of three ground-location options: • Location 1 – an angled site, west of City Hall • Location 2 – front yard near the intersection of Victoria Curve and Lexington Avenue • Location 3 – behind City Hall, north of the Police driveway Another option would be a roof-mounted system. This system would face due south and would be the most effective as far as generating power. He also talked to Ideal Energy about the problems the City has had in the past with the roof leaking. He discovered that the only place they would put holes in the page 12 roof would be to the trusses and they would do all of the due diligence as far as making sure these were as waterproof as possible. Councilmember Paper stated that if this was going to be done, then it should be done as efficiently as possible and he would support the roof-mounted system. Councilmember Miller, Petschel, and Mayor Garlock concurred with Councilmember Paper’s comments. AS a result, the consensus location was determined to be a roof-mounted location. D) SET DATE/TIME FOR JOINT CITY COUNCIL / PARKS & REC COMMISSION MEETING City Administrator Mark McNeill proposed setting a Joint City Council, and Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to ensure that the respective visions of the future of the parks system are in line with each other. Topics for discussion might include funding, capital improvements, Dog Park, Pilot Knob, organized sports, joint facilities, and other topics. He recommended the evening of the Parks & Recreation Commission’s regular meeting, which is Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. The Councilmembers concurred. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no community announcements. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Paper noted the shredding event on April 22, 2017 at West St. Paul City Hall. Councilmember Miller noted that Saturday, April 22, 2017 is Earth Day, and noted things that his family was going to do to make their space a bit greener. Mayor Garlock commented on the controlled practice burn that occurred three weeks ago by the fire department. He said that it was valuable training for the firefighters. ADJOURN Councilmember Petschel moved to adjourn. Councilmember Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) page 13 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 10:03 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 14 DATE: May 2, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Personnel Action Item- Acceptance of Police Officer Resignation COMMENT: Introduction The Council is asked to accept the resignation of Police Officer Jennifer (Fordham) Larrive. Background Known in the community as Officer Fordham, Jennifer has been employed as a Police Officer with the City since December of 2001. Officer Fordham has submitted her resignation, as she has accepted a position with the Minnesota School Safety Center, a department within the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, as the Statewide School Resource Officer Coordinator. Her last day with the City will be May 12, 2017. In addition to serving as a police officer for the past 15 years, Jennifer has also served as the School Resource Officer since 2011. Officer Fordham’s time and talent will be greatly missed. The City is currently conducting the police officer hiring process for existing vacancies and will consider the existing applicant pool to fill the vacancy created by Officer Fordham’s departure. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council accept the resignation of Jennifer (Fordham) Larrive. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept with regret the resignation of Jennifer (Fordham) Larrive as Police Officer for the City of Mendota Heights, effective May 12, 2017. page 15 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 2, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota State Department of Transportation (MnDOT). BACKGROUND The City of Mendota Heights has a number of transportation facilities traversing the City that are the property of the Minnesota State Department of Transportation (MnDOT). The City has its own street network and utility lines that cross these state facilities at multiple locations. From time to time it becomes necessary to execute work orders on these facilities in a cooperative arrangement between the City and MnDOT. The attached Master Partnership Contract would allow for the City and MnDOT to execute work orders on each other’s behalf without having to execute separate agreements for each individual work order. DISCUSSION This agreement is a renewal of the existing Master Partnership Contract with MnDOT. The City has fostered an excellent working relationship between the two agencies. This Master Partnership Contract continues that relationship and allows for work to be executed as efficiently as possible. BUDGET IMPACT Only work orders issues to MnDOT would be paid for by the City of Mendota Heights. Any work orders issued would be within established budgetary limits. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Master Partnership Contract between MnDOT and the City of Mendota Heights. page 16 ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to act on the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting Resolution 2017- 34, RESOLUTION APPROVING A MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT WITH THE MINNESOTA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY 149 AND REQUEST FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVAL. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 17 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017-34 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT WITH THE MINNESOTA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) wishes to cooperate closely with local units of government to coordinate the delivery of transportation services and maximize the efficient delivery of such services at all levels of government; and WHEREAS, MnDOT and local governments are authorized by Minnesota Statutes sections 471.59, 174.02, and 161.20, to undertake collaborative efforts for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of state and local roads; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to able to respond quickly and efficiently to such opportunities for collaboration, and have determined that having the ability to write “work orders” against a master contract would provide the greatest speed and flexibility in responding to identified needs. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights: 1. Enters into a Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, a copy of which was before the Council; and 2. That the City of Mendota Heights Public Works Director and/or City Administrator are authorized to execute such contract and any amendments thereto; and 3. That the Public Works Director and/or City Administrator are authorized to negotiate work order contracts pursuant to the Master Contract, which work order contracts may provide for payment to or from MnDOT, and that the Public Works Director and/or City Administrator may execute such work order contracts on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights without further approval by this Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of May 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By:______________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 18 STATE OF MINNESOTA AND CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT This master contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Transportation in this contract referred to as the “State” and the City of Mendota Heights, acting through its City Council in this contract referred to as the “Local Government." Recitals 1. The parties are authorized to enter into this contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, §§15.061, 471.59 and 174.02. 2. Minn. Stat. § 161.20, subd. 2, authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. 3. Each party to this contract is a “road authority” as defined by Minn. Stat. §160.02, subd. 25. 4. Minn. Stat. § 161.39, subd. 1, authorizes a road authority to perform work for another road authority. Such work may include providing technical and engineering advice, assistance and supervision, surveying, preparing plans for the construction or reconstruction of roadways, and performing roadway maintenance. 5. Minn. Stat. §174.02, subd. 6, authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into contracts with other governmental entities for research and experimentation; for sharing facilities, equipment, staff, data, or other means of providing transportation-related services; or for other cooperative programs that promote efficiencies in providing governmental services, or that further development of innovation in transportation for the benefit of the citizens of Minnesota. 6. Each party wishes to occasionally purchase services from the other party, which the parties agree will enhance the efficiency of delivering governmental services at all levels. This Master Partnership Contract (MPC) provides a framework for the efficient handling of such requests. This MPC contains terms generally governing the relationship between the parties. When specific services are requested, the parties will (unless otherwise specified) enter into a “Work Order” contracts. 7. After the execution of this MPC, the parties may (but are not required to) enter into “Work Order” contracts. These Work Orders will specify the work to be done, timelines for completion, and compensation to be paid for the specific work. 8. The parties are entering into this MPC to establish terms that will govern all of the Work Orders subsequently issued under the authority of this Contract. Master Partnership Contract 1. Term of Master Partnership Contract; Use of Work Order Contracts; Survival of Terms 1.1. Effective Date: This contract will be effective on the date last signed by the Local Government, and all State officials as required under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 2. 1.2. A party must not accept work under this Contract until it is fully executed. 1.3. Expiration Date. This Contract will expire on June 30, 2022. page 19 1.4. Work Order Contracts. A work order contract must be negotiated and executed (by both the State and the Local Government) for each particular engagement, except for Technical Services provided by the State to the Local Government as specified in Article 2. The work order contract must specify the detailed scope of work and deliverables for that project. A party must not begin work under a work order until the work order is fully executed. The terms of this MPC will apply to all work orders contracts issued, unless specifically varied in the work order. The Local Government understands that this MPC is not a guarantee of any payments or work order assignments, and that payments will only be issued for work actually performed under fully-executed work orders. 1.5. Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this master contract and all work order contracts: 12. Liability; 13. State Audits; 14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 17. Publicity; 18. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 22. Data Disclosure. All terms of this MPC will survive with respect to any work order contract issued prior to the expiration date of the MPC. 1.6. Sample Work Order. A sample work order contract is available upon request from the State. 1.7. Definition of “Providing Party” and “Requesting Party”. For the purpose of assigning certain duties and obligations in the MPC to work order contracts, the following definitions will apply throughout the MPC. “Requesting Party” is defined as the party requesting the other party to perform work under a work order contract. “Providing Party” is defined as the party performing the scope of work under a work order contract. 2. Technical Services 2.1. Technical Services include repetitive low-cost services routinely performed by the State for the Local Government. These services may be performed by the State for the Local Government without the execution of a work order, as these services are provided in accordance with standardized practices and processes and do not require a detailed scope of work. Exhibit A – Table of Technical Services is attached. 2.1.1. Every other service not falling under the services listed in Exhibit A will require a work order contract. 2.2. The Local Government may request the State to perform Technical Services in an informal manner, such as by the use of email, a purchase order, or by delivering materials to a State lab and requesting testing. A request may be made via telephone, but will not be considered accepted unless acknowledged in writing by the State. 2.3. The State will promptly inform the Local Government if the State will be unable to perform the requested Technical Services. Otherwise, the State will perform the Technical Services in accordance with the State’s normal processes and practices, including scheduling practices taking into account the availability of State staff and equipment. 2.4. Payment Basis. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties prior to performance of the services, the State will charge the Local Government the State’s then-current rate for performing the Technical Services. The then-current rate may include the State’s normal and customary additives. The State will invoice the Local Government upon completion of the services, or at regular intervals not more than once monthly as agreed upon by the parties. The invoice will provide a summary of the Technical Services provided by the State during the invoice period. 3. Services Requiring A Work Order Contract 3.1. Work Order Contracts: A party may request the other party to perform any of the following services under individual work order contracts. page 20 3.2. Professional and Technical Services. A party may provide professional and technical services upon the request of the other party. As defined by Minn. Stat. §16C.08, subd. 1, professional/technical services “means services that are intellectual in character, including consultation, analysis, evaluation, prediction, planning, programming, or recommendation; and result in the production of a report or completion of a task.” Professional and technical services do not include providing supplies or materials except as incidental to performing such services. Professional and technical services include (by way of example and without limitation) engineering services, surveying, foundation recommendations and reports, environmental documentation, right-of-way assistance (such as performing appraisals or providing relocation assistance, but excluding the exercise of the power of eminent domain), geometric layouts, final construction plans, graphic presentations, public relations, and facilitating open houses. A party will normally provide such services with its own personnel; however, a party’s professional/technical services may also include hiring and managing outside consultants to perform work provided that a party itself provides active project management for the use of such outside consultants. 3.3. Roadway Maintenance. A party may provide roadway maintenance upon the request of the other party. Roadway maintenance does not include roadway reconstruction. This work may include but is not limited to snow removal, ditch spraying, roadside mowing, bituminous mill and overlay (only small projects), seal coat, bridge hits, major retaining wall failures, major drainage failures, and message painting. All services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. 3.4. Construction Administration. A party may administer roadway construction projects upon the request of the other party. Roadway construction includes (by way of example and without limitation) the construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of mainline, shoulder, median, pedestrian or bicycle pathway, lighting and signal systems, pavement mill and overlays, seal coating, guardrail installation, and channelization. These services may be performed by the Providing Party’s own forces, or the Providing Party may administer outside contracts for such work. Construction administration may include letting and awarding construction contracts for such work (including state projects to be completed in conjunction with local projects). All contract administration services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work. 3.5. Emergency Services. A party may provide aid upon request of the other party in the event of a man-made disaster, natural disaster or other act of God. Emergency services includes all those services as the parties mutually agree are necessary to plan for, prepare for, deal with, and recover from emergency situations. These services include, without limitation, planning, engineering, construction, maintenance, and removal and disposal services related to things such as road closures, traffic control, debris removal, flood protection and mitigation, sign repair, sandbag activities and general cleanup. Work will be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. If it is not feasible to have an executed work order prior to performance of the work, the parties will promptly confer to determine whether work may be commenced without a fully-executed work order in place. If work commences without a fully-executed work order, the parties will follow up with execution of a work order as soon as feasible. 3.6. When a need is identified, the State and the Local Government will discuss the proposed work and the resources needed to perform the work. If a party desires to perform such work, the parties will negotiate the specific and detailed work tasks and cost. The State will then prepare a work order contract. Generally, a work order contract will be limited to one specific project/engagement, although “on call” work orders may be prepared for certain types of services, especially for “Technical Services” items as identified section 2.1.. The work order will also identify specific deliverables required, and timeframes for completing work. A work order must be fully executed by the parties prior to work being commenced. page 21 The Local Government will not be paid for work performed prior to execution of a work order contract and authorization by the State. 4. Responsibilities of the Providing Party 4.1. Terms Applicable to ALL Work Order Contracts. The terms in this section 4.1 will apply to ALL work order contracts. 4.1.1. Each work order will identify an Authorized Representative for each party. Each party’s authorized representative is responsible for administering the work order, and has the authority to make any decisions regarding the work, and to give and receive any notices required or permitted under this MPC or the work order. 4.1.2. The Providing Party will furnish and assign a publicly employed licensed engineer (Project Engineer), to be in responsible charge of the project(s) and to supervise and direct the work to be performed under each work order contract. For services not requiring an engineer, the Providing Party will furnish and assign another responsible employee to be in charge of the project. The services of the Providing Party under a work order contract may not be otherwise assigned, sublet, or transferred unless approved in writing by the Requesting Party’s authorized representative. This written consent will in no way relieve the Providing Party from its primary responsibility for the work. 4.1.3. If the Local Government is the Providing Party, the Project Engineer may request in writing specific engineering and/or technical services from the State, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 161.39. The work order Contract will require the Local Government to deposit payment in advance. The costs and expenses will include the current State additives and overhead rates, subject to adjustment based on actual direct costs that have been verified by audit. 4.1.4. Only the receipt of a fully executed work order contract authorizes the Providing Party to begin work on a project. Any and all effort, expenses, or actions taken by the Providing Party before the work order contract is fully executed are considered unauthorized and undertaken at the risk of non-payment. 4.1.5. In connection with the performance of this contract and any work orders issued, the Providing Agency will comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. When the Providing Party is authorized or permitted to award contracts in connection with any work order, the Providing Party will require and cause its contractors and subcontractors to comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations. 4.2. Additional Terms for Roadway Maintenance. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.2 will apply to all work orders for Roadway Maintenance. 4.2.1. Unless otherwise provided for by contract or work order, the Providing Party must obtain all permits and sanctions that may be required for the proper and lawful performance of the work. 4.2.2. The Providing Party must perform maintenance in accordance with MnDOT maintenance manuals, policies and operations. 4.2.3. The Providing Party must use State-approved materials, including (by way of example and without limitation), sign posts, sign sheeting, and de-icing and anti-icing chemicals. 4.3. Additional Terms for Construction Administration. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.3 will apply to all work order contracts for construction administration. 4.3.1. Contract(s) must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder or best value proposer in accordance with state law. page 22 4.3.2. Contractor(s) must be required to post payment and performance bonds in an amount equal to the contract amount. The Providing Party will take all necessary action to make claims against such bonds in the event of any default by the contractor. 4.3.3. Contractor(s) must be required to perform work in accordance with the latest edition of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction. 4.3.4. For work performed on State right-of-way, contractor(s) must be required to indemnify and hold the State harmless against any loss incurred with respect to the performance of the contracted work, and must be required to provide evidence of insurance coverage commensurate with project risk. 4.3.5. Contractor(s) must pay prevailing wages pursuant to applicable state and federal law. 4.3.6. Contractor(s) must comply with all applicable Federal, and State laws, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to applicable human rights/anti-discrimination laws and laws concerning the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in federally-assisted contracts. 4.3.7. Unless otherwise agreed in a work order contract, each party will be responsible for providing rights of way, easement, and construction permits for its portion of the improvements. Each party will, upon the other’s request, furnish copies of right of way certificates, easements, and construction permits. 4.3.8. The Providing Party may approve minor changes to the Requesting Party’s portion of the project work if such changes do not increase the Requesting Party’s cost obligation under the applicable work order contract. 4.3.9. The Providing Party will not approve any contractor claims for additional compensation without the Requesting Party’s written approval, and the execution of a proper amendment to the applicable work order contract when necessary. The Local Government will tender the processing and defense of any such claims to the State upon the State’s request. 4.3.10. The Local Government must coordinate all trunk highway work affecting any utilities with the State’s Utilities Office. 4.3.11. The Providing Party must coordinate all necessary detours with the Requesting Party. 4.3.12. If the Local Government is the Providing Party, and there is work performed on the trunk highway right-of-way, the following will apply: 4.3.12.1 The Local Government will have a permit to perform the work on the trunk highway. The State may revoke this permit if the work is not being performed in a safe, proper and skillful manner, or if the contractor is violating the terms of any law, regulation, or permit applicable to the work. The State will have no liability to the Local Government, or its contractor, if work is suspended or stopped due to any such condition or concern. 4.3.12.2 The Local Government will require its contractor to conduct all traffic control in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 4.3.12.3 The Local Government will require its contractor to comply with the terms of all permits issued for the project including, but not limited to, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and other environmental permits. 4.3.12.4 All improvements constructed on the State’s right-of-way will become the property of the State. 5. Responsibilities of the Requesting Party page 23 5.1. After authorizing the Providing Party to begin work, the Requesting Party will furnish any data or material in its possession relating to the project that may be of use to the Providing Party in performing the work. 5.2. All such data furnished to the Providing Party will remain the property of the Requesting Party and will be promptly returned upon the Requesting Party’s request or upon the expiration or termination of this contract (subject to data retention requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other applicable law). 5.3. The Providing Party will analyze all such data furnished by the Requesting Party. If the Providing Party finds any such data to be incorrect or incomplete, the Providing Party will bring the facts to the attention of the Requesting Party before proceeding with the part of the project affected. The Providing Party will investigate the matter, and if it finds that such data is incorrect or incomplete, it will promptly determine a method for furnishing corrected data. Delay in furnishing data will not be considered justification for an adjustment in compensation. 5.4. The State will provide to the Local Government copies of any Trunk Highway fund clauses to be included in the bid solicitation and will provide any required Trunk Highway fund provisions to be included in the Proposal for Highway Construction, that are different from those required for State Aid construction. 5.5. The Requesting Party will perform final reviews and inspections of its portion of the project work. If the work is found to have been completed in accordance with the work order contract, the Requesting Party will promptly release any remaining funds due the Providing Party for the Project(s). 5.6. The work order contracts may include additional responsibilities to be completed by the Requesting Party. 6. Time In the performance of project work under a work order contract, time is of the essence. 7. Consideration and Payment 7.1. Consideration. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the work order. The State’s normal and customary additives will apply to work performed by the State, unless otherwise specified in the work order. The State’s normal and customary additives will not apply if the parties agree to a “lump sum” or “unit rate” payment. 7.2. State’s Maximum Obligation. The total compensation to be paid by the State to the Local Government under all work order contracts issued pursuant to this MPC will not exceed $500,000.00. 7.3. Travel Expenses. It is anticipated that all travel expenses will be included in the base cost of the Providing Party’s services, and unless otherwise specifically set forth in an applicable work order contract, the Providing Party will not be separately reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the Providing Party in performing any work order contract. In those cases where the State agrees to reimburse travel expenses, such expenses will be reimbursed in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "MnDOT Travel Regulations” a copy of which is on file with and available from the MnDOT District Office. The Local Government will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside of Minnesota unless it has received the State’s prior written approval for such travel. 7.4. Payment. 7.4.1. Generally. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the applicable work order, and will make prompt payment in accordance with Minnesota law. 7.4.2. Payment by the Local Government. page 24 7.4.2.1. The Local Government will make payment to the order of the Commissioner of Transportation. 7.4.2.2. IMPORTANT NOTE: PAYMENT MUST REFERENCE THE “MNDOT CONTRACT NUMBER” SHOWN ON THE FACE PAGE OF THIS CONTRACT AND THE “INVOICE NUMBER” ON THE INVOICE RECEIVED FROM MNDOT. 7.4.2.3. Remit payment to the address below: MnDOT Attn: Cash Accounting RE: MnDOT Contract Number 1028148 and Invoice Number ###### Mail Stop 215 395 John Ireland Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 7.4.3. Payment by the State. 7.4.3.1. Generally. The State will promptly pay the Local Government after the Local Government presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted as specified in the applicable work order, but no more frequently than monthly. 7.4.3.2. Retainage for Professional and Technical Services. For work orders for professional and technical services, as required by Minn. Stat. § 16C.08, subd. 2(10), no more than 90 percent of the amount due under any work order contract may be paid until the final product of the work order contract has been reviewed by the State’s authorized representative. The balance due will be paid when the State’s authorized representative determines that the Local Government has satisfactorily fulfilled all the terms of the work order contract. 8. Conditions of Payment All work performed by the Providing Party under a work order contract must be performed to the Requesting Party’s satisfaction, as determined at the sole and reasonable discretion of the Requesting Party’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. The Providing Party will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal or state law. 9. Local Government’s Authorized Representative and Project Manager; Authority to Execute Work Order Contracts 9.1. The Local Government’s Authorized Representative for administering this master contract is the Local Government’s Engineer, and the Engineer has the responsibility to monitor the Local Government’s performance. The Local Government’s Authorized Representative is also authorized to execute work order contracts on behalf of the Local Government without approval of each proposed work order contract by its governing body. 9.2. The Local Government’s Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. 10. State’s Authorized Representative and Project Manager 10.1. The State's Authorized Representative for this master contract is the District State Aid Engineer, who has the responsibility to monitor the State’s performance. 10.2. The State’s Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. page 25 11. Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Contract Complete 11.1. Assignment. Neither party may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this MPC or any work order contract without the prior consent of the other and a fully executed Assignment Contract, executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this MPC, or their successors in office. 11.2. Amendments. Any amendment to this master contract or any work order contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original contract, or their successors in office. 11.3. Waiver. If a party fails to enforce any provision of this master contract or any work order contract, that failure does not waive the provision or the party’s right to subsequently enforce it. 11.4. Contract Complete. This master contract and any work order contract contain all negotiations and contracts between the State and the Local Government. No other understanding regarding this master contract or any work order contract issued hereunder, whether written or oral may be used to bind either party. 12. Liability. Each party will be responsible for its own acts and omissions to the extent provided by law. The Local Government’s liability is governed by Minn. Stat. chapter 466 and other applicable law. The State’s liability is governed by Minn. Stat. section 3.736 and other applicable law. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies a party may have for the other party’s failure to fulfill its obligations under this master contract or any work order contract. Neither party agrees to assume any environmental liability on behalf of the other party. A Providing Party under any work order is acting only as a “Contractor” to the Requesting Party, as the term “Contractor” is defined in Minn. Stat. §115B.03 (subd. 10), and is entitled to the protections afforded to a “Contractor” by the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act. The parties specifically intend that Minn. Stat. §471.59 subd. 1a will apply to any work undertaken under this MPC and any work order issued hereunder. 13. State Audits Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the party’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to any work order contract are subject to examination by the parties and by the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this MPC. 14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property 14.1. Government Data Practices. The Local Government and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this MPC and any work order contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Local Government under this MPC and any work order contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Local Government or the State. 14.2. Intellectual Property Rights 14.2.1. Intellectual Property Rights. The Requesting Party will own all rights, title, and interest in all of the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under work order contracts. Works means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or originated by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this master contract or any work order contract. Works includes “Documents.” Documents are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes, page 26 studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, or contractors, in the performance of a work order contract. The Documents will be the exclusive property of the Requesting Party and all such Documents must be immediately returned to the Requesting Party by the Providing Party upon completion or cancellation of the work order contract. To the extent possible, those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act will be deemed to be “works made for hire.” The Providing Party Government assigns all right, title, and interest it may have in the Works and the Documents to the Requesting Party. The Providing Party must, at the request of the Requesting Party, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the Requesting Party’s ownership interest in the Works and Documents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Requesting Party grants the Providing Party an irrevocable and royalty-free license to use such intellectual property for its own non-commercial purposes, including dissemination to political subdivisions of the state of Minnesota and to transportation-related agencies such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 14.2.2. Obligations with Respect to Intellectual Property. 14.2.2.1. Notification. Whenever any invention, improvement, or discovery (whether or not patentable) is made or conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice by the Providing Party, including its employees and subcontractors, in the performance of the work order contract, the Providing Party will immediately give the Requesting Party’s Authorized Representative written notice thereof, and must promptly furnish the Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure thereon. 14.2.2.2. Representation. The Providing Party must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure that all intellectual property rights in the Works and Documents are the sole property of the Requesting Party, and that neither Providing Party nor its employees, agents or contractors retain any interest in and to the Works and Documents. 15. Affirmative Action The State intends to carry out its responsibility for requiring affirmative action by its Contractors, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §363A.36. Pursuant to that Statute, the Local Government is encouraged to prepare and implement an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and the qualified disabled, and submit such plan to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. In addition, when the Local Government lets a contract for the performance of work under a work order issued pursuant to this MPC, it must include the following in the bid or proposal solicitation and any contracts awarded as a result thereof: 15.1. Covered Contracts and Contractors. If the Contract exceeds $100,000 and the Contractor employed more than 40 full-time employees on a single working day during the previous 12 months in Minnesota or in the state where it has its principle place of business, then the Contractor must comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600. A Contractor covered by Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 because it employed more than 40 full-time employees in another state and does not have a certificate of compliance, must certify that it is in compliance with federal affirmative action requirements. 15.2. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 requires the Contractor to have an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and qualified disabled individuals approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights (“Commissioner”) as indicated by a certificate of compliance. The law addresses suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance and contract consequences in that event. A contract awarded without a certificate of compliance may be voided. 15.3. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600. page 27 15.3.1. General. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 implement Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. These rules include, but are not limited to, criteria for contents, approval, and implementation of affirmative action plans; procedures for issuing certificates of compliance and criteria for determining a contractor’s compliance status; procedures for addressing deficiencies, sanctions, and notice and hearing; annual compliance reports; procedures for compliance review; and contract consequences for non-compliance. The specific criteria for approval or rejection of an affirmative action plan are contained in various provisions of Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 including, but not limited to, parts 5000.3420-5000.3500 and 5000.3552-5000.3559. 15.3.2. Disabled Workers. The Contractor must comply with the following affirmative action requirements for disabled workers: 15.3.2.1. The Contractor must not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of physical or mental disability in regard to any position for which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. The Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to employ, advance in employment, and otherwise treat qualified disabled persons without discrimination based upon their physical or mental disability in all employment practices such as the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. 15.3.2.2. The Contractor agrees to comply with the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 15.3.2.3. In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the requirements of this clause, actions for noncompliance may be taken in accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 363A.36, and the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 15.3.2.4. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices in a form to be prescribed by the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Such notices must state the Contractor's obligation under the law to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified disabled employees and applicants for employment, and the rights of applicants and employees. 15.3.2.5. The Contractor must notify each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract understanding, that the Contractor is bound by the terms of Minn. Stat. Section 363A.36, of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and is committed to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment physically and mentally disabled persons. 15.3.3. Consequences. The consequences for the Contractor’s failure to implement its affirmative action plan or make a good faith effort to do so include, but are not limited to, suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance by the Commissioner, refusal by the Commissioner to approve subsequent plans, and termination of all or part of this contract by the Commissioner or the State. 15.3.4. Certification. The Contractor hereby certifies that it is in compliance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 and is aware of the consequences for noncompliance. 16. Workers’ Compensation Each party will be responsible for its own employees for any workers compensation claims. This MPC, and any work order contracts issued hereunder, are not intended to constitute an interchange of government employees under Minn. Stat. §15.53. To the extent that this MPC, or any work order issued hereunder, is determined to be page 28 subject to Minn. Stat. §15.53, such statute will control to the extent of any conflict between the contract and the statute. 17. Publicity 17.1. Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of a work order contract where the State is the Requesting Party must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State’s Authorized Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Local Government individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from a work order contract. 17.2. Data Practices Act. Section 17.1 is not intended to override the Local Government’s responsibilities under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 18. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this master contract and all work order contracts. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this master contract or any work order contracts, or the breach of any such contracts, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 19. Prompt Payment; Payment to Subcontractors The parties must make prompt payment of their obligations in accordance with applicable law. As required by Minn. Stat. § 16A.1245, when the Local Government lets a contract for work pursuant to any work order, the Local Government must require its contractor to pay all subcontractors, less any retainage, within 10 calendar days of the prime contractor's receipt of payment from the Local Government for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor(s) and must pay interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor(s) on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor(s). 20. Minn. Stat. § 181.59. The Local Government will comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 181.59 which requires: Every contract for or on behalf of the state of Minnesota, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district, or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by which the Contractor agrees: (1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; (2) That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and (4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, city, town, school board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract. 21. Termination; Suspension 21.1. Termination by the State for Convenience. The State or commissioner of Administration may cancel this MPC and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the Local Government. Upon termination, the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 21.2. Termination by the Local Government for Convenience. The Local Government may cancel this MPC and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the State. page 29 Upon termination, the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 21.3. Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate or suspend this MPC and any work order contract if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota legislature or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination or suspension must be by written or fax notice to the Local Government. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination or suspension. However, the Local Government will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the master contract or work order is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota legislature or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Local Government notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State’s receiving that notice. 22. Data Disclosure Under Minn. Stat. §270C.65, subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Local Government consents to disclosure of its federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Local Government to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any. 23. Defense of Claims and Lawsuits If any lawsuit or claim is filed by a third party (including but not limited to the Local Government’s contractors and subcontractors), arising out of trunk highway work performed pursuant to a valid work order issued under this MPC, the Local Government will, at the discretion of and upon the request of the State, tender the defense of such claims to the State or allow the State to participate in the defense of such claims. The Local Government will, however, be solely responsible for defending any lawsuit or claim, or any portion thereof, when the claim or cause of action asserted is based on its own acts or omissions in performing or supervising the work. The Local Government will not purport to represent the State in any litigation, settlement, or alternative dispute resolution process. The State will not be responsible for any judgment entered against the Local Government, and will not be bound by the terms of any settlement entered into by the Local Government except with the written approval of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Transportation and pursuant to applicable law. 24. Additional Provisions [The balance of this page has intentionally been left blank – signature page follows] page 30 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION The Local Government certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the contract on behalf of the Local Government as required by applicable ordinance, resolution, or charter provision. By: By: (with delegated authority) Title: Title Assistant Commissioner or Assistant Division Director Date: Date: By: COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division Title By: Date: Date: page 31 Source Code Title Description 0032 Business Unit Management All expenses of business/office managers for general management and administration of support functions. includes administering central facilities maintenance and facilities capital budgets. 0152 Support Services Work that supports general office management, system management such as entering data into SWIFT, PPMS, PUMA and other MnDOT systems, attending staff meetings and other indirect support activities. 0400 Equipment Calibration-Mat Insp Use when performing periodic equipment calibration for equipment used in the materials lab or on construction projects. 0600 General Training Attended All costs (time, registration, materials, travel expenses, etc.) for attending or participating informal or informal training, including conferences that primarily provide training. 1182 Soils/Foundation Field/Laboratory Tests All laboratory testing necessary to provide geotechnical information to complete roadway soils recommendations and approvals for use in the development of Final Design Plans and Special Provisions. Lab work includes R-value, resilient modulus, soil classification, gradation, proctor testing, unconfined compression, consolidation, direct simple shear, direct sheer, permeability and triaxial tests. 1312 Tech Assist-Outside MnDOT Use when providing technical assistance to an organization external to MnDOT. 1421 Bridge Management System Operation/Administration/Data Use for tasks related to the Bridge Management System, including operations, administration, or data entry. 1434 Structural Metals Inspection-Non DOT Reviewing shop drawings furnished by suppliers, fabricators, and contractors (working drawing or calculations), and for tasks related to structural metals inspection (materials surveys, physical and chemical laboratory testing, material inspection and engineering, and technical services in the field and offices) for local agency projects. 1501 Traffic Management System (TMS)Used by traffic operations staff for all tasks that support the RTMC's operations center (or TOCC) providing traveler information, managing incidents and monitoring the FMS. Includes dynamic message sign maintenance, ramp meter maintenance, camera maintenance, and loop detection activities. Includes maintenance activities related to any ITS or TMS device such as RTMC cables, monitor wall, switchers, routers, or modems. Use to record all costs for maintenance activities related to traffic management fiber optics. Use for tasks related to maintaining traffic operations software including minor software enhancements and fixes. Use when providing traffic operations technical assistance external to MnDOT. 1513 Traffic Management System (TMS) Integration For tasks associated with the incorporation of new and existing TMS devices (cameras, loops, DMS, and other ITS devices) into existing infrastructure to ensure proper operation. Use with the Construction/Program Delivery Appropriation. 1520 Pavement Management System For tasks related to the operation of the pavement management system, including development and maintenance/technical support. Includes tasks to meet needs external to MnDOT. 1716 Record Sampling Used by Materials and Research Section and district materials staff to verify inspector" sampling and testing procedures and checking inspectors' equipment during project construction as required by FHWA. Use when performing field tests on split sample. 1721 Traffic Sign Work Orders Use for work involved in preparing work orders for traffic signs. Use only with Maintenance Operations appropriation (T790081). page 32 Source Code Title Description 1732 Material Testing & Inspection Performing construction phase and research physical and chemical laboratory testing, and related technical services in the districts and central labs, and for performing research and construction phase non-destructive testing materials surveys, and related technical services in the field and offices. Includes detour surveys. Non-destructive tests include, skid resistance and falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing. 1733 Concrete Plant Inspections Performing QA/QC physical testing at the plant; sampling and transporting of materials from the plant to the lab for lab testing, plant reviews, and operations; investigating plant discrepancies; and other technical services in the plant or office associated with stationary concrete plants or mobile concrete paving plant inspection. 1734 Construction Materials Inspections Performing construction phase material inspection and engineering, for structural steel, precast and pre-stressed concrete, reinforcement steel, and electrical products and related technical services in the field and office for materials to be used in multiple projects. Includes travel time, sampling, and sample delivery. Includes tasks related to reviewing shop drawings furnished by suppliers or fabricators and contractor working drawings or calculations, and for tasks related to structural metals inspection (materials surveys, physical and chemical laboratory testing, material inspection and engineering, and technical services in the field and offices). 1735 Bituminous Plant Inspection Performing QA/QC physical testing at the plant; sampling and transporting of materials from the plant to the lab for lab testing, plant reviews, and operations; investigating plant discrepancies; and other technical services in the plant or office associated with bituminous plant inspection. 1738 State Project - Specific Materials Inspection Performing material inspection for materials designated for a specific construction project (SP). Generally applies to inspection of such things as structural steel, prestressed concrete items, and most precast concrete items and for SP specific tasks related to structural metals inspection (materials surveys, physical and chemical laboratory testing, material inspection and engineering and technical services in the field and offices). 1800 Field Inspection Occasional construction project field inspection (not cyclical inspection of assets); Includes field inspection of materials such as gradations, densities/DCP, proctors, compaction, slump tests, and field air testsand collecting and transporting samples for lab tests, but not the actual laboratory verifications. 1870 Traffic Signal Maintenance This work will not substitute for or alter existing cooperative construction agreements or traffic signal maintenance agreements. Work related to the occasional repair and replacement of traffic signal system structures and all electrical maintenance for traffic signal systems including electrical power, labor, equipment materials, GSOC locates, traffic control and responses to public inquiries. 1871 Lighting Maintenance & Utilities All work related to installing, maintaining, restoring, or removing highway lighting systems and fixtures. Includes repairing, maintaining, or replacing supports necessary for roadway lighting luminaries. Includes patrol highway lighting, inspect lighting structures, electrical service for highway lighting, re-lamping, pump stations, anti-icing systems, truck roll-over warning systems and electrical repairs. Includes traffic control in support of roadway lighting activities. Use for tasks related to public inquiries/complaints, review utility billings, provide data, and conduct field reviews. 1875 Locate One Call Finding and marking locations of buried conduit, cables, hand holes, loops, etc. in order to maintain or repair the traffic management system, signal systems, or roadway lighting systems. page 33 Source Code Title Description 1876 Traffic Counting Use to record labor, equipment usage, and material costs for activities related to traffic counts made for statewide traffic monitoring or traffic operations. Includes all activities related to traffic counting, such as taking requests, assigning priorities, collecting field data, processing data, and developing new techniques for collection. 2102 Patching Related source type codes: 2103-Heavy patching, 2104-Bituminous paving, 2105-Blow patching 2142 Overhead Sign Panel Maintenance Work related to the repair and replacement of overhead sign panels, extruded sign panels mounted on I-beams, and overhead sign structures. Includes related cable locates and traffic control. Does not include structural work. 2210 Guardrail-Install/Repair/Maintenance Install, repair, or maintain low tension cable, plate beams, and end treatments; cable tension adjustments; and reflector replacement. includes related traffic control. 2222 Sign/Delineation/Marker Repair Replacing, repairing, and washing signs (including temporary stop signs). Includes re-sequencing intersection signing and repair/replace overhead and extrude signs mounted on I-beams. Includes related cable locates and traffic control. 2316 Brush & Tree Removal Maintaining, watering, trimming, and removing highway right of way tree and brush. Includes chipping of tree limbs and stump removal/grinding. Includes related traffic control. 2624 Indirect Expense Indirect shop expenses and shop equipment. Allocate to mobile equipment. 2629 Supplies & Small Tools Shop tools, small equipment, and supplies that cannot be directly charged to a mobile equipment unit. 2819 Bridge Curb, Walk And Railing Repairing and maintaining bridge curb, walk, rail, coping, and fencing connected to the rail. Includes glare screen and median barriers on bridges. Includes related traffic control. 2820 Bridge Deck Work associated with bridge deck and slab repair regardless of removal depth or type of material used for patching. Includes deck or slab overlays and replacements and underside deck delamination. Includes related traffic control. 2822 Miscellaneous Bridge Maintenance This source code does not include replacement or major repair. Miscellaneous maintenance tasks performed on a specific bridge or structure not covered by other source codes. Includes minor repairs and simple fixes on items such as stairways, drains, fencing, light bases, transient guards, and access doors. Includes transient removal, ordering materials, and picking up equipment. Includes related traffic control. 2824 Bridge Inspection-Non-Federal All tasks related to inventory, inspection, and load capacity rating work done on trunk highway bridges to meet the requirements of the National Bridge Inspection System and/or Minnesota Bridge Safety Inspection Program or for billing to local governments. Includes related inspection reports and deck condition surveys. 2827 Bridge Expansion, Relief Joints All maintenance tasks associated with bridge expansion joints, except joint reestablishment. Includes tightening expansion device bolts and replacing seal glands. Includes related traffic control. 2828 Bridge Inspection-Federal Fund All bridge inspection tasks for non-MnDOT bridges funded by the federal Fracture-Critical Bridge Program (Project Code will begin with TSL and with the local bridge number). Includes related inspection reports. For MnDOT Trunk Highway bridges (Project Code begins with TSO followed by the bridge number) and local and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (bridge number begins with 9A follow by bridge number) bridge inspections to be billed to the local government or Department of Natural Resources (DNR) use Source Code 2824. page 34 Source Code Title Description 2829 Bridge Superstructure All tasks to repair any bridge component above the bridge seat that is not included in other source codes. Includes repairs to all types of bridge superstructure elements such as girders, beams, floor beams, trusses, stringers, t-beams, precast channels, and box girders. Includes related traffic control. 2830 Bridge Bearing Assemblies All tasks related to the repair and maintenance of fixed or expansion-bearing assemblies on bridges. Includes related traffic 2834 Waterway Maintenance All tasks related to waterway maintenance for deck bridges. Includes debris removal, waterway cleanup, channel repair, and channel protection repair that is not part of slope protection. Includes related traffic control. 2838 Bridge Deck Crack Sealing All tasks related to deck crack sealing. Includes related traffic control. 2863 Traffic Signal Inspection Work related to cyclical structural and electrical inspection and preventive maintenance checks of traffic signal systems/structures. Includes labor, equipment, materials, and traffic control. 3000 Class Of Frequency Coordination Use for frequency coordination done with APCO, AASHTO or FCCA. 3002 Radio/Electronic Infrastructure Use for the repair and preventative maintenance of all equipment associated with wireless two-way radio communications systems (includes mobile radios, portable radios, base stations, console workstations, recorders, etc.). Non-MnDOT equipment - Must use Project number assigned to requesting agency; Department of Public Safety (DPS) includes State Patrol (SP) Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), Fire Marshall); does not include Department of Natural Resources (DNR). See OSRC Project 3005 Radio - Mobile Equipment Use for the repair and preventative maintenance of all equipment associated with wireless two-way radio communications systems (includes mobile radios, portable radios, base stations, console workstations, recorders, etc.). Non-MnDOT equipment - Must use Project number assigned to requesting agency (State Patrol, DNR, BCA, Fire Marshall). See OSRC Project Code list. 3009 Radio/Electronic System Upgrade & Installation Use for the installation and other services needed to provide major system upgrades or improvements to wireless or electronic systems. Use for all work performed to correct or repair deficiencies found in a new installation. 3025 Tower/Building Maintenance Use for all tasks related to the maintenance of a tower building or site. Includes towers, buildings, generators, LP system, fencing, landscaping, grounding, ice bridge, cable management, climbing ladders, card key systems, and HVAC. 3027 Radio Programming Creating or modifying radio frequency programs and programming mobile and portable radios. Does not include mobile radios used as fixed base radios as part of the Inter-OP System (Use 3009). 3049 On Call Electronic Communications Infrastructure Maintenance To be used by Statewide Radio Communications personnel to record on-call time. page 35 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 2, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Calling for Public Hearing on MnDOT Highway 149 Rehabilitation Project COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Minnesota State Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is planning on rehabilitating State Trunk Highway 149 in 2018. As part of the design process, MnDOT needs to ask for local government approval of any external access changes to the State facility. BACKGROUND In order to properly request local government approval, there needs to be a Public Hearing before the local governmental body; in this case, the Mendota Heights City Council. Municipal Consent is required due to acquisition of permanent right-of-way associated with drainage infrastructure but it is not required for the actual roadway. DISCUSSION The attached Resolution 2017-33 calls for a public hearing to be held before the Mendota Heights City Council on June 20, 2017. Setting this date for a public hearing will allow for adequate notice to be published. BUDGET IMPACT No budget impact other than staff time to prepare and publish the meeting notice. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution calling for a public hearing on the Highway 149 project. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wished to act on the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting Resolution 2017- 33, RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A MINNESOTA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TO REHABILITATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 149 AND REQUEST FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVAL. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 36 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2017-33 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A MINNESOTA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TO REHABILITATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 1149 AND REQUEST FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVAL WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared a final layout for State Project 1917-45 on Trunk Highway 149, from I494 to Delaware Ave. within the City of Mendota Heights for pavement, drainage and ADA improvements; and seeks the approval thereof, as described in Minnesota Statutes 161.162 to 161.167: and WHEREAS, said final layout is on file in the Metro District Minnesota Department of Transportation office, Roseville, Minnesota, being marked as Layout No. 1 and 1A, S.P. 1917- 45, from R.P. 4+00.149 to 8+00.468; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mendota Heights City Council will consider the Local Government Approval and a public hearing shall be held on such proposed approval on the 20th day of June, 2017, before the City Council in the Mendota Heights City Hall located at 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 p.m. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give published, posted, and mailed notice of such hearing as required by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of May, 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BY________________________________ ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor BY_________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 37 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 2, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Rogers Lake Aquatic Weed Treatment COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a contract with the Rogers Lake Property Owners Association (RLPOA) and Lake Improvement Consulting, LLC for aquatic weed treatment of Rogers Lake. BACKGROUND Since 2009, the City of Mendota Heights has been participating in weed control at Rogers Lake. In 2012, a group of area residents formed the Rogers Lake Property Owners Association and contributed half the cost of the weed control activity annually, which totaled $3,035. City staff has been monitoring the water quality sampling results from the Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) and from the Environmental Studies classes at Saint Thomas Academy, both of which submit sample results to the City annually. Many of the monitored conditions are above State established surface water quality standards and have been showing signs of improvement. DISCUSSION At the request of the RLPOA, the city secured quotes from four additional companies licensed for this type of work. All four quotes had higher per acre costs than the contractor who performed this work in previous years. The RLPOA is desiring to award the contract to one of the more costly quotes as they felt the previous work lacked attention to the private treatment areas. The RLPOA is proposing to pay the difference with the city contribution remaining at $1500 for the treatment and the $35 application fee. The previous contracts have treated 8 acres for $3000. The 2017 contract is proposed for the same 8 acres at a cost of $4500. BUDGET IMPACT Lake Improvement Consulting, LLC, has provided a single treatment quote that consists of $4,500 for the treatment and $35.00 for the permit to do so. The RLPOA has pledged to pay for the balance of the contract. The City’s cost share of $1,535 is budgeted and would be drawn from the Parks Maintenance Fund, which is funded through the general tax levy. page 38 RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending to continue the aquatic weed control in Rogers Lake. ACTION REQUIRED Should Council decide to continue the weed control program with the cost share proposed by the RLPOA, staff recommends a single weed removal treatment, as proposed by Lake Improvement Consulting, LLC, for the total cost of $4,535; with the city paying $1,535, and the homeowners association paying $3000. Authorization of this action would require a simple majority vote. page 39 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: May 2, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: Out of State Travel - 2017 International Fire Chiefs Conference COMMENT: Introduction The Council is asked to approve travel to an out of state conference for the Fire Chief. Discussion City Resolution No. 98-04 requires that all out of state travel for city council and city employees be approved by the city council in advance. The 2017 International Fire Chiefs Conference is being held July 25, 2017, to July 28, 2017, in Charlotte, North Carolina. I am requesting council’s approval to attend the conference. I have attended this conference in the past and found it to be a very worthwhile event. The training at this conference is specifically designed to help chief officers meet the challenges of managing a fire department in today’s ever changing environment. Budget Impact The Fire Department budget would pick-up the costs of the travel, hotel, meals, and registration. There are sufficient funds in the 2017 Fire Budget to cover the costs of this conference. The approximate cost to attend the conference would be $2,000.00. (Approximate costs are: lodging $825.00, meals $200.00, airfare $350.00 and the registration costs is $625.00). Recommendation The City Administrator recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the out of state travel for Fire Chief Dave Dreelan to the 2017 International Fire Chief Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina. Action Required If Council agrees with the recommendation, it should pass a motion authorizing the out of state travel for Fire Chief Dave Dreelan to the 2017 International Fire Chiefs Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina. page 40 Request for City Council Action TO: Mayor, City Council Members, City Administrator FROM: Jim Lee, Fire Marshal Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief DATE: May 2, 2017 SUBJECT: Ordinance 509 - Amending Title 7, Chapter 2, of the Mendota Heights City Code Regarding the Fire Code and Other Burning Regulations COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is asked to modify certain sections of the City Code relating to Fire. Background The current Mendota Heights City Code was written based on the 2007 State Fire Code. Since the 2015 Minnesota State Fire Code has now been adopted, staff is recommending that the City’s Fire Code be updated to correlate to the State’s current fire code, along with a few other sections in the Code that address various fire-related items. Staff has drafted an Ordinance that updates City Code Title 7, Chapter 2, in order to be consistent with the 2015 Minnesota State Fire Code, along with other code changes relating to burning regulations. The changes involve housekeeping issues, i.e. changes from the International Fire Code to the Minnesota State Fire Code. It also adds language to make portable outdoor fireplaces (commonly referred to as “chimeneas”) legal. Finally, it reduces from fifteen (15) feet, to eight (8) feet as the minimum distance that barbeques may be placed in areas of multi-unit dwellings (three or more). This is language which was agreed to last year with occupants of certain homeowners associations. Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council adopt Ordinance 509 Amending Title 7, Chapter 2, of the City Code Regarding the Fire Code and Other Burning Regulations. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt Ordinance 509 Amending Title 7, Chapter 2, of the City Code Regarding the Fire Code and Other Burning Regulations. page 41 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 509 AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 2, OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY CODE REGARDING THE FIRE CODE AND OTHER BURNING REGULATIONS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. City Code Title 7 – FIRE REGULATIONS is hereby amended as follows: Title 7.2 is hereby amended by adding the underlined material and deleting the stricken material as follows: 7-2-1: CODE ADOPTED: A certain document, three (3) copies of which are on file in the office of the city clerk of Mendota Heights, being marked and designated as Tthe international fire code, 2006 Minnesota State Fire Code 2015 edition, as published by the International Code Council, be and is hereby adopted as the code of the Ccity of Mendota Heights in the Sstate of Minnesota. It regulates and governs the safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from the storage, handling, and use of hazardous substances, materials and devices,; and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy of buildings and premises in the Ccity of Mendota Heights as herein provided. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of said internationalthe adopted Ffire Ccode on file in the office of the city clerkFire Marshal are hereby referred to, adopted, and made part hereof, as ifis fully set out in this chapter, with the additions, insertions, deletions, and changes in the following sections of this chapter. A copy of the Fire Code is maintained in the Office of the Fire Marshal or designee for examination and use by the public. 7-2-2: AMENDMENTS: Section 105, Permits: Permits shall be obtained from the fire code official. Permit fees, if any, shall be established from time to time by resolution of city council and will be fair, reasonable and proportionate and sufficient to defray the costs of issuing the permit or providing the service. Permit fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the permit. Issued permits shall be kept on the premises designated therein at all times and shall be readily available for inspection by the fire code official. Chapter 9 of the Minnesota state fire code is amended to read: Fire extinguishers are required at the following locations: MULTIPLE DWELLINGS-located so that no person shall travel in excess of fifty (50) feet to reach a fire extinguisher of a 2A-10BC rating. ABC extinguishers shall also be provided for boiler, furnace, or electrical rooms. RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS; an ABC extinguisher with a minimum size of 2A-20BC rating shall protect all boiler rooms, furnace, and electrical rooms. page 42 Section 907.15 of the international fire code, 2006 Minnesota State Fire Code 2015 edition, is amended by adding a new subsection which shall read as follows: When a fire system is required to be monitored by the international fire code, it shall be monitored by an Underwriters Laboratory (UL) listed central monitoring station. Section 330856 of the international fire code, 2006 Minnesota State Fire Code 2015 edition, is amended by adding a new section 3308.12 to read as follows: Indoor sales of fireworks shall be restricted to buildings or structures with an approved, fully automatic fire-sprinkler system. Outdoor sales of fireworks is prohibited. 7-2-3: DEFINITIONS: CODE OFFICIAL: The fire chief, fire marshal, or other designated authority charged by the governing body with the enforcement of this code or a duly authorized representative. GARBAGE: Animal and vegetable matter such as that originating in homes, restaurants, food service and processing establishments. OPEN BURNING: The burning of any matter whereby the resultant combustion products are emitted directly to the open atmosphere without passing through an adequate stack, duct, or chimney. PORTABLE OUTDOOR FIREPLACE: A portable, outdoor, solid-fuel-burning fireplace that may be constructed of steel, concrete, clay or other noncombustible material. A portable outdoor fireplace may be open in design, or may be equipped with a small hearth opening and a short chimney or chimney opening in the top. REFUSE: Any combustible waste material, trade waste, or garbage containing carbon in a free state. TRADE WASTE: Any solid, liquid, or gaseous material resulting from any business, trade, industrial activity, construction activity, or any demolition operation including but not limited to plastics, cardboard, grease, oil, chemicals, and cinders. 7-2-4: INTERPRETATION: In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Minnesota state fire code, 2006 2015 edition, and the provisions of this code, the more stringent shall apply. Provided, however, that no provision of this code shall be interpreted to exceed the provisions of the Minnesota state building code, 2006 2015 edition, as amended. 7-2-5: ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT; PENALTY: A. Enforcement: The code official shall be responsible for the enforcement of this code to ensure compliance therewith. B. Appeals: Any person aggrieved by a written order pursuant to section 108.1 of the state fire code may, within fifteen (15) days after service of said notice, appeal therefrom to the board of appeals by filing a written notice of appeal with the city clerk. The appeal shall be heard at such time as may be established by the board. The city council of the city of Mendota Heights shall serve as and constitute the board of appeals. The board may, upon the hearing, affirm in whole or in part or deny the existence of a violation. Pending decision of the board of appeals, the order of the page 43 code official shall be stayed unless there is an immediate fire hazard to life or property. C. Penalty: 1. Any person in violation of the provisions of this code or who shall violate or fail to comply with any order made thereunder or who shall build in violation of any detailed statement of specifications or plans submitted and approved thereunder, or any certificate or permit issued thereunder, and from which no appeal has been taken, or who shall fail to comply with such an order as affirmed or modified by the code official or by a court of competent jurisdiction, within the time fixed herein, shall severally for each and every violation and noncompliance respectively, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, may be punishable as provided in section 1-4-1 of this code, plus the cost of prosecution in any case. 2. The imposition of one penalty for any violation shall not excuse the violation or permit it to continue, and all such persons shall be required to correct or remedy such violations or defect within a reasonable time, and when not otherwise specified, each day that prohibited conditions are maintained shall constitute a separate offense. 3. The application of the above penalty shall not be held to prevent the enforced removal of prohibited conditions. 7-2-6: OPEN BURNING: A. Permit Required: Open burning in the city requires a permit issued by the code official. B. Refuse Burning Prohibited: No person, firm, or corporation shall dispose of refuse by open burning or cause, suffer, allow, or permit open burning of refuse upon or from any residential property situated within the city or from any property in the city situated in an area designated as residential under the city zoning ordinance. C. Exception: Fires set for the instruction and training of the Mendota Heights fire department or by approval of the Mendota Heights city council provided that such burning is not prohibited by or is conducted in compliance with any other applicable ordinances, laws, or regulations. 7-2-7: RECREATIONAL FIRES: A property owner or lessee of the property may have a recreational fire without obtaining a permit by complying with the following regulations: A. Hours Fires To Be Extinguished: Fires shall be extinguished within three (3) hours after start but not later than eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. B. Materials Burned Restricted: Clean, dry wood only (no refuse, grass, leaves, logs over 3 inches in diameter, paper, garbage, trade waste or other combustibles). C. Size Of Fire: Size shall not be more than three feet (3') in diameter, nor shall the flames reach a height in excess of three feet (3'). D. Location: No fire shall be within twenty-five feet (20') (25’) of any building or structure. E. Means To Extinguish: A means of extinguishment must be in the immediate area of the fire. F. Weather Conditions: No fire shall be started or maintained in dry conditions or when winds are over fifteen (15) mph. page 44 G. Notice To City: Prior notice shall be given to the dispatcher one hour before the fire is ignited. H. Attendance Required: Recreational fires must be constantly attended by a competent person of at least 1816 years of age must be in constant attendance until the recreational fire has been extinguished. H. Portable outdoor fireplaces. Portable outdoor fireplaces shall be used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and shall not be operated within 15 feet (3048 mm) of a structure or combustible material. I. Authority To Restrict Fires: The code official has the authority to prohibit, suspend, or further restrict all fires should conditions warrant such action. 7-2-8: FIRE LANES: A. The code official is hereby authorized to order establishment of fire lanes on public or private property as may be necessary in order that the travel of fire equipment may not be interfered with, and that access to fire hydrants or buildings may not be obstructed. B. When a fire lane has been ordered to be established, it shall be marked by a sign bearing the words "No Parking Fire Lane" on both sides of the sign. When the fire lane is on public property or a public right of way, the sign(s) shall be erected by the city. If on private property, the sign(s) shall be erected by the owner at his expense. C. Fire lane signs shall be twelve inches by eighteen inches (12" x 18") and shall be white with red lettering and be clearly visible from a distance of one hundred feet (100'). The sign(s) shall be mounted at a height of five feet (5') but no more than six feet (6') from the surface to the top of the sign(s). 7-2-9: AS BUILT PLANS REQUIRED: A. The Mendota Heights fire department requires a fire protection "as built" plan of new and existing buildings. The plan must be an eight and one-half inch by eleven inch (81/2" x 11") reproducible, legible, Mylar paper and identify the following: 1. Fire department connection. 2. Post indicator valve. 3. Sprinkler riser valves. 4. Access doors. 5. Roof vents and hatches. 6. Stairway locations. 7. Standpipes. 8. Fire lane(s). 9. Building dimensions. 10. Utility shutoff locations. 11. Hydrant locations. 12. Size of water main. 13. Type of construction. 14. HAZMAT/flammable storage rooms. 7-2-10: STORAGE OF FLAMMABLE, COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS: A. Flammable, Combustible Liquids: Flammable or combustible liquids in aboveground tanks are prohibited in R and B zoning districts, except where vault type tanks are approved by the state page 45 fire marshal for aboveground use. B. Bulk Plants: Bulk plants for flammable or combustible liquids are prohibited in R and B zoning districts. 7-2-11: FIRES OR BARBECUES ON BALCONIES OR PATIOS: A. Fire Or Open Flame: In any structure containing three (3) or more dwelling units, no person shall kindle, maintain, or cause any fire or open flame on any balcony above ground level, or on any ground floor patio immediately adjacent to or within fifteen eight feet (15') (8’) of any unit. B. Fuel Storage Prohibited: No person shall store or use any fuel, barbecue, torch or similar heating or lighting chemicals or devices in the locations designated in subsection A of this section. C. Exception: Listed electric or gas fired barbecue grills that are permanently mounted and wired or plumbed to the building's gas supply or electrical system and that maintain a minimum clearance of eighteen inches (18") on all sides, unless listed for lesser clearances, may be installed on balconies and patios when approved by the fire chief. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its adoption and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this second day of May, 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 46 4/13/2017 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official March 1, 2017 thru March 31, 2017 January 1, 2017 thru March 31, 2017 January 1, 2016 thru March 31, 2016 January 1, 2015 thru March 31, 2015 Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected SFD 0 -$ $0.00 SFD 2 505,000.00$ $6,506.78 SFD 1 672,850.00$ $7,325.89 SFD 2 690,000.00$ 7,806.98$ APT 0 -$ $0.00 APT 0 -$ $0.00 APT 0 -$ $0.00 APT 0 -$ -$ Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 2 450,000.00$ $4,516.88 Townhouse 6 1,465,000.00$ $16,170.54 Townhouse 0 -$ -$ Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$ Misc 47 598,014.32$ 8,284.53$ Misc 95 1,211,288.40$ 17,680.56$ Misc 75 1,418,594.24$ 18,727.81$ Misc 90 2,271,354.68$ 32,323.92$ Commercial 6 4,928,000.00$ $39,586.59 Commercial 10 5,180,895.00$ $43,379.43 Commercial 9 1,132,945.00$ $12,377.34 Commercial 12 1,154,177.00$ 15,939.83$ Sub Total 53 5,526,014.32$ 47,871.12$ Sub Total 109 7,347,183.40$ 72,083.65$ Sub Total 91 4,689,389.24$ 54,601.58$ Sub Total 104 4,115,531.68$ 56,070.73$ Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Plumbing 19 $1,664.93 Plumbing 36 $3,128.13 Plumbing 59 $5,502.25 Plumbing 55 4,174.21$ Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 1 $10.00 Water 2 20.00$ Sewer 4 $300.00 Sewer 12 $913.00 Sewer 8 $600.00 Sewer 1 75.00$ Mechanical 25 $2,738.16 Mechanical 77 $8,916.48 Mechanical 86 $7,695.59 Mechanical 80 6,640.38$ Sub Total 48 4,703.09$ Sub Total 125 12,957.61$ Sub Total 154 $13,807.84 Sub Total 138 10,909.59$ License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Contractor 24 $1,200.00 Contractor 210 $10,500.00 Contractor 193 $9,650.00 Contractor 213 10,650.00$ Total 125 5,526,014.32$ 53,774.21$ Total 444 7,347,183.40$ 95,541.26$ Total 438 4,689,389.24$ 78,059.42$ Total 455 4,115,531.68$ 77,630.32$ NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals page 47 page 48 page 49 page 50 page 51 page 52 page 53 page 54 page 55 page 56 page 57 page 58 page 59 DATE: May 2, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Call for Public Hearing—TIF Redevelopment District COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to take the first steps required by Minnesota Law to create a Redevelopment District, which could lead to the redevelopment of the Mendota Motel, and former Larson Greenhouse properties. BACKGROUND The City is considering the creation of a redevelopment TIF district on the two properties, which are located at 2160 and 2180 Highway 13. Michael Development has submitted a proposal for the development of 69 market rate rental units on the Motel site, and is working on a site plan for the Greenhouse properties. The developer has requested tax increment to assist in offsetting the high costs of land acquisition, demolition, environmental and soil remediation and overall site improvements. Staff and consultants have reviewed their request and determined that the creation of a redevelopment TIF district would be appropriate. The amount and term of assistance is yet to be determined, and will be brought back to the City Council for review on May 16, 2017. This will be discussed at a work session for the Council, which we will propose to be held beginning at 5 PM, which would precede the regular Council meeting. The action before the Council tonight is to set the public hearing date for the establishment of the TIF district. This action does not bind the Council to provide assistance; rather, it starts the process for development of a TIF plan and TIF estimates to be utilized in negotiations with the Developer. If after the May 16, 2017 work session the Council is not in favor of the project and/or assistance, no public hearing will be held or TIF district created. The intent is to have this district created by June 30, 2017, so that current property valuations can be used in planning the TIF District financial impacts. page 60 A schedule of the notable dates for the creation of this Redevelopment District is attached. IN addition to the dates outlined therein, a neighborhood meeting will be held by the developer on May 11th. BUDGET IMPACT The Developer has deposited a $15,000 escrow with the City to pay for legal and fiscal consultants in review of the TIF request and creation of the TIF district. Assuming the TIF District is created, these and other costs will be eligible for reimbursement from the proceeds of the District. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the Council adopt the resolution calling for the Public Hearing and notifications necessary to create the redevelopment district. It should also approve a work session to be held at 5 PM on Tuesday, May 16th. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, take the following actions: 1. Call for a work session meeting to be held at 5 PM, Tuesday, May 16th 2. Approve the following Resolution 2017-35: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2 THEREIN AND THE ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 61 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017-35 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2 THEREIN AND THE ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights is supportive of a plan to redevelop properties commonly known as the Mendota Motel, and Larson Greenhouse properties; and WHEREAS, in order to provide assistance through Tax Increment Financing, Minnesota Law provides that a number of steps be taken in order to implement such assistance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") for the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the "City"), the following: Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on June 20, 2017, at approximately 7:00 P.M., to hold a public hearing on the proposed modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1, the proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2, a redevelopment district, and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor (the "Program Modification and Plan"), all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 through 469.133 and Sections 469.174 through 469.1794, inclusive, as amended, in an effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City; and Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of the Program Modification and Plan. City staff is authorized and directed to work with Ehlers & Associates, Inc., to prepare the Program Modification and Plan and to forward documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions including Dakota County and Independent School District No. 197. The City Administrator is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to June 6, 2017, and to place a copy of the Program Modification and Plan on file in the City Administrator’s office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this second day of May, 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN _________________________________ ATTEST: Neil Garlock, Mayor _______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 62 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2 (a redevelopment district) May 2, 2017 City Council calls for a public hearing on a Modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2. N/A Project information submitted to the County Board for review of county road impacts (at least 45 days prior to public hearing). May 3, 2017 Project information, property identification numbers, and maps sent to Ehlers for drafting documentation. Ehlers confirms with the City whether building permits have been issued on the property to be included in the TIF District. Ehlers confirms with the City whether building permits have been issued on the property located in TIF District No. 2. May 5, 2017 Letter received by County Commissioner giving notice of a potential redevelopment tax increment financing district (at least 30 days prior to publication of public hearing notice). May 16, 2017 Work session with City Council on tax increment basics and terms for TIF Agreement May 19, 2017 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). May 23, 2017 Planning Commission reviews Program Modification and TIF Plan to determine if they are in compliance with City’s comprehensive plan. May 30, 2017 Ehlers conducts final internal review of Program Modification and TIF Plan. June 4, 2017 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not more than 30 days prior to hearing). June 20, 2017 City Council holds public hearing at 7:00 P.M. on a Modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2. City Council approves the Modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 and passes resolution approving the page 63 Program Modification and TIF Plan. City Council passes resolution authorizing an Inter-fund Loan in connection with TIF District No. 2. City Council approves TIF Agreement By June 30, 2017 Ehlers files the Program Modification and TIF Plan with the MN Department of Revenue, Office of the State Auditor and requests certification of the TIF District from Dakota County. page 64 I-494 HWY 5 5 I-35EHWY 110 DODD RDHWY 13SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYSIBLEY MEMORIAL494 RAMPI-494 RAMP I-35E R A M P I-94 RAMP DODD RD RAMP MENDOTA RD RAMP I-494 LOOP CENTRE POIN T E C U R NORTHLAND DR ANNAPOLIS ST W 494 LOOP DODD RD LOOPCONDON CTI-35E494 LOOPI-35E RAMPHWY 110 I-494 LOOP I-494 HWY 110 I-35E RAMPDODD RDI- 3 5 E I-494 I-494 DODD RDHW Y 5 5 HWY 13 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYHWY 5 5 I-3 5 E R A M P I- 3 5 E I-494 HWY 110 DODD RD494 RAMP DELAWARE AVELEXINGTON AVEWENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEPILOT KNOB RDLEXINGTON AVEMay 2, 2017 Legend Municipal Boundary selection TIF No. 2 Properties County Roads State Highways 272840001080 277520005110277520005160 277520005420 277520005050 277520005070 277520005020277520005421 277520005380 HWY 55HWY 13HWY 55HWY 132180 2164 2160 2160 2160 2160 21602160 2220 13161320 2146 Dakota County GIS Larson Properties: 2160 HWY 13PID Nos: 27-75200-05-380 27-75200-05-160 27-75200-05-421 27-75200-05-420 27-75200-05-110 27-75200-05-020 27-75200-05-050 27-75200-05-070 Mendota Hts. Motel: 2180 HWY 13PID No. 27-28400-01-080 0 1 20.5 Miles Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 City ofMendotaHeights Development District No. 2 City of Mendota HeightsDakota County, Minnesota page 65 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: May 2, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-04 Conditional Use Permit for Oversized Garage Randy & Becky Pentel, 815 Deer Trail Court Introduction The application is for a Conditional Use Permit filed under Planning Case No. 2017-04, which would allow an attached oversized garage to an existing residence. The subject property is located at 815 Deer Trail Court, owned by Randy and Becky Pentel. Background Garages more than 1,200 sf. and up to 1,500 sq. ft. in size are allowed by conditional use in the R-1 One Family Residence district. The Pentel’s are seeking to add 689 sq. ft. of garage space, resulting in a reconstructed garage area of 1,473 sq. ft. At the April 25, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, a duly noticed public hearing was held regarding this conditional use permit application, which was given full consideration by the commission. There were no public comments or objections from neighboring residents related to this item. Discussion The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on zoning requests and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation At the April 25, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the conditional use permit request (6-0 vote), with conditions noted in the attached Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2017-04. If the City Council wishes to implement this recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION NO. 2017-22 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RANDY AND BECKY PENTEL AT 815 DEER TRAIL COURT. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 66 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017-31 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RANDY & BECKY PENTEL 815 DEER TRAIL COURT WHEREAS, Randy and Becky Pentel have applied for a conditional use permit as proposed in Planning Case No. 2017-04 and described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on April 25, 2017. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit request as proposed in Planning Case No. 2017-04 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The planned development and use of the 689 sq. ft. of garage addition, resulting in a total of 1,473 sq. ft. for garage use purposes, is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed garage addition easily meets the required setbacks and other standards established under the R-1 One Family District. 4. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. 5. The proposed garage addition and structure is compliant with the conditions included in the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2017-03 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The new garage addition, including new exterior building materials and overhead doors must be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling and garage structure. 2. The planned lower level of the garage will only be accessed from the existing lower level of the residence, and no part of this area may be used to store or park vehicles (cars, trucks, recreational vehicles, etc.) ,and no access door(s) will be allowed from the lower levels to the rear or side yards. page 67 Res 2017-31 page 2 3. A building permit shall be required prior to any demolition, excavation or construction of the new garage addition. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of May, 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 68 Res 2017-31 page 3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description PID: 27-19810-01-020 Lot 2, Block 1, DEER TRAIL HILLS, Dakota County, Minnesota page 69 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: April 25, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-04 Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Randy and Becky Pentel PROPERTY ADDRESS: 815 Deer Trail Court ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/ LR-Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: June 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 20-foot wide garage addition to an existing three-car attached garage. The subject property is located at 815 Deer Trail Court. Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C. provides for attached garages “more than one thousand two hundred (1,200) up to one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet” to be allowed via a conditional use permit. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. BACKGROUND The Pentel’s residence is located at the end of Deer Trail Court, immediately off Wachtler Avenue. The property consists of 0.67 acres and contains a two-story, 4,670 sq. ft. dwelling, with a 784 sq. ft. three-car attached garage. The Pentel’s also own the vacant 0.53 acre parcel to the east. (See aerial images below) page 70 The Pentel’s are seeking to provide additional garage and storage space for their personal vehicles and equipment. They stated the current garage is somewhat limited in depth for parking personal cars inside their garage, and the added garage will help provide the space they desire. The existing 784 sf. attached garage is shown by the blue-outline in the image below. The proposed garage addition will take place along the east side of the garage (see survey image below). The setbacks from the easterly wall edges are indicated with a 23.9 ft. setback from the front structure corner and a 30.1-ft. setback from the northeasterly most structure corner. The Pentel’s intend to add 689 sq. ft. of garage, for a total of 1,473 sq. ft., which is illustrated by the light- yellow shaded region in the image below: page 71 The plans submitted by the applicant also included a reference to excavate the entire footprint area underneath the garage and install concrete panels (often called “Span Crete”) to serve as the new garage floor. Plans call for owner to provide a new access-way from the lower level of the home into this new lower level garage/storage space. It appears the garage layout plans do not quite match-up to the submitted survey, as the layout plan includes a 4 foot additional bump-out to the rear of the existing and planned garage addition. Although this additional space is not shown on the survey, it does not detract from the overall intent of the application, affects the analysis contained herein, or negates the continued processing of this conditional use permit. page 72 ANALYSIS Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains standards for reviewing a conditional use permit request; the following are to be taken into consideration: • The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands; • existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and • the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. In addition, the following standards must be met: • The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; • will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; • will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and • the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. • Comprehensive Plan The subject property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed garage addition qualifies as a conditional use in the applicable zoning district and would remain compliant with the Comprehensive Plan, subject to city approvals. • Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C., any attached garage “more than one thousand two hundred (1,200) up to one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet” can be allowed only by means of a conditional use permit. Because of the requested 689 sq. ft. addition to the existing 784 sq. ft. attached garage structure, the applicants are requesting a conditional use permit for its construction. The current garage contains a 16-foot wide (double) overhead door, along with a 9-foot, single-wide overhead door for the “third stall.” Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C. contains the added standard regulating the size and number of garage doors: “No more than thirty six (36) linear feet of garage door per structure, measured horizontally, may be installed to provide access to any private garage or other accessory building space on a single- or two-family residential property. More than thirty six (36) linear feet of garage door may be provided by conditional use permit when such additional garage door exposure is not visible from a public street or from surrounding residential property.” The applicant’s plans indicate they intend to remove the smaller 9 foot (3rd stall) door, and replace with two 16-ft. wide by 8-ft. high overhead doors in the existing opening and a new opening to the expanded garage area, with an approximate 10-foot separation between both doors. As mentioned earlier, plans call for the full excavation of the lower level underneath the garage and plans also calling for the construction of an upper addition to the home, which ties into the upper level of the existing dwelling. Staff assumes this upper area will be used for additional living or storage space by the homeowners, while the lower level (underneath the garage space) will be used for miscellaneous use or household storage only. No part of this excavated or lower space can be used for storage of vehicles or recreational equipment. No outside doors will be allowed to the rear or side yard areas. The plans indicate the exterior materials of the proposed garage will be consistent with the existing dwelling materials, including new brick veneer and stucco exterior materials. page 73 • Conclusions For all intents and purposes, this expanded garage structure should make a nice addition to the existing dwelling, and will offer adequate means to providing additional storage of vehicles, equipment and personal livable space for the homeowners. The fact the owners possess the wooded adjacent lot to the east helps diminish any perceived negative impacts to neighboring properties and helps lessen the views from adjacent roadways. City staff believes the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and the proposed use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. In preparation of this report, there have been no inquiries, concerns or complaints raised by neighbors related to this request. Staff found no reasons to preclude the homeowners from developing this new garage addition as planned, or discovered any evidence the proposed garage use will be contrary to the standards of review for conditional use permits listed above. Staff therefore, believes the use may be considered compatible with the intent of the One Family (single-family) Zoning District and may be approved. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit request, based on the findings of fact that the proposed use is compliant with the applicable City Code requirements and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with conditions. OR 2. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit request, based on the finding(s) of fact determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. OR 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to construct a new garage addition to the existing attached garage structure in the R-1 One Family District, based on the findings of fact that the proposed use is compliant with the applicable City Code requirements and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The new garage addition, including new exterior building materials and overhead doors must be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling and garage structure. 2. The planned lower level of the garage will only be accessed from the existing lower level of the residence, and no part of this area may be used to store or park vehicles (cars, trucks, recreational vehicles, etc.) ,and no access door(s) will be allowed from the lower levels to the rear or side yards. 3. A building permit shall be required prior to any demolition, excavation or construction of the new garage addition. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial site map 2. Planning applications, including supporting materials page 74 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit Request for Over-Sized Attached Garage 815 Deer Trail Court The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The planned development and use of the 689 sq. ft. of garage addition, resulting in a total of 1,473 sq. ft. for garage use purposes, is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed garage addition easily meets the required setbacks and other standards established under the R-1 One Family District. 4. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. 5. The proposed garage addition and structure is compliant with the conditions included in the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit. page 75 page 76 page 77 page 78 815 Deer Trail Court Property Information April 20, 2017 0 110 22055 ft 0 30 6015 m 1:1,200 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. page 79 page 80 page 81 page 82 page 83 page 84 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES April 25, 2017 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 25, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Christine Costello Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of February 28, 2017 Minutes Chair Field noted for the viewers that the Planning Commission did not meet in the month of March. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2017, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Costello) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2017-04 RANDY & BECKY PENTEL, 815 DEER TRAIL COURT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OVER-SIZED GARAGE IN THE R-1 ZONE Planner Timothy Benetti explained that the application is for a Conditional Use Permit by Randy and Becky Pentel at 815 Deer Trail Court. This 0.67 acre parcel contains an existing two-story, 4,670 square foot single-family dwelling with 784 square foot three-car attached garage. The Pentel’s also own the 0.53 acre parcel immediately to the east. Any attached garage more than 1,200 square feet and up to 1,500 square feet requires a Conditional Use Permit. The Pentel’s wish to add 690 square feet of garage on the opposite side of the existing three stall garage. The survey does not match-up to the garage layout plans, as the layout plan includes a 4-foot additional bump-out to the rear of the existing and planned garage addition; however, this does not take away from the overall intent or purpose under consideration. That will be corrected at time of the building permit submission. page 85 Planner Benetti shared images of the proposed garage addition in relation to the existing building and the site as it relates to the surrounding lots and streets. He also noted they plan to completely excavate under the entire new garage and existing garage and complete that with a Span Crete or concrete flooring system. One access point will be allowed from the basement into that lower level. It is only to be allowed for personal storage – it would not be allowed for any type of vehicle or recreational equipment storage. Otherwise, if they did that would constitute additional garage space and would put them well over the maximum. Staff has indicated to them that this would not be allowed. Planner Benetti shared the standards for reviewing a Conditional Use Permit request and explained how this request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this application based on the Findings of Fact and with conditions as listed in the staff report. Chair Field, noting that the Pentel’s own the adjacent lot, asked if they sold that lot sometime down the road would this garage prohibit someone else from building on that lot. Planner Benetti replied that the Pentel’s are well within the setback parameters of 10 feet from the lot line – being 28 to 31 feet from the outer corners of the new addition. Clarification was made that the vacant lot would be unencumbered if this application were approved. Randy and Becky Pentel were present and had no comments to add to the staff report and were available for questions. Mr. Pentel asked for confirmation that, as for as the overhead garage doors, 36 linear feet is the maximum. Planner Benetti confirmed. Mr. Pentel asked if the garage doors could then be 18 feet each or if they had to stay at the current 16 feet. Chair Field noted that these questions were better suited and would be answered during the building permit process of the application. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Costello) COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-04 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR OVER-SIZED ATTACHED GARAGE 815 DEER TRAIL COURT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. page 86 2. The planned development and use of the 689 sq. ft. of garage addition, resulting in a total of 1,473 sq. ft. for garage use purposes, is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed garage addition easily meets the required setbacks and other standards established under the R-1 One Family District. 4. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. 5. The proposed garage addition and structure is compliant with the conditions included in the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The new garage addition, including new exterior building materials and overhead doors must be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling and garage structure. 2. The planned lower level of the garage will only be accessed from the existing lower level of the residence, and no part of this area may be used to store or park vehicles (cars, trucks, recreational vehicles, etc.) ,and no access door(s) will be allowed from the lower levels to the rear or side yards. 3. A building permit shall be required prior to any demolition, excavation or construction of the new garage addition. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Costello) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 2, 2017 meeting. page 87 DATE: May 2, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2015-20 Final Plat Approval of “The Oaks of Mendota Heights” Dick Bjorklund – Applicant/Developer Introduction The applicant/developer is seeking final plat approval of a new subdivision to be titled “The Oaks of Mendota Heights.” Background The applicant requests to replat two existing single family lots and an additional smaller parcel (acquired from MnDOT right-of-way) into three new lots, located at 2511 & 2525 Condon Court. Two of the proposed lots are for new twin-homes, and the third lot is for a new detached single family home. On July 7, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2015-48, which approved the Preliminary Plat of the Oaks of Mendota Heights. Since that date, the developer attempted to negotiate and secure easement rights from adjacent landowners to allow certain utilities to be extended and serve the proposed platted area, which proved unsuccessful. Pursuant to Title 11-2-1-F-4 of the City Code, “…approval of a preliminary plat shall be effective for a period of one year. At the end of this time, final plat approval on the subdivision must be obtained from the city council, or an extension requested and granted by the city council.” On June 7, 2016, the developer received a 12-month extension on the preliminary plat, which allowed additional time to work with the city and potentially include the sewer extension in the future Mendota Heights Road Rehabilitation project. The Developer has been working with city staff and St. Paul Regional Water Services in identifying new sanitary and water service lines and easements, and staff now believes the new platted properties will be adequately served with new water and sanitary services, including all necessary easements. Budget Impact There are no impacts to the city budget. Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2017-32 APPROVING A FINAL PLAT OF THE OAKS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, located at 2511 AND 2525 CONDON COURT. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 88 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017-32 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR THE OAKS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2511 AND 2525 CONDON COURT WHEREAS, Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC has applied under Planning Case No. 2015-20 for a final plat of certain properties generally located at 2511 and 2525 Condon Court, and legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on the original preliminary plat of these properties at the regular meeting of June 23, 2015, whereby the Commission gave unanimous recommendation to the City Council to approve said preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2015, the Mendota Heights City Council received this recommendation, and adopted Resolution No. 2015-48, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of “The Oaks” and for the properties located at 2511 and 2525 Condon Court; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2016, the City Council granted a twelve-month extension on the final plat approval to the developer, in order to give the developer additional time to resolve site utility and easement issues necessary for platting the subject properties. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the final plat request as originally proposed in Planning Case 2015-20 is hereby approved based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed final plat is consistent with the general layout and overall design illustrated on the original and previously approved preliminary plat. 2. The proposed final plat meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code, including proposed uses, lot size, lot width and setbacks. The lot widths for Lots 1, 2, and 3 meet the intent of the Code in terms of access and adequate spacing, even though they do not meet the letter of the Code definition. 3. The proposed final plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code, including grading, drainage, and lot arrangement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the final plat request as proposed in Planning Case No. 2015-20 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. $8,100.00 Park Dedication Fee is to be paid to the City, prior to building permit approvals. 2. Building and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction. page 89 Res 2017-32 page 2 3. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 4. Construction activity will be in compliance with provisions outlined in City Code. 5. A final landscape plan, including planting sizes, is included as part of the final building plans. 6. A Developer’s Agreement will be executed with the City detailing the responsibilities of all parties involved with development of the platted area. This will include a detailed description of municipal utility installation, landscaping and building and driveway placement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of May, 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 90 Res 2017-32 page 3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description – 2511 and 2525 Condon Court PID: 27-03500-80-010 and 27-03500-80-022 That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the south line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Trunk Highway No. 49, (formerly No. 88) thence west, along said south line, 450 feet, thence north 932 feet to the point of beginning; thence north 160 feet, thence east parallel with the south line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the center line of Trunk Highway No. 49, as built, (formerly No. 88); thence southerly, along the center line of said highway, 160 feet, more or less, to a point on a line which is parallel with the south line of the said Southeast Quarter and passes through the point of beginning, thence west, parallel with the south line of said Southeast Quarter a distance of 305 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, Excepting therefrom that part which lies easterly of a line run parallel with and distant 162.5 feet westerly of the following described line, beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of Section 2, Township 27, Range 23, distant 612.2 feet west of the east quarter thereof; thence run northerly at an angle of 88 degrees 5 minutes 30 seconds with said east and west Quarter line (when measured east to north) 325.9 feet, thence deflect to the left at an angle of 13 degrees 59 minutes for 2064.8 feet; thence deflect to the right on ten chord spiral curve of decreasing radius (spiral angle 1 degree 7 minutes 30 seconds) for 150 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 1 degree 30 minute circular curve (delta angle 22 degrees 54 minutes) for 1526.7 feet and terminating. Together with a strip 12.5 feet in width adjoining and westerly of the above described strip; beginning opposite a point on the above described line distant 633.5 feet southerly of its point of termination (when measured along said line) and extending northerly to the north line of the above described tract. And All that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southerly line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Minnesota State Highway No. 88 as used and existing on and prior to November 30, 1950; thence west along said southerly line of the Southeast Quarter for a distance of 450 feet; thence north for a distance of 1092 feet to the point of beginning of the land described; thence north for a distance of 273 feet; thence east and parallel with the southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 301.8 feet, more or less, to the center line of Minnesota State Highway 88; thence southerly along the center line of said Highway for a distance of 273.3, more or less; thence west and parallel with the southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, containing approximately 2 acres, subject to Highway. And That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southerly line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Trunk Highway No. 88, (now known as Trunk Highway No. 149) as used and existing prior to November 30, 1950; thence West, along said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 450 feet; thence North for a distance of 1092 feet to the point of beginning of Tract A to be described; thence North for a distance of 273 feet; thence East and parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 301.8 feet, more or less, to the center line of said Trunk Highway No. 88; thence southerly, along the center line of said Highway for 273.3 feet, more or less; thence West and parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning; which lies easterly of the westerly right of way line of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 19-53 as the same page 91 Res 2017-32 page 4 is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County, and northerly, westerly, and southerly of Line 1 described below; Line 1 - Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B7 as shown on said Plat Numbered 19-53; thence westerly on an azimuth of 275 degrees 26 minutes 38 seconds along the boundary of said plat for 12.50 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B8; thence northerly for 190.29 feet along the boundary of said plat on a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 3994.72 feet, a delta angle of 02 degrees 43 minutes 46 seconds and a chord azimuth of 06 degrees 48 minutes 30 seconds to the point of beginning of Line 1 to be described; thence on an azimuth of 89 degrees 49 minutes 44 seconds for 30.32 feet; thence northerly for 109.57 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 3964.72 feet, a delta angle of 01 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds and a chord azimuth of 279 degrees 49 minutes 12 seconds for 30.00 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B9 as shown on said Plat No. 19-53 and there terminating; containing 3366 square feet, more or less. page 92 KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, owner of the following described property: That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the south line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Trunk Highway No. 49, (formerly No. 88) thence west, along said south line, 450 feet, thence north 932 feet to the point of beginning; thence north 160 feet, thence east parallel with the south line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the center line of Trunk Highway No. 49, as built, (formerly No. 88); thence southerly, along the center line of said highway, 160 feet, more or less, to a point on a line which is parallel with the south line of the said Southeast Quarter and passes through the point of beginning, thence west, parallel with the south line of said Southeast Quarter a distance of 305 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, Excepting therefrom that part which lies easterly of a line run parallel with and distant 162.5 feet westerly of the following described line, beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of Section 2, Township 27, Range 23, distant 612.2 feet west of the east quarter thereof; thence run northerly at and angle of 88 degrees 5 minutes 30 seconds with said east and west quarter line (when measured east to north) 325.9 feet, thence deflect to the left at an angle of 13 degrees 59 minutes for 2064.8 feet; thence deflect to the right on ten chord spiral curve of decreasing radius (spiral angle 1 degree 7 minutes 30 seconds) for 150 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 1 degree 30 minute circular curve (delta angle 22 degrees 54 minutes) for 1526.7 feet and terminating. Together with a strip 12.5 feet in width adjoining and westerly of the above described strip; beginning opposite a point on the above described line distant 633.5 feet southerly of its point of termination (when measured along said line) and extending northerly to the north line of the above described tract. And All that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southerly line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Minnesota State Highway No. 88 as used and existing on and prior to November 30, 1950; thence west along said southerly line of the Southeast Quarter for a distance of 450 feet; thence north for a distance of 1092 feet to the point of beginning of the land described; thence north for a distance of 273 feet; thence east and parallel with the southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 301.8 feet, more or less, to the center line of Minnesota State Highway 88; thence southerly along the center line of said Highway for a distance of 273.3, more or less; thence west and parallel with the southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, containing approximately 2 acres, subject to Highway. And That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southerly line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Trunk Highway No. 88, (now known as Trunk Highway No. 149) as used and existing prior to November 30, 1950; thence West, along said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 450 feet; thence North for a distance of 1092 feet to the point of beginning of Tract A to be described; thence North for a distance of 273 feet; thence East and parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 301.8 feet, more or less, to the center line of said Trunk Highway No. 88; thence southerly, along the center line of said Highway for 273.3 feet, more or less; thence West and parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning; which lies easterly of the westerly right of way line of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 19-53 as the same is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County, and northerly, westerly, and southerly of Line 1 described below; Line1 - Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B7 as shown on said Plat Numbered 19-53; thence westerly on an azimuth of 275 degrees 26 minutes 38 seconds along the boundary of said plat for 12.50 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B8; thence northerly for 190.29 feet along the boundary of said plat on a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 3994.72 feet, a delta angle of 02 degrees 43 minutes 46 seconds and a chord azimuth of 06 degrees 48 minutes 30 seconds to the point of beginning of Line 1 to be described; thence on an azimuth of 89 degrees 49 minutes 44 seconds for 30.32 feet; thence northerly for 109.57 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 3964.72 feet, a delta angle of 01 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds and a chord azimuth of 279 degrees 49 minutes 12 seconds for 30.00 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B9 as shown on said Plat No. 19-53 and there terminating; containing 3366 square feet, more or less. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as THE OAKS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use the public ways and the drainage and utility easements as created on this plat. In witness whereof said Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company , has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this day of , 20 . Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC By: its STATE OF COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on day of , 20 , by , the of Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC , on behalf of the company. County, Printed Name My commission expires I Marcus F. Hampton do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 ______________________________________________________________ Marcus F. Hampton, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 47481 BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 20, T. 114, R. 20 WHICH IS ^^hDdK,sZ/E'K&^ϬϬΣϭϭΖϭϱΗt 8+%+0+6;/#2 NOTE: NO MONUMENT SYMBOL SHOWN AT ANY STATUTE REQUIRED LOCATION INDICATES A PLAT MONUMENT THAT WILL BE SET WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE RECORDING DATE OF THIS PLAT. SAID MONUMENTS SHALL BE 1/2 INCH x 14 INCH IRON PIPES MARKED BY R.L.S. NO. 47481. DENOTES FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON MONUMENT DENOTES SET 1/2 INCH IRON MONUMENT WITH CAP MARKED R.L.S. NO. 47481 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ADJOINING LOT LINES, AND BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ADJOINING RIGHT OF WAY LINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 20 , by Marcus F. Hampton. County, Printed Name My commission expires January 31, CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA This plat of THE OAKS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of MENDOTA HEIGHTS, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 20 , and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. By: Mayor Clerk DAKOTA COUNTY SURVEYOR I hereby certify that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approved this day of , 20 . By: Dakota County Surveyor DAKOTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION AND RECORDS Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable in the year 20 on the land hereinbefore described have been paid. Also pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes and transfer entered this day of , 20 . By: Director Department Of Property Taxation and Records COUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this plat of THE OAKS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS was filed in the office of the County Recorder for public record on this day of , 20 , at o'clock . M. and was duly filed in Book of Plats, Page , as Document Number . County Recorder page 93 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: May 2, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Council Direction of a Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Pylon/Freestanding Signs in the B-1 and B-1A Commercial Districts Introduction City staff requests City Council direction to proceed with amending certain parts of City Code Title 12-1D- 15 by allowing pylon/freestanding signs in the B-1 Limited Business and B-1A Business Park Districts. Background A local business owner located in the B-1 District recently requested a new freestanding monument sign for his business, but was denied due to City Code does not allow for such signs in the B1 or B1-A districts. In order to remedy this situation, city staff elected to present a request to the Planning Commission asking to proceed with an amendment to the city sign code provisions, thereby allowing such pylon/freestanding signs in these two districts. At the April 25, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented a brief memo with information related to a proposed zoning ordinance amendment of allowing certain types of signs in the B1 and B1-A zones in the community (attached hereto). The Planning Commission unanimously supported this request, but felt it was best suited to have the City Council provide concurrent (supportive) direction as well before staff undertakes any action on this matter. Subject to the outcome of council action, staff intends to bring this issue back to the May 23rd Planning Commission meeting for first consideration and recommendations, followed by final consideration by the City Council at the June 6, 2017 regular meeting. Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council give direction to city staff to proceed with a proposed zoning ordinance amendment to certain parts of City Code Title 12-1D-15: Signs, specifically allowing pylon or freestanding signs in the B-1 Limited Business and B-1A Business Park Districts. Action Required This item requires a simple majority vote. page 94 Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE: April 25, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Title 12-1D-15: Signs – Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Allow Pylon or Freestanding Signs in the B-1 Limited Business and B-1A Business Park Districts Introduction City staff is requesting the Planning Commission consider amending certain parts of City Code Title 12- 1D-15: Signs, specifically allowing pylon or freestanding signs in the B-1 Limited Business and B-1A Business Park Districts. Background Staff was recently contacted by the owners of the 1200 Center Pointe Curve multi-tenant offices to install a new freestanding sign in the front-yard of the commercial property. The property is situated in the B-1 Limited Business District. Upon review of the Sign Code, it was discovered that although nameplate and business signs (wall signs) were allowed, pylon and freestanding signs were not identified or allowed under this B-1 or the related B1-A Business Park zoning districts. The relevant sign code text is noted as follows: I. Signs In B And I Districts: 2. Pylon Or Freestanding Sign: The erection of one pylon type sign for any single lot in the B-2, B-3, B-4 and I districts is permitted under the following provisions: a. A pylon or freestanding sign shall not be higher than twenty five feet (25') above the average grade level at the base of the sign. b. No part of the pylon or freestanding sign shall be less than ten feet (10') from lot lines nor less than five feet (5') from any driveway or parking area. c. No part or projection from a pylon or freestanding sign shall be less than fourteen feet (14') vertical distance above the grade level at the base of the sign. d. The gross area of any surface of a pylon or freestanding sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet. The areas of the city where the B1 and B1-A districts lie are identified on the attached copy of the city’s Official Zoning Map. page 95 Staff attempted to explore and research why these two commercial zoning districts were specifically excluded from these types of sign, but no explanation or reasoning could be found. A quick search of an old 1981 Zoning Ordinance manual in our offices revealed the language is virtually the same as it reads today when addressing freestanding signs under these commercial (B-2, B-3, B-4 and I) districts. As a result of a comment made by the owner of 1200 Centre Pointe, Staff did inspect other similar B-1 and B1-A zoned uses throughout the city, and soon discovered a number of these businesses have different styles and levels of freestanding signs. There appears to be no records however, of any variances being issued to allow such signs. Attached to this memo are some street-view images of certain businesses located either in the B1 or B1-A district where freestanding signs currently exist on said properties. Discussion The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a code amendment request and has broad discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Recommendation It is Planning Staff’s professional opinion that it seems highly unusual to see these two commercial/business districts excluded from the freestanding sign allowances normally afforded to other (and somewhat similar) commercial/business districts. Therefore, we would suggest the Planning Commission initiate the process of amending the City Code in allowing such signs in the B-1 and B1-A zones. Staff recommends the Planning Commission initiate a discussion to the proposed code amendment; suggest or provide any standards or limitations (if any) you wish to see in the proposed sign code text amendment; and direct staff to bring this item back for further consideration at a future Planning Commission meeting. Action Required No official action is needed; just a simple majority vote directing appropriate city staff to proceed with researching and preparing new language for future consideration. page 96 page 97 Mendota Corporate Center 1110 HWY 110 Howry Residential Services – 1150 Centre Pointe Curve page 98 Patterson Dental 1031 Mendota Heights Road MH Executive Plaza – 750 Plaza Drive South page 99 Farmers Insurance – 750 Plaza Drive South Signart – 2170 Dodd Road page 100 910 Sibley Memorial Hwy. 880 Sibley Memorial Hwy. page 101 B) DISCUSSION OF ZONING AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FREESTANDING/PYLON TYPE SIGNS IN THE B1 LIMITED BUSINESS AND B1-A BUSINESS PARK DISTRICTS Planner Benetti explained he was approached by a business owner of the 1200 Center Pointe Curve multi-tenant offices requesting to be able to install a freestanding sign in the front-yard of the commercial property. Upon reviewing the code, he discovered that these types of signs are not permitted in the B-1 Limited Business and B-1A Business Park Districts. He went back as far as 1980 and could not find any updates to this ordinance. There are a number of B-1 and B-1A businesses that do have these types of pylon or freestanding signs. He noted that a pylon is typically like a single-post sign with a face on it; whereas, a monument-type sign looks similar to a headstone. They are both referred to as a ‘freestanding’ or pylon sign. Planner Benetti shared images of pylon signs located in the B-1 and B-1A districts. Staff requested that the Planning Commission review the recommended edits to the zoning ordinance to allow freestanding signs in the B-1 and B-1A zoning districts, making any edits as they deem necessary, and then staff would return to the next Planning Commission meeting with a revised ordinance for consideration. Chair Field suggested that before the Planning Commission directs staff to proceed with researching and preparing new language for the code that staff approach the City Council at their May 2 meeting to find out if they would supportive of this. Then it would come to the commission in a more typical fashion. Commissioner Roston noted that this thoughts on this were 1) he expressed his appreciation to Planner Benetti for bring this forward and 2) he believes it is something that needs to be done. He personally had no problem supporting this action. He suggested that if staff believes this to be important, and the commission historically has taken that very seriously, then they should bring something back to the commission for consideration – assuming it is OK with the Council. Commissioner Noonan stated that he believes this to be important given the fact that of the number of freestanding signs currently in the B-1 district – a number of non-conforming uses – it’s bad practice. Also, requests are coming forward for these types of signs which is creating a situation of ‘the have and the have nots’. Commissioner Magnuson asked if anyone knew of any specific reasons why it would not be allowed in the B-1 and B-1A districts. Planner Benetti stated that in his research he was unable to find any specific reasons or explanations of why it was not included in these districts. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO DIRECT APPROPRIATE CITY STAFF TO PROCEED WITH RESEARCHING AND PREPARING NEW LANGUAGE AMENDING THE CITY CODE IN ALLOWING FREESTANDING SIGN ALLOWANCES IN THE B-1 AND B1-A ZONES FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Costello) page 102 DATE: May 2, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Request for Proposals –Job Classification and Compensation Study COMMENT: Introduction The Council is asked to authorize staff to seek proposals for the completion of a Job Classification and Compensation Study. Background The State of Minnesota Local Government Pay Equity Act requires cities to maintain a classification and compensation plan in order to maintain pay equity compliance. The law requires local governments to analyze their pay structure for evidence of inequities and to report this information to the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget. The City will be required to submit its next Pay Equity report in January, 2018. The City has a responsibility to keep its job evaluation system updated to account for new employee classes and for any other changes affecting the comparable work value of existing job classes. The City has not conducted a comprehensive classification and compensation review in the past several years, and is currently using a job evaluation system which was retired in the late 1980’s. The system has evolved, minimally, with incremental changes being made from time to time. The proposed Request for Proposal (RFP) is an invitation by the City for qualified consultants to submit responses for the completion of a classification and compensation study of the City’s full and part-time positions. The scope of services laid out in the RFP includes a review of current city job descriptions and classifications, establishment of a job evaluation system and review of internal equity and market competitiveness. The resulting product will be a Classification and Compensation Plan document including overall plan, job evaluation system and process. If approved, staff would issue the RFP, evaluate proposals received, and make a recommendation to the City Council based on the following schedule: Issue the RFP: May 3, 2017 Proposal Deadline: May 24, 2017 City Council Approval: June 6, 2017 Project Start: June 7, 2017 Project Completed: October 1, 2017 page 103 Budget Impact The 2017 budget includes $15,000 for purposes of hiring a consultant to complete a Job Classification and Compensation Study. Any changes recommended to bring the City into compliance with Pay Equity requirements would need to be instituted by the end of this year. Otherwise, any other recommended changes in compensation will be the subject of future negotiations and budget cycles. Recommendation Authorize staff to release the proposed Request for Proposals for the completion of a Job Classification and Compensation Study. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the release of the Request for Proposals for the completion of a Job Classification and Compensation Study. page 104 DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS for Classification and Compensation Study CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651‐452‐1850 www.mendota‐heights.com page 105 City of Mendota Heights DRAFT Classification and Compensation Study RFP GENERAL INFORMATION The City of Mendota Heights is soliciting proposals from qualified firms for the completion of a Classification and Compensation Study. The study is to include a review of current city job descriptions and classifications, establishment of a job evaluation system, and a review of internal equity and market competitiveness of its full‐time and part‐time non‐union positions. Introduction Qualified firms are invited to submit proposals for the completion of a Classification and Compensation Study based on the information contained in this Request for Proposal. General Conditions and Stipulations  The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals and to waive formalities and select the responder that best meets the needs of the City. The City’s objective is to select an agent who will provide the best possible service at the best possible cost while meeting the Request for Proposal specifications. The City is not obligated to award the contract based on cost alone.  The City intends to award a single individual, vendor or consulting firm the contract.  During the evaluation process, the City of Mendota Heights reserves the right, to request additional information or clarification on information submitted. Minor revisions to original proposals, if requested by the City, may be negotiated following the proposal deadline and prior to being submitted to the City Council for approval.  All proposals must comply with Federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to compensation standards, including but not limited to Pay Equity, FLSA and ADA. Background City Description The City of Mendota Heights is a first ring suburb of the Minneapolis‐St. Paul Metropolitan Area. The City provides public safety services to smaller adjacent communities and therefore has a population of just under 12,000. The City of Mendota Heights is a statutory city with a Council/Administrator form of government. Mendota Heights is governed by a City Council composed of a Mayor and four Council Members. Employee Demographics Overall, the City of Mendota Heights currently employs 38 full‐time employees and 6 part‐time employees. City departments include: Administration, Public Works, Police and Fire. See Attachment A for breakdown. The City has labor agreements with four unions: MN Teamsters, Law Enforcement Labor Services, Minnesota Public Employees Association (Sergeants Unit) and the International Union of Operating Engineers. Labor agreements with all four unions expire December 31, 2017. page 106 City of Mendota Heights DRAFT Classification and Compensation Study RFP Existing Classification and Compensation System The City has not conducted a comprehensive classification and compensation review in the past several years. The City currently uses a job evaluation system which was retired in the late 1980’s, whereby job classifications are assigned points based on benchmark job values. The system has evolved, minimally, with incremental changes being made from time to time. The City uses a traditional step compensation structure, whereby movement through a classification pay range is accomplished over a period of three (3) years. Currently, there are 44 pay grades with a corresponding salary range for each grade. Salary ranges are made up of five steps and may be adjusted annually. Minnesota Government Pay Equity The State of Minnesota Local Government Pay Equity Act requires cities to maintain a classification and compensation plan in order to maintain pay equity compliance. The city has been in compliance with pay equity requirements. The City’s next report is due in January, 2018. Project Scope City Goals The goal of the City of Mendota Heights is to update its classification and compensation system and policies using accepted practices and in accordance with applicable federal and state laws. Key outcomes are:  To enable the City to maintain a competitive position with other comparable cities in the attraction and retention of qualified employees.  To develop and maintain a Classification and Compensation Plan that is consistent with the city’s compensation philosophy and appropriate and commensurate with the breadth and depth of services being offered to and provided for in the community.  To develop and maintain a Classification and Compensation Plan that is easy to communicate, and is understandable and flexible.  To achieve and maintain compliance with the Minnesota Local Government Pay Equity Act and all applicable local, state and Federal laws and regulations that affect the plan. Scope of Work Provide professional services to evaluate and analyze the City’s needs, design, develop and implement a position classification and compensation process and plan that includes the following:  Audit existing job descriptions; review and revise existing job descriptions, as needed. Provide a standardized job description template; ensure consistency in formatting and content across all job descriptions. Review exempt/nonexempt designations under the Fair Labor Standards Act guidelines based on updated job descriptions. page 107 City of Mendota Heights DRAFT Classification and Compensation Study RFP  Recommend a job evaluation system. Using job descriptions, conduct a thorough evaluation of each position to determine job value based on the criteria of the recommended system. Establish a classification (job‐ranking) hierarchy.  Conduct a wage/labor market survey and complete an analysis of the city’s pay structure, evaluating internal equity and external competitiveness. Work with staff to establish a list of comparable cities. Recommend pay grade adjustments, as needed. Review and (re)assign all positions to appropriate pay grade. Test system to verify ranking structure and ensure compliance and equity.  Produce Classification and Compensation Plan document including an overall plan, forms and procedures that are clear and understandable. Provide implementation support and training on the system.  Provide the City of Mendota Heights with a completed pay equity report for submission to Minnesota Management and Budget in January, 2018.  Present findings and recommendations, including written and oral reports at various meetings, including employee groups, union groups and city council.  Post contract services including review of new job descriptions and determination of points and salary for new positions. Proposal Format Proposals submitted in response to this Request for Proposals should contain the following information: A. Cover Letter‐‐ introduce your firm and confirm your interest in performing the study. B. Firm Background—include a description of your organization and a general overview of the firm’s services as well as the extent to which the firm has experience in completing classification and compensation studies. Identify and describe the experience, qualifications and credentials of the project team or individual(s) proposed to do the work, specifically detailing experience with government entities. C. Proposed Work Plan‐ outline the steps and tasks to be performed, and the relative scheduling of those tasks. The work plan should detail key events, methods, and estimated hours and the timeline for completion. D. References‐ provide at least three client references of similar sized public sector clients with which the firm has worked with in the past five years. Provide a contact person, telephone number, email address and mailing address, as well as a brief description of the services provided. E. Cost proposal ‐ provide a not to exceed cost breakdown of your firm’s rates, fees, and charges for services, by phase and for the total project, and a proposed payment schedule. page 108 City of Mendota Heights DRAFT Classification and Compensation Study RFP Selection Criteria The City of Mendota Heights considers the following factors important in the selection process:  Understanding of the project.  Clarity and completeness of proposal.  Clarity of the description of services to be provided.  Compliance with RFP requirements.  Previous experience with other municipalities in Minnesota.  Firm qualifications, including its experience and that of the personnel assigned to the project.  Information obtained from references provided by the responder.  Cost. Timeline The City plans to adhere to the following timetable as closely as possible: Issue RFP: May 3, 2017 Proposal Deadline: May 24, 2017 City Council Approval: June 6, 2017 Start Project: June 7, 2017 Project Completed: October 1, 2017 Submitting Proposals Interested firms should submit three (3) copies of the proposal by 4:30 pm (CST) on May 24, 2017. Proposals should be marked “Classification and Compensation Study”. All proposals and accompanying documentation will become the property of the City and will not be returned. Proposals should be sent to: City of Mendota Heights Attention: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Questions regarding this Request for Proposal should be directed to: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Phone: 651‐255‐1356  Email: cherylj@mendota‐heights.com page 109 City of Mendota Heights DRAFT Classification and Compensation Study RFP ATTACHMENT A. City of Mendota Heights Non‐Union Positions Department Position Administration City Administrator Assistant City Administrator Recreation Program Coordinator Community Development Director City Clerk Finance Director Accounting Clerk Utility Billing Clerk Receptionist Public Works Public Works Director Senior Engineering Technician Secretary/Deputy City Clerk Public Works Superintendent Police Police Chief Captain Police Support Specialist Community Service Officer Fire Fire Chief Assistant Fire Chief Fire Marshal page 110 DATE: May 2, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Council Goal Setting Session COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to indicate its willingness to participate in a goal setting session, and, if so, choose a date to hold it. BACKGROUND It is not uncommon for governing boards to meet to determine priorities for an upcoming period of time. Doing so allows the board and staff to concentrate on issues which are of the most importance, which helps to assure that those goals will be accomplished. Previous Mendota Heights goal setting sessions have been task-focused, and have focused on issues to pursue that calendar year. I would like to propose a slightly enlarged type of session, which will identify the goals for the City to pursue for the remainder of 2017, and also 2018, while the current City Council holds office. An update to any goals set at the initial workshop could be done in early 2018, but it is important that a session be held now to identify the issues of the highest priority for this City Council. This could be led by staff, but I recommend that it be facilitated by an outside party. I have conferred with a colleague of mine, Mark Nagel, who has offered to perform this for the City at no cost. Mr. Nagle is a former city manager, and is now an adjunct professor of Public Administration at several Twin Cities area colleges. For many years, he has facilitated an annual goal setting session for the City of Little Canada. The intent is that the outcome of this meeting would be to establish a prioritized set of goals to address between now, and the end of next year. Once the goals are established, staff should be directed to research and recommend action steps, and determine the resources needed to accomplish the goals. page 111 Even though the City Council is the body which will ultimately adopt the goals, it is recommended that Department Heads and other key staff also attend and participate in the work session. The amount of time needed to do this is estimated to be up to four hours. Council should discuss and decide the date and time. Two suggested dates with starting times are: Tuesday, May 23rd 1:30 PM or 5:00 PM Tuesday, June 13th 1:30 PM or 5:00 PM If other dates or times are desired, Council should so indicate. ACTION RQUIRED If the Council wants to have a facilitated goal setting work session, it should decide on a date and time. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 112