2018-03-20 Council packetCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
March 20, 2018 – 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 March 6, 2018 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for St. Thomas Academy, April 20-21, 2018
c. Award Bid for 2018 Street Sweeping
d. Approval of Out of State Travel – Fire Department
e. Approval of Training – Police Department
f. Approval of Ordinance 520 – Water Availability Charge
g. Approval of Part-Time Receptionist Hire
h. Approve February 2018 Building Activity Report
i. Approval of Claims List
6. Public Comments
*See guidelines below
7. Presentations
a. Tobacco Free Alliance Regarding Flavored Tobacco
b. ISD 197 School Referendum presentation
8. Public Hearing - none
9. New and Unfinished Business
a. Contract for Maintenance Repairs at Rogers Lake Skate Park
b. Set meeting date for Joint City Council and Parks-Recreation Commission Work Session
10. Community Announcements
11. Council Comments
12. Adjourn
Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda
provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the
agenda. All are welcome to speak.
Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person
and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the
City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious.
Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to
make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not
enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at the presentation.
Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as
a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the
citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the
issues raised.”
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, March 6, 2018
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. Councilors Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also
present. Councilor 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. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution
of any necessary documents contained therein, pulling items d.) Approve Resolution 2018-19 Accept Bids
and Award Contract for the Ivy Hill Park Pond Improvements.
a. Approval of February 20, 2018 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of February 22, 2018 Council Work Session Minutes
c. Acknowledge January 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
d. Approve Resolution 2018-19 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Ivy Hill Park Pond
Improvements
e. Approval of Claims List
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
page 3
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
D) APPROVE RESOLUTION 2018-19 ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR THE IVY
HILL PARK POND IMPROVEMENTS
Councilor Miller asked what the desired outcome was for this project. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek
replied that staff was hoping to restore the pond to its original design elevations so it can provide treatment
for the water entering it. Currently, the pond has filled up with sediment. An orifice plate would be added
so smaller amounts of rain water will stay in the pond longer and provide some additional treatment.
Councilor Miller asked how staff is measuring its effectiveness. Mr. Ruzek answered that staff would
monitor the pond in the future. The City typically does not do quality monitoring of the local ponds.
Councilor Paper asked what would be done with the spoils. Mr. Ruzek replied that staff would discuss
options with the contractor at the pre-construction meeting. They have an option to spoil 500 of the 1200
yards that are being removed on the north end of the project. There is a low area there that is ponding water
and has drowned out a couple of trees. If this is not feasible, then the contractor would be required to
remove the material. Councilor Paper asked if this would change the pricing. Mr. Ruzek replied that the
pricing would most likely be the same.
Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-19 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR THE IVY HILLS PARK POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (201709).
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
PRESENTATIONS
A) ROGERS LAKE WATER QUALITY REPORT - SAINT THOMAS ACADEMY
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek introduced Mr. Tony Kinzley, Advanced Placement Environmental
Sciences Instructor at Saint Thomas Academy. Mr. Kinzley introduced four students to present their
findings of the Rogers Lake Water Quality research.
Since 1993, the overall trend of the lake has been improving. The 2018 Overall Rating was at its historical
best. The areas of continued focus are for residents to maintain a buffer zone – do not mow all the way to
the lake; responsible fertilizer use; and pick up organic materials – pet waste, yard waste, and goose feces.
Councilor Miller asked if the turbidity rate had any influence on the desired water temperature. The
response was that the turbidity rate, since it changed so little, probably did not have a huge impact on the
water temperature. It is more likely due to the amount of water in the shade and in the sun.
page 4
Councilor Petschel asked Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, in regards to the residences in the area, if
there were any left with a drain field. Mr. Ruzek replied that all of the properties around the lake are on
city sewer systems. Councilor Petschel noted that the city does televising of the sewer lines on a regular
basis and cleaning, relining, and maintaining them as necessary; thereby assisting in keeping the city’s
lakes and ponds clean. The city has also installed barrier curbs to funnel the water into the storm sewer.
Councilor Petschel asked if there was a way, in terms of the total solids, to differentiate between soil
erosion, organic waste input, and road salt. Mr. Kinzley replied that the turbidity is the clarity of the water
and total solids are the suspended and dissolved solids – including the clarity part but also road salts. If
total solids are bad and turbidity is good, it means it is a road salt issue.
Councilor Petschel asked if there was anything that could be done to address the number of geese in the
area. Mr. Kinzley replied that the geese are not affecting the lake. The 2016 fecal coliform reading of 0.0
col/100ml is almost unheard of, and the 2017 reading of 0.8 col/100ml is essentially the same. This is
because of the buffer zones which prevent this fecal matter from entering the lake.
Councilor Paper asked if there has been any outreach to property owners that do not have a buffer zone.
Mr. Kinzley replied that they have not done that for a few years.
Councilor Paper asked if the students involved in this class have a say in the school’s fertilizer program.
Mr. Kinzley replied that they have not gotten into that; however, it is a good idea. Mr. Paul Solmon,
Director of Facilities at Saint Thomas Academy, stated the Academy only fertilizes the athletic fields;
which virtually all drain to the south.
Councilor Paper asked if the class kept to a pretty specific time range for their tests year over year. Mr.
Kinzley replied in the affirmative.
PUBLIC HEARING
No items scheduled.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) ONE YEAR REVIEW OF DOMESTIC CHICKENS ORDINANCE
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that in March 2017, the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 508 – Regarding the Keeping of Domestic Chickens, and asked for a review after one year.
The fee for a domestic chickens permit is $25, with an annual $25 renewal fee. Since its adoption, the City
has received more than ten inquiries and has officially approved five permits. Mr. Benetti inspected all five
permit holder’s properties and found that all of the coops were in good condition. No violations were noted.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the regulation requirements including a limit of 4 chickens, roosters are prohibited,
slaughtering of chickens is prohibited, no sale of eggs, eggs are for personal consumption only, chickens
cannot be raised or kept for fighting, food materials stored outside must be in a closed container with a lid,
page 5
coops must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, fecal waste shall be removed to prevent odors
and must be double bagged and disposed of, chickens shall not be kept in a manner to cause a public
nuisance, and any chicken coop and run authorized under this section may be inspected at any reasonable
time by Zoning Administration, the animal warden, or their designee.
Some of the feedback the City has received includes requests to allow for the composting of chicken waste,
increasing the limit to six chickens, reducing the permit fee, consideration of a larger size allowance for a
coop or a larger coop/shed combination, objection to inspection of the coop without the homeowner’s
permission.
Councilor Miller asked how many complaints had been received in the last year regarding chickens? Mr.
Benetti replied that no complaints have been received. Councilor Miller pointed out the ordinance language
“... The animal warden or any police officer may enter the premises where any animal is kept in a reportedly
cruel or inhumane manner . . .” and asked if the city had not received any complaints, why staff did not
work with the homeowners to schedule the inspections.
He also asked what the annual cost is to license a dog. Staff replied that the license fee for a neutered or
spayed dog is $10/annually or $15/annually for a non-neutered or non-spayed dog. Councilor Miller stated
that the $25/annual fee for chickens seems to be excessive. Councilor Petschel stated that the license fee
for a dog does not include an inspection of where the pet lives; however, the keeping of chickens requires
an annual inspection and the higher priced fee would cover the cost of staff time. Councilor Miller then
asked how much staff time was put into the annual inspections. Mr. Benetti replied that it took him
approximately four hours to inspect all of the sites and complete the follow-up work.
Councilor Paper asked if it was necessary to inspect annually going forward since the results of this first
year were so positive. Mr. Benetti expressed his agreement but would do whatever the Council decided.
However, he would like to be able to inspect a property without causing undue angst from the property
owner.
Mayor Garlock stated that if Mr. Benetti feels comfortable inspecting only upon receipt of a complaint,
then that would be fine with him. He suggested that for a first-time permit holder, a one-year inspection
should be completed, then inspect on a complaint basis only. The Councilors expressed their agreement to
that suggestion.
Councilor Petschel expressed concern about allowing the composting of the chicken manure. In the
literature she has read, if composting is taking place and the weather gets very hot or rainy, there can be a
considerable odor. She is also concerned with the risk of salmonella. Even the Center for Disease Control
acknowledges this risk. The City of Eagan requires double bagging for this reason.
Councilor Miller stated he appreciates those concerns, however, he believes the permit holders would do
their best to mitigate the hazards. From an environmental standpoint, to be able to compost makes sense.
Councilor Paper agreed and noted that if composting is not done in a thoughtful and intelligent manner,
then there would be complaints and the right to compost could be taken away. Councilor Petschel stated
she could only support this if there is language in the ordinance that would give staff the backing they need
to enforce the removal of the privilege to compost from that resident.
page 6
Mayor Garlock recapped the direction to staff:
• Increase the number of allowable chickens from four to six
• Reduce the annual permit to $15 per chicken coop
• Increase the maximum allowable size of backyard structures with a chicken coop to 200 square
feet, with the provision that if the coop use is removed, then the structure must be removed as well.
• One year inspection for first-time permit holders and complaint-driven inspections thereafter.
• Composting will be allowed unless there is a complaint
Mr. Benetti suggested this ordinance be reviewed by the Council in one year. The Council agreed.
Ms. Rachel Quick, 554 Junction Lane, provided a brief update on the experience her family has had since
they received their chickens. From the minute the chickens joined her family, it had been a positive
experience. The family has learned a lot through the process of getting a coop and a run built. They eagerly
waited for their first eggs. They participated in the annual Twin Cities Coop Tour and had approximately
100 people visit their home. She expressed her appreciation for the recommended ordinance changes.
A proposed ordinance to update the Code language will be brought back to the Council at a future meeting.
B) RESOLUTION 2018-20 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
1991 HUNTER LANE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-03)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Chris Robichaud, 1991 Hunter Lane,
requested a Critical Area Permit to construct an addition to his existing two car garage and single family
home. The property is located in the Mississippi River Corridor Area. Mr. Benetti explained that there
were no comments received at the public hearing. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the permit with conditions and findings of fact as stated in the resolution.
Councilor Petschel asked if there would be any changes to the drainage on the property. Mr. Benetti replied
that there would no changes to the drainage.
Mr. John Dougherty, 1933 Hunter Lane, stated that he had no complaints about the addition. He explained
that currently, when the snow melts, a pond develops between the subject property and his property. He
asked what effect this new addition would have on that low area. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek
replied that after looking at the drainage contours, it appears that Mr. Dougherty’s property has a higher
elevation than the subject property and there may be some low grades in the area. The applicant’s proposal
does not show any improved grading or drainage in that area.
Mr. Dougherty pointed out a Norway pine tree that is located on the property and asked if it would remain.
Mr. Ruzek replied that the proposal shows that he is not going to disturb that tree.
Mayor Garlock moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-20 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1991 HUNTER LANE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-03).
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
page 7
C) RESOLUTION 2018-21 DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SHIRLEY
HETHERINGTON AT 2144 THERESA STREET (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-04)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Ms. Shirley Hetherington, 2144 Theresa
Street, requested a variance to build a single-car garage addition to an existing two car attached garage
structure. This addition would reduce the setback along the north side of the dwelling to seven feet from
the north property line. Under the city’s zoning standards, a ten foot side-yard setback is required.
Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property which shows the house is centered on the lot. Currently,
all setbacks meet city code requirements. Ms. Hetherington is requesting to build a 9 x 22 foot addition on
the north end of the existing two-car garage and expand the driveway. This would decrease the setback
from the current 16 feet to 7 feet; thereby creating a 3 foot encroachment.
Mr. Benetti explained that the city applies a ‘practical difficulty’ standard when considering variances. The
Council has the right to grant a variance based on what they determine to be ‘practical difficulties’. The
three point test is:
• Can the property be used in a reasonable manner
• Is the plight due to circumstances unique to the property and the variance would not alter the general
characteristics or essential character of the neighborhood
• Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty
He said that these are guidelines and they do not all have to be met. However, actions by the Council must
be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of
the community. Any impacts on traffic; light and air; danger of fire, risk, or safety to the public safety; the
effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area; and the affect of the proposed variance upon the
Comprehensive Plan must be considered.
Staff believed that there would not be any impacts to the neighboring property, felt it would be considered
a reasonable request, and indicated that this request was unique because if the house had been originally
built slightly to the south, then this variance would not be required. Since the original builder centered it
on the lot, it created a unique situation for the current property owner.
Mr. Benetti also pointed out that Ms. Hetherington obtained permission from all of her neighbors and they
all are in support of this application.
The Planning Commission did recommend denial by a vote of 6-1 on the fact that, in their opinion, this
request did not meet the ‘practical difficulties’ test.
Councilor Petschel asked City Attorney Tom Lehmann to explain the change in the law and what the
standards are for giving a variance. Mr. Lehmann explained that what Mr. Benetti indicated is the correct
standards for practical difficulties. Prior to 2011, the statute talked about the undue hardship, which was
creating a lot of problems for municipalities. There is still a three-pronged test where the Council has to
find that there is reasonableness, uniqueness, and does not change the essential character of the
neighborhood. The overall idea is the statute gives the city a little more discretion to make these kinds of
decisions. He believed that under these circumstances, it seems like this is a reasonable request where
Council could grant the variance in this situation.
page 8
Councilor Petschel stated that it is important that everybody who appears before the Council is treated the
same. Attorney Lehmann replied that with a variance, there will always be unique factors with each request.
The bottom line is that they have to meet the three prong test. That is why the courts require the city to
approve a resolution that outlines the findings of fact and the conditions.
Councilor Petschel noted the challenge with this lot was the way the builder chose to center the home on
the lot. This is a standard size lot and a variance should not be necessary. She suggested a statement for the
findings of fact– ‘circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner’. Mr. Benetti shared
the original Fact #2 “The Applicant has demonstrated a reasonable and practical difficulty for allowing a
reduced setback standard in order to construct a new garage addition, which will be in compliance with all
other applicable codes”. Councilor Petschel asked that this Fact be more specific and reference the initial
siting of the home on the lot creates a unique circumstance not created by the current homeowner.
Mayor Garlock moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-21 APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
REDUCED SETBACKS FROM SIDE-YARD SETBACKS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2144
THERESA STREET (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-04).
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
Councilor Petschel suggested that at a future Planning Commission meeting, Attorney Lehmann review
the law change and what the standards are for approving a variance so the Commission is very clear on it.
Mr. Benetti replied that Attorney Lehmann has been invited to the March 27, 2018 meeting.
D) RESOLUTION 2018-22 APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT
REQUEST FOR MCDONALD’S AT 2020 DODD ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-05)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this request from McDonald’s USA, LLC, for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Wetlands Permit to remodel and construct a new small building addition
to the existing McDonald’s restaurant site located at 2020 Dodd Road.
He shared the requirements for a Conditional Use Permit and a Wetlands Permit. He also shared images of
the current site and noted that it is a 2.26 acre site. This site is not part of the Plaza PUD and so is not
subject to that; it is still under the B-4 Shopping Center District. The restaurant is surrounded by the BP
Gas Station Auto Service, a shopping center, Walgreens, and The Reserve at Mendota Village apartments.
McDonald’s is currently a 4,232 square foot restaurant with 61 parking spaces. The original CUP for the
restaurant was approved in October 1975. A second CUP was approved in December 1993 for an outdoor
cashier’s booth and drive through, which was never built.
Essentially they would remove and replace the entire exterior finishes and materials of the facility and
perform a full remodel of the interior area, including dining, food preparation/service, and restrooms. They
would also like to add a small addition for a freezer/cooler. There would be no change to the signage at this
time. They also plan to replace the bituminous trail from the site to Dodd Road with a concrete walkway.
page 9
Mr. Benetti shared the requirement for the number of parking spaces (one space for each 15 square feet of
gross floor area of the building) and noted that the current 61 spaces falls short of that requirement of 283
stalls. However, staff was unsure if this standard was in effect when the building was constructed. He
suggested that since there does not appear to be any parking problems on the site, that the reduced number
of spaces be grandfathered in.
Because of the drive-thru area and the proximity of The Reserve apartments being built to the east, as part
of the screening or diffusing of noise from the intercom system, staff did ask for some new plantings and
the applicant has provided trees as part of a planting plan.
A wetlands permit was required because the work on the backside of the property is within 100 feet of the
wetland area. However, because there would be no impact to the wetland feature, staff has no conditions
or added comments at this time.
Councilor Paper asked, if the city is worried about diffusing noise on the eastern side of the lot, why the
proposal to plant over-story trees? Mr. Benetti replied that he would work with the applicant to come up
with a more desirable solution.
Councilor Petschel asked if the exterior brick would match the brick used at The Plaza? Mr. Benetti replied
that the brick was to be brown in color but he did not know if it would match. Councilor Petschel
recommended this be suggested to McDonald’s.
Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-22 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR MCDONALD’S PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2020 DODD
ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-05).
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
Councilor Petschel suggested that the Council look at the zoning code in regards to the parking regulations,
before it comes up again.
E) RESOLUTION 2018-23 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REQUEST FOR PRECISION
HOMES AT 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-06)
F) RESOLUTION 2018-24 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REQUEST FOR
PRECISION HOMES AT 1224 WACHTLER AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-07)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that these requests were for Critical Area Permits
for properties located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway and 1224 Wachtler Avenue. There used to be one
residence on these two lots. However, that home has been removed and the property is now considered two
separate lots. The lots are legally described as Lot 6 and Lot 7, Goodrich Happy Hollow. Lot 6 is 1.08 acres
in size and Lot 7 is 1.19 acres. Lot 6 will remain as 796 Sibley Memorial Highway and Lot 7 has been
identified as 1224 Wachtler Avenue.
page 10
There are no changes to the topography of the lots and no impacts to the bluff line. The new home proposed
for 796 Sibley Memorial Highway would be located 100 feet from Sibley Memorial Highway, 19.3 feet
from the north lot line, 13.6 feet from the south lot line, and well over 300 feet from the back lot line. This
would be a 2,440 square foot home, have cedar vertical and horizontal siding, natural stone and stucco.
The new home proposed for 1224 Wachtler Avenue would have a 10 foot setback along the north, 25 foot
setback from the south, and 100 foot setback from Wachtler Avenue, and meets all setback requirements.
This home would be constructed of natural stone and stucco.
There are some trees located on the sites that are proposed to be removed. As part of the conditions of
approval, there is a 10 tree per lot replacement plan.
Mr. Benetti noted some surface water management issues on these lots. Precision Homes has proposed to
install a retaining wall of natural stone and a drainage way to take the drainage from the back side and filter
it down to the west towards Wachtler. Mr. Ruzek will work with Precision Homes to remedy the situation.
Mayor Garlock moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-23 APPROVING CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-06).
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
Mayor Garlock moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-24 APPROVING CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1224 WACHTLER AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-07).
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
G) RESOLUTION 2018-25 APPROVING LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCE FOR PATTERSON
DENTAL & ST. THOMAS ACADEMY AT 1031 & 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-08)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained the request from Patterson Dental Company and
St. Thomas Academy, to adjust a lot line between the two properties to resolve an encroachment that has
been in existence for a number of years. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the existing ballfield location and
its proximity to Patterson Dental. The requested lot line adjustment does not create any buildable lots,
however, it does require a variance for Patterson Dental for a reduction to the parking setback standards.
The survey indicated that this is a 6 foot strip of ground running 1254 feet from the south end to the north
end of Patterson Dental’s lot. According to the standards, whenever any Business or Industrial District Use
abuts a Residential District, which St. Thomas Academy is located in, it is required to have a 20 foot setback
from the front and a 10 foot setback from the side. Currently, the parking lot is 14 feet from the existing
lot line. After the removal of the 6 foot wide strip, that setback would be reduced to an 8 foot setback. Staff
believes that this variance request meets all of the tests for approval.
page 11
Councilor Petschel asked for confirmation that the practical difficulty in this situation would be the cost
for removing the long-standing cement structures and fencing that has been there for so long would be
high. Mr. Benetti confirmed.
Councilor Petschel asked how the lot line issue was discovered. Mr. Paul Solmon, Director of Facilities for
St. Thomas Academy, stated that they updated their survey in 2008. In 2009, Patterson’s Director of
Facilities, St. Thomas’ Business Manager, the St. Thomas Athletic Director, and Mr. Solmon met and
realized there was a problem. Fundamentally, this goes back to the 1960’s.
Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-25 APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
AND VARIANCE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1031 AND 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-08).
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
H) RECREATON FEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Ms. Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator, explained the Recreation Fee Assistance
Program for consideration. Currently, the City does not have a fee assistance or scholarship program
available. Previous assistance was provided on a case-by-case basis. Staff has researched what other cities
and school districts do for their scholarship and fee assistance programs.
At the December 2017 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, staff recommended a program that
would be eligible to Mendota Heights residents 18 and under. Those students would need to be on the
free/reduced lunch program or have a parent on active duty in the military. Staff recommended a 15%
reduction in registration fees and a limit of $100 per child each calendar year. The eligible programs would
include skating, gymnastics, summer programs, tennis camp, and golf programs. The 15% reduction is
based on what the school district offers for their program.
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended to the City Council a Recreation Fee Assistance
Program that would offer an 85% reduction in the registration fee for the first class and then a 50%
reduction in the registration for the second class – per child per calendar year. After the second class,
additional requests in the same calendar year would not be considered. The Commission did not want to
set a budget limit for the program; however, the eligible rec programs were the same as staff recommended.
Councilor Paper asked for clarification on the reduction rate. Ms. Lawrence replied that staff had
recommended to the Parks & Recreation Commission a 15% reduction; however, the Commission
recommended an 85% reduction. She also noted that West St. Paul and most cities use a 50% reduction for
their programs. Councilor Paper said he would be most comfortable with 50%. Councilor Petschel stated
she is supportive of 50%, and suggested the Council review this program in one year. Councilor Miller
concurred with the 50% reduction and reviewing the program in one year.
page 12
Ms. Lawrence asked if the Council would recommend 50% off of the first two programs or for an unlimited
number of programs. The Council recommended a 50% reduction per class up to $150 limit per child; and
a $3,000 total program budget limit. They also recommended the program be reviewed in one year.
Councilor Petschel moved to accept the Recreation Fee Assistance Program with the 50% reduction per
class up to $150 limit per child; and a $3,000 total budget cap; and to review the program in one year.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
I) HIRE OF POLICE CAPTAIN POSITION
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy stated that staff recommends that the Council approve the hiring of Mr.
Wayne Wegener, Jr. for the position of Police Captain.
Chief McCarthy noted that because she had met previously with several people who were interested in
applying for this position, she had had as little to do with this hiring process as possible. All of the
applications were filtered through Human Resources. The first round of interviews were conducted by
community members who had excessive background, leadership, and supervision experience in their own
careers. The second round of interviews included elected officials, members of the department and city
staff. Three finalists were selected and each underwent psychological testing.
Chief McCarthy stated that the Captain would be required to supervise investigations, administration, and
run the Department’s in-house training program as part of the 2018 in-house goals. She said that Mr.
Wegener currently holds the rank of Captain and has extensive supervisory experience in front office,
investigations, as a member of the DEA Narcotics Task Force, is a graduate of the FBI National Academy
as well as Northwestern University, and holds a Master’s Degree from Hamline University in Public
Administration.
Councilor Petschel moved to approve the hiring of Wayne Wegener, Jr. as Police Captain.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that on March 7, a Pollinator Friendly Practices presentation
will take place in the Council Chambers. On March 8, a presentation will be held on Invasive Plant Species
and how to identify and manage them. He stated that registration for summer recreation activities is open.
page 13
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Petschel recognized Ms. Sophie Redding from Henry Sibley for her remarkable accomplishment
of finishing second overall at the State High School gymnastics competition.
She complimented Meredith Lawrence on the recently-held Royal Ball event, and the partnership with the
cities of West St. Paul and South St. Paul to hold this event. She hopes this opens up more opportunities
for partnering with those cities in the future.
Mayor Garlock announced that the Officer Scott Patrick Memorial 5K registration is open on the city’s
website.
Councilor Miller extended a thank you to Mike and Mary Johnson for allowing the firefighters to use their
backyard and pond all season to play boot hockey. The bonfire was always lit for the firefighters, and the
ice had been shoveled.
Councilor Paper reminded everyone of the School District 197 Open House on March 12 at Henry Sibley
High School regarding the upcoming bond referendum.
He expressed his appreciation to St. Thomas Academy for presenting their Rogers Lake study results.
ADJOURN
Councilor Paper moved to adjourn.
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 9:12 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 14
DATE: March 20, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for St. Thomas Academy INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to State Statutes and Mendota Heights City Code, no person shall sell or give away liquor
without first having received a license. Temporary On-Sale Liquor licenses shall be granted only to
clubs and charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations for the sale of intoxicating liquor. The
licenses are subject to final approval by the Director of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement.
DISCUSSION
St. Thomas Academy, located at 949 Mendota Heights Road, is planning to hold their annual
Family Fun Night on Friday, April 20th and the Gala on April 21, 2018. They have requested a
Temporary On-Sale Liquor License to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages on those two
nights. St. Thomas Academy has submitted a complete application and a certificate of insurance
for showing liquor liability for the events. They will have security on duty while liquor is being
served.
It should be noted that Temporary On-Sale Liquor licenses have been issued in the past to St.
Thomas Academy and other charitable, nonprofit and religious organizations within the city with
no incidents or negative reports.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council approve a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for St.
Thomas Academy for April 20 - 21, 2018 subject to approval of the Director of Alcohol and
Gambling Enforcement.
page 15
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: March 20, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Terry Blum, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: 2018 Street Sweeping COMMENT:
Introduction
The City Council is asked to award a contract for street sweeping.
Background
Every spring the City goes out for bid to sweep the city’s streets.
Requests for bids were sent out to four contractors that have been interested in bidding in the past.
We received two bids and they are as follows:
Mike McPhillps, Inc. $87.00 an hour
Pearson Bros., Inc. $89.00 an hour
Discussion
Mike McPhillips has swept the city streets in the past and are good to work with. They will be
providing four to six sweepers a day to sweep the streets. City staff will be inspecting all of the
streets in advance to determine which streets will actually be swept—with the City-wide reduction
in the use of sand (and salt), some areas may not need as much sweeping, if any at all.
In 2017, the total cost for sweeping the streets was $14,365.00, for a total of 169 hours over three
days.
Budget Impact
There is $32,000 in the 2018 Budget for street sweeping and striping.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the bid from Mike McPhillips,
Inc., the lower bidder, to sweep the streets in 2018.
Action Required
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion awarding the
contract to the low bidder, Mike McPhillips, Inc., for their bid price of $87.00 an hour.
page 16
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: March 20, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Out of State Travel – FDIC Conference
COMMENT:
Introduction:
This item has been placed on the agenda for your consideration as City policy requires that all
out of state travel for City Council and City employees be approved by the City Council in
advance.
Background:
The 2018 Fire Department Instructors Conference (FDIC) is being held April 23, 2018, to April
28, 2018, in Indianapolis, IN. I am recommending that Firefighters Dan Willems and Dan Ober
attend the conference. The conference has been attended by firefighters in the past and they have
found it to be a very worthwhile event. The training at this conference is specifically designed to
help firefighters meet the training challenges for fire departments in today’s ever changing
environment.
Budget Impact:
The Fire Department budgets for the costs of the travel, hotel, meals and registration. The
conference registration is $1,040/each, air fare is approximately $300.00/each, meals would be
about $162/each and the hotel is approximately $600 for three nights. The costs for the
conference is approximately $3,604 for both firefighters. Firefighters who attend will need to
take time off from their regular jobs to attend the conference.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the out of town travel for
Firefighters Dan Willems and Dan Ober.
Action Required:
If the City Council concurs with the recommendation, it should, by motion, authorize
Firefighters Dan Willems and Dan Ober to travel out of state to the Fire Department Instructors
Conference in Indianapolis, IN.
page 17
DATE: March 16th, 2018
TO: Mayor, Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police / Emergency Manager
SUBJECT: Out of Metro Travel
INTRODUCTION:
City policy requires approval for staff to attend training out of the metro area. The Council is
asked to approve two police department staff members to attend training in Moorhead MN.
BACKGROUND:
Officer Nick Gorgos and Sergeant Peyton Fleming have requested to attend a five day RAIDER
Training through the ALICE Institute. The ALICE Institute is a national organization that
teaches school safety procedures and training for responding to hostile event situations. Officer
Gorgos and Sergeant Fleming are the department firearms instructors.
ALICE Institute RAIDER Training $995 x 2 = $1990
Travel date: May 20th to May 25th, 2018
Location: Moorhead, MN
Lodging: Courtyard by Marriot Fargo Moorhead Government rate $93 night
$465 x 2 = 930
Meals: GSA maximum rate $51/per day, 5 days x 2 = $510
Mileage: 247 miles one way, 494 miles round trip
City Vehicle: 24.7 gallons of fuel at current $2.76 maximum cost = $68.17
Total estimated cost: $3498.17
BACKGROUND:
The money is available in the training budget to cover the costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize staff to attend the training as a representative of the City of Mendota Heights Police
Department.
page 18
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: March 20, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Ordinance 520 – Water Availability Charge
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Ordinance 520 which will eliminate the Water Availability
Charge.
BACKGROUND
Mendota Heights adopted City Code Title 10, Chapter 5 Section 3 in 1981 which established a
requirement for all new connections to the city water system to pay a Water Availability Charge
(WAC). This value was set at $200 per unit in 1981 and the fee has not been adjusted since its
inception.
The WAC program was adopted for the purpose of paying for the maintenance and improvement
of the total municipal water system. That included the costs of supply, storage, treatment, mains,
trunks and other appurtenances. WAC charges were made to every parcel of land which
connected to the municipal water system, or had additional living units or had commercial
renovation constructed upon parcels that were already connected to the municipal water system.
However, Mendota Heights transferred ownership of this system to the Saint Paul Regional
Water Authority (SPRWA) in 2016, and is therefore no longer responsible for the purposes laid
out above. Therefore, there is no need for the City to continue to collect WAC fees.
The City of Mendota Heights will continue to collect a five percent (5%) surcharge on all water
utility bills which funds the Water Utility. The Water Utility fund is used to pay for water
related improvements not covered under the agreement with SPRWA.
BUDGET IMPACT
Water Availability Charges are not projected as revenue within the Water Utility fund, so ihe
elimination would therefore not have an effect on budgeting. Charges are only collected from
new connections to the water system, which varies depending on applications for new
construction.
page 19
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends eliminating the WAC charge, and that the Council do so by approving
Ordinance 520.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion adopting
Ordinance 520 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 3
OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,
DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING THE CITY WATER AVAILABILITY CHARGE.
This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 20
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 520
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 3 OF THE CITY
CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY,
CONCERNING THE CITY WATER AVAILABILITY CHARGE
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Title 10-5-3 is hereby amended as follows:
10-5-3: WATER AVAILABILITY CHARGE:
A. Purpose And Intent: For the purpose of paying for the establishment, obtainment,
construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, depreciation, enlargement, maintenance,
and improvement of the total municipal water system, including, but not limited to, the cost
of supply, storage, treatment, mains, trunks and other appurtenances, it is hereby determined
by the city council that charges, in accordance with the schedules hereinafter provided, shall
be paid to the city, as set forth hereinafter, by every residentially zoned lot, piece or parcel of
land connecting to the municipal water system, or additional living units constructed upon
land already connected to such system, and that said charges shall be deemed to be a water
availability charge. (1981 Code 807 § 1; amd. Ord. 495, 4-19-2016)
B. Definitions:
BASIC EQUIVALENT UNIT: The following classifications of property according to the use made
thereof are hereby established for determining the basic equivalent unit charge to be made:
1. Group One: Each detached dwelling single-family living unit, each townhouse unit and each
duplex unit shall constitute one "basic equivalent unit".
2. Group Two: All other living units, including apartments, condominiums and any other attached
living units. Each such living units shall constitute eighty percent (80%) of the "basic equivalent
unit".
WATER AVAILABILITY CHARGE: The total amount of charges against a lot, piece or parcel of
land to be paid to the city for water availability (exclusive of laterals, trunk lines, service
connections and water main extensions), and said total "water availability charge" shall be in
accordance with the "basic equivalent unit" charge. (1981 Code 807 § 2; amd. Ord. 495, 4-19-
2016)
C. Charge Established: The water availability charge for any connection, whether direct or
indirect, hereafter made from a residentially zoned lot, piece or parcel of land shall be two
hundred dollars ($200.00) per basic equivalent unit. (1981 Code 807 § 3; amd. Ord. 495, 4-
19-2016)
D. Payment Of Charge: Payment of said water availability charge shall be made upon the
issuance of a building permit or a water connection permit as the case may be. (1981 Code
807 § 4; amd. Ord. 495, 4-19-2016)
page 21
E. Review Of Charge: From time to time, as directed by the city council, a complete fiscal
analysis and review of current and projected revenue, capital expansion and projected growth
shall be made prior to each major improvement to the municipal water system. Such analysis
shall include and take into account changes in the estimated capital costs resulting from inflation
or deflection, engineering design, location and alignment of water distribution lines and any
other items which have an effect upon the total cost of the municipal water system. Changes or
potential changes in land use, zoning, density, rate of growth, interest earned on sinking funds
and any other financial consideration or other factors affecting projected revenue of the system
shall also be considered. (1981 Code 807 § 5; amd. Ord. 495, 4-19-2016) F. Disposition Of Revenues: All charges collected under this section not specifically pledged to
the repayment of a past or future bond issue shall be placed in a separate account. Revenues from
time to time received in excess of amounts so pledged may be pledged by resolution of the
governing body, or may be used, though not so pledged, for the payment of principal and interest
on obligations issued pursuant to Minnesota statutes chapter 429, 444 or 475 for capital
improvements, as contemplated by this section, to the municipal water system or for any other
purpose permitted under Minnesota statutes chapter 429 or 444. (1981 Code 807 § 6; amd. Ord.
495, 4-19-2016)
Reserved
This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this twentieth day of March, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 22
Request for City Council Action
DATE: March 20, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
Kristin Schabacker, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Approve Part-Time Receptionist Hire
COMMENT:
Introduction
The City Council is asked to approve the hiring of Kristin Wittrock for the position of Receptionist.
Background
Staff has completed the recruitment process to fill the part-time Receptionist vacancy and
recommends the hiring of Kristin Wittrock for the position.
Ms. Wittrock’s background includes experience as a Talent Acquisition Assistant, Volunteer
Coordinator and Child Life Specialist. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Human Development
and Family Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Stout.
A conditional offer has been extended, contingent upon the successful completion of a background
check, pre-employment drug screen and approval of the City Council. At this time Ms. Wittrock’s
anticipated start date is April 23.
Budget Impact
The part-time Receptionist position is a budgeted position.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council approve the hiring of Kristin Wittrock as a part-time
Receptionist with an hourly salary of $22.20, which is step 4 of pay grade 3 of the City’s
Compensation Plan.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the hiring of Kristin Wittrock as
Receptionist, effective April 23 and with the pay provisions listed above.
page 23
3/5/2018 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official
February 1, 2018 thru February 28, 2018 January 1, 2018 thru February 28, 2018 January 1, 2017 thru February 28, 2017 January 1, 2016 thru February 29, 2016
Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected
SFD 1 467,925.00$ $5,386.84 SFD 3 1,717,925.00$ $18,856.62 SFD 2 505,000.00$ $6,506.78 SFD 1 672,850.00$ 7,325.89$
Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 0 -$ -$
Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 4 696,000.00$ $8,921.25 Townhouse 2 450,000.00$ $4,516.88 Townhouse 4 1,015,000.00$ 11,653.66$
Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$
Misc 21 584,465.77$ 7,025.22$ Misc 49 984,328.82$ 14,011.69$ Misc 48 613,274.08$ 9,396.03$ Misc 41 985,295.00$ 12,223.01$
Commercial 0 -$ $0.00 Commercial 1 50,960.00$ $739.25 Commercial 4 252,895.00$ $3,792.84 Commercial 4 1,025,345.00$ 10,590.39$
Sub Total 22 1,052,390.77$ 12,412.06$ Sub Total 57 3,449,213.82$ 42,528.81$ Sub Total 56 1,821,169.08$ 24,212.53$ Sub Total 50 3,698,490.00$ 41,792.95$
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 21 $2,003.43 Plumbing 48 $4,758.65 Plumbing 18 $1,553.20 Plumbing 32 3,207.99$
Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 1 10.00$
Sewer 5 $375.00 Sewer 12 $900.00 Sewer 8 $613.00 Sewer 5 375.00$
Mechanical 37 $3,685.27 Mechanical 87 397.00$ $8,682.40 Mechanical 52 $6,178.32 Mechanical 66 5,912.93$
Sub Total 63 6,063.70$ Sub Total 147 14,341.05$ Sub Total 78 $8,344.52 Sub Total 104 9,505.92$
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 173 $8,650.00 Contractor 186 $9,300.00 Contractor 186 9,300.00$
Total 109 1,052,390.77$ 19,675.76$ Total 377 3,449,213.82$ 65,519.86$ Total 320 1,821,169.08$ 41,857.05$ Total 340 3,698,490.00$ 60,598.87$
NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals
page 24
page 25
page 26
page 27
page 28
page 29
page 30
page 31
page 32
page 33
page 34
Request for City Council Action DATE: March 20, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Flavored Tobacco
COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to hear a presentation which proposes to have the City restrict the sale of
flavored tobacco products in Mendota Heights. Mary Montagne from Dakota County Public
Health will present general information about youth tobacco use and harms. The ALMAS group
at Henry Sibley High School, will present information on flavored tobacco products and the
opportunity for the City to restrict the sale of flavored tobacco products in Mendota Heights.
Background
Many tobacco products are now offered in a variety of enticing flavors and in colorful packaging.
These products are readily available in many licensed retail stores for purchase and are
considered as starter products that promote youth initiation of tobacco use. In an effort to reduce
youth access to tobacco products, some cities in Minnesota have now adopted ordinances
restricting the sale of flavored tobacco products.
Recommendation
If after hearing the presentation, the Council would like to pursue amending the Code language
to restrict the sale of flavored tobacco in Mendota Heights, staff would immediately notify the
license holders and hold an informational meeting with them to answer their questions and hear
their concerns. Staff would mail notices to all licensed tobacco establishments in the City to
meet the 30-day notification requirement of Minnesota Statute 461.19.
Our information is that there are three businesses in Mendota Heights which sell flavored
tobacco products.
Following the informational meeting, a proposed ordinance would be presented at a future
Council meeting for consideration. The Council should discuss if the proposed ordinance
should:
-prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products except in adult-only stores (no one under the
age of 18 is allowed to enter)
-would the restriction exclude menthol, mint, or wintergreen flavored tobacco products
Action Required
Staff would like direction from the City Council as to whether it wishes to pursue amending City
Code Title 3, Chapter 2 Tobacco Sales to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products in
Mendota Heights.
page 35
Flavored tobacco policy information for the Mendota Heights City Council
Flavored tobacco products are a leading health concern.
• Tobacco use is the leading cause of death and disease in the United States. Flavored tobacco
products are no safer than unflavored tobacco products.
• Research shows that youth believe flavored tobacco products are less dangerous and less
addictive than non-flavored tobacco.i However, they are just as dangerous as cigarettes with the
same health risks of cancer, heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.ii
• Some chemicals used to flavor tobacco and e-cigarettes, such as diacetyl, are known to cause
irreversible damage to the lungs.iii
• Flavored tobacco products are readily accessible to young people at gas stations and
convenience stores.
• See attached Flavored Tobacco Product Fact Sheet for more details
Flavored tobacco products are popular with young people and are easy for them to get according to
the recent Minnesota Youth Tobacco Survey.iv
• More than one in four Minnesota high school students use tobacco products. Most of these
tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and cigars, come in a variety of flavors.
• One in five Minnesota high school students used an e-cigarette (commonly known as “vaping”)
in the past 30 days, nearly a 50 percent increase from 2014.
• More than 10 percent of Minnesota high school students used cigars or cigarillos in the past 30
days, nearly a 30 percent increase from 2014.
• More than 32 percent of underage Minnesota high school students who use e-cigarettes got or
bought their e-cigarettes from retail outlets.
• See attached MN Department of Health 2017 Youth Tobacco Survey Fact Sheet
Restricting the sale of flavored tobacco products is an opportunity for the Mendota Heights City
Council to pass a policy to protect youth.
• Restrict the sale of candy and fruit flavored tobacco products to adult-only tobacco product
shops where kids can’t enter.
• Specifically, the ordinance would restrict the sale of flavored tobacco in the form of cigarettes,
cigars, cigarillos, chew/snuff and e-cigarettes to tobacco shops only as part of the licensing
regulations. Menthol, wintergreen and mint flavors would be exempt.
• See attached Public Health Law Center's (PHLC) suggested language to incorporate a flavored
tobacco regulation into the Mendota Heights tobacco retailer licensing code (Chapter 2
TOBACCO SALES).
i Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Bidi use among urban youth--Massachusetts, March-April 1999. MMWR
Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48(36):796-799.
ii Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. Not Your Grandfather’s Cigar. A New Generation of Cheap & Sweet Cigars Threatens a New
Generation of Kids. 2013. http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/what_we_do/industry_watch/cigar_report/
iii FDA Center for Tobacco Products. Transcript from ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH: A PUBLIC WORKSHOP.
March 9, 2015.
iv 2017 Minnesota Youth Tobacco Survey • www.health.mn.gov/tobacco
page 36
Mendota Heights Tobacco Assessment
We conducted point-of-sale assessments of all Mendota Heights licensed tobacco vendors in July 2017
focused on flavored tobacco products.
Stores assessed: 6 stores checked in July 2017
• 4 gas or convenience stores
• 2 other (a liquor store and a country club)
Types of Flavored Products Sold
Type of Product Number of Vendors
Cigars, any number 3 (50%)
Electronic cigarettes 3 (50%)
Electronic cigarette refills (bottles and/or cartridges) 3 (50%)
Smokeless 3 (50%)
Blunt Wraps 3 (50%)
Other 0 (0%)
page 37
Data Highlights from the 2017 Minnesota Youth Tobacco Survey
Any Tobacco Use
▪ 26.4% of high school students used any tobacco product in the past 30 days, up 7% from 2014
E-Cigarette Use
▪ 19.2% of high school students used or tried e-cigarettes in the past 30 days, up 49% from 2014
▪ 37.7% of high school students have ever tried e-cigarettes, up 33% from 2014.
▪ 63.6% of students who currently use e-cigarettes reported using menthol or other flavored e-
cigarettes in the past 30 days
▪ 21.5% of current e-cigarette users have never tried any conventional tobacco product.
▪ Recent evidence suggests that, compared to youth who have never used them, youth who have
tried e-cigarettes are twice as likely to start smoking in the future.1
E-cigarettes and Recreational Marijuana Use
▪ 34.7% of high school students and 15.8% of middle school students who currently use e-cigarettes
have used an e-cigarette for recreational marijuana, THC or hash oil, or THC wax at least once in
their lifetime.
E-cigarette Advertising
▪ 88.4% of students had seen ads promoting e-cigarettes in the past 30 days, down slightly from 90.1
percent in 2014.
▪ 50.9% had seen ads in convenience stores and other stores in the past 30 days, up from 47.5
percent in 2014.
▪ 39.6% of students had seen ads on the internet, 38.6% on TV, 18.6% in magazines, 14.5% on
billboards, and 6.8% had heard ads on the radio
▪ 29.9% of high school students who encountered ads in 5 or more locations in the past 30 days
were current e-cigarette users
Cigarette Use
▪ 9.6% of high school students smoked cigarettes in past 30 days, down 9% from 2014.
1 Watkins, S.L., S.A. Glantz, and B.W. Chaffee, Association of Noncigarette Tobacco Product Use With Future
Cigarette Smoking Among Youth in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, 2013-2015.
JAMA Pediatr, 2018.
page 38
Cigar and Cigarillo Use
▪ 10.6% of high school students used cigars or cigarillos in the past 30 days, up 29% from 2014.
Menthol Cigarette Use
▪ 34.1% of smokers usually smoke menthol cigarettes, down 22% from 2014.
▪ Adolescent smokers are more likely to smoke menthol cigarettes than are adult smokers.
▪ 25.1% of adult smokers usually smoke menthol cigarettes. (MATS 2014)
Youth Access
▪ 62.4% of high school and 57.4% of middle school e-cigarette users got their e-cigarettes from
friends.
▪ 32.2% of underage high school students who use e-cigarettes got or bought their e-cigarettes from
retail outlets. The most common retail outlet reported was vape shops (18.4%).
▪ 19.0% of underage high school students who are current smokers bought their own cigarettes.
Secondhand Smoke
46.2% of non-smokers had been exposed to secondhand smoke in the past 7 days.
Learn more at www.health.mn.gov/tobacco.
Minnesota Department of Health
PO Box 64882
St. Paul, MN 55164-0882
651-201-3535
tobacco@state.mn.us
www.health.mn.gov/tobacco
2/15/2018
To obtain this information in a different format, call: 651-201-3535. Printed on recycled paper.
page 39
Flavored
Tobacco ProducTs
WHAT TYPES OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS ARE FLAVORED?
Flavored tobacco products include cigars, chewing tobacco, blunt wraps,
electronic cigarettes and shisha, the tobacco used in hookah. These
products help the tobacco industry get around the FDA’s 2009 ban of
flavored cigarettes.1 Flavored tobacco products are often sold in attractive
packaging for a low price. Some cigars are frequently available for less than
$1.
WHAT ARE SOME COMMON FLAVORS USED IN TOBACCO
PRODUCTS?
Cigars, chewing tobacco, blunt wraps, electronic cigarettes and shisha
are sold in fruit, candy, dessert and novelty flavors. Popular flavors include
chocolate, piña colada, apple, grape, berry, cotton candy, bubble gum and
menthol. The same flavorings used in tobacco products are also used in
candy and Kool-Aid drink mixes.2 These flavorings were often present in
higher amounts in tobacco products than in candy.
WHO USES FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS?
Because of their sweet flavors, low cost and attractive packaging, flavored
tobacco products are especially appealing to youth. Young people are
much more likely to use flavored tobacco products than adults.3 A recent
CDC study found that 42 percent of middle and high school tobacco users
use flavored products.4 Studies show that young people perceive flavored
tobacco products as tasting better and being safer than unflavored products,
even though they are just as dangerous and addictive as cigarettes.5
These pineapple-flavored cigars are cheap
and easily accessible to youth.
Swisher Sweets come in flavors such as
grape, strawberry and chocolate.
Smokeless and spit
tobacco are available
in flavors, such as
apple and cherry.
The tobacco
industry’s
own internal
documents state
sweet products
are “…for
younger people,
beginner
cigarette
smokers,
teenagers…when
you feel like a
smoke, you want
to be reminded
of bubble
gum.”8
WHAT CAN COMMUNITIES DO ABOUT
FLAVORED PRODUCTS?
Flavored tobacco products are a major public health
concern because they encourage young people to start
using tobacco. While the FDA banned flavored cigarettes
other than menthol in 2009, the ban does not affect
other tobacco products, many of which are now heavily
marketed by the tobacco industry. The use of these
products, especially among young people, has spiked.
Because the FDA ruling does not prevent local
communities from banning other types of flavored
tobacco products, state and local governments can adopt
laws that restrict the sale of flavored tobacco products
within their jurisdiction. Limiting the sale of products,
setting a minimum price or creating a minimum pack size
are some of the ways communities can protect their youth
by making flavored tobacco products less accessible and
less appealing.
“Cherry
Skoal
is for
somebody
who likes
the taste
of candy,
if you
know
what I am
saying.”
U.S. Tobacco
Executive
page 40
WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE TAKEN A STANCE
AGAINST FLAVORED PRODUCTS?
In Minnesota, the cities of Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Shoreview, Saint
Louis Park and Robbinsdale restrict the sale of flavored tobacco products.
Minneapolis and Saint Paul also restrict the sale of menthol tobacco products.
Additionally, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Richfield,
Maplewood and Robbinsdale have set minimum prices on cheap cigars, many
of which are flavored and attractive to youth.
New York City and Providence, R.I., passed policies restricting flavored
tobacco sales, with the exception of menthol-flavored products. San Francisco
and Oakland passed ordinances restricting the sale of all flavored tobacco
products, including menthol, but they have not gone into effect.
SOURCES
1 One Hundred Eleventh United States Congress.(2009). Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
2 Brown, et. al. “Candy Flavorings in Tobacco.” New England Journal of Medicine; 370:2250-2252 June 5, 2014.
3 King BA, Dube SR, and Tynan MA. 2013. “Flavored Cigar Smoking Among U.S. Adults: Findings from the 2009–2010
National Adult Tobacco Survey.” Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 15(2): 608-614; Villanti AC, Richardson A, Vallone DM, et al.
2013. “Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among U.S. Young Adults.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 44(4): 388–91.
4 King AB, Tynan MA, Dube SR, Arrazola R. Flavored-little cigar and flavored-cigarette use among U.S. middle and high
school students. Journal of Adolescent Health. September 17, 2013.
5 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.) Flavored Tobacco Product Sheet.
6 Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. (2009, December 14). The path to smoking addiction starts at very young ages.
7 King BA, Dube SR, and Tynan MA. 2013. “Flavored Cigar Smoking Among U.S. Adults: Findings from the 2009–2010
National Adult Tobacco Survey.” Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 15(2): 608–614; Nelson DE, Mowery P, Tomar S, et al.
2006. “Trends in Smokeless Tobacco Use Among Adults and Adolescents in the United States.” American Journal of Public
Health. 96(5): 897– 905.
8 Report from R.M. Manko Assoc. to Lorillard Tobacco Co. (Aug. 1978)
9 David Weiss Associates. “The ‘Graduation Theory.’ November 16, 1984. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
lfc46b00/pdf?search=%22graduation%20theory%22. Bates No. USSTC1945141-USSTC1945142
E-cigarette liquid, known as e-juice, comes
in numerous youth-friendly flavors, such as
the Pomberry, Psychedelic Peach and Fruit
Stripe shown above.
Shisha is the tobacco used in smoking
hookah and is often flavored.
WHAT DOES THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT
FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS?
The tobacco documents from the settlement revealed the “Graduation
Theory,” a method used by the tobacco industry that aims to secure customer
loyalty.9 This approach implies that new users start with milder tasting and
flavored products. They graduate to full-bodied, less flavored items that often
contain more nicotine and remain addicted for life.
HOW DO FLAVORS IN TOBACCO PRODUCTS AFFECT YOUTH
INITIATION AND ADDICTION?
Nearly 90 percent of adult smokers began smoking in their teens.6 The
flavoring in these products makes it easier for new, young users to take up
tobacco, because the flavoring masks the harshness of the tobacco and
enhances the user’s pleasure.7
The Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota is dedicated to reducing the
human and economic costs of tobacco use in Minnesota.
(March 2018)
2395 University Avenue W, Suite 310, St. Paul, MN 55114
651-646-3005 | www.ansrmn.org
2395 University Avenue W, Suite 300W
St. Paul, MN 55114 | 651-646-3005 www.mntobaccofreealliance.org
page 41
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: ISD 197 Referendum Presentation
Date: March 20, 2018
COMMENT:
At the March 20th City Council meeting, there will be an informational presentation about the
upcoming May 8th Bond referendum for ISD 197.
The presentation will be made by Superintendent of Schools Peter Olson-Skoog.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 42
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: March 20, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Maintenance Repairs at Rogers Lake Skate Park
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to authorize a contract for maintenance repairs at the Rogers Lake Skate
Park.
BACKGROUND
The skate park at Rogers Lake Park is need of repair. The paved surface has cracks and some
ramps have loose boards, metal rails and coping, as well as deteriorated surfaces.
DISCUSSION
Staff has received a quote from Action Sports of MN, Inc. for repairs to the paved surface, and
wood/steel ramps. Repairs to the park include:
• New metal on ramp thresholds
• Fill existing cracks in asphalt
• Fix side panels
• Tighten/replace all loose rail hardware
• Tighten/Replace loose screws
• Replace ramp surface including internal layers for damaged sections
• Secure all coping and edging.
Staff sent a Request for Quotes (RFQ) to three companies which are known to do this work.
There are only a limited number of companies which do skate park repairs. Due to the specialty
nature of this type of project, staff is concerned about potential liability issues if a general
contractor were to attempt this sort of work.
Action Sports of MN, Inc. was the only company to submit a quote for the RFQ. Staff
recommends that the project be awarded to them for their not-to-exceed contract amount of
$10,000. Materials are estimated at $5,500 and also a labor cost of $3,000 is included in the
quote. The contractor is recommending the inclusion of a $1,500 contingency be added to this
project, in case there are unforeseen conditions that require additional work.
page 43
BUDGET IMPACT
This work is proposed to be funded within the Parks equipment repair budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council award the construction contract to Action Sports of MN, Inc.
for their not-to-exceed quote of $10,000 for repairs to the skate park.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion authorizing staff to
issue a purchase order to Action Sports of MN, Inc. in the amount of $10,000 for repairs at the
Rogers Lake Skate Park. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 44
Rogers Lake SkatePark 2018 Maintenance
We had the opportunity to visit Rogers Lake Skatepark during the week of January 15, 2018.
Upon inspection of existing features, layout, and available space; we were able to put together
this summery and proposal for maintenance for the 2018 season.
JOB LOCATION INFORMATION
Name Rogers Lake SkatePark
Address 994 W agon Wheel Trail
City, State ZIP Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Phone 651 452 1850
Email meredithL@mendota-heights.com
Project name 2018 SkatePark Maintenance
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
Company Action Sports of MN Inc
Name Mark Rodriguez
Address 850 Florida Ave South
City, State ZIP Golden Valley, MN 55423
Phone 763 797 5283
Email mrod@3rdlair.com
Completion date April 2018
COMPANY PROPOSAL We, Action Sports of MN Inc, propose the attached scope of work, to be completed in April 2018 with a budget of $10,000.
We anticipate the work to be completed in approximately 5 works days.
Submitted by (Company Representative) Date
OWNER ACCEPTANCE I, do accept the above scope of work.
Submitted by (authorized representative) Date
page 45
2018 Rogers Lake SkatePark Updates
Maintenance List
1. New 12 Gauge Metal on ramp threshold
• Cut new metal to fit
• Remove old metal
• Attach new metal
• Weld new metal seams (also weld any other seams in the skate park)
• Grind and soften all metal edges
2. Fill Cracks in asphalt, 200lbs of mix
• Clean all cracks with air compressor
• Let dry
• Tape lines
• Patch with a Skim Coat Mix
• Apply and Sand once dry.
3. Fix side panels as necessary
• Take off panel
• Cut back if needed
• Counter sink and re-attach
4. Tighten All loose nuts holding rails in place, replace if necessary
5. Tighten/Replace all loose/broken surface screws )
6. Replace ramp Surface areas where there are holes and/or gaps
a. Repair/replace internal layers that are rotten, soft, or otherwise structurally compromised.
7. Secure all Grind able surface coping and edging (smooth where necessary)
Estimated Material List/Cost
Lumber/Plywood
1. (12) ½” Pressure Treated Plywood (4ft x 8ft Sheets)
2. (12) 4x4x8 Pressure Treated Lumber
3. (10) 2x4x8 Pressure Treated Lumber
4. (20) 2x6x8 Pressure Treated Lumber
Surface
5. (10) 4 x 8 Skate lite Natural (tan)
6. (6) 4 x 8 Twelve-gauge Sheet Metal
7. 200lbs of concrete Skim coat mix
Screws and Equipment
8. (10lbs) 3” Deck Screws
9. (10lbs) 2” Deck Screws
10. Blades, Drill Bits, Router Bits, Slides, other supplies
Total Material Cost for New Ramp: $5,500
Labor and Overhead Costs – 2-person Crew / 5 work days
Total Labor Cost: $3000
Budget for Overhead: $1500
page 46
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Commission
Date: March 20, 2018
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
The City Council is asked to set a date to have a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
BACKGROUND:
At a workshop meeting held on March 1st, the Parks and Recreation Commission considered a
number of projects, including possible capital improvements to the City’s parks system. The
Commission worked from a list of ideas which have previously been discussed; staff had
provided estimates as to costs and short term revenue projections. The list from which the
Commission worked that evening is attached.
Since that meeting, a couple of additional ideas have been proposed. Note that the list did not
include some major capital needs, such as the construction of additional playing fields.
The consensus of the Commission from that workshop was that a survey should be done of the
community to help identify the priorities of Mendota Heights residents. The survey will likely
need to be done through a variety of platforms in order to gauge the broadest cross-section of
opinions; however, the results will not be scientific.
Also discussed at that workshop meeting was the desire for the City to address more local natural
resources needs. The City’s most current Natural Resources plan is approximately 15 years old.
One of the 2017-18 goals was identified to be “Address Natural Resource and Environmental
Sustainability”, with one of the action steps being to “Consider Creation of Environmental
Review Committee”. The City Council and Commission could also discuss Natural Resources
needs, and what financial and staff resources would be required in order for that effort to be
successful.
page 47
RECOMMENDTION:
In order for staff to gather the necessary background information, I recommend that a May date
be established. More information will be provided at the March 20th meeting.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If the Council concurs with the need for a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation
Commission, it should establish a joint meeting date
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 48
Parks Project Proposal ListAs of March 7, 2018Priority Park Proposed Project Estimated Cost Special Parks Fund General Fund/Levy Other Sources NotesMarie ParkTennis Court Replacement 60,000$ 50,000$ $ 10,000 Add basketball hoops 10,000$ 10,000$ Mendakota ParkAddition of dugouts on one field 35,000$ 35,000$ Chain link versionAddition of field lights500,000$ 500,000$ Rogers LakeAdd running water 150,000$ 150,000$ North/South Water Connection 500,000$ 500,000$ Wentworth ParkPark Redesign 500,000$ 500,000$ Warming House ReplacementRink LightsRunning WaterTennis Court ResurfacingIvy Hills ParkExpand Basketball Court 75,000$ 75,000$ Skateboard ParkEquipment Replacement and Maintenance 10,000$ 10,000$ Friendly HillsTennis Court Resurfacing 15,000$ 15,000$ General ProjectsPlayground Equipment Replacement 500,000$ 500,000$ 9 parks/ADA ParkDedicated Pickleball Court60,000$ 60,000$ Natural Resources Plan150,000$ 150,000$ Shuffle Board30,000$ 30,000$ Splash PadTBDDisc golfSpace NeedsTotals 2,595,000$ 2,360,000$ 225,000$ $ 10,000 Special Parks Fund581,538$ 260,000$ 841,538$ Funding SourcesBeginning Fund BalanceProjected additional revenueProjected funds availablepage 49
City of Mendota Heights
May 2018
1 2 3 4 5 Cinco de Mayo
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
ISD School Board
13 Mother's Day 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 Memorial Day 29 30 31
"If you look at what you have in life, you'll
always have more. If you look at what you
don't have in life, you'll never have enough."
- Oprah Winfrey
Planning Comm Mtg 7:00
City Council Mtg 7:00 Airport Comm Mtg 7:00
Special Election
Parks Comm Mtg 6:30
Saturday
City Council Mtg 7:00
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
April '18
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
June '18
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
July '18page 50
City of Mendota Heights
June 2018
1 2 Park Celebration
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 Flag Day 15 16
17 Father's Day 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
"Some say if you want success, surround your-
self with successful people. I say if you want
true and lasting success, surround yourself with
people of integrity."
- Charles Glassman
Planning Comm Mtg 7:00
City Council Mtg 7:00 Airport Comm Mtg 7:00
Parks Comm Mtg 6:30
City Council Mtg 7:00
SaturdaySundayMondayTuesdayWednesdayThursdayFriday
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
May '18
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
July '18
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
August '18page 51