The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-02-05 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 5, 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 15, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Approval of January 29, 2019 Council Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledgement of the December 20, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d. Acknowledgment of the December 11, 2018 Park and Recreation Meeting Minutes e. Approval of Resolution 2019-13 Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Application through Dakota County – FY 2019 f. Approval of Amendment to the City Administrator Employment Agreement g. Approval of Resolution 2019-12 Accept Work and Authorize Final Payment for the Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvements h. Approval of Grading Permit for the Henry Sibley High School Athletic Fields i. Approval of Out of State Travel – Fire Department j. Approval of Public W orks Dump Truck and Accessories k. Approval of Contract with Building Official, A to Z Home Inspections, LLC l. Acknowledgement of December 2018 Fire Synopsis m. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Presentations a. Recognition of Planning Commission member Litton Field, Jr. b. Presentation of Police Body Camera Usage 8. Public Hearing a. Ordinance 537 Adopting Fee Schedule 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Rogers Lake Park Streetlight Request b. Professional Services Contract for the Village Retaining Walls Improvement Project c. Resolution 2019-14 Appointment of Planning Commissioner 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 Tuesday, January 15, 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 7:00 p.m. Councilors Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. Councilor Duggan was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented. 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 a. Revisions were noted and approved 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 page 3 Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that after the January 7th Work Session regarding the Dodd Road improvements, the discussion by the residents after the meeting continued to be concerning; especially in relation to the pedestrian island. The left turn lane for Wagon Wheel is seldom used. The left turn lane onto Pagel, which no longer exists, was used frequently. It is hoped that MnDOT will change the left turn lane for Wagon Wheel to be a left turn lane for Pagel. Mr. Friel received a report on the number of accidents at this intersection over the last 3 years, which showed no accidents at the Pagel Road intersection. He believes the current configuration is going to result in more accidents and he urged the Council to persuade MnDOT to reconfigure Dodd Road to provide a left-hand turn lane onto Pagel. Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, stated that pedestrians have cut their own path to walk along Dodd Road, which should not happen. Vehicles travel very close to this new path and it is dangerous. A resident’s mailbox is so close to the road that they have to make sure to open their mailbox between the passing cars. On the east side of Dodd Road there is also not much space for walking. He said that the good news is that there is a platform on the side of Pagel Road, a place to sit and wait for the traffic to clear. Now there is a pedestrian island that is causing difficulty. PRESENTATION A) FIREFIGHTER BADGE PINNING – REBECCA JOHNSON Ms. Becky Johnson, having completed her one year probationary period and all of her education requirements, was sworn in and received her badge as a member of the Mendota Heights Fire Department. Her badge was pinned on by her husband, Dan, who is also a MHFD member. PUBLIC HEARING A) RESOLUTION 2019-10 ORDERING OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE MARIE AVENUE AND WESLEY LANE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Larry Poppler of TKDA, explained the street improvements for 2019 for Marie Avenue (Lexington Avenue to Dodd Road) and Wesley Lane Neighborhood (Mager Court, South Lane, Spring Creek Circle, Wesley Court, and Wesley Lane). This project is proposed to be completed in two phases. The project will include reclamation of pavement, overlay walking path and improve pedestrian ramps, 30% curb and gutter replacement, 10’x14’ pedestrian tunnel, 750’ ductile iron water main, trail separation on Lexington Avenue, a new trail on Dodd Road, replacement of the retaining walls on Marie Avenue, pond cleanouts, and the land bridge rehabilitation. page 4 Phase 1 would be completed this summer, and is estimated to total $3,016,249. Phase 2, to be completed in 2020, is estimated to total $1,682,361. Funding sources will include tax levy, assessments, municipal state aid, utility funds (Water and Storm Sewer), and Dakota County. The estimated assessments for Marie Avenue would be $11,462 per unit, and for Wesley Lane neighborhood are $6,830 per unit. However, staff proposes that the assessments be capped at $5,500 per unit for both area residents. Councilor Petschel asked where the funding would come from for the water main replacement. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that St. Paul Regional Water Services would pay for the watermain costs. What was shown in the project costs is what the city needed to cover for the project; however, staff anticipates most of that would be refunded by St. Paul Regional Water Services. The city will have to pay to move hydrants. Councilor Miller reiterated his desire to have the property owners, who would be impacted by the proposed Dodd Road trail, involved in the discussions. He feels that having a trail located along Dodd Road would make it safer for everyone. Councilor Paper asked if there would be any significant cost savings in completing both of these phases together in one season. Mr. Poppler replied that the city would need to have the funds and the tax levy capacity to do that. There could be some savings, but there are some logistics as well; dividing this into two projects allows the plans and specifications to be completed in a timely manner. Any cost savings would depend on the contractors and if they are interested in doing a larger project. Mayor Garlock moved to open the public hearing. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) Councilor Petschel noted that drainage issues had been identified and she asked for an explanation of what those were. Mr. Ruzek replied that a major improvement would be adding capacity to the existing ponds. When these ponds were constructed, they were not constructed to current standards. The only drainage issue identified has been water pooling on the northwest quadrant of Wesley Court and Wesley Lane. The project will extend the storm sewer and a catch basin at that location to collect that drainage. Mr. Andrew Eschle, 1844 Dodd Road, noted that the proposed Dodd Road trail construction is in Phase 1, which is starting in June of this year. He asked when it would be discussed. Mayor Garlock replied that the residents would be contacted by the city. Mr. Ruzek replied that the consultant currently has not been authorized to advance into the design stage. If they receive authorization to advance the project, staff would request preliminary drawings. From there, he would send a letter to the affected homeowners along Dodd Road to schedule a meeting. This is anticipated to happen in about six weeks. Ms. Leslie Metzen, 950 S. Highland Circle and representing the Homeowners Association at Victoria Highlands, asked how the assessment amounts are determined. Initially, when they saw the $11,000 proposed amount they were stunned and they appreciate that this has been reduced to $5,500. They feel that some items, like pond sediment, trail work, improvements to Marie Avenue, retaining walls, are all page 5 things that benefit the entire community and the costs should be spread out. She believed everyone was in favor of the improvements to Marie Avenue. She hopes that as the process moves along, there will be additional clarity on how the assessment amounts were determined. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that staff is putting this information on the city’s website. The feasibility report itemizes all of the individual improvements. Residents are also welcome to contact the city for additional clarification. Mr. Chuck Bly, 715 Wesley Lane, stated that in regards to drainage issues, he knew that three of the four homes between Mager Court and Wesley Lane had flooded in the last five years. When the city was informed of this, they were told the cause was the runoff from the low spot between Callahan and South Lane and from the pond. The work to be done on the pond might help to rectify the situation. Mr. Ruzek replied that staff is aware that the catch basin at Wesley and Dodd Road does not drain well. The ditch that the catch basins drain into has filled up with sediment. This issue will be corrected with this project. Mr. Bly noted that homes with driveways onto the streets being improved will be assessed. However, any of the properties that only abut those roads were not taken into account. He questioned if that is an area that benefits the greater community or benefits that entire strip of homes. Also, Mr. Bly questioned the timing of the trail on Dodd as they just completed the 2018 resurfacing of Dodd Road. He asked if it would be better to consider the Dodd Road trail in Phase 2. Mr. Ruzek replied that he believed the state is also looking at intersections improvements in the coming years. Mr. Ruzek asked for clarification on the assessment question. Mr. Bly replied that there were homes that backed onto Marie and did not have driveway access to Marie and he questioned why the assessment calculations did not include them. Mr. Ruzek replied that the streets that those homes are on (for instance, the Bunker Hills neighborhood) were assessed when the city reconstructed Valley Curve and Willow Lane. That is how staff has been interpreting the city policy. Councilor Petschel moved to close the public hearing. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) Mayor Garlock moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-10 ORDERING OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MARIE AVENUE AND WESLEY LANE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201803). Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Councilor Petschel suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to add a stipulation that the discussions of the trail construction should include the residents affected and that if the discussions resulted in a non-agreement between the city and the residents, those lines items be removed and reviewed at a later date. Mr. Ruzek replied that the Dodd Road Trail could be bid as an alternate. Councilor Petschel amended her suggestion by stating that she would support the resolution as is with the stipulation that it could be included at this point; however, before it would go out for bid it would not page 6 include that portion unless it was satisfactorily addressed to the residents’ expectations. Mayor Garlock and Council member Paper were agreeable to the amended motion. City Administrator McNeill noted that because this vote requires a super majority, and that the City Attorney had suggested the vote be taken by roll call. Mayor Neil Garlock – aye Jay Miller – aye Joel Paper – aye Liz Petschel – aye Absent: Ultan Duggan Councilor Paper asked what type of communication would be used to contact the homeowners on Dodd Road for the proposed trail construction. Mr. Ruzek replied that the initial communication will be via a letter in the US mail. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2019-09 ACTION REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FOR COMCAST FRANCHISE RENEWAL City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that for the past three years, the Northern Dakota County Cable Commission (NDC4) has been engaged in discussions regarding the renewal of the franchise agreement with Comcast. NDC4 represents Mendota Heights and six other communities in negotiations, in this particular case, with Comcast. Ms. Jodie Miller, NDC4 Executive Director, explained that NDC4 is a seven-city Joint Powers Cooperative formed in 1982. The two main purposes for the Cable Commission were pooling resources with six other member cities to administer and enforce the cable TV franchises of Comcast and CenturyLink, and managing the local video production programming for the seven city area. NDC4 seven local cable channels and produce about 1,400 local programs each year; including the local city council meetings and local government programs. Ms. Miller noted that the two Mendota Heights representatives on the Commission are Councilor Joel Paper and Mendota Heights resident Mickey Kieffer. She stated that Mr. Brian Grogan from Moss & Barnett and NDC4’s Legal Counsel and representatives from Comcast were also present. She explained that NDC4 was recommending a resolution that is one step in the process of renewing Comcast’s franchise for another 10-year term. Cable franchising is a unique process mandated under federal and state law. There are many steps, deadlines, and requirements in this unique process. Ms. Miller discussed the formal Needs Assessment Report that was produced by the NDC4 Cable Commission. It spells out unique local needs and provides a model of franchise for the cable company to respond to. This was officially published in April of last year and then Comcast responded with their formal Comcast proposal. page 7 On December 12, 2018, the Cable Commission voted to recommend denial of Comcast’s formal proposal because it does not meet the community needs and interests. Comcast will have the opportunity to appeal. It is hoped that informal negotiations would continue. Mr. Brian Grogan, Moss & Barnett, NDC4 Legal Counsel explained that he also indirectly represents Mendota Heights because the city is a member of the NDC4 Commission. The Comcast franchise was granted in 2000, making 2019 the nineteenth year of this franchise. The franchise was originally granted for 15 years and has been extended for four subsequent years. He said that this is a relevant point as to why they are trying to bring this to conclusion. He noted that Comcast did exactly what they were supposed to do. They requested renewal of this franchise in 2012 as required by law. Thereafter, the Commission commenced this needs assessment proceeding. There were some unforeseen delays in this process, which is the reason it has taken so long. There have been five extensions, each of which was adopted by the City Council; most recent of which will end on March 31, 2019. They are very close to an agreement but have not been able to resolve some major issues. In February 2018, the Cable Commission unanimously voted to prepare formal renewal documents. The documents were sent to Comcast and Comcast met and issued their formal proposal. The question to be decided upon is does that proposal meet all of the needs and interests that were in the Needs Assessment Report. The recommendation of the Cable Commission was that it does not meet those needs and interests. The law says the Council as two options: 1. Approve Comcast’s proposal or 2. Issue a preliminary assessment that the franchise should not be renewed. Councilor Paper requested that Attorney Grogan touch briefly on some of the highlights of what it is that NDC4 is looking to obtain. Attorney Grogan stated the key issue that kept the parties apart in the settlement negotiations related to the level of financing to support the capital requirements for the NDC4 studio (purchasing HD cameras, supporting the studio, etc.). The differences are rather dramatic. Not only do they relate to channel capacity, to funding, to institutional network; they have in this group of seven cities a network that connects City Halls, school buildings, various public agencies, which this city helped to pay for to the tune of approximately $800,000 in 2000. They asked for a continuation of that, and the contract contemplates a continuation of that; however, the formal proposal does not even mention an institutional network and is completely silent on that. Ms. Carly Brenner, Senior Director of Governmental Affairs at Comcast, provided a handout to the Council. She explained that Comcast is aware that it is very easy to view them as a faceless major corporation; she wanted to let everyone know that they are a local company and are highly invested in Mendota Heights. Comcast has invested nearly $1B in technology and infrastructure. They have increased their Internet speed, reliability and security. Residents can get a gig of Internet speed from them today. They have employed over 2,600 people who live and work in the surrounding communities. The employees work very hard to ensure that the network stays up and running. Comcast has contributed to many non-profits and other organizations in the area communities. She said that the competition landscape is changing quickly due to Dish, DirectTV, Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, Play-view TV. They do not pay the cities a franchise fee. Comcast pays 5% of their gross revenue from their cable service for the right to use the cities’ rights-of-way. Comcast customers shoulder the sole burden of the PEG (Public, Educational and Governmental) Studio mentioned by Ms. page 8 Miller earlier (competitors pay nothing for this service). The more customers Comcast loses, the less franchise fees the cities receive. Ms. Brenner agreed that Comcast has been in good-faith negotiations and have tried very hard to reach a settlement. In their view, the Cable Commission is demanding an increase in fees on a shrinking number of cable customers and Comcast finds that unreasonable. Comcast has done a survey [Comcast September 2015 Ascertainment Issues Survey] that shows that the viewership of these PEG channels do not justify an increase. She said that as a negotiating strategy, the Commission is asking the city to deny the proposal; despite the fact that Comcast has offered a very reasonable funding package for the continuation of the PEG Studio without having to put in additional burden on cable customers in the city. Ms. Brenner wished to highlight the fact that their proposal is very reasonable. Their proposal offers six pay channels; three in HD, despite the fact that they have subscriber surveys that show that only 4 of the 7 pay channels that NDC4 operates now have regular viewership. Comcast believes that six channels – 3 in HD and 3 in SD – is reasonable. The PEG fee that they are offering is $1.39 per month. Ms. Brenner stated that the law says that the municipality has to consider costs in their needs assessment. The law says the city can deny the franchise if Comcast is not meeting the needs ‘considering costs’. Comcast has considered costs. The Needs Assessment Report that the Commission completed asks for $7M in PEG Capital over the next 10 years – doing the math on that, per subscriber as it stands now – would amount to a $3.11 PEG fee; an extra $3.11 that each cable subscriber would pay. Today’s PEG fee is $1.89. Comcast believes that their proposal is adequate and that they have good evidence that supports the numbers and how those numbers are sufficient to continue the PEG operations that are had today. Ms. Brenner closed by stating that Comcast is open to an informal negotiation, however, they will hold the ground on considering costs. Councilor Miller, referencing Comcast’s proposed 6 PEG channels and NDC4’s 7 PEG channels, asked what the channel in question’s programming was for. Ms. Miller replied that NDC4 currently has 7 channels and they are all standard definition. The Commission wishes to add HD capabilities. Comcast is proposing 3 SD and 3 HD channels, which would actually be just three channels of content that would be simulcast in both SD and HD. Councilor Miller questioned the percentage when listing PEG fees in area cities- 1.8% in Eagan, however, it does not actually give a PEG fee. Ms. Brenner replied that when looking at a cable bill of $100, the PEG fee would be $1.80; or a $60 cable bill would be $1.08 – only on the cable portion of the bill. Attorney Grogan replied that other area cities are 1.55% in Bloomington, 2.5% in St. Paul, 3.0% in Roseville – however, there are also some PEG fees that are down to $0.65. It all depends on the commitment that the community makes towards their programming. page 9 Councilor Paper noted that a lot of people watch these channels. He believes it to be an important component of the community and the Council should continue to focus on that. This is the best route for getting the public meetings out to the community. Councilor Petschel stated that this is an important topic. Having gone door to door before the last election, she characterizes the residents as being well-educated, well-informed, and highly engaged. Much of that engagement comes through the community programming on NDC4. She feels other important differences in the franchise agreement include: • No guarantee of where the government channels would be located – migrating them to a different area on the local broadcast channels • The new definition of who a subscriber would be o For instance, an apartment building with 80 units where the owner of the apartment building would become the subscriber. • Eliminating the city’s definition of right-of-way and changing it to street o This would be a violation of the city code • The abolishment of quarterly reports that reflect compliance in customer service o Comcast would only provide them if the city could provide proof that the data was needed Councilor Miller noted that the current extension expires March 31, 2019 and asked Attorney Grogan that if the Council approves the resolution to deny and Comcast initiates the appeal process, what would happen on April 1, 2019 for subscribers? Attorney Grogan replied that Comcast has, under the law, a right to renewal. If cities do nothing, Comcast would have a continuing right to operate under the existing franchise agreement until the city takes an action to either accept or reject their request for renewal. In every case he has ever heard of, the parties always reach a mutual agreement to extend the franchise to allow the process to be completed. City Administrator Mark McNeill asked, if the city were to approve this resolution making the preliminary assessment that the renewal be denied, is there anything that shuts the door on further informal negotiations, or would they continue? Attorney Grogan replied that the door is always open to negotiations and to a settlement. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-09 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT THAT THE COMCAST FORMAL PROPOSAL FOR FRANCHISE RENEWAL BE DENIED. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) B) RESOLUTION 2019-07 ADOPT PLANS-SPECIFICATIONS, ORDER THE SEEKING OF BIDS FOR THE 2019 MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT City Administrator Mark McNeill explained the architect, the construction management company, and the station building committee have been working hard to finalize the plans and stay within the $7 page 10 million project budget. He said that the recommendation is to approve the final plans and specifications and authorize bidding to be advertised. The construction manager would open bids on February 20, 2019, review the bids, and then bring them back to the Council on March 5, 2019. There are 21 different components and each could have multiple bids. This will be a fairly complex bidding project. Fire Chief Dave Dreelan explained that tonight is another milestone in the three-plus year process to plan, design, and build specifications for the addition and remodel of the existing fire station. Since August 2018, the committee members have spent many hours working on developing the initial design concepts to be used for the formal bidding process. Mayor Garlock moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-07 APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE 2019 MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE STATION EXPANSION AND REMODELING PROJECT. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) C) CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST TO PURCHASE A FAIRWAY MOWER FOR PAR 3 Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence explained the request to purchase a Toro Reelmaster 3100D fairway mower for the Par 3 Golf Course. The current fairway mower, a 2000 Reelmaster 5400D, was purchased used. It currently has 2,000 hours on it, which is equivalent to approximately 125,000 miles. Staff typically uses this mower 2-3 times per week to properly maintain the fairways. It needs approximately $7,000 in repairs, which exceeds its value. The proposed fairway mower would be a three-wheel unit, to enable it to move around easier, making it easier to cut the tees. This would also mean one less piece of equipment; less upkeep and less seasonal maintenance. Other golf courses use the 3100D for both their fairways and their tees, so this is not unusual. Staff worked with MTI, a state cooperative purchasing contract holder, to determine a good replacement for the current fairway mower. MTI has offered $1,250 for trade-in of the current fairway mower and a $100 trade-in for the current tees mower. With these trade-in factors, the total cost of the Toro Reelmaster 3100D, including tax, would be $32,475.79. Councilor Miller asked what the city paid for the current mower and when was it purchased. Ms. Lawrence replied that she believed the golf course paid $8,000 for it in the year 2000. Mayor Garlock moved to authorize the purchase of a Toro Reelmaster 3100D for the Par 3 Golf Course in a not-to-exceed amount of $32,475.79. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) page 11 D) RESOLUTION 2019-08 APPOINTMENTS TO PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the Council interviewed nine candidates earlier this evening for the two open positions on the Parks and Recreation Commission. In the end, the Council made two selections; Ms. Stephanie Meyer and Mr. Daniel Sherer. Their terms would end January 31, 2022. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-08 APPOINTING STEPHANIE MEYER AND DANIEL SHERER TO FILL VACANCIES ON PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Councilor Paper noted that there were some wonderful candidates and this was not an easy decision – which was a terrific problem to have. He encouraged everyone who applied to apply again for the next opening. Councilor Petschel piggybacked on those comments and stated that not only do they need to stay engaged but the Council needs to be engaged with them. They discovered some skill sets this evening that were incredibly unique and that the city could benefit from in other areas. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) E) DISCUSSION OF 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATES AND TIMES City Administrator Mark McNeill shared a proposed calendar for Council meeting dates and noted that there were four dates that staff was proposing to change. The August 6, 2019 is Night to Unite. October 1, 2019 is Rosh Hashana. October 15, 2019 is Sukkot. November 5, 2019 is Election Day. Staff suggested that rather than delaying the meeting start times on these dates to 8:00 p.m., that the date of the meeting be changed to the following day (Wednesday) at the normal start time of 7:00 p.m. The consensus of the Council was to move these meetings to the following day (Wednesday), starting at 7:00 p.m. Councilor Miller moved to adopt the proposed 2019 City Council Meeting Dates with the changes identified. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) page 12 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill made the following announcements: • Mendota Heights “Blade with the Blue” event is February 2, 2019 at Friendly Hills. • February 9, 2019 is Family Movie Night at Henry Sibley High School. • February 10, 2019 is the 5th Annual Royal Ball being held at the Concord Exchange Building in South St. Paul. • He closed by reminding people to check the city’s website for updates on warming houses COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Garlock reported on the passing of a long-time Mendota Heights resident, Ms. Laurita Rose Weinzettel, who passed away on January 7, 2019. She had been a resident since 1950, was a 35-year member of Mendota Heights Firewomen’s Auxiliary, and had she served as an election judge for 50+ years. He said that his thoughts and prayers were extended to Laurita’s family. Councilor Petschel echoed the comments made by Mayor Garlock regarding Ms. Laurita Rose Weinzettel and added that she symbolized what this community is all about. Councilor Miller also echoed the sentiments. He congratulated Ms. Becky Johnson for passing her probationary period with the Mendota Heights Fire Department. He looks forward to working with her. Councilor Paper welcomed the two newest commissioners, Mr. Daniel Sherer and Ms. Stephanie Meyer, to the Parks & Recreation Commission. He also expressed his appreciation to everyone who applied. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 9:09 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock ATTEST: Mayor _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 13 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Council Work Session Monday, January 29, 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 12:15 p.m. Councilmembers Miller, Paper and Petschel were also present. Councilmember Duggan was available by remote video. 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, City Attorney Andy Pratt, and City Clerk Lorri Smith. VILLAGE MORTGAGE The Council continued the discussion from the January 7, 2019 Council Work Session regarding the mortgage issue for the ABC parcel, located at The Village. City Attorney Andy Pratt reviewed with the Council what is owed to the City by RMF Group, the management company, and a request by RMF to relay the proceeds of an escrow account to RMF. 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 was to be paid to the City over time. The City was to assist in the development by selling off various parcels of land. The proceeds from the land sales were to be used in part to assist in the construction of parking facilities. However, due to a local and national economic downturn, the development of some of the parcels did not proceed as planned, leading to financial issues which are unresolved as of today. Attorney Pratt noted that the escrow account for this development was closed in 2013. The Council discussed how they would like to proceed with this issue. City staff was directed to meet with RMF Group to discuss clearing the title for this property. VACANT VILLAGE LOTS The Council discussed the possible development of the four parcels in the Village, between Dodd Road and Linden Street, which are owned by the City. The parcels total approximately 3.25 acres in size. Community Development Director Tim Benetti discussed various concept plans with the Council. He showed five plans which were unsolicited, but had been submitted to the City over the past several month as consideration for the development of the vacant lots. Plans proposed included: 1. Row houses constructed in four separate buildings for a total of 70 units. These would be 2 or 3 story buildings with flat roofs. The concept plan also showed a 4th story use. 2. A single 4 story market rate apartment building with up to 100 units. 3. A single 4 story senior cooperative building with up to 100 units. 4. Detached town house villas with up to 16 units. page 14 5. A single story building commercial building, possibly containing a preschool. The Council was asked to establish design parameters for the establishment of a Request for Proposals to be sent out to prospective developers. The City would consider the proposals, and invite the top prospects in for further presentations. It could then negotiate to sell the parcels to the developer with the most desirable proposal. It was noted that Maple Street could also be moved to allow for better traffic flow accessing Dodd, and would also allow all four parcels to be joined together. Councilmember Paper noted that concept #1 would be located on three parcels leaving one for open space. He noted that he is in favor of having some density in this area, but he is not in favor of a four story building or the development of a preschool on these lots. Councilmember Duggan questioned the height comparison of the proposed buildings with those currently existing at The Village. He stated he is in favor of moving Maple Street to allow the four lots to be joined together. He noted that he favored the row house concept, and a density of up to 100 units. He stated he would not like to see one large building on these lots, or any buildings that are four stories in height. Councilmember Petschel stated she feels the Council needs to consider what is good for The Village businesses. She stated she feels that Maple Street should be moved, to realign it with Hilltop Road. Councilmember Miller stated he would like to see the height of the buildings tapered off Dodd Road. He questioned the density that the zoning would allow for in this area. He stated he would not like to see a density over 70 units. Mayor Garlock stated that he liked the row house or the apartment building concepts with flat roofs and a density level of up to 100 units. He stated he is in favor of the realignment of Maple Street and would not like to see any type of commercial development on these lots. The Councilmembers agreed to focus the RFP on the following design parameters: -A residential development -No more than three story building height -Multiple buildings are favored over one large building -Flat roof style -Up to 100 units of density -Move Maple Street to realign with Hilltop Road, but not move the utilities -A mixed-use development is acceptable The Request for Proposal will be brought to a future Council meeting for approval. GOAL SETTING City Administrator Mark McNeill reviewed the goals established from the January 7th Goal Setting Session. The goals had been grouped into major categories. A continued discussion of these goals will be held at an upcoming work session of the Council. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 2:30 p.m. page 15 ____________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 20, 2018 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Thursday, December 20, 2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: John Mazzitello, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of November 27, 2018 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 27, 2018, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 3 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2018-28 SEVEN SITE SOLUTIONS-APPLICANT / SPEEDWAY-OWNER 1080 HIGHWAY 62 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR NEW ELECTRONIC DIGITAL LED DISPLAY SIGN FOR GAS PRICES B) PLANNING CASE #2018-29 SEVAN SITE SOLUTIONS-APPLICANT / SPEEDWAY-OWNER 1200 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR NEW ELECTRONIC DIGITAL LED DISPLAY SIGN FOR GAS PRICES Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that Planning Case 2018-28 and Planning Case 2018-29, being very similar in nature, would be presented together. Working from the staff reports provided to the Commission previously, Mr. Benetti explained Sevan Site Solutions was seeking an amendment to a conditional use permit to provide a new electronic LED lighted display signs at the existing Speedway (former SuperAmerica) gas station page 17 and convenience stores located at 1080 Highway 62 and 1200 Mendota Heights Road. Both items were presented under a public hearing; notices were mailed to properties located within 350 feet of each property and published in the local paper. No comments were received from the neighboring property owners. The property located at 1080 Highway 62 is located on the southeast corner of Highway 62 and Lexington Avenue; in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District; is 1.22 acres in size with a 4,300 square foot gas convenience store building with a car wash canopy and a monument sign out front. On April 16, 1996 City Council adopted Resolution 96-20, which approved the original conditional use permit for the new development of the SuperAmerica gas station on that site. The property located at 1200 Mendota Heights Road is located on the southeast corner of Highway 55 and Mendota Heights Road; in the B-3 General Business District; is 2.0 acres in size with a 4,300 square foot gas convenience store similar to the 1080 Highway 62 site. On April 16, 1996 City Council adopted Resolution 96-21, which approved the original conditional use permit for the new development of the SuperAmerica gas station on that site. In the B-2 Neighborhood Business District and in the B-3 General Business District, city’s sign code allows a sign up to 100 square feet for both a pylon or monument sign, or freestanding. The current sign on Highway 62 is approximately 88 square feet. The current sign on Mendota Heights Road is just under 100 square feet. Speedway has already changed some of their signage and had originally decided to stay with the manual changing of the signs. However, now they are requesting to install the LED fixture to be reinserted, thus creating a new sign permit process. Each area is approximately 3 square feet in area or 6 square feet total. Basically, they wish to swap out the manual change letters and install new LED red display signs. This would be for the gas prices only. Under code 12-1d-15, any signs at a motor fuel station for LED has to meet six conditions: a The characters in an electronic display must be a uniform color b Any electronic display is limited to a maximum of four (4) characters c The total area for an electronic display is not to exceed six (6) square feet in area d The text of the sign may not change more than three (3) times in a day (24 hours) e The electronic display shall be allowed only during the hours of operation approved in the conditional use permit for the motor fuel station f Any existing motor fuel station seeking a permit for electronic display of fuel prices shall submit a request to amend their conditional use permit For the record, Mr. Benetti noted that the local BP Gas Station, before this ordinance was in place, had their digital sign approved under a variance process. Under city code, any conditional use permit request has to have the following standards taken in to consideration: • The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands; page 18 • Existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and • The effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan The following standards must be met: • The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; • Will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; • Will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and • The proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan Staff believed that all of the above mentioned standards have been met and recommended approval of both applications. Commissioner Magnuson asked for confirmation that they are simply replacing the manual gas prices with the digital gas prices on the existing signs in the existing locations. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Magnuson noted that on one of the sign photographs, unleaded letter was red and diesel was green. City Code requires that all of the characters be of uniform color. She then asked if that meant that the entire sign has to be of uniform color or each of the characters. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed that each of the characters needed to be of uniform color. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that they were amending the CUPs that were enacted in 1996; which Mr. Benetti provided. He then asked if the CUPs were specific in terms of calling out the requirements for signage. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative. Commissioner Noonan asked if there were specific details in the CUPs illustrating the sign. Mr. Benetti again replied in the negative. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that there were no conditions or plans dealing with signage. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan continued by stating that then one could argue that if the original CUPs were silent; therefore, there is nothing to be amended. Mr. Benetti replied that the code states that the original CUP needs to be amended. The use itself is allowed under a CUP. Commissioner Noonan, looking at the staff recommendations, specifically where it reads ‘all existing conditions’, noted that none of the conditions were being changed and that no new conditions were being implemented. Mr. Benetti replied that because these were originally approved under a CUP, then they needed a CUP amendment. Commissioner Magnuson commented that she could go either way on the color. She asked that it be flagged for some consideration or to let the Council decide how they want to interpret the ordinance. Mr. Steve Morse with Speedway came forward to address the Commission and to answer questions. He explained that original CUP for the 1080 Highway 62 property restricts the products that can be sold – they are not allowed to sell diesel fuel at that location. This is why there are not page 19 two different colors for the gas prices. Wherever one would go, the standard color for diesel fuel prices is green; both in the handle of the dispenser, the dispenser itself, and the price. E88 is sometimes indicated with a blue color or a white color. The grades of gasoline are dictated by that color. The selling of diesel fuel is permitted at the Mendota Heights Road facility and that is why there are two different colors for the gas prices; red for regular and green for diesel. Commissioner Noonan asked how long the LED technology has been available. Mr. Morse replied that he has been working with SuperAmerica (now known as Speedway) since 1998 and at that time all of the signs were the crank-style. In the early to mid-2000’s is when they started seeing the LED technology come out – it was very expensive at that time. Due to safety issues with the crank-style or suction-cup style lettering, a concerted effort was made to change to LED. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 3 Chair Field asked if there were any restrictions on frequency of changes of prices in the BP sign variance. Mr. Benetti replied that there may have been; Commissioner Magnuson replied that she believed there was. Chair Field noted that the Commission would want to be consistent between BP and Speedway. Mr. Benetti pointed out item D in the ‘Electronic Displays at Motor Fuel Stations’ conditions that reads D. The text of the sign may not change more than three (3) times in a day (24 hours)’. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-28 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT – ELECTRONIC LED DISPLAY SIGN BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed new electronic LED signage will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any traffic hazards; will not depreciate surrounding property value; and said signage appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed new LED signage will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A new sign permit for the electronic LED change-over shall be submitted and approved prior to any work done on the signs. 2. All existing conditions in the original conditional use permit approved under Resolution No. 96-14 shall remain in effect and unchanged due to this CUP amendment approval. page 20 Commissioner Noonan stated that he thought the explanation on the colors was very helpful; it tied the relationship between the colors on the sign and the colors of the pump; and then there is the non-verbal reminder as to what is one versus the other. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she thought the explanation was excellent and she would have not have a problem necessarily with the different colors. She believed that, given the language of the ordinance, they should have an on-record interpretation so that it is clear going forward and that there is uniform application throughout the city. Mr. Benetti replied that this could be done in the staff reports easily. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 3 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 2, 2019 meeting. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-29 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT – ELECTRONIC LED DISPLAY SIGN BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed new electronic LED signage will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any traffic hazards; will not depreciate surrounding property value; and said signage appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed new LED signage will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A new sign permit for the electronic LED change-over shall be submitted and approved prior to any work done on the signs. 2. All existing conditions in the original conditional use permit approved under Resolution No. 96-14 shall remain in effect and unchanged due to this CUP amendment approval. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 3 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 2, 2019 meeting. page 21 C) PLANNING CASE #2018-30 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS-APPLICANT/OWNER 2121 DODD ROAD (FIRE STATION SITE) VARIANCE TO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR NEW FIRE TRAINING TOWER Working from the staff report provided to the Commission previously, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from the City of Mendota Heights on behalf of the Fire Department requesting a consideration of a variance from the height limitations for structures within the residential zone. This property is located at 2121 Dodd Road. This item was presented under a public hearing; notices were mailed to properties located within 350 feet of each property and published in the local paper. No comments were received from the neighboring property owners. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the facility location. The original fire station was built in 1985 and consists of a 12,000 square-foot building with four truck bays that exit onto Dodd Road. There are offices, conference/meeting room, kitchen service area, TV/lounge area, and berthing rooms for local ambulances service personnel. The building also contains the 34-foot high fire hose tower. Mr. Benetti shared images that were shared at the public informational meetings for the new Fire Station. In July 2018, City Council approved the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $7M to help pay for the fire station expansion and remodeling plans. The height of the new tower is proposed to be 40 feet 8 inches. Chief Dreelan provided the following explanation for the needs of this larger tower: “The interior of the tower has a stairway like you would find in any business or apartment buildings. The heights of the tower corresponds directly with the stairs so any changes to that height would affect the rise and run of each individual stair, which would cause a significant trip hazard. The interior of the tower also has multiple doors and windows, any changes to the tower height would affect their size and location, as example you may end up with a window opening that is at knee height.” Because this site is located in the R-1 Residential District, the underlying standard of 25 feet in height applies. However, there is a provision under 12-1D-13(1) that allows for certain facilities or structures to exceed that height by 50%; one of them being fire and hose towers. On a 25-foot structure, 50% would be 12.5 feet more; or 37.5 feet. At 40 feet 8 inches, they require a 3-foot 2- inch variance. Mr. Benetti shared the standards or findings that must be met when considering a variance request. Staff provided an analysis of these standards or findings within the report and recommended approval of this request. Commissioner Noonan commented that this is another indication where the city should be changing the zoning ordinance to Institutional. Commissioner Magnuson shared this sentiment. Mr. Benetti replied that this zoning ordinance update is forthcoming. page 22 Chief Dreelan had no specific comments to add to the staff report. Commissioner Noonan asked what was so magical about the 40’8”. Chief Dreelan replied that there really isn’t anything magical about the 40’8”; it’s what happens inside of the structure to get them to 40’8”. The tower itself is actually a very specific training facility with a large interior stairwell, much like would be found in a commercial building or an apartment building. That stairwell has several entrance and exit points into different parts of the facility to allow for different types of training. If they had to change the heights of the tower, they could not have the appropriate rise and run of each individual stair. When laddering the structure, instead of coming in at a normal window height, if they had to lower the structure – the window might be a knee height rather than at a normal window height. It is what needs to be done internally to make everything work that determined the tower height. Commissioner Corbett asked if the primary use of the tower was as a functioning staircase between the first and second levels or was it primarily for training use; or both. Chief Dreelan replied that there would be very little reason for the personnel to access that second level unless it was for training. There is also a set of stairs in the rear of the apparatus bay that allows access to the second floor; however, for daily operations they would not be occurring there. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Dan Johnson, 791 Creek Avenue, stated in the interest of full disclosure that he is a member of the fire department. He said that it should not be a surprise that as a firefighter he was very much in support of the proposed station improvements and additions. As a resident of the neighborhood, if his fire career ended tomorrow he would still be very happy to see the new station built there. What needs to be done to it makes perfect sense. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 3 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-30 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR NEW FIRE TRAINING TOWER BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The request for the 3’-2” variance to exceed the maximum allowable height for the new fire training tower at this location, is relatively minor in its overall scope and impacts, and can be considered in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinances; as the City proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. 2. The subject property has been established as a fire station site for a number of years, and functions more like an institutional, yet vital public use within the R-1 One Family page 23 Residential district, which makes the property very unique and special when considering approval of this variance request. 3. The requested variance to the height limitations are minimal and pose no threat or impacts to the surrounding properties or neighborhoods, and therefore this variance can be considered a reasonable request for this public safety and service facility. If this request was approved, Commissioner Noonan asked for a timing on the construction and what would it mean to the existing fire station. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Chief Dreelan replied that the proposed timeline is as follows: January 15, 2019 – seek Council approval to go out for bids Mid-February 2019 – bids would be due back End of February 2019 – bid approval March 2019 – contractors begin mobilization April 1, 2019 or as soon as weather allows – break ground on construction At all times during the construction process they will be a fully-functional fire department; there would not be anything that would have to be moved. For approximately nine months, construction will be going on for the addition. Once that is completed, they would move administratively over to the new addition. Then the construction crew would come back in and remodel the existing administrative areas of the fire department – taking approximately four to five months. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 3 Chair Field noted that Commissioner Noonan’s question in regards to the height and use of the structure was of particular importance. He suggested a Finding of Fact be added to reflect the fact that the height is integral to performing all of the training elements. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY MAGNUSON, TO ADD A FOURTH FINDING OF FACT: 4. The proposed variance is to support the construction of a fire training tower the height of which is integral to the training function of the fire department Commissioner Magnuson asked that Finding of Fact #2 be tweaked; she believed that the fact that this is a fire station and it’s a public building in a residential district in and of itself creates the practical difficulty that is needed. She expressed her desire to strengthen the language by tweaking to say “The subject property has been established as a fire station site for a number of years and is page 24 an institutional and vital public use within the R-1 One Family Residential district, which makes the property very unique and special when considering approval of this variance request.” COMMISSIONER NOONAN ACCEPTED COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON’S SUGGESTION AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Chair Field asked for the vote of the motion in favor of approval based upon the Findings of Fact, including the proposed edit to Finding #2 and the addition of Finding #4. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 3 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 2, 2019 meeting. New / Unfinished Business Chair Field provided an update on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. A Planning Commission workshop was held last week; staff is working on some word-smithing to some of the issues which were discussed at that meeting [Mr. Benetti then handed the Commissioners the resulting document]. Chair Field explained that the plan is that the Commissioners would take a day or so to reflect and see if they feel that it reflects the sum and substance of their conversations last week. If agreed upon, the plan is to tentatively schedule a public hearing on January 22, 2019 – unless there are other Planning Commission Public Hearings scheduled for that same evening. If January 22, 2019 is not feasible, then the plan would be schedule the Public Hearing on Tuesday, January 29, 2019. There is also the possibility that the Commission may want to have another workshop meeting in between. The public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan remains open and Chair Field asked for a motion to extend it until the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting, to be held on January 22, 2019. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OPEN UNTIL THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON JANUARY 22, 2019 AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 3 page 25 Staff Announcements / Update of Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the WoodSpring Hotel is very close to getting their CO and they should be operational very soon. A goal setting session with the City Council to talk about some of the open sites in the community, especially The Village sites and the Bourn Lane property, is being planned. He believes that there will be two items to consider at the January 22, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Assuming this to be correct, he would go ahead and schedule the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing for January 29, 2019. Commissioner Noonan asked if the goal setting discussion for The Village and Bourn Lane properties basically to move it from vacant land to developed land. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. He also noted that the goal setting is to discuss more than just those two sites; however, staff is looking for direction on which way to go. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO WISH EVERYONE A HAPPY HOLIDAY AND TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:59 P.M. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 3 page 26 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING December 11, 2018 The December meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, December 11, 2018, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. 1. Call to Order – Chair Pat Hinderscheid called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Pat Hinderscheid, Commissioners Steve Goldade, Bob Klepperich, Stephanie Levine, David Miller, and Nissa Tupper. Commissioner Ira Kipp was absent. Student Representative Matthew Boland was also present. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson and Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek. 3. Approval of Agenda Motion Goldade / second Levine to approve the agenda. AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 4. Approval of Minutes from October 9, 2018 Motion Goldade / second Levine to approve the minutes of the October 9, 2018 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 5. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) Chair Hinderscheid shared an email received from a citizen with questions for the Commission, some of which were shared at the meeting with City Council. One of the questions was in regards to making donations for the parks. Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson replied that she did not believe this to be an open item as this was discussed at the work session. The discussion was that donations would be funneled through the Foundation and that a “Friends of Mendota Heights Parks” would be established. Another question raised in the email was if they were permitted to make donations could those donations be targeted to a specific park. Ms. Jacobson replied that she believed it was discussed at the work session that Council would prefer that the donations would go to the “Friends of the Parks” – not targeting specific fund raising towards any one park; but to create a fund for all parks. The last item in the email were suggestions on features to put into the park, which would be taken under advisement. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that if the resident wanted to address the Council on this issue at a meeting, there is a public comment portion that would be a good place for their questions or suggestions to be addressed. 6. Unfinished and New Business 6.a Review Adopt-A-Park Preliminary Research Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that the Parks & Recreation Commission had asked staff to do some preliminary research on setting up an Adopt-A-Park Program; however, before she page 27 continued research she asked the Commission to confirm that they still wanted to pursue such an effort. The city does not have a formal volunteer program at this time and creating something more formal would take staff time. Other communities do have an Adopt-A-Park Program of some kind. Chair Hinderscheid asked if there was someone in the city administration that is focused on volunteering. Ms. Lawrence replied that there is no such person at this time. Each department works on finding volunteers. Ms. Lawrence shared the “Mendota Heights’ Adopt-A-Park Program” outline that she had put together based on the research done with other communities; after which she requested feedback from the Commission: • Definition • Mission Statement • Who is Eligible • Role of the Group • Expectations • Terms and Conditions • Recognition • Application Process If the Commission were to decide that this is something they would want to pursue, it would need Council approval; the groups that would be interested in adopting a park would need Council approval as well. Also, additional information would need to be gathered regarding a volunteer program, especially for the liability portion of it. Chair Hinderscheid suggested that a pilot project be conducted to see if it would be well received. Commissioner Miller asked if this would be promoted through the Heights Highlights or any other venue so groups could find out about it. Ms. Lawrence replied that this could be promoted in various ways; Heights Highlights, Friday News, the city website, Facebook, etc. Chair Hinderscheid noted that if individuals were interested but not necessarily part of group, this program could be a way of getting individuals in a coordinated activity with other volunteers. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that this would be so. Commissioner Goldade asked if the Public Works Dept. was the one who does the work in the parks; and if Ms. Lawrence saw herself there assisting with these groups or how would that happen. His second question was if she could think of any reason why the Commission would not want an Adopt-A-Park Program. Ms. Lawrence replied that having Public Works or herself coordinating the volunteers would be something that would need to be looked into. Equipment would be one thing that staff would need to get more information on. Public Works is pretty busy right now and is unsure how much time they could devote. As to the second question, she did not see a lot of issues with the program and thought it would be good to have people that are cleaning the parks. The cleaner they are the more inviting they are to the residents. The biggest hoop to go through is the volunteer side of it; making sure that the city is covered and has a formal program so the program would work for both sides – the volunteer and the city. page 28 Chair Hinderscheid asked if the volunteers would need to sign something. Ms. Lawrence replied in the affirmative; all participants in city programs are required to sign a liability waiver in case something happens. Commissioner Levine commented that she believed this to be a really good idea and the application looks fine to her; the program outline looks very good; and citizens really want to get involved in the city and this would be a good way for them to do so. She would like to add school groups to the list of potential volunteers; maybe as a fund raising opportunity. She liked the idea of recognition or training as well. She did not believe that Public Works needed to be out there monitoring; however, if a group were to Adopt-A-Park they would need to attend some type of training to learn what the expectations are. She suggested an annual option to renew their groups’ participation in the program. Ms. Lawrence agreed with the suggestion of an annual renewal option. Motion Goldade / second Hinderscheid to direct city staff to continue working on the details to successfully implement the Mendota Heights Adopt-A-Park Program AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 Chair Hinderscheid expressed his appreciation to Commissioner Levine for suggesting the addition of school groups to the list of volunteers; mainly because students do not necessarily receive the Heights Highlights and there are other means of communicating this to them. Chair Hinderscheid asked if this would be specific to a park. Ms. Lawrence replied that on the application there is an area asking for first choice, second choice, and third choice of a park. 6.b Set Meeting Dates for 2019 Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence shared the list of proposed meeting dates for the Parks and Recreation Commission in 2019. She did explain that these meetings are subject to change. Chair Hinderscheid asked if staff had taken Jewish Holidays into consideration. Ms. Lawrence replied in the affirmative. 6.c Review Fee Schedule Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence explained that each year the City Council approves a fee schedule that is adopted to assess fees for services. She had provided the Commission with the fees charged in 2018 for Parks and Recreation related items and asked for recommendations if there were any changes for 2019. She had also provided research on what other cities are charging for picnic shelters, etc. Chair Hinderscheid asked about a comparison on the $90 / 10 round golf fee ($9 / round). Ms. Lawrence replied that most courses provide a full-year membership; however, most courses are only $1 or $2 less than a regular round. She would recommend increasing this to $100 / 10 round golf fee ($10 / round). Commissioner Klepperich asked if the pass could be used 7 day per week and at any time (other than during leagues) and how many are sold. Ms. Lawrence replied that they sell approximately 100 of these passes and they do expire at the end of the golf season. The page 29 passes are supposed to be used by only one person and are not transferrable; and a person should not expect to be able to use the passes by bringing in a group and asking that each person use one of the passes. It is expected to be used by one person for 10 separate rounds of golf. Chair Hinderscheid stated that he would defer to Ms. Lawrence’s recommendation on the increase of the 10 round pass. Commissioner Goldade asked if the role of the Commission was to make a recommendation that would then to go City Council for final approval. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that this was correct. He then asked, in December 2019, if all of the fees on the list shared by Ms. Lawrence would be brought back to the Commission for recommendation, including the new fees that were just approved. Ms. Lawrence replied that staff’s plan next year, since there are updated fees and policies that staff obtain data and have a work session with the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council to review the fees and the policy, and then make a recommendation for 2020. Commissioner Goldade asked how many picnic shelter fees are received in a year. Ms. Lawrence replied that last year they had 45 shelter reservations. Commissioner Levine asked for a breakdown of the 45 shelter reservations. Ms. Lawrence replied that 85% were residents (birthday parties, family reunions, graduation parties, etc.) Commissioner Levine then asked if the cost of cleanup was included in the fee. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that it was included in the fee. Chair Hinderscheid asked what the difference was between residents and businesses. Ms. Lawrence replied that the difference was if a local business wanted to use the park for a business event at a picnic shelter they are charged the business rate; a business in the city would be considered a resident business and a business outside of the site could be considered a non-resident business. The research done did not show a different rate between residential or business renters. Commissioner Levine stated that she liked the structure of the fees as it is – with the separate residential and business rates because business events are typically larger than a resident event. She also suggested that the residential rate remain at $50; no higher than $60 to prevent creating a burden on the resident. She also suggested that the 10 round pass be increased to $100. Motion Levine / second Hinderscheid to continue the picnic shelter rates from 2018 in the four categories and the Par 3 10-round pass be increased from the 2018 rate of $90 to $100 rate in 2019 Amendment Goldade / second Levine have the Par 3 10-round pass remain at the 2018 rate of $90. AYES 2: NAYS 4: ABSENT 1 Commissioner Miller expressed his agreement with Chair Hinderscheid in that he would defer to Ms. Lawrence’s opinion on the increase in the fee as other communities are charging similar rates. page 30 Chair Hinderscheid called for a vote on the original motion to continue the fee rates from 2018, except the Par 3 10-round pass, which would be increased from the 2018 rate of $90 to $100 rate in 2019. AYES 5: NAYS 1: ABSENT 1 6.d Playground Improvement Subcommittee Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that this item was to look at the playground improvements planned for Wentworth Park and Hagstrom King Park. At the joint Parks and Recreation Commission / City Council workshop on November 13, 2018 the City Council provided direction on rough budgets for these two parks; they then asked staff to put together some playground layouts to be approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission – and eventually approved by the City Council. Mr. Ruzek noted that he would be more comfortable working with a subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Commission to assist with picking the playground structures that could be brought back to the entire commission. Chair Hinderscheid asked if the subcommittee meetings would be open to the public so they could participate. Mr. Ruzek replied in the negative. Commissioner Levine asked when the meetings would take place. Mr. Ruzek replied that he would anticipate that the meetings taking place at least through the first week of January 2019. Commissioner Levine then volunteered for the subcommittee. Chair Hinderscheid also volunteered; as did Commissioner Tupper. 6.e Rogers Lake Park Lighting Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that Commissioner Kip, who lives near Rogers Lake Park, had indicated that he felt the lighting on the upper parking lot was inadequate. This parking lot is adjacent to the skate park. When looking at the aerial photographs, Mr. Ruzek was able to see an existing light by the pavilion, adjacent to the lake, and he believed there to be one near the pedestrian entrance near the parking lot; however, he was unable to see it in the photographs. If lighting were to be added to the park, the cheapest and easiest way would be to lease a light from Xcel Energy, which they would hang on an existing power pole. There are three poles available; one near the sand volleyball court, one along the trail, and two poles adjacent to Wagon Wheel Trail. The recommended location for a light would be on the pole located right between the parking lot and the skate park – next to Wagon Wheel Trail. Rates and wattages were included in the Commission packet. The Police Department is supportive of adding lights in the city no matter the location; however, they have no current concerns with security and safety in the park itself. There are also negative natural resources issues to be taken into consideration. page 31 Commissioner Tupper asked if there were safety concerns at the park. Mr. Ruzek replied that Commissioner Kipp had believed there were safety concerns. The Police Department has taken a look, reviewed, and walked the park and there are no ‘documented’ safety issues. Chair Hinderscheid noted that the Commission did receive a list of police calls to the skate park, so there are some minor issues. Mr. Ruzek stated that the intent is not to light up the skate park because it does close at dusk or 10:00 p.m. in the summer. The light would likely be on throughout the dark hours by using a photo-cell. Commissioner Goldade questioned the dollar amounts listed in the staff report. Mr. Ruzek reviewed and corrected the error; the average cost is $10.36 per month for a 100W light installed on an existing pole, or $124.32 per year. Commissioner Tupper stated that she would not be opposed to having a light installed on the pole next to the entry drive as it would be close to the street and help with visibility of pedestrians. Chair Hinderscheid asked if the light could point both directions and be effective, or would it be too far. Mr. Ruzek replied it could be mounted anywhere on the 360 degrees of the pole; he could work with Xcel on what would provide the most adequate lighting with the least disturbances to neighboring properties. Motion Levine / second Goldade to direct staff to work with Xcel to put in the light at Rogers Lake Park AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 7. Reports 7.a Par 3 Update Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence shared the monthly financial report for the Par 3 Golf Course; which had 680 rounds of golf played in September 2018. The total monthly revenue was $10,890, bringing the course to a year-to-date total of $129,666 for the five months they were open. This is down from the year-to-date total for this time last year. September expenditures were $11,234; year-to-date of $118,460. The course is still showing a profit of $11,206 for the 2018 season. Financial information for October was not yet available; however, it was a tough month due to the weather. It is hoped that the course would break even for the year. Staff is working to come up with more creative ways to market the course next year and plan more special events. At the last meeting, the Commission asked for an update on the state of the equipment used at the Par 3 Golf Course, which Ms. Lawrence provided in the meeting packet. Upon being questioned, Ms. Lawrence stated that staff has been working with the city finance department on how to fund the replacement of the course equipment. 7.b Recreation Update page 32 Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence provided an update on the city’s recreation programs; highlighting the skating program that would start in January, field trips planned for winter break, football camp, Royal Ball, and a new event called “Blade with the Blue” where members of the Police Department would come together with children to enjoy the sport of hockey. Winter Registration is open on the city’s website. Ms. Lawrence also provided a copy of a flyer which will be distributed to the local schools, the fall program recap, and indicated that staff is busy looking into ideas for the 2019 summer programs. Thoughts and suggestions from the Commission are welcome. 7.c Commissioner Park Updates Commissioner Klepperich noted that baseball is over for the year. He looked at Wentworth Park as he was interested in the installation of the lights for the rink, which are finished. He asked Mr. Ruzek to provide an update on the warming house study. Mr. Ruzek replied that he has not received an updated schematics on the warming house design. The city did offer a contract to CNH Architects in September 2018. This is the same architect that is working on the fire hall. Staff is meeting with the architect on Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at a workshop with City Council. Commissioner Miller had no updates on Victoria Highland; no winter activity there. Commissioner Levine asked if the rental of a warming house for parties is really $4/hr. for the rink. Ms. Lawrence replied that this rental figures was correct. An application permit needs to be obtained at a cost of $25. The use of the warming house is available during regular business hours. Commissioner Levine also noted that there was a number of layers of ice on the Marie Park rink. It looks really nice. Commissioner Tupper did not have any updates on her parks. Chair Hinderscheid stated that there is nothing particular going on at Ivy Hills. In the past he noted open water; however, he did not see any open water this evening. Mr. Ruzek replied that the dredging of the pond may have something to do with that; however, the Dodd Road Reconstruction Project may also have something to do with that. 8. Announcements and Commission Comments Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence made the following announcements: • There are two vacancies for the Parks and Recreation Commission; applications are due December 28, 2018 to City Administrator Mark McNeill • City staff is busy flooding the rinks; in hopes that the warming houses would be open on December 17, 2018 Commissioner Tupper expressed her appreciation for the programming, the new partnerships, and the new programs being added. The communication pieces are really great too. page 33 Commissioner Levine expressed her appreciation for staff’s hard work and the great job they do. She has noticed a number of people out on the trails, in the parks, and the dog park is being used tremendously and is in really good shape. Commissioner Miller noted that a lot has happened this year; this group has seen some very good things happen both from performance of the staff and from the issues brought before the commission; it was a good year. Commissioner Klepperich took a minute to commend Commissioner Tupper for her outstanding work on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the city. She made a very nice presentation to the City Council recently and has written a whole section of the Comp Plan on Natural Resources. Chair Hinderscheid echoed the appreciations made to staff; the commission feels they have much stronger support from staff and that is very helpful. He thanked Student Representative Matthew Boland for being present. He also noted that there will be two open positions on the Parks and Recreation Commission and encouraged people to apply. He is excited to be a part of the subcommittee to work on the design of the Wentworth Park and Hagstrom King Park playground. 9. Adjourn Motion Goldade / Second Levine to adjourn the meeting at 7:49 PM AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 Minutes Taken By: C. Darlene Oehlke Independent Contractor page 34 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Application through Dakota County Introduction Attached is the annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application for federal fiscal [program] year 2019, along with an accompanying resolution for consideration and adoption. Information This year’s request is $22,161.00 for the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program. The program is administered by the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) and provides rehabilitation loans for owner-occupied housing meeting CDA income/benefit guidelines. The CDA will continue to administer all aspects of the loan program. Although the application document indicates the application “must be received by January 18, 2019”, the city did submit a preliminary application to the Dakota County CDA, which was tentatively accepted. The CDA requested the city adopt the attached resolution, which would indicate the city’s support and official approval to participate in the CDBG Program. Adopting this resolution after the application deadline date does not impact or disqualify the city from the 2019 CDBG Program. Budget Impact There are no impacts to the city budget. Recommendation Adopt RESOLUTION No. 2019-13 APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 35 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-13 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is a participating jurisdiction with the Dakota County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement Program for Fiscal Year 2019 (July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020); and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Community Development Agency is a sub-grantee of Dakota County for the administration of the CDBG Program; and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Community Development Agency has requested federal fiscal year 2019 CDBG applications be submitted by January 19, 2018, based on allocation of funds approved in the Community Development Implementation Plan. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota that the following points be approved: 1. The Federal Fiscal Year 2019 CDBG application is approved for submission to the Dakota County Community Development Agency; 2. The City Administrator or Community Development Director for the City of Mendota Heights are authorized to execute the application and all agreements and documents relating to receiving and using the awarded CDBG funds; and 3. The Dakota County Community Development Agency is designated as the administrative entity to carry out the CDBG Home Rehabilitation Loans program on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of February, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 36 page 37 page 38 page 39 page 40 page 41 page 42 page 43 page 44 Request for City Council Action DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: City Administrator Contract Amendment Two Introduction The City Council is asked to approve an amendment to the City Administrator’s employment agreement. Background Staff has prepared and the City Attorney has reviewed, the attached Amendment Two to the City Administrator Employment Agreement. The proposed amendment removes the payment of a monthly automobile allowance in the amount of $200. In lieu of receiving an automobile allowance, the amendment proposes to increase the City Administrator’s annual compensation by $200 per month. If approved, the provisions of Amendment Two to the City Administrator Employment Agreement would be effective retroactive to February 1, 2019. Budget Impact The City Administrator’s car allowance and base salary compensation are included in the budget. The budget increase to the City from this change would be that PERA, which is not paid on the vehicle allowance, would now be due on the additional salary. At 7.5%, that would add $180 annually as a cost to the City. In exchange for this consideration, Mr. McNeill agrees not to seek reimbursement for mileage driven. Recommendation Staff recommends approving Amendment Two to the City Administrator Employment Agreement. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve Amendment Two to the City Administrator Employment Agreement. page 45 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY ADMINISTRATOR SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This SECOND AMENDMENT to the CITY ADMINISTRATOR EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Second Amendment”) is made and entered into this day of February, 2019, by and between the City of Mendota Heights, a municipal corporation and political subdivision under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the “City”), and Mark McNeill (the “Employee”). WHEREAS, the City currently employs Employee as its City Administrator and both parties have previously entered into a City Administrator Employment Agreement executed February 17, 2015 (the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2017 the City and Employee entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement, related to an increase in the Employee’s vacation amount from 120 hours per year to 160 hours per year; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to further amend the Agreement through the provisions of this Second Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to the following amendment: 1. Section 7 of the Agreement, titled Automobile Allowance, is hereby amended to remove the provision of $200 per month in automobile allowance, payable from the City to the Employee. 2. In lieu of receiving an automobile allowance, Section 2 of the Agreement, titled Compensation, is hereby amended to increase the annual compensation of the City Administrator by $200 per month. This change in compensation shall be effective beginning February 1, 2019. 3. Except as expressly amended and altered by this Second Amendment, all provisions, obligations and responsibilities of the Agreement shall continue to be obligatory and binding on the City and the Employee. This Second Amendment to the City Administrator Employment Agreement was reviewed and considered by the City Council and approved by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, on February , 2019. EMPLOYEE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Mark McNeill Neil Garlock, Mayor Date ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk Date page 46 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Final Payment and Acceptance of the Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvements COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council approve Resolution 2019-12, accepting the work and approving the final payment. BACKGROUND The City Council awarded the contract to Valley Paving, Inc. at their May 16, 2017, City Council meeting for their low bid of $1,650,939.72. A change order of $172,232.15 was approved by Council during the project, resulting in a contract amount of $1,823,171.87. DISCUSSION The contract work for the Mendota Heights Road and Kensington Street Improvements Projects have been completed, inspected, and approved. The project is ready for final payment. This will start the one-year guarantee period. All required paperwork needed before final payment has been submitted. BUDGET The final payment for this contract is $51,935.32 including retainage. The final costs for the project totaled $1,881,869.87 which was $58,698 over the contract amount. The overage can be attributed to the poor soils and added soil corrections that were needed. Funding for the project was based on a contract amount of $2,255,403 as provided in the feasibility report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Resolution No. 2019-12 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR PROJECT #201409 and 201616” ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2019-12 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR PROJECT #201409 and 201616, by simple majority vote. page 47 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-12 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR PROJECT #201409 and 201616 WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract with the City of Mendota Heights on May 16, 2017, with Valley Paving, Inc., of Shakopee, MN, has satisfactorily completed the improvements for the Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvement Project #201409 and 201616, in accordance with such contract. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby directed to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contract in the amount of $51,935.32, taking the contractor’s receipt in full. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of February 2019. ATTEST CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BY____________________________ BY___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Neil Garlock, Mayor page 48 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Grading Permit for Henry Sibley High School Athletic Field Improvements COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a grading permit for the Henry Sibley High School (HSHS) Athletic Field Improvements. BACKGROUND City Ordinance 14-1 requires that properties proposing any land disturbance activity in excess of 5,000 square feet apply for a grading permit if not part a separate approval process. The Henry Sibley Athletic Fields are part of a city approved project, however the school is looking to start site grading prior to submittal of the building permit. DISCUSSION City staff has been working with consultants for HSHS Improvements. Storm water calculations have been submitted showing that the improvements will be meeting the city requirements. The site grading will also include the utility connections for sanitary sewer and water for which separate permits will be issued. BUDGET IMPACT The Mendota Heights fee schedule identifies a $200 fee for this activity to cover staff time in reviewing and inspecting the improvements. In addition, there will be needed permits for Right- of-Way utility connections and sewer permits. Beginning on January 1st 2019, Mendota Heights also requires developers to submit an escrow equivalent to 125% of the cost to provide erosion control of the site for compliance with city ordinances. Mendota Heights would then be able to make charges against this account if the contractor is negligent in meeting the requirements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council approve the grading permit for HSHS Athletic Fields and to begin grading operations on the site once weather allows. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion authorizing staff to issue the Grading Permit for HSHS Athletic Fields. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 49 962963964 964964965 965965966 966966967967967968968 968968968969969969969969969969969969970970 970970 970970970970970970 970970970970970970970970970 970970970970971971971971971971971971972972972972973973973973973973974974974974974974975975975975 975975975976976 976976 976960961962962963963964964965965966966966970976976977977 977977 977977977978978978 978979 979979 979980 980980 980981981981981982982982982982 982982 983 983983 966967967966967967968969970983982981970 969973974968965 966967 968968983980979982 962964955954966967964963962965966960959957955958964966965966968970973 975 9769789729829819829809799651234567898765432112345678989764532112345678912188259128241010263417LOW LOW, -1 ' LOW HIGH 123111+2 HCPCProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateRevision DescriptionKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision,and that I am a duly Licensedunder the laws of the State of Minnesota.Printed Name:Signature:Date:License #:Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc.These drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenpermission of LSE Architects, Inc. ©LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERINGANDERSON - JOHNSONASSOCIATES,INC.7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129C0.02JRPJRPAugust 27, 201818.1008.00PROPOSEDDRAINAGE MAPVARIANCE SUBMITTALxx/xx/xx23543Jay R. Pomeroy1897 Delaware AvenueMendota Heights, MN 55118HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITYP11PP2P32LP4P51L2PPOOL BUILDING PART OF FUTURE PHASEpage 50 Storm Water Management Report Henry Sibley Multi-Purpose Athletic Facility January 4, 2019 page 51 DESIGN NARRATIVE Independant School District 197 is proposing to reconstruct the athletic facilities at Henry Sibley Highschool located at 1897 Delaware Avenue, Mendota Heights, MN. Included in the work is reconstructing the track and field facilities as well as the tennis courts to the south. Improvements will also be made to the existing baseball field and soccer field to the east. The project is planned for construction during the summer of 2019 and completed by the start of school in the fall of 2019. Other improvements to the Highschool including a pool building and additional parking to the south will be part of a later phase. The This design narrative will address each of the design aspects related to storm water management for this phase as required by the City of Mendota Heights and the MPCA. EXISTING INFORMATION AND DESIGN PARAMETERS A topographic survey for the High School site was conducted in the summer of 2018 by Sunde Land Surveying. This survey was used as the design base for the project. BASIS FOR DESIGN The Watershed District’s requirements matrix is summarized as follows (from Table 4): The work constitutes redevelopment. There will be an increase in impervious surface. The site size is larger than one acre. Site disturbance is less than 40%. Impervious surface increase is less than 50%. Therefore, water quality, rate control and volume control are required for the added impervious surface. Rate control is required for the 2, 10 and 100 year storm events (MSE3 Distribution) and the proposed runoff rate shall not exceed the existing runoff rate for these storm events. For volume control, the stormwater report shall provide the abstraction of the first 1.1 inches of runoff from the sites new (added) impervious area. Water quality is required to meet 80% TSS and 50% TP. In addition, the State of Minnesota, through the NPDES permit, requires 1 inch of runoff be infiltrated, except on sites with Type D soils. page 52 RATE CONTROL Rate control has been accomplished using the Underground Filtration System (UGS1 1P) to the southeast of the proposed track. Also the porous stone and sand subbase (2P) beneath the proposed synthetic turf provides rate control for the track area (subcatchment P1) that drains to it. After discussion with the City of Mendota Heights engineer, the void space in the sand subbase was determined to be acceptable to include in the rate control model. Outlet devices for the UGS1 1P include the pipe outlet from the system, and the filtration through the sand filter which is collected in the draintile beneath. Outlet devices from the Turf Section 2P include the track draintile, 12 inch flat draintile and 6 inch draintile which all drains to the pipe outlet from MH 101. Flow rates through the core of the 12 inch flat draintile is noted on the ADS technical sheet included in this report. Some infiltration into the subgrade was also included at a rate of 0.06 inches per hour which is conservative for the mix of silty and clay soils at subgrade. Proposed rates of runoff do not exceed existing rates of runoff for the 2, 10 and 100 year storm events. WATER QUALITY AND VOLUME CONTROL Water Quality through Volume Control/Abstraction is not feasible at all locations at this site due to the presence of a mix of silty and clay soils. Filtration is proposed at UGS1 1P for the area (Subcatchment P3) draining to that system. A sump manhole with a hooded outlet upstream of UGS1 1P serves as pretreatment. Per conversations with the City engineer, some infiltration is expected beneath the track turf and sand subbase and so water quality is accomplished for the track impervious area draining to the turf field (Subcatchment P1). Subcatchment P1 is also expected to be very clean water since there is minimal traffic there. With these two systems it is shown that the required amount of impervious area to be treated is captured and treated by one system or the other. 80% TSS and 50% TP removal rates are acheived. See Storm Quality Calculations. Subcatchments P2, P4, and P5 are not captured or treated. As discussed above the assumed infiltration rate is 0.06 inches per hour based on Type D soils and Table 12.BIO.8 from the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Filtration rate is 0.80 inches per hour based on Type A soils for UGS1 1P sand filter. page 53 DRAINAGE SUMMARY 1L North to Marie Ave - Existing 1L North to Marie Ave - Proposed Event Peak Flow Elevation Peak Flow Event Peak Flow Elevation Peak Flow Design OK? (cfs) (ft) (cfs)(cfs)(ft) (cfs) 2 Yr 3.93 N/A 3.93 2 Yr 3.93 N/A 3.93 YES 10 Yr 8.55 N/A 8.55 10 Yr 8.55 N/A 8.55 YES 100 Yr 20.94 N/A 20.94 100 Yr 20.94 N/A 20.94 YES 2L West to Warrior Drive - Existing 2L West to Warrior Drive - Proposed Event Peak Flow Elevation Peak Flow Event Peak Flow Elevation Peak Flow Design OK? (cfs) (ft) (cfs)(cfs)(ft) (cfs) 2 Yr 29.04 N/A 29.04 2 Yr 26.82 N/A 26.82 YES 10 Yr 54.37 N/A 54.37 10 Yr 50.60 N/A 50.60 YES 100 Yr 117.50 N/A 117.50 100 Yr 104.22 N/A 104.22 YES Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow page 54 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Out of State Travel – Fire Dept. Instructors Conference COMMENT: Introduction: The Council is asked to approve out of state travel for two members of the Fire Department. This would be to attend a Fire Department Instructors Conference. Background: City policy requires that all out of state travel for City Council and City employees be approved by the City Council in advance. The 2019 Fire Department Instructors Conference (FDIC) is being held April 8th to April 13th in Indianapolis, IN. I am recommending that two firefighters attend the conference. The conference has been attended by firefighters in the past and they have found it to be a very worthwhile event. The training at this conference is specifically designed to help firefighters meet the training challenges for fire departments in today’s ever changing environment. Budget Impact: The Fire Department budgets for the costs of the travel, hotel, meals and registration. The conference registration is $600/each, air fare is approximately $300.00/each, meals would be about $162/each and the hotel is approximately $520 each night for five nights. The firefighters who attend will need to take time off from their regular jobs to attend the conference. It has not yet been determined which firefighters will attend this year’s conference; however, approval now will allow for the most favorable registration and lodging options. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the out of town travel for two firefighters. Action Required: If the City Council concurs with the recommendation, it should, by motion, authorizing two firefighters to travel out of state to the Fire Department Instructors Conference in Indianapolis, IN. page 55 DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Terry Blum – Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Purchase of Public Works Dump Truck INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to approve the purchase of a dump truck for use by the Public Works Department. BACKGROUND: The Street Department 2019 Budget includes $70,000 for the purchase of a truck and accessories. The truck we are replacing is a 2009 F550 dump truck. We received a quote from the state contract (from Inver Grove Ford) in the amount of $57,330, with a trade-in allowance of $10,000. We also received a quote for the dump box for $22,617, and plow for $7,354. Those prices are also from the State contract. As a result, the total cost of the truck, dump box and plow is $77,301. That is $7,300 over the budgeted amount. This is in part because our estimate of trade-in value of the old truck was $5000 higher. BUDGET IMPACT: The 2019 Budget includes $70,000 for the purchase of the new truck and accessories. The difference from the budgeted amount will be made up through other departmental line items. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the purchase of the new truck from Inver Grove Ford in the amount of $57,330; approve the dump box purchase in the amount of $22,617 from Towmaster Truck Equipment, Inc; and the plow in the amount of $7,354, from Stonebrooke Equipment, Inc. page 56 ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, they should pass a motion approving the following purchases:  A new 2019 SD dump truck from Inver Grove Ford in the amount of $57,330;  The dump box purchase in the amount of $22,617 from Towmaster Truck Equipment, Inc.; and  The plow in the amount of $7,354, from Stonebrooke Equipment, Inc. This requires a simple majority vote. page 57 MEETING DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Renewal of Contractor Agreement for Building Official Services – 2019 COMMENT Introduction The Council is asked to renew the agreement with A to Z Home Inspection, LLC (Mike Andrejka) for Building Official and inspections services, which includes an increase in compensation. Background The City of Mendota Heights is required to have a designated Building Official. For the past 5 years, the City has contracted with Michael Andrejka, who serves as the city’s designated Building Official. During this period, the City has received few, if any, complaints about the service he provides to our residents and businesses, and overall staff is very pleased with his work and service to the community. Mr. Andrejka is an experienced and certified building inspector and has vast experience in Dakota County in monitoring and inspecting construction. Mike has worked as a contracted inspector with other companies, and has served as building inspector for Apple Valley, Inver Grove Heights, Saint Louis Park, Minneapolis and Bloomington. In addition, Mr. Andrejka has been a home renovation contractor. A research analysis and comparison of other similar contracting services was recently performed by city staff, and finds that the current rate of $60 per hour is below the average of private building inspection companies. Budget Impact Mr. Andrejka is currently paid $60/hour under the 2018 contract; and provides an average of 25-30 hours per week. Compensation does not include holiday, vacation, or sick leave pay. Mr. Andrejka and staff negotiated an increased fee of $70.00 per hour, which is near or slightly below the average rate of other [competing] contracting inspection companies. This new rate is reflected in the attached and updated contract document. The Building Official budget has an amount included for approximately 25 hours per week at $70 an hour. If the average is closer to 30 hours per week, the amount paid will be greater than budgeted. However, the revenues from building permit fees will still be adequate to cover the increase. Recommendation Staff recommends Council approve the attached contract with A to Z Home Inspection, LLC. The attached proposed Contract has been reviewed by the City Attorney for content, who noted no changes at this time. page 58 Action Required If Council wishes to implement staff’s recommendation to increase the hourly rate of pay for A to Z Home Inspections, it should pass a motion approving the attached contract. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 59 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT Building Official Services Contract between A to Z Home Inspection (Mike Andrejka – Building Official Contractor) and the City of Mendota Heights This Independent Contractor Agreement – Building Official Services Contract (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of this ______ day of February, 2019 by and between Mike Andrejka, of A to Z Home Inspection, LLC hereafter referred to as “Contractor”, and the City of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation and political subdivision, hereafter referred to as “City”. This Agreement shall be deemed in effect immediately upon adoption by the Mendota Heights City Council. WHEREAS, the City regulates the construction, reconstruction, repair, remodel, alteration, and demolition of structures as defined by the Minnesota State Building Code, hereafter referred to as the “Code”; and WHEREAS, under Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3, Paragraph B of the City Code of the City of Mendota Heights (the “City Ordinance”), the “code enforcement officer” appointed by the City Council, specifically known as the “Building Official” shall have the responsibility for enforcing and administering the Code; and WHEREAS, the City requires the Building Official to administer and enforce the Code within the incorporated limits of the City and within the exterritorial limits as permitted by Minnesota Statutes §326B.121; and WHEREAS, Contractor and/or their agents is certified and qualified to administer and enforce the provisions and regulations set forth by the Code; and WHEREAS, the City desires to utilize Contractor’s services as an independent contractor in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Contractor desires to provide these services to the City as an independent contractor and the City desires to utilize Contractor’s services for the purposes described in this Agreement. THEREFORE, for mutual consideration the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. During the term of this Agreement, as the City Council appointed ‘designated Building Official’ for the City, Contractor agrees to administer and enforce the provisions of the Code and other related duties as directed by the City Council or City staff. All parties understand that as the ‘designated Building Official”, Contractor is obligated to perform their duties and responsibilities to the best of their abilities under the laws of the Code. If an unresolvable conflict arises between the request of the City Council or City staff and the legal duties required by the Code, the Code shall dictate the actions of the Building Official. Administration and enforcement of the Code shall include the following duties: page 60 a. Facilitate the issuance of Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, and other designated Permits for the City; b. perform plan review of construction documents and plans to ensure compliance with the Code; c. Perform required inspections and review specialized inspection reports as required by the Code or as deemed necessary by the Building Official; d. Perform investigations, inspections, and prepare reports and letters sent on behalf of the City Building Inspection Department; e. Attend meetings and submit reports as deemed necessary and pertinent by the City Council. This would include, at a minimum, a monthly Building Activity Report that summarizes the month's building permit activity. Permits and reviews for the following are excluded from this Agreement and are the responsibility of others: Minnesota Fire Code; Fire Suppression Systems; Minnesota Electrical Code; Minnesota Elevator Code; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permits; and Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS) regulations. 2. The City agrees to provide Contractor with access to pertinent information, records, systems and data, as deemed necessary to perform all duties of this Agreement. 3. Contractor shall provide all tools, transportation, and communication devices deemed necessary to perform the duties of this Agreement. 4. The City will provide Contractor with a work station, city phone (land-line) with voice mail account, and a desktop computer with e-mail account. Additionally, Contractor will be provided access to office equipment (copier, scanner, fax, etc.) and supplies for use in performance of City Building Official duties, along with City business cards and a City photo identification card. 5. Contractor shall perform the duties of this Agreement at such locations and at such times as they deem appropriate to diligently, reasonably, and in good faith execute the terms of this Agreement. It is estimated that the work required to fulfill the terms of the Agreement will be approximately 30 hours per week on average. 6. Contractor shall provide the City with access to any books, documents, papers, and records which are directly related to the duties of this Agreement, for the purpose of performing an audit, examination or review of such documents. This obligation to provide the City access to such books, documents, papers, and records shall begin as of the date of this Agreement and shall extend up to three years after the termination of this Agreement, or as otherwise required by applicable record retention statutes and regulations in effect at the time of the termination. page 61 7. All plans, diagrams, reports, and documents created in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Such use and retention by the City shall not relieve any liability on the part of Contractor. 8. Contractor shall comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (the “Act”), and all information supplied by Contractor to City is subject to the Act. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the City shall be entitled to disclose data related to this Agreement as required by the Act and other applicable law. Such information shall become public data unless it falls into one of the exceptions of the Act. Contractor shall notify the City of any data that they believe should be classified as non-public data pursuant to the Act. 9. The laws of the State of Minnesota shall control this Agreement. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this Agreement or its breach shall be in Dakota County, Minnesota. 10. This Agreement, in conjunction with City Ordinance Title 9, contains the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the matters contained herein, and supersedes all other written and oral agreements between the parties with respect to such matters. 11. This Agreement is binding only when signed by both parties. Any modifications or amendments must be in writing and signed by both parties, and in the case of the City, approved by action of the City Council. 12. If any provision or provision of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 13. If a contract dispute regarding the terms of this Agreement arises, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect its attorney’s fees and related costs. 14. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, any one of which shall be deemed to be an original, but such counterparts when taken together, shall constitute but one agreement. 15. Contractor represents and warrants that no member, official officer, nor employee of the City has or shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. 16. This Agreement does not create a partnership relationship between Contractor and the City. Contractor does not have the authority to enter into contracts on the City’s behalf. 17. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to create an employer-employee relationship between the City and Contractor. At all times, Contractor shall act as an independent contractor and shall exercise independent supervision and control over the means and manner by which Contractor performs the services and duties under this Agreement. Contractor shall be responsible for the performance and completion of the services under this Agreement and shall be solely responsible for the setting of work page 62 hours and schedules necessary to complete the services set forth herein. The City does not provide training or instruction for Contractor, or financially reimburse Contractor for the same, without express written consent and approval by City Council. The services under this Agreement shall be performed at the locations selected by Contractor; however, the City will provide a work station location at which the services under this Agreement can be administered and performed. Consistent with the relationship between the parties to this Agreement, the City will not be obligated to carry or provide for Contractor workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, health insurance, or any other benefits or prerequisites that the City accords to any of its employees; nor will the City withhold state or federal taxes on the fees paid to Contractor. Contractor agrees to supply its tax identification number or employer identification number from the Internal Revenue Service and, if applicable, Contractor’s state taxpayer identification number, and to comply with all tax laws applicable to the operation of a business such as Contractor’s, including but not limited to reporting of all gross receipts therefrom as income from the operation of the business, the payment of all taxes, compliance with all employment tax requirements from withholding on any employees hired by Contractor, and compliance with state employment workers’ compensation laws. Contractor acknowledges that payments by the City to Contractor will be subject to information reporting requirements (and backup withholding requirements, if and as applicable), as the same are imposed by applicable law. As an independent contractor, Contractor shall not receive any pension or fringe benefits, including but not limited to Public Employee’s Retirement Association (PERA) contributions, vacation, or sick/personal leave, disability, health, medical, or dental insurance, holiday pay or other benefits. The City does not provide equipment, supplies, tools, or materials necessary to perform the services under this Agreement except for those explicitly stated herein. The City shall provide to Contractor an IRS Form 1099 with respect to consideration paid to Contractor for services under this Agreement. Contractor is responsible to pay all state and federal taxes on the amounts they receive from the City. 18. Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any of the services to be provided under this Agreement without prior knowledge and approval of the City. 19. The City places a priority on customer service; as such, Contractor agrees to respond to e-mail and voice mails as promptly as possible. In addition, plan reviews are to be completed in an expedient manner. As a rule-of-thumb, plan reviews (if subject application is deemed complete) should be completed and returned to the applicant within two (2) weeks of receipt for residential plans and within three (3) weeks of receipt for commercial plans. 20. Contractor and the City agree to abide to the obligations and conditions stipulated by Minnesota Rules, Section 1300.0110, Subp. 9, LIABILITY, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 326B.121 and 326B.133, as well as all obligations and conditions that directly relate to the “Building Official” within the Code. 21. For the services provided by Contractor under this Agreement, the City agrees to make payments as set forth below: page 63 a. As payment for Building Official services provided under this Agreement, Contractor shall receive from the City the hourly compensation of: $70.00. b. All work shall be billed on a bi-weekly basis and shall be due and payable from the City within thirty (30) days of receipt of such bill. c. Invoicing of this compensation shall be divided by Contractor and shown on the invoice divided into the following categories: • Building Permit Inspection • Plan Review • Meetings/Reports Monthly reports to the City Council, whether oral or written, and attendance at City Council meetings shall be considered on a case-by-case basis and may be billable to the City or directly to the permit applicant as determined by City staff. 22. Neither party shall assign this Agreement or any interest arising herein without consent of the other party. 23. The provisions of this Agreement shall become effective retroactive to January 1, 2019. This Agreement may be terminated by either party with or without cause upon thirty (30) days written notice. Such termination shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties accrued prior to the termination date. Sections 6 and 18 shall survive the termination of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year written below. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA ___________________________________________ _____________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor Date ATTEST: ___________________________________________ _____________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Date: A TO Z HOME INSPECTIONS, LLC ___________________________________________ _____________________ Mike Andrejka Date page 64 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: December 2018 Fire Synopsis COMMENT: Fire Calls For the final month of 2018, the Mendota Heights Fire Department was paged out to 19 incidents. Of those, 14 were located in Mendota Heights, three in Mendota, one in Sunfish Lake and there was one mutual aid request for us to respond to West Saint Paul (South Metro Fire). It should also be mentioned that two of the calls for the month were classified as “smoke in a building” which causes an auto aid request from the closest neighboring department apparatus. In both of these cases, that aid was received from South Metro Fire. Of the 19 calls, five were medical in nature, four were hazmat based calls (including two possible natural gas leaks, one carbon monoxide call and one power line down call), one call did require smoke removal from the home, five calls were tagged as good intent, and one was a false alarm. We were also dispatched for auto aid to South Metro Fire for a structure fire that they had in West Saint Paul. There were a total of 308 fire calls for the year. Department trainings for the month of December covered the following topics: Fire Ground Communication - This training had two stations that firefighters had to go through to improve fire ground communications. The first involved interpreting a photo of a fire/rescue scenario, describe it over the radio and have the firefighters listening to the transmission to be able to correctly identify the photo that was being described. The second station involved having firefighters in full gear wearing blindfolds, locate equipment needed in the fire bay, identify it and then, once all parts were found, assemble the pieces correctly as another firefighter was instructing them from another room and unable to see them. Ventilation - This training went over the two primary types of ventilation that we use in the fire service: Vertical (typically done by cutting holes in the roof to allow smoke and super-heated gases to escape), horizontal (often accomplished via the use of windows and doors to improve interior conditions) and the tools that we use to accomplish the ventilation desired. In addition, an emphasis was also placed as to the dangers that happen if ventilation is done inappropriately. Forcible Entry - This training was to go over techniques for making access into structures that may have locked doors. In particular, defeating the lock while still being able to control the door to prevent large amounts of air in the room to potentially feed the fire. Alarm Systems - This drill was scheduled to be held at the Eagan Fire Department using their alarm system simulator but at the last minute Eagan found that they had double booked the space. Instead, fire ground communications was offered to those in attendance. Make Up Training - This drill opportunity allows for customization. A topic is chosen for firefighters that are behind in training for the six month period. page 65 MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 2018 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE CALLS NO. 18290 -18308 NUMBER OF CALLS:19 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $1,050,000 Structure - MH Residential $175,300 Structure - Contract Areas $550 Cooking Fire - Confined Vehicle - MH $25,500 Vehicle - Contract Areas $8,000 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES MEDICAL Assist 5 $0 $0 $0 Extrication HAZARDOUS SITUATION FIRE LOSS TOTALS MENDOTA HEIGHTS Spills/Leaks 2 Arcing/Shorting ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MON $0 $1,259,350 Chemical Power Line Down 1 MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $1,225,300 FALSE ALARM Residential Malfunction MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $23,500 Commercial Malfunction Unintentional - Commercial 1 MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $1,248,800 Unintentional - Residential Criminal GOOD INTENT Smoke Scare 2 Carbon Monoxide 1 STRUCTURE CONTENT Steam Mistaken for Smoke Other 6 SPRINKLER ACTIVATION - MH 80,000.00$ 15,000.00$ MUTUAL AID 1 TOTAL CALLS 19 $0 LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS:TO DATE LAST YEAR TOTALS:$80,000 $15,000 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 14 235 226 MENDOTA 3 16 11 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH SUNFISH LAKE 1 11 19 LILYDALE 0 30 33 INSPECTIONS 33.5 OTHER 1 16 14 INVESTIGATIONS TOTAL 19 308 303 RE-INSPECTION WORK PERFORMED HOURS TO DATE LAST YEAR MEETINGS FIRE CALLS 266 4158 4406 MEETINGS 74.5 479.5 445.5 ADMINISTRATION 10 DRILLS 228.5 1937.75 1829.75 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 7 2340.75 2614.5 SPECIAL PROJECTS 4.5 FIRE MARSHAL 48 523 513 TOTAL FOR FIRE MARSHAL 48 TOTALS 624 9439 9808.75 REMARKS:SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS MISC LOSS - TOTALS page 66 page 67 page 68 page 69 page 70 page 71 page 72 page 73 page 74 page 75 page 76 page 77 page 78 page 79 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Recognition of Litton Field, Jr.—Planning Commissioner Date: February 5, 2019 Comment: Introduction: At its meeting of February 5th, Litton Field, Jr. will be recognized for his service to the City as a retiring Planning Commissioner. Background: Mr. Field began his membership on the Planning Commission when he was appointed to fill an unexpired term. The appointment was on September 4, 2007. He subsequently served an additional three 3 year terms, which ended on January 31st of this year. He served for many of those years as Chair of the Commission, and he also was the Planning Commission representative on the City’s Traffic Safety Committee. Because of the City’s policy limiting service to three consecutive terms, he must retire from the Board. His knowledge and experience will be greatly missed. Action Required: A plaque recognizing Litton Field, Jr. for his service to the City as Planning Commissioner will be presented to him at the February 5th City Council meeting. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 80 DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: Mayor, Council, City Administrator and Chief of Police FROM: Captain Wayne Wegener SUBJECT: Body Camera Policy Public Input and Acquisition Information INTRODUCTION: At the February 5th City Council meeting, Capt. Wegener will give information regarding acquisition, implementation, and policy regarding body worn cameras. The public will be provided with an opportunity to comment and provide feedback. BACKGROUND: In 2018, the City Council approved the purchase and implementation of body worn cameras. The public has been afforded several opportunities to comment including by email, in person, phone, and at the September 17th City Council Meeting. Capt. Wegener will provide more details and answer any questions that the council or the public may have. We ask that the council allow for public comments or questions on the subject. ACTION REQUIRED: Unless concerns with their uses are raised, it is expected that implementation of the use of body cameras will begin by April 1st. page 81 DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Ordinance 537 Establishing Fees and Charges for 2019 BACKGROUND Per MN State Statutes 462.353, the adoption of a fee schedule, that includes planning and zoning fees, requires a public hearing to allow for citizen input. The public hearing notice was published on January 15, 2019. Fees are reviewed annually by staff to ensure that rate structures accurately reflect the cost of services provided. Any fee increases are proposed by the departments charging the fee. DISCUSSION There are only a few changes to the fee schedule that have not been previously approved by the City Council. The notable changes for 2019 include the following: Department Fee Changed 2019 New Fee Proposed 2018 Fee Administration Domestic Chicken Coop Permit $15 per coop(approved by Council on 3-18- 2018) $25 Engineering Addition of a Stormwater Management Permit – Escrow Only $1,500 or amount equal to 125% of estimated cost to accomplish compliance with approved storm-water management permit, whichever is greater --- Parks and Recreation Field Reservations for baseball, softball, soccer, football, lacrosse Priority Level 3 - $7 per player per season Priority Level 4 - $10 per player per season Priority Level 5 - $10 per hour per field Priority Level 6, 7 - $15 per hour per field $35 for two hours + $25 application fee (once per application) Field preparation fees- Non Tournament $35.00 per field per day Actual Cost Field preparation fees- Tournaments Priority Levels 3 & 4 - $35 per field per day $35 page 82 Field preparation fees- Tournaments- Optional Priority Levels 5, 6, 7 - $35 per field per day $35 Deleting Field Chalk and Field Drying Agent charges Remove from schedule $10 / $15 per bag Ice Rink Reservation Priority Level 3 - $4 per hour per rink Priority Level 4 - $6 per hour per rink Priority Level 5 - $4 per hour per rink Priority Level 6, 7 - $8 per hour per rink $35 per hour for 2 hours + $25 application fee (once per application) Par 3 10-round pass $100 $90 Tournament Field Reservation for Baseball, softball, soccer Priority Levels 3,4,5,6,7 - $50 per day per field $200 + $25 application fee (once per application) A marked up copy of the entire fee schedule is attached which shows the changes to be made for 2019. The changes are highlighted in yellow. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing on the proposed fee schedule, take public input, and consider the adoption of Ordinance 537 Establishing Fees and Charges for 2019 and the summary publication of the ordinance. ACTION REQUIRED Following the the holding of the Public Hearing, the Council should adopt Ordinance 537 Establishing Fees and Charges for 2019, and approve the summary publication of the ordinance. Approval of the Ordinance requires a simple majority vote of the Council. Approval of the Summary Publication of the Ordinance requires a 4/5th vote of the Council. page 83 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 537 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING FEES FOR SERVICES The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Policy and Purpose. By the enactment of this Ordinance, the City Council intends to establish fees and charges required by the City Code for the year 2019 and to comply with Minnesota Statutes 462.353, subd. 4. Fees and Charges. The fees and charges for the City for the year 2019 are set forth in ‘Exhibit A’ hereto attached. Application. Where a direct conflict exists between the amount of a fee or charge set by any provision of the City Code and a fee or charge set by this Ordinance, the fee or charge set by this Ordinance applies. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 5th day of February, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 84 SUMMARY PUBLICATION CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 537 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES FOR SERVICES FOR 2019 The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby establish fees and charges required by the City Code for the year 2019 and to comply with Minnesota Statutes 462.353, subd. 4. The complete text of this ordinance may be obtained at the Mendota Heights City Hall or from the City’s website at www.mendota-heights.com. Adopted this 5th day of February, 2019. CITY COUNCIL OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS /s/Neil Garlock, Mayor Attest: /s/ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 85 2019 City of Mendota Heights Fee Schedule Adopted by City Council on February 5, 2019 Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 537 page 86 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FEE SCHEDULE 2019 Proposed 2019 2018 ADMINISTRATION FEE SCHEDULE Assessment Search $15/search $15/search Certification of Delinquent Sewer Accounts $50/per certification $50/per certification Non-compliant Sump Pump Connection $75 per quarter $75 per quarter City Ordinance Book $75/book $75/book Comprehensive Plan $50/Complete; $30/One Volume $50/Complete; $30/One Volume Election Filing Fee Per MN Statutes 205.13 (3)$5 $5 Mailing Costs Actual or $1/minimum Actual or $1/minimum Notary Public Residents, businesses, license applicants only No charge No charge Returned Checks $30 /check $30 /check TIF / Abatement Application Fee $1,200 $1,200 Photo Copies 1 to 100 pages $ .25/single sided page $ .25/single sided page Photo Copies over 100 pages $ .25/ single sided page plus staff time $ .25/ single sided page plus staff time Request for Public Data MN Statutes, Chapter 13 $.00 to review info at city hall; $.25 per single sided copy; staff time charged when over 100 copies $.00 to review info at city hall; $.25 per single sided copy; staff time charged when over 100 copies DVD or CD with Photos/Audio/Video $10 $10 DATA REQUESTS: the City adheres to MN Data Practices Act, MN Statutes Chap 13 Page 2 of 11 page 87 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FEE SCHEDULE 2019 Proposed 2019 2018 ADMINISTRATION FEE SCHEDULE Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Intoxicating Liquor Off Sale limited by SS 340A.408 Subd. 3. a.(3)$150.00 $150.00 Intoxicating Liquor On-Sale Tier 1 Tier 1 license defined in Code 3-1-12. B.$10,000 $10,000 Intoxicating Liquor On-Sale Tier 2 Tier 2 license defined in Code 3-1-12. B.$7,500 $7,500 Intoxicating Liquor On-Sale Hotel Limited Service Hotel $3,000 $3,000 Club Liquor On-Sale limited by SS 340A.408 Subd. 2.b.$350 (for 201-500 club members) $300 (under 200 members) $350 (for 201-500 club members) $300 (under 200 members) Sunday Liquor limited by SS 340A.504 $200 $200 Wine On-Sale limited by SS 340A.408 Subd. 2.c.$2,000 $2,000 Wine On-Sale Institutional limited by SS 340A.408 Subd. 2.c.$250 $250 Malt Liquor Licenses Malt Liquor Off Sale (3.2%)$50 $50 Malt Liquor On Sale (3.2%)$250 $250 Temporary On Sale Liquor Licenses Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor, Malt Liquor, Wine Issued only to clubs, non-profits, religious organizations $50 / one to three day license $50 / one to three day license Application Investigation Fee Intoxicating Liquor, Wine, 3.2 Malt Liq Application Investigation Renewal $100/per establishment $100/per establishment Intoxicating Liquor, Wine, 3.2 Malt Liq Application Investigation New Licensees Limited by SS 340A.412 Subd. 2 $ 500/per establishment (additional charges if investigation needs to go out of state,then actual costs charged, up to $10,000) $ 500/per establishment (additional charges if investigation needs to go out of state,then actual costs charged, up to $10,000) Liquor License Violation First Violation within a 3 year rolling time period $ 500 fine $ 500 fine Second Violation within a 3 year rolling time period $ 750 fine + 3 day suspension of license $ 750 fine + 3 day suspension of license Third Violation within a 3 year rolling time period $1,500 fine + 10 day suspension of license $1,500 fine + 10 day suspension of license Fourth Violation within a 3 year rolling time period Revocation: minimum of 1 year from revocation date Revocation: minimum of 1 year from revocation date Page 3 of 11 page 88 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FEE SCHEDULE 2019 Proposed 2019 2018 ADMINISTRATION FEE SCHEDULE License and Permit Fees Dog License Not neutered or Not spayed $15 per dog $15 per dog Dog License Neutered or Spayed $10 per dog $10 per dog Domestic Chicken Coop Permit New License or Renewal Set by Council at 3-6-2018 mtg $15 per coop $25 per coop Massage Therapist License New licensee or renewal $50 $50 Massage Therapist License Investigation New licensee or renewal $50 $50 Massage Therapy Enterprise License New licensee or renewal $100 $100 Massage Therapy Enterprise License Investigation New licensee or renewal $100 $100 Rubbish Hauler License City Code 4-2-3. Fee not prorated $75 plus $10 per truck tag $75 plus $10 per truck tag Tobacco License City Code 3-2-4. Fee not prorated. $200/ annual $200/ annual Tobacco Investigation Fee New or Renewal $100 per establishment $100 per establishment Page 4 of 11 page 89 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FEE SCHEDULE 2019 Proposed 2019 2018 BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE Building Moving Permit $75 $75 Building Permit Fee Residential/Commercial Per Attachment A Per Attachment A Contractor License Annual $50/year $50/year Demolition Permit Per Attachment A Per Attachment A Mechanical Alteration or Replacement (including gas piping and gas fire place installation) Residential or Commercial 1% of value/$ 75 minimum 1% of value/$ 75 minimum Plan Review Fee Residential or Commercial Per Attachment A Exceptions ($50 fee): Decks, Basement Finishes, Kitchen Remodel, Bathroom Remodel, and similar projects. Per Attachment A Exceptions ($50 fee): Decks, Basement Finishes, Kitchen Remodel, Bathroom Remodel, and similar projects. Plumbing Permit Fee Residential or Commercial 1% of value/$ 75 minimum 1% of value/$ 75 minimum Public Utility or Improved Public ROW Connection Residential/Commercial parcels not assessed at time of past City improvement when surrounding lots were assessed (includes newly created lots) Amount assessed at time of improvement plus interest at rate offered to other assessments at time of improvement Amount assessed at time of improvement plus interest at rate offered to other assessments at time of improvement Roof Permit Commercial 1% of value/$100 minimum/$1,000 maximum 1% of value/$100 minimum/$1,000 maximum Roofing and Siding Permit Residential 1% of value/$100 minimum 1% of value/$100 minimum Sewer Permit Residential/Commercial $75 $75 Window Replacement Residential 1% of value/$75 minimum 1% of value/$75 minimum Page 5 of 11 page 90 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FEE SCHEDULE 2019 Proposed 2019 2018 ENGINEERING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FEE SCHEDULE Driveway Permit Replacement $50 $50 Driveway Permit New or Expanded $100 $100 Engineering and Drafting Services Actual costs plus staff time Actual costs plus staff time Feasibility Report Credit shall be given for information which can be used in plan and specification preparation Actual costs plus staff time Actual costs plus staff time Field Inspection and Staking Actual costs plus staff time Actual costs plus staff time Grading Permit $200 + $500 escrow $200 + $500 escrow Stormwater Management Permit - Escrow Only $1,500 or amount equal to 125% of estimated cost to accomplish compliance with approved storm-water management permit, whichever is greater Litigation Actual costs plus staff time Actual costs plus staff time Miscellaneous Charges Actual costs plus staff time Actual costs plus staff time Plans and Specifications Project Construction under $100,000 Actual costs plus staff time Actual costs plus staff time Plans and Specifications Project Construction over $100,000 7% of final contract amount 7% of final contract amount Preliminary Studies Actual costs plus staff time Actual costs plus staff time Professional Services on Planning Cases 1st hour per case Included/ thereafter actual costs plus staff time 1st hour per case Included/ thereafter actual costs plus staff time Public Right of Way General Excavation Permit $200 / flat fee $200 / flat fee Public Right of Way Utility Permit Commercial $200 / first 1000 feet $25 / each additional 100 feet $75 / winter surcharge fee (11/1 - 3/31) $200 / first 1000 feet $25 / each additional 100 feet $75 / winter surcharge fee (11/1 - 3/31) Public Right of Way Permit Residential $50 /flat fee $50 /flat fee Right-Of-Way Usage license $350 $350 Vacation - ROW or Easement $250 $250 Note: Staff time is computed on the basis of 250% of the employee’s hourly rate for the above services Page 6 of 11 page 91 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FEE SCHEDULE 2019 Proposed 2019 2018 ENGINEERING - MAPS, PLANS AND DRAWINGS FEE SCHEDULE CD of Data or Maps $10 plus map fee $10 plus map fee Maps/Plans/Drawings: Comprehensive Plan Critical Area GIS Land Use Plats Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer Street Asbuilts Wetlands Zoning Up to 11 x 17 Black and White $3 $3 Maps/Plans/Drawings: Comprehensive Plan Critical Area GIS Land Use Plats Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer Street Asbuilts Wetlands Zoning Up to 11 x 17 Color $10 $10 Maps/Plans/Drawings: Comprehensive Plan Critical Area GIS Land Use Plats Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer Street Asbuilts Wetlands Zoning Greater than 11 x 17 Black and White $6 $6 Maps/Plans/Drawings: Comprehensive Plan Critical Area GIS Land Use Plats Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer Street Asbuilts Wetlands Zoning Greater than 11 x 17 Color $20 $20 Page 7 of 11 page 92 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FEE SCHEDULE 2019 Proposed 2019 2018 PARKS AND RECREATION FEE SCHEDULE Application Fee Charged per permit request due at the time the application is submitted. Non- refundable. $25 Concessions Building Reservation Must provide proof of Food/Beverage License $25 per event per day $25 per event per day Field Reservation Baseball/Softball/Soccer/Football/Lacro sse Priority Level 3 $7 per player per season $35 for two hours + $25 application fee (once per application) Priority Level 4 $10 per player per season Priority Level 5 $10 per hour per field Priority Level 6 $15 per hour per field Priority Level 7 $15 per hour per field Field Preparation Non-Tournament Use $35 per field per day Actual Cost Incurred Field Preparation Tournament Use - Required for Priority Levels 3 and 4 $35 per field per day $35 Tournament Use - Optional for Priority Levels 5, 6, and 7 $35 per field per day Field Chalk No Charge, included in Field Prep Fees $10 per bag Field Drying Agent No Charge, included in Field Prep Fees $15 per bag Ice Rink Reservation Priority Level 3 $4 per hour per rink $35 per hour for 2 hours + $25 application fee (once per application) Priority Level 4 $6 per hour per rink Priority Level 5 $4 per hour per rink Priority Level 6 and 7 $8 per hour per rink Ice Rink Warming House Key Damage Deposit $100 Par 3 Footgolf Fees $8 per round $8 per round Par 3 Greens Fees Juniors/Seniors-Weekday $11 per round $11 per round Par 3 Greens Fees Juniors/Seniors-Weekend $13 per round $13 per round Par 3 Greens Fees Weekday $12 per round $12 per round Par 3 Greens Fees Weekend or Holiday $14 per round $14 per round Par 3 10-Round Pass $100 $90 Par 3 Pull Cart Rental $3 per round $3 per round Par 3 Power Cart Rental $10 per round $10 per round Page 8 of 11 page 93 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FEE SCHEDULE 2019 Proposed 2019 2018 PARKS AND RECREATION FEE SCHEDULE Picnic Area/Shelter Resident - Private $25 $50 Picnic Area/Shelter Non-Resident - Private $50 $75 Picnic Area/Shelter Resident - Business $50 $75 Picnic Area/Shelter Non-Resident - Business $100 $125 Picnic Area Cancellation 7 days advance notice 100% refund Picnic Area Cancellation Less than 7 days notice Not refundable Picnic Area Cancellation Due to inclement weather Not refundable but may be rescheduled at no additional charge Picnic Table Additional On-site $15 per table per day Canoe Rack Rental Canoe Storage @Rogers Lake Park during summer months $ 50 per summer $50 / summer + $25 application fee Park Bench Donation $1,000 per bench $1,000 per bench Tournament Field Reservation Baseball/Softball/Soccer Two-day tournament $400 + $25 application fee (once per application) Tournament Field Reservation Baseball/Softball/Soccer Priority Level 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 $50 per day per field $200 + $25 application fee (once per application) Tournament Additional Day(s)$45/per field Tournament Fee Softball or Soccer MHAA To Be Determined Tournament Additional Day(s)MHAA To Be Determined Tournament Damage Deposit Fee $300 Trash Pick-up Following Large Event, taken from damage deposit $100/event Tournament Cancellation Fee One month notice 100 % refundable Tournament Cancellation Fee 15 to 30 advance notice 50 % refundable Tournament Cancellation Fee 1 to 14 advance notice Not refundable Tennis Courts $25 application fee $25 application fee NOTE: Mendota Heights schools, city events, and non-profit civic organizations are fee exempt for Picnic Area/Shelter rental fees. Page 9 of 11 page 94 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FEE SCHEDULE 2019 Proposed 2019 2018 PLANNING FEE SCHEDULE Accessory Structure Permit For structures not requiring building permit $25 $25 After-the-Fact Permit For actions without appropriate zoning permits Double fee, or $250, whichever is greater Double fee, or $250, whichever is greater Appeal to Board of Zoning Appeals $250 + $500 escrow $250 + $500 escrow Comprehensive Plan Amendment $750 + $500 escrow $750 + $500 escrow Concept Plan Review for PUD/Plat $250 + $500 escrow $250 + $500 escrow Conditional Use Permit / Interim Use Permit Residential $350 + $500 escrow $350 + $500 escrow Conditional Use Permit / Interim Use Permit Commercial/Industrial $500 + $500 escrow $500 + $500 escrow Critical Area Permit $500 + $500 escrow + Security deposit determined by staff $500 + $500 escrow + Security deposit determined by staff Critical Area Permit-Administrative Per City Code 12-3-5. D.$200 + Security deposit determined by staff $200 + Security deposit determined by staff CUP for PUD $500 + $500 escrow $500 + $500 escrow Fence Permit $25 $25 Lot Split / Lot Line Adjustment $500 + $500 escrow $500 + $500 escrow Mining Permit $350 + $500 escrow $350 + $500 escrow Park Dedication Fee Single & Multi-Family Residential $ 4,000/ dwelling unit $ 4,000/ dwelling unit Park Dedication Fee New Commercial / Industrial Lot 10% assessed value of unimproved land determined by County Assessor 10% assessed value of unimproved land determined by County Assessor Rezoning $500 + $500 escrow $500 + $500 escrow Preliminary/Final Plat $750 + escrow amount $750 + escrow amount Escrow Table Residential districts - 0 to 10 units $100/unit, $250 minimum $100/unit, $250 minimum Res Districts, MR-PUD, HR-PUD districts- over 10 units $50/unit $50/unit Commerical/Industrial Districts, MU-PUD $1,500 $1,500 Sign Permit Triple fee charged if sign erected w/o permit; per Code 12-1D-15 B2 Per Attachment A Per Attachment A Temporary Sign Permit $25 $25 Variance Residential $300 + $500 escrow $300 + $500 escrow Variance Commercial or Industrial $500 + $500 escrow $500 + $500 escrow Wetlands Permit Residential $150 + $500 escrow and/or Security deposit determined by staff $150 + $500 escrow and/or Security deposit determined by staff Wetlands Permit Commercial or Industrial $200 + $500 escrow and/or Security deposit determined by staff $200 + $500 escrow and/or Security deposit determined by staff Wetlands Permit-Administrative Per City Code 12-2-6. C.$100 + Security deposit determined by staff $100 + Security deposit determined by staff Zoning Letter $50 $50 Zoning Ordinance Amendment $250 + $500 escrow $250 + $500 escrow Expenses billed to city charged against escrow. Remaining escrow returned to applicant. Applicants billed for city incurred expenses exceeding escrow. Page 10 of 11 page 95 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FEE SCHEDULE 2019 Proposed 2019 2018 PUBLIC SAFETY FEE SCHEDULE Fingerprints $15.00 per card $15.00 per card Car Seat Rental Residents Only $50 Deposit; check held for one month; upon return, $25 refund. If seat not returned within one month, deposit is non- refundable. $50 Deposit; check held for one month; upon return, $25 refund. If seat not returned within one month, deposit is non- refundable. Clearance Letter $5 $5 Copy of Incident Report Per IPAD/MSS 13.82 $.25/page up to 100 pages $.25/page up to 100 pages Copy of Accident Report In person, involved party request $.25/page up to 100 pages $.25/page up to 100 pages Copy of Accident Report Request from insurance or attorney Self-addressed, stamped envelope with signed release. If over 4 pgs, contact requestor for alt. payment. Self-addressed, stamped envelope with signed release. If over 4 pgs, contact requestor for alternate payment. Request for Public Data Per IPAD/MSS 13.82 $.00 if information is reviewed at city hall.$.00 if information is reviewed at city hall. CD with Photos/Audio/Video Per IPAD/MSS 13.82 $10 $10 Dog Impound Fee $ 67.00 for 1st Day $ 16.00 each day thereafter $ 67.00 for 1st Day $ 16.00 each day thereafter Vehicle Impound Current Tow Rate + Tax Current Tow Rate + Tax Vehicle Storage MHPD Indoor storage $ 35 per day $ 35 per day Basic Property Storage Stored at or by MHPD Small(2ftX4ft): $1/day Medium(5ftX7ft): $3/day Large(8ftX10ft): $5/day Off-Site: Actual costs Small(2ftX4ft): $1/day Medium(5ftX7ft): $3/day Large(8ftX10ft): $5/day Off-Site: Actual costs False Alarm, Police Per calendar year First three no charge, 4th-$50; 5th-$75; 6th- $100; ea add'l-add $25 First three no charge, 4th-$50; 5th-$75; 6th- $100; ea add'l-add $25 False Alarm, Fire Per calendar year First two no charge, third and each additional - $150/ea First two no charge, third and each additional - $150/ea Fire Alarm Permit Commercial Per Attachment A Per Attachment A Removal of Underground Fuel Tanks Residential/Commercial $50 minimum $50 minimum Plan Check Fee Per Attachment A Per Attachment A Fire Sprinkler Alteration Per Attachment A Per Attachment A Day Care Fire Inspection Per MN Statutes 299F.011 $50 $50 DATA REQUESTS: City adheres to IPAD guidelines and MN Statutes Chapter 13. Per IPAD/MSS 13.82: Must prove involvement in/relationship to accident and either present ID or a signed release Page 11 of 11 page 96 City of Mendota Heights - Building Permit Fees Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review$1.00 to $500.00 $25.00 $16.25 $31,001.00 to $32,000.00 $488.25 $317.36$501.00 to $600.00 $28.25 $18.36 $32,001.00 to $33,000.00 $499.00 $324.35$601.00 to $700.00 $31.50 $20.48 $33,001.00 to $34,000.00 $509.75 $331.34$701.00 to $800.00 $34.75 $22.59 $34,001.00 to $35,000.00 $520.50 $338.33$801.00 to $900.00 $38.00 $24.70 $35,001.00 to $36,000.00 $531.25 $345.31$901.00 to $1,000.00 $41.25 $26.81 $36,001.00 to $37,000.00 $542.00 $352.30$1,001.00 to $1,100.00 $44.50 $28.93 $37,001.00 to $38,000.00 $552.75 $359.29$1,101.00 to $1,200.00 $47.75 $31.04 $38,001.00 to $39,000.00 $563.50 $366.28$1,201.00 to $1,300.00 $51.00 $33.15 $39,001.00 to $40,000.00 $574.25 $373.26$1,301.00 to $1,400.00 $54.25 $35.26 $40,001.00 to $41,000.00 $585.00 $380.25$1,401.00 to $1,500.00 $57.50 $37.38 $41,001.00 to $42,000.00 $595.75 $387.24$1,501.00 to $1,600.00 $60.75 $39.49 $42 001.00 to $43,000.00 $606.50 $394.23$1,601.00 to $1,700.00 $64.00 $41.60 $43,001.00 to $44,000.00 $660.25 $429.16$1,701.00 to $1,800.00 $67.25 $43.71 $44,001.00 to $45,000.00 $628.00 $408.20$1,801.00 to $1,900.00 $70.50 $45.83 $45,001.00 to $46,000.00 $638.75 $415.19$1,901.00 to $2,000.00 $73.75 $47.94 $46,001.00 to $47,000.00 $649.50 $422.18$2,001.00 to $3,000.00 $88.50 $57.53 $47,001.00 to $48,000.00 $660.25 $429.16$3,001.00 to $4,000.00 $103.25 $67.11 $48,001.00 to $49,000.00 $671.00 $436.15$4,001.00 to $5,000.00 $118.00 $76.70 $49,001.00 to $50,000.00 $681.75 $443.14$5,001.00 to $6,000.00 $132.75 $86.29 $50,001.00 to $51,000.00 $689.25 $448.01$6,001.00 to $7,000.00 $147.50 $95.88 $51,001.00 to $52,000.00 $696.75 $452.89$7,001.00 to $8,000.00 $162.25 $105.46 $52,001.00 to $53,000.00 $704.25 $457.76$8,001.00 to $9,000.00 $177.00 $115.05 $53,001.00 to $54,000.00 $711.75 $462.64$9,001.00 to $10,000.00 $191.75 $124.64 $54,001.00 to $55,000.00 $719.25 $467.51$10,001.00 to $11,000.00 $206.50 $134.23 $55,001.00 to $56,000.00 726.75 $472.39$11,001.00 to $12,000.00 $221.25 $143.81 $56,001.00 to $57,000.00 $764.25 $496.76$12,001.00 to $13,000.00 $236.00 $153.40 $57,001.00 to $58,000.00 $741.75 $482.14$13,001.00 to $14,000.00 $250.75 $162.99 $58,001.00 to $59,000.00 $749.25 $487.01$14,001.00 to $15,000.00 $265.50 $172.58 $59,001.00 to $60,000.00 $756.75 $491.89$15,001.00 to $16,000.00 $280.25 $182.16 $60,001.00 to $61,000.00 $764.25 $496.76$16,001.00 to $17,000.00 $295.00 $191.75 $61,001.00 to $62,000.00 $771.75 $501.64$17,001.00 to $18,000.00 $309.75 $201.34 $62,001.00 to $63,000.00 $779.25 $506.51$18,001.00 to $19,000.00 $324.50 $210.93 $63,001.00 to $64,000.00 $786.75 $511.39$19,001.00 to $20,000.00 $339.25 $220.51 $64,001.00 to $65,000.00 $794.25 $516.26$20,001.00 to $21,000.00 $354.00 $230.10 $65,001.00 to $66,000.00 $801.75 $521.14$21,001.00 to $22,000.00 $368.75 $239.69 $66,001.00 to $67,000.00 $809.25 $526.01$22,001.00 to $23,000.00 $383.50 $249.28 $67,001.00 to $68,000.00 $816.75 $530.89$23,001.00 to $24,000.00 $398.25 $258.86 $68,001.00 to $69,000.00 $824.25 $535.76$24,001.00 to $25,000.00 $413.00 $268.45 $69,001.00 to $70,000.00 $831.75 $540.64$25,001.00 to $26,000.00 $423.75 $275.44 $70,001.00 to $71,000.00 $839.25 $545.51$26,001.00 to $27,000.00 $434.50 $282.43 $71,001.00 to $72,000.00 $846.75 $550.39$27,001.00 to $28,000.00 $445.25 $289.41 $72,001.00 to $73,000.00 $854.25 $555.26$28,001.00 to $29,000.00 $456.00 $296.40 $73,001.00 to $74,000.00 $861.75 $560.14$29,001.00 to $30,000.00 $466.75 $303.39 $74,001.00 to $75,000.00 $869.25 $565.01$30,001.00 to $31,000.00 $477.50 $310.38 $75,001.00 to $76,000.00 $876.25 $569.56 To figure surcharge .0005 x valuation page 97 City of Mendota Heights - Building Permit Fees Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review To figure surcharge .0005 x valuation $76,001.00 to $77,000.00 $884.25 $574.76 $121,001.00 to $122,000.00 $1,188.75 $772.69$77,001.00 to $78,000.00 $891.75 $579.64 $122,001.00 to $123,000.00 $1,194.75 $776.59$78,001.00 to $79,000.00 $899.25 $584.51 $123,001.00 to $124,000.00 $1,200.75 $780.49$79,001.00 to $80,000.00 $906.75 $589.39 $124,001.00 to $125,000.00 $1,206.75 $784.39$80,001.00 to $81,000.00 $914.25 $594.26 $125,001.00 to $126,000.00 $1,212.75 $788.29$81,001.00 to $82,000.00 $921.75 $599.14 $126,001.00 to $127,000.00 $1,218.75 $792.19$82,001.00 to $83,000.00 $929.25 $604.01 $127,001.00 to $128,000.00 $1,224.75 $796.09$83,001.00 to $84,000.00 $936.75 $608.89 $128,001.00 to $129,000.00 $1,230.75 $799.99$84,001.00 to $85,000.00 $944.25 $613.76 $129,001.00 to $130,000.00 $1,236.75 $803.89$85,001.00 to $86,000.00 $951.75 $618.64 $130,001.00 to $131,000.00 $1,242.75 $807.79$86,001.00 to $87,000.00 $959.25 $623.51 $131,001.00 to $132,000.00 $1,248.75 $811.69$87,001.00 to $88,000.00 $966.75 $628.39 $132,001.00 to $133,000.00 $1,254.75 $815.59$88,001.00 to $89,000.00 $974.25 $633.26 $133,001.00 to $134,000.00 $1,260.75 $819.49$89,001.00 to $90,000.00 $981.75 $638.14 $134,001.00 to $135,000.00 $1,266.75 $823.39$90,001.00 to $91,000.00 $989.25 $643.01 $135,001.00 to $136,000.00 $1,272.75 $827.29$91,001.00 to $92,000.00 $996.75 $647.89 $136,001.00 to $137,000.00 $1,278.75 $831.19$92,001.00 to $93,000.00 $1004.25 $652.76 $137,001.00 to $138,000.00 $1,284.75 $835.09$93,001.00 to $94,000.00 $1011.75 $657.64 $138,001.00 to $139,000.00 $1,290.75 $838.99$94,001.00 to $95,000.00 $1019.25 $662.51 $139,001.00 to $140,000.00 $1,296.75 $842.89$95,001.00 to $96,000.00 $1026.75 $667.39 $140,001.00 to $141,000.00 $1,302.75 $846.79$96,001.00 to $97,000.00 $1034.25 $672.26 $141,001.00 to $142,000.00 $1,308.75 $850.69$97,001.00 to $98,000.00 $1041.75 $677.14 $142,001.00 to $143,000.00 $1,314.75 $854.59$98,001.00 to $99,000.00 $1049.25 $682.01 $143,001.00 to $144,000.00 $1,320.75 $858.49$99,001.00 to $100,000.00 $1056.75 $686.89 $144,001.00 to $145,000.00 $1,326.75 $862.39$100,001.00 to $101,000.00 $1062.75 $690.79 $145,001.00 to $146,000.00 $1,332.75 $866.29$101,001.00 to $102,000.00 $1068.75 $694.69 $146,001.00 to $147,000.00 $1,338.75 $870.19$102,001.00 to $103,000.00 $1074.75 $698.59 $147,001.00 to $148,000.00 $1,344.75 $874.09$103,001.00 to $104,000.00 $1080.75 $702.49 $148,001.00 to $149,000.00 $1,350.75 $877.99$104,001.00 to $105,000.00 $1086.75 $706.39 $149,001.00 to $150,000.00 $1,356.75 $881.89$105,001.00 to $106,000.00 $1092.75 $710.29 $150,001.00 to $151,000.00 $1,362.75 $885.79$106,001.00 to $107,000.00 $1098.75 $714.19 $151,001.00 to $152,000.00 $1,368.75 $889.69$107,001.00 to $108,000.00 $1104.75 $718.09 $152,001.00 to $153,000.00 $1,374.75 $893.59$108,001.00 to $109,000.00 $1110.75 $721.99 $153,001.00 to $154,000.00 $1,380.75 $897.49$109,001.00 to $110,000.00 $1116.75 $725.89 $154,001.00 to $155,000.00 $1,386.75 $901.39$110,001.00 to $111,000.00 $1122.75 $729.79 $155,001.00 to $156,000.00 $1,392.75 $905.29$111,001.00 to $112,000.00 $1128.75 $733.69 $156,001.00 to $157,000.00 $1,398.75 $909.19$112,001.00 to $113,000.00 $1134.75 $737.59 $157,001.00 to $158,000.00 $1,404.75 $913.09$113,001.00 to $114,000.00 $1140.75 $741.49 $158,001.00 to $159,000.00 $1,410.75 $916.99$114,001.00 to $115,000.00 $1146.75 $745.39 $159,001.00 to $160,000.00 $1,416.75 $920.89$115,001.00 to $116,000.00 $1152.75 $749.29 $160,001.00 to $161,000.00 $1,422.75 $924.79$116,001.00 to $117,000.00 $1158.75 $753.19 $161,001.00 to $162,000.00 $1,428.75 $928.69$117,001.00 to $118,000.00 $1164.75 $757.09 $162,001.00 to $163,000.00 $1,434.75 $932.59$118,001.00 to $119,000.00 $1170.75 $760.99 $163,001.00 to $164,000.00 $1,440.75 $936.49$119,001.00 to $120,000.00 $1176.75 $764.89 $164,001.00 to $165,000.00 $1,446.75 $940.39$120,001.00 to $121,000.00 $1182.75 $768.79 $165,001.00 to $166,000.00 $1,452.75 $944.29 page 98 City of Mendota Heights - Building Permit Fees Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review To figure surcharge .0005 x valuation $166,001.00 to $167,000.00 $1,458.75 $948.19 $211,001.00 to $212,000.00 $1,728.75 $1123.69$167,001.00 to $168,000.00 $1,464.75 $952.09 $212,001.00 to $213,000.00 $1,734.75 $1127.59$168,001.00 to $169,000.00 $1,470.75 $955.99 $213,001.00 to $214,000.00 $1,740.75 $1131.49$169,001.00 to $170,000.00 $1,476.75 $959.89 $214,001.00 to $215,000.00 $1,746.75 $1135.39$170,001.00 to $171,000.00 $1,482.75 $963.79 $215,001.00 to $216,000.00 $1,752.75 $1139.29$171,001.00 to $172,000.00 $1,488.75 $967.69 $216,001.00 to $217,000.00 $1,758.75 $1143.19$172,001.00 to $173,000.00 $1,494.75 $971.59 $217,001.00 to $218,000.00 $1,764.75 $1147.09$173,001.00 to $174,000.00 $1,500.75 $975.49 $218,001.00 to $219,000.00 $1,770.75 $1150.99$174,001.00 to $175,000.00 $1,506.75 $979.39 $219,001.00 to $220,000.00 $1,776.75 $1154.89$175,001.00 to $176,000.00 $1,512.75 $983.29 $220,001.00 to $221,000.00 $1,782.75 $1158.79$176,001.00 to $177,000.00 $1,518.75 $987.19 $221,001.00 to $222,000.00 $1,788.75 $1162.69$177,000.00 to $178,000.00 $1,524.75 $991.09 $222,001.00 to $223,000.00 $1,794.75 $1166.59$178,001.00 to $179,000.00 $1,530.75 $994.99 $223,001.00 to $224,000.00 $1,800.75 $1170.49$179,001.00 to $180,000.00 $1,536.75 $998.89 $224,001.00 to $225,000.00 $1,806.75 $1174.39$180,001.00 to $181,000.00 $1,542.75 $1002.79 $225,001.00 to $226,000.00 $1,812.75 $1178.29$181,001.00 to $182,000.00 $1,548.75 $1006.69 $226,001.00 to $227,000.00 $1,818.75 $1182.19$182,001.00 to $183,000.00 $1,554.75 $1010.59 $227,001.00 to $228,000.00 $1,824.75 $1186.09$183,001.00 to $184,000.00 $1,560.75 $1014.49 $228,001.00 to $229,000.00 $1,830.75 $1189.99$184,001.00 to $185,000.00 $1,566.75 $1018.39 $229,001.00 to $230,000.00 $1,836.75 $1193.89$185,001.00 to $186,000.00 $1,572.75 $1022.29 $230,901.00 to $231,000.00 $1,842.75 $1197.79$186,001.00 to $187,000.00 $1,578.75 $1026.19 $231,001.00 to $232,000.00 $1,848.75 $1201.69$187,001.00 to $188,000.00 $1,584.75 $1030.09 $232,001.00 to $233,000.00 $1,854.75 $1205.59$188,001.00 to $189,000.00 $1,590.75 $1033.99 $233,001.00 to $234,000.00 $1,860.75 $1209.49$189,001.00 to $190,000.00 $1,596.75 $1037.89 $234,001.00 to $235,000.00 $1,866.75 $1213.39$190,001.00 to $191,000.00 $1,602.75 $1041.79 $235,001.00 to $236,000.00 $1,872.75 $1217.29$191,001.00 to $192,000.00 $1,608.75 $1045.69 $236,001.00 to $237,000.00 $1,878.75 $1221.19$192,001.00 to $193,000.00 $1,614.75 $1049.59 $237,001.00 to $238,000.00 $1,884.75 $1225.09$193,001.00 to $194,000.00 $1,620.75 $1053.49 $238,001.00 to $239,000.00 $1,890.75 $1228.99$194,001.00 to $195,000.00 $1,626.75 $1057.39 $239,001.00 to $240,000.00 $1,896.75 $1232.89$195,001.00 to $196,000.00 $1,632.75 $1061.29 $240,001.00 to $241,000.00 $1,902.75 $1236.79$196,001.00 to $197,000.00 $1,638.75 $1065.19 $241,001.00 to $242,000.00 $1,908.75 $1240.69$197,001.00 to $198,000.00 $1,644.75 $1069.09 $242,001.00 to $243,000.00 $1,914.75 $1244.59$198,001.00 to $199,000.00 $1,650.75 $1072.99 $243,001.00 to $244,000.00 $1,920.75 $1248.49$199,001.00 to $200,000.00 $1,656.75 $1076.89 $244,001.00 to $245,000.00 $1,926.75 $1252.39$200,001.00 to $201,000.00 $1,662.75 $1080.79 $245,001.00 to $246,000.00 $1,932.75 $1256.29$201,001.00 to $202,000.00 $1,668.75 $1084.69 $246,001.00 to $247,000.00 $1,938.75 $1260.19$202,001.00 to $203,000.00 $1,674.75 $1088.59 $247,001.00 to $248,000.00 $1,944.75 $1264.09$203,001.00 to $204,000.00 $1,680.75 $1092.49 $248,001.00 to $249,000.00 $1,950.75 $1267.99$204,001.00 to $205,000.00 $1,686.75 $1096.39 $249,001.00 to $250,000.00 $1,956.75 $1271.89$205,001.00 to $206,000.00 $1,692.75 $1100.29 $250,001.00 to $251,000.00 $1,962.75 $1275.79$206,001.00 to $207,000.00 $1,698.75 $1104.19 $251,001.00 to $252,000.00 $1,968.75 $1279.69$207,001.00 to $208,000.00 $1,704.75 $1108.09 $252,001.00 to $253,000.00 $1,974.75 $1283.59$208,001.00 to $209,000.00 $1,710.75 $1111.99 $253,001.00 to $254,000.00 $1,980.75 $1287.49$209,001.00 to $210,000.00 $1,716.75 $1115.89 $254,001.00 to $255,000.00 $1,986.75 $1291.39$210,001.00 to $211,000.00 $1,722.75 $1119.79 $255,001.00 to $256,000.00 $1,992.75 $1295.29 page 99 City of Mendota Heights - Building Permit Fees Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review To figure surcharge .0005 x valuation $256,001.00 to $257,000.00 $1,998.75 $1299.19 $301,001.00 to $302,000.00 $2,268.75 $1474.69$257,001.00 to $258,000.00 $2,004.75 $1303.09 $302,001.00 to $303,000.00 $2,274.75 $1478.59$258,001.00 to $259,000.00 $2,010.75 $1306.99 $303,001.00 to $304,000.00 $2,280.75 $1482.49$259,001.00 to $260,000.00 $2,016.75 $1310.89 $304,001.00 to $305,000.00 $2,286.75 $1486.39$260,001.00 to $260,000.00 $2,022.75 $1314.79 $305,001.00 to $306,000.00 $2,292.75 $1490.29$261,001.00 to $262,000.00 $2,028.75 $1318.69 $306,001.00 to $307,000.00 $2,298.75 $1494.19$262,001.00 to $263,000.00 $2,034.75 $1322.59 $307,001.00 to $308,000.00 $2,304.75 $1498.09$263,001.00 to $264,000.00 $2,040.75 $1326.49 $308,001.00 to $309,000.00 $2,310.75 $1501.99$264,001.00 to $265,000.00 $2,046.75 $1330.39 $309,001.00 to $310,000.00 $2,316.75 $1505.89$265,001.00 to $266,000.00 $2,052.75 $1334.29 $310,001.00 to $311,000.00 $2,322.75 $1509.79$266,001.00 to $267,000.00 $2,058.75 $1338.19 $311,001.00 to $312,000.00 $2,328.75 $1513.69$267,001.00 to $268,000.00 $2,064.75 $1342.09 $312,001.00 to $313,000.00 $2,334.75 $1517.59$268,001.00 to $269,000.00 $2,070.75 $1345.99 $313,001.00 to $314,000.00 $2,340.75 $1521.49$269,001.00 to $270,000.00 $2,076.75 $1349.89 $314,001.00 to $315,000.00 $2,346.75 $1525.39$170,001.00 to $271,000.00 $2,082.75 $1353.79 $315,001.00 to $316,000.00 $2,352.75 $1529.29$271,001.00 to $272,000.00 $2,088.75 $1357.69 $316,001.00 to $317,000.00 $2,358.75 $1533.19$272,001.00 to $273,000.00 $2,094.75 $1361.59 $317,001.00 to $318,000.00 $2,364.75 $1537.09$273,001.00 to $274,000.00 $2,100.75 $1365.49 $318,001.00 to $319,000.00 $2,370.75 $1540.99$274,001.00 to $275,000.00 $2,106.75 $1369.39 $319,001.00 to $320,000.00 $2,376.75 $1544.89$275,001.00 to $276,000.00 $2,112.75 $1373.29 $320,001.00 to $321,000.00 $2,382.75 $1548.79$276,001.00 to $277,000.00 $2,118.75 $1377.19 $321,001.00 to $322,000.00 $2,388.75 $1552.69$277,001.00 to $278,000.00 $2,124.75 $1381.09 $322,001.00 to $323,000.00 $2,394.75 $1556.59$278,001.00 to $279,000.00 $2,130.75 $1384.99 $323,001.00 to $324,000.00 $2,400.75 $1560.49$279,001.00 to $280,000.00 $2,136.75 $1388.89 $324,001.00 to $325,000.00 $2,406.75 $1564.39$280,001.00 to $281,000.00 $2,142.75 $1392.79 $325,001.00 to $326,000.00 $2,412.75 $1568.29$281,001.00 to $282,000.00 $2,148.75 $1396.69 $326,001.00 to $327,000.00 $2,418.75 $1572.19$282,001.00 to $283,000.00 $2,154.75 $1400.59 $327,001.00 to $328,000.00 $2,424.75 $1576.09$283,001.00 to $284,000.00 $2,160.75 $1404.49 $328,001.00 to $329,000.00 $2,430.75 $1579.99$284,001.00 to $285,000.00 $2,166.75 $1408.39 $329,001.00 to $330,000.00 $2,436.75 $1583.89$285,001.00 to $286,000.00 $2,172.75 $1412.29 $330,001.00 to $331,000.00 $2,442.75 $1587.79$286,001.00 to $287,000.00 $2,178.75 $1416.19 $331,001.00 to $332,000.00 $2,448.75 $1591.69$287,001.00 to $288,000.00 $2,184.75 $1420.09 $332,001.00 to $333,000.00 $2,454.75 $1595.59$288,001.00 to $289,000.00 $2,190.75 $1423.99 $333,001.00 to $334,000.00 $2,460.75 $1599.49$289,001.00 to $290,000.00 $2,196.75 $1427.89 $334,001.00 to $335,000.00 $2,466.75 $1603.39$290,001.00 to $291,000.00 $2,202.75 $1431.79 $335,001.00 to $336,000.00 $2,472.75 $1607.29$291,001.00 to $292,000.00 $2,208.75 $1435.69 $336,001.00 to $337,000.00 $2,478.75 $1611.19$292,001.00 to $293,000.00 $2,214.75 $1439.59 $337,001.00 to $338,000.00 $2,484.75 $1615.09$293,001.00 to $294,000.00 $2,220.75 $1443.49 $338,001.00 to $339,000.00 $2,490.75 $1618.99$294,001.00 to $295,000.00 $2,226.75 $1447.39 $339,001.00 to $340,000.00 $2,496.75 $1622.89$295,001.00 to $296,000.00 $2,232.75 $1451.29 $340,001.00 to $341,000.00 $2,502.75 $1626.79$296,001.00 to $297,000.00 $2,238.75 $1455.19 $341,001.00 to $342,000.00 $2,508.75 $1630.69$297,001.00 to $298,000.00 $2,244.75 $1459.09 $342,001.00 to $343,000.00 $2,514.75 $1634.59$298,001.00 to $299,000.00 $2,250.75 $1462.99 $343,001.00 to $344,000.00 $2,520.75 $1638.49$299,001.00 to $300,000.00 $2,256.75 $1466.89 $344,001.00 to $345,000.00 $2,526.75 $1642.39$300,001.00 to $301,000.00 $2,262.75 $1470.79 $345,001.00 to $346,000.00 $2,532.75 $1646.29 page 100 City of Mendota Heights - Building Permit Fees Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review To figure surcharge .0005 x valuation $346,001.00 to $347,000.00 $2,538.75 $1650.19 $391,001.00 to $392,000.00 $2,808.75 $1825.69$347,001.00 to $348,000.00 $2,544.75 $1654.09 $392,001.00 to $393,000.00 $2,814.75 $1829.59$348,001.00 to $349,000.00 $2,550.75 $1657.99 $393,001.00 to $394,000.00 $2,820.75 $1833.49$349,001.00 to $350,000.00 $2,556.75 $1661.89 $394,001.00 to $395,000.00 $2,826.75 $1837.39$350,001.00 to $351,000.00 $2,562.75 $1665.79 $395,001.00 to $396,000.00 $2,832.75 $1841.29$351,001.00 to $352,000.00 $2,568.75 $1669.69 $396,001.00 to $397,000.00 $2,838.75 $1845.19$352,001.00 to $353,000.00 $2,574.75 $1673.59 $397,001.00 to $398,000.00 $2,844.75 $1849.09$353,001.00 to $354,000.00 $2,580.75 $1677.49 $398,001.00 to $399,000.00 $2,850.75 $1852.99$354,001.00 to $355,000.00 $2,586.75 $1681.39 $399,001.00 to $400,000.00 $2,856.75 $1856.89$355,001.00 to $356,000.00 $2,592.75 $1685.29 $400,001.00 to $401,000.00 $2,862.75 $1860.79$356,001.00. to $357,000.00 $2,598.75 $1689.19 $401,001.00 to $402,000.00 $2,868.75 $1864.69$357,001.00 to $358,000.00 $2,604.75 $1693.09 $402,001.00 to $403,000.00 $2,874.75 $1868.59$358,001.00 to $359,000.00 $2,610.75 $1696.99 $403,001.00 to $404,000.00 $2,880.75 $1872.49$359,001.00 to $360,000.00 $2,616.75 $1700.89 $404,001.00 to $405,000.00 $2,886.75 $1876.39$360,001.00 to $361,000.00 $2,622.75 $1704.79 $405,001.00 to $406,000.00 $2,892.75 $1880.29$361,001.00 to $362,000.00 $2,628.75 $1708.69 $406,001.00 to $407,000.00 $2,898.75 $1884.19$362,001.00 to $363,000.00 $2,634.75 $1712.59 $407,001.00 to $408,000.00 $2,904.75 $1888.09$363,001.00 to $364,000.00 $2,640.75 $1716.49 $408,001.00 to $409,000.00 $2,910.75 $1891.99$364,001.00 to $365,000.00 $2,646.75 $1720.39 $409,001.00 to $410,000.00 $2,916.75 $1895.89$365,001.00 to $366,000.00 $2,652.75 $1724.29 $410,001.00 to $411,000.00 $2,922.75 $1899.79$366,001.00 to $367,000.00 $2,658.75 $1728.19 $411,001.00 to $412,000.00 $2,928.75 $1903.69$367,001.00 to $368,000.00 $2,664.75 $1732.09 $412,001.00 to $413,000.00 $2,934.75 $1907.59$368,001.00 to $369,000.00 $2,670.75 $1735.99 $413,001.00 to $414,000.00 $2,940.75 $1911.49$369,001.00 to $370,000.00 $2,676.75 $1739.89 $414,001.00 to $415,000.00 $2,946.75 $1915.39$370,001.00 to $371,000.00 $2,682.75 $1743.79 $415,001.00 to $416,000.00 $2,952.75 $1919.29$371,001.00 to $372,000.00 $2,688.75 $1747.69 $416,001.00 to $417,000.00 $2,958.75 $1923.19$372,001.00 to $373,000.00 $2,694.75 $1751.59 $417,001.00 to $418,000.00 $2,964.75 $1927.09$373,001.00 to $374,000.00 $2,700.75 $1755.49 $418,001.00 to $419,000.00 $2,970.75 $1930.99$374,001.00 to $375,000.00 $2,706.75 $1759.39 $419,001.00 to $420,000.00 $2,976.75 $1934.89$375,001.00 to $376,000.00 $2,712.75 $1763.29 $420,001.00 to $421,000.00 $2,982.75 $1938.79$376,001.00 to $377,000.00 $2,718.75 $1767.19 $421,001.00 to $422,000.00 $2,988.75 $1942.69$377,001.00 to $378,000.00 $2,724.75 $1771.09 $422,001.00 to $423,000.00 $2,994.75 $1946.59$378,001.00 to $379,000.00 $2,730.75 $1774.99 $423,001.00 to $424,000.00 $3,000.75 $1950.49$379,001.00 to $380,000.00 $2,736.75 $1778.89 $424,001.00 to $425,000.00 $3,006.75 $1954.39$380,001.00 to $381,000.00 $2,742.75 $1782.79 $425,001.00 to $426,000.00 $3,012.75 $1958.29$381,001.00 to $382,000.00 $2,748.75 $1786.69 $426,001.00 to $427,000.00 $3,018.75 $1962.19$382,001.00 to $383,000.00 $2,754.75 $1790.59 $427,001.00 to $428,000.00 $3,024.75 $1966.09$383,001.00 to $384,000.00 $2,760.75 $1794.49 $428,001.00 to $429,000_00 $3,030.75 $1969.99$384,001.00 to $385,000.00 $2,766.75 $1798.39 $429,001.00 to $430,000.00 $3,036.75 $1973.89$385,001.00 to $386,000.00 $2,772.75 $1802.29 $430,001.00 to $431,000.00 $3,042.75 $1977.79$386,001.00 to $387,000.00 $2,778.75 $1806.19 $431,001.00 to $432,000.00 $3,048.75 $1981.69$387,001.00 to $388,000.00 $2,784.75 $1810.09 $432,001.00 to $433,000.00 $3,054.75 $1985.59$388,001.00 to $389,000.00 $2,790.75 $1813.99 $433,001.00 to $434,000.00 $3,060.75 $1989.49$389,001.00 to $390,000.00 $2,796.75 $1817.89 $434,001.00 to $435,000.00 $3,066.75 $1993.39$390,001.00 to $391,000.00 $2,802.75 $1821.79 $435,001.00 to $436,000.00 $3,072.75 $1997.29 page 101 City of Mendota Heights - Building Permit Fees Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review To figure surcharge .0005 x valuation $436,001.00 to $437,000.00 $3,078.75 $2001.19 $481,001.00 to $482,000.00 $3,348.75 $2176.69$437,001.00 to $438,000.00 $3,084.75 $2005.09 $482,001.00 to $483,000.00 $3,354.75 $2180.59$438,001.00 to $439,000.00 $3,090.75 $2008.99 $483,001.00 to $484,000.00 $3,360.75 $2184.49$439,001.00 to $440,000.00 $3,096.75 $2012.89 $484,001.00 to $485,000.00 $3,366.75 $2188.39$440,001.00 to $441,000.00 $3,102.75 $2016.79 $485,001.00 to $486,000.00 $3,372.75 $2192.29$441,001.00 to $442,000.00 $3,108.75 $2020.69 $486,001.00 to $487,000.00 $3,378.75 $2196.19$442,001.00 to $443,000.00 $3,114.75 $2024.59 $487,001.00 to $488,000.00 $3,384.75 $2200.09$443,001.00 to $444,000.00 $3,120.75 $2028.49 $488,001.00 to $489,000.00 $3,390.75 $2203.99$444,001.00 to $445,000.00 $3,126.75 $2032.39 $489,001.00 to $490,000.00 $3,396.75 $2207.89$445,001.00 to $446,000.00 $3,132.75 $2036.29 $490,001.00 to $491,000.00 $3,402.75 $2211.79$446,001.00 to $447,000.00 $3,138.75 $2040.19 $491,001.00 to $492,000.00 $3,408.75 $2215.69$447,001.00 to $448,000.00 $3,144.75 $2044.09 $492,001.00 to $493,000.00 $3,414.75 $2219.59$448,001.00 to $449,000.00 $3,150.75 $2047.99 $493,001.00 to $494,000.00 $3,420.75 $2223.49$449,001.00 to $450,000.00 $3,156.75 $2051.89 $494,001.00 to $495,000.00 $3,426.75 $2227.39$450,001.00 to $451,000.00 $3,162.75 $2055.79 $495,001.00 to $496,000.00 $3,432.75 $2231.29$451,001.00 to $452,000.00 $3,168.75 $2059.69 $496,001.00 to $497,000.00 $3,438.75 $2235.19$452,001.00 to $453,000.00 $3,174.75 $2063.59 $497,001.00 to $498,000.00 $3,444.75 $2239.09$453,001.00 to $454,000.00 $3,180.75 $2067.49 $498,001.00 to $499,000.00 $3,450.75 $2242.99$454,001.00 to $455,000.00 $3,186.75 $2071.39 $499,001.00 to $500,000.00 $3,456.75 $2246.89$455,001.00 to $456,000.00 $3,192.75 $2075.29 $500,001.00 to $501,000.00 $3,461.75 $2250.14$456,001.00 to $457,000.00 $3,198.75 $2079.19 $501,001.00 to $502,000.00 $3,466.75 $2253.39$457,001.00 to $458,000.00 $3,204.75 $2083.09 $502,001.00 to $503,000.00 $3,471.75 $2256.64$458,001.00 to $459,000.00 $3,210.75 $2086.99 $503,001.00 to $504,000.00 $3,476.75 $2259.89$459,001.00 to $460,000.00 $3,216.75 $2090.89 $504,001.00 to $505,000.00 $3,481.75 $2263.14$460,001.00 to $461,000.00 $3,222.75 $2094.79 $505,001.00 to $506,000.00 $3,486.75 $2266.39$461,001.00 to $462,000.00 $3,228.75 $2098.69 $506,001.00 to $507,000.00 $3,491.75 $2269.64$462,001.00 to $463,000.00 $3,234.75 $2102.59 $507,001.00 to $508,000.00 $3,496.75 $2272.89$463,001.00 to $464,000.00 $3,240.75 $2106.49 $508,001.00 to $509,000.00 $3,501.75 $2276.14$464,001.00 to $465,000.00 $3,246.75 $2110.39 $509,001.00 to $510,000.00 $3,506.75 $2279.39$465,001.00 to $466,000.00 $3,252.75 $2114.29 $510,001.00 to $511,000.00 $3,511.75 $2282.64$466,001.09 to $467,000.00 $3,258.75 $2118.19 $511,001.00 to $512,000.00 $3,516.75 $2285.89$467,001.00 to $468,000.00 $3,264.75 $2122.09 $512,001.00 to $513,000.00 $3,521.75 $2289.14$468,001.00 to $469,000.00 $3,270.75 $2125.99 $513,001.00 to $514,000.00 $3,526.75 $2292.39$469,001.00 to $470,000.00 $3,276.75 $2129.89 $514,001.00 to $515,000.00 $3,531.75 $2295.64$470,001.00 to $471,000.00 $3,282.75 $2133.79 $515,001.00 to $516,000.00 $3,536.75 $2298.89$471,001.00 to $472,000.00 $3,288.75 $2137.69 $516,001.00 to $517,000.00 $3,541.75 $2302.14$472,001.00 to $473,000.00 $3,294.75 $2141.59 $517,001.00 to $518,000.00 $3,546.75 $2305.39$473,001.00 to $474,000.00 $3,300.75 $2145.49 $518,001.00 to $519,000.00 $3,551.75 $2308.64$474,001.00 to $475,000.00 $3,306.75 $2149.39 $519,001.00 to $520,000.00 $3,556.75 $2311.89$475,001.00 to $476,000.00 $3,312.75 $2153.29 $520,001.00 to $521,000.00 $3,561.75 $2315.14$476,001.00 to $477,000.00 $3,318.75 $2157.19 $521,001.00 to $522,000.00 $3,566.75 $2318.39$477,001.00 to $478,000.00 $3,324.75 $2161.09 $522,001.00 to $523,000.00 $3,571.75 $2321.64$478,001.00 to $479,000.00 $3,330.75 $2164.99 $523,001.00 to $524,000.00 $3,576.75 $2324.89$479,001.00 to $480,000.00 $3,336.75 $2168.89 $524,001.00 to $525,000.00 $3,581.75 $2328.14$480,001.00 to $481,000.00 $3,342.75 $2172.79 $525,001.00 to $526,000.00 $3,586.75 $2331.39 page 102 City of Mendota Heights - Building Permit Fees Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review To figure surcharge .0005 x valuation $526,001.00 to $527,000.00 $3,591.75 $2334.64 $571,001.00 to $572,000.00 $3,816.75 $2480.89$527,001.00 to $528,000.00 $3,596.75 $2337.89 $572,001.00 to $573,000.00 $3,821.75 $2484.14$528,001.00 to $529,000.00 $3,601.75 $2341.14 $573,001.00 to $574,000.00 $3,826.75 $2487.39$529,001.00 to $530,000.00 $3,606.75 $2344.39 $574,001.00 to $575,000.00 $3,831.75 $2490.64$530,001.00 to $531,000.00 $3,611.75 $2347.64 $575,001.00 to $576,000.00 $3,836.75 $2493.89$531,001.00 to $532,000.00 $3,616.75 $2350.89 $576,001.00 to $577,000.00 $3,841.75 $2497.14$532,001.00 to $533,000.00 $3,621.75 $2354.14 $577,001.00 to $578,000.00 $3,846.75 $2500.39$533,001.00 to $534,000.00 $3,626.75 $2357.39 $578,001.00 to $579,000.00 $3,851.75 $2503.64$534,001.00 to $535,000.00 $3,631.75 $2360.64 $579,001.00 to $580,000.00 $3,856.75 $2506.89$535,001.00 to $536,000.00 $3,636.75 $2363.89 $580,001.00 to $581,000.00 $3,861.75 $2510.14$536,001.00 to $537,000.00 $3,641.75 $2367.14 $581,001.00 to $582,000.00 $3,866.75 $2513.39$537,001.00 to $538,000.00 $3,646.75 $2370.39 $582,001.00 to $583,000.00 $3,871.75 $2516.64$538,001.00 to $539,000.00 $3,651.75 $2373.64 $583,001.00 to $584,000.00 $3,876.75 $2519.89$539,001.00 to $540,000.00 $3,656.75 $2376.89 $584,001.00 to $585,000.00 $3,881.75 $2523.14$540,001.00 to $541,000.00 $3,661.75 $2380.14 $585,001.00 to $586,000.00 $3,886.75 $2526.39$541,001.00 to $542,000.00 $3,666.75 $2383.39 $586,001.00 to $587,000.00 $3,891.75 $2529.64$542,001.00 to $543,000.00 $3,671.75 $2386.64 $587,001.00 to $588,000.00 $3,896.75 $2532.89$543,001.00 to $544,000.00 $3,676.75 $2389.89 $588,001.00 to $589,000.00 $3,901.75 $2536.14$544,001.00 to $545,000.00 $3,681.75 $2393.14 $589,001.00 to $590,000.00 $3,906.75 $2539.39$545,001.00 to $546,000.00 $3,686.75 $2396.39 $590,001.00 to $591,000.00 $3,911.75 $2542.64$546,001.00 to $547,000.00 $3,691.75 $2399.64 $591,001.00 to $592,000.00 $3,916.75 $2545.89$547,001.00 to $548,000.00 $3,696.75 $2402.89 $592,001.00 to $593,000.00 $3,921.75 $2549.14$548,001.00 to $549,000.00 $3,701.75 $2406.14 $593,001.00 to $594,000.00 $3,926.75 $2552.39$549,001.00 to $550,000.00 $3,706.75 $2409.39 $594,001.00 to $595,000.00 $3,931.75 $2555.64$550,001.00 to $551,000.00 $3,711.75 $2412.64 $595,001.00 to $596,000.00 $3,936.75 $2558.89$551,001.00 to $552,000.00 $3,716.75 $2415.89 $596,001.00 to $597,000.00 $3,941.75 $2562.14$552,001.00 to $553,000.00 $3,721.75 $2419.14 $597,001.00 to $598,000.00 $3,946.75 $2565.39$553,001.00 to $554,000.00 $3,726.75 $2422.39 $598,001.00 to $599,000.00 $3,951.75 $2568.64$554,001.00 to $555,000.00 $3,731.75 $2425.64 $599,001.00 to $600,000.00 $3,956.75 $2571.89$555,001.00 to $556,000.00 $3,736.75 $2428.89 $600,001.00 to $601,000.00 $3,961.75 $2575.14$556,001.00 to $557,000.00 $3,741.75 $2432.14 $601 ,001.00 to $602,000.00 $3,966.75 $2578.39$557,001.00 to $558,000.00 $3,746.75 $2435.39 $602,001.00 to $603,000.00 $3,971.75 $2581.64$558,001.00 to $559,000.00 $3,751.75 $2438.64 $603,001.00 to $604,000.00 $3,976.75 $2584.89$559,001.00 to $560,000.00 $3,756.75 $2441.89 $604,001.00 to $605,000.00 $3,981.75 $2588.14$560,001.00 to $561,000.00 $3,761.75 $2445.14 $605,001.00 to $606,000.00 $3,986.75 $2591.39$561,001.00 to $562,000.00 $3,766.75 $2448.39 $606,001.00 to $607,000.00 $3,991.75 $2594.64$562,001.00 to $563,000.00 $3,771.75 $2451.64 $607,001.00 to $608,000.00 $3,996.75 $2597.89$563,001.00 to $564,000.00 $3,776.75 $2454.89 $608,001.00 to $609,000.00 $4,001.75 $2601.14$564,001.00 to $565,000.00 $3,781.75 $2458.14 $609,001.00 to $610,000.00 $4,006.75 $2604.39$565,001.00 to $566,000.00 $3,786.75 $2461.39 $610,001.00 to $611,000.00 $4,011.75 $2607.64$566,001.00 to $567,000.00 $3,791.75 $2464.64 $611,001.00 to $612,000.00 $4,016.75 $2610.89$567,001.00 to $568,000.00 $3,796.75 $2467.89 $612,001.00 to $613,000.00 $4,021.75 $2614.14$568,001.00 to $569,000.00 $3,801.75 $2471.14 $613,001.00 to $614,000.00 $4,026.75 $2617.39$569,001.00 to $570,000.00 $3,806.75 $2474.39 $614,001.00 to $615,000.00 $4,031.75 $2620.64$570,001.00 to $571,000.00 $3,811.75 $2477.64 $615,001.00 to $616,000.00 $4,036.75 $2623.89 page 103 City of Mendota Heights - Building Permit Fees Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review To figure surcharge .0005 x valuation $616,001.00 to $617,000.00 $4,041.75 $2627.14 $661,001.00 to $662,000.00 $4,266.75 $2773.39$617,001.00 to $618,000.00 $4,046.75 $2630.39 $662,001.00 to $663,000.00 $4,271.75 $2776.64$618,001.00 to $619,000.00 $4,051.75 $2633.64 $663,001.00 to $664,000.00 $4,276.75 $2779.89$619,001.00 to $620,000.00 $4,056.75 $2636.89 $664,001.00 to $665,000.00 $4,281.75 $2783.14$620,001.00 to $621,000.00 $4,061.75 $2640.14 $665,001.00 to $666,000.00 $4,286.75 $2786.39$621,001.00 to $622,000.00 $4,066.75 $2643.39 $666,001.00 to $667,000.00 $4,291.75 $2789.64$622,001.00 to $623,000.00 $4,071.75 $2646.64 $667,001.00 to $668,000.00 $4,296.75 $2792.89$623,001.00 to $624,000.00 $4,076.75 $2649.89 $668,001.00 to $669,000.00 $4,301.75 $2796.14$624,001.00 to $625,000.00 $4,081.75 $2653.14 $669,001.00 to $670,000.00 $4,306.75 $2799.39$625,001.00 to $626,000.00 $4,086.75 $2656.39 $670,001.00 to $671,000.00 $4,311.75 $2802.64$626,001.00 to $627,000.00 $4,091.75 $2659.64 $671,001.00 to $672,000.00 $4,316.75 $2805.89$627,001.00 to $628,000.00 $4,096.75 $2662.89 $672,001.00 to $673,000.00 $4,321.75 $2809.14$628,001.00 to $629,000.00 $4,101.75 $2666.14 $673,001.00 to $674,000.00 $4,326.75 $2812.39$629,001.00 to $630,000.00 $4,106.75 $2669.39 $674,001.00 to $675,000.00 $4,331.75 $2815.64$630,001.00 to $631,000.00 $4,111.75 $2672.64 $675,001.00 to $676,000.00 $4,336.75 $2818.89$631,001.00 to $632,000.00 $4,116.75 $2675.89 $676,001.00 to $677,000.00 $4,341.75 $2822.14$632,001.00 to $633,000.00 $4,121.75 $2679.14 $677,001.00 to $678,000.00 $4,346.75 $2825.39$633,001.00 to $634,000.00 $4,126.75 $2682.39 $678,001.00 to $679,000.00 $4,351.75 $2828.64$634,001.00 to $635,000.00 $4,131.75 $2685.64 $679,001.00 to $680,000.00 $4,356.75 $2831.89$635,001.00 to $636,000.00 $4,136.75 $2688.89 $680,001.00 to $681,000.00 $4,361.75 $2835.14$636,001.00 to $637,000.00 $4,141.75 $2692.14 $681,001.00 to $682,000.00 $4,366.75 $2838.39$637,001.00 to $638,000.00 $4,146.75 $2695.39 $682,001.00 to $683,000.00 $4,371.75 $2841.64$638,001.00 to $639,000.00 $4,151.75 $2698.64 $683,001.00 to $684,000.00 $4,376.75 $2844.89$639,001.00 to $640,000.00 $4,156.75 $2701.89 $684,001.00 to $685,000.00 $4,381.75 $2848.14$640,001.00 to $641,000.00 $4,161.75 $2705.14 $685,001.00 to $686,000.00 $4,386.75 $2851.39$641,001.00 to $642,000.00 $4,166.75 $2708.39 $686,001.00 to $687,000.00 $4,391.75 $2854.64$642,001.00 to $643,000.00 $4,171.75 $2711.64 $687,001.00 to $688,000.00 $4,396.75 $2857.89$643,001.00 to $644,000.00 $4,176.75 $2714.89 $688,001.00 to $689,000.00 $4,401.75 $2861.14$644,001.00 to $645,000.00 $4,181.75 $2718.14 $689,001.00 to $690,000.00 $4,406.75 $2864.39$645,001.00 to $646,000.00 $4,186.75 $2721.39 $690,001.00 to $691,000.00 $4,411.75 $2867.64$646,001.00 to $647,000.00 $4,191.75 $2724.64 $691,001.00 to $692,000.00 $4,416.75 $2870.89$647,001.00 to $648,000.00 $4,196.75 $2727.89 $692,001.00 to $693,000.00 $4,421.75 $2874.14$648,001.00 to $649,000.00 $4,201.75 $2731.14 $693,001.00 to $694,000.00 $4,426.75 $2877.39$649,001.00 to $650,000.00 $4,206.75 $2734.39 $694,001.00 to $695,000.00 $4,431.75 $2880.64$650,001.00 to $651,000.00 $4,211.75 $2737.64 $695,001.00 to $696,000.00 $4,436.75 $2883.89$651,001.00 to $652,000.00 $4,216.75 $2740.89 $696,001.00 to $697,000.00 $4,441.75 $2887.14$652,001.00 to $653,000.00 $4,221.75 $2744.14 $697,001.00 to $698,000.00 $4,446.75 $2890.39$653,001.00 to $654,000.00 $4,226.75 $2747.39 $698,001.00 to $699,000.00 $4,451.75 $2893.64$654,001.00 to $655,000.00 $4,231.75 $2750.64 $699,001.00 to $700,000.00 $4,456.75 $2896.89$655,001.00 to $656,000.00 $4,236.75 $2753.89 $700,001.00 to $701,000.00 $4,461.75 $2900.14$656,001.00 to $657,000.00 $4,241.75 $2757.14 $701,001.00 to $702,000.00 $4,466.75 $2903.39$657,001.00 to $658,000.00 $4,246.75 $2760.39 $702,001.00 to $703,000.00 $4,471.75 $2906.64$658,001.00 to $659,000.00 $4,251.75 $2763.64 $703,001.00 to $704,000.00 $4,476.75 $2909.89$659,001.00 to $660,000.00 $4,256.75 $2766.89 $704,001.00 to $705,000.00 $4,481.75 $2913.14$660,001.00 to $661,000.00 $4,261.75 $2770.14 $705,001.00 to $706,000.00 $4,486.75 $2916.39 page 104 City of Mendota Heights - Building Permit Fees Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review To figure surcharge .0005 x valuation $706,001.00 to $707,000.00 $4,491.75 $2919.64 $751,001.00 to $752,000.00 $4,716.75 $3065.89$707,001.00 to $708,000.00 $4,496.75 $2922.89 $752,001.00 to $753,000.00 $4,721.75 $3069.14$708,001.00 to $709,000.00 $4,501.75 $2926.14 $753,001.00 to $754,000.00 $4,726.75 $3072.39$709,001.00 to $710,000.00 $4,506.75 $2929.39 $754,001.00 to $755,000.00 $4,731.75 $3075.64$710,001.00 to $711,000.00 $4,511.75 $2932.64 $755,001.00 to $756,000.00 $4,736.75 $3078.89$711,001.00 to $712,000.00 $4,516.75 $2935.89 $756,001.00 to $757,000.00 $4,741.75 $3082.14$712,001.00 to $713,000.00 $4,521.75 $2939.14 $757,001.00 to $758,000.00 $4,746.75 $3085.39$713,001.00 to $714,000.00 $4,526.75 $2942.39 $758,001.00 to $759,000.00 $4,751.75 $3088.64$714,001.00 to $715,000.00 $4,531.75 $2945.64 $759,001.00 to $760,000.00 $4,756.75 $3091.89$715,001.00 to $716,000.00 $4,536.75 $2948.89 $760,001.00 to $761,000.00 $4,761.75 $3095.14$716,001.00 to $717,000.00 $4,541.75 $2952.14 $761,001.00 to $762,000.00 $4,766.75 $3098.39$717,001.00 to $718,000.00 $4,546.75 $2955.39 $762,001.00 to $763,000.00 $4,771.75 $3101.64$718,001.00 to $719,000.00 $4,551.75 $2958.64 $763,001.00 to $764,000.00 $4,776.75 $3104.89$719,001.00 to $720,000.00 $4,556.75 $2961.89 $764,001.00 to $765,000.00 $4,781.75 $3108.14$720,001.00 to $721,000.00 $4,561.75 $2965.14 $765,001.00 to $766,000.00 $4,786.75 $3111.39$721,001.00 to $722,000.00 $4,566.75 $2968.39 $766,001.00 to $767,000.00 $4,791.75 $3114.64$722,001.00 to $723,000.00 $4,571.75 $2971.64 $767,001.00 to $768,000.00 $4,796.75 $3117.89$723,001.00 to $724,000.00 $4,576.75 $2974.89 $768,001.00 to $769,000.00 $4,801.75 $3121.14$724,001.00 to $725,000.00 $4,581.75 $2978.14 $769,001.00 to $770,000.00 $4,806.75 $3124.39$725,001.00 to $726,000.00 $4,586.75 $2981.39 $770,001.00 to $771,000.00 $4,811.75 $3127.64$726,001.00 to $727,000.00 $4,591.75 $2984.64 $771,001.00 to $772,000.00 $4,816.75 $3130.89$727,001.00 to $728,000.00 $4,596.75 $2987.89 $772,001.00 to $773,000.00 $4,821.75 $3134.14$728,001.00 to $729,000.00 $4,601.75 $2991.14 $773,001.00 to $774,000.00 $4,826.75 $3137.39$729,001.00 to $730,000.00 $4,606.75 $2994.39 $774,001.00 to $775,000.00 $4,831.75 $3140.64$730,001.00 to $731,000.00 $4,611.75 $2997.64 $775,001.00 to $776,000.00 $4,836.75 $3143.89$731,001.00 to $732,000.00 $4,616.75 $3000.89 $776,001.00 to $777,000.00 $4,841.75 $3147.14$732,001.00 to $733,000.00 $4,621.75 $3004.14 $777,001.00 to $778,000.00 $4,846.75 $3150.39$733,001.00 to $734,000.00 $4,626.75 $3007.39 $778,001.00 to $779,000.00 $4,851.75 $3153.64$734,001.00 to $735,000.00 $4,631.75 $3010.64 $779,001.00 to $780,000.00 $4,856.75 $3156.89$735,001.00 to $736,000.00 $4,636.75 $3013.89 $780,001.00 to $781,000.00 $4,861.75 $3160.14$736,001.00 to $737,000.00 $4,641.75 $3017.14 $781,001.00 to $782,000.00 $4,866.75 $3163.39$737,001.00 to $738,000.00 $4,646.75 $3020.39 $782,001.00 to $783,000.00 $4,871.75 $3166.64$738,001.00 to $739,000.00 $4,651.75 $3023.64 $783,001.00 to $784,000.00 $4,876.75 $3169.89$739,001.00 to $740,000.00 $4,656.75 $3026.89 $784,001.00 to $785,000.00 $4,881.75 $3173.14$740,001.00 to $741,000.00 $4,661.75 $3030.14 $785,001.00 to $786,000.00 $4,886.75 $3176.39$741,001.00 to $742,000.00 $4,666.75 $3033.39 $786,001.00 to $787,000.00 $4,891.75 $3179.64$742,001.00 to $743,000.00 $4,671.75 $3036.64 $787,001.00 to $788,000.00 $4,896.75 $3182.89$743,001.00 to $744,000.00 $4,676.75 $3039.89 $788,001.00 to $789,000.00 $4,901.75 $3186.14$744,001.00 to $745,000.00 $4,681.75 $3043.14 $789,001.00 to $790,000.00 $4,906.75 $3189.39$745,001.00 to $746,000.00 $4,686.75 $3046.39 $790,001.00 to $791,000.00 $4,911.75 $3192.64$746,001.00 to $747,000.00 $4,691.75 $3049.64 $791,001.00 to $792,000.00 $4,916.75 $3195.89$747,001.00 to $748,000.00 $4,696.75 $3052.89 $792,001.00 to $793,000.00 $4,921.75 $3199.14$748,001.00 to $749,000.00 $4,701.75 $3056.14 $793,001.00 to $794,000.00 $4,926.75 $3202.39$749,001.00 to $750,000.00 $4,706.75 $3059.39 $794,001.00 to $795,000.00 $4,931.75 $3205.64$750,001.00 to $751,000.00 $4,711.75 $3062.64 $795,001.00 to $796,000.00 $4,936.75 $3208.89 page 105 City of Mendota Heights - Building Permit Fees Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review To figure surcharge .0005 x valuation $796,001.00 to $797,000.00 $4,941.75 $3212.14 $841,001.00 to $842,000.00 $5,166.75 $3358.39$797,001.00 to $798,000.00 $4,946.75 $3215.39 $842,001.00 to $843,000.00 $5,171.75 $3361.64$798,001.00 to $799,000.00 $4,951.75 $3218.64 $843,001.00 to $844,000.00 $5,176.75 $3364.89$799,001.00 to $800,000.00 $4,956.75 $3221.89 $844,001.00 to $845,000.00 $5,181.75 $3368.14$800,001.00 to $801,000.00 $4,961.75 $3225.14 $845,001.00 to $846,000.00 $5,186.75 $3371.39$801,001.00 to $802,000.00 $4,966.75 $3228.39 $846,001.00 to $847,000.00 $5,191.75 $3374.64$802,001.00 to $803,000.00 $4,971.75 $3231.64 $847,001.00 to $848,000.00 $5,196.75 $3377.89$803,001.00 to $804,000.00 $4,976.75 $3234.89 $848,001.00 to $849,000.00 $5,201.75 $3381.14$804,001.00 to $805,000.00 $4,981.75 $3238.14 $849,001.00 to $850,000.00 $5,206.75 $3384.39$805,001.00 to $806,000.00 $4,986.75 $3241.39 $850,001.00 to $851,000.00 $5,211.75 $3387.64$806,001.00 to $807,000.00 $4,991.75 $3244.64 $851,001.00 to $852,000.00 $5,216.75 $3390.89$807,001.00 to $808,000.00 $4,996.75 $3247.89 $852,001.00 to $853,000.00 $5,221.75 $3394.14$808,001.00 to $809,000.00 $5,001.75 $3251.14 $853,001.00 to $854,000.00 $5,226.75 $3397.39$809,001.00 to $810,000.00 $5,006.75 $3254.39 $854,001.00 to $855,000.00 $5,231.75 $3400.64$810,001.00 to $811,000.00 $5,011.75 $3257.64 $855,001.00 to $856,000.00 $5,236.75 $3403.89$811,001.00 to $812,000.00 $5,016.75 $3260.89 $856,001.09 to $857,000.00 $5,241.75 $3407.14$812,001.00 to $813,000.00 $5,021.75 $3264.14 $857,001.00 to $858,000.00 $5,246.75 $3410.39$813,001.00 to $814,000.00 $5,026.75 $3267.39 $858,001.00 to $859,000.00 $5,251.75 $3413.64$814,001.00 to $815,000.00 $5,031.75 $3270.64 $859,001.00 to $860,000.00 $5,256.75 $3416.89$815,001.00 to $816,000.00 $5,036.75 $3273.89 $860,001.00 to $861,000.00 $5,261.75 $3420.14$816,001.00 to $817,000.00 $5,041.75 $3277.14 $861,001.00 to $862,000.00 $5,266.75 $3423.39$817,001.00 to $818,000.00 $5,046.75 $3280.39 $862,001.00 to $863,000.00 $5,271.75 $3426.64$818,001.00 to $819,000.00 $5,051.75 $3283.64 $863,001.00 to $864,000.00 $5,276.75 $3429.89$819,001.00 to $820,000.00 $5,056.75 $3286.89 $864,001.00 to $865,000.00 $5,281.75 $3433.14$820,001.00 to $821,000.00 $5,061.75 $3290.14 $865,001.00 to $866,000.00 $5,286.75 $3436.39$821,001.00 to $822,000.00 $5,066.75 $3293.39 $866,001.00 to $867,000.00 $5,291.75 $3439.64$822,001.00 to $823,000.00 $5,071.75 $3296.64 $867,001.00 to $868,000.00 $5,296.75 $3442.89$823,001.00 to $824,000.00 $5,076.75 $3299.89 $868,001.00 to $869,000.00 $5,301.75 $3446.14$824,001.00 to $825,000.00 $5,081.75 $3303.14 $869,001.00 to $870,000.00 $5,306.75 $3449.39$825,001.00 to $826,000.00 $5,086.75 $3306.39 $870,001.00 to $871,000.00 $5,311.75 $3452.64$826,001.00 to $827,000.00 $5,091.75 $3309.64 $871,001.00 to $872,000.00 $5,316.75 $3455.89$827,001.00 to $828,000.00 $5,096.75 $3312.89 $872,001.00 to $873,000.00 $5,321.75 $3459.14$828,001.00 to $829,000.00 $5,101.75 $3316.14 $873,001.00 to $874,000.00 $5,326.75 $3462.39$829,001.00 to $830,000.00 $5,106.75 $3319.39 $874,001.00 to $875,000.00 $5,331.75 $3465.64$830,001.00 to $831,000.00 $5,111.75 $3322.64 $875,001.00 to $876,000.00 $5,336.75 $3468.89$831,001.00 to $832,000.00 $5,116.75 $3325.89 $876,001.00 to $877,000.00 $5,341.75 $3472.14$832,001.00 to $833,000.00 $5,121.75 $3329.14 $877,00 I.00 to $878,000.00 $5,346.75 $3475.39$833,001.00 to $834,000.00 $5,126.75 $3332.39 $878,001.00 to $879,000.00 $5,351.75 $3478.64$834,001.00 to $835,000.00 $5,131.75 $3335.64 $879,001.00 to $880,000.00 $5,356.75 $3481.89$835,001.00 to $836,000.00 $5,136.75 $3338.89 $880,001.00 to $881,000.00 $5,361.75 $3485.14$836,001.00 to $837,000.00 $5,141.75 $3342.14 $881,001.00 to $882,000.00 $5,366.75 $3488.39$837,001.00 to $838,000.00 $5,146.75 $3345.39 $882,001.00 to $883,000.00 $5,371.75 $3491.64$838,001.00 to $839,000.00 $5,151.75 $3348.64 $883,001.00 to $884,000.00 $5,376.75 $3494.89$839,001.00 to $840,000.00 $5,156.75 $3351.89 $884,001.00 to $885,000.00 $5,381.75 $3498.14$840,001.00 to $841,000.00 $5,161.75 $3355.14 $885,001.00 to $886,000.00 $5,386.75 $3501.39 page 106 City of Mendota Heights - Building Permit Fees Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review To figure surcharge .0005 x valuation $886,001.00 to $887,000.00 $5,391.75 $3504.64 $931,001.00 to $932,000.00 $5,616.75 $3650.89$887,001.00 to $888,000.00 $5,396.75 $3507.89 $932,001.00 to $933,000.00 $5,621.75 $3654.14$888,001.00 to $889,000.00 $5,401.75 $3511.14 $933,001.00 to $934,000.00 $5,626.75 $3657.39$889,001.00 to $890,000.00 $5,406.75 $3514.39 $934,001.00 to $935,000.00 $5,631.75 $3660.64$890,001.00 to $891,000.00 $5,411.75 $3517.64 $935,001.00 to $936,000.00 $5,636.75 $3663.89$891,001.00 to $892,000.00 $5,416.75 $3520.89 $936,001.00 to $937,000.00 $5,641.75 $3667.14$892,001.00 to $893,000.00 $5,421.75 $3524.14 $937,001.00 to $938,000.00 $5,646.75 $3670.39$893,001.00 to $894,000.00 $5,426.75 $3527.39 $938,001.00 to $939,000.00 $5,651.75 $3673.64$894,001.00 to $895,000.00 $5,431.75 $3530.64 $939,001.00 to $940,000.00 $5,656.75 $3676.89$895,001.00 to $896,000.00 $5,436.75 $3533.89 $940,001.00 to $941,000.00 $5,661.75 $3680.14$896,001.00 to $897,000.00 $5,441.75 $3537.14 $941,001.00 to $942,000.00 $5,666.75 $3683.39$897,001.00 to $898,000.00 $5,446.75 $3540.39 $942,001.00 to $943,000.00 $5,671.75 $3686.64$898,001.00 to $899,000.00 $5,451.75 $3543.64 $943,001.00 to $944,000.00 $5,676.75 $3689.89$899,001.00 to $900,000.00 $5,456.75 $3546.89 $944,001.00 to $945,000.00 $5,681.75 $3693.14$900,001.00 to $901,000.00 $5,461.75 $3550.14 $945,001.00 to $946,000.00 $5,686.75 $3696.39$901,001.00 to $902,000.00 $5,466.75 $3553.39 $946,001.00 to $947,000.00 $5,691.75 $3699.64$902,001.00 to $903,000.00 $5,471.75 $3556.64 $947,001.00 to $948,000.00 $5,696.75 $3702.89$903,001.00 to $904,000.00 $5,476.75 $3559.89 $948,001.00 to $949,000.00 $5,701.75 $3706.14$904,001.00 to $905,000.00 $5,481.75 $3563.14 $949,001.00 to $950,000.00 $5,706.75 $3709.39$905,001.00 to $906,000.00 $5,486.75 $3566.39 $950,001.00 to $951,000.00 $5,711.75 $3712.64$906,001.00 to $907,000.00 $5,491.75 $3569.64 $951,001.00 to $952,000.00 $5,716.75 $3715.89$907,001.00 to $908,000.00 $5,496.75 $3572.89 $952,001.00 to $953,000.00 $5,721.75 $3719.14$908,001.00 to $909,000.00 $5,501.75 $3576.14 $953,001.00 to $954,000.00 $5,726.75 $3722.39$909,001.00 to $910,000.00 $5,506.75 $3579.39 $954,001.00 to $955,000.00 $5,731.75 $3725.64$910,001.00 to $911,000.00 $5,511.75 $3582.64 $955,001.00 to $956,000.00 $5,736.75 $3728.89$911,001.00 to $912,000.00 $5,516.75 $3585.89 $956,001.00 to $957,000.00 $5,741.75 $3732.14$912,001.00 to $913,000.00 $5,521.75 $3589.14 $957,001.00 to $958,000.00 $5,746.75 $3735.39$913,001.00 to $914,000.00 $5,526.75 $3592.39 $958,001.00 to $959,000.00 $5,751.75 $3738.64$914,001.00 to $915,000.00 $5,531.75 $3595.64 $959,001.00 to $960,000.00 $5,756.75 $3741.89$915,001.00 to $916,000.00 $5,536.75 $3598.89 $960,001.00 to $961,000.00 $5,761.75 $3745.14$916,001.00 to $917,000.00 $5,541.75 $3602.14 $961,001.00 to $962,000.00 $5,766.75 $3748.39$917,001.00 to $918,000.00 $5,546.75 $3605.39 $962,001.00 to $963,000.00 $5,771.75 $3751.64$918,001.00 to $919,000.00 $5,551.75 $3608.64 $963,001.00 to $964,000.00 $5,776.75 $3754.89$919,001.00 to $920,000.00 $5,556.75 $3611.89 $964,001.00 to $965,000.00 $5,781.75 $3758.14$920,001.00 to $921,000.00 $5,561.75 $3615.14 $965,001.00 to $966,000.00 $5,786.75 $3761.39$921,001.00 to $922,000.00 $5,566.75 $3618.39 $966,001.00 to $967,000.00 $5,791.75 $3764.64$922,001.00 to $923,000.00 $5,571.75 $3621.64 $967,001.00 to $968,000.00 $5,796.75 $3767.89$923,001.00 to $924,000.00 $5,576.75 $3624.89 $968,001.00 to $969,000.00 $5,801.75 $3771.14$924,001.00 to $925,000.00 $5,581.75 $3628.14 $969,001.00 to $970,000.00 $5,806.75 $3774.39$925,001.00 to $926,000.00 $5,586.75 $3631.39 $970,001.00 to $971,000.00 $5,811.75 $3777.64$926,001.00 to $927,000.00 $5,591.75 $3634.64 $971,001.00 to $972,000.00 $5,816.75 $3780.89$927,001.00 to $928,000.00 $5,596.75 $3637.89 $972,001.00 to $973,000.00 $5,821.75 $3784.14$928,001.00 to $929,000.00 $5,601.75 $3641.14 $973,001.00 to $974,000.00 $5,826.75 $3787.39$929,001.00 to $930,000.00 $5,606.75 $3644.39 $974,001.00 to $975,000.00 $5,831.75 $3790.64$930,001.00 to $931,000.00 $5,611.75 $3647.64 $975,001.00 to $976,000.00 $5,836.75 $3793.89 page 107 City of Mendota Heights - Building Permit Fees Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review Valuation Permit Fees Plan Review To figure surcharge .0005 x valuation $976,001.00 to $977,000.00 $5,841.75 $3797.14$977,001.00 to $978,000.00 $5,846.75 $3800.39$978,001.00 to $979,000.00 $5,851.75 $3803.64$979,001.00 to $980,000.00 $5,856.75 $3806.89$980,001.00 to $981,000.00 $5,861.75 $3810.14$981,001.00 to $982,000.00 $5,866.75 $3813.39$982,001.00 to $983,000.00 $5,871.75 $3816.64$983,001.00 to $984,000.00 $5,876.75 $3819.89$984,001.00 to $985,000.00 $5,881.75 $3823.14$985,001.00 to $986,000.00 $5,886.75 $3826.39$986,001.00 to $987,000.00 $5,891.75 $3829.64$987,001.00 to $988,000.00 $5,896.75 $3832.89$988,001.00 to $989,000.00 $5,901.75 $3836.14$989,001.00 to $990,000.00 $5,906.75 $3839.39$990,001.00 to $991,000.00 $5,911.75 $3842.64$991,001.00 to $992,000.00 $5,916.75 $3845.89$992,001.00 to $993,000.00 $5,921.75 $3849.14$993,001.00 to $994,000.00 $5,926.75 $3852.39$994,001.00 to $995,000.00 $5,931.75 $3855.64$995,001.00 to $996,000.00 $5,936.75 $3858.89$996,001.00 to $997,000.00 $5,941.75 $3862.14$997,001.00 to $998,000.00 $5,946.75 $3865.39$998,001.00 to $999,000.00 $5,951.75 $3868.64$999,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $5,956.75 $3871.8965% of Building Permit Fee$1,000,001 and greater: $5,956.75 for first $1,000,000 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof page 108 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Rogers Lake Upper Parking Lot Street Light COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to consider a recommendation from the Parks & Recreation Commission regarding installing a street light at the entrance to Rogers Lake Park upper parking lot. BACKGROUND Each Park & Recreation Commissioner is assigned a specific park in which they report any observed issues to staff. Commissioner Kipp is assigned to Rogers Lake Park and has expressed safety concerns of the crosswalk at Wagon Wheel Trail and the entrance to the upper parking lot. The upper parking lot is mainly used for users of the skate park which is only open during park hours and does not currently provide lighting. DISCUSSION Staff presented the request to the Parks & Recreation Commission on December 11, 2018. The Commission recommended to advance the request to City Council for consideration. Letters were then mailed to approximately 12 properties that are in the vicinity of the proposed light location. The letter asked residents to provide feedback to staff ahead of the Council’s discussion. The light is proposed to be installed on an existing power pole and leased from Xcel Energy. One property contacted staff and was supportive of this addition, one property had no opinion but would be supportive, four properties are very opposed. One of the properties opposing the light also reached out to the Rogers Lake Property Owners Association and submitted the attached petition opposing the light with an additional four signatures. One of the properties near the new light is opposed due to concerns over property values and loss of a country feel. The submitted petition is opposing the light due to effects it may have on nature and wildlife (see attached information). BUDGET IMPACT Mendota Heights has considered the installation of street lights on a case by case basis generally initiated by petition. Street lighting is funded through the public works street budget. An LED light equivalent to a 100W High Pressure Sodium light costs $10.36 per month to lease which equals $124.32 per year. RECOMMENDATION At its December 11, 2018, meeting, the Parks & Recreation Commission voted 6-0 recommending the installation of the light. page 109 ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to enact the Commission recommendation, it should pass a motion authorizing the installation of a street light at Rogers Lake Park upper parking lot. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 110 WAGON WHEEL TRLINTERSTATE 35EWAGON WHEEL CTINTERSTATE 35EDakota County GIS Roger Lake ParkUpper Parking Lot Streetlight Date: 1/30/2019 City ofMendotaHeights0200 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. j Street light location page 111 January 28, 2019 To: Mayor Neil Garlock, City Council Members Ultan Dugan, Liz Petschel, Joel Paper, Jay Miller CC: Mark McNeill, Ryan Ruzek RE: Opposition to Street Light at the Entrance to the Skate Park at Rogers Lake Park Dear Mayor and Council Members, We are writing to oppose a street light installation at Rogers Lake Park at the entrance to the Skate Park. We don’t think a street light is needed. And, we don’t think the Parks and Recreation commissioners who supported the light are aware of the remarkable wildlife that Rogers Lake Park Meet one of the Green Heron Families of Rogers Lake Park Photos by Peggy Kipp page 112 supports and the negative impact a street light will have on their habitat. We hope this letter will convince you to vote NO for the street light. GREEN HERONS There have been four or ﬁve green heron nests in the thicket of trees and shrubs surrounding the holding pond at Rogers Lake Park for many years. The thicket is between the two entrances to Rogers Lake Park very near the proposed street light. Right now the herons are in their winter home, probably somewhere on the Florida coast. But, they will be back to their nesting home in the trees of Rogers Lake Park at the end of May or early June. According to the National Audubon Society, herons are especially vulnerable to human disturbance during their pair formation and breeding season. They are delicate and tend to abandon nests if disturbed during periods of nesting. They continue to be sensitive after hatching and up until the young ﬂedge the nest in August. The new street light will disturb this nesting site. The adults and their young will be more vulnerable at night to predators like raccoons and owls because their nests will be more visable. They will need to be on alert through the night rather than using the night time to rest. OTHER BIRDS are also affected by artiﬁcial light at night. In addition to the Green Heron nests in the park, there is an Eastern Phoebe pair and a Kingbird pair all nesting in the same thicket. Bluebirds, cardinals, chickadees and swallows also make their home in this park. Artiﬁcial lighting affects breeding insects. Most songbirds feed their young exclusively on insects. Fewer insects = fewer birds. And, we humans depend on insects to pollinate many plants. POLLINATORS It is not just birds that are affected by artiﬁcial light. A lot of pollination is done after dark - not by the usual bees and butterﬂies, but by moths, bats, beetles and more. The artiﬁcial light disrupts the daily rhythms of mating and feeding. Many moths are attracted to artiﬁcial lights and circle them until they die from exhaustion. Moths are good night time pollinators and also prey on nuisance insects. Mendota Heights is a pollinator friendly city and we need to protect these pollinators who work the night shift. FROGS are attracted to light at night, causing them to leave their cover of mud and water and making them easy prey. We have several species of frogs (chorus, spring peepers and bullfrogs) living in the pond at the Park. Will one more street light make a difference? Absolutely. Every light contributes to the problem and especially in an environment where there is a rich, diverse wildlife population like in Rogers Lake Park. Please vote NO to installing a street light at Rogers Lake Park. Sue Light and Boyd Ratchye Patrick Hickey 2270 Wagon Wheel Court 2303 Swan Drive Tim Carlson Karna and John Campobasso 2319 Swan Drive 2231 Swan Court Peggy Kipp Dave and Wendy Rossmiller 2273 Wagon Wheel Court 2275 Wagon Wheel Court Sally McNamara 2371 Swan Drive page 113 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 5, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize Professional Services Contract for the Village Retaining Walls Improvement Project COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize a professional services contract for improvements of the Village retaining walls. BACKGROUND Mendota Heights constructed the public improvements of the Village site in 2004. The public improvements included a number of retaining walls in Outlot E, the pond and trail area between the residential properties and the Dakota County CDA building. At the initial safety assessment meeting, a city consultant, Bolton & Menk, identified a large number of deficiencies in the wall construction. The consultant was then asked to put together a plan for temporary public safety improvements which included adding concrete jersey barriers to protect trail users from falling rocks. DISCUSSION Staff developed a Request for Proposals (RFP) on the project and invited three firms to submit proposals. Two firms submitted quotes for this project, and the third firm declined to submit a proposal due to uncertainties with boulder walls. Consultant Total Fee Stonebrooke $64,436.00 Bolton & Menk $94,295.00 Both firms submitted thorough and complete proposals and each addressed concerns and gave ideas on proceeding with the project. Staff would be comfortable awarding the project to either firm but is recommending Stonebrooke based on the lower cost of their proposal. Stonebrooke is located in Burnsville, Minnesota, and has been preselected through the city consulting pool. This project is specified to follow State Statute 429 processes as portions of the project are proposed to be assessed to the adjacent properties. page 114 BUDGET IMPACT It is anticipated that the city will finance this project through general improvement bonds and special assessments. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council authorize the professional services contract to Stonebrooke for their not-to-exceed price of $64,436. The feasibility report is scheduled for presentation to the City Council on April 2, 2019. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize Staff to execute a professional services contract with Stonebrooke for their not-to-exceed price of $64,436. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 115 υ City of Mendota Heights Request for Proposals for Consulting Services Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 116 φ Table of Contents A. Background and General Project Information B. Instructions for Proposers and Required General Proposal Content C. Required Work – Feasibility Stage D. Required Work – Design Stage E. Required Work – Bid Solicitation Stage F. Required Work – Construction Stage G. Required Work – Post Construction Stage H. Target Completion/Milestone Dates Appendices A. Appendix A – Location Map page 117 χ The City of Mendota Heights hereby solicits assistance in engineering services relating to the replacement of boulder retaining walls at Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights. A. Background and General Project Information Boulder retaining walls were constructed in multiple locations around the perimeter of Outlot E to provide suitable means of site grade adjustment. The boulder retaining wall has begun to fail in multiple locations adjacent to the paved bituminous trail between the multiple residential condominium properties located on Oak Street and the Village Commons residential complex. The boulder retaining walls were built approximately between 2003 and 2004. The walls are approximately 550 feet long and range in height up to approximately 9 feet tall. 1. The general planned improvement is the replacement of boulder retaining walls within a city owned outlot (See Appendix A – Location Map). 2. Items to be furnished by the City will include any known horizontal and vertical control in the area, GIS and CAD files, and as‐builts. Additional data as requested if available. 3. Project implementation will proceed following Minnesota Statute 429 (MS429). It is envisioned that the work will be substantially completed in the 2019 construction. 4. Topographical survey may be necessary. 5. The Consultant work scope generally includes feasibility, preliminary and final design, field engineering and contract administration in accordance with Minnesota Statute 429 (MS429), and City standards and processes including all necessary coordination with local, county and state agencies including utility companies. Presentations to the Mendota Heights City Council will also be required from time to time. B. Instructions for Proposers and Required General Proposal Content 1. This RFP document is available upon request to respondents in hard copy and or PDF formats. Requests for the RFP documents should be made to : Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 255‐1850 ryanr@mendota‐heights.com 2. Respondents shall include 1 digital and 1 hard copy of their proposal document. Proposals shall not exceed five (5) pages (font size 11). 3. Proposals shall also include a narrative summarizing the respondent’s understanding of the work and the proposed approach to completing the work. 4. Proposals shall include proposed compensation for the work with proposed hourly rates. All work will be compensated at hourly rates subject to a not‐to‐exceed‐without‐ prior‐authorization limit proposed by the consultant. 5. Insurance – The successful respondent will be required to furnish appropriate certificates of insurance as a part of the final contract negotiations. 6. Selection Criteria i. Understanding of work and proposed approach page 118 ψ ii. Cost 7. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals. The City also specifically reserves the right to negotiate with proposers to potentially modify the scope of the work. 8. Any questions regarding this Request for Proposals should be directed ONLY to Ryan Ruzek at the above noted address. C. Required Work – Feasibility Stage 1. The consultant shall facilitate a project kick‐off meeting at which schedules and deliverables will be discussed. 2. The consultant shall prepare a feasibility report in accordance with MS 429 which will address differing wall options and associated costs. 3. Consultant shall participate in the MS429 process including assistance with public meetings. The city envisions that it will prepare the preliminary and final special assessment documents and supervise the hearing processes. The consultant shall participate in the MS429 meetings as well as preliminary neighborhood meetings and meeting with residents prior to and during construction. The consultant shall provide project cost data in the format necessary for the City to prepare the MS429 legal documents including assessment rolls. Estimates of the total project costs shall be sufficiently disaggregated to allow the preparation of special assessment documents. 4. The City will prepare all items for preliminary assessment rolls, required notices, etc. 5. The consultant shall make appropriate staff personnel available to attend One (1) public informational meeting, the Council meeting at which the Feasibility Report is presented, the preliminary assessment hearing and up to 2 other meetings with the Council. D. Required Work – Design Stage 1. The consultant shall complete required preliminary surveying including but not limited to: i. Surveys related to the horizontal and vertical alignment of the project as needed ii. Topographical surveys as needed 2. Design document format – The plans shall be prepared utilizing Civil 3D. Other software required for design services and communication of information will be Microsoft Office products such as Word, Excel, and Power Point. FTP sites may be required for file sharing. Other formats or software products may be required for specific tasks such as traffic modeling or truck turning movements. 3. Geotechnical services for design – The scope of work for design services shall include field sampling and testing of soils. 4. The consultant shall prepare technical specifications incorporating City standard plates, standard specifications and bid documents. 5. The consultant shall organize and attend design initiation and other progress meetings. 6. Consultant shall organize and attend neighborhood meetings and provide appropriate graphic displays. 7. Consultant shall attend Council meetings (not to exceed two in this phase) at which project updates and approval of plans and specifications will be discussed. page 119 ω E. Required Work – Bid Solicitation Stage 1. The consultant shall prepare a bid advertisement and post it in appropriate bid solicitation venues. 2. The consultant shall file plans with the appropriate construction bid web sites. 3. The consultant shall respond to construction bid proposer questions and requests for clarifications. 4. Consultant shall prepare required bid addenda. 5. Consultant shall attend bid letting and a pre‐bid conference at the City’s discretion. 6. Consultant shall tabulate the bids received. 7. Consultant shall evaluate the bids and bidders and make a recommendation for award/rejection of bids. 8. Consultant shall review submitted contract documents including payment and performance bonds. F. Required Work – Construction Stage 1. The consultant shall complete all required construction surveying for all components of the construction work. 2. The consultant shall review and approve all shop drawings and other documentation required of the construction contractor. 3. The consultant shall provide resident observation. Competent and sufficient field engineering personnel shall be on the project at all times when significant construction work is progressing. 4. The consultant shall include all Quality Control testing of materials. 5. The consultant shall administrate the construction contract. It shall prepare and evaluate all requests for payment and prepare payment request documents for review and processing by the City Finance Department. 6. The consultant shall address and evaluate contractor demands for compensation outside of the contract prices relating to alleged changed conditions. The consultant shall prepare supplemental agreements and or change orders as appropriate. 7. The consultant shall prepare punch lists as construction nears completion. 8. The consultant shall make final inspections and prepare final payment request documents for processing by the City. 9. The consultant shall utilize compiled cost and other data to assist the City in its final assessment processes. G. Required Work – Post Construction Stage 1. The consultant shall prepare as‐built drawings for all work completed. The as‐built drawings will be submitted in the above noted format. 2. The consultant shall process any and all warranty claims. H. Target Completion/Milestone Dates (Subject to Change) 1. January 30, 2019 ‐ RFP proposals due to the City 2. February 5, 2019 – RFP Awarded to Consultant 3. March 27, 2019 – Completion of Feasibility Report 4. May 7, 2019 – Completion of Public Hearing 5. June 12, 2019 – Plans and Specifications completed and bid solicitation issued 6. July 16, 2019 – Bid Award, Contract Approval and Notice to Proceed 7. October 1, 2019 – Substantial Completion of Construction page 120 ϊ Appendix page 121 1 of 5 G4OIURRKZ'\KT[K([XTY\ORRK34 UL ]YZUTKHXUUQKKTMOTKKXOTMIUS January 30, 2019 Mr. Ryan Ruzek Mendota Heights – Public Works Director 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Professional Services Proposal Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements Stonebrooke Engineering appreciates the opportunity to provide professional engineering and surveying services for the above referenced project. Our proposed design fee will not exceed $64,436.00 based on our understanding of the work required as outlined in our proposal. See the enclosed cost proposal for a detailed breakdown of tasks and associated costs. Project Understanding The City of Mendota Heights has a long history and commitment to providing unique residential living environments and business centers. To maintain this high quality, family-oriented community with a spacious, natural feel, approximately 550 linear feet of deteriorating boulder retaining wall must be replaced at the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights location. This will be an assessed 2019 construction project following Minnesota Statute 429, with an emphasis on public involvement to aid in finding a responsible, efficient, and cost-effective solution for the city, residents, and business community in this mix used area. Stonebrooke Engineering will complete engineering and contract administrative services in accordance with MS 429, City standards and processes including agency and utility coordination. Enhancing the city’s 28.5 miles of off-road trails and open spaces is important to sustaining Mendota Heights’ community goals, and we look forward to sustaining those goals with this proposed reconstruction project. page 122 2 of 5 Project Work Plan Task 1 Project Management Our project team is fully prepared to deliver the project processes and design documents necessary for the final design to be completed and allow for construction to begin in July 2019. We will approach this project with a critical path mentality and begin with the end in mind. An emphasis on open, proactive communication with all stakeholders will help to identify potential issues to be resolved. Our project specific approach will include: x We will facilitate a project kick-off meeting with the City to establish a mutual understanding of the project needs, approach and define roles and responsibilities for delivering the project. x Establish a mutually agreed upon detailed schedule for all Tasks and Subtasks. No surprises! x Meeting agendas provided three days before meetings and minutes within one week of meetings, acknowledging that for efficiency meetings may be informal and as-needed as the project developments. x Consistent communication to expedite problem solving and issue resolution. x We will complete a Feasibility Report in accordance with MS 429 which include addressing differing wall options and associated costs. Based on our site visit and measurements it is assumed that the retaining walls are not structural support for Oak Street or the residential condominiums. Structural walls are beyond the scope of our proposal and would be addressed with an amendment if needed. x Participate in a public informational/preliminary neighborhood meeting (Open House), participate in the preliminary assessment hearing, and attend the Council meeting at which the Feasibility Report is presented and up to 2 other meetings with the Council. x Attend additional meetings with property owners prior to and during construction as needed. x Provide costs and project information for preparation of the assessment roles and notices by the City. Deliverables: x Detailed monthly progress & status reports. x Four meetings (Kickoff Meeting and three others as needed). x Agendas and Minutes for all meeting. x Project coordination and communications via phone, email, screen sharing, and writing. x Complete Feasibility Report. x Attend Public Open House and additional meetings with property owners as needed. x Attend Preliminary Assessment hearing, and up to 3 Council meetings. x Monthly invoices. page 123 3 of 5 Task 2 Design Geotechnical We will review the available geotechnical information provided by the City, as built plans, and make recommendations regarding the need for additional geotechnical investigation that may be advisable for the project. At this time we anticipate the need for a several of borings in the vicinity of the existing wall to obtain cohesion, bearing pressure, and other soil parameters. We would hire Haugo Geotechnical Services to perform this work. A solid understanding of the geotechnical impacts on the design and construction is necessary to ensure constructability and long-term performance of the reconstructed infrastructure. Survey Our survey work will include a Gopher State One Call, setting project control points, and completion of a topographical survey of existing site conditions. It is important to obtain as-builts and site locates of the existing public and private utilities to properly deconflict and coordinate relocation as needed for the proposed wall construction. We will establish the existing lot lines adjacent to the retaining walls and obtain lot information from the Dakota County Recorder’s office as required. The drawing will be based on the Dakota County Coordinate System, NAD 83, 2011 adjustment. It is anticipated that any temporary or permanent easements required for construction will be obtained by the City. Stonebrooke Enginering Inc. will provide layouts as required to support this acquisition. Design, Construction Plans and Specifications Our team will move into final design after completing a Public Open House and after obtaining approval of the Feasibility Study and upon being ordered by the City Council to prepare final plans, specifications, and bid documents. We will ensure bid documents include City standard plates, standard specifications, and bid documents, utilizing City provided examples and staff input to ensure we include all City specific language. The design phase includes one utility coordination meeting to order utility owners to relocate/adjust as needed to support construction. Graphic Displays Our graphics department will complete renderings of proposed retaining wall alternatives to better obtain resident and business input during the Public Open House. Deliverables: x Geotechnical Field Sampling and Soils Testing x Topographical Survey and GSOC x Construction Plans x Technical Specifications and Bid Documents x Utility Coordination Meeting x Graphic Displays page 124 4 of 5 Task 3 Bid Solicitation Stonebrooke Engineering Inc. will prepare and advertise the project proposal package and post the project in City recommended solicitation venues. We will respond to bidding questions, prepare bid addenda as required, and attend the bid letting. A pre-bid conference is not anticipated, but can be supported at an hourly rate at the City’s discretion. After bidding we will tabulate the bids and make a recommendation for the award or rejection of bids following review of contract documents and bonds. Deliverables: x Properly advertised project. x Properly bid and awarded project. Task 4 Construction and Post Construction Stonebrooke Engineering, Inc. will ensure the retaining walls are reconstructed to industry standards to ensure longevity of the walls while ensuring the City of Mendota Heights does not assume unnecessary risk. We will conduct a pre-construction meeting with the City and Contractor to set project expectations, will keep the public informed via the City’s project website and mailers to residents adjacent to the project. To ensure quality control before and during construction, we will thoroughly review all retaining wall plans and shop drawings, and recommend providing up to 3 site visits per week and as needed to monitor the wall reconstruction. We also recommend soils testing to include proctors, nuclear density tests during backfilling operations, and gradations of granular backfill materials to ensure quality control. Our team will administer the construction contract and prepare payment request documents, supplemental agreements if needed, and punch lists for the project. After construction is complete we will also prepare as-built drawings in PDF format for the City. Warranty claims will follow the City’s standard contract process as outlined in the bid documents, and we will help facilitate claims as needed within the contractor’s contractual obligations. Deliverables: x Construction Staking x Shop Drawing Review x Construction Resident Observation x Geotechnical Quality Control Testing x Contract Administration (Pay Estimates, Supplemental Agreements, Punch Lists) x Construction Plan As Builts in PDF format page 125 5 of 5 Schedule: We propose to complete the Feasibility Report by March 27, 2019, Public Hearing by May 7, 2019, and Bidding Documents and bid solicitation by June 12, 2019. We anticipate a bid award, contract approval, and notice to proceed by July 16, 2019. Construction is anticipated to be complete within the 2019 season. Upon receiving notice to proceed, a mutually agreeable detailed scheduled will be developed for this project. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to assist the city with this important project. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns with the scope of work outlined for the tasks outlined above or the attached cost proposal. Sincerely, Tim Arvidson, P.E. Chief Executive Officer Stonebrooke Engineering Attachments: Summary Cost Proposal Detailed Cost Proposal page 126 720 720 750 697 698 730 1930 740 698 1900 OAK STMARKET STLINDEN STM A I N S T MAPLE ST FRONTAGE RD MULBERRY LN K A R L H O H E N S T E I N P L OAK ST RAMPDakota County GIS Village Retaining Walls Date: 12/27/2018 City ofMendotaHeights0100 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Existing Walls to be replaced (Typ.) page 127 Request for City Council Action DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-14 Appointment to the Planning Commission COMMENT: Introduction The Council is asked to appoint one Planning Commissioner to fill the vacancy on the commission. Background Per City Code 2-1-2: Members of the Planning Commission are limited to 3 consecutive full terms. Planning Commission member Litton Field, Jr. served three full terms and cannot be reappointed. Staff advertised the open position and the City Council will be interviewing nine applicants prior to this meeting. This position is for a three year term which will expire on January 31, 2022. Recommendation The Council should appoint a resident to the Commission by means of adopting the attached resolution, by filling in the blank for the name selected. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt Resolution 2019-14 Appointing A Resident to the Planning Commission. page 128 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-14 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A RESIDENT TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE PLANNING 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 Planning Commission serves as an advisory body to the City Council. They advise the City Council on matters pertaining to comprehensive planning, amendments to the zoning code, conditional use permits, wetlands permits, and development plans; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the excellent qualifications of Mendota Heights resident ________ to serve the City on the Planning Commission. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, that it does hereby appoint ________ to the Planning Commission, for a term to expire on January 31, 2022. Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 5th day of February, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ______________________________ ATTEST: Neil Garlock, Mayor _____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 129