2019-01-15 Council Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 15, 2019 – 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 January 2, 2019 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of January 2, 2019 City Council Work Session Minutes
c. Approval of January 7, 2019 City Council Work Session Minutes
d. Approval of Picnic Shelter Rental Policy
e. Approval to Purchase Toro Ground Master Mower for Parks Department
f. Approval to Purchase Exmark mower and Mulch Kit for Public Works Department
g. Approval to Purchase Fire Turnout Gear
h. Approval of Resolution 2019-11 Accepting Donation of Equipment
i. Approval of the Building Activity Report
j. Approval of November 2018 Treasurer’s Report
k. Approval of Claims List
6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
*See guidelines below
7. Presentations
a. Firefighter Badge Pinning –Rebecca Johnson
8. Public Hearing
a. Resolution 2019-10 Ordering of Improvements for the Marie Avenue and Wesley
Lane Neighborhood Improvements
9. New and Unfinished Business
a. Resolution 2019-09 Action Regarding the Preliminary Assessment for Comcast
Franchise Renewal
b. Resolution 2019-07 Adoption of Plans and Specifications and Ordering of the
Seeking of Bids for the 2019 Mendota Heights Fire Station Improvement Project
c. Consideration of the Request to Purchase a Fairway Mower for Par 3
d. Resolution 2019-08 Appointments to Park and Recreation Commission
e. Discussion of 2019 City Council Meeting Dates and Times
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 that 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 Wednesday, January 2, 2019
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 7:15 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Miller, Paper, and Petschel
were also present.
OATH OF OFFICE
MAYOR NEIL GARLOCK AND COUNCILMEMBERS ULTAN DUGGAN
AND ELIZABETH PETSCHEL
Mayor Neil Garlock and Councilors Ultan Duggan and Elizabeth Petschel took the Oath of Office,
presided over by City Administrator Mark McNeill.
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: 5
Nays: 0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilor Petschel recused herself from voting on item a.) Approval of December 18, 2018 City Council
Minutes and item b.) Approval of December 18, 2018 Work Session Minutes.
Councilor Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution
of any necessary documents contained therein, pulling items a.) Approval of December 18, 2018 City
Council Minutes, c.) Acknowledge the November 27, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, e.)
Designation of 2019 Acting Mayor, and i.) Approve 2019 Financial Items: Resolution 2019-05
Establishing 2019 City Depositories of Funds; Resolution 2019-06 Accepting Pledged Securities for 2019;
and Authorize Finance Director to Execute Electronic Payments and Prepay Claims.
page 3
a. Approval of December 18, 2018 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of December 18, 2018 Work Session Minutes
c. Acknowledge the November 27, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
d. Designation of the Official Newspaper
e. Designation of 2019 Acting Mayor
f. Approve Appointments to City Commissions; Approve Resolution 2019-01 Appointing NDC4 City
Representatives
g. Accept Determination of No Wetland for the Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvements
h. Accept Wetland Delineation Report for the Marie Avenue Neighborhood Improvements
i. Approve 2019 Financial Items: Resolution 2019-05 Establishing 2019 City Depositories of Funds;
Resolution 2019-06 Accepting Pledged Securities for 2019; and Authorize Finance Director to
Execute Electronic Payments and Prepay Claims
j. Acknowledge the October 9, 2018 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes
k. Approve September Par 3 Financial Report
l. Approval of Claims List
m. Approve the Purchase of Assistant Fire Chief Vehicle
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Recused Item B: 1 (Petschel)
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
A) APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 18, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Councilor Duggan requested that clarification be added to the minutes regarding Chapter 429 – Local
Improvements, Special Assessments statute referenced therein. Staff agreed to do so.
Councilor Duggan noted his reference to “County Junction” under Council Comments should be “Celtic
Junction”. Also, the last sentence of the same paragraph should reference Katie McMahon, who is an
Irish-born harpist. Staff agreed to make the edits.
Councilor Duggan moved to approve the December 18, 2018 City Council Minutes as amended.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Recuse: 1 (Petschel)
C) ACKNOWLEDGE THE NOVEMBER 27, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Councilor Duggan expressed his concern of the revised public hearing guidelines and asked if the
guidelines were different for the Planning Commission than they are for the City Council. He voiced his
opinion that they should be similar to each other. Councilor Duggan suggested that this be a topic for
further discussion by the City Council at a later time.
Councilor Petschel moved to acknowledge the November 27, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes noting that a discussion of the Public Hearing Guidelines would take place at a future Council
workshop meeting.
page 4
Councilor Paper seconded the motion
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
E) DESIGNATION OF 2019 ACTING MAYOR
Councilor Duggan stated that he was unaware of who the 2019 Acting Mayor would be. He was
informed that the name was in the Council packet of materials; Councilor Joel Paper.
Councilor Petschel moved to designate Councilor Joel Paper to serve as the acting mayor for 2019.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
I) APPROVE 2019 FINANCIAL ITEMS:
RESOLUTION 2019-05 ESTABLISHING 2019 CITY DEPOSITORIES OF FUNDS;
RESOLUTION 2019-06 ACCEPTING PLEDGED SECURITIES FOR 2019;
AND AUTHORIZE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS AND
PREPAY CLAIMS
Councilor Duggan expressed his curiosity about Resolution 2019-05 Establishing 2019 City
Depositories of Funds as it listed Wells Fargo Bank and Wells Fargo Advisors, Inc. He asked what was
difference was. Finance Director Kristen Schabacker replied that they are listed twice as the City’s
investments are with Wells Fargo Advisors, Inc. and if the City ever had an opportunity to put deposits
into Wells Fargo Bank, they would be considered two separate entities.
Councilor Duggan moved to approve 2019 Financial Items: Resolution 2019-05 Establishing 2019 City
Depositories of Funds; Resolution 2019-06 Accepting Pledged Securities for 2019; and Authorize
Finance Director to Execute Electronic Payments and Prepay Claims.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Councilor Duggan noted that he was driving north on Dodd Road and suddenly noticed that he was in
the wrong lane. He was in the left turn lane for Wagon Wheel Trail and approaching the pedestrian
refuge area. To quickly change lanes was a challenge. There is not a clear designation on the road with
the white lines disappearing with the snowfall. He was wondering if using a different color of paint for
the lane designations would help. He was sure it was a challenge for the Public Works Department. He
wanted residents to be aware.
He also wanted residents to be aware of the upcoming 2040 Comprehensive Plan meetings and hearings.
PUBLIC HEARING
No items scheduled.
page 5
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) RESOLUTION 2019-02 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
FOR NEW ELECTRONIC LED DISPLAY SIGNS AT SPEEDWAY FUEL STATION –
LOCATED AT 1080 HIGHWAY 62 (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-28)
B) RESOLUTION 2019-03 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
FOR NEW ELECTRONIC LED DISPLAY SIGNS AT SPEEDWAY FUEL STATION –
LOCATED AT 1200 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-29)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Sevan Site Solutions, acting on behalf of
Realty Income Properties 3, LLC and Speedway LLC were seeking to amend their two current
Conditional Use Permits that were approved for their two SuperAmerica Stations a number of years ago.
The 1080 Highway 62 site is located on the southeast corner of Highway 62 and Lexington; in a B-2
Neighborhood Business District; approximately 1.2 acres in size; and contains a 4,300 square foot gas
station/convenience store and carwash bay; and a freestanding monument sign near the front
northeasterly corner. The original Conditional Use Permit was adopted on April 16, 1996 as Resolution
96-20.
The 1200 Mendota Heights Road site is located on the southeast corner of Highway 55 and Mendota
Heights Road; in a B-3 General Business District; approximately 2 acres in size, and contains a 4,300
square foot gas station/convenience store and carwash bay; and a freestanding pylon style sign near the
westerly edge along the Highway 55 frontage. The original Conditional User Permit for this site was
adopted on April 16, 1996 as Resolution 96-21.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the six standards that must be met pursuant to City Code Section 12-1D-15
SIGNS, subpart. I.3 for an Electronic Display at Motor Fuel Stations Conditional Use Permit. He shared
how these requests met these standards.
A question was asked about the different colored lights for the price of regular unleaded gasoline and
diesel fuel, and if this complied with the standard that reads “the characters in an electronic display must
be a uniform color”. The representative from Speedway explained the industry standard states that a fuel
station would typically want their unleaded and diesel fuels to be easily distinguishable. The typical
standard is using a red font for unleaded gasoline and a green font for diesel. Staff stated the different
colors would not be a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. There would be no
impact to traffic and it is in the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Since the character colors for each fuel
grade read-out are uniform, then the displays and proposed sign improvements presented in this case
complies with and meets all standards under the City Code.
Councilor Paper asked if the signage lights would be turned off when the station is closed. Mr. Steve
Morse, representing Speedway, stated that the signs could be turned off at the 1080 Highway 62 location
when the station is closed. The Speedway at 1200 Mendota Heights Road is open 24 hours per day.
page 6
Councilor Petschel stated that she has lived through previous lighting ordinances, and previously, LED
signage in the city was viewed very reprehensible. However, the Council rewrote the lighting ordinance
in anticipation of the fact that LED lights are more energy efficient and easy to change.
Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-02 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN ELECTRONIC LED DISPLAY SIGN FOR SPEEDWAY
FUEL STATION LOCATED AT 1080 HIGHWAY 62 (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-28) with the
added condition that the LED lights would be turned off when the station was closed for business.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-03 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AMENTMENT FOR NEW ELECTRONIC LED DISPLAY SIGNS AT SPEEDWAY FUEL
STATION – LOCATED AT 1200 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-29).
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
C) RESOLUTION 2019-04 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT LIMITATION
STANDARDS ON A NEW FIRE AND RESCUE TRAINING TOWER
LOCATED AT 2121 DODD ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-30)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Fire Department was seeking a
variance to height limitation standard for a new fire and rescue training tower at 2121 Dodd Road. The
current fire station was built in 1985, consists of 12,000 square feet with four truck bays, offices, and
other areas. The site also contained a 34-foot fire hose tower that was used for the draining and drying of
fire hoses after usage. Although this usage is no longer necessary, the tower is scheduled to remain in
place with modifications in construction and usage.
The plans for the expansion and construction of the new fire station project were approved by the City
Council in July 2018. As part of this project, a new fire/rescue training tower on the northeast corner of
the building has been included. This tower is proposed to be 40 feet 8 inches in height; slightly higher
than the 37.5 feet limit allowed in the R-1 zoning standards.
The tower is intended to mimic a typical commercial or multi-family stairwell facility in order for the
fire personnel to train inside of it as if it were a true stairwell; it would include windows and a repelling
ledge on the top.
Mr. Benetti shared the criteria the city needed to follow for variance requests as cited in City Code
Section 12-1L-5. He explained how this request met those criteria. Prior to the meeting, City Attorney
Andre Pratt requested Finding of Fact E. be added to the resolution:
E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Report dated December 20, 2018 is
hereby fully incorporated into this resolution
page 7
Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-04 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR
HEIGHT LIMITATION STANDARDS ON A NEW FIRE AND RESCUE TRAINING TOWER AT
THE CITY’S FIRE STATION PROPERTY – LOCATED AT 2121 DODD ROAD (PLANNING CASE
NO. 2018-30) as amended.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
D) ESTABLISH DATE FOR INTERVIEWS FOR COMMISSION APPLICANTS
City Ad ministrator Mark McNeill explained that there are nine applicants for the Planning Commission
position that is open and nine applicants for the two Parks & Recreation Commission position openings.
Staff suggested separate meeting nights for the interviews. The Parks and Recreation Commission
interviews was suggested to be set for 4:30 pm on January 15, 2019. The Planning Commission
interviews was suggested to be set for 4:30 pm on February 5, 2019.
The Council determined that the interview meeting dates and times would be set as suggested.
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that the ice rinks are open, however, residents should call
the City Ice Rink Hotline or check the Parks and Recreation Facebook page for additional information.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Duggan, referencing a story in the Pioneer Press, extended best wishes and prayers to Bert
McKasy that he continues to meet the challenge that he is facing.
He also expressed congratulations to Paul Schnell for being named Minnesota’s Commissioner of
Corrections. This is the second Commissioner of Corrections to live in Mendota Heights.
He extended congratulations to his cousin, Bill Palmquist, as the mayor elect of Afton, MN.
Councilor Paper wished good health in 2019 to Mayor Garlock and congratulated him on another year of
perfect attendance for Council meetings.
Councilor Miller wished all a Happy New Year and a belated happy birthday to Mayor Garlock. He also
thanked the local businesses who participated in the 3rd annual Great Mendota Heights Pub Crawl on
December 28, 2018. The owner of Mendota Liquor was gracious in hosting them for an impromptu wine
tasting. They are looking at doing a summer pub crawl.
He thanked Pat Fitzgerald for watching the Council meetings religiously and for his leadership this year.
Councilor Petschel expressed well wishes and prayers for Bert McKasy. The Pioneer Press article was
about hospice care, which is growing and more accepted today. The McKasy family’s story was shared
beautifully.
page 8
She asked if the city had any news on the promised flashing yellow arrow from Dodd Road to westbound
I-494. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that it is part of the completed Dodd Road project, and
it should be installed this spring.
Mayor Garlock thanked City Administrator Mark McNeill for arranging the meeting with MnDOT
regarding Dodd Road that was held prior to this Council meeting. This issue is on-going and
communications with the residents will continue.
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 9
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the City Council Work Session
Held January 2, 2019
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the City Council, City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota was held at the City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper
and Petschel were also present.
City staff present included Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City
Administrator; Community Development Director Tim Benetti; Ryan Ruzek, Public Works
Director; and Lorri Smith, City Clerk.
DISCUSSION WITH MNDOT REGARDING DODD ROAD CHANGES
Molly Kline, representing Minnesota Department of Transportation, was present to review the
reasons changes were made to Dodd Road. The 2018 project included resurfacing, drainage
improvements, and pedestrian improvements to Dodd Road, from I494 to the High Bridge in St.
Paul.
Will Stein, representing the Federal Highway Administration, spoke about the safety features
incorporated into the redesign of Dodd Road. The road used to include short segments of bypass
lanes for vehicles to get past other vehicles making left hand turns in the area from Mendakota
Court to Pagel Road. The road improvements changed this configuration for safety reasons. The
improvements now include dedicated left-hand turn lanes.
Mr. Stein stated that it has been proven that bypass lanes do not work as well as dedicated left-
hand turn lanes. Bypass lanes are not being installed when changes are made to highways.
Exclusive left hand turn lanes are the safest way for vehicles to make a turn. He stated the
additional cost substantiates the safety benefits. These are proven safety countermeasures and
reduce crashes.
The pedestrian refuge (center island) that was installed at Wagon Wheel Trail is a proactive
improvement for this pedestrian crossing and improves the safety for pedestrians at this area.
Councilor Petschel stated that some residents have concerns about getting in and out of the
Friendly Hills residential area. It was noted that MnDOT has not limited any options for turns and
that traffic can still make a left hand turn onto Pagel Road or Keokuk Lane.
page 10
Comments from the public included:
Bernie Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that a left hand turn lane onto Pagel Road has been
eliminated. He felt that a pedestrian refuge should have also been included at South Plaza Drive,
to be consistent with the Wagon Wheel Trail pedestrian crossing. He said that there is no data to
suggest that safety in this area has ever been a problem.
Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, stated that traffic travels at 40 to 50 miles per hour in this area.
The pedestrian refuge at Wagon Wheel Trail is still not safe for pedestrians. The Keokuk Lane and
Bluebird Drive intersection is not a straight intersection and makes it hard to see oncoming traffic
traveling along Dodd Road.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 pm.
___________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
____________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 11
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Council Work Session
Monday, January 7, 2019
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at
City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper and
Petschel were also present. Staff in attendance included City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, Public Works Director
Ryan Ruzek, Community Development Director Tim Benetti, Police Chief Kelly McCarthy, City
Attorney Andy Pratt, and City Clerk Lorri Smith.
VILLAGE MORTGAGE
City Attorney Andy Pratt reviewed with the Council an outstanding mortgage that is owed to the City
by RMF Group, the management company at The Village at Mendota Heights. This is for the parcel
referred to as the ‘ABC parcel’. The City sold the ABC parcel to Mendota Heights Town Center, LLC,
the developer of the property, for $295,505. $265,954.50 of that amount was deferred and would be
paid by the developer to the City over time.
The City was to assist the development by selling off various parcel of land. The proceeds from the
land sales were to be primarily used to construct parking facilities.
Attorney Pratt has been researching the issue of a possible remaining amount in an escrow account.
RMF has asked that any remaining amount in this account be credited to the outstanding balance of the
mortgage. City records show the escrow account rose and fell based on the deposit of land sale
revenues and requested disbursements for parking facility construction. The account was closed in July
2013.
The Council discussed how they would like to proceed with this issue. Staff was directed to contact
former Mayor John Huber, former City Councilmember Jack Vitelli, Prior Lake State Bank, and RMF
Group to see if they have any additional information.
GOAL SETTING SESSION
Facilitator Mark Nagel directed a goal setting session with the Council and staff. City Administrator
Mark McNeill reviewed the goals and status thereof which were identified in May, 2017. Council and
staff then submitted new goals that they thought were important for the City accomplish over the next
18 months. The goals were then grouped into the following categories:
page 12
Communications:
1. Work to receive better cell phone coverage in our city.
2. Complete a resident survey.
3. Receive quarterly reports from Fire Department.
4. Building better connections with/engage our community.
5. Prepare for the 2020 census.
Governance:
1. More face-to-face communication with local leaders (MetCouncil, State Legislators, MAC, etc.)
2. Create a Yellow Ribbon Committee, partner with area cities’ Yellow Ribbon Committees
3. Seek additional partnerships with area cities
4. Show more civility shown at public meetings
5. Update the commissions’ bylaws / hold commission members orientation training
6. Lessen the airplane noise
7. Broadcast ARC meetings on NDC4
8. Create a City IT Commission
9. Create a partnership with the newly formed Mendota Heights Foundation
10. Create a Kids Council
Parks:
1. Creation of additional athletic fields
2. Offer additional summer adult programming
3. Reimage park space
4. Find a permanent source for Parks funding
5. Involve more youth
6. Partner with West St. Paul for drop-in youth programming
Facility Improvements:
1. Complete a Police department space analysis study
2. Update of Administration offices, breakroom, restrooms, other public spaces in City Hall
3. Create a Fire Station room reservation policy
Operational Improvements:
1. Update zoning and platting ordinances
2. Completion of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
3. Purchase of permitting / licensing software
4. Move to be more paperless / scan permanent records into Laserfiche
5. Upgrade Finance accounting software
6. Transition to close city hall on Friday afternoons, open longer hours M-Th
7. Complete an additional street sweeping (go to 3x per year)
8. Update snowplowing best practices
9. Greensteps City sustainability
10. Update the Natural Resources Plan
Public Safety:
1. Complete an active shooter tabletop training exercise
2. Create a Citizens Advisory Panel for Police Department
page 13
Transportation:
1. Participate with area cities in regional planning for transportation issues - Dodd/Delaware
Economic Development:
1. Market and sell the vacant Village lots for development.
2. Initiate a local lodging tax.
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 14
Request for City Council Action
DATE: January 15, 2019
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Approval of Revised Picnic Shelter Rental Policy
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council approval of a revised Mendota Heights Picnic Shelter Rental
Policy.
BACKGROUND
The City has six parks with picnic shelters available for the public to rent. In 2018, the City
received approximately 45 picnic shelter reservation requests.
On February 7, 2018 the City Council approved the Mendota Heights Recreational Facilities
Reservation/Special Event Policy. Staff has found it necessary to have separate policies for the
following categories: fields/facilities, picnic shelters, and special events.
This revised policy outlines the process and restrictions when reserving a picnic shelter in
Mendota Heights. If approved, the updated policy would be effective for the 2019 rental season
and going forward.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised Mendota Heights Picnic Shelter
Rental Policy.
ACTION REQUESTED
If the council concurs, it should by motion, approve the amended Mendota Heights Picnic Shelter
Rental Policy, as attached.
page 15
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PICNIC SHELTER RENTAL POLICY
CONTACT: Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651-452-1850
APPROVED: xxxxx,xxxxx
page 16
City of Mendota Heights
Picnic Shelter Rental Policy
A. Purpose
The City of Mendota Heights, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, coordinates and issues
permits for the use of picnic shelters owned by the City. The purpose of this policy is to
establish guidelines to promote orderly and effective use and enjoyment of City picnic shelters
and parks.
B. Picnic Shelter Use Permits
Picnic shelter permits are issued following the City’s picnic shelter permit process. A permit is
issued only after a request is made, all required documents and information is received, and the
City has approved the request, either in-part or in its entirety. A request does not constitute an
approval.
Permit applicants must be 18 years of age or older. Requests may be submitted throughout the
year and will be considered on a first come, first serve basis. Permit requests shall be
submitted at least two (2) days in advance of the desired date of the event. Application forms
will be made available at City Hall or on the City’s website
The City reserves the right to deny, limit or revoke use permits based upon an applicant’s
performance history including compliance with the terms and conditions of use, park shelter
conditions after use, and unruly behavior of participants and guests.
C. Terms and Conditions of Use
• The permit holder is required to be on-site during the entire event including set-up and
clean-up of the event. A copy of the issued permit must be retained during the entire
time of the rental and shown upon request.
• Picnic shelter reservations are for the picnic area only. Users that have a permit are
allowed to use the permitted picnic shelter space, but public park areas including
playgrounds, hard court surfaces, and grassy areas will remain open for use by the
public and therefore cannot be reserved, roped off or otherwise restricted from use by
the public.
• Reasonable decorating of the shelter is allowed. Temporary objects, signs, banners and
other materials must be removed from City property at the conclusion of the event.
Users are not allowed to attach objects to trees, shrubs or park features.
• The use of inflatable play equipment and similar items are prohibited in City parks.
Water activities that can cause damage to the facility and/or grounds are not permitted.
page 17
• All users of City park shelters and areas are expected to leave the area(s) in the same or
better condition than which it was found. Users are expected to dispose of waste in
proper trash and recycling receptacles. The City of Mendota Heights prides itself on
being a clean and green community, and renters are asked to recycle as much of their
waste as possible.
D. Non-Use of Reserved Picnic Shelters
When permits are issued, a specific picnic shelter is reserved for the user, to the exclusion of
others. Recognizing this exclusivity, users should only reserve the picnic shelter intended for
use. Any user that has reserved a picnic shelter and subsequently determines that it cannot use
it shall notify the City so that the shelter may be used by another user or the general public.
E. Fees
The City may charge application and use fees in order to recover public costs to operate,
maintain, repair, improve and administer the use of City picnic shelters. For each application
submitted, an application fee shall be assessed. Picnic shelter use fees shall be approved by the
City Council and included in the City’s Fee Schedule. Use fees are subject to change at the
discretion of the City Council.
All users who receive a permit for exclusive use of a picnic shelter must pay the appropriate fee
per the City fee schedule. Payments for permits must be received in advance of the start of the
reservation. Payments can be made by cash, check or credit/debit card.
Additional fees may be charged based on the size of the group and the additional facilities
requested such as a picnic tables.
F. Cancellation Policy
The City attempts to be flexible in accommodating user groups, but ultimately, the health and
safety of the user and the condition of a park and picnic shelter takes priority. This may require
the closure of picnic shelters, denial of use of picnic shelter, and/or the assignment of an
alternate site for use.
Picnic shelter closures will be communicated to permit holders by the Recreation Program
Coordinator. Permits cancelled by the City of Mendota Heights may be rescheduled as
availability allows, or may be refunded in full. Permits cancelled due to non-adherence with the
picnic shelter use policy, City Ordinances, or terms and conditions of use will not be refunded.
If the user cancels the event due to inclement weather, the permit holder should contact the
City to reschedule the event. There shall be no refunds for weather-related cancellations.
However, the permit holder may request to reschedule the event during the same calendar
year at no additional charge.
page 18
Reservations which are cancelled more than seven (7) days in advance will receive a 100%
refund. Reservations that are cancelled less than seven (7) days in advance will not be entitled
to a refund. The application fee is non-refundable regardless of the date cancelled.
G. City Contact
All communication with the Recreation Program Coordinator must be made through the permit
holder. This eliminates confusion and establishes direct, efficient communication.
Users should report any damage, accidents, dangerous or unsafe conditions to:
City of Mendota Heights Recreation Program Coordinator
Phone: 651-255-1354 or 651-452-1850 (Monday – Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm)
After Hours Phone: 651-302-3301
Email: meredithl@mendota-heights.com
page 19
Request for City Council Action
DATE: January 15, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Terry Blum, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Approval to Purchase a Toro Ground Master - Parks
COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to approve the purchase a Toro Ground Master for use by the Public Works
Department.
The vendor is anticipating the cost of steel to rise after February 1, 2019. This is why staff is
requesting the approval of this purchase at the Council’s January 15, 2019 meeting.
Background
The 2019 City Budget includes funding for the purchase of a new Toro Ground Master to replace
the mower purchased in 2009, which has become a high maintenance item.
Staff received a quote from the state contract from MTI Distributing. The quote is for a Ground
Master 5910 mower with safety cab for a price of $99,578.26. This includes a trade-in value of
$16,500. This is below the budgeted amount in the Public Works Park Budget of $100,000.00.
Budget Impact
The net cost after trade-in is $99,578.26. This is $421.74 below the 2019 budgeted amount.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the purchase of a new Ground Master mower
from MTI Distributing.
Action Required
If the City Council concurs, it should, should pass a motion authorizing the purchase of a new
Ground Master mower from MTI Distributing, for the purchase price of $99,578.26.
page 20
Request for City Council Action
DATE: January 15, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Terry Blum, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Approval to Purchase a Parks Mower
COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to approve the purchase of a lawn mower for use by the Public Works
Department.
Background
The 2019 City Budget includes funding for the purchase of a new mower for use by the Public
Works Department. This purchase would replace the existing 2007 Exmark mower. The current
mower is constantly experiencing mechanical problems.
Staff received a quote from the state contract from Gerlach Outdoor Power Equipment, Inc. The
quote is for an Exmark mower for the price of $17,221 and a mulch kit for the price of $336. The
trade-in for the 2007 mower as stated on the quote is $1,500. The total cost of the new mower,
mulch kit, and the trade-in value is $16,057. This is below the budgeted amount in the Public
Works Parks Budget of $17,000.
Budget Impact
The net cost after trade-in is $16,057, which includes the mower, a mulch kit and the trade-in price.
This is $943 below the amount of $17,000 that is included in the 2019 City Budget.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the purchase of a new Exmark mower and mulch
kit, from Gerlach Outdoor Power Equipment, Inc.
Action Required
If the City Council concurs, it should, should pass a motion authorizing the purchase of a new
Exmark mower and mulch kit in the amount of $16,057 from Gerlach Outdoor Power Equipment,
Inc.
page 21
DATE: January 15, 2019
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Fire Turn-out Gear Purchase
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve the purchase of six sets of fire turnout gear by the Mendota
Heights Fire Department.
BACKGROUND
The 2019 fire department budget allows for the purchase of up to six sets of turnout gear. These
are the pants, coats, and suspenders worn when responding to a fire. A recent inspection of the
gear by the department’s safety committee found that there are 6 sets of gear that are in immediate
need of replacement.
For quality and consistency our gear is made to a specific MHFD specification by one national
manufacture and sold through one licensed dealer in the state of Minnesota. This has been the
case for at least the last 15 years. The supplier is Fire Equipment Specialties.
BUDGET IMPACT
The total amount of the quote was $16,757 from Fire Equipment Specialties. This expense was
planned for in the 2019 budget. Funds from the fire department operating budget will be used to
purchase the turnout gear.
RECOMMENDATION
It’s my recommendation that we move forward with the turn-out gear purchase for the estimated
amount of $16,757 from Fire Equipment Specialties.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the City Council agrees, it should pass a motion authorizing the purchase of six sets of fire
turnout gear from Fire Equipment Specialties in the amount of $16,757.
page 22
DATE: January 9, 2019
TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator
FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2019-11 FORMALLY ACCEPTING DONATION
OF EQUIPMENT
BACKGROUND
The City Auditor has advised that Minnesota State Statute 465.03 “Gifts to municipalities”
requires all donations be acknowledged by Resolution. This memo meets Minnesota State
Statutory requirements by having the City Council formally accept the gift and recognizing the
donor.
Lifetime Fitness facilitated the donation of a Life Fitness Flex treadmill, a Life Fitness stationary
bike, a Force Matrix cable cross, and a Precor bench press rack to the police department.
Access to this equipment affords officers the opportunity to better their overall health and wellness
and maintain a fitness level necessary for the policing profession.
A thank you letter will be sent along with a copy of the signed resolution.
BUDGET IMPACT
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATION
If Council desires to implement the recommendation, a motion will need to be passed adopting
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-11 FORMALLY ACCEPTING DONATION OF EQUIPMENT.
page 23
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION 2019-11
A RESOLUTION
FORMALLY ACCEPTING A DONATION OF EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute 465.03 “Gifts to Municipalities” requires a
resolution to be approved by the governing body to accept gifts to municipalities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has previously acknowledged gifts by
resolution as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights encourages and supports citizens and
organizations who wish to participate in government; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this
matter and wish to officially recognize the donation.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Mendota Heights hereby gratefully accepts the donation of fitness equipment from Lifetime
Fitness.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fifteenth day of January
2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 24
1/7/2019 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official
December 1, 2018 thru December 31, 2018 January 1, 2018 thru December 31, 2018 January 1, 2017 thru December 31, 2017 January 1, 2016 thru December 31, 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 0 -$ $0.00 SFD 9 4,717,052.00$ $53,035.56 SFD 8 4,376,940.34$ $47,366.57 SFD 10 4,801,562.00$ 54,162.40$
Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 1 9,466,820.00$ $65,710.84 Apartment 2 23,022,000.00$ $158,402.65 Apartment 0 -$ -$
Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 18 3,938,993.89$ $43,000.88 Townhouse 16 3,540,000.00$ $35,684.86 Townhouse 18 4,145,000.00$ 43,118.57$
Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$
Misc 20 595,859.00$ 6,337.28$ Misc 590 8,910,048.57$ 119,773.23$ Misc 643 9,733,590.85$ 130,450.56$ Misc 631 8,006,650.43$ 113,986.75$
Commercial 0 -$ $0.00 Commercial 16 7,443,309.00$ $63,172.89 Commercial 34 9,786,690.00$ $97,786.46 Commercial 30 8,387,304.00$ 72,870.26$
Sub Total 20 595,859.00$ 6,337.28$ Sub Total 634 34,476,223.46$ 344,693.40$ Sub Total 703 50,459,221.19$ 469,691.10$ Sub Total 689 25,340,516.43$ 284,137.98$
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 14 $1,277.35 Plumbing 219 $33,091.94 Plumbing 202 $32,659.61 Plumbing 183 16,614.12$
Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 3 30.00$
Sewer 3 $225.00 Sewer 40 $3,000.00 Sewer 37 $2,788.00 Sewer 30 2,250.00$
Mechanical 27 $5,186.92 Mechanical 476 397.00$ $62,212.81 Mechanical 397 $61,611.76 Mechanical 382 47,801.09$
Sub Total 44 6,689.27$ Sub Total 735 98,304.75$ Sub Total 636 $97,059.37 Sub Total 598 66,695.21$
License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected
Contractor 39 $1,950.00 Contractor 321 $16,050.00 Contractor 328 $16,400.00 Contractor 310 15,500.00$
Total 103 595,859.00$ 14,976.55$ Total 1690 34,476,223.46$ 459,048.15$ Total 1667 50,459,221.19$ 583,150.47$ Total 1597 25,340,516.43$ 366,333.19$
NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals
page 25
page 26
page 27
page 28
page 29
page 30
page 31
page 32
page 33
page 34
page 35
page 36
page 37
page 38
page 39
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Badge Pinning—Becky Johnson
Date: January 15, 2019
Comment:
At the January 15th City Council meeting, Firefighter Becky Johnson will receive her badge as a member
of the Mendota Heights Fire Department.
Firefighters received their badges at the end of their one year probationary period and when they complete
their basic training. Ms. Johnson has been a member of the MHFD since December 5, 2018. Becky has
recently completed Firefighter 1 & 2, Hazardous Materials Operations, Emergency Medical Responder
and Fire Instructor 1.
Becky’s husband Dan, (also a MHFD member) will be pining Becky tonight.
page 40
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: January 15, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-10 Ordering of Improvements for the Marie Avenue and Wesley
Lane Neighborhood Improvements Project No. 201803
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council hold a public hearing for the Marie
Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvements.
BACKGROUND
Marie Avenue and streets in the Wesley Lane area are in a deteriorated state. As a result, on
August 7, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolutions 2018-68 and 2018-59, which ordered the
preparation of a feasibility report for those streets. Because a portion of the funding is to be
through assessments against the benefitted properties, the City must follow a procedure outlined
in Minnesota Statutes Annotated Chapter 429.
That feasibility report for the Marie Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvements was
accepted by the Mendota Heights City Council. It called for a Public Hearing to be held on
January 15, 2019, when it adopted Resolution 2018-100 at the December 18, 2018, Council
meeting. The recommendation of the feasibility report was to proceed with this project.
The proposed streets to be rehabilitated are Mager Court, Marie Avenue (Lexington Avenue to
Dodd Road), South Lane (Linden Street to the cul-de-sac), Spring Creek Circle, Wesley Court,
and Wesley Lane. Based on staff observations, as well as the City’s pavement management
system, a majority of these streets have deteriorated to the point where it is no longer cost
effective to patch the street and rehabilitation is necessary. Staff has received several telephone
inquiries as to when resurfacing will take place on Marie Avenue.
DISCUSSION
The feasibility report indicates the estimated costs for the project, along with preliminary
assessment estimates. At the end of the feasibility report, a project financing summary is
included to show project cost splits and funding sources to be utilized. The total estimated cost of
the project is $4,698,610, including indirect costs. The project is proposed to be constructed in
two phases. Phase 1 would include Wesley Neighborhood street improvements, Dodd Road trail
from Maple St. to Marie Avenue, Pond sediment removal, retaining walls and fencing, land
bridge repair, pedestrian tunnel replacement, watermain replacement, Marie Avenue street
page 41
improvements from 35E to Dodd Road including trail rehabilitation. Phase 2 would include
Marie Avenue street rehabilitation from Lexington Avenue to 35E including trail rehabilitation,
Lexington Avenue trail realignment, pond sediment removal, and retaining walls and fencing.
Issues
A Neighborhood Informational Meeting was held on January 9, 2019 to provide the property
owners an opportunity to discuss the projects in an informal setting prior to the Public Hearing.
Staff presented the proposed improvements, project costs, estimated assessments; and answered
resident’s questions. 27 residents attended the informational meeting representing 21 properties.
There were no significant objects raised.
BUDGET IMPACT
Street improvement projects are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners.
Pursuant to the City’s Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy, the benefiting properties
should be assessed 50% of the street reconstruction and rehabilitation costs. The following tables
show the estimated unit assessments based on the City policy.
PROJECT COSTS (PHASE 1, 2019) ITEM ESTIMATED COST*
Marie Avenue street improvements (35E to Dodd Rd)** $793,713
Watermain replacement (Sutton Lane to Dodd Road) $59,813
Pedestrian tunnel $345,585
Trail rehabilitation on Marie Avenue (35E to Dodd) $57,874
Land bridge repair $513,594
Retaining walls and fences $70,504
Pond sediment removal $62,561
Wesley Neighborhood street improvement** $717,146
Trail construction on Dodd Rd (Wesley to Maple) $221,634
Trail construction on Dodd Rd (Marie to Wesley) $173,826
Total Cost, Phase 1 $3,016,249
PROJECT COSTS (PHASE 2, 2020)
ITEM ESTIMATED COST*
Marie Avenue street improvements (Lexington to 35E)** $1,135,869
Trail rehabilitation on Marie Avenue (Lexington to 35E) $57,874
Trail realignment on Lexington (Marie to Orchard) $295,911
Retaining walls and fences $71,896
Pond sediment removal $120,811
Total Cost, Phase 2 $1,682,361
*Estimated costs include 10% contingency & 15% indirect cost
**Assessable cost
page 42
PROJECT FUNDING (PHASE 1, 2019)
SOURCE AMOUNT
Tax Levy $1,089,349
Assessments $437,166
Municipal State Aid $1,000,000
Utility Fund - Water $59,813
Utility Fund - Storm Sewer $84,336
Dakota County $345,585
Total Funding, Phase 1 $3,016,249
PROJECT FUNDING (PHASE 2, 2020)
SOURCE AMOUNT
Tax Levy $847,337
Assessments $314,213
Municipal State Aid $400,000
Utility Fund - Water $0
Utility Fund - Storm Sewer $120,811
Total Funding, Phase 2 $1,682,361
The estimated assessment per property based on the city policy would result in individual
assessments of:
• $11,462 per unit for Marie Avenue
• $6,830 per unit for the Wesley Lane Neighborhood
Staff proposes that assessments be capped at $5,500 per unit for both the Wesley Lane
Neighborhood and Marie Avenue residents.
The attached Resolution 2019-10, further breaks down the project funding into portions of the
project that are being assessed and portions of the project that are funded through city utility
funds, Municipal State Aid (MSA), and funds from other agencies.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council conduct the Public Hearing. If it wishes to proceed, it should
order the improvements, and authorize staff to prepare the plans and specifications for the Marie
Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvements.
ACTION REQUIRED
Conduct the public hearing, and then if City Council wishes to implement the staff
recommendation, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION ORDERING OF
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MARIE AVENUE AND WESLEY LANE
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT #201803.
This action requires a super majority vote, meaning a minimum of four votes.
page 43
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019-10
A RESOLUTION ORDERING OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MARIE AVENUE AND WESLEY LANE
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201803)
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2018, the Mendota Heights City Council authorized the holding of
a public hearing (the “Hearing”) under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended (the “Act”), to discuss
and consider various street rehabilitation projects, storm water infrastructure improvement and
replacement, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter improvements, bituminous surfacing, and
appurtenant work (collectively, the “Improvements”), in and along portions of the following streets: Mager
Court, Marie Avenue (Lexington Avenue to Dodd Road), South Lane (Linden Street to the cul-de-sac),
Spring Creek Circle, Wesley Court, and Wesley Lane (collectively, the “Assessment Area”); and
WHEREAS, also on December 18, 2018, the Council received a feasibility report on the
Improvements from the Public Works Director (the “Feasibility Report”), which report explored the
feasibility and estimated costs to provide the Improvements under the Act; and
WHEREAS, the estimated costs of the Improvements, as detailed in the Feasibility Report, is
$2,789,129, and will be financed from a combination of available City Utility Funds, Special Assessments,
and general obligation improvement bonds; and
WHEREAS, the City is additionally proposing to (i) repair and improve a land bridge; (ii) replace
a pedestrian underpass; (iii) construct a new pedestrian trail; (iv) remove sediments from certain stormwater
ponds; (v) replace certain water mains; and (vi) construct street improvements to be categorized under the
State of Minnesota’s municipal state-aid street system. These improvements are not proposed to be
assessed to benefiting properties, nor will they be financed through general obligation improvement bonds,
although they may be financed through general obligation utility revenue bonds or other applicable
financing mechanisms, so such improvements are not subject to the Hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Council has held a neighborhood informational meeting in January, to give each
neighborhood in the Assessment Area a summary of the Improvements, and the necessity of such
Improvements to the general overall health of the City; and
WHEREAS, ten days’ mailed notice and two weeks’ published notice of the Hearing was given,
as required by the Act, and the Hearing was held on the date hereof, at which time all persons desiring to
be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, a reasonable estimate of the total amount to be assessed, and a description of the
methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels within the Assessment Area, has
been made available for the Hearing.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota, as follows:
page 44
1. The Improvements are necessary, cost-effective and feasible as detailed in the Feasibility
Report. Specifically, the Improvements are necessary to update the City’s street
infrastructure system, as many streets were originally constructed more than 40 years
ago, and contain pavement that has been continually patched, overlaid, seal coated, and
slurry sealed, but now is in need of rehabilitation. The repair of associated aging storm
water infrastructure concurrently with the street reconstruction is additionally
recommended for project efficiency. Finally, the Improvements are feasible from an
engineering standpoint.
2. The Improvements are hereby ordered. The Council shall let the contract for all or part of
the Improvements, as authorized by Section 429.041, Subdivision 1 of the Act, no later
than December 31, 2020.
3. The portion of the Improvements related to associated storm water infrastructure are
instituted under the Act, and this portion of the Improvements can be more economically
completed if consolidated and joined as one project with the Improvements, as allowed
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.56, as amended. Therefore, all subsequent
proceedings under the Act related to the Improvements shall be conducted in all respects
as if the various separate proceedings had originally been instituted as one proceeding. The
actions of City staff and consultants to consolidate the storm water infrastructure portion
of the Improvements with the remainder of the Improvements are approved and ratified.
4. The Improvements have no relationship to the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
5. TKDA, the City’s engineering firm, is hereby designated as the engineer for the
Improvements. The Public Works Director shall prepare plans and specifications for the
making of such Improvements, which plans and specifications shall be placed on file at the
City upon completion.
6. The Council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for all or a portion of the costs of
the Improvements from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds. The City has a reasonable
expectation that it will issue one or more series of tax-exempt bonds in the estimated
maximum principal amount of $2,789,129 to finance the Improvements, and the City will
make reimbursement allocations with respect to such original expenditures for the
Improvements from the proceeds of the Bonds.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fifteenth day of January, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 45
Project AreasMarie AvenueNpage 46
Project AreasWesley Lane NeighborhoodNpage 47
Phase 1 Project ScopePhase 1: 2019 constructionMarie Avenue street improvements and trail rehabilitationPedestrian underpass and guard rail improvementsRetaining wall reconstruction and bridge repairWatermain replacementPond cleanoutWesley Lane Neighborhood Street Improvementspage 48
Phase 2 Project ScopePhase 1: 2019 constructionMarie Avenue street improvements and trail rehabilitationRetaining wall reconstructionLexington trail realignmentPond cleanoutpage 49
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
Subject: Comcast Cable Franchise
Date: January 15, 2019
Comment:
Introduction:
The City Council is asked to take action regarding whether or not to accept a “formal” franchise renewal
proposal from the City’s cable provider, Comcast, Inc.
Background:
For many years, the City of Mendota Heights has been a member of the 7 city Cable Commission formed
by a Joint Powers Agreement known as the Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission
- NDC4. In addition to local origination broadcasting, NDC4 oversees the administration of the cable
television franchise and related services provided by Comcast Inc.
Attached is an explanatory memo from Jodie Miller, Executive Director of NDC4, and a resolution
drafted by Brian Grogan, who serves as the attorney advising NDC4, of which the City is a member. In
it, it states that the Comcast franchise initially expired three years ago, and while negotiations have been
ongoing since that time, the effort to reach a negotiated informal renewal of the Franchise has been
unsuccessful. There remain many unresolved issues, both financial and operational.
On December 12, 2018, the 14 member NDC4 Commission (with two representatives from Mendota
Heights) chose to adopt NDC4 Resolution 12-12-2018 (attached). This NDC4 Resolution made a
preliminary assessment that the formal proposal of Comcast for a franchise renewal was unsatisfactory,
and should therefore be denied.
In turn, each of the 7 cities are now being asked to separately consider Comcast’s formal proposal for
franchise renewal.
Recommendation:
The NDC4 Commission voted to make the preliminary finding that the formal proposal of Comcast for a
franchise renewal be denied. To be consistent with the actions of the Commission which represents
Mendota Heights in issues dealing with the franchise, I recommended that the City Council vote to adopt
page 50
a City resolution making the preliminary finding that the Comcast formal proposal to renew the cable
franchise be denied.
If the NDC4 member cities vote to follow the recommendation of the NDC4 Commission, the next step in
the process provides for the dispute to be heard by an administrative law judge.
Note that Mendota Heights resident Mickey Kieffer, and City Council member Joel Paper represent the
City on the NDC4 Board. Mr. Kieffer, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Grogan will be in attendance at the January
15th City Council meeting. Comcast is also expected to be in attendance to respond.
Action Required
If the Council concurs with the recommendation of the NDC4 Resolution 12-12-2018, it should adopt the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-09
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT THAT THE COMCAST
FORMAL PROPOSAL FOR FRANCHISE RENEWAL BE DENIED
page 51
page 52
page 53
page 54
page 55
page 56
page 57
page 58
page 59
page 60
page 61
page 62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page 66
page 67
page 68
page 69
page 70
page 71
page 72
page 73
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-09
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT THAT THE COMCAST
FORMAL PROPOSAL FOR FRANCHISE RENEWAL BE DENIED
WHEREAS, on or about April 1, 2000, the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota,
(“City”) granted a Cable Television Franchise Ordinance (“Franchise”), which is currently held
by Comcast of St. Paul, Inc. (“Comcast”), to provide cable service in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission
(“Commission”) is a joint powers commission organized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §238.08
and §471.59, as amended, and includes the following seven (7) municipalities: Inver Grove
Heights, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, South St. Paul, Sunfish Lake, and West St. Paul,
Minnesota (the “Member Cities”); and
WHEREAS, the Commission was formed in 1982 and presently obtains its authority
from the Member Cities under an Amended Joint Powers Cooperative Agreement (“JPA”); and
WHEREAS, the Commission has the authority under the JPA to administer the
Franchises on behalf of the City, including negotiating and recommending renewal thereof; and
WHEREAS, Section 626(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as
amended (the “Cable Act”), 47 U.S.C. §546(a)(1), provides that if a written renewal request is
submitted by a cable operator during the six (6) month period which begins with the thirty-sixth
(36th) month before franchise expiration and ends with the thirtieth (30) month prior to franchise
expiration, a franchising authority shall, within six (6) months of the request, commence formal
proceedings to identify the future cable-related community needs and interests and to review the
performance of the cable operator under its franchise during the then current franchise term; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated July 27, 2012, from Comcast to the City, Comcast invoked
the formal renewal procedures set forth in Section 626 of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. §546; and
WHEREAS, the JPA empowers the Commission to conduct the Section 626 formal
franchise renewal process on behalf of the City and to take such other steps and actions as are
needed or required to carry out the formal franchise renewal process; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated August 7, 2012, the Commission, on behalf of the City,
informed Comcast that the Commission had commenced proceedings to identify the future cable-
related community needs and interests and to review the performance of Comcast under the
Franchises; and
WHEREAS, in 2013 and 2014 the Commission conducted a detailed and comprehensive
needs assessment process for the purpose of (A) identifying the future cable-related community
needs and interests of the Commission and its Member Cities, and (B) reviewing the
page 74
performance of Comcast under the Franchise, all as required by Section 626(a) of the Cable Act,
47 U.S.C. §546(a); and
WHEREAS, the Commission’s needs ascertainment and past performance review
produced the following reports: The Buske Group’s “Community Needs Ascertainment -
Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission (Inver Grove Heights, Lilydale,
Mendota, Mendota Heights, South St. Paul, Sunfish Lake, and West St. Paul, Minnesota)”; CBG
Communications Inc.’s, “Report on the Institutional Network Technical Review and Needs
Assessment for the Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission;” and
WHEREAS, since 2014 the Commission has been engaged with Comcast in informal
franchise renewal negotiations contemplated by 47 USC § 546(h), in hopes of arriving at a
renewed franchise; and
WHEREAS, in June of 2014 Comcast submitted FCC Form 394 requesting authority to
transfer ownership of the cable system serving the Commission and the City; however, the
transfer request was terminated by Comcast in April 2015; and
WHEREAS, in February 2015 the Commission and Member Cities received a request
for a competitive cable franchise from Quest Broadband Services, Inc. dba CenturyLink
(“CenturyLink”); and
WHEREAS, the Commission processed CenturyLink’s request for a franchise and in
March 2016 the City granted a franchise to CenturyLink; and
WHEREAS, following the grant of the CenturyLink franchise the Commission and
Comcast undertook further informal renewal discussions but were not able to reach agreement on
a renewed franchise; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2018, the Commission directed Commission staff to finalize
preparation of formal renewal documents, as specified in Section 626(a)-(g) of the Cable Act, 47
U.S.C. §546(a)-(g); and
WHEREAS, based on the Commission’s needs ascertainment and past performance
review, best industry practices, national trends in franchising and technology, and its own
experience, Commission staff prepared a Formal Needs Assessment Report (“Needs Report”),
which included a Request for Formal Renewal Proposal (“RFRP”) and a Model Cable Television
Franchise Ordinance (“Model Ordinance”) that collectively address the Member Cities’ present
and future cable-related needs and interests, establish requirements for facilities, equipment and
the channel capacity on Comcast’s cable system, and include model provisions for satisfying the
identified cable-related needs and interests; and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2018, the Commission approved the Needs Report, RFRP and
Model Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Commission established July 16, 2018, as a deadline for Comcast’s
response to the Needs Report, RFRP and Model Ordinance; and
page 75
WHEREAS, even after the issuance of the Needs Report, RFRP and Model Ordinance,
the Commission and Comcast engaged in informal renewal negotiations pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
§546(h) but were unable to arrive at mutually acceptable terms, although informal discussions
are ongoing; and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2018, Comcast requested a thirty (30) day extension of the
deadline for Comcast to provide its formal proposal; and
WHEREAS, on June 29, 2018, the Commission granted Comcast’s extension request;
and
WHEREAS, the new deadline for Comcast’s response to the formal renewal request
was set at August 15, 2018; and
WHEREAS, on or about August 15, 2018, Comcast submitted to the Commission its
Formal Proposal in response to the Needs Report, RFRP and Model Ordinance (“Formal
Proposal”); and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2018, the Commission published a notice informing the
public that Comcast’s Formal Proposal had been received and was placed on file for public
inspection in the Commission’s office, as well as online, and that written public comments may
be submitted to the Commission; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated November 28, 2018, the Commission and Comcast agreed
that the Commission has the authority to issue a recommendation to the Member Cities regarding
preliminary approval or denial of Comcast’s Formal Proposal (“Letter of Understanding”); and
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2018, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 12-12-
2018, which issued a Recommendation Regarding Preliminary Assessment that the Comcast
Formal Proposal for Franchise Renewal be Denied; and
WHEREAS, under the Letter of Understanding, prior to March 15, 2019, each Member
City shall consider and act upon the Commission recommendation at a regular or special City
Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Letter of Understanding, the Commission and Comcast
further agree that if one (1) or more of the Member Cities issues a preliminary denial, the
Commission shall administer any requested administrative proceeding as a group on behalf of
one (1) or more of the Member Cities in accordance with 47 U.S.C. § 546(c); and
WHEREAS, the City has carefully reviewed Comcast’s Formal Proposal and agrees
with the findings and conclusions set forth in Commission Resolution No. 12-12-2018: and
WHEREAS, the City agrees with the Commission that there are a number of areas
where the Formal Proposal fails to meet the future cable-related community needs and interests
taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests, each of which is set forth in
Exhibit A to this resolution; and
page 76
WHEREAS, should Comcast request the commencement of an administrative hearing
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §546(c), the City agrees that the Commission should follow the
Commission’s prescribed Rules for the Conduct of an Administrative Hearing, attached hereto
as Exhibit B, which rules comply with all procedural obligations set forth in 47 U.S.C. §546(c);
and
WHEREAS, the City has carefully considered all public comment, including that
contained within the Needs Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA
HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, THAT:
1. Each of the above recitals is hereby incorporated as a finding of fact by the City.
2. Exhibits A and B are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth in the
body of this Resolution.
3. The City hereby issues preliminary assessment that the Comcast Formal Proposal
should be denied and the Comcast Franchise should not be renewed.
4. The City preliminarily finds that Comcast’s Formal Proposal fails to meet the
City’s and the Commission’s future cable-related community needs and interests
taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests.
5. The basis for the Commission’s preliminary assessment is set forth in Exhibit A.
6. The City hereby confirms the Commission’s recommendation that at any
administrative hearing requested by Comcast, the Rules for the Conduct of an
Administrative Hearing, attached hereto as Exhibit B, will ensure that Comcast is
afforded a fair opportunity for full participation including the right to introduce
evidence, to require the production of evidence, and to question witnesses.
7. The City finds that its actions are appropriate and reasonable in light of the
mandates contained in federal law including 47 U.S.C. §546.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
______________________________
ATTEST: Neil Garlock, Mayor
_____________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 77
EXHIBIT A
Analysis of Comcast’s Formal Renewal Proposal to the
Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission
Lack of System Specific Financial Data
Comcast chose not to follow the directions of the RFRP, which required that applicants provide
financial information pertaining specifically to the Commission franchise area serving the
Member Cities. Instead Comcast referred to Comcast Corporations’ publicly available 10-K
filings. In addition, Comcast submitted a one page income statement as well as a one-half page
balance sheet (both labeled Trade Secret) prepared with data for the entire Comcast Twin Cities
Region (Minnesota and Wisconsin). Comcast declined to provide any financial information
specific to the Commission franchise area or for each Member City’s franchise area, stating that
such information was “confidential and proprietary” and “unnecessary.”
Under 47 U.S.C. § 546(c) the Commission and Member Cities are required to consider whether
Comcast’s Formal Proposal is “reasonable to meet the future cable-related community needs and
interests, taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests.” Without financial
information from Comcast that is specific to the cable system in the Commission franchise area,
the Commission and Member Cities have limited ability to assess one of Comcast’s primary
objections to the Needs Report and Model Ordinance – that the cost associated with meeting the
identified needs and interests render large portions of the Needs Report and Model Ordinance
unreasonable.
Comcast’s refusal to submit system specific financial data for the Commission franchise area is
in direct violation of the requirements of the RFRP and eliminates the Commission’s and
Member Cities’ ability to weigh the cost implications of the Needs Report and Model Ordinance
against the Formal Proposal. Comcast appears to argue instead that the only consideration to be
made by the Commission and Member Cities is whether the costs associated with the Needs
Report will be “popular” among subscribers – a standard that Comcast appears to have created
despite the requirements of 47 U.S.C. § 546. Comcast ignores the plain language of the Cable
Act and the legislative history, which provide that “in assessing the costs [under § 546(c)(1)(D)],
the cable operator’s ability to earn a fair rate of return on its investment and the impact of such
costs on subscriber rates are important considerations.” H.R. Rep. No. 98-934, at 74, reprinted in
1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4711.
When a formal proposal does not satisfy an identified need, it is the franchising authority’s
obligation to decide whether the operator has established that the cost of meeting that need so
outweighs the value of the need that the formal proposal is nonetheless reasonable. Without any
specific financial information provided by Comcast to allow the Commission and Member Cities
to determine if Comcast can earn a fair rate of return, the Commission and Member Cities are
left with only Comcast’s opinion that pass-through costs associated with meeting the Needs
Report and Model Ordinance would not be well received by subscribers.
page 78
The House Report regarding 47 U.S.C. § 546 states:
It is the Committee’s intent that the franchise process take place at the local level
where city officials have the best understanding of local communications needs
and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet those needs.
H.R. Rep. No. 98-934, at 24, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4661.
As the House Report makes clear, the Commission and Member Cities are in the best position to
understand the needs of the community, and those needs and interests have been set forth in
writing by the Commission when it adopted the Needs Report and Model Ordinance. Comcast
appears to argue that the Commission and Member Cities should not focus on whether the
Formal Proposal meets the Needs Report considering the cost implications to Comcast, but rather
the Commission and Member Cities should consider whether the Needs Report and Model
Ordinance may result in a rate increase to subscribers. Comcast relies upon its Comcast Survey
to create its own alternative needs ascertainment and argues that if the Needs Report results in
any rate increase, no matter what the amount, subscribers would be upset and therefore the costs
associated with the Needs Report must be unreasonable.
Nowhere does Comcast present any evidence that Comcast would be unable to continue in
business or earn a fair rate of return if cable rates increase to meet the Needs Report and the
requirements of the Model Ordinance. Comcast offers no evidence that subscribers would
disconnect from the cable system if the Needs Report were met. In fact, over the past 30 years
that Comcast has held a franchise in the Commission franchise area, Comcast has routinely
increased rates virtually every year to recoup programming cost increases, capital expenditures,
employee expenses and other expenses. These rate increases may have been unpopular with
subscribers, yet Comcast still implemented the increases and presumably remains a profitable
company in the franchise area. Moreover, Comcast has recently entered into cable franchise
agreements in the Twin Cities metropolitan area that contain similar or higher fee assessments
and more burdensome franchise obligations 1 than those set forth in the Model Ordinance, yet
Comcast remains profitable and thriving in those franchise areas based upon the financial
information relied upon by Comcast in its Formal Proposal.
Comcast’s Alternative Needs Assessment
Despite the fact that 47 U.S.C. § 546(a) requires that the Commission and Member Cities, not
Comcast, identify the future cable-related needs and interests, Comcast chose to create its own
ascertainment of future needs by submitting as part of its Formal Proposal an alternative
Ascertainment Issues Survey dated September 2015 (“Comcast Survey”). Comcast presented its
alternative needs and interests throughout the Formal Proposal.
Because 47 U.S.C. § 546(a) requires that the Commission and Member Cities identify the future
needs and interests, Comcast’s alternative ascertainment is of no value when determining if the
Comcast Franchise meets the identified needs and interests contained in the Needs Report and
1 See one recent example - North Suburban Communications Commission (“NSCC”) Cable Television Franchise
Ordinance with Comcast, which became effective in the fall of 2017 (depending upon the date of adoption of the
NSCC member cities).
page 79
Model Ordinance. To do otherwise would be to create a new ascertainment, one created by
Comcast, which would then require a new opportunity to submit a formal proposal. The process
would be forever circular if the Needs Report and Model Ordinance created by the Commission
and Member Cities are not maintained in final form, exactly as those documents were approved
by the Commission, so that Comcast’s Formal Proposal can then be weighed against the needs
assessment as contemplated by 47 U.S.C. § 546.
By rejecting large portions of the Needs Report and replacing its findings with Comcast’s
alternative ascertainment, Comcast has ignored the express requirements of 47 U.S.C. § 546(b).
The responsibility to assess future cable-related needs and interests in the franchise area rests
with the Commission and Member Cities. Comcast is entitled to demonstrate in its Formal
Proposal that Comcast’s cost of meeting those identified needs and interests renders such needs
and interests unreasonable. However, Comcast is not entitled to exercise legislative authority
and determine on behalf of the Commission and Member Cities what those needs and interests
may be. Nor is Comcast entitled to submit a formal proposal based on an ascertainment that has
not been adopted by the franchising authority – the Commission and Member Cities. Comcast’s
approach in this renewal turns the federally mandated formal renewal process on its head and is
in direct violation of the statutory requirements contained therein.
Comcast refusal to respond to Model Ordinance
Within the Formal Proposal, Comcast completely ignored the Model Ordinance and instead
drafted and submitted an entirely different model franchise document, which Comcast included
as Exhibit 1 of the Formal Proposal - City of [X], Minnesota Ordinance Granting a Cable
Television Franchise to Comcast of St. Paul, Inc. (“Comcast Model Franchise”). Comcast
argues that the Comcast Model Franchise meets the Comcast Survey, with little regard for the
finding of the Needs Report and the requirements of the Model Ordinance as prescribed by 47
U.S.C. § 546(a).
The Commission’s Model Ordinance is substantially based on the existing franchise currently
held by Comcast, as well as the terms and requirements of the April 2016 Cable Television
Franchise Ordinance granted by the Commission and the Member Cities to CenturyLink. Under
Minn. Stat. § 238.08 the Commission and Member Cities are required to maintain a level playing
field on several key franchise issues, including the payment of franchise fees, public, education
and government access requirements and the franchise area served. By ignoring the Model
Ordinance and instead proposing the Comcast Model Franchise, Comcast places the Commission
and Member Cities in the position of being unable to comply with Minn. Stat. § 238.08.
Comcast’s Formal Proposal is unacceptable
Due to the volume of unacceptable provisions in the Formal Proposal, this Exhibit A will assess
the differences between the Comcast Model Franchise on the one hand and the Needs Report and
Model Ordinance on the other, to organize and present a list of reasons why Comcast’s Formal
Proposal is unacceptable and should be preliminarily denied. The below list outlines those
portions of the Formal Proposal that are unacceptable as they do not meet the future cable-related
community needs and interests set forth in the Needs Report and Model Ordinance, taking into
account the costs associated with meeting those needs and interests. Since Comcast has
page 80
substantially ignored the Model Ordinance and provided an entirely different Comcast Model
Franchise, it is not possible to provide a section by section comparison as the documents are
structured differently. The below section references are to the Model Ordinance prepared by the
Commission and Member Cities.
Section 1.2 – Definitions.
“Gross Revenues” – Within the Comcast Model Franchise, Comcast has proposed material
changes to the definition of “Gross Revenues” upon which Comcast’s franchise fee payments are
based. In fact, Comcast presents an entirely different definition from that contained in the Model
Ordinance. The Needs Report requires that Comcast remit franchise fee payments on any and all
revenue derived from the provision of cable services in the franchise area. Comcast’s attempt to
limit the gross amount on which the calculation is based is unacceptable.
Comcast proposes that “gross revenues” be calculated in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). GAAP are standards for maintaining a company’s books and
records. GAAP does not direct how to calculate cable service revenue, particularly gross
revenues specifically defined in a contract (franchise). Comcast’s Formal Proposal could allow
items that should be counted as gross revenues to go uncounted and could further allow for
deductions for bundled services (cable, telephone and broadband) in excess of the definition
included in the Model Ordinance. Nothing in the Cable Act references GAAP, and it is
inappropriate to use these principles to allow for the potential unilateral determination by
Comcast of what is (or is not) to be counted as gross revenues. For the reasons set forth above,
Comcast’s proposed definition of Gross Revenues is unacceptable.
“Right-of-Way” – Comcast does not define the term “Right-of-Way,” rather Comcast uses the
term “Street” in its Comcast Model Franchise. The definition of Right-of-Way is contained in
the existing Franchise and is carefully drafted to mirror definitions used by a number of the
Member Cities in local city codes. Moreover, the Comcast definition for Street included in the
Comcast Model Franchise contains a grant of authority to “entitle the Grantee to the use” of the
Streets to install poles, wires and related facilities with no clarification how such a grant of
authority would be administered by each Member City. For these reasons Comcast’s proposal to
use an overly broad definition for the term “Street” is not acceptable.
“Subscriber” – Comcast has made material changes to the definition of “Subscriber,” which
could have the impact of significantly altering the manner in which PEG fees are collected. By
deleting the phrase, “[i]n the case of multiple office buildings or multiple dwelling units, the
“Subscriber” means each lessee, tenant or occupant, not the building owner,” Comcast is, in part,
seeking to reduce the PEG fees to be paid and disproportionately assess PEG fees over its
subscriber base. This is particularly true since Comcast is proposing a monthly PEG fee of $1.39
per subscriber.
By way of example, if such a PEG fee were to be implemented, each subscriber would remit
such a fee as part of its monthly payment. But a 100 unit apartment building, with 80 cable
Subscribers, may only have to remit one $1.39 PEG fee (instead of 80 x $1.39) because, under
the Comcast Model Franchise, the landlord would be the only person (Subscriber) with a
contractual relationship with Comcast, not each apartment lessee. Taking into consideration the
page 81
number of multiple dwelling units (“MDU”) in the Commission franchise area and the ten-year
term contemplated by the Model Ordinance, the revenue that may be lost by the Commission and
Member Cities due to this change would be significant.
In addition, for other purposes under the Model Ordinance, those living in MDUs may not be
considered a “Subscriber,” meaning they would have limited ability to exercise rights under
customer service standards or related provisions of the Model Ordinance. Only the landlord
would be considered the “Subscriber” under the Comcast Model Franchise.
For these reasons, Comcast’s proposal to limit the definition of the term “Subscriber” is
unacceptable.
Section 2 – Grant of Franchise.
Section 2.2 – Grant of Nonexclusive Authority. Comcast added Section 17.16 in its Comcast
Model Franchise titled “Competitive Equity.” Such a provision is not included in the Model
Ordinance as this issue has long been addressed under Minn. Stat. § 238.08. Comcast’s one-
sided competitive equity mandate serves as a type of “most favored nations” provision that
would allow Comcast to unilaterally walk away from franchise obligations if Comcast
determines that another franchise has been granted with different material terms. In the
alternative, Comcast seeks the option to abandon the cable franchise and opt into a competitor’s
franchise issued by a Member City.
Certainly every business would prefer to enter a contract where it is guaranteed the best possible
terms and rates for a ten-year period and can unilaterally opt into a competitor’s contract
whenever it chooses. Comcast desires a franchise which grants to Comcast the authority to run
cable and facilities down every street, sidewalk, road and alley. Comcast further desires the
security of a long term franchise (ten (10) years) but wants the ability to abandon the franchise
with no consequences. Comcast offers the Member Cities no such option for unilateral
termination if Comcast enters into a more favorable franchise elsewhere in the country. Unless
such a provision works to the benefit of both parties, there is no rationale in contract law, and no
city would agree to such a one sided provision that can only work to the city’s disadvantage.
Neither state nor federal law contains any similar competitive equity provisions other than the
previously referenced Minn. Stat. 238.08, which is significantly limited in scope. The Model
Ordinance presented by the Commission and Member Cities includes the Minn. Stat. 238.08
mandate. Comcast’s competitive equity proposal seeks to provide Comcast with the maximum
flexibility while conversely tying the Commission’s and Member Cities’ hands in negotiations
with future competitive cable operators seeking franchises. For these reasons Comcast’s
competitive equity proposal is unacceptable.
Section 2.6 – Compliance with Applicable Laws and City Code. Comcast has proposed to
delete entire sections of the Model Ordinance that would provide the Member Cities the option
to amend their respective City Codes and have such code provisions govern over the terms of a
franchise granted to Comcast. For this reason Comcast’s proposal is unacceptable.
Section 2.8 – Territorial Area Involved. The Model Ordinance requires that in the event of
annexation Comcast must serve the annexed territory so long as certain density criteria are met.
page 82
Comcast’s Model Franchise instead includes a provision that would allow Comcast to refuse to
serve an annexed area if a competing cable operator is already providing cable service in that
area. Such a provision would mean that rather than receive the benefits of competition in the
annexed area, those homes in the annexed area would risk being served by one cable operator
and lose the benefits of competition. For this reason Comcast’s proposal is unacceptable.
Section 4.10 – Home Wiring. The Model Ordinance contains a requirement that serves to
protect residential customers and ensure consumer choice for all providers of cable service in the
franchise area. Specifically the provision requires Comcast to provide its subscribers with a
notification upon commencement of service, and annually thereafter, advising them of their
rights relating to home wiring as expressed by the FCC. The Comcast Model Franchise is
completely silent on this provision and offers no alternative for consideration. For this reason
Comcast’s proposal is unacceptable.
Section 5.3 (e) and (f) – reports. These provisions of the Model Ordinance require Comcast to
provide: 1) a quarterly customer service compliance report demonstrating Comcast’s
compliance with the customer service requirements contained in the franchise; and 2) a monthly
subscriber data report consistent with the information Comcast has historically provided over the
prior franchise term. Comcast’s proposal requires that the Commission and Member Cities
“request” reports after a showing of “demonstrated need.” Not receiving these reports would
prevent the Commission from undertaking the monthly due diligence it has historically
performed on behalf of the Member Cities and would significantly limit the ability of the
Commission to monitor Comcast’s compliance with customer service and the financial terms of
the franchise. For this reason Comcast’s proposal is unacceptable.
Section 6.2 – Subscriber Network Drops to Designated Buildings. The differences between
the Model Ordinance and the Comcast Model Franchise are significant in this section. The
differences relate to the type of service to be provided, the number of receivers (terminal
equipment) to be provided, the number of locations to be served and many other details. For
these reasons the Comcast proposal is unacceptable.
Section 7 – Institutional Network. As the Needs Report makes clear, the Institutional Network
is an important issue to the Commission and Member Cities. The background regarding how the
Institutional Network was financed, constructed, and utilized over the past 15+ year franchise
term is set forth in the Needs Report. Section 7 of the Model Ordinance parallels much of the
language contained in the existing Franchise between Comcast and Member Cities regarding the
Institutional Network. The Commission updated the language to reflect that the Institutional
Network is no longer a new construction project, but rather ongoing maintenance of an already
existing network, one that was paid for by the institutional users of the network, not Comcast.
Rather than provide any response to the Institutional Network or any alternative for
consideration, Comcast’s Formal Proposal and the Comcast Model Franchise are completely
silent regarding the Institutional Network. In fact, there is literally no reference to the term
“Institutional Network,” nor any Institutional Network services, found anywhere in Comcast’s
Formal Proposal or Comcast’s Model Franchise. As a result there is no ability for the
Commission to provide a detailed analysis of any proposed differences between the Needs
Report, Model Ordinance and Comcast’s Formal Proposal. Comcast’s failure to provide any
proposal regarding an Institutional Network is unacceptable.
page 83
Section 9.1 – Performance Bond. The Comcast Formal Proposal includes a $100,000 joint
performance bond, which is consistent with the Needs Report and the Model Ordinance.
However, the Comcast Model Franchise fails to include any procedure under which the
Commission or Member Cities can draw on the performance bond. A detailed procedure was
included in the Comcast Model Franchise for the Commission or Member Cities to draw on the
letter of credit, but no similar process was provided for the performance bond. Consistent with
the existing franchise between Comcast and the Member Cities, as well as the requirements set
forth in the Model Ordinance, an agreed upon process must be included within the franchise to
provide clarification that either the Commission or Member Cities can draw upon the
performance bond and the steps which must be undertaken to accomplish such a draw. For these
reasons this proposal by Comcast is unacceptable.
Section 9.2(b) – Liquidated Damages. The Needs Report and Model Ordinance have
maintained the level of liquidated damages consistent with the amounts contained in the existing
Franchise between Comcast and the Member Cities. The amounts of liquidated damages in the
Model Ordinance also parallel the liquidated damage levels contained in the CenturyLink
franchise. Comcast’s Formal Proposal and Model Franchise substantially reduce the amount of
each category of liquidated damages. Moreover, Comcast proposes to cap the liquidated
damages at 120 days, a provision which is not included in the Model Ordinance nor has ever
been included in past franchises between the parties. For these reasons this proposal by Comcast
is unacceptable.
Exhibit A – PEG Access. Comcast’s Formal Proposal and Comcast’s Model Franchise fail in
many respects to meet the cable-related needs and interests of the Commission and Member
Cities regarding public, education and government (“PEG”) access. Below is a list of
unacceptable deficiencies in Comcast’s Formal Proposal and Comcast’s Model Franchise, as
compared to the identified needs and interests contained in the Needs Report and Model
Ordinance.
1. Number of PEG channels. The Commission and Member Cities require seven (7)
channels exclusively for PEG use. Comcast proposes to make available three (3) PEG
access channels. Comcast offers no evidence of cost, impact on Comcast’s business
model in the Commission franchise area, or ability to earn a fair rate of return in the
Commission franchise area. Comcast simply offers that the Commission and member
Cities do not need the current number of PEG channels based on Comcast’s assessment
of the needs, not based on the Needs Report.
2. PEG channel technical quality. Comcast fails to provide contractual commitments to
maintain adequate PEG technical quality to meet the standards set forth in the Needs
Report and Model Ordinance. Comcast proposes instead to meet a vague technical
quality standard that provides no point of comparison upon which to measure whether the
PEG technical quality is consistent with those of other commercial programmers,
including local television broadcast stations carried on the cable system.
3. PEG channels in HD. Within the Needs Report and the Model Ordinance the
Commission and Member Cities require that a minimum of three (3) PEG channels be
provided in high definition (“HD”) technology while also maintaining standard definition
page 84
(“SD”) channels. Through this technology transition, the Commission and Member
Cities would reduce one SD PEG channel and would, at the end of the technology
transition, receive a total of three (3) SD/HD simulcast channels, and three (3) additional
SD channels available for PEG programming. Comcast proposes in its Comcast Model
Franchise to make available two (2) SD/HD simulcast channels and one (1) additional SD
channel for PEG programming.
4. PEG HD end user equipment. Comcast proposes a requirement that any costs of end
user equipment associated with the delivery of SD PEG channels in HD format would be
borne by the Commission and Member Cities and must be paid for out of PEG funds.
This is not a provision contained within the Needs Report or the Model Ordinance.
5. PEG channel locations. The Model Ordinance requires that if the PEG channels are
relocated to a different location by Comcast, the PEG channels will be located in
reasonable proximity to other broadcast channels. Comcast proposes that upon any
relocation the PEG channels will be located in reasonable proximity to any other
commercial video channels. The result of this proposal means that the PEG channels
could be moved to an entirely different channel neighborhood, nowhere near local
broadcast channels. Such a result would be inconsistent with the Needs Report and
Model Ordinance. Such relocation would have a significant adverse impact on
subscriber’s ability to locate and view PEG programming and is inconsistent with the
Needs Report.
6. Promotion of PEG access channels. The Commission and Member Cities have a need
for 30 second promotional spots inserted in unsold ad avail timeslots on the cable system
consistent with Comcast’s past practices under its existing Franchise. The Comcast
proposal is silent on this issue.
7. PEG financial support. The Needs Report and Model Ordinance outlined a
demonstrated need for a PEG fee in the amount of three percent (3%) of Comcast’s gross
revenues to support PEG programming consistent with applicable law. Comcast’s
proposal provides for a monthly PEG fee of $1.39 per subscriber. The difference
between these proposals is substantial. Comcast’s proposal represents less than 50% of
the demonstrated need set forth in the Needs Report and Model Ordinance. Comcast
does not rely upon the Needs Report prepared by the Commission and the Member
Cities, but rather upon its own alternative ascertainment – the Comcast September 2015
Ascertainment Issues Survey (“Comcast Survey”).
Moreover, Comcast fails to mention that within the Twin Cities market, Comcast recently
agreed to renew a cable franchise with a similarly situated cable commission, and in that
franchise Comcast agreed to remit a PEG fee in the amount of three percent (3%) of gross
revenues.2 Comcast has not argued in its Formal Proposal that the PEG fee remitted in
that other franchise area is unreasonable based upon the associated cost. Presumably
Comcast still manages to maintain a viable business model and generate a return on
2 See Section 6.8 of the North Suburban Communications Commission Cable Television Franchise Ordinance. The
3% PEG fee commenced January of 2018.
page 85
investment in this recently renewed franchise area despite the financial support provided
for PEG. Within its Formal Proposal Comcast references its recent SEC 10-K filings to
support its strong financial position and strength as a leader in the cable communications
industry. Because Comcast refused to provide system specific financial data as requested
in the RFRP, the Commission and Member Cities are unable to assess the financial
impact of the identified needs and interests, including the 3% PEG fee, on Comcast’s
cable system serving the Commission franchise area.
8. PEG technical support. The Model Ordinance outlines a number of existing technical
provisions that Comcast currently provides under its existing Franchises with the
Member Cities. The Commission and Member Cities have sought to maintain these
commitments going forward and have outlined such technical provisions in its Needs
Report and Model Ordinance. Comcast’s Formal Proposal is largely silent on these
technical support obligations, or in the alternative, Comcast substantially changes the
manner in which these historical commitments will be maintained going forward.
9. Video-on-demand. The Commission and Member Cities have included a commitment
to continue the existing video-on-demand services made available for PEG programming
by Comcast in the Commission franchise area. Comcast’s Formal Proposal and Model
Franchise are completely silent on the provision of any PEG video-on-demand.
10. Interconnection. The Commission and Member Cities have outlined the need to
maintain interconnection with adjacent cable systems for the purpose of sharing Twin
Cities PEG programming both within the Needs Report and within the Model Ordinance.
Comcast presents a far different approach to interconnection, which may or may not be
maintained by Comcast over the term of the franchise and would not be an enforceable
obligation by the Member Cities.
For all of the reasons set forth above, the Formal Proposal presented by Comcast to support PEG
access programming is unacceptable.
Exhibit C – Service to Public and Private Buildings. The list of institutions included in the
Model Ordinance includes continuing existing Comcast service to numerous locations that are
not proposed to be served by Comcast within its Model Franchise. Comcast’s failure to provide
service to the locations listed within Exhibit C of the Model Ordinance is unacceptable.
Exhibit D – List of Fiber Return Locations. A detailed list of fiber return locations was
included by the Commission and Member Cities to maintain the existing functionality offered by
Comcast on its cable system. Comcast provides a substantially reduced list of fiber return
locations. In fact the total number of fiber return locations was reduced by Comcast by over
eighty percent (80%). For this reason, Comcast’s proposal is unacceptable.
End of Exhibit
page 86
EXHIBIT B
Rules for the Conduct of an Administrative Hearing
Section 1. The Commission hereby establishes procedural guidelines for purpose of
the administrative hearing under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as follows:
A. The Commission shall appoint an administrative law judge (“hearing
officer”) to conduct the administrative hearing and issue recommended findings of fact
for consideration by the Commission. Comcast and the Commission will jointly
determine the process for selecting an administrative law judge, if necessary. The
administrative hearing will be conducted, to the extent practicable and consistent with the
requirements of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, pursuant to the
provisions for administrative hearings in the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act.
The specific requirements for the administrative hearing shall be as follows:
B. Pre-hearing Discovery:
1. Each side is permitted limited requests for production of
documents and twenty (20) interrogatories. With respect to interrogatories, the
following rules apply:
a. Interrogatories are to be answered by any officer or agent
of either party, who shall furnish such information as is available to the
party;
b. Each interrogatory is to be answered separately and fully in
writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the objecting
party shall state the reasons for the objection and answer to the extent that
the interrogatory is not objectionable. All objections shall be stated with
specificity and any ground for objection which is not stated in a timely
manner is waived unless the party’s failure is excused by the Commission
for good cause shown; and
c. Interrogatories will be answered within the timeframe
established by the hearing officer.
2. No depositions shall be permitted.
3. The hearing officer will rule on all discovery disputes which may
arise.
4. Discovery shall close fifteen (15) days before the administrative
hearing.
C. Pre-hearing Disclosures:
page 87
1. Each side shall disclose to the other the identity of any person who
may be used at the hearing to present expert testimony prior to the hearing date.
The disclosure must be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by
the expert which shall contain a complete statement of all opinions to be
expressed and the basis and reasons therefore; the data or other information
considered by the expert informing his or her opinions; and any exhibits to be
used as a summary or in support of the opinions so rendered; the qualifications of
the witness; the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony of the expert;
and a listing of other cases in which the expert has testified at trial within the
preceding four (4) years.
2. Exhibits and witness lists will be mutually exchanged one (1) week
prior to hearing date. Witness lists will briefly state the subject of the expected
testimony of each witness.
D. Administrative Hearing:
(1) The hearing will be conducted on a date established by the hearing
officer;
(2) Each side may be represented by an attorney and shall be afforded
the opportunity to present relevant evidence and to call and examine witnesses
and cross-examine witnesses of the other party;
(3) Commission members may not be called as witnesses nor may the
Commission’s or Comcast’s legal counsel be called as witnesses;
(4) Witnesses will be sworn;
(5) The hearing shall be transcribed by a court reporter;
(6) The hearing officer will determine evidentiary objections. Strict
compliance with the federal rules of evidence will not be necessary;
(7) Post-hearing briefs will be permitted in lieu of closing argument.
Briefs will be mutually exchanged at a date established by the hearing officer; and
(8) The hearing officer will issue recommended findings of fact based
upon the record of the proceeding and stating the reasons therefore, pursuant to
the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended.
E. The Commission will review the recommended findings of fact from the
hearing officer and will, upon request of the parties, permit oral argument before the
Commission not to exceed thirty (30) minutes per party. Thereafter the Commission will
issue a written decision recommending to the Member Cities to grant or deny the
proposal for renewal pursuant to the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as
amended.
page 88
Section 2. Neither the Commission’s Needs Report dated April 4, 2018, nor
Comcast’s Formal Proposal dated August 15, 2018, have been amended or modified in any way
since the dates submitted.
Section 3. The Commission finds that its actions are appropriate and reasonable in
light of the mandates contained in federal law including 47 U.S.C. § 546.
End of Exhibit
page 89
Mendota Heights City Council 01/15/2019 1
Cable Television
Franchise Renewal
Presentation to Member Cities of the
Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission
January 8, 2019
Brian T. Grogan, Esq.
(612) 877-5340
www.lawmoss.com
1
Background
Commission’s Member Cities each granted a cable franchise to
Comcast (formerly Mediaone of St. Paul, Inc.)
• April 2000
• 15 year term
• Expired April 2015
Comcast requested renewal from the Member Cities
• Summer of 2012
2
page 90
Mendota Heights City Council 01/15/2019 2
Needs Assessment Process
Commission conducted detailed needs assessment in 2013-14
Reviewed Comcast’s performance under the 2000 franchise
Identified cable-related needs and interests of
• Member Cities
• Commission
3
Unforeseen Delays in Renewal Process
June 2014
• Comcast requested transfer of the cable system to a new entity
February 2015
• CenturyLink requested a competitive cable franchise
• Commission processed CenturyLink’s request
April 2015
• Comcast withdrew its transfer request
March 2016
• Member Cities each granted a competitive cable franchise to CenturyLink
4
page 91
Mendota Heights City Council 01/15/2019 3
Existing Franchise Extensions
Member Cities have granted multiple extensions of Comcast’s
existing franchise term
1. April 2015 through March 31, 2016
2. April 2016 through March 31, 2017
3. April 2017 through December 31, 2017
4. January 1, 2018 through July 31, 2018 and
5. August 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019
5
Status of “Informal” Renewal
Negotiations
Commission and Comcast have been unable to reach
agreement on several key issues in Informal renewal
•February 2018 the Commission directed staff to begin preparing
“formal” renewal documents required under the Cable Act
• Commission prepared a Needs Report which includes:
Formal Needs Assessment Report
Request for Formal Renewal Proposal
Model Cable Television Franchise Ordinance
•April 4, 2018 - Full Commission approved the Needs Report
6
page 92
Mendota Heights City Council 01/15/2019 4
Comcast Formal Proposal
July 16, 2018 -Comcast’s response to the Needs Report due
June 28, 2018 –Comcast requested an additional 30 days to
provide its response
June 29, 2018 –Commission granted Comcast’s request
• New deadline for Comcast: August 15, 2018
August 15, 2018 -Comcast submitted its Formal Proposal to the
Commission in response to the Needs Report
7
Cable Act
Cable Act specifically requires franchising authority to:
1. renew the franchise, or
2. issue a preliminary assessment that the franchise should not be
renewed.
- 47 U.S.C. 546(c)(1)
Commission had four (4) months from August 15th to accept or
deny Comcast’s formal renewal proposal
• Deadline for Commission action: December 15, 2018
8
page 93
Mendota Heights City Council 01/15/2019 5
Letter of Understanding
Commission and Comcast reached agreement on authority of
Commission under Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) regarding
certain aspects of the franchise renewal process
• Letter of Understanding
Commission and Comcast agreed that the Commission has the
authority to recommend approval or preliminary denial of Comcast’s
formal proposal
9
Letter of Understanding
Each Member City to consider and act upon the Commission’s
recommendation at a City Council meeting
• Prior to March 15, 2019
New deadline for action required by Cable Act
47 U.S.C. 546(c)(1)
If one or more Member Cities deny Comcast’s Formal Proposal
• Commission will administer any requested administrative
proceeding jointly, in accordance with the Cable Act
10
page 94
Mendota Heights City Council 01/15/2019 6
Commission Recommendation
December 12, 2018 Commission adopted Resolution No. 12-12-
2018
“Recommendation Regarding Preliminary Assessment that the
Comcast Formal Proposal for Franchise Renewal be Denied”
11
Commission Recommendation
Commission staff reviewed Comcast’s Formal Proposal
• Determined a number of areas where it fails to meet the future
cable-related community needs and interests addressed in the
Commission’s Needs Report
Specific reasons found in Exhibit A, Attachment 1 to Commission’s
Resolution 12-12-2018
Conduct of an Administrative Hearing –if necessary
• Resolution 12-12-2018 describes the rules for the Hearing
Found in Exhibit B, Attachment 1 to Commission’s resolution
12
page 95
Mendota Heights City Council 01/15/2019 7
Member City Options
Each Member City has two options:
1. Adopt the proposed Resolution which will serve as a preliminary
assessment that the franchise should not be renewed; or
2. Make a motion to recommend approval of Comcast’s Formal
Proposal and the Comcast Model Franchise.
13
Questions?
Brian T. Grogan, Esq.
Moss & Barnett, A Professional Association
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 877-5340 phone / (612) 877-5031 facsimile
E-mail: Brian.Grogan@lawmoss.com
Web site: www.lawmoss.com
14
page 96
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: 2019 Fire Station Addition/ Remodeling Authorization to Bid
Date: January 15, 2019
Comment:
Introduction:
The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution approving plans and specifications, and authorize
advertising for bids for the addition to, and remodeling of, the Mendota Heights Fire Station.
Background:
In late 2017, the City Council hired CNH Architects of Apple Valley to design a significant addition to
the 1985-era fire station, and bring the current building up to code. A station committee comprised of
several fire fighters has been meeting regularly to go over the details, to make certain that the end product
functions well for generations to come, while staying within budget.
The building addition comprises 15,100 sq. ft. and will have a training area (including a tower); berthing
areas for overnight stays when required by weather conditions; offices and support areas; and a training
room which will be available for public meetings on a reservation basis.
The City has opted to use a Construction Management (CM) option for the construction of this project.
As a result, there will be multiple bids on twenty-one different components (i.e.; excavation/grading;
framing; HVAC; finishing; etc.) of the project, rather than a single composite price which can be
immediately compared to others. The CM project typically results in greater efficiencies and
workmanship.
Schedule:
If the Council approves the advertisement of bids at the January 15th Council meeting, those bids would
be opened on February 20th. After an analysis by the Architect and Construction Manager, it is
anticipated that the award of contracts would be made at the March 5th meeting. Groundbreaking would
be when weather permits in the spring, with a preliminary target of Aril 9th.
The availability of this project to be bid will be listed in the various appropriate construction trade
journals, in addition to the City’s legally-required publications.
page 97
Budget Impact:
The amount of bonds which is able to be sold for the project is capped at $7 million; increasing that
amount would require restarting the taxpayer notification process. Note that that figure must be all
inclusive; in addition to the hard construction costs, it also must cover design and engineering fees, utility
relocation, bond issuance costs, and the like.
At the time that the Council approved the preliminary budget, the $7 million amount appeared to be
adequate. However, delays from the original schedule, the discovery of problems with utilities and site
layout issues dating back to the mid-1980’s, and increases in construction costs caused staying within the
$7 million cap to be a challenge.
The Committee and architect have now come up with plans which calls for the combined contracts to be
an estimated $5.6 million hard costs for the base bid. If the total of the bid components, and the soft and
other direct costs cause the total to exceed $7 million, the City Council will have to reduce the scope of
the project, or find alternative sources of funding to make up the overage.
Recommendation:
We recommend that the City Council approve the plans and specifications, and authorize staff to advertise
the 2019 Mendota Heights Fire Station Project for bid.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION 2019-07
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE 2019 MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE STATION
EXPANSION AND REMODELING PROJECT
page 98
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019-07
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE 2019 MENDOTA HEIGHTS
FIRE STATION EXPANSION AND REMODELING PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Fire Chief and Station Building Committee have
indicated that the current fire station building, constructed in 1985, is in need of being brought up
to code, and that a greater amount of space is needed to safely conduct fire training and
suppression operations, as well as provide space for meetings, and to house locally-stationed
ambulance crews; and
WHEREAS, in December, 2017, the City Council authorized the hiring of CNH
Architects (architect) of Apple Valley, MN, to analyze, and then subsequently prepare plans and
specifications for the improvements to the fire station building; and,
WHEREAS, working in concert with the members of the Fire Station Building
Committee, the architect has prepared plans and specifications for the addition to, and
remodeling of the current station building; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed improvements and construction plans have been deemed
feasible, desirable, necessary, and cost effective, and further there has been a report on the
proposed costs of said improvements and construction thereof; and
WHEREAS, the Architect has prepared plans and specifications for said improvements
and have presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1. That the plans and specifications for said improvements be and they are hereby in all
respects approved by the City.
2. That the Clerk, with the aid and assistance of the Architect, Construction Manager, Fire
Chief, and City Administrator be and is hereby, authorized and directed to advertise for
bids for said improvements all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, and
that such bids are to be received at the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights by 2:00
P.M. CST, Wednesday, February 20, 2019; at which time they will be publicly opened in
the City Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Clerk or her designee, will then
be tabulated, and will then be considered by the City Council at its next regular Council
meeting.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fifteenth day of January, 2019.
page 99
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 100
Request for City Council Action
DATE: January 15, 2019
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Approval of Par 3 Fairway Mower
INTRODUCTION
City Council is asked to approve the purchase of a fairway mower for the Mendota Heights Par
3.
BACKGROUND
To properly mow the golf course, Par 3 maintenance staff uses three primary pieces of mowing
equipment—a rough mower, a fairway mower and a greens/tee mower. The equipment is owned
and maintained by the City.
Originally acquired by the city as a used piece of equipment, the current fairway mower is a
2000 Toro Reelmaster 5400D with approximately 2,000 hours on it (or the equivalent of 125,000
miles). This piece of equipment is used twice a week to maintain the course fairways. Before the
start of each season, Par 3 equipment is assessed by the City’s Mechanic and Toro. The fairway
mower has approximately $7,000 in needed repairs in preparation for the 2019 season, which far
exceeds its value.
Staff has worked with MTI, a state cooperative purchasing contract holder, to investigate the
fairway mower and help determine a replacement piece of equipment that would be the best fit
for the Par 3 golf course. MTI submitted an equipment proposal recommending a Toro
Reelmaster 3100D.
The 3100D is a three wheel unit, which provides improved maneuverability. Ongoing
maintenance and seasonal cutting reel adjustments can be made by Par 3 staff with the new
equipment technology. This piece of equipment is versatile and small enough to be able to cut
the course tees as well. The course’s tees mower is currently not operable. The replacement
equipment will serve as a fairway mower and tees mower.
MTI has offered $1,250 as a trade-in value for the current fairway mower. In addition to trading
in the Fairway mower, staff is also recommending trading in the Par 3 tees mower since it is not
operable and requires significant repair and expense. MTI has offered $100 as a trade-in value
page 101
for the tees mower. With the trade-in values factored in, the total cost of the Toro Reelmaster
3100D, including tax, is $32,475.79.
BUDGET IMPACT
The Par 3 budget does not include funding for the replacement of mowing equipment or the
purchase of new/additional equipment. However, because of a favorable balance in the City’s
general fund, a one-time transfer of funds from the General Fund to the Par 3 Golf Course fund
is available, and recommended by the Finance Director and City Administrator. This piece of
equipment could be used by other City departments if needed.
In consultation with the Finance Director, a transfer from the General Fund balance to the Par 3
Golf Course Fund is recommended as the source of funding.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that Council approve the purchase of a Toro Reelmaster 3100D for
$32,475.79.
ACTION REQUESTED
If the Council agrees, it should, by motion authorize staff to purchase a Toro Reelmaster 3100D
for the Par 3 Golf Course.
page 102
Request for City Council Action DATE: January 15, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Appointments to the Parks and Recreation Commission
COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to appoint two Parks and Recreation Commissioners to fill the vacancies
on the commission.
Background
Per City Code 2-2-2: Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission are limited to 3
consecutive full terms. Parks and Recreation Commission member Stephanie Levine served
three full terms and cannot be reappointed. Commissioner Nissa Tupper decided not to be
reappointed for another three-year term. Staff advertised the two open positions and the City
Council will be interviewing nine applicants prior to this meeting. These two positions are for
three year terms which will expire on January 31, 2022.
Recommendation
The Council should appoint two residents to the Commission by means of adopting the attached
resolution, by filling in the blank for the names selected.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt Resolution 2019-08 Appointing Two
Residents to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
page 103
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019 - 08
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING TWO CANDIDATES TO FILL
VACANCIES ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights benefits from the active
participation of citizens in representing the City on boards and commissions; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission serves as an advisory body to the
City Council in addressing general matters of Parks and Recreation. They advise the City
Council on matters pertaining to parks and recreation programs, make recommendations relating
to the acquisition, development and improvement of the city's parks and recreational facilities
and advise the Council on the establishment of written rules and regulations for the use and
management of city parks; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the excellent qualifications of Mendota
Heights residents ________ and _____________ to serve the City on the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota, that it does hereby appoint ________ and ___________ to the Parks and
Recreation Commission, for terms to expire on January 31, 2022.
Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 15th day of January, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
______________________________
ATTEST: Neil Garlock, Mayor
_____________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 104
Request for City Council Action
DATE: January 15, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Approve 2019 Schedule of City Council Meeting Dates
COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to approve the 2019 schedule of City Council meeting dates. The
attached calendar shows the meeting dates for City public meetings. The regularly schedule City
Council meetings are held the first and third Tuesday of the month starting at 7:00 pm.
Some of the regularly scheduled meetings need to be changed due to conflicts with holidays,
days of religious observance, or Election Day. The Council is asked to review and approve the
following Council meeting dates and times. It should be noted that instead of delaying the
meeting start time to 8:00 pm on these days (as shown on the attached calendar), the date of the
meeting could be changed to the following day (Wednesday) at the normal start time of 7:00 pm.
Council Meeting to be Changed Reason to Change
August 8, 2019 Night to Unite
October 1, 2019 Rosh Hashana
October 15, 2019 Sukkot
November 5, 2019 Election Day
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Council review the attached 2019 meeting dates calendar, amend as
needed, and approve.
Action Required
Staff recommends that the City Council make a motion to approve the 2019 City Council
meeting dates.
page 105
CITY CALENDAR
page 106
Plan Comm Mtg | 7pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
Parks Comm Mtg | 6:30pm
Airport Comm Mtg | 7pm
New Year’s Day
Last Day of Kwanzaa
Mar�n LutherKing, Jr. Day
City Hall Closed (Public Works Open)
City CouncilWorkshop | 6pm
City Hall and PublicWorks Closed
Epiphany
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 | City Hall: M-F | 8-4:30 pm
www.mendota-heights.com
City Council Work Session | 4:30pm
page 107
Airport Comm Mtg | 7pm
Plan Comm Mtg | 7pm
Parks Comm Mtg | 6:30pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
City Hall and Public Works Closed
Presidents’ Day
Groundhog Day
Super Bowl
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 | City Hall: M-F | 8-4:30 pm
www.mendota-heights.com
Valen�nes Day
City Council Work Session | 4:30pm
page 108
Airport Comm Mtg | 7pm
Plan Comm Mtg | 7pm
Parks Comm Mtg | 6:30pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
Time Begins
Purim
American Red Cross Month
Maha Shivaratri Mardi Gras
Holi
Na�onal VietnamWar Veterans Day
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 | City Hall: M-F | 8-4:30 pm
www.mendota-heights.com
Ash Wednesday
First Day of SpringSt. Patrick’s Day
Daylight Saving
page 109
Airport Comm Mtg | 7pm
Plan Comm Mtg | 7pm
Parks Comm Mtg | 6:30pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm Good FridayPassover beginsat sunset
Easter Earth Day Administra�veProfessionals’ Day
Public Works Closed(City Hall Open)
Palm Sunday
Severe WeatherAwareness Week
Statewide Tornado DrillsNa�onal Volunteer Week
Na�onal Financial Capability Month
Ramanavami
Isra and Mi’raj
Tax Day
Take Your Kidsto Work Day Last Day of Passover
Orthodox Easter
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 | City Hall: M-F | 8-4:30 pm
www.mendota-heights.com
page 110
Airport Comm Mtg | 7pm
Plan Comm Mtg | 7pm
Parks Comm Mtg | 6:30pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
Cinco de Mayo
Mother’s Day Armed Forces Day
City Hall and PublicWorks Closed
Memorial Day
Victoria Day (Canada)
Yom HaShoah
Ramadan begins
Na�onal Police Week
Na�onal EMS Week
SBA Na�onal Small Business Week
Military Apprecia�on Month | Older American’s Month | Na�onal Building Safety Month
Lailat Ul Qadr
Kentucky Derby
Military SpouseApprecia�on Day
Peace Officers Memorial Day
Na�onal DefenseTransporta�on Day Preakness Stakes
Na�onal Mari�me Day Na�onal Missing Children’s Day
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 | City Hall: M-F | 8-4:30 pm
www.mendota-heights.com
City of MHParks Celebra�on begins in the evening
page 111
Airport Comm Mtg | 7pm
Plan Comm Mtg | 7pm
Parks Comm Mtg | 6:30pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
Father’s Day
Flag Day
First Day of Summer
Shavuot
Eid al-Fitr - Ramadan ends
CPR & AED Awareness Month
Shavuot
Lailat al-Qadr
D-Day Observance Belmont Stakes
American Eagle Day
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 | City Hall: M-F | 8-4:30 pm
www.mendota-heights.com
City of MHParks Celebra�on & Officer Sco� Patrick Memorial 5K Run/Walk for Special Olympics
page 112
Airport Comm Mtg | 7pm
Plan Comm Mtg | 7pm
Parks Comm Mtg | 6:30pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
Independence Day
City Hall and PublicWorks Closed
Na�onal Korean WarVeterans Armis�ce Day
Parents’ Day
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 | City Hall: M-F | 8-4:30 pm
www.mendota-heights.com
page 113
Airport Comm Mtg | 7pm
Plan Comm Mtg | 7pm
Parks Comm Mtg | 6:30pm
City Council Mtg | 8pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
MN State FairBegins
Tish’a B’Av
Na�onal Night Out
Eid al-Adha
Janmashtami
Purple Heart Day
Raksha Bandhan
Na�onal Avia�on Day Senior Ci�zens Day
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 | City Hall: M-F | 8-4:30 pm
www.mendota-heights.com
page 114
Airport Comm Mtg | 7pm
Plan Comm Mtg | 7pm
Parks Comm Mtg | 6:30pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
Labor Day
Patriot Day911 Day of Service &Rememberance
First Day of Autumn
City Hall and PublicWorks Closed
Rosh Hashana
Na�onal “SeeSomething, SaySomething” Day
Na�onal Preparedness Month
Muharram(Al Hijrah New Year)
Navaratri/Dassehra (Sept. 25-Oct. 7)
Carl Garner FederalLands Cleanup Day
Na�onal Grandparents Day
Cons�tu�on Day & Ci�zenship Day Na�onal POW/MIARecogni�on Day
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 | City Hall: M-F | 8-4:30 pm
www.mendota-heights.com
page 115
Airport Comm Mtg | 7pm
Plan Comm Mtg | 8pm
Parks Comm Mtg | 6:30pm
City Council Mtg | 8pm
City Council Mtg | 8pm
Halloween
Indigenous People’s Day Boss’ Day
Public Works Closed (City Hall Open)
Yom Kippur
Sukkot Sukkot
Rosh Hashana
Shmini Atzeret Simchat Torah
Fire Preven�on Week
Cybersecurity Awareness Month
Diwali
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 | City Hall: M-F | 8-4:30 pm
www.mendota-heights.com
page 116
Airport Comm Mtg | 7pm
Plan Comm Mtg | 7pm
Parks Comm Mtg | 6:30pm
City Council Mtg | 8pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
Thanksgiving
City Hall and PublicWorks Closed City Hall Closed(Public Works Open)
City Hall and PublicWorks Closed
Veterans Day America Recycles Day
Winter Hazard Awareness Week
DHS Cri�cal Infrastructure Preparedness Month
Mawlid-al-Nabi
Daylight Saving TimeEnds
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 | City Hall: M-F | 8-4:30 pm
www.mendota-heights.com
District 197School Board Elec�on
page 117
Airport Comm Mtg | 7pm
* * TENTATIVE * *
Plan Comm Mtg | 7pm
Parks Comm Mtg | 6:30pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
City Council Mtg | 7pm
City Hall Closed(Public Works Open) City Hall and PublicWorks Closed
Chanukah begins
Chanukah ends
Kwanzaa begins
Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day
First Day of Winter
New Year’s Eve
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 | City Hall: M-F | 8-4:30 pm
www.mendota-heights.com
page 118