Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-10-16 Council packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Wednesday, October 16, 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 October 2, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge August 21, 2019 Airport Relations Commission Meeting Minutes c. Approve Outdoor Recreation Grant for Wentworth Park Improvements d. Approve Resolution 2019-76 Authorize Grant Agreement with the Metropolitan Council for Inflow and Infiltration Improvements e. Approve Resolution 2019-77 Supporting the Dakota County 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan f. Approve Out of State Travel Request from the Police Department g. Approve Resolution 2019-80 Authorizing The Auction of a City Owned Vehicle h. Approve 2019–2020 Insurance Renewal and Election to Not Waive Statutory Limits i. Acknowledge August 2019 Fire Synopsis Report j. Acknowledge August 2019 Par 3 Financial Report k. Acknowledge Building Activity Report l. Approval of Claims List m. Approve Police Officer Hire 6. Citizen Comment Period *see guidelines below 7. Presentations a. Update on Fire Station Expansion/Remodel by Paul Oberhaus, CPMI b. Resolution 2019-81 Accepting Proposal on the Sale of $3,195,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B, Providing for Their Issuance and Pledging for the Security Thereof Special Assessments and Levying a Tax for the Payment Thereof 8. Public Hearings a. Resolution 2019-75 Approve Vacation of Easement in Mendota Heights Industrial Park b. Resolution 2019-72 Approve Critical Area Permit for New Single Family Dwelling in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, 1135 Orchard Place (Planning Case No. 2019-26) c. Resolution 2019-78 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for the Wesley Neighborhood Improvements d. Resolution 2019-79 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Ordinance No. 543 Revise Code Regarding the Distance Requirement between Liquor Establishments and Religious Establishments/Schools 10. Community Announcements 11. Council Comments 12. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Wednesday, October 2, 2019 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. 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 amended agenda, which included the addition of item 8g. Wentworth Park Playground Improvements. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Councilor Duggan asked if residents have had a chance to see the added item. City Administrator Mark McNeill responded that the on-line agenda was amended on Monday to include this item. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 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 September 17, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Approval of the September 24, 2019 City Council Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge the August 27, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes d. Acknowledge the August 13, 2019 Parks and Rec Minutes e. Approval of Fire Grant Application f. Approve Purchase Order for Off-leash Dog Park Fence g. Amend Joint Powers Agreement for Recycling Coordinator Services h. Approval of August 2019 Treasurer’s Report i. Approval of Claims List page 3 Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Joe Lawder, 1851 Warrior Drive, addressed concerns regarding the high school’s athletic facility. He stated they are having a lot of events there. One year ago, it was pointed out in meetings, that there may be issues and now those are coming to fruition. He has talked with Public Works Director Ruzek and the school district; however, he has not received much response. The two main issues are the parking/traffic and noise. He said that the School District did not need a variance for parking because they met the standards. If they did not need a variance for parking, he said that the neighborhood should not suffer the burden of people parking on the street. The north end of Warrior Drive is a turnaround area for cars. That area should be free of parked cars during events. He went on to say that in meetings last year, the School District also stated that they would adhere to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards on noise. Last weekend, the loud music was heard in his backyard for four hours. On Saturday, the music started again, and it went on for approximately 6 hours. Whether or not it exceeds the MPCA guidelines as to what is allowable noise does not mean that it is not a nuisance. He hoped that the area residents could work with the Traffic Safety Committee on a solution. PUBLIC HEARINGS No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2019-71 APPROVE VARIANCE FOR A NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION AT SOMERSET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 1355 DODD ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-25) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this request from the School District for three new additions at the existing Somerset Elementary School. The gymnasium addition requires a variance under the R-1 standard. The height variance is due to the requirements for the functionality of the space per State of Minnesota regulations on ceiling height requirements for any type of activity such as volleyball or basketball. In 2018, the School District voters approved a building bond to help facilitate improvements at Somerset and other schools. Somerset is located in the R-1 district and is guided as School/Institutional. Public schools are a permitted use in the R-1 zone and that zone limits all structures to a 25-foot height limit. page 4 This school is located at the intersection of Dodd Road and Emerson and Coleshire Lane, is 9.34 acres in size, and just over 33,000 square feet in total area. Mr. Benetti stated that parking along the front would be revised; however, that is not subject to a variance. The current parking layout shows the traffic entering on the north side and parking being diagonal, with bus parking along the front of the building. The school will be reconfiguring the north parking lot as the new bus drop off and temporary bus parking. The elevator addition would be being built behind the current school building. The elevator is approximately 16-feet by 28-feet and 20-feet in height, which does not require a variance. On the back side, a classroom addition would be built; 20-feet by 58-feet, 25-feet in height, which does not require a variance. The gymnasium addition is approximately 56-feet by 86-feet with a total footprint of 6,300 square feet. This would be added to the backside of the current gymnasium, on the north side of the school. The height is anticipated to be approximately 30 feet, where the existing gymnasium is at 27-feet. Per code, building heights are measured from the front average grade elevation. This 30-foot height is what the variance request is based on. Approximately 10 trees would need to be removed; however, they would plant 16 new trees. Councilor Duggan asked for the difference in height from the existing building and the bell tower. Mr. Benetti replied that the bell tower is 46-feet in height; however, he did not know the height of the existing roof line. Councilor Duggan stated that he believed there was language somewhere that bell towers and spires and other such things are not used as a measuring device. Councilor Duggan asked if there would be any reductions in sight lines for the neighbors. Mr. Benetti replied that from the back, the sight lines will probably not change much from what is seen today. Councilor Duggan asked if anyone has raised an issue about the large wall structure without anything softening it or breaking the line. Mr. Benetti replied that it was not planned for under this request. Mayor Garlock stated that he liked that the plans included separating the bus traffic from the vehicle traffic. Councilor Miller agreed as it is a safety issue. Councilor Miller moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-71 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION AT SOMERSET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 1355 DODD ROAD. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) RESOLUTION 2019-72 APPROVE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA, 1135 ORCHARD PLACE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-26) City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that staff has been made aware that stated in the City Code, a Critical Area Permit needs to have a public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting and the City page 5 Council meeting. This item has not been advertised as a public hearing. This item will be rescheduled for the October 16, 2019 meeting. Staff requested that the Council table the application and direct that a public hearing be called. City Attorney Andrew Pratt suggested that the Council amend the City Code to delete this requirement that the Council hold public hearings for critical area permits because that is already completed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is the fact finder and the public hearing body. He recommended that in the future they work on this to eliminate the public hearing requirement at City Council level. Councilor Duggan stated that the Planning Commission advises and reviews the application based on their regulations; the Council is another set of eyes that looks, hopefully with a little bit more wisdom, at it a little differently. He would not want to change this code. Mr. Pratt replied that having two public hearings for critical area permits is contrary to most of the land use approvals in the city code. If this was changed, the Council would still consider and take action on the item, there just would not be a public hearing held by the City Council. Mr. Matt Mosvick raised his objection about having to wait two more weeks before he could apply for his building permit. Mayor Garlock apologized on behalf of the City and explained that this was an oversight and that they would take care of his needs as soon as possible. Mr. Benetti noted that in certain cases, an applicant can apply for a building permit and a preliminary review can be conducted; however, the permit would be subject to the Council’s full consideration. Councilor Petschel moved to table RESOLUTION 2019-72, APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1135 ORCHARD PLACE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019- 26) AND DIRECT THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE CALLED FOR OCTOBER 16, 2019. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 C) ORDINANCE NO. 545 AMEND TITLE 12, ARTICLE G. I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) STANDARDS IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Community Development Director Benetti explained that this request was submitted by the City of Mendota Heights, working in conjunction and cooperation with Metro Storage, requesting consideration of a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance on the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) standard. This would be for the industrial district only. On August 27, 2019, the Planning Commission directed staff and the applicant to prepare and research an amendment to the FAR standard in the I-Industrial District zone. This directive was made as part of the original conditional use permit and variance application review on a proposed self-storage facility under separate case 2019-20. page 6 The city adopted a separate Ordinance 538, which allowed for parcels of self-storage uses as a conditional use in the I-Industrial Zone. On August 27, 2019 Metro Storage came forward with their CUP along with a variance request to build a 117,810 square foot three-story building. The Floor Area Ratio is defined as the numerical value obtained through dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which the building is, or is to be, located. The FAR standard in Mendota Heights is currently at 0.5. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a report on the FAR and survey other cities. Mr. Benetti shared the survey results with the Planning Commission on September 24, 2019 under a public hearing process. As the report indicated, the majority of the surrounding cities do not have a FAR; the cities of St. Paul, Bloomington, Minneapolis allow for up to 2.0/2.7 all of the way up to 5.0; other cities have a mid-range or similar FAR from 0.5 to 1.5. The cities without an FAR have reasonable amounts of maximum building coverage similar to Mendota Heights – between 30% to 50%. Mendota Heights is at 50%. Maximum lot coverage ranges from a low of 35%, mid-range is 70-75%, and high of 90%. Building height restrictions appears to be similar to Mendota Heights’ 45-foot height limit. Staff believed that removing or modifying the FAR seemed appropriate and consistent with other communities. They felt that keeping the 50% maximum building coverage was a safety factor in itself; also with the increased set-backs, parking lot setbacks, the 25% green space or open space threshold, they felt that the FAR would not be warranted. Mr. Benetti also completed a calculation of the city’s current industrial uses in the district and only two are over 0.5. Most uses in the Industrial Park meet the FAR standard today. With that information, the Planning Commission was presented with two options: remove the FAR, or modify the FAR to a higher standard if they felt it was warranted. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to remove the FAR from the ordinance by a vote of 7-0. Councilor Miller asked to see the image that showed that only two of the buildings in the district were over the FAR standard and asked how they were approved. Mr. Benetti replied that there was no record that they were exceeding the FAR standard. Councilor Miller asked if the process for them would have been to request a variance. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. Councilor Miller noted that if nothing was changed then the applicant would need to request a variance. Mr. Benetti confirmed. He asked why the impetus to adjust the Code. In his opinion, if this were adjusted, it could potentially open a door for a variety of things and cede control of what could be allowed. Mr. Benetti replied that the Planning Commission members were struggling with the variance as the vote showed. After discussion, a decided to delete the FAR, which would cause no reason for the need for this variance. As the minutes from the Planning Commission show, it was an easy discussion with them, and they had no concerns; thus the 7-0 vote. Councilor Petschel stated that she struggled with this. She quoted Planning Commissioner Noonan from the minutes that read, “he reviewed the discussion in the minutes of the last meeting and wondered at what point the FAR, in many suburban locations, was deemed somewhat antiquated. And was it page 7 antiquated because the FAR, in its current location, was there to control the massing. Whereas, combining the building coverage, the setbacks, the height limitations, the parking regulations, increases the limitations and therefore says a lot about eliminating the FAR all together.” She was trying to get a sense of the Planning Commission’s reasoning and this was the best explanation. The other parts of the ordinance are so restrictive – was that a way of saying that the FAR is unnecessary. Mr. Benetti agreed that this summarized the Planning Commission’s reasoning. Councilor Duggan agrees that the regulations to control the massing. However, he does not have an issue with the FAR. The Council looks to the Planning Commission for guidance in relation to the Ordinance language. The Council is the final determiners. The Council needs to study what the impact would be before they change the language. Councilor Duggan also asked if the adoption of an Ordinance should be noticed to the public and a hearing held. City Attorney Andrew Pratt replied that there is a 10-day posting notice requirement for any proposed Ordinance to be heard by the Council. The proposed ordinances are posted on the City’s website for at least 10 days. Councilor Duggan asked how they could do that when the ordinance had not been passed by the Council. Mr. Pratt clarified that a notice of proposed ordinance needs to be posted online at least 10 days before the meeting, which was done in this case. An ordinance, once approved by the Council, is effective upon its publication. Councilor Miller asked for confirmation that if this proposed ordinance amendment were to be denied, that there would still be a pathway for the self-storage facility to be approved through a variance. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Councilor Petschel noted that the problem with the variance was that the hardship was a financial one. The city does not recognize finances as a hardship. The applicant needs this kind of density in terms of floor space for this project to make it work. Councilor Duggan suggested that a decision be put on hold until after a discussion in a work session. Councilor Paper stated that he believes that when the Council is considering ordinance changes, it is better to discuss these in greater detail in a work session. He stated he would be in favor of tabling this ordinance and bringing it back to an upcoming work session. Councilor Miller asked, when this was first discussed, what was the FAR. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that they did not have an exact figure; they only had concepts or proposed model buildings to look. It was not known until they submitted their request for a conditional use permit that the FAR would be 1.24. Councilor Miller then asked if they were made aware of the city’s current FAR standard. Mr. Benetti replied that they were informed and that was why they requested the variance. Councilor Miller stated that he is in favor of this storage facility, however, he would not be in favor of removing the FAR from the City Code. He would be in favor of working through the variance for this building. page 8 City Attorney Andrew Pratt reminded the Council of the 60-day rule. Mr. Benetti noted that the 60-days would expire on October 6, 2019; however, the applicant has verbalized their approval of an extension for the Council to take action on the conditional use permit and variance. City Attorney Andrew Pratt stated that he found some language that may help with further considerations of how the Council would deal with FAR issues. In the Industrial Zoning provisions, retail sales and service complexes are a conditional use and they are defined as “Complexes that are located adjacent to an Interstate Highway and within 300 feet of an Interchange Entrance or Exit Ramp with the Highway”. The hotel mentioned above meets that requirement. Also, “notwithstanding the height requirements of the Industrial District, any hotel or motel in the retail sales and service complex may be a maximum of four stories or 50-feet in height” and “Notwithstanding the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the Industrial District, the FAR of the retail sales and service complex may be a maximum of 60%”. He presumed that the 0.51 is okay without a variance. Councilor Miller asked for clarification that what was just read pertains solely to hotel/motels. Mr. Pratt replied that not solely because restaurants are mentioned. It does not list a pure definition of what a retail sales and service complex is. But it does include any service uses that are listed as permitted or conditional in the Industrial District. Councilor Petschel moved to table ORDINANCE NO. 545 AMENDING TITLE 12, ARTICLE G. I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) STANDARDS IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND TO TABLE RESOLUTION 2019-73 APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-20) and to direct staff to extend the applicant review period an additional 60 days in compliance with Minnesota Statute 15.99. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, questioned why the Council would change something that is not broken. He stated that this city has thrived and benefited from a tradition of careful development. In the case of the Industrial Park, it exemplifies that approach. It is an attractive park. The city has used the FAR specification as one way of achieving that sort of appeal. He asked why Mendota Heights has to be consistent with other metro community’s ordinances. Mr. Smith expressed his opposition to changes to the FAR. In regard to a public storage facility in the Industrial Park, Mr. Smith stated the problem is that the usage of a storage unit is unknown to the owner, the manager, and the city. To him, this is a big issue. Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development at Metro Storage, LLC, countered by asking if anyone knows what is in their neighbor’s garage. Storage facilities are monitored, they have security cameras, and they have personnel at the sites watching. It is safer than a neighbor’s garage. page 9 In regards to the FAR, with the work as he does around the country, Mr. Heilman said that he deals with FAR most days. He believed Planning Commissioner Noonan got it correct. The city has sufficient ordinances within the code that cover regulating the mass of a building. They have found, and he believes the Planning Commission has found, that the FAR is duplicative and actually does not mesh with the rest of the code regulations. It is only in the Industrial District. Other communities have figured it out – the FAR does not mesh with the other regulations in their code. Metro Storage finds that FAR typically combines to work regarding intensity of a use. They can show that their use is not intensive. If they did not have the FAR, the building would be exactly the same building. They are under the height restriction, they meet the building coverage, the lot coverage, landscaping, parking modifications due to the low intensity of the building. E) ORDINANCE NO. 544 AMEND AND RESTATE CITY CODE SECTION 3-6 REGULATING THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE ENTERPRISES AND APPROVE THE SUMMARY PUBLICATION City Clerk Lorri Smith explained that this was a request to amend City Code Section 3-6, the current regulations for massage licensing. The current regulations were adopted in 2010 and they need to be brought up to date. The proposed ordinance would delete the current section in its entirety and would replace it with the language included in Ordinance No. 544. The major changes being proposed include: • Require all massage therapist applicants to provide proof that they have a minimum of 500 hours of training or course work (the current minimum is 100 hours) • Require massage businesses and therapists who are contractors to provide proof of general and professional liability insurance coverage • Allow a licensed therapist to provide massage therapy services to a client at their client’s residence or at their place of care • Clarifies that a health or medical facility, that is operated by a licensed medical professional, does not need to obtain a business license • Allow a massage therapist working under the direction of a licensed medical professional to practice without a massage therapist license from the City • Allow students who are enrolled in an approved massage therapy school and who are being supervised by an instructor to practice massage without a license • Allow a licensed therapist to provide massage at a special event held within the city Staff also requested that the Council replace Section 5.q. with the following language: “As of July 1, 2020, all massage businesses and therapists currently licensed in the city must comply with all provisions of this chapter when they renew their licenses.” Ms. Smith stated that all of the current licensees have been notified of these proposed changes and of this meeting. No questions or concerns have been received. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 544, AMENDING AND RESTATING CITY CODE SECTION 3-6 REGULATING THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE ENTERPRISES AND APPROVE THE SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 page 10 F) RESOLUTION 2019-74 ORDER FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE IVY FALLS EAST NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that staff was requesting that the Council approve the ordering of the feasibility report for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements. The Ivy Falls East Neighborhood consists of Sutcliff Circle, Downing Street, London Road, Brompton Place, Winston Court, and Winston Circle. The streets received an overlay in 1994/1995. Typically, an overlay lasts approximately 15 years. These streets are now severely deteriorated. Most of the water mains in this area are old cast iron style and they have a high break frequency. St. Paul Water is likely to recommend replacement of the water mains, which would be at their cost. Councilor Duggan asked if the $710,000 estimated constructions costs would be fairly close. Mr. Ruzek replied that based on recent bidding, those numbers would be updated, as they may be low. Councilor Duggan asked how many people would be impacted by this project. Mr. Ruzek replied that he has not yet counted the number of properties. Councilor Miller asked for an estimate of the average assessment for this project. Mr. Ruzek stated that the assessments are still being capped and there may be a few additional properties which would bring the overall costs down. Councilor Petschel stated that she would not recommend this project be done unless St. Paul Water agrees to replace the water mains. She asked, if the city is bonding for this and bonding for the Marie Avenue project, what the total bonding amount would be. Mr. Ruzek replied that the city’s consultant, TKDA, would provide revised numbers for the total amount of the bonds before this feasibility report would be accepted by the Council. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-74 ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE IVY FALLS EAST NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 G) APPROVE WENTWORTH PARK PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the city is the recipient of a DNR outdoor recreation grant which will be used to improve the Wentworth Park including the playground, warming house/class room, parking lot and trails. The city would be able to move ahead with the playground improvements this fall. Flagship Recreation could complete the installation the week of October 21st. The current estimate is $153,375.04. Mr. Ruzek looked through the report and did not see a requirement for bonding. The city generally requires Payments and Performance bonds. That could be a savings as they would pass those costs onto the city – approximately $4,500. Another item that could be removed to save costs are the pine tree toppers shown in the plan. The removal of these could save the city approximately $4,484. The city’s portion of this project would come from the Special Park Fund. page 11 Councilor Miller asked if the pine tree toppers were removed from the project, how much of the extension of the post would be removed. Mr. Ruzek replied that they would use shorter posts. Councilor Paper asked for the total amount of the grant received. Mr. Ruzek replied that the amount requested was $360,000, which was $150,000 for a warming house, $140,000 for the playground improvement, and approximately $90,000 for the parking lot and trails. The City was awarded $180,000. Councilor Paper expressed his appreciation to Mr. Ruzek for the work done on this. He also expressed his appreciation for the work done to bring the cost of the warming house down. Councilor Miller echoed Councilor Paper’s sentiments and concurred that the city could do without the four fabricated decorative pine trees extensions at the cost of $4,500. He said that that money could be better used elsewhere. In regard to the performance bond, City Attorney Andrew Pratt explained that a performance bond is typically used for anything that goes wrong during the project. Waiving it saves the city money on the budget amount. Mr. Ruzek explained that Flagship Recreation has installed equipment in about seven other city parks. Mendota Heights has done a lot of work with them in the past. Councilor Petschel asked if the Council was in agreement on the performance bond. Councilor Miller replied that if the city is saving $4,500 with the pine tree extension removals, he would be in favor of continuing with the performance bond – it is an insurance policy. Mr. Ruzek replied that the performance bonds are estimated currently at approximately 3% of the improvement costs. Mayor Garlock moved to approve the Wentworth Park Playground Improvements contract with Flagship Recreation, removing the decorative Pine Trees from the plans. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that the Recreation Department is providing field trip opportunities for students over the MEA school break. Parents can sign their children up on the city’s website. The city will be closing the Par 3 for the season on October 6, 2019. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Petschel expressed appreciation to fellow Councilmembers for approving the additional fencing at the dog park for the small dogs. She reminded residents that the Police Department will be accepting unused and expired medications on October 26th at the Police Department. Mayor Garlock congratulated Henry Sibley High School on the Warrior 5K. It was well attended. He thanked Councilor Paper for officiating the race. page 12 Councilor Miller reminded residents of the Fire Department’s Open House taking place on October 13th at Mendakota Park. It will be scaled back this year due to the construction taking place at the Fire Station. Councilor Paper stated the Warrior 5K was a thrill for him to shoot the starters pistol. Councilor Duggan reported that he was at Matson Field on Saturday, watching his grandson play soccer. While driving along Mendota Heights Road today, near Friendly Hills Middle School, he noticed chaos when students were being dropped off. He suggested more traffic control in that area. He questioned if the Council should take a look at having controls in the sale of electronic cigarettes due to the recent deaths being reported due to vaping. Regarding the high school athletic complex, he suggested more traffic control in regards to parking. The noise levels are also something the Council should be looking at and measuring. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 13 page 14 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES August 21, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, August 21, 2019, at Mendota Heights City Hall. 1. Call to Order Chair Sloan called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm. 2. Roll Call The following commissioners were present: David Sloan, Gina Norling, William Dunn, Sally Lorberbaum, Jim Neuharth, and Kevin Byrnes. Absent: Arvind Sharma Also present: Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, and City Administrator Mark McNeill. 3. Approval of Minutes a. Approval of Minutes of the July 17, 2019 Meeting Motion by Lorberbaum/Second by Neuharth to approve the minutes of the July 17, 2019 ARC meeting. Motion carried 6-0. 4. Unfinished and New Business a. ARC Visioning Discussion. Mr. McNeill said that the change in venue for the meeting—in the City Council Chambers rather than the normal conference room—was intended to provide an opportunity for the Commission to think about the purpose and mission of the ARC, in a “mini retreat” setting. Is the reason for the ARC the same now, as compared to when it was created in 1993--both planes and technology have changed. Ms. Jacobson asked what people think of the airport when they move to Mendota Heights, and how that may change over time. Chair Sloan said that he had met previously with the City Administrator and Assistant City Administrator about this discussion, and felt that the Commission should consider it. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that a lot has changed—planes were louder before. She felt that the Commission needed to continue to monitor noise, and let people know that they continue to monitor. She referenced invitations to the State Representative. She said that we have a variety of stakeholders. Commissioner Byrnes said that we should continue to monitor, but asked how that information was to be used? Is it to be used for a newcomer to the community, or a long-time resident? page 15 Ms. Jacobson said that the packet information was available on the City’s website, and that noise complaints could be lodged on the NOC website. She asked if there was a better way of doing that. Commissioner Norling asked about televising the ARC meetings, and said that there hadn’t been a public explanation of the charts in a long time. Ms. Jacobson said that that could be done, but that it should be when there is a speaker who would be of interest to the general public. Commissioner Neuharth asked how they could get the public more involved. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if a table could be provided at the annual Parks celebration, and asked if the Parks celebration could held on Sundays every other year, so that more people could attend. Commissioner Byrnes asked if the same could be done for the concerts in the park. Commissioner Dunn asked if ARC business cards could be printed, so that those could be distributed. Ms. Jacobson reviewed information which she had found in her research on the history of the ARC. She asked if now was a good time to redefine the ARC. Should it focus more on education? The causes of many of the complaints can’t be changed due to construction or the weather. Mr. McNeill noted that some of the complaints about turboprops are actually military aircraft, for which there is no change possible. He also reminded those present of the changes in technology for reporting complaints over the years. Ms. Jacobson spoke about the complaint center at MAC, and that it doesn’t allow for commentary; rather, it just records location and time. The phone complaint line at MAC does allow for that, and those complaints for forwarded to the City. Chair Sloan said that there are only a few things which we can control. He believes that the ARC should focus on education. Commissioner Byrnes said that monitoring noise is OK when things are stable, but questioned whether the ARC needs to meet monthly when it is just producing charts? He felt that it could meet quarterly. Chair Sloan and Commissioner Norling agreed that quarterly meetings would be fine, if the monthly charts could be reviewed at those times. Resident Roger Grabowski of the Friendly Hills neighborhood appeared. He said that he has lived there for 30 years, and thinks that the aircraft noise over the past two months has been significant. He said that it is impacting his life negatively. He wondered if the new Vikings Training Facility in Eagan was the cause of change? Commissioner Neuharth suggested following up with MAC to see if there were changes shown at the monitor 13 location. Mr. Grabowski left his e-mail address for a response, and departed the meeting. page 16 The Commission discussed follow-up for this individual, and other future similar questions. It was determined that an email would work, when it is a joint response from the Chair, and staff. The ARC would be cc:d. Regarding future meetings, Commissioner Norling stated that she would be interested in having the FAA speak about how they train their controllers. Mr. McNeill asked for follow-up on the quarterly meetings concept. Chair Sloan suggested to go to every other month, when they could follow the NOC meetings. The ARC could start that schedule in September and November, although the November meeting would conflict with the night meeting that NOC has scheduled, which is on November 20 the same day as the ARC meeting. b. Review of Airport Operational Statistics i. Complaint Information. Complaint charts were reviewed. Chair Sloan noted that complaints in Mendota Heights were up this year—July, 2019 was 286, vs. 210 for the same month last year ii. News Articles—Commissioner Byrnes stated that meeting every other month was a problem when searching for timely news articles, and so hadn’t been able to prepare any. iii. Turboprop Charts. Commissioner Neuharth said that his charts looked to be good. He said that departures north of the corridors were about 1/3 of the Upper Control Limit. He also said that turboprops were inconsistent. iv. Noise Monitor Charts. Commissioner Norling stated that runways 12 L and 12 R were impacted by summer construction. She said that there were twenty five more hours of maintenance spent on 12 L than on 12 R, which impacts flight patterns. Commissioner Dunn reported that 18 of the top 30 noise events were military C- 130s. He said that those weren’t getting noisier, but that the other planes were getting quieter. The C-130’s register between 87-91 decibels. Chair Sloan noted that total complaints were up this summer—286 complaints were registered in July this year, versus 210 last July. 5. Public Comments No other public comments were received. 6. Commissioner Comments None 7. Adjourn Motion Neuharth/Second Norling to adjourn at 7:43 pm. page 17 Minutes Taken By: Mark McNeill City Administrator City of Mendota Heights page 18 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 16, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approve Outdoor Recreation Grant Agreement for Wentworth Park COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding an outdoor recreation grant for improvements at Wentworth Park. BACKGROUND City Council approved staff to apply for an outdoor recreation grant at their meeting of February 19, 2019. Staff submitted a grant for Wentworth Park and Hagstrom Park and was notified on June 28, 2019 that its application for Wentworth Park was selected for funding. Hagstrom King Park was not selected. Improvements to Wentworth Park as part of the grant include a playground improvement, replacement of the warming house structure, and renovating the parking lot and trails. The original cost estimate for these improvements was $360,000. The grant provides funding of $180,000 towards these improvements. DISCUSSION The grant period is from September 23, 2019 to December 31, 2021. The grant funding is done on a reimbursement request, which is based on actual invoices. As a condition of the grant, the city must install signage that identify the State as a sponsoring agency. This information must also be included on any notices and pamphlets. Other conditions include the standard state auditing, reporting, inspections, data practices and also emphasis resource management, invasive species prevention, and pollinator best management practices. BUDGET IMPACT City Council awarded a contract for the playground improvements at its October 2, 2019 meeting, at a cost of just under $150,000. Staff is working on quotes for the warming house which has a budget proposal near the original $150,000 budget number (utility extensions will be bid separately). In the spring of 2020, staff will solicit quotes for the trail and parking lot improvements. The grant funding in conjunction with special parks funds as a city match make this project desirable and feasible. page 19 RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the City Council approve the outdoor recreation grant with the Minnesota DNR and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute such agreement. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the attached STATE OF MINNESOTA GRANT CONTRACT to be executed by the Mayor and City Clerk. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 20 page 21 page 22 page 23 page 24 page 25 page 26 page 27 page 28 page 29 page 30 page 31 page 32 page 33 page 34 page 35 page 36 page 37 page 38 page 39 page 40 page 41 page 42 page 43 page 44 page 45 page 46 page 47 page 48 page 49 page 50 MEETING DATE: October 16, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Enter into Agreement with the Metropolitan Council for the 2017 Inflow and Infiltration Grant COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is asked to enter into a grant for Inflow and Infiltration remediation projects with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). Background Minnesota Legislature approved a state bonding bill to help municipalities reduce inflow and infiltration (I&I), $3,700,000 was appropriated in 2017 and an additional $5,000,000 in 2018. Each participating city is eligible to receive $50,000 and an allocation proportional to eligible expenses until all funds are allocated. 78 cities are eligible for this program. Discussion Mendota Heights installed a Cured-In Place Pipe (CIPP) liner in approximately 12,000 feet of sanitary sewer pipe and chimney seals in 74 manholes, which cost the city $555,633.63. Of this total, $146,308.41 is eligible for reimbursement. The deadline for submitting Grant materials is November 1, 2019; the Metropolitan Council will announce final reimbursement amounts on November 15, 2019. The reimbursement amounts are not expected to reach the maximum eligible amount, even if all of the eligible the 78 cities performed work on their systems. Budget Impact All invoices for this work have been paid from the Sanitary Utility Fund. Staff estimated a reimbursement of $90,000 based on preliminary participation numbers from the Metropolitan Council. The $90,000 reimbursement also included the Ridge Place sewer project which is no longer eligible. Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the City to enter into the Grant agreement with the Metropolitan Council for I&I work completed in 2017-2019. Action Required If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION TO EXECUTE AND ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (MCES) FOR THE 2017 MUNICIPAL I/I GRANT, This actions can be taken with a simple majority vote. page 51 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-76 A RESOLUTION TO EXECUTE AND ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (MCES) FOR THE 2017 MUNICIPAL I/I GRANT WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has been identified by the Metropolitan Council as a contributor of excessive inflow and infiltration, and WHEREAS, a Grant has been obtained from the Metropolitan Council for up to 50 percent of the cost to mitigate I/I in the publicly owned municipal wastewater collection systems, and WHEREAS, the allotted Grant amount will be limited to eligible I/I mitigation improvements, including but not limited to chimney seals and Cure-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) lining, and WHEREAS, to receive the allotted Grant money, the City must complete the eligible improvements and submit required verification forms to the Metropolitan Council by November 1, 2019. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council: 1. The Council authorizes and directs City staff to prepare and execute the Grant agreement to recover up to 50 percent of eligible capital costs expended to reduce I/I in the City that is contributing to the Metropolitan Council’s sanitary sewer system. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this sixteenth day of October, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 52 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 16, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-77 Supporting the Dakota County 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Plan COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2019-77 supporting the Dakota County 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan. BACKGROUND Every year Dakota County updates their five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). In conjunction with these updates, the County asks for resolutions of support from County cities and townships to present to the County Board at the public hearing where the CIP is formally adopted. This year’s public hearing before the County Board is scheduled for November 6th or 7th, 2019 at the County Administrative Center in Hastings. A copy of the Draft 2020-2024 CIP is attached for your review. DISCUSSION Mendota Heights has limited projects listed within the 2020-2024 Dakota County Capital Improvement Plan. Design of future Improvements to CSAH 63 (Delaware Avenue) Marie Ave to Dodd Road (TH 149) – 2023 Design, Possible 2027 Construction Right-of-way acquisition for CSAH 63 (Delaware Avenue) Marie Ave to Dodd Road (TH 149) – 2024 ROW, Possible 2027 Construction The Draft Parks CIP identifies a Dodd Road Underpass and Valley Park connection ($2,500,000) and Greenway Development in Inver Grove Heights and Mendota Heights ($2,000,000) for 2020. The following items were shown on last year’s 2019-2023 CIP Big Rivers Regional Trail – Mendota Heights Trailhead Improvements (IN PROCESS) page 53 Resurfacing CSAH 63 (Delaware Ave) from Marie Avenue to Dodd Road (TH 149). This project also includes a Mill and Overlay just north and south of Highway 62 and an expanded shoulder on the West St. Paul side of Delaware between Marie Ave and Wentworth Ave. (PROJECT REMOVED) Resurfacing CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) from I-494 to Highway 13. (COMPLETED) Interchange Study at I-494 for the realigned Argenta Trail (IN PROCESS) Regional Roadway Visioning Study update (IN PROCESS) Additional Improvements would include a replacement of the Marie Avenue Underpass and an Intersection Study of Wentworth Avenue and Dodd Road. If Council desires improvements to any County Roads (Wentworth, Wachtler, Delaware, Lexington), please express this desire to staff. County projects typically carry a 55% County/45% City cost share. A new cost share policy has been adopted by Dakota County that reduces the city share on certain projects to 25%. BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve Resolution 2019-77 supporting the Dakota County 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to support the Dakota County 2020-2024 CIP, they should adopt a Resolution in support of the CIP. RESOLUTION 2019-77, A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROJECTS LISTED IN THE DRAFT 2020-2024 DAKOTA COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. Adoption of this Resolution would require a simple majority vote. page 54 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-77 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROJECTS LISTED IN THE DRAFT 2020-2024 DAKOTA COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, Dakota County has asked cities and townships to request projects for inclusion in the 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan and the City of Mendota Heights values the cooperative working relationship it has with Dakota County; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights supports the continued maintenance and improvement of our regional road network, trails and park system; and is further supportive of the proposed work on the regional trail network; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is also supportive of vehicular and pedestrian public safety as well as storm water drainage improvements throughout the public right-of-way in the city; and WHEREAS, Dakota County intends to begin a CSAH 63 Reconstruction Project in 2023 and 2024; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights intends to participate in costs associated with the project in accordance with Council approved Cost Sharing Agreements; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights Capital Improvement Plan does not show adequate cost sharing funding for the CSAH 63 in 2023 and 2024; and WHEREAS, Dakota County acknowledges that it may have to delay invoicing the City of Mendota Heights cost sharing of the CSAH 63 project until funding is available. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota hereby supports the efforts of Dakota County to improve public safety, transportation, storm water drainage, parks, trails, and recreational facilities through the Draft 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan, and supports the inclusion of the projects contained therein. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of October, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST: ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor _____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 55 09-60 47-45 42-156 32-107 32-105 11-28x 31-103 97-164 97-CR1 80-21 97-198 97-144 97-CR2 23-81 09-55 32-93 30-36 06-06 31-7911-27 32-92 33-15 32-106 28-44 62-26 85-XX 70-XX 32-91 28-48 60-XX 83-10 26-XX 63-27 26-60 88-23 42-154 33-XX 46-50 73-19 63-XX 91-30 09-56 32-87 26-54 97-203 53-04 78-12 91-25 91-29 86-34 80-027 59-05 96-07 88-20 81-14 78-10 94-05 89-07 38-58 42-144 """"""""®A55 ®A77 ®A149 ®A156 ®A62 ®A55 ®A3 ®A316 ®A20 ®A3 ®A19 ®A3 ®A55 ®A19 ®A50 ®A56 £¤52 £¤52 £¤61 £¤61 £¤52 £¤52 §¨¦494 §¨¦35E §¨¦35 §¨¦35W §¨¦494 §¨¦35E ¯T80 ¯T8 ¯T4 ¯T26 ¯T38 ¯T23 ¯T5 ¯T43 ¯T2 ¯T33 ¯T28 ¯T46 ¯T56 ¯T31 ¯T84 ¯T86 ¯T64¯T50 ¯T60 ¯T70 ¯T68 ¯T17 ¯T32 ¯T62 ¯T31 ¯T85 ¯T81 ¯T46 ¯T83 ¯T79 ¯T96 ¯T62 ¯T93 ¯T9 ¯T71 ¯T76 ¯T47 ¯T94 ¯T90 ¯T47 ¯T86 ¯T89 ¯T23 ¯T78 ¯T42 ¯T66 ¯T88 ¯T91 ¯T85 ¯T54 â ââââââ ! ! !JJJ( !!!!"")JJJJJJJJJ JJççJJJJ--"")JJJJJJJJJ JJççJJJJ--"")JJJJJJJJJ JJççJJJJ--"")JJJJJJJJJ JJççJJJJ--"")JJJç"")JJJç"")JJJç"")JJJç"")JJJçCommissioner Districts District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 2020 - 2024 TransportationCapital Improvement Program Legend È!Traffic Signal ""Intersectio n Imp ro vement ^_Interchange â Bridge Signal Interco nnectio n / Fib er Co nstructio n Preliminary o rDesign Engineeringand/o r ROW Acq uisitio n 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Co p yright 2019, Dako ta Co untyThis drawing is neither a legally reco rded map no r a survey and is no t intended to b e used as o ne. This drawing is a co mp ilatio n o f reco rds, info rmatio n, and data lo cated in vario us city, co unty, and state o ffices and o ther so urces, affecting the area sho wn, and is to b e used fo r reference p urp o ses o nly. Dako ta Co unty is no t resp o nsib le fo r any inaccuracies herein co ntained. If discrep ancies are fo und, p lease co ntact this o ffice. 0 4 82 Miles ¯ Map Date: Sep temb er 25, 2019 DRAFT page 56 9/25/2019 Project Number Road Segment Short Description City Location Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy Lead Agency 2020 Section Highway Surface - Bituminous 6,400,000 - - - 5,900,000 500,000 - Dakota County 42-154 CSAH 42 West Dakota County line to CSAH 5 Bituminous Mill & Overlay Burnsville SP019-642-065 1,485,000 - 1,188,000 - 277,000 20,000 - Dakota County Highway Surface - Gravel CR 53,59,84,90,96 &CSAH 62,80 Various Townships 920,000 - - - - 920,000 - Dakota County Highway Surface - Gravel Repairs Spot Locations Various Townships 50,000 - - - - 50,000 - Dakota County Traffic Control Devices Durable Pavement Markings 750,000 - - - - 750,000 - Dakota County Bike Trail 1,000,000 - - - - 1,000,000 - Cities/Others Storm Sewer System Repair 500,000 100,000 - - - 400,000 - Dakota County/Cities 2020 Preservation SubTotal:11,105,000 100,000 1,188,000 - 6,177,000 3,640,000 - MANAGEMENT:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 9-55 CSAH 9 At Icenic Tr/Heritage Dr Construct 3/4 Intersection Lakeville 500,000 - 360,000 - 120,000 20,000 - Dakota County 9-56 CSAH 9 Hayes to CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob)Design/ROW Acquisition Lakeville 2,000,000 500,000 - - 750,000 750,000 - Dakota County 9-60 CSAH 9 At 194th St 3/4 intersection Design/Construction (Only Co $ sho Lakeville 400,000 - - 400,000 - - Lakeville 97-203 179th St CSAH 23 (Cedar) to CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob)ROW Acq/Construction Lakeville 7,700,000 3,465,000 - - 2,117,500 2,117,500 - Lakeville 32-87 CSAH 32 CSAH 43 (Lexington Ave) to TH 3 ROW Acquisition - Placeholder Eagan 3,000,000 750,000 - - 2,250,000 - - Dakota County 32-101 CSAH 32 TH 13 to Cinnamon Ridge Trail Trail-ROW Acq/Const (only Co $ shown)Burnsville (Eagan)1,900,000 - - - 1,880,000 20,000 - Burnsville Lead 62-26 CSAH 62 Realign CSAH 62, add turnlanes CSAH 47 Construction Vermillion Twp 2,200,000 - - - 2,178,000 22,000 - Dakota County Jurisdictional Classification 1,000,000 - - - - 1,000,000 - Dakota County ROW Preservation & Management 500,000 225,000 - - - 275,000 - Dakota County Safety & Management 1,500,000 342,000 - - 275,000 883,000 - Dakota County Signal Projects Signal Revisions/Communications 148,000 71,600 - - 76,400 - - Dakota County 2020 Management SubTotal:20,848,000 5,353,600 360,000 - 10,046,900 5,087,500 - REPLACEMENT:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 73-19 CR 73 Bonaire Path to IGH/Rosemount line Construction Rosemount 6,000,000 1,500,000 - - - 1,836,613 2,663,387 Dakota County 78-10 CSAH 78 TH 3 to CSAH 79 (Blaine Ave)Construction Castle Rock Township 7,200,000 - - 2,450,075 4,677,925 72,000 - Dakota County 78-12 CSAH 78 CSAH 79 (Blaine) to CSAH 47 ROW Acquisition Castle Rock Twp, Hampton 1,044,800 - - - 1,044,800 - - Dakota County 86-34 CSAH 86 E of CSAH 23 (Foliage Ave) to TH 3 Construction Castle Rock, Eureka, Greenvale, W 11,000,000 - 4,200,000 - 6,690,000 110,000 - Dakota County 88-20 CSAH 88 TH 56 to TH 52 ROW Acquisition Randolph Township 1,750,100 - - - 1,750,100 - - Dakota County 91-25 CSAH 91 TH 61 to 210th Street Construction Miesville, Marshan & Douglas Twp 8,219,400 - - - 8,137,200 82,200 - Dakota County 97-198 Twp Bridge Replace Bridge L3267, Isle Ave Replace Bridge L3267 Greenvale Twp 200,000 - - 180,000 - 20,000 - Dakota County Retaining Wall Set Aside Construct Retaining Wall 350,000 - - - 330,000 20,000 - Dakota County Signal Projects-Various Locations Replace/New/Geometrics 1,210,000 410,000 - - 800,000 - - Dakota County 2020 Replacement SubTotal:36,974,300 1,910,000 4,200,000 2,630,075 23,430,025 2,140,813 2,663,387 EXPANSION:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy No projects programmed at this time - - - - - - - 2020 Expansion SubTotal:- - - - - - - RESOURCES:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 11-27 CSAH 11 At Burnsville Pkwy Intersection Improve Design Consultant Burnsville 200,000 90,000 - - 110,000 - - Dakota County 97-203 179th St CSAH 23 (Cedar) to CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob)Design (Only Co $ shown)Lakeville 440,000 - - - - 440,000 - Lakeville 32-91 CSAH 32 DuPont Ave to I-35 Design Burnsville 50,000 - - - 50,000 - - Burnsville 33-15 CSAH 33 At 140th St/Connemara Trail Roundabout Design Consultant Apple Valley/Rosemount 200,000 90,000 - - 110,000 - - Dakota County 38-AV CSAH 38 Placeholder-limits TBD Design Retaining Walls Apple Valley 100,000 - - - 80,000 20,000 - Dakota County 42-156 CSAH 42 CR 73 (Akron Ave) to east by Tech College Design - Consultant Rosemount 200,000 54,000 - - 146,000 - - Dakota County 46-50 CSAH 46 Pleasant Dr to TH 61 (Vermillion St)Roadway Study Hastings 300,000 75,000 - - - 225,000 - Dakota County 47-45 CSAH 47 At CSAH 85 (Goodwin Ave)Design Vermillion Township 50,000 - - - 50,000 - - Dakota County 89-07 CR 89 TH 50 (240th St) to CSAH 62 Design Hampton, Douglas, Marshan Twps 240,000 - - - - 240,000 - Dakota County 91-29 CSAH 91 210th St to TH 316 Design Marshan Township 120,000 - - - 120,000 - - Dakota County 91-30 CSAH 91 Miesville Tr to TH 61 Design Miesville, Douglas Twp 90,000 - - - 90,000 - - Dakota County 96-07 CR 96 West Dakota County line to CSAH 23 Design (Rice Co $16K)Greenvale Twp 160,000 - - - - 160,000 - Dakota County Attorney Reimbursement 246,904 - - - - 246,904 - Dakota County CIP Reimbursement to Operations 4,468,771 549,377 - - 2,359,026 1,560,368 - Dakota County Future Studies/Professional Services 300,000 135,000 - - - 165,000 - Dakota County Township Road Distribution 20,900 - - - - 20,900 - Dakota County Consultant Construction Administration 600,000 - - - 300,000 300,000 - Dakota County 2020 Resources SubTotal:7,786,575 993,377 - - 3,415,026 3,378,172 - 2020 TOTAL 76,713,875 8,356,977 5,748,000 2,630,075 43,068,951 14,246,485 2,663,387 2020-2024 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - Post GGP / September Version page 57 2021 Section - TRANSPORTATION CIP 9/25/19 16:12 Project Number Road Segment Short Description City Location Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy Lead Agency PRESERVATION: Highway Surface - Bituminous 6,400,000 - - - 5,600,000 800,000 - Dakota County Highway Surface - Gravel 750,000 - - - - 750,000 - Dakota County Highway Surface - Gravel Repairs Spot Locations 50,000 - - - - 50,000 - Dakota County Traffic Control Devices Durable Pavement Markings 500,000 - - - - 500,000 - Dakota County Bike Trail 1,000,000 - - - - 1,000,000 - Cities/Others Storm Sewer System Repair 500,000 100,000 - - - 400,000 - Dakota County/Cities 2021 Preservation SubTotal:9,200,000 100,000 - - 5,600,000 3,500,000 - MANAGEMENT:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 6-06 CR 6 At CSAH 73 (Oakdale Ave)ROW Acquisition -Roundabout West St Paul 325,000 146,250 - - - 178,750 - Dakota County 11-27 CSAH 11 At Burnsville Parkway Intersection Improvements ROW Burnsville 325,000 146,250 - - 178,750 - - Dakota County 23-81 CSAH 23 At CSAH 80 (255th St W)ROW Acquisition Eureka Township 300,000 - - - 300,000 - - Dakota County 31-79 CSAH 31 At CSAH 32 Signal Rep-Dbl Lt Turnlanes ROW Acquisition Eagan 1,570,000 392,500 - - 1,177,500 - - Dakota County 32-91 CSAH 32 DuPont Ave to I-35 ROW Acquisition Burnsville 450,000 - - - 450,000 - - Burnsville 33-15 CSAH 33 At 140th St/Connemara Trail Roundabout ROW Acquisition Apple Valley/Rosemount 350,000 157,500 - - 172,500 20,000 - Dakota County 42-156 CSAH 42 CR 73 (Akron Ave) to east by Tech College Construction Rosemount 1,000,000 270,000 - - 730,000 - - Dakota County 47-45 CSAH 47 At CSAH 85 (Goodwin Ave)ROW Acquisition Vermillion Township 450,000 - - - 450,000 - - Dakota County Jurisdictional Classification 1,000,000 - - - - 1,000,000 - Dakota County ROW Preservation & Management 500,000 225,000 - - - 275,000 - Dakota County Safety & Management 1,500,000 342,000 - - 275,000 883,000 - Dakota County Signal Projects Signal Revisions/Communications 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - Dakota County 2021 Management SubTotal:8,070,000 1,829,500 - - 3,883,750 2,356,750 - REPLACEMENT:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 38-AV CSAH 38 Placeholder-limits TBD Repair/Replace Retaining Walls Apple Valley 800,000 - - - 780,000 20,000 - Dakota County 78-12 CSAH 78 CSAH 79 (Blaine) to CSAH 47 Construction Castle Rock Twp, Hampton 4,240,000 - 3,392,000 - 806,000 42,000 - Dakota County 88-20 CSAH 88 TH 56 to TH 52 Construction Randolph Township 8,500,000 - - - 8,415,000 85,000 - Dakota County 91-29 CSAH 91 210th St to TH 316 ROW Acquisition Marshan Township 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 - - Dakota County 96-07 CR 96 West Dakota County line to CSAH 23 ROW Acquisition (Rice Co $80K)Greenvale Twp 1,632,400 - - - - 1,632,400 - Dakota County 78-12 CSAH 78 Replace Bridge L3166, CSAH 78 (Chesley Tr)Replace Bridge L3166 Castle Rock Twp 300,000 - - 150,000 150,000 - - Dakota County 80-21 CSAH 80 Replace Bridge L3164, CSAH 80 (255th St)Replace Bridge L3164 Castle Rock Twp 300,000 - - 150,000 150,000 - - Dakota County Retaining Wall Set Aside Construct Retaining Wall 350,000 - - - 330,000 20,000 - Dakota County Signal Projects-Various Locations Replace/New/Geometrics 2,000,000 680,000 - - 1,320,000 - - Dakota County 2021 Replacement SubTotal:19,622,400 680,000 3,392,000 300,000 13,451,000 1,799,400 - EXPANSION:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 26-54 CSAH 26 TH 55 to TH 3 (SP 019-626-026)Construction Eagan & Inver Grove Heights 16,500,000 5,255,000 7,000,000 - 4,080,000 165,000 - Dakota County 97-204 New CR 60 New 185: Highview to Hamburg (Only Co $)Design/ROW Acq/Construction Lakeville 716,000 - - - - 716,000 - Lakeville 63-27 New CR 63 CSAH 28 (Amana Tr) to N new alignment Construction Inver Grove Heights 8,940,000 1,806,000 - - 3,567,000 876,979 2,690,021 Dakota County 2021 Expansion SubTotal:26,156,000 7,061,000 7,000,000 - 7,647,000 1,757,979 2,690,021 RESOURCES:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 28-44 CSAH 28 At Elrene Rd, at Mike Collins Dr Design Eagan 40,000 18,000 - - 22,000 - - Dakota County 38-58 CSAH 38 CSAH 5 to CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob)Design ATMS Consultant Apple Valley, Burnsville 200,000 90,000 - - 110,000 - - Dakota County 42-144 CSAH 42 CSAH 42 Corridor Study Recommendations Design Consultant Apple Valley, Burnsville 730,000 248,000 - - 482,000 - - Dakota County 42-xxx CSAH 42 TH 52-TH 55-CSAH 42 Area Update Study Update Consultant Rosemount 130,000 32,500 - - 97,500 - - Dakota County 59-05 CR 59 TH 19 to CSAH 47 (Northfield Blvd)Design Sciota Township 100,000 - - - - 100,000 - Dakota County 81-14 "New" 81 CSAH 66 (200th St) to CSAH 46/48 Design Consultant Empire/Vermillion Twp 1,200,000 - - - 1,200,000 - - Dakota County 83-10 CR 83 CSAH 88 (292nd St) to Cannon River Design Randolph City/Twp 53,000 - - - - 53,000 - Dakota County 88-23 CSAH 88 CR 94 (Cooper Ave) to TH 56 Design Consultant City of Randolph 272,200 - - - 272,200 - - Dakota County Attorney Reimbursement 251,842 - - - - 251,842 - Dakota County CIP Reimbursement to Operations 4,692,210 576,846 - - 2,476,977 1,638,387 - Dakota County Future Studies/Professional Services 300,000 135,000 - - - 165,000 - Dakota County Township Road Distribution 20,900 - - - - 20,900 - Dakota County Consultant Construction Administration 600,000 - - - 300,000 300,000 - Dakota County 2021 Resources SubTotal:8,590,152 1,100,346 - - 4,960,677 2,529,129 - 2021 TOTAL 71,638,552 10,770,846 10,392,000 300,000 35,542,427 11,943,258 2,690,021 page 58 2022 Section - TRANSPORTATION CIP 9/24/19 14:17 Project Number Road Segment Short Description City Location Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy Lead Agency PRESERVATION: Highway Surface - Bituminous 6,400,000 - - - 5,600,000 800,000 - Dakota County Highway Surface - Gravel 400,000 - - - - 400,000 - Dakota County Highway Surface - Gravel Repairs Spot Locations 50,000 - - - - 50,000 - Dakota County Traffic Control Devices Durable Pavement Markings 500,000 - - - - 500,000 - Dakota County Bike Trail 700,000 - - - - 700,000 - Cities/Others Storm Sewer System Repair 500,000 100,000 - - - 400,000 - Dakota County/Cities 2022 Preservation SubTotal:8,550,000 100,000 - - 5,600,000 2,850,000 - MANAGEMENT:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 6-06 CR 6 At CSAH 73 (Oakdale Ave)Construction-Roundabout West St Paul 1,550,000 69,750 1,395,000 - - 85,250 - Dakota County 9-56 CSAH 9 Hayes to CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob)Construction Lakeville 8,000,000 1,600,000 - - 3,200,000 3,200,000 - Dakota County 11-27 CSAH 11 At Burnsville Parkway Intersection Improvements Const Burnsville 1,750,000 157,500 1,400,000 - 172,500 20,000 - Dakota County 28-44 CSAH 28 At Elrene Rd, at Mike Collins Dr ROW Acquisition Eagan 400,000 180,000 - - 220,000 - - Dakota County 23-81 CSAH 23 At CSAH 80 (255th St W)Construction Eureka Township 1,500,000 - - - 1,480,000 20,000 - Dakota County 31-79 CSAH 31 At CSAH 32 Signal Rep-Dbl Lt Turnlanes Construction Eagan 6,100,000 1,525,000 - - 4,514,000 61,000 - Dakota County 32-87 CSAH 32 CSAH 43 (Lexington Ave) to TH 3 Construction - Placeholder Eagan 5,000,000 1,250,000 3,000,000 - 700,000 50,000 - Dakota County 32-91 CSAH 32 DuPont Ave to I-35 Construct Roundabout Burnsville $ Need to Update 514,000 - - - 494,000 20,000 - Burnsville 33-15 CSAH 33 At 140th St/Connemara Trail Roundabout Construct Roundabout Apple Valley/Rosemount 1,950,000 877,500 - - 1,052,500 20,000 - Dakota County 38-58 CSAH 38 CSAH 5 to CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob)Construct ATMS Apple Valley, Burnsville 1,800,000 162,000 1,440,000 - 178,000 20,000 - Dakota County 47-45 CSAH 47 At CSAH 85 (Goodwin Ave)Construction Vermillion Township 2,000,000 - - - 2,000,000 - - Dakota County 83-10 CR 83 CSAH 88 (292nd St) to Cannon River ROW Acquisition Randolph City/Twp 265,300 - - - - 265,300 - Dakota County 85-xx CSAH 85 At TH 50 (only Co $ shown)ROW Acquisition City of New Trier 300,000 - - - 150,000 150,000 - MnDOT 88-23 CSAH 88 CR 94 (Cooper Ave) to TH 56 ROW Acquisition City of Randolph 1,371,300 - - - 1,371,300 - - Dakota County xx-xx Trails Trail Gap Set Aside (only Co $ shown)Construction (only Co $ shown)IGH CSAH 73, WSP CSAH 8 63,000 - - - - 63,000 - Dakota County Jurisdictional Classification 2,000,000 - - - - 2,000,000 - Dakota County ROW Preservation & Management 500,000 225,000 - - - 275,000 - Dakota County Safety & Management 1,500,000 342,000 - - 275,000 883,000 - Dakota County Signal Projects Signal Revisions/Communications 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - Dakota County 2022 Management SubTotal:36,863,600 6,538,750 7,235,000 - 15,957,300 7,132,550 - REPLACEMENT:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 42-144 CSAH 42 CSAH 42 Corridor Study Recommendations ROW Acquisition Apple Valley, Burnsville 2,275,000 956,250 - - 1,318,750 - - Dakota County 59-05 CR 59 TH 19 to CSAH 47 (Northfield Blvd)ROW Acquisition Sciota Township 1,000,000 - - - - 1,000,000 - Dakota County 81-14 "New" 81 CSAH 66 (200th St) to CSAH 46/48 ROW Acquisition Empire/Vermillion Twp 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 - - Dakota County 89-07 CR 89 TH 50 (240th St) to CSAH 62 ROW Acquisition Hampton, Douglas, Marshan Twps 2,407,800 - - - - 2,407,800 - Dakota County 91-29 CSAH 91 210th St to TH 316 Construction Marshan Township 4,500,000 - - - 4,455,000 45,000 - Dakota County 91-30 CSAH 91 Miesville Tr to TH 61 ROW Acquisition Miesville, Douglas Twp 825,000 - - - 825,000 - - Dakota County 96-07 CR 96 West Dakota County line to CSAH 23 Construction (Rice Co $630K)Greenvale Twp (&Rice Co)6,300,000 - - - - 3,583,079 2,716,921 Dakota County 97-144 Twp Bridge Replace Bridge L3285, Inga Ave Construction - Bridge Hampton/Douglas Twp 200,000 - - 190,000 - 10,000 - Dakota County 97-164 Twp Bridge Replace Bridge L3249, 205th St Construction - Bridge Marshan Township 200,000 - - 190,000 - 10,000 - Dakota County Retaining Wall Set Aside Construct Retaining Wall 350,000 - - - 330,000 20,000 - Dakota County Signal Projects-Various Locations Replace/New/Geometrics 1,550,000 722,500 - - 827,500 - - Dakota County 2022 Replacement SubTotal:21,107,800 1,678,750 - 380,000 9,256,250 7,075,879 2,716,921 EXPANSION:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy No projects programmed at this time - - - - - - - 2022 Expansion SubTotal:- - - - - - - RESOURCES:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 94-05 CR 94 CSAH 47 to CSAH 88 (292nd St)Design Randolph, Sciota, Waterford T 200,000 - - - - 200,000 - Dakota County 60-xx New 60 Extend CH 60/185th-CSAH 9 to Highview Design Consultant Lakeville 340,000 153,000 - - - 187,000 - Lakeville/Developer xx-xx TBD Placeholder Replacement or Rural Intersection Proj Design TBD 1,000,000 - - - 500,000 500,000 - Dakota County Attorney Reimbursement 256,879 - - - - 256,879 - Dakota County CIP Reimbursement to Operations 4,926,820 605,688 - - 2,600,826 1,720,306 - Dakota County Future Studies/Professional Services 300,000 135,000 - - - 165,000 - Dakota County Township Road Distribution 20,900 - - - - 20,900 - Dakota County Consultant Construction Administration 600,000 - - - 300,000 300,000 - Dakota County 2022 Resources SubTotal:7,644,599 893,688 - - 3,400,826 3,350,085 - 2022 TOTAL 74,165,999 9,211,188 7,235,000 380,000 34,214,376 20,408,514 2,716,921 page 59 2023 Section - TRANSPORTATION CIP 9/24/19 14:16 Project Number Road Segment Short Description City Location Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy Lead Agency PRESERVATION: Highway Surface - Bituminous 6,400,000 - - - 5,600,000 800,000 - Dakota County Highway Surface - Gravel 750,000 - - - - 750,000 - Dakota County Highway Surface - Gravel Repairs Spot Locations 50,000 - - - - 50,000 - Dakota County Traffic Control Devices Durable Pavement Markings 500,000 - - - - 500,000 - Dakota County Bike Trail 700,000 - - - - 700,000 - Cities/Others Storm Sewer System Repair 500,000 100,000 - - - 400,000 - Dakota County/Cities 2023 Preservation SubTotal:8,900,000 100,000 - - 5,600,000 3,200,000 - MANAGEMENT:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 28-44 CSAH 28 At Elrene Rd, at Mike Collins Dr Construction Eagan 400,000 180,000 - - 200,000 20,000 - Dakota County 83-10 CR 83 CSAH 88 (292nd St) to Cannon River Construction Randolph City/Twp 975,000 - - - - 975,000 - Dakota County 85-xx CSAH 85 At TH 50 (only Co $ shown)Construction (only Co $ shown)City of New Trier 900,000 - - - 450,000 450,000 - MnDOT 88-23 CSAH 88 CR 94 (Cooper Ave) to TH 56 Construction City of Randolph 3,265,300 - - - 3,232,300 33,000 - Dakota County 94-05 CR 94 CSAH 47 to CSAH 88 (292nd St)ROW Acquisition Randolph, Sciota, Waterford Twps 2,000,000 - - - - 2,000,000 - Dakota County xx-xx Trails Trail Gap Set Aside Construct Trail 1,000,000 450,000 - - - 550,000 - Dakota County Jurisdictional Classification 3,000,000 - - - - 3,000,000 - Dakota County ROW Preservation & Management 500,000 225,000 - - - 275,000 - Dakota County Safety & Management 1,500,000 342,000 - - 275,000 883,000 - Dakota County Signal Projects Signal Revisions/Communications 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - Dakota County 2023 Management SubTotal:13,840,300 1,347,000 - - 4,307,300 8,186,000 - REPLACEMENT:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 42-144 CSAH 42 CSAH 42 Corridor Study Recommendations Construction Apple Valley, Burnsville 5,150,000 1,795,000 - - 3,355,000 - - Dakota County 59-05 CR 59 TH 19 to CSAH 47 (Northfield Blvd)Construction Sciota Township 5,760,000 - - - - 3,015,910 2,744,090 Dakota County 81-14 "New" 81 CSAH 66 (200th St) to CSAH 46/48 Construction Empire/Vermillion Twp 6,000,000 - - - 5,940,000 60,000 - Dakota County 89-07 CR 89 TH 50 (240th St) to CSAH 62 Construction Hampton, Douglas, Marshan Twps 8,850,000 - - - - 8,850,000 - Dakota County 91-30 CSAH 91 Miesville Tr to TH 61 Construction Miesville, Douglas Twp 3,000,000 - - - 2,970,000 30,000 - Dakota County xx-xx TBD Placeholder Replacement or Rural Intersection Proj ROW Acquisition TBD 2,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 - Dakota County 97-CR1 Twp Bridge Replace Bridge L3253, 230th St Construction - Bridge Castle Rock Twp 200,000 - - 190,000 - 10,000 - Dakota County 97-CR2 Twp Bridge Replace Bridge L3254, 230th St Construction - Bridge Castle Rock Twp 200,000 - - 190,000 - 10,000 - Dakota County Retaining Wall Set Aside Construct Retaining Wall 350,000 - - - 330,000 20,000 - Dakota County Signal Projects-Various Locations Replace/New/Geometrics 1,250,000 587,500 - - 662,500 - - Dakota County 2023 Replacement SubTotal:32,760,000 2,382,500 - 380,000 14,257,500 12,995,910 2,744,090 EXPANSION:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy No projects programmed at this time - - - - - - - Lakeville/Developer 2023 Expansion SubTotal:- - - - - - - RESOURCES:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 26-60 CSAH 26 Trunk Highway 3 to CSAH 73 (Babcock Tr)Design Study Consultant Inver Grove Heights 300,000 135,000 - - 165,000 - - Dakota County 53-04 CR 53 CSAH 47 (Northfield Blvd) to CSAH 86 Design Sciota & Waterford Twp 100,000 - - - - 100,000 - Dakota County 63-xx CSAH 63 Marie Ave to TH 149 (Dodd Rd)Design Consultant Mendota Heights, West St Paul 600,000 150,000 - - 450,000 - - Dakota County 80-xx CSAH 80 TH 3 to 1 mile W of CSAH 79 (Blaine Ave)Design Castle Rock Township 200,000 - - - 200,000 - - Dakota County Attorney Reimbursement 262,017 - - - - 262,017 - Dakota County CIP Reimbursement to Operations 5,173,161 635,972 - - 2,730,867 1,806,322 - Dakota County Future Studies/Professional Services 300,000 135,000 - - - 165,000 - Dakota County Township Road Distribution 20,900 - - - - 20,900 - Dakota County Consultant Construction Administration 600,000 - - - 300,000 300,000 - Dakota County 2023 Resources SubTotal:7,556,078 1,055,972 - - 3,845,867 2,654,239 - 2023 TOTAL 63,056,378 4,885,472 - 380,000 28,010,667 27,036,149 2,744,090 page 60 2024 Section - TRANSPORTATION 9/24/19 14:15 Project Number Road Segment Short Description City Location Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy Lead Agency PRESERVATION: Highway Surface - Bituminous 6,400,000 - - - 5,600,000 800,000 - Dakota County Highway Surface - Gravel 750,000 - - - - 750,000 - Dakota County Highway Surface - Gravel Repairs Spot Locations 50,000 - - - - 50,000 - Dakota County Traffic Control Devices Durable Pavement Markings 500,000 - - - - 500,000 - Dakota County Bike Trail 700,000 - - - - 700,000 - Cities/Others Storm Sewer System Repair 500,000 100,000 - - - 400,000 - Dakota County/Cities 2024 Preservation SubTotal:8,900,000 100,000 - - 5,600,000 3,200,000 - MANAGEMENT:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 94-05 CR 94 CSAH 47 to CSAH 88 (292nd St)Construction Randolph, Sciota, Waterford Twps 7,950,000 - - - - 7,950,000 - Dakota County xx-xx Trails Trail Gap Set Aside Construct Trail 1,000,000 450,000 - - - 550,000 - Dakota County Jurisdictional Classification 1,000,000 - - - - 1,000,000 - Dakota County ROW Preservation & Management 500,000 225,000 - - - 275,000 - Dakota County Safety & Management 1,500,000 342,000 - - 275,000 883,000 - Dakota County Signal Projects Signal Revisions/Communications 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - Dakota County 2024 Management SubTotal:12,250,000 1,167,000 - - 425,000 10,658,000 - REPLACEMENT:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 53-04 CR 53 CSAH 47 (Northfield Blvd) to CSAH 86 ROW Acquisition Sciota & Waterford Twp 700,000 - - - - 700,000 - Dakota County 63-xx CSAH 63 Marie Ave to TH 149 (Dodd Rd)ROW Acquisition Mendota Heights, West St Paul 2,000,000 500,000 - - 1,500,000 - - Dakota County 80-xx CSAH 80 TH 3 to 1 mile W of CSAH 79 (Blaine Ave)ROW Acquisition Castle Rock Township 1,400,000 - - - 1,400,000 - - Dakota County xx-xx TBD Placeholder Replacement or Rural Intersecti Construction TBD 10,000,000 - 5,000,000 - 1,114,235 1,114,234 2,771,531 Dakota County Retaining Wall Set Aside Construct Retaining Wall 350,000 - - - 330,000 20,000 - Dakota County Signal Projects-Various Locations Replace/New/Geometrics 1,000,000 500,000 - - 500,000 - - Dakota County 2024 Replacement SubTotal:15,450,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 - 4,844,235 1,834,234 2,771,531 EXPANSION:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 60-xx New 60 Extend CH 60/185th-CSAH 9 to Highview Construction Lakeville 1,800,000 810,000 - - 970,000 20,000 - Lakeville/Developer 2024 Expansion SubTotal:1,800,000 810,000 - - 970,000 20,000 - RESOURCES:Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH Co Funds, Gravel Tax & Other County Levy 26-xx CSAH 26 Trunk Highway 13 to CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob)Roadway Study Consultant Eagan 3 1 - - 2 - - Dakota County 28-48 CSAH 28 TH 3 to 0.62 mile east Design Consultant Inver Grove Heights 150,000 67,500 - - 82,500 - - Dakota County 33-xx CSAH 33 140th St/Connemara to CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob (Roadway) Scoping Study Consultant Apple Valley/Rosemount 3 1 - - 2 - - Dakota County Attorney Reimbursement 262,017 - - - - 262,017 - Dakota County CIP Reimbursement to Operations 5,431,819 667,771 - - 2,867,411 1,896,637 - Dakota County Future Studies/Professional Services 300,000 135,000 - - - 165,000 - Dakota County Township Road Distribution 20,900 - - - - 20,900 - Dakota County Consultant Construction Administration 600,000 - - - 300,000 300,000 - Dakota County 2024 Resources SubTotal:6,764,742 870,273 - - 3,249,915 2,644,554 - 2024 TOTAL 45,164,742 3,947,273 5,000,000 - 15,089,150 18,356,788 2,771,531 page 61 9/24/19 14:18 ANNUAL COST CITY SHARE (1)FEDERAL STATE CSAH CO FUND BALANCE, GRAVEL TAX & OTHER COUNTY LEVY 2020 76,713,875 8,356,977 5,748,000 2,630,075 43,068,951 14,246,485 2,663,387 - 2021 71,638,552 10,770,846 10,392,000 300,000 35,542,427 11,943,258 2,690,021 - 2022 74,165,999 9,211,188 7,235,000 380,000 34,214,376 20,408,514 2,716,921 - 2023 63,056,378 4,885,472 - 380,000 28,010,667 27,036,149 2,744,090 - 2024 45,164,742 3,947,273 5,000,000 - 15,089,150 18,356,788 2,771,531 - TOTAL: 330,739,546 37,171,756 28,375,000 3,690,075 155,925,571 91,991,194 13,585,950 - - - - - - - - 5-YEAR COST CITY SHARE (1)FEDERAL STATE CSAH CO FUND BALANCE, GRAVEL TAX & OTHER COUNTY LEVY PRESERVATION: 46,655,000 500,000 1,188,000 - 28,577,000 16,390,000 - - MANAGEMENT: 91,871,900 16,235,850 7,595,000 - 34,620,250 33,420,800 - - REPLACEMENT: 125,914,500 7,651,250 12,592,000 3,690,075 65,239,010 25,846,236 10,895,929 - EXPANSION: 27,956,000 7,871,000 7,000,000 - 8,617,000 1,777,979 2,690,021 - RESOURCES: 38,342,146 4,913,656 - - 18,872,311 14,556,179 - - TOTAL: 330,739,546 37,171,756 28,375,000 3,690,075 155,925,571 91,991,194 13,585,950 - County Levy (7)Wheelage Tax (2)Gravel Tax (8) Use of Fund Balance* Cumulative Year End Balance Est Fund Balance 12.31.2019 67,000,000 TBD 2020 2,663,387 4,000,000 230,000 2020 16,909,872 9,950,485 57,049,515 2021 2,690,021 4,100,000 230,000 2021 14,633,279 7,503,258 49,546,257 2022 2,716,921 4,200,000 230,000 2022 23,125,435 15,298,514 34,247,743 2023 2,744,090 4,200,000 230,000 2023 29,780,239 22,556,149 11,691,594 2024 2,771,531 4,200,000 230,000 2024 21,128,319 13,896,788 (2,205,194) 13,585,950 20,700,000 1,150,000 105,577,144 *Adjusted for Other (Bridges & CR 96 Rice Co) State Aid "CSAH" Construction (Est. Fund Balance) Flexible Highway Account (3) (Est. Fund Balance) Individual Year End Balance Cumulative Year End Balance (CSAH +Fed Hwy+ Fed 63) 2,000,000 8,000,000 Est Fund Balance 12.31.2019 10,000,000 2020 12,259,673 2,280,000 1,600,000 13,000,000 2,450,075 43,068,951 (11,479,203) (1,479,203) 2021 12,274,796 2,280,000 1,600,000 13,000,000 - 35,542,427 (6,387,631) (7,866,834) 2022 12,397,544 2,280,000 1,600,000 13,000,000 - 34,214,376 (4,936,832) (12,803,666) 2023 12,397,544 2,280,000 1,600,000 13,000,000 - 28,010,667 1,266,877 (11,536,789) 2024 12,397,544 2,280,000 1,600,000 13,000,000 - 15,089,150 14,188,394 2,651,605 5-Year Total: 61,727,101 11,400,000 8,000,000 65,000,000 2,450,075 155,925,571 NOTES:(1) Cost share policy subject to change, actual project cost to be determined based on Adopted County Policy at time of Joint Powers Agreement (2) Potential change/increase in years 2019-2023 (3) State Forecast - subject to change (4) State Forecast - July 2017 (5) General Fund Hwy Distribution ("one time" increase spread out over 2018 & 2019) dollars programmed in 2020 CP 78-10 (6) State Aid "CSAH" Maintenance transfer to Construction CIP (7) County Funds Revenue revised Aug. 20, 2019 (8) Gravel Tax Revenue revised Sept. 23,2019 (was $200K now $230K) REVENUE: County Funds & Cost of Projects Programmed (w/ Fund Bal, Levy Gravel Tax & Other)Program Aid TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 5-YEAR SUMMARY -Post GGP / Sept Draft CIP 5 Year Summary Projects By Year TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 5-YEAR SUMMARY BY PROJECT TYPE CIP 5 Year Summary Projects By Type REVENUE: County Levy, Wheelage Tax and "one time" General Fund Hwy Distribution 5-Year Total: REVENUE: County State Aid Hwy, Flexible Highway and Motor Vehicle Lease Sales Tax REVENUE: CSAH Flexible Highway MVLST State Aid "CSAH" Maintenance (6) Motor Vehicle Lease Sales Tax (4) General Fund Highway Distribution (5) State Aid "CSAH" Cost page 62 2020 TRANSPORATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECTS - Post GGP/Sept Draft 9/24/19 14:19 Proj. No.ROAD Location Project Description City Annual Cost City Share (1)Federal State CSAH Other County Levy Placeholder for 2020 100,000 50,000 50,000 32-107 CSAH 32 At River Hills Dr (east of TH 13) Flashing Yellow Arrow Burnsville 48,000 21,600 - - 26,400 - - 2020 MANAGEMENT: Signal Projects - Various Locations Signal Revisions/Communications Location 148,000 71,600 - - 76,400 - - Proj. No.ROAD Location Project Description City Annual Cost City Share (1)Federal State CSAH Other County Levy Placeholder for 2020 80,000 20,000 - - 60,000 - - 31-103 CSAH 31 Pilot Knob Rd at Corporate Center Dr Design Consultant Eagan 100,000 50,000 - - 50,000 - - 32-92 CSAH 32 Cliff Rd at Slater Rd in Eagan Intersection Traffic Control Scoping Study Consultant Eagan 80,000 40,000 - - 40,000 - - 32-93 CSAH 32 Cliff Rd at Thomas Center/Beacon Hill Design Consultant Eagan 100,000 50,000 - - 50,000 - - 32-106 CSAH 32 At I 35E Ramps (only Co $ share shown)Signal Replace-Ramps (MnDOT lead)SP1982-206 Eagan (MnDOT)350,000 - - - 350,000 - - 32-105 CSAH 32 At Cliff Lake Rd/Rahncliff Rd Signal Replace Eagan 500,000 250,000 - - 250,000 - - 2020 REPLACEMENT: Signal Projects - Various Locations Replace/New/Geo Improve Location 1,210,000 410,000 - - 800,000 - - NOTE:(1) Cost share policy subject to change, actual project cost to be determined based on Adopted County Policy at time of Joint Powers Agreement 2021 TRANSPORATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECTS 9/24/19 14:19 Proj. No.ROAD Location Project Description City Annual Cost City Share (1)Federal State CSAH Other County Levy Placeholder for 2021 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - 2021 MANAGEMENT: Signal Projects - Various Locations Signal Revisions/Communications Location 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - Proj. No.ROAD Location Project Description City Annual Cost City Share (1)Federal State CSAH Other County Levy 11-xxx CSAH 11 CSAH 38 CSAH 11, CSAH 38 (McAndrews Rd), 140th St - Intersection Design/Scope Consultant Apple Valley 100,000 25,000 - - 75,000 - - 30-36 CSAH 30 Diffley at Braddock Tr TBD - based on Study Recommendations & ISD #196 Coordination Eagan 250,000 - - - 250,000 - - 31-103 CSAH 31 Pilot Knob Rd at Corporate Center Dr ROW Acquisition Eagan 300,000 135,000 - - 165,000 - - 32-92 CSAH 32 Cliff Rd at Slater Rd in Eagan Design Consultant Eagan 100,000 45,000 - - 55,000 - - 32-93 CSAH 32 At Thomas Center Dr/Beacon Hill Rd; & At Thomas Lake/Stone Cliff Rd Construction Eagan 750,000 225,000 - - 525,000 - - Placeholder for 2021 500,000 250,000 - - 250,000 - - 2021 REPLACEMENT: Signal Projects - Various Locations Replace/New/Geo Improve Location 2,000,000 680,000 - - 1,320,000 - - NOTE:(1) Cost share policy subject to change, actual project cost to be determined based on Adopted County Policy at time of Joint Powers Agreement page 63 2022 TRANSPORATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECTS 9/24/19 14:19 Proj. No.ROAD Location Project Description City Annual Cost City Share (1)Federal State CSAH Other County Levy Placeholder for 2022 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - 2022 MANAGEMENT: Signal Projects - Various Locations Signal Revisions/Communications Location 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - Proj. No.ROAD Location Project Description City Annual Cost City Share (1)Federal State CSAH Other County Levy 31-103 CSAH 31 Pilot Knob Rd at Corporate Center Dr Signal - Intersection Construction Eagan 750,000 337,500 - - 412,500 - - 32-92 CSAH 32 Cliff Rd at Slater Rd in Eagan ROW Acquisition Eagan 300,000 135,000 - - 165,000 - - Placeholder for 2022 500,000 250,000 - - 250,000 - - 2022 REPLACEMENT: Signal Projects - Various Locations Replace/New/Geo Improve Location 1,550,000 722,500 - - 827,500 - - NOTE:(1) Cost share policy subject to change, actual project cost to be determined based on Adopted County Policy at time of Joint Powers Agreement 2023 TRANSPORATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECTS Proj. No.ROAD Location Project Description City Annual Cost City Share (1)Federal State CSAH Other County Levy Placeholder for 2023 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - 2023 MANAGEMENT: Signal Projects - Various Locations Signal Revisions/Communications Location 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - Proj. No.ROAD Location Project Description City Annual Cost City Share (1)Federal State CSAH Other County Levy- - - - - 32-92 CSAH 32 Cliff Rd at Slater Rd in Eagan Construction Eagan 750,000 337,500 - - 412,500 - - Placeholder for 2023 500,000 250,000 - - 250,000 - - 2023 REPLACEMENT: Signal Projects - Various Locations Replace/New/Geo Improve Location 1,250,000 587,500 - - 662,500 - - NOTE:(1) Cost share policy subject to change, actual project cost to be determined based on Adopted County Policy at time of Joint Powers Agreement 2024 TRANSPORATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECTS Proj. No.ROAD Location Project Description City Annual Cost City Share (1)Federal State CSAH Other County Levy Placeholder for 2024 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - 2024 MANAGEMENT: Signal Projects - Various Locations Signal Revisions/Communications Location 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - Proj. No.ROAD Location Project Description City Annual Cost City Share (1)Federal State CSAH Other County Levy- - - - - Placeholder for 2024 1,000,000 500,000 - - 500,000 - - 2024 REPLACEMENT: Signal Projects - Various Locations Replace/New/Geo Improve Location 1,000,000 500,000 - - 500,000 - - NOTE:(1) Cost share policy subject to change, actual project cost to be determined based on Adopted County Policy at time of Joint Powers Agreement page 64 DATE: October 8, 2019 TO: Mayor, Council, and City Administrator FROM: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain SUBJECT: Out of State Travel COMMENT: INTRODUCTION: City policy requires notification for out of state travel. By policy, the Council is also required to approve out of metro area travel in excess of $1000. BACKGROUND: Captain Wayne Wegener requested to attend the International Association of Chiefs of Police 2019 Conference in Chicago, Illinois. Conference costs $500.00 Travel date: October 26th to October 29th Location: Chicago, IL Lodging: Hilton Garden Inn Chicago - $841.77 Flights: $171.60 Meals: GSA maximum rate $56.00/per day, 4 days = $224.00 Total estimated cost: $1,737.37 BACKGROUND: The money is available in the training budget to cover the costs. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to attend the training. page 65 page 66 DATE: October 16, 2019 TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police / Emergency Manager SUBJECT: Auction of City Owned Vehicle INTRODUCTION: The Police Department is asking for Council approval to auction one city owned vehicle. BACKGROUND In 2017, the Mendota Heights Police Department obtained a 2015 Dodge Durango R/T through the DUI forfeiture process. This is a high-end SUV with low miles and several added options. The department utilizes this vehicle for things outside of daily patrol functions, such as attending training, attending court, and conducting surveillance when an unmarked vehicle is essential. Although having an unmarked vehicle is necessary, a vehicle of this caliber is far greater than what is needed for these functions. Additionally, because it is not used on a regular basis, this vehicle oftentimes remains parked outside in the lot, exposed to the elements, and depreciating in value. Selling this vehicle and utilizing the proceeds for the department would be more beneficial to the organization. We are asking for Council approval to sell the vehicles at public auction as dictated by Chapter 9, section two, paragraph A of city code. If council approves the sale of the vehicles, a notice will be published in the legal newspaper. The notice will contain the description of the vehicles, as well as the time and location of the auction. Ten days after the posting, the vehicle will be turned over to Total Auto Solutions in Little Canada. Total Auto Solutions will facilitate the auction of the vehicle to the highest bidder. Total Auto Solutions accepts bids both in person and on-line. The fees for facilitating the auction are dependent on the final sale amount of the vehicle, but will not exceed $550.00. BUDGET IMPACT Because the vehicle was obtained through a DUI forfeiture, the proceeds will need to be disbursed according to Minnesota State Statute 169A.63 (vehicle forfeiture). RECOMMENDATION The City Council is asked to approve the auction of the City owned 2015 Dodge Durango R/T, by adopting a resolution. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, Adopt Resolution 2019-80 (attached). page 67 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-80 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AUCTION OF A CITY OWNED VEHICLE WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights owns a 2015 Dodge Durango that was obtained through DUI forfeiture process; and WHEREAS, the 2015 Dodge Durango is utilized by the police department for official use; and WHEREAS, the police department has determined the 2015 Dodge Durango is no longer needed for municipal purposes; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights to authorize the auction of the 2015 Dodge Durango and disburse the proceeds according to Minnesota State Statute 169A.63. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights authorizes the auction of a 2015 Dodge Durango. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of October 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS _________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 68 DATE: October 16, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: Insurance Renewal INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to affirm that it does not want to buy additional liability insurance coverage in excess of the state’s monetary limits on claims. BACKGROUND Each year LMCIT requires the city to decide if we wish to purchase additional liability coverage and a waiver of monetary limits on the claims. The base coverage is $1,500,000 which is the basic statutory limit. In the past, we have not purchased additional coverage and elected not to waive the statutory tort limits. Our insurance coverage period runs November 1, 2019 to November 1, 2020. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council pass a motion to not purchase additional liability coverage and elect not to waive the statutory tort limits. page 69 page 70 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: October 16, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: August 2019 Fire Synopsis COMMENT: Fire Calls August 2019 had the Mendota Heights Fire Department responding to a total of 30 calls for service. Of those 30 calls, 26 were located in Mendota Heights, two were in Lilydale, one was in Sunfish Lake, and one call was a mutual aid request from the city of Rosemount. The calls themselves broke down as follows: Under the classification of Actual Fires and/or smoke in a building: The department responded to a structure fire in the city of Rosemount. Mutual aid requests are typically filled by 911 dispatchers locating the nearest piece of apparatus that fulfills the current need of the requesting department. In this case, Rosemount needed additional water tenders (water tanker trucks) and not all departments have them. Mendota Heights Fire does have a 2,000 gallon water tender. These trucks are typically needed in areas that do not have fire hydrants and when there is a fire in a non-hydranted area, it is typical to need three to five water tenders to keep up with the water supply needed at an active fire scene. Medical and/or rescue calls accounted for three of our calls during the month of August. Public service calls accounted for two of our thirty calls in August. One call was for a lift assist for a resident. Another call was for a tree that came down and fully blocked Dodd Road (and actually had come down on a vehicle passing underneath). Upon our arrival, the vehicle had already left the scene, it was 8:30 p.m. so the road was fully closed off. The fire department opted to cut and clear the tree. Hazardous situation calls accounted for eight of our calls in the month of August. One call was for a smell off gas in the general area of the Xcel tank farm off of Highway 13 and 35E. One call was for a smell of gas at a nursing home facility and finally, one call was for the smell of gas in a residence. In addition, we responded to a vehicle that had run over a branch and had ruptured the page 71 fuel tank. Another call was for a natural gas leak caused when a utility hit a gas line while doing boring. Another call was for a natural gas leak that was due to the stove being left on without a flame. We also had a utility pole that came down partially due to it being rotted at the base of the pole. In August, we were cancelled before arriving on scene eight times. Under the classification of False Alarms, the department was paged out to nine calls. Accidental trips accounted for four of the calls and system malfunctions accounted for the five remaining calls. August 2019 Department Training Opportunities August 7 18:30 Pump Operations (Test) Annually, firefighters are required to have their skills tested for pumping with the Mendota Heights Fire Apparatus. August 8 0:700 Pump Operations (Test) Annually, firefighters are required to have their skills tested for pumping with the Mendota Heights Fire Apparatus. August 14 18:30 Tender Operations This drill is focused on both pumping with the pump and the mechanics involved in moving large amounts of water from a portable pool of water in order to be able to supply our engines with water. August 19 18:30 Driving (Cone Course) This drill occurs off-site in a parking lot where our largest trucks are used in a course designed to test the driver’s skills in driving the apparatus. This includes skills being tested for both going forward and in reverse. August 20 07:00 Driving (Cone Course) This drill occurs off-site in a parking lot where our largest trucks are used in a course designed to test the driver’s skills in driving the apparatus. This includes skills being tested for both going forward and in reverse. page 72 August 28 18:30 EMS Section “C” This class is part of our firefighters maintaining their “Emergency Medical Responder” certification. Each year every firefighter must complete the A, B, C and D sections in order to stay current in their certification. (If a firefighter has a medical level higher than EMR, than the appropriate continuing education is expected). THIS CLASS WAS CANCELLED DUE TO THE OUTSIDE INSTRUCTOR HAVING AN EMERGENCY COME UP, IT WILL BE RESCHEDULED August 29 07:00 EMS Section “D” This class is part of our firefighters maintaining their “Emergency Medical Responder” certification. Each year every firefighter must complete the A, B, C and D sections in order to stay current in their certification. (If a firefighter has a medical level higher than EMR, than the appropriate continuing education is expected). page 73 Number of Calls 30 Total Calls for Year 249 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $1,200 Structure - MH Residential $70,000 $30,000 $202,000 Structure - Contract Areas $0 Cooking Fire - confined $5,000 Vehicle - MH $10,500 $34,500 Vehicle - Contract Areas $0 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $80,500 $30,000 $0 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist 1 Vehicle accident w/injuries Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$110,500 Medical, other 2 HAZARDOUS SITUATION MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $207,000 Spills/Leaks 3 Carbon Monoxide Incident 1 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $34,500 Power line down 1 Arcing, shorting MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $242,700 Hazardous, Other SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal CONTRACT AREAS LOSS TO DATE $0 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other 1 GOOD INTENT Good Intent Dispatched & Cancelled 8 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 26 196 146 HazMat release investigation 3 2 19 11 Good Intent, Other 1 0 6 7 FALSE ALARMS 1 9 16 False Alarm 1 19 11 Malfunction 4 Total:30 249 191 Unintentional 4 False Alarm, other FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH MUTUAL AID 1 INSPECTIONS Total Calls 30 INVESTIGATIONS RE-INSPECTION WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year MEETINGS FIRE CALLS 369.5 3844 2726.75 MEETINGS 22 515 300.75 ADMINISTRATION TRAINING 360 2662 2455.25 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 102.5 367 258 PLAN REVIEW/TRAINING FIRE MARSHAL 97.9 168 TOTAL:0 TOTALS 854 7485.9 5908.75 REMARKS: Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Other MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT AUGUST 2019 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Mendota Heights page 74 DATE: October 16, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Acknowledge August Par 3 Financial Report INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to acknowledge the August Par 3 Financial Report. BACKGROUND Attached is the August Par 3 Financial Report. During the month of August the course had a total of 1,888 rounds of golf played. The course was open for 30 days. The August 2019 precipitation numbers were higher than the monthly average. The course received 6.28 inches of rain compared to the monthly average 4.3 inches. Total revenue for the month of August was $28,236. This includes greens fees, recreation programs and concessions. Including August, the course has a year-to-date revenue total of $136,256. The course’s August expenditures totaled $22,092. The year-to-date expenditure total is $105,859. The course currently has a profit of $30,397 for the 2019 season. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council acknowledge the August, 2019 Par 3 Financial Report. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion acknowledge the August, 2019 Par 3 Financial Report. page 75 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3 BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT August 2019 (66.67% OF YEAR) August REVENUES August YTD YTD YTD BUDGET 2019 2019 %2018 GREENS, LEAGUE & TOURN FEES $100,000 $21,443 $85,063 85.06%$73,029 RECREATION PROGRAMS $38,000 $1,892 $33,454 88.04%$30,035 CONCESSIONS $18,000 $4,825 $17,526 97.37%$15,667 SUNDRY REVENUE $0 $76 $213 100.00%$111 INTEREST $250 $0 $0 0.00%$0 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS $0 $0 $0 0.00%$0 PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $156,250 $28,236 $136,256 87.20%$118,842 EXPENDITURES August YTD YTD YTD BUDGET 2019 2019 %2018 CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $34,300 $5,544 $21,483 62.63%$20,026 ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $22,608 $1,719 $11,979 52.99%$11,659 FICA/PERA $10,282 $990 $4,710 45.81%$4,713 MEDICAL INSURANCE $6,653 $554 $4,435 66.66%$4,224 U/E & W/C INSURANCE $2,080 $0 $2,816 135.37%$2,238 RENTALS $4,500 $889 $3,369 74.87%$2,565 UTILITIES $12,660 $1,535 $7,588 59.93%$7,732 PROFESSIONAL FEES - AUDIT $2,650 $1,199 $2,776 104.76%$2,725 PROF FEES - CONSULTING FEES $0 $0 $531 100.00%$0 PROF FEES - GROUNDS MGMT $5,000 $0 $0 0.00%$3,455 PROF FEES - GROUNDS WAGES $22,000 $2,667 $11,241 51.10%$12,289 PROF FEES - TREE MAINTENANCE $1,500 $0 $0 0.00%$0 ADVERTISING/NEWSLETTER $400 $0 $235 58.78%$149 LIABILITY/AUTO INSURANCE $4,200 $0 $3,807 90.64%$3,290 OPERATING COSTS/SUPPLIES $6,350 $867 $4,367 68.77%$5,528 FUEL $1,350 $218 $1,016 75.25%$1,305 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $28,250 $5,267 $19,801 70.09%$20,554 SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $4,000 $0 $2,585 64.62%$1,969 CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $0 0.00%$0 ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $4,175 $643 $3,119 74.71%$2,805 PAR 3 EXPENDITURES TOTAL $172,958 $22,092 $105,859 61.20%$107,226 page 76 10/11/2019 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official September 1, 2019 thru September 30, 2019 January 1, 2019 thru September 30, 2019 January 1, 2018 thru September 30, 2018 January 1, 2017 thru September 30, 2017 Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected SFD 1 755,000.00$ $7,807.39 SFD 6 4,791,742.00$ $47,631.39 SFD 5 2,738,348.00$ $30,437.15 SFD 6 2,894,201.34$ 32,332.59$ Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 1 9,135,000.00$ $63,519.64 Apartment 1 9,466,820.00$ $65,710.84 Apartment 2 23,022,000.00$ 158,402.65$ Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 18 4,653,526.00$ $49,381.28 Townhouse 6 1,340,000.00$ 13,475.51$ Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$ Misc 60 1,464,683.21$ 16,218.54$ Misc 538 8,204,061.94$ 137,558.81$ Misc 445 6,253,901.80$ 88,963.33$ Misc 493 7,680,779.61$ 103,202.34$ Commercial 1 300,000.00$ $3,723.64 Commercial 20 11,730,117.00$ $49,502.03 Commercial 14 8,101,959.00$ $58,716.14 Commercial 30 9,011,692.00$ 89,128.57$ Sub Total 62 2,519,683.21$ 27,749.57$ Sub Total 565 33,860,920.94$ 298,211.87$ Sub Total 483 31,214,554.80$ 293,208.74$ Sub Total 537 43,948,672.95$ 396,541.66$ Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Plumbing 21 $2,408.00 Plumbing 182 $26,908.67 Plumbing 174 $28,825.94 Plumbing 147 27,357.25$ Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 -$ Sewer 2 $150.00 Sewer 9 $675.00 Sewer 34 $2,550.00 Sewer 25 1,888.00$ Mechanical 24 $3,941.38 Mechanical 228 397.00$ $32,302.88 Mechanical 377 $49,158.31 Mechanical 286 50,314.23$ Sub Total 47 6,499.38$ Sub Total 419 59,886.55$ Sub Total 585 $80,534.25 Sub Total 458 79,559.48$ License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Contractor 23 $1,150.00 Contractor 294 $14,700.00 Contractor 282 $14,100.00 Contractor 291 14,550.00$ Total 132 2,519,683.21$ 35,398.95$ Total 1278 33,860,920.94$ 372,798.42$ Total 1350 31,214,554.80$ 387,842.99$ Total 1286 43,948,672.95$ 490,651.14$ NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals page 77 page 78 page 79 page 80 page 81 page 82 page 83 page 84 page 85 page 86 page 87 page 88 page 89 page 90 DATE: October 16, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Approve Police Officer Hire INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve the hiring of Jared Powell for the position of Police Officer. BACKGROUND Staff recommends the hiring of Jared Powell to a currently vacant position of Police Officer. Jared has a degree in Criminal Justice from Inver Hills Community College and comes to the city from the Dakota County Communications Center where he holds the position of Dispatcher. Jared’s anticipated start date is November 1st, and is dependent upon approval by the City Council and notice to his employer. BUDGET IMPACT This is a budgeted position. ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the City Council approve the hiring of Jared Powell as Police Officer. Starting salary will be $5,220 per month based on the 2018-2019 Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. labor agreement. ACTION REQUIRED If City Council concurs, it should by motion, approve the hiring of Jared Powell to the position of Police Officer with the Mendota Heights Police Department. DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Construction Manager Update Comment: Paul Oberhaus of CPMI will be in attendance at the October 2nd City Council meeting to provide his monthly update on the progress of the project. He is the Construction Manager for the Fire Station construction project. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 91 DATE: October 16, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2019 Bond Issue INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve the sale of General Obligation Bonds for two construction projects, and to refinance previously sold bonds to take advantage of lower interest rates. BACKGROUND At the September 17, 2019 city council meeting, the council authorized the public sale of $3,195,000 General Obligation Bonds. The issue will be financing the Wesley Neighborhood street project and the Village Retaining Wall project. This sale will also refund the 2010 and 2011 bonds. I had a conference call with Standard & Poor’s on October 2, 2019. They affirmed our AAA bond rating with a stable outlook. The proposal opening will be held on October 16, 2019 and the results of the opening will be presented that evening at the council meeting. The council is asked take action on the sale at the October 16, 2019 council meeting. A representative from Ehlers and Associates will be present to present a tabulation of the bids received. BUDGET IMPACT The bonds will be paid with a combination of special assessments and an amount levied each year for the annual bond payments. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that council pass a motion to adopting Resolution 2019- 81 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL ON THE SALE OF $3,195,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2019B, PROVIDING FOR THEIR ISSUANCE AND PLEDGING FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF. page 93 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA HELD: October 16, 2019 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall on October 16, 2019, at 7:00 P.M, for the purpose, in part, of authorizing the issuance and awarding the sale of $3,195,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member _______________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 2019-81 ACCEPTING PROPOSAL ON THE SALE OF $3,195,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2019B, PROVIDING FOR THEIR ISSUANCE AND PLEDGING FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the "City") has heretofore determined and declared that it is necessary and expedient to issue $3,195,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B for (the "Bonds" or individually, a "Bond"), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 475; and 1. Chapter 429 to finance various public improvements within the City (the "Improvements"); and 2. Section 475.67 to current refund the City's General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2010A, in the original principal amount of $1,055,000, dated September 29, 2010 (the "Prior 2010A Bonds"); and 3. Section 475.67 to current refund the City's General Obligation Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2011A, in the original principal amount of $2,970,000, dated November 9, 2011 (the "Prior 2011A Bonds"); and B. WHEREAS, the Improvements and all their components have been ordered prior to the date hereof, after a hearing thereon for which notice was given describing the Improvements or all their components by general nature, estimated cost, and area to be assessed; and C. WHEREAS, $635,000 aggregate principal amount of the Prior 2010A Bonds which matures on and after February 1, 2020 (the "Refunded 2010A Bonds"), is callable on November 20, 2019 (the "Refunded 2010A Bonds Call Date"), at a price of par plus accrued page 94 interest, as provided in Resolution No. 10-71 adopted by the City Council on September 7, 2010, authorizing the issuance of the Prior 2010A Bonds (the "Prior 2010A Resolution"); and D. WHEREAS, $1,290,000 aggregate principal amount of the Prior 2011A Bonds which matures on and after February 1, 2021 (the "Refunded 2011A Bonds"), is callable on February 1, 2020 (the "Refunded 2011A Bonds Call Date"), at a price of par plus accrued interest, as provided in Resolution No. 2011-96 adopted by the City Council on October 18, 2011, authorizing the issuance of the Prior 2011A Bonds (the "Prior 2011A Resolution"); and E. WHEREAS, the Prior 2010A Bonds and the Prior 2011A Bonds are collectively referred to herein together as the "Prior Bonds"; the Refunded 2010A Bonds and the Refunded 2011A Bonds, are collectively referred to herein together as the "Refunded Bonds"; the Refunded 2010A Bonds Call Date and the Refunded 2011A Bonds Call Date are collectively referred to herein together as the "Call Dates"; and the Prior 2010A Resolution and the Prior 2011A Resolution are collectively referred to herein together as the "Prior Resolutions"; and F. WHEREAS, the refunding of the Refunded Bonds on the Call Dates is consistent with covenants made with the holders thereof, and is necessary and desirable for the reduction of debt service cost to the City; and G. WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent municipal advisor for the sale of the Bonds and was therefore authorized to sell the Bonds by private negotiation in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9) and proposals to purchase the Bonds have been solicited by Ehlers; and H. WHEREAS, the proposals set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto were received by the Clerk, or designee, at the offices of Ehlers at 10:00 A.M. this same day pursuant to the Preliminary Official Statement for the Bonds, dated October 3, 2019; and I. WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City that the Bonds be issued in book- entry form as hereafter provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Acceptance of Proposal. The proposal of ______________________________ (the "Purchaser"), to purchase the Bonds, in accordance with the Preliminary Official Statement established for the Bonds, at the rates of interest hereinafter set forth, and to pay therefor the sum of $__________, plus interest accrued to settlement, is hereby found, determined and declared to be the most favorable proposal received, is hereby accepted and the Bonds are hereby awarded to the Purchaser. The Finance Director is directed to retain the deposit of the Purchaser and to forthwith return to the unsuccessful bidders their good faith checks or drafts. 2. Bond Terms. (a) Original Issue Date; Denominations; Maturities; Term Bond Option. The Bonds shall be dated November 5, 2019, as the date of original issue, be issued forthwith on or after page 95 such date in fully registered form, be numbered from R-1 upward in the denomination of $5,000 each or in any integral multiple thereof of a single maturity (the "Authorized Denominations") and mature on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 2021 2027 2022 2028 2023 2029 2024 2030 2025 2031 2026 As may be requested by the Purchaser, one or more term Bonds may be issued having mandatory sinking fund redemption and final maturity amounts conforming to the foregoing principal repayment schedule, and corresponding additions may be made to the provisions of the applicable Bond(s). (b) Allocation. The aggregate principal amount of $_____________ maturing in each of the years and amounts hereinafter set forth are issued to finance the Improvements (the "Improvement Portion"); the aggregate principal amount of $___________ maturing in each of the years and amounts hereinafter set forth are issued to finance the refunding of the Refunded Bonds (the "Refunding Portion"): Year Improvement Portion Refunding Portion Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 (c) Book Entry Only System. The Depository Trust Company, a limited purpose trust company organized under the laws of the State of New York or any of its successors or its successors to its functions hereunder (the "Depository") will act as securities depository for the Bonds, and to this end: (i) The Bonds shall be initially issued and, so long as they remain in book entry form only (the "Book Entry Only Period"), shall at all times be in the form of a separate single fully registered Bond for each maturity of the Bonds; and for purposes of page 96 complying with this requirement under paragraphs 5 and 10 Authorized Denominations for any Bond shall be deemed to be limited during the Book Entry Only Period to the outstanding principal amount of that Bond. (ii) Upon initial issuance, ownership of the Bonds shall be registered in a bond register maintained by the Bond Registrar (as hereinafter defined) in the name of CEDE & CO, as the nominee (it or any nominee of the existing or a successor Depository, the "Nominee"). (iii) With respect to the Bonds neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall have any responsibility or obligation to any broker, dealer, bank, or any other financial institution for which the Depository holds Bonds as securities depository (the "Participant") or the person for which a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds shown on the books and records of the Participant (the "Beneficial Owner"). Without limiting the immediately preceding sentence, neither the City, nor the Bond Registrar, shall have any such responsibility or obligation with respect to (A) the accuracy of the records of the Depository, the Nominee or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, or (B) the delivery to any Participant, any Owner or any other person, other than the Depository, of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (C) the payment to any Participant, any Beneficial Owner or any other person, other than the Depository, of any amount with respect to the principal of or premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds, or (D) the consent given or other action taken by the Depository as the Registered Holder of any Bonds (the "Holder"). For purposes of securing the vote or consent of any Holder under this Resolution, the City may, however, rely upon an omnibus proxy under which the Depository assigns its consenting or voting rights to certain Participants to whose accounts the Bonds are credited on the record date identified in a listing attached to the omnibus proxy. (iv) The City and the Bond Registrar may treat as and deem the Depository to be the absolute owner of the Bonds for the purpose of payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, for the purpose of giving notices of redemption and other matters with respect to the Bonds, for the purpose of obtaining any consent or other action to be taken by Holders for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Bonds, and for all purpose whatsoever. The Bond Registrar, as paying agent hereunder, shall pay all principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to the Holder or the Holders of the Bonds as shown on the bond register, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the City's obligations with respect to the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (v) Upon delivery by the Depository to the Bond Registrar of written notice to the effect that the Depository has determined to substitute a new Nominee in place of the existing Nominee, and subject to the transfer provisions in paragraph 10, references to the Nominee hereunder shall refer to such new Nominee. page 97 (vi) So long as any Bond is registered in the name of a Nominee, all payments with respect to the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on such Bond and all notices with respect to such Bond shall be made and given, respectively, by the Bond Registrar or City, as the case may be, to the Depository as provided in the Letter of Representations to the Depository required by the Depository as a condition to its acting as book-entry Depository for the Bonds (said Letter of Representations, together with any replacement thereof or amendment or substitute thereto, including any standard procedures or policies referenced therein or applicable thereto respecting the procedures and other matters relating to the Depository's role as book-entry Depository for the Bonds, collectively hereinafter referred to as the "Letter of Representations"). (vii) All transfers of beneficial ownership interests in each Bond issued in book-entry form shall be limited in principal amount to Authorized Denominations and shall be effected by procedures by the Depository with the Participants for recording and transferring the ownership of beneficial interests in such Bonds. (viii) In connection with any notice or other communication to be provided to the Holders pursuant to this Resolution by the City or Bond Registrar with respect to any consent or other action to be taken by Holders, the Depository shall consider the date of receipt of notice requesting such consent or other action as the record date for such consent or other action; provided, that the City or the Bond Registrar may establish a special record date for such consent or other action. The City or the Bond Registrar shall, to the extent possible, give the Depository notice of such special record date not less than 15 calendar days in advance of such special record date to the extent possible. (ix) Any successor Bond Registrar in its written acceptance of its duties under this Resolution and any paying agency/bond registrar agreement, shall agree to take any actions necessary from time to time to comply with the requirements of the Letter of Representations. (d) Termination of Book-Entry Only System. Discontinuance of a particular Depository's services and termination of the book-entry only system may be effected as follows: (i) The Depository may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving written notice to the City and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. The City may terminate the services of the Depository with respect to the Bond if it determines that the Depository is no longer able to carry out its functions as securities depository or the continuation of the system of book-entry transfers through the Depository is not in the best interests of the City or the Beneficial Owners. (ii) Upon termination of the services of the Depository as provided in the preceding paragraph, and if no substitute securities depository is willing to undertake the functions of the Depository hereunder can be found which, in the opinion of the City, is willing and able to assume such functions upon reasonable or customary page 98 terms, or if the City determines that it is in the best interests of the City or the Beneficial Owners of the Bond that the Beneficial Owners be able to obtain certificates for the Bonds, the Bonds shall no longer be registered as being registered in the bond register in the name of the Nominee, but may be registered in whatever name or names the Holder of the Bonds shall designate at that time, in accordance with paragraph 10. To the extent that the Beneficial Owners are designated as the transferee by the Holders, in accordance with paragraph 10, the Bonds will be delivered to the Beneficial Owners. (iii) Nothing in this subparagraph (d) shall limit or restrict the provisions of paragraph 10. (e) Letter of Representations. The provisions in the Letter of Representations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of the resolution, and if and to the extent any such provisions are inconsistent with the other provisions of this resolution, the provisions in the Letter of Representations shall control. 3. Purpose; Findings. The Bonds shall provide funds to (i) finance the Improvements (the "Project""), and (ii) for the current refunding of the Refunded Bonds (the "Refunding"). The total cost of the Project, which shall include all costs enumerated in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.65, is estimated to be at least equal to the amount of the Improvement Portion of the Bonds. Work on the Project shall proceed with due diligence to completion. The City covenants that it shall do all things and perform all acts required of it to assure that work on the Project proceeds with due diligence to completion and that any and all permits and studies required under law for the Project are obtained. It is hereby found, determined and declared that the Refunding is pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, and shall result in a reduction of debt service cost to the City. 4. Interest. The Bonds shall bear interest payable semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year (each, an "Interest Payment Date"), commencing August 1, 2020, calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months, at the respective rates per annum set forth opposite the maturity years as follows: Maturity Year Interest Rate Maturity Year Interest Rate 2021 2027 2022 2028 2023 2029 2024 2030 2025 2031 2026 5. Redemption. All Bonds maturing on February 1, 2028, and thereafter, are subject to redemption on February 1, 2027, and on any date thereafter at the option of the City at a price of par plus accrued interest. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, the maturities and the principal amounts within each maturity to be redeemed shall be determined by the City; and if only part of the Bonds having a page 99 common maturity date are called for prepayment, the specific Bonds to be prepaid shall be chosen by lot by the Bond Registrar. Bonds or portions thereof called for redemption shall be due and payable on the redemption date, and interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after the redemption date. Mailed notice of redemption shall be given to the paying agent and to each affected registered holder of the Bonds not more than sixty (60) days and not fewer than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption. To effect a partial redemption of Bonds having a common maturity date, the Bond Registrar prior to giving notice of redemption shall assign to each Bond having a common maturity date a distinctive number for each $5,000 of the principal amount of such Bond. The Bond Registrar shall then select by lot, using such method of selection as it shall deem proper in its discretion, from the numbers so assigned to such Bonds, as many numbers as, at $5,000 for each number, shall equal the principal amount of such Bonds to be redeemed. The Bonds to be redeemed shall be the Bonds to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided, however, that only so much of the principal amount of each such Bond of a denomination of more than $5,000 shall be redeemed as shall equal $5,000 for each number assigned to it and so selected. If a Bond is to be redeemed only in part, it shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar (with, if the City or Bond Registrar so requires, a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the City and Bond Registrar duly executed by the Holder thereof or the Holder's attorney duly authorized in writing) and the City shall execute (if necessary) and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver to the Holder of the Bond, without service charge, a new Bond or Bonds having the same stated maturity and interest rate and of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations, as requested by the Holder, in aggregate principal amount equal to and in exchange for the unredeemed portion of the principal of the Bond so surrendered. 6. Bond Registrar. Bond Trust Services Corporation, in Roseville, Minnesota, is appointed to act as bond registrar and transfer agent with respect to the Bonds (the "Bond Registrar"), and shall do so unless and until a successor Bond Registrar is duly appointed, all pursuant to any contract the City and Bond Registrar shall execute which is consistent herewith. The Bond Registrar shall also serve as paying agent unless and until a successor paying agent is duly appointed. Principal and interest on the Bonds shall be paid to the registered holders (or record holders) of the Bonds in the manner set forth in the form of Bond and in paragraph 12. 7. Form of Bond. The Bonds, together with the Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication, the form of Assignment and the registration information thereon, shall be in substantially the following form: page 100 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA DAKOTA COUNTY CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS R-_______ $_________ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, SERIES 2019B Interest Rate Maturity Date Date of Original Issue CUSIP ___% February 1, ____ November 5, 2019 REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: The City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota (the "Issuer"), certifies that it is indebted and for value received promises to pay to the registered owner specified above, or registered assigns, in the manner hereinafter set forth, the principal amount specified above, on the maturity date specified above, unless called for earlier redemption, and to pay interest thereon semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year (each, an "Interest Payment Date"), commencing August 1, 2020, at the rate per annum specified above (calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) until the principal sum is paid or has been provided for. This Bond will bear interest from the most recent Interest Payment Date to which interest has been paid or, if no interest has been paid, from the date of original issue hereof. The principal of and premium, if any, on this Bond are payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the principal office of Bond Trust Services Corporation, in Roseville, Minnesota (the "Bond Registrar"), acting as paying agent, or any successor paying agent duly appointed by the Issuer. Interest on this Bond will be paid on each Interest Payment Date by check or draft mailed to the person in whose name this Bond is registered (the "Holder" or "Bondholder") on the registration books of the Issuer maintained by the Bond Registrar and at the address appearing thereon at the close of business on the fifteenth day of the calendar month next preceding such Interest Payment Date (the "Regular Record Date"). Any interest not so timely paid shall cease to be payable to the person who is the Holder hereof as of the Regular Record Date, and shall be payable to the person who is the Holder hereof at the close of business on a date (the "Special Record Date") fixed by the Bond Registrar whenever money becomes available for payment of the defaulted interest Notice of the Special Record Date shall be given to Bondholders not less than ten days prior to the Special Record Date. The principal of and premium, if any, and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. So long as this Bond is registered in the name of the Depository or its Nominee as provided in the Resolution hereinafter described, and as those terms are defined therein, payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond and notice with respect thereto shall be made as provided in the Letter of Representations, as defined in the Resolution, and surrender of this Bond shall not be required for payment of the redemption price upon a partial redemption of this Bond. Until termination of the book-entry only system pursuant to the Resolution, Bonds may only be registered in the name of the Depository or its Nominee. page 101 Optional Redemption. The Bonds of this issue (the "Bonds") maturing on February 1, 2028, and thereafter, are subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the Issuer on February 1, 2027, and on any date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, the maturities and the principal amounts within each maturity to be redeemed shall be determined by the Issuer; and if only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment, the specific Bonds to be prepaid shall be chosen by lot by the Bond Registrar. Bonds or portions thereof called for redemption shall be due and payable on the redemption date, and interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after the redemption date. Mailed notice of redemption shall be given to the paying agent and to each affected registered holder of the Bonds not more than sixty (60) days and not fewer than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption. Prior to the date on which any Bond or Bonds are directed by the Issuer to be redeemed in advance of maturity, the Issuer will cause notice of the call thereof for redemption identifying the Bonds to be redeemed to be mailed to the Bond Registrar and all Bondholders, at the addresses shown on the Bond Register. All Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest on the specified redemption date, provided funds for their redemption have been duly deposited. Selection of Bonds for Redemption; Partial Redemption. To effect a partial redemption of Bonds having a common maturity date, the Bond Registrar shall assign to each Bond having a common maturity date a distinctive number for each $5,000 of the principal amount of such Bond. The Bond Registrar shall then select by lot, using such method of selection as it shall deem proper in its discretion, from the numbers assigned to the Bonds, as many numbers as, at $5,000 for each number, shall equal the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed. The Bonds to be redeemed shall be the Bonds to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided, however, that only so much of the principal amount of such Bond of a denomination of more than $5,000 shall be redeemed as shall equal $5,000 for each number assigned to it and so selected. If a Bond is to be redeemed only in part, it shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar (with, if the Issuer or Bond Registrar so requires, a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the Issuer and Bond Registrar duly executed by the Holder thereof or the Holder's attorney duly authorized in writing) and the Issuer shall execute (if necessary) and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver to the Holder of the Bond, without service charge, a new Bond or Bonds having the same stated maturity and interest rate and of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations, as requested by the Holder, in aggregate principal amount equal to and in exchange for the unredeemed portion of the principal of the Bond so surrendered. Issuance; Purpose; General Obligation. This Bond is one of an issue in the total principal amount of $3,195,000, all of like date of original issue and tenor, except as to number, maturity, interest rate, denomination and redemption privilege, issued pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota and pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on October 16, 2019 (the "Resolution"), for the purpose of providing funds to finance various public improvement projects within the jurisdiction of the Issuer and for a current refunding of certain outstanding general obligation bonds of the Issuer. This Bond is payable out of the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B Fund of the Issuer. This Bond constitutes a general obligation of the Issuer, and to provide moneys for the prompt and full page 102 payment of its principal, premium, if any, and interest when the same become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the Issuer have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. Denominations; Exchange; Resolution. The Bonds are issuable solely in fully registered form in Authorized Denominations (as defined in the Resolution) and are exchangeable for fully registered Bonds of other Authorized Denominations in equal aggregate principal amounts at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, but only in the manner and subject to the limitations provided in the Resolution. Reference is hereby made to the Resolution for a description of the rights and duties of the Bond Registrar. Copies of the Resolution are on file in the principal office of the Bond Registrar. Transfer. This Bond is transferable by the Holder in person or by the Holder's attorney duly authorized in writing at the principal office of the Bond Registrar upon presentation and surrender hereof to the Bond Registrar, all subject to the terms and conditions provided in the Resolution and to reasonable regulations of the Issuer contained in any agreement with the Bond Registrar. Thereupon the Issuer shall execute and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in exchange for this Bond, one or more new fully registered Bonds in the name of the transferee (but not registered in blank or to "bearer" or similar designation), of an Authorized Denomination or Denominations, in aggregate principal amount equal to the principal amount of this Bond, of the same maturity and bearing interest at the same rate. Fees upon Transfer or Loss. The Bond Registrar may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge payable in connection with the transfer or exchange of this Bond and any legal or unusual costs regarding transfers and lost Bonds. Treatment of Registered Owners. The Issuer and Bond Registrar may treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment as herein provided (except as otherwise provided herein with respect to the Record Date) and for all other purposes, whether or not this Bond shall be overdue, and neither the Issuer nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by notice to the contrary. Authentication. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security unless the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been executed by the Bond Registrar. Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligation. This Bond has been designated by the Issuer as a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to happen and to be performed, precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond, have been done, have happened and have been performed, in regular and due form, time and manner as required by law; and that this Bond, together with all other debts of the Issuer outstanding on the date of original issue hereof and the date of its issuance and delivery to the original purchaser, does not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. page 103 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, by its City Council has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile signatures of its Mayor and its City Clerk, the corporate seal of the Issuer having been intentionally omitted as permitted by law. Date of Registration: BOND REGISTRAR'S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the Resolution mentioned within. Bond Trust Services Corporation Roseville, Minnesota Bond Registrar By: Authorized Signature Registrable by: BOND TRUST SERVICES CORPORATION Payable at: BOND TRUST SERVICES CORPORATION CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA /s/ Facsimile Mayor /s/ Facsimile City Clerk page 104 ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM - as tenants in common TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common UTMA - ___________ as custodian for ______________ (Cust) (Minor) under the _____________________ Uniform (State) Transfers to Minors Act Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto ________________________________________________________________ the within Bond and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint _________________ attorney to transfer the Bond on the books kept for the registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated:_________________ ____________________________________________ Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever. Signature Guaranteed: ___________________________ Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a national bank or trust company or by a brokerage firm having a membership in one of the major stock exchanges or any other "Eligible Guarantor Institution" as defined in 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-15(a)(2). The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the transferee requested below is provided. Name and Address: ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ (Include information for all joint owners if the Bond is held by joint account.) page 105 8. Execution. The Bonds shall be in typewritten form, shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of its Mayor and City Clerk and be sealed with the seal of the City; provided, as permitted by law, both signatures may be photocopied facsimiles and the corporate seal has been omitted. In the event of disability or resignation or other absence of either officer, the Bonds may be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of the officer who may act on behalf of the absent or disabled officer. In case either officer whose signature or facsimile of whose signature shall appear on the Bonds shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Bonds, the signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in office until delivery. 9. Authentication. No Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under this resolution unless a Certificate of Authentication on the Bond, substantially in the form hereinabove set forth, shall have been duly executed by an authorized representative of the Bond Registrar. Certificates of Authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same person. The Bond Registrar shall authenticate the signatures of officers of the City on each Bond by execution of the Certificate of Authentication on the Bond and by inserting as the date of registration in the space provided the date on which the Bond is authenticated, except that for purposes of delivering the original Bonds to the Purchaser, the Bond Registrar shall insert as a date of registration the date of original issue of November 5, 2019. The Certificate of Authentication so executed on each Bond shall be conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this resolution. 10. Registration; Transfer; Exchange. The City will cause to be kept at the principal office of the Bond Registrar a bond register in which, subject to such reasonable regulations as the Bond Registrar may prescribe, the Bond Registrar shall provide for the registration of Bonds and the registration of transfers of Bonds entitled to be registered or transferred as herein provided. Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, the City shall execute (if necessary), and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate, insert the date of registration (as provided in paragraph 9) of, and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations of a like aggregate principal amount, having the same stated maturity and interest rate, as requested by the transferor; provided, however, that no Bond may be registered in blank or in the name of "bearer" or similar designation. At the option of the Holder, Bonds may be exchanged for Bonds of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations of a like aggregate principal amount and stated maturity, upon surrender of the Bonds to be exchanged at the principal office of the Bond Registrar. Whenever any Bonds are so surrendered for exchange, the City shall execute (if necessary), and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate, insert the date of registration of, and deliver the Bonds which the Holder making the exchange is entitled to receive. All Bonds surrendered upon any exchange or transfer provided for in this resolution shall be promptly canceled by the Bond Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. page 106 All Bonds delivered in exchange for or upon transfer of Bonds shall be valid general obligations of the City evidencing the same debt, and entitled to the same benefits under this resolution, as the Bonds surrendered for such exchange or transfer. Every Bond presented or surrendered for transfer or exchange shall be duly endorsed or be accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the Holder thereof or the Holder's attorney duly authorized in writing The Bond Registrar may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge payable in connection with the transfer or exchange of any Bond and any legal or unusual costs regarding transfers and lost Bonds. Transfers shall also be subject to reasonable regulations of the City contained in any agreement with the Bond Registrar, including regulations which permit the Bond Registrar to close its transfer books between record dates and payment dates. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute the terms of said agreement. 11. Rights Upon Transfer or Exchange. Each Bond delivered upon transfer of or in exchange for or in lieu of any other Bond shall carry all the rights to interest accrued and unpaid, and to accrue, which were carried by such other Bond. 12. Interest Payment; Record Date. Interest on any Bond shall be paid on each Interest Payment Date by check or draft mailed to the person in whose name the Bond is registered (the "Holder") on the registration books of the City maintained by the Bond Registrar and at the address appearing thereon at the close of business on the fifteenth day of the calendar month next preceding such Interest Payment Date (the "Regular Record Date"). Any such interest not so timely paid shall cease to be payable to the person who is the Holder thereof as of the Regular Record Date, and shall be payable to the person who is the Holder thereof at the close of business on a date (the "Special Record Date") fixed by the Bond Registrar whenever money becomes available for payment of the defaulted interest. Notice of the Special Record Date shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the Holders not less than ten days prior to the Special Record Date. 13. Treatment of Registered Owner. The City and Bond Registrar may treat the person in whose name any Bond is registered as the owner of such Bond for the purpose of receiving payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest (subject to the payment provisions in paragraph 12) on, such Bond and for all other purposes whatsoever whether or not such Bond shall be overdue, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by notice to the contrary. 14. Delivery; Application of Proceeds. The Bonds when so prepared and executed shall be delivered by the Finance Director to the Purchaser upon receipt of the purchase price, and the Purchaser shall not be obliged to see to the proper application thereof. 15. Fund and Accounts. There is hereby created a special fund to be designated the "General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B Fund" (the "Fund") to be administered and maintained by the Finance Director as a bookkeeping account separate and apart from all other funds maintained in the official financial records of the City. The Fund shall be maintained in the page 107 manner herein specified until all of the Bonds and the interest thereon have been fully paid. There shall be maintained in the Fund the following accounts: (a) Construction Account. To the Construction Account there shall be credited the proceeds of the sale of the Improvement Portion of the Bonds less any amount paid for the Bonds in excess of the minimum bid, plus any special assessments levied with respect to the Improvements and collected prior to completion of the Improvements and payment of the costs thereof. From the Construction Account there shall be paid all costs and expenses of making the Improvements including the cost of any construction contracts heretofore let and all other costs incurred and to be incurred of the kind authorized in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.65. Moneys in the Construction Account shall be used for no other purpose except as otherwise provided by law; provided that the proceeds of the Improvement Portion of the Bonds may also be used to the extent necessary to pay interest on the Improvement Portion of the Bonds due prior to the anticipated date of commencement of the collection of taxes or special assessments herein levied or covenanted to be levied; and provided further that if upon completion of the Improvements there shall remain any unexpended balance in the Construction Account from the Improvement Portion of the Bonds, such balance (other than any special assessments) shall be transferred to the Debt Service Account or may be transferred by the Council to the fund of any other improvement instituted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and provided further that any special assessments credited to the Construction Account shall only be applied towards payment of the costs of the Improvements upon adoption of a resolution by the City Council determining that the application of the special assessments for such purpose will not cause the City to no longer be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 1. (b) Payment Account. To the Payment Account there shall be credited $__________ of the proceeds of the sale of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds. The Finance Director shall transfer on or prior to the Call Dates the proceeds of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds deposited in the Payment Account to the paying agents for the Prior Bonds, which sums are sufficient, together with other funds on deposit in debt service funds for the Refunded Bonds, to pay the principal and interest due on the Refunded Bonds due after the Call Dates, including the principal of the Refunded Bonds called for redemption on the Call Dates. Any monies remaining in the Payment Account after payment of the Refunded Bonds shall be transferred to the Debt Service Account. (c) Debt Service Account. There are hereby irrevocably appropriated and pledged to, and there shall be credited to, the Debt Service Account: (i) all collections of special assessments herein covenanted to be levied with respect to the Improvements and either initially credited to the Construction Account and not already spent as permitted above and required to pay any principal and interest due on the Bonds or collected subsequent to the completion of the Improvements and payment of the costs thereof; (ii) any collections of all taxes herein or hereinafter levied for the payment of the Bonds and interest thereon; (iii) any balance remaining after the Call Dates in the Debt Service Accounts created by the Prior Resolutions; (iv) all uncollected special assessments which were heretofore pledged for the payment of the Refunded Bonds and are herein pledged to the payment of the Bonds; (v) all funds remaining in the Construction Account after completion of the Project and payment of the costs thereof; (vi) all investment earnings on funds held in the Debt Service Account; and (vii) any and all other moneys which are properly available and are appropriated by the governing body of the City to page 108 the Debt Service Account. The Debt Service Account shall be used solely to pay the principal and interest on the Bonds and any other general obligation bonds of the City hereafter issued by the City and made payable from said Account as provided by law. No portion of the proceeds of the Bonds shall be used directly or indirectly to acquire higher yielding investments or to replace funds which were used directly or indirectly to acquire higher yielding investments, except (1) for a reasonable temporary period until such proceeds are needed for the purpose for which the Bonds were issued and (2) in addition to the above in an amount not greater than the lesser of five percent of the proceeds of the Bonds or $100,000. To this effect, any proceeds of the Bonds and any sums from time to time held in the Construction Account or Debt Service Account (or any other City account which will be used to pay principal or interest to become due on the bonds payable therefrom) in excess of amounts which under then applicable federal arbitrage regulations may be invested without regard to yield shall not be invested at a yield in excess of the applicable yield restrictions imposed by said arbitrage regulations on such investments after taking into account any applicable "temporary periods" or "minor portion" made available under the federal arbitrage regulations. Money in the Fund shall not be invested in obligations or deposits issued by, guaranteed by or insured by the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof if and to the extent that such investment would cause the Bonds to be "federally guaranteed" within the meaning of Section 149(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"). 16. Covenants Relating to the Improvement Portion of the Bonds. (a) Assessments. It is hereby determined that no less than twenty percent of the cost to the City of each Improvement within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.58, Subdivision 1(3), shall be paid by special assessments to be levied against every assessable lot, piece and parcel of land benefited by any of the Improvements. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will let all construction contracts not heretofore let within one year after ordering each Improvement unless the resolution ordering the Improvement specifies a different time limit for the letting of construction contracts. The City hereby further covenants and agrees that it will do and perform as soon as they may be done all acts and things necessary for the final and valid levy of such special assessments, and in the event that any such assessment be at any time held invalid with respect to any lot, piece or parcel of land due to any error, defect, or irregularity in any action or proceedings taken or to be taken by the City or the City Council or any of the City officers or employees, either in the making of the assessments or in the performance of any condition precedent thereto, the City and the City Council will forthwith do all further acts and take all further proceedings as may be required by law to make the assessments a valid and binding lien upon such property. It is hereby determined that the special assessments shall be payable in equal, consecutive, annual installments, with general taxes for the years shown below and with interest on the declining balance of all such special assessments at a rate per annum not greater than the maximum permitted by law and not less than the rates per annum shown opposite their collection years specified below: Improvement Designation Levy Years Collection Years Amount Rate See Attached Schedule in Exhibit B page 109 At the time the special assessments are in fact levied the City Council shall, based on the then current estimated collections of the special assessments, make any adjustments in any ad valorem taxes required to be levied in order to assure that the City continues to be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 1. (b) Tax Levy; Coverage Test. To provide moneys for payment of the principal and interest on the Improvement Portion of the Bonds there is hereby levied upon all of the taxable property in the City a direct annual ad valorem tax which shall be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with and as part of other general property taxes in the City for the years and in the amounts as follows: Year of Tax Levy Year of Tax Collection Amount See Attached Schedule in Exhibit B The tax levies are such that if collected in full they, together with estimated collections of special assessments and other revenues herein pledged for the payment of the Improvement Portion of the Bonds, will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Improvement Portion of the Bonds. The tax levies shall be irrepealable so long as any of the Improvement Portion of the Bonds are outstanding and unpaid, provided that the City reserves the right and power to reduce the levies in the manner and to the extent permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3. 17. Covenants Relating to the Refunding Portion of the Bonds. (a) Special Assessments. The City has heretofore levied special assessments pursuant to the Prior Resolution, which were pledged to the payment of the principal and interest on the Prior Bonds and, after the Call Dates, the uncollected special assessments for the Prior Bonds are now pledged to the payment of principal and interest on the Prior Refunding Portion of the Bonds. The special assessments are such that if collected in full they, together with estimated collections of taxes herein pledged for the payment of the Prior Refunding Portion of the Bonds, will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Prior Refunding Portion of the Bonds. The special assessments were levied as provided below, payable in equal, consecutive, annual installments, with general taxes for the years shown below and with interest on the declining balance of all such assessments at the rate shown opposite such years: Improvement Designation Levy Years Collection Years Amount Rate See Attached Schedule in Exhibit B (b) Tax Levy; Coverage Test; Cancellation of Certain Tax Levies. To provide moneys for payment of the principal and interest on the Refunding Portion of the Bonds there is hereby levied upon all of the taxable property in the City a direct annual ad valorem tax which shall be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with and as part of other general property taxes in the City for the years and in the amounts as follows: page 110 Year of Tax Levy Year of Tax Collection Amount See Attached Schedule in Exhibit B The tax levies are such that if collected in full they, together with estimated collections of special assessments and any other revenues herein pledged for the payment of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds, will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Refunding Portion of the Bonds. The tax levies shall be irrepealable so long as any of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds are outstanding and unpaid, provided that the City reserves the right and power to reduce the levies in the manner and to the extent permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3. Upon payment of the Prior Bonds, the uncollected taxes levied in the Prior Resolution authorizing the issuance of the Prior Bonds which are not needed to pay the Prior Bonds as a result of the Refunding shall be canceled. 18. General Obligation Pledge. For the prompt and full payment of the principal and interest on the Bonds, as the same respectively become due, the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the City shall be and are hereby irrevocably pledged. If the balance in the Debt Service Account is ever insufficient to pay all principal and interest then due on the Bonds and any other bonds payable therefrom, the deficiency shall be promptly paid out of any other funds of the City which are available for such purpose, and such other funds may be reimbursed with or without interest from the Debt Service Account when a sufficient balance is available therein. 19. Prior Bonds; Security and Prepayment. Until retirement of the Prior Bonds, all provisions for the security thereof shall be observed by the City and all of its officers and agents. The Refunded Bonds shall be redeemed and prepaid on the Call Dates in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Notices of Call for Redemption attached hereto as Exhibits C and D, which terms and conditions are hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference. 20. Supplemental Resolution. The Prior Resolution authorizing the issuance of the Prior Bonds are hereby supplemented to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions hereof. 21. Defeasance. When all Bonds have been discharged as provided in this paragraph, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the registered holders of the Bonds shall, to the extent permitted by law, cease. The City may discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds which are due on any date by irrevocably depositing with the Bond Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full; or if any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Bond Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit. The City may also discharge its obligations with respect to any prepayable Bonds called for redemption on any date when they are prepayable according to their terms, by depositing with the Bond Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full, provided that notice of redemption thereof has been duly given. The City may also at any time discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds, subject to the provisions of law now or hereafter authorizing and regulating such action, by depositing irrevocably in escrow, with a page 111 suitable banking institution qualified by law as an escrow agent for this purpose, cash or securities described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, Subdivision 8, bearing interest payable at such times and at such rates and maturing on such dates as shall be required, without regard to sale and/or reinvestment, to pay all amounts to become due thereon to maturity or, if notice of redemption as herein required has been duly provided for, to such earlier redemption date. 22. Compliance With Reimbursement Bond Regulations. The provisions of this paragraph are intended to establish and provide for the City's compliance with United States Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 (the "Reimbursement Regulations") applicable to the "reimbursement proceeds" of the Bonds, being those portions thereof which will be used by the City to reimburse itself for any expenditure which the City paid or will have paid prior to the Closing Date (a "Reimbursement Expenditure"). The City hereby certifies and/or covenants as follows: (a) Not later than sixty days after the date of payment of a Reimbursement Expenditure, the City (or person designated to do so on behalf of the City) has made or will have made a written declaration of the City's official intent (a "Declaration") which effectively (i) states the City's reasonable expectation to reimburse itself for the payment of the Reimbursement Expenditure out of the proceeds of a subsequent borrowing; (ii) gives a general and functional description of the property, project or program to which the Declaration relates and for which the Reimbursement Expenditure is paid, or identifies a specific fund or account of the City and the general functional purpose thereof from which the Reimbursement Expenditure was to be paid (collectively the "Project"); and (iii) states the maximum principal amount of debt expected to be issued by the City for the purpose of financing the Project; provided, however, that no such Declaration shall necessarily have been made with respect to: (i) "preliminary expenditures" for the Project, defined in the Reimbursement Regulations to include engineering or architectural, surveying and soil testing expenses and similar prefatory costs, which in the aggregate do not exceed twenty percent of the "issue price" of the Bonds, and (ii) a de minimis amount of Reimbursement Expenditures not in excess of the lesser of $100,000 or five percent of the proceeds of the Bonds. (b) Each Reimbursement Expenditure is a capital expenditure or a cost of issuance of the Bonds or any of the other types of expenditures described in Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Reimbursement Regulations. (c) The "reimbursement allocation" described in the Reimbursement Regulations for each Reimbursement Expenditure shall and will be made forthwith following (but not prior to) the issuance of the Bonds and in all events within the period ending on the date which is the later of three years after payment of the Reimbursement Expenditure or one year after the date on which the Project to which the Reimbursement Expenditure relates is first placed in service. (d) Each such reimbursement allocation will be made in a writing that evidences the City's use of Bond proceeds to reimburse the Reimbursement Expenditure and, if made within 30 days after the Bonds are issued, shall be treated as made on the day the Bonds are issued. page 112 Provided, however, that the City may take action contrary to any of the foregoing covenants in this paragraph upon receipt of an opinion of its Bond Counsel for the Bonds stating in effect that such action will not impair the tax-exempt status of the Bonds. 23. Continuing Disclosure. City is the sole obligated person with respect to the Bonds. The City hereby agrees, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule"), promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") hereinafter described to: (a) Provide or cause to be provided to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "MSRB") by filing at www.emma.msrb.org in accordance with the Rule, certain annual financial information and operating data in accordance with the Undertaking. The City reserves the right to modify from time to time the terms of the Undertaking as provided therein. (b) Provide or cause to be provided to the MSRB notice of the occurrence of certain events with respect to the Bonds in not more than ten (10) business days after the occurrence of the event, in accordance with the Undertaking. (c) Provide or cause to be provided to the MSRB notice of a failure by the City to provide the annual financial information with respect to the City described in the Undertaking, in not more than ten (10) business days following such occurrence. (d) The City agrees that its covenants pursuant to the Rule set forth in this paragraph and in the Undertaking is intended to be for the benefit of the Holders of the Bonds and shall be enforceable on behalf of such Holders; provided that the right to enforce the provisions of these covenants shall be limited to a right to obtain specific enforcement of the City's obligations under the covenants. The Mayor and City Clerk of the City, or any other officer of the City authorized to act in their place (the "Officers") are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the City the Undertaking in substantially the form presented to the City Council subject to such modifications thereof or additions thereto as are (i) consistent with the requirements under the Rule, (ii) required by the Purchaser of the Bonds, and (iii) acceptable to the Officers. 24. Certificate of Registration. A certified copy of this resolution is hereby directed to be filed with the County Auditor of Dakota County, Minnesota, together with such other information as the County Auditor shall require, and there shall be obtained from the County Auditor a certificate that the Bonds have been entered in the County Auditor's Bond Register and the tax levy required by law has been made 25. Records and Certificates. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser, and to the attorneys approving the legality of the issuance of the Bonds, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other affidavits, certificates and information as are required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as page 113 otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the facts recited therein. 26. Negative Covenant as to Use of Bond Proceeds and Project. The City hereby covenants not to use the proceeds of the Bonds or to use the Project, or to cause or permit them to be used, or to enter into any deferred payment arrangements for the cost of the Project, in such a manner as to cause the Bonds to be "private activity bonds" within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code. 27. Tax-Exempt Status of the Bonds; Rebate. (a) Allocation to the Improvement Portion of the Bonds. The City shall comply with requirements necessary under the Code to establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income under Section 103 of the Code of the interest on the Improvement Portion of the Bonds, including without limitation (i) requirements relating to temporary periods for investments, (ii) limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Improvement Portion of the Bonds, and (iii) the rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States. The City expects to satisfy the twenty-four month exemption for gross proceeds of the Improvement Portion of the Bonds as provided in Section 1.148-7(e) of the Regulations. The Mayor, the Finance Director or either one of them, are hereby authorized and directed to make such elections as to arbitrage and rebate matters relating to the Improvement Portion of the Bonds as they deem necessary, appropriate or desirable in connection with the Improvement Portion of the Bonds, and all such elections shall be, and shall be deemed and treated as, elections of the City. (b) Allocation to the Refunding Portion of the Bonds. The City shall comply with requirements necessary under the Code to establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income under Section 103 of the Code of the interest on the Refunding Portion of the Bonds, including without limitation (i) requirements relating to temporary periods for investments, (ii) limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Refunding Portion of the Bonds, and (iii) the rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States. The City expects to satisfy the six month expenditure exemption from gross proceeds of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds as provided in Section 1.148-7(c) of the Regulations. The Mayor and/or Clerk and/or Finance Director are hereby authorized and directed to make such elections as to arbitrage and rebate matters relating to the Refunding Portion of the Bonds as they deem necessary, appropriate or desirable in connection with the Bonds, and all such elections shall be, and shall be deemed and treated as, elections of the City. 28. Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations. In order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, the City hereby makes the following factual statements and representations: (a) the Bonds are issued after August 7, 1986; (b) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as defined in Section 141 of the Code; (c) the City hereby designates the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; page 114 (d) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds, treating qualified 501(c)(3) bonds as not being private activity bonds) which will be issued by the City (and all entities treated as one issuer with the City, and all subordinate entities whose obligations are treated as issued by the City) during this calendar year 2019 will not exceed $10,000,000; (e) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by the City during this calendar year 2019 have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; and (f) the aggregate face amount of the Bonds does not exceed $10,000,000. Furthermore: (g) each of the Refunded Bonds was designated as a "qualified tax exempt obligation" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; (h) the average maturity of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds does not exceed the remaining average maturity of the Refunded Bonds; (i) no part of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds have a maturity date which is later than the date which is thirty years after the date the Refunded Bonds were issued; and (j) the Refunding Portion of the Bonds are issued to refund, and not to "advance refund" the Prior Bonds within the meaning of Section 149(d)(5) of the Code, and shall not be taken into account under the $10,000,000 issuance limit to the extent the Refunding Portion of the Bonds do not exceed the outstanding amount of the Prior Bonds and therefor such portion ($1,865,000) is "deemed designated" within the meaning of Section 265 of the Code. The City shall use its best efforts to comply with any federal procedural requirements which may apply in order to effectuate the designation made by this paragraph. 29. Official Statement. The Official Statement relating to the Bonds prepared and distributed by Ehlers is hereby approved and the officers of the City are authorized in connection with the delivery of the Bonds to sign such certificates as may be necessary with respect to the completeness and accuracy of the Official Statement. 30. Payment of Issuance Expenses. The City authorizes the Purchaser to forward the amount of Bond proceeds allocable to the payment of issuance expenses to Old National Bank, Chaska, Minnesota on the closing date for further distribution as directed by the City's municipal advisor, Ehlers. 31. Severability. If any section, paragraph or provision of this resolution shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this resolution. 32. Headings. Headings in this resolution are included for convenience of reference only and are not a part hereof, and shall not limit or define the meaning of any provision hereof. page 115 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _____________ and, after a full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of October 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS _________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 116 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of the City, duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as the minutes relate to considering proposals and awarding the sale of $3,195,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B. WITNESS my hand on October 16, 2019. _______________________________________ City Clerk page 117 EXHIBIT A PROPOSALS [To be supplied by Ehlers & Associates, Inc.] page 118 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULES [To be supplied by Ehlers & Associates, Inc.] page 119 EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2010A CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that by order of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, there have been called for redemption and prepayment on November 20, 2019 those outstanding bonds of the City designated as General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2010A, dated as of September 29, 2010, having stated maturity dates or subject to mandatory redemption in the years 2020 through 2030, inclusive, and totaling $635,000 in principal in principal amount and having CUSIP numbers listed below: Year Amount CUSIP 2020 $60,000 586770 5T2 2022 115,000 586770 5V7 2024 110,000 586770 5X3 2026 110,000 586770 5Z8 2028 120,000 586770 6B0 2030 120,000 586770 6D6 The bonds are being called at a price of par plus accrued interest to November 20, 2019, on which date all interest on the bonds will cease to accrue. Holders of the bonds hereby called for redemption are requested to present their bonds for payment, at the office of Bond Trust Services Corporation, 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113. Dated: October 16, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director *The City shall not be responsible for the selection of or use of the CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness indicated in the notice. They are included solely for the convenience of the holders. page 120 EXHIBIT D NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT AND REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2011A CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that by order of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, there have been called for redemption and prepayment on February 1, 2020 those outstanding bonds of the City designated as General Obligation Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2011A, dated as of November 9, 2011, having stated maturity dates or subject to mandatory redemption in the years 2021 through 2031, inclusive, and totaling $1,290,000 in principal in principal amount and having CUSIP numbers listed below: Year Amount CUSIP 2021 $240,000 586770 6N4 2022 200,000 586770 6P9 2023 160,000 586770 6Q7 2024 125,000 586770 6R5 2025 125,000 586770 6S3 2027 140,000 586770 6U8 2029 145,000 586770 6W4 2031 155,000 586770 6Y0 The bonds are being called at a price of par plus accrued interest to February 1, 2020, on which date all interest on the bonds will cease to accrue. Holders of the bonds hereby called for redemption are requested to present their bonds for payment, at the office of Bond Trust Services Corporation, 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113. Dated: October 16, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director *The City shall not be responsible for the selection of or use of the CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness indicated in the notice. They are included solely for the convenience of the holders. page 121 Summary: Mendota Heights, Minnesota; General Obligation Primary Credit Analyst: Emily Powers, Chicago + 1 (312) 233 7030; emily.powers@spglobal.com Secondary Contact: David H Smith, Chicago + 1 (312) 233 7029; david.smith@spglobal.com Table Of Contents Rationale Outlook Related Research WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT OCTOBER 10, 2019 1 page 122 Summary: Mendota Heights, Minnesota; General Obligation Credit Profile US$3.195 mil GO bnds ser 2019B dtd 11/05/2019 due 02/01/2031 Long Term Rating AAA/Stable New Mendota Heights GO Long Term Rating AAA/Stable Affirmed Rationale S&P Global Ratings assigned its 'AAA' long-term rating to Mendota Heights, Minn.'s series 2019B general obligation (GO) bonds. At the same time, we affirmed our 'AAA' long-term rating on the city's previously issued GO debt. The outlook is stable. The bonds are secured by the city's full faith and credit pledge and ability to levy unlimited ad valorem property taxes; the city intends to pay debt service with special assessments, although the rating is based on the unlimited ad valorem tax pledge. A portion of the proceeds will be used to refund the city's series 2010A and 2011A GO bonds for interest cost savings; the remainder will be used to finance retaining wall improvements, as well as various street and utility projects. Mendota Heights' GO bonds are eligible to be rated above the sovereign because we believe the city can maintain better credit characteristics than the U.S. can in a stress scenario. Under our criteria, "Ratings Above The Sovereign--Corporate And Government Ratings: Methodology And Assumptions" (published Nov. 19, 2013, on RatingsDirect), U.S. local governments are considered to have moderate sensitivity to country risk. The institutional framework in the U.S. is predictable for local governments, allowing them significant autonomy, independent treasury management, and no history of government intervention. Mendota Heights is a wealthy suburb just south of St. Paul. Due to its strong and embedded financial management policies and practices, it has maintained strong financial performance and very strong available reserves near 100% of general fund expenditures, well above its policy of 75%. The city continues to experience increasing home values and economic growth, and we expect this to continue during the next few fiscal years. In addition, we believe financial performance and reserves will remain strong as the city is not currently not experiencing any significant budgetary pressures. The 'AAA' rating reflects our assessment of the city's: • Very strong economy, with access to a broad and diverse metropolitan statistical area (MSA); • Strong management, with good financial policies and practices under our Financial Management Assessment (FMA) methodology; • Strong budgetary performance, with operating surpluses in the general fund and at the total governmental fund level WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT OCTOBER 10, 2019 2 page 123 in fiscal 2018; • Very strong budgetary flexibility, with a high available fund balance in fiscal 2018 of 104% of operating expenditures; • Very strong liquidity, with total government available cash at 139.8% of total governmental fund expenditures and 9.7x governmental debt service, and access to external liquidity we consider strong; • Weak debt and contingent liability position, with debt service carrying charges at 14.4% of expenditures and net direct debt that is 184.6% of total governmental fund revenue, but rapid amortization, with 75.1% of debt scheduled to be retired in 10 years; and • Strong institutional framework score. Very strong economy We consider Mendota Heights' economy very strong. The city, with an estimated population of 11,079, is in Dakota County in the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington MSA, which we consider to be broad and diverse. It has a projected per capita effective buying income of 200% of the national level and per capita market value of $208,719. Overall, market value grew by 9.1% over the past year to $2.3 billion in 2019. The county unemployment rate was 2.5% in 2018. Mendota Heights' location (approximately seven miles south of downtown St. Paul) and proximity to the greater Twin Cities MSA allows easy commuting access for residents, many of whom are employed in the neighboring cities. The city acts as a bedroom community for the surrounding MSA, with the tax base primarily comprised of residential valuations (69%), followed by commercial/industrial (26%). Net tax capacity has seen consecutive years of growth, indicating stabilization in the housing market and property values and reflecting positive trends in the wider Twin Cities MSA. With sustained development, management anticipates continued growth in net tax capacity, with preliminary projections for fiscal 2020 showing an almost 9% increase. We expect the city's economic metrics to continue to improve and the area economy to remain very strong. Strong management We view the city's management as strong, with good financial policies and practices under our FMA methodology, indicating financial practices exist in most areas, but that governance officials might not formalize or monitor all of them on a regular basis. In developing its budget, the city examines up to three years of historical information and uses line-item budgeting. In addition, it provides quarterly budget-to-actual updates to the city council regarding budgeting performance, and the council can amend the budget if needed. In 2016, the city developed a 10-year long-term financial plan, which it continues to use as a guide for future financial planning. While this plan is not currently updated annually, the city is currently working on updating the plan. It also annually updates a five-year capital improvement plan that identifies sources and uses of funds. Mendota Heights has its own investment policy and reports its holdings and performance monthly. It does not have its own debt management policy but adheres to state guidelines. The city recently revised its formal reserve policy, which now requires it to hold at least 75% of operating expenditures to support cash-flow needs based on the timing of the WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT OCTOBER 10, 2019 3 Summary: Mendota Heights, Minnesota; General Obligationpage 124 receipt of tax revenues. It has exceeded this level historically, and we expect it will continue to do so. Strong budgetary performance Mendota Heights' budgetary performance is strong, in our opinion. The city had operating surpluses of 9.1% of expenditures in the general fund and 8.3% across all governmental funds in fiscal 2018. Although we expect budgetary performance to remain strong, our assessment accounts for the fact that we believe the city will likely not experience a surplus of more than 5% of expenditures during the next two fiscal years. We have adjusted the city's revenues to account for recurring transfers into its general fund. We've also adjusted total governmental revenues to account for transfers from enterprise funds and expenditures to remove one-time expenses funded with bond proceeds. After adjustments, the city closed fiscal 2018 outperforming its budget due to positive variances in various funding sources, including license and permit revenue, on top of already conservative budgetary estimates. The general fund budget for 2019 initially called for a $300,000 deficit, but has been revised to reflect a $48,000 deficit, which management noted, will be mitigated by the recurring transfer into the general fund at year-end. It expects actual results to show some level of surplus based on current actual budgetary performance. Management has adopted a balanced budget for 2020, with the council having approved a small use of reserves to be used on a one-time transfer out to fund capital equipment purchases. The amount of the transfer will be determined based on 2019 general fund performance, but is expected to be roughly $514,000. Across governmental funds, we expect to see some fluctuations based on upcoming projects that will be funded by bonds. Even with these fluctuations, we expect our view of the city's performance to remain strong over the outlook period. City operations are funded primarily by taxes, which were 79% of fiscal 2018 general fund revenue, followed by charges for services (7%) and licenses and permits (6%). Very strong budgetary flexibility Mendota Heights' budgetary flexibility is very strong, in our view, with a high available fund balance in fiscal 2018 of 104% of operating expenditures, or $8.5 million. We expect the available fund balance to remain above 75% of expenditures for the current and next fiscal years, which we view as a positive credit factor. We expect the city to maintain reserves in excess of 75% of general fund expenditures, even as the council plans to use reserves for equipment purchases, as determined by the prior year's performance. Our expectation is based on the city's trend of adopting balanced budgets and exceeding revenue forecasts, and its fund balance policy requiring it to maintain 75% in reserves. The city strives to maintain high general fund reserves to provide for cash-flow requirements and contingency needs because it receives its major revenues (including property taxes) in the second half of its fiscal year. Even with a possible slight decrease in fund balance, we do not anticipate any major changes in the city's reserves for fiscal years 2019 and 2020, given that revenues and expenditures are tracking positively to the balanced budget, and our view that budgetary balance is a long-term goal for management. Therefore, we believe our view of the city's budgetary flexibility should remain very strong. WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT OCTOBER 10, 2019 4 Summary: Mendota Heights, Minnesota; General Obligationpage 125 Very strong liquidity In our opinion, Mendota Heights' liquidity is very strong, with total government available cash at 139.8% of total governmental fund expenditures and 9.7x governmental debt service in 2018. In our view, the city has strong access to external liquidity if necessary. The city's available $15.4 million in cash and investments were held primarily in U.S. agency securities, mutual funds and money markets, and certificates of deposit, which we do not consider aggressive. Based on past issuance of debt, we believe the city has strong access to capital markets to provide for liquidity needs if necessary. It has no direct-purchase or variable-rate debt that we expect could pose a liquidity risk. Given its strong trend of positive operating results and commitment to maintain a very high level of reserves, we do not expect its cash position to change significantly over the next two years. Weak debt and contingent liability profile In our view, Mendota Heights' debt and contingent liability profile is weak. Total governmental fund debt service is 14.4% of total governmental fund expenditures, and net direct debt is 184.6% of total governmental fund revenue. Approximately 75.1% of the direct debt is scheduled to be repaid within 10 years, which is, in our view, a positive credit factor. We calculate the city's total direct debt at about $22.0 million. It is likely to continue its regular issuance for street projects, totaling up $2.4 million over the next two years. Additionally, the city could issue roughly $1.2 million for capital and equipment purchases in 2020. We believe that these issuances will likely be offset by maturing debt, so we do not anticipate a change in our view of its debt position over the outlook period. Mendota Heights' combined required pension and actual other postemployment benefit (OPEB) contributions totaled 4.6% of total governmental fund expenditures in 2018. Of that amount, 3.7% represented required contributions to pension obligations, and 0.9% represented OPEB payments. The city made its full annual required pension contribution in 2018. Mendota Heights participates in the General Employees Retirement Fund (GERF) and the Public Employees Police and Fire Fund (PEPFF), which are cost-sharing, multiple-employer, defined-benefit pension plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). Required pension contributions to these plans are determined by state statute. Contributions are not based on an actuarial determined contribution (ADC) and have not been keeping up with the plans' increasing liabilities, which indicates that employer contributions may rise. The state recently passed pension legislation that will marginally increase contributions (for PEPFF only), reduce the investment rate of return to 7.5% (from 8%), and reduce some employee benefits (primarily cost-of-living adjustments). While we view these as positive changes for future plan funding levels, the lack of an actuarial funding policy remains a weakness in these plans. For more information about the reforms included in the 2018 omnibus retirement bill and the potential for future cost increases, see our article titled, "Minnesota’s New Pension Bill Is A Positive Step Toward Sustainable Funding" (published on June 7, 2018, on RatingsDirect). The GERF and PEPFF were 79.5% and 88.8% funded, respectively, in fiscal 2018. The city's proportionate share of the net pension liability for these plans totaled $3.2 million in fiscal 2018, the most recent year for which data are available. We consider historical plan funding levels somewhat weak, and we believe that the history of pension contributions WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT OCTOBER 10, 2019 5 Summary: Mendota Heights, Minnesota; General Obligationpage 126 below the ADC increases the risk of payment acceleration. Despite these weaknesses, we believe Mendota Heights has sufficient taxing and operational flexibility to manage future increases in pension contributions. However, if pension contributions come to absorb a larger share of the city's budget, our view of its debt and contingent liability profile could weaken. The city also maintains a single-employer defined-benefit pension plan, administered by the Mendota Heights Firefighter's Relief Association, available to members of the city's fire department. Required and actual employer contributions to the plan during 2018 were roughly $129,000. Eligible retirees have the option to purchase health insurance through the city at their own expense. As a result, a portion of the city's contributions to its health care plan for active employees constitutes an implicit subsidy on behalf of these retirees. Strong institutional framework The institutional framework score for Minnesota cities with a population greater than 2,500 is strong. Outlook The stable outlook reflects our view that Mendota Heights will maintain strong budgetary performance, as well as very strong budgetary flexibility, liquidity, and economic profile, given its growing tax base and strong management policies. As a result, we do not expect to revise the rating within the two-year outlook period. Downside scenario While unlikely, we could lower the rating if the city experienced sustained deterioration in financial performance, or if it were to significantly draw down its available general fund reserves. Related Research • S&P Public Finance Local GO Criteria: How We Adjust Data For Analytic Consistency, Sept. 12, 2013 • Incorporating GASB 67 And 68: Evaluating Pension/OPEB Obligations Under Standard & Poor's U.S. Local Government GO Criteria, Sept. 2, 2015 Ratings Detail (As Of October 10, 2019) Mendota Heights GO bnds ser 2018A dtd 11/01/2018 due 02/01/2021-2030 Long Term Rating AAA/Stable Affirmed Mendota Heights GO rfdg bnds Long Term Rating AAA/Stable Affirmed Mendota Heights GO Long Term Rating AAA/Stable Affirmed Certain terms used in this report, particularly certain adjectives used to express our view on rating relevant factors, have specific meanings ascribed to them in our criteria, and should therefore be read in conjunction with such criteria. Please see Ratings Criteria at www.standardandpoors.com for WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT OCTOBER 10, 2019 6 Summary: Mendota Heights, Minnesota; General Obligationpage 127 further information. Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect at www.capitaliq.com. All ratings affected by this rating action can be found on S&P Global Ratings' public website at www.standardandpoors.com. Use the Ratings search box located in the left column. WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT OCTOBER 10, 2019 7 Summary: Mendota Heights, Minnesota; General Obligationpage 128 WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT OCTOBER 10, 2019 8 STANDARD & POOR’S, S&P and RATINGSDIRECT are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC. S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees. S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process. To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof. Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating- related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses. No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Copyright © 2019 by Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved. page 129 E111110S EHLERS ft LEADERS IN PUBLIC. FINANCE October 16, 2019 Sale Day Report for City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota $3,035,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B M[NDOTA HIIGHTS*�wz Prepared by: Stacie Kvilvang, CIPMA Senior Municipal Advisor Jason Aarsvold, CIPMA Senior Municipal Advisor Keith Dahl, Financial Specialist BUILDING COMMUNITIES. IT'S WHAT WE DO. infoi�ehlersO+ -inc.com ��� 1 (800) 552-1171 www.ehlers-inc.com Sale Day Report — October 16, 2019 City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota $3,035,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B Purpose: Rating: Number of Bids: Low Bidder Comparison from Lowest to Highest Bid: (TIC as bid) Notes: Closing Date: For the purposes of: (i) financing the 2019 retaining wall and road and utility improvements within the City; and (ii) effecting a current refunding of certain outstanding general obligations of the City S&P Global Ratings "AAA" 5 Baird, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Low Bid 1.7553% High Bid 1.9092% Summary of Sale Results: Principal Amount*: $3,035,000 Underwriter's Discount: $24,297 Reoffering Premium: $163,894 True Interest Cost: 1.7531% Capitalized Interest: $42,060 Costs of Issuance: $ 67,301 Yield: 1.25% - 2.00% Future Value Savings: $101,787 Present Value Savings: $82,557 Savings Percentage: 4.289% Total Net P&I $3,681,230 City Council Action: Interest Difference $52,375 Bond Trust Services Corporation, Roseville, Minnesota will serve as Paying Agent on the Bonds. The Bonds maturing February 1, 2028 and thereafter are callable February 1, 2027 or any date thereafter. * Subsequent to bid opening, issue size was decreased by $160,000. November 5, 2019 Adopt a resolution awarding the sale of $3,035,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B. Sale Day Report City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota October 16, 2019 ■ Attachments: • Bid Tabulation • Sources and Uses of Funds • Updated Debt Service Schedules • Refunding Savings Analysis • Rating Report • Bond Resolution (Distributed in City Council Packets) Sale Day Report g 04� City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota October 16, 2019 ■ E H L E R S LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE BID TABULATION $3,195,000* General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota SALE: October 16, 2019 AWARD: BAIRD Rating: S&P Global Ratings "AAA" Tax Exempt - Bank Qualified NET TRUE MATURITY REOFFERING INTEREST INTEREST NAME OF BIDDER (February 1) RATE YIELD PRICE COST RATE BAIRD Milwaukee, Wisconsin C.L. King & Associates WMBE Dougherty & Company, LLC Fidelity Capital Markets Davenport & Co. L.L.C. Duncan -Williams, Inc. Ross, Sinclaire & Associates, LLC Loop Capital Markets Country Club Bank SumRidge Partners Sierra Pacific Securities Isaak Bond Investments, Inc United Bankers Bank Wintrust Investments, LLC FMS Bonds Inc. First Kentucky Securities Corp. Midland Securities Multi -Bank Securities Inc. First Southern Securities Dinosaur Securities Tribal Capital Markets LLC Mountainside Securities LLC FTN FINANCIAL CAPITAL MARKETS Memphis, Tennessee NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC. Minneapolis, Minnesota STIFEL NICOLAUS Memphis, Tennessee BNY MELLON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2021 3.000% 1.250% 2022 3.000% 1.270% 2023 3.000% 1.290% 2024 3.000% 1.310% 2025 3.000% 1.350% 2026 3.000% 1.400% 2027 3.000% 1.450% 2028 3.000% 1.550% 2029 2.000% 1.750% 2030 2.000% 1.900% 2031 2.000% 2.000% Subsequent to bid opening the issue size was decreased to $3,035,000. Adjusted Price - $3,174,596.62 Adjusted Net Interest Cost - $316,831.99 $3,341,261.30 $334,456.48 1.7553% $3,313,755.20 $340,541.47 1.7985% $3,308,410.70 $345,885.97 1.8288% $3,308,144.50 $346,152.17 1.8303% $3,638,529.45 $386,832.22 1.9092% Adjusted TIC - 1.7531% BUILDING COMMUNITIES. IT'S WHAT WE DO. ® info@ehlers-inc.com '_, 1 (800) 552-1171 k4 www.ehiers-inc.com Mendota Heights, Minnesota $3,035,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B Issue Summary New Money & Cur Ref 2010A, 2011A Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 11/05/2019 1 Delivered 11/06/2019 Cur Ref Cur Ref 2011A 2011A (03,04 Retaining Wesley Cur Ref (Knollwood & & 05 Imp Issue Wall (Imp) Improvement 2010A Wagon Wheel) Projects) Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $340,000.00 $930,000.00 $495,000.00 $830,000.00 $440,000.00 $3,035,000.00 Reoffering Premium 19,094.95 51,632.20 30,607.80 42,331.40 20,227.85 163,894.20 Transfers from Prior Issue Debt Service Funds - - 70,00_9.38 _ _ - - 70,009.38 Prepaid Assessments 71,837.40 _ 102,025.00 58,000.00 - - 231,862.40 _ MSA Funds - 400,000.00 - - - 400,000.00 Storm Sewer Funds - 225,000.00 - - - 225,000.00 Total Sources $430,932.35 $1,708,657.20 $653,617.18 $872,331.40 $460,227.85 $4,125,765.98 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.801%) 2,721.97 7,445.38 3,962.87 6,644.81 3,522.55 24,297.58 Costs of Issuance _ 7,539.50 18,776.53 _ 8,593.08 20,686.59 11,705.30 67,301.00 to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 11,273.89 __ 30,786.39 --_ - T_ _ 42,060.28 _Deposit Deposit to Project Construction Fund _ 409,396 99 1,651,648.90 __ - _ _ - _ _ - - 2,061,045.89 _ Deposit to Current Refunding Fund - - 641 061.23 845,000.00 _ 445,000.00 1,931,061.23 Total Uses $430,932.35 $1,708,657.20 $653,617.18 $872,331.40 $460,227.85____$4,1259765.98 Series 2019B GO Bonds +C I Issue Summary 1 10/16/2019 1 11:56 AM g�EHLERS Mendota Heights, Minnesota $3,035,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B Issue Summary New Money & Cur Ref 2010A, 2011A Net Debt Service Schedule Total $3,035,000.00 - $456,428.61 $3,491,428.61 (42,060.28) $3,681,230.73 Series 20198 GO Bonds + C I Issue Summary 1 10/16/2019 1 11:56 AM �EHLERS I♦ LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINAN1_.- Fiscal Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S Total 11/05/2019 - - 231,862.40 - 02/01/2020 - - - 231,862.40 08/01/2020 - - 62,103.61 62,103.61 (25,085.28) 37,018.33 - 02/01/2021 295,000.00 3.000% 42,025.00 337,025.00 (16,975.00) 320,050.00 357,068.33 08/01/2021 - - 37,600.00 37,600.00 37,600.00 02/01/2022 375,000.00 3.000% 37,600.00 412,600.00 - 412,600.00 450,200.00 08/01/2022 - - 31,975.00 31,975.00 - 31,975.00 - 02/01/2023 330,000.00 3.000% 31,975.00 361,975.00 - 361,975.00 393,950.00 08/01/2023 - - 27,025.00 27,025.00 - 27,025.00 - 02/01/2024 290,000.00 3.000% 27,025.00 317,025.00 - 317,025.00 344,050.00 08/01/2024 - - 22,675.00 22,675.00 - 22,675.00 - 02/01/2025 300,000.00 3.000% 22,675.00 322,675.00 - 322,675.00 345,350.00 08/01/2025 - - 18,175.00 18,175.00 - 18,175.00 - 02/01/2026 250,000.00 3.000% 18,175.00 268,175.00 - 268,175.00 286,350.00 08/01/2026 - - 14,425.00 14,425.00 - 14,425.00 - 02/01/2027 260,000.00 3.000% 14,425.00 274,425.00 - 274,425.00 288,850.00 08/01/2027 - - 10,525.00 10,525.00 - 10,525.00 - 02/01/2028 235,000.00 3.000% 10,525.00 245,525.00 - 245,525.00 256,050.00 08/01/2028 - - 7,000.00 7,000.00 - 7,000.00 - 02/01/2029 245,000.00 2.000% 7,000.00 252,000.00 - 252,000.00 259,000.00 08/01/2029 - - 4,550.00 4,550.00 - 4,550.00 - 02/01/2030 235,000.00 2.000% 4,550.00 239,550.00 - 239,550.00 244,100.00 08/01/2030 - - 2,200.00 2,200.00 - 2,200.00 - 02/0l/2031 220,000.00 2.000% 2,200.00 222,200.00 - 222,200.00 224,400.00 Total $3,035,000.00 - $456,428.61 $3,491,428.61 (42,060.28) $3,681,230.73 Series 20198 GO Bonds + C I Issue Summary 1 10/16/2019 1 11:56 AM �EHLERS I♦ LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINAN1_.- Mendota Heights, Minnesota $340,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B Retaining Wall (Imp) Debt Service Schedule Significant Dates Dated First Coupon Date Yield Statistics 11/05/2019 8/01/2020 Bond Year Dollars $2,366.22 Average Life 6.959 Years Net New 105% of Net Interest Cost (NIC) 1.8299596% Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF DIS Total Assessments Levy/(Surplus) 02/01/2020 - - - - - - - - - 02/01/2021 - - 11,273.89 11,273.89 (11,273.89) - - - - 02/01/2022 30,000.00 3.000% 9,100.00 39,100.00 - 39,100.00 41,055.00 15,338.71 25,716.29 02/01/2023 30,000.00 3.000% 8,200.00 38,200.00 - 38,200.00 40,110.00 14,916.35 25,193.65 02/01/2024 30,000.00 3.000% 7,300.00 37,300.00 - 37,300.00 39,165.00 14,493.97 24,671.03 02/01/2025 35,000.00 3.000% 6,400.00 41,400.00 - 41,400.00 43,470.00 14,071.61 29,398.39 02/01/2026 35,000.00 3.000% 5,350.00 40,350.00 - 40,350.00 42,367.50 13,649.23 28,718.27 02/01/2027 35,000.00 3.000% 4,300.00 39,300.00 - 39,300.00 41,265.00 13,226.86 28,038.14 02/01/2028 35,000.00 3.000% 3,250.00 38,250.00 - 38,250.00 40,162.50 12,804.48 27,358.02 02/01/2029 35,000.00 2.000% 2,200.00 37,200.00 - 37,200.00 39,060.00 12,382.12 26,677.88 02/01/2030 35,000.00 2.000% 1,500.00 36,500.00 - 36,500.00 38,325.00 11,959.74 26,365.26 02/01/2031 40,000.00 2.000% 800.00 40,800.00 - 40,800.00 42,840.00 11,537.38 31,302.62 Total $340,000.00 - $59,673.89 $399,673.89 (11,273.89) $388,400.00 $407,820.00 $134,380.45 $273,439.55 Significant Dates Dated First Coupon Date Yield Statistics 11/05/2019 8/01/2020 Bond Year Dollars $2,366.22 Average Life 6.959 Years Average Coupon 2.5219056% Net Interest Cost (NIC) 1.8299596% True Interest Cost (TIC) 1.7842724% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.5929243% All Inclusive Cost (AIC) 2.1237667% Series 2019B GO Bonds +C I Retaining Wall (Imp) 1 10/16/2019 1 11:56 AM g'w.�-EHLERS Mendota Heights, Minnesota $930,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B Wesley Improvement Debt Service Schedule Significant Dates Dated First Coupon Date Yield Statistics 11/05/2019 8/01/2020 Bond Year Dollars $6,457.17 Average Life _ Net New 105% of 2.5155985 Net Interest Cost (NIC) Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF D/S Total Assessments Levy/(Surplus) 02/01/2020 - - - - 02/01/2021 - - 30,786.39 30,786.39 (30,786.39) - - - - 02/01/2022 85,000.00 3.000% 24,850.00 109,850.00 - 109,850.00 115,342.50 26,147.55 89,194.95 02/01/2023 85,000.00 3.000% 22,300.00 107,300.00 - 107,300.00 112,665.00 25,427.54 87,237.46 02/01/2024 85,000.00 3.000% 19,750.00 104,750.00 - 104,750.00 109,987.50 24,707.54 85,279.96 02/01/2025 90,000.00 3.000% 17,200.00 107,200.00 - 107,200.00 112,560.00 23,987.54 88,572.46 02/01/2026 90,000.00 3.000% 14,500.00 104,500.00 - 104,500.00 109,725.00 23,267.54 86,457.46 02/01/2027 95,000.00 3.000% 11,800.00 106,800.00 - 106,800.00 112,140.00 22,547.52 89,592.48 02/01/2028 95,000.00 3.000% 8,950.00 103,950.00 - 103,950.00 109,147.50 21,827.52 87,319.98 02/01/2029 100,000.00 2.000% 6,100.00 106,100.00 - 106,100.00 111,405.00 21,107.52 90,297.48 02/01/2030 100,000.00 2.000% 4,100.00 104,100.00 - 104,100.00 109,305.00 20,387.52 88,917.48 02/01/2031 105,000.00 2.000% 2,100.00 107,100.00 - 107,100.00 112,455.00 19,667.50 92,787.50 Total $930,000.00 - $162,436.39 $1,092,436.39 (30,786.39) $1,061,650.00 $1,114,732.50 $229,075.29 $885,657.21 Significant Dates Dated First Coupon Date Yield Statistics 11/05/2019 8/01/2020 Bond Year Dollars $6,457.17 Average Life _ 6.943 Years Average Coupon 2.5155985 Net Interest Cost (NIC) 1.8312919 True Interest Cost (TIC) 1.7861458 Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.5929243 All Inclusive Cost (AIC) 2.0957236 Series 20198 GO Bonds + C I Wesley Improvement 1 10/16/2019 1 11:56 AM ��EHLERS Mendota Heights, Minnesota $1,765,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 20198 2010A and 2011A Combined Savings Debt Service Comparison Date Total P+I Net New D/S Old Net D/S Savings 02/01/2020 - 58,000.00 - (58,000.00) 02/01/2021 357,068.33 357,068.33 355,418.76 (1,649.57) 02/01/2022 301,250.00 301,250.00 302,843.76 1,593.76 02/01/2023 248,450.00 248,450.00 256,200.00 7,750.00 02/01/2024 202,000.00 202,000.00 215,230.00 13,230.00 02/01/2025 196,750.00 196,750.00 210,080.00 13,330.00 02/01/2026 141,500.00 141,500.00 149,667.50 8,167.50 02/01/2027 142,750.00 142,750.00 150,745.00 7,995.00 02/01/2028 113,850.00 113,850.00 146,510.00 32,660.00 02/01/2029 115,700.00 115,700.00 147,170.00 31,470.00 02/01/2030 103,500.00 103,500.00 142,520.00 39,020.00 02/01/2031 76,500.00 76,500.00 82,720.00 6,220.00 Total $1,999,318.33 $2,057,318.33 $2,159,105.02 $101,786.69 PV Analysis Summary (Net to Net) Gross PV Debt Service Savings ..................... 210,566.67 Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 1.593%(Bond Yield):.... 210,566.67 Total Cash contribution ........................... (58,000.00) Transfers from Prior Issue Debt Service Fund...... (70,009.38) Net Present Value Benefit $82,557.29 Net PV Benefit / $2,065,507.47 PV Refunded Debt Service 3.997% Net PV Benefit / $1,925,000 Refunded Principal... 4.289% Net PV Benefit / $1,765,000 Refunding Principal.. 4.677% Refunding Bond Information Refunding Dated Date Refunding Delivery Date 11/05/2019 Aggregate 1 10/16/2019 1 12:02 PM �EHLERS Mendota Heights, Minnesota $3,035,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B Issue Summary New Money & Cur Ref 2010A, 2011A Detail Costs Of Issuance Dated 11/05/2019 1 Delivered 11/05/2019 COSTS OF ISSUANCE DETAIL Municipal Advisor $42,000.00 Bond Counsel (Briggs and Morgan) $12,000.00 Rating Agency Fee (S&P) $12,500.00 Paying Agent (Bond Trust Services) $801.00 TOTAL $67,301.00 Series 2019B GO Bonds + C I Issue Summary 1 10/16/2019 1 11:56 AM g'Z EHLERS S&P Global Ratings Rati ngsDi rect° Summary: Mendota Heights, Minnesota; General Obligation Primary Credit Analyst: Daniel E Hughes, Chicago (1) 312-233-7054; daniel.hughes@spglobal.com Secondary Contact: David H Smith, Chicago + 1 (312) 233 7029; david.smith@spglobal.com Table Of Contents ............................................................................................................ Rationale Outlook Related Research www.spgiobal.com/ratingsdirect April 11, 2019 1 E'10 to 'I It'sffi7 Mendota Heights, Minnesota; General Obligation Credit Profile US$7.0 mil GO bnds ser 2019A dtd 05/08/2019 due 02/01/2035 Long Term Rating AAA/Stable New Mendota Heights GO bnds ser 2018A dtd 11/01/2018 due 02/01/2021-2030 Long Term Rating AAA/Stable Affirmed Mendota Heights GO rfdg bnds Long Term Rating AAA/Stable Affirmed Mendota Heights GO Long Term Rating AAA/Stable Affirmed Mendota Heights GO Long Term Rating AAA/Stable Affirmed Rationale S&P Global Ratings assigned its 'AAA' long-term rating to Mendota Heights, Minn.'s series 2019A general obligation (GO) capital improvement bonds. At the same time, we affirmed our'AAA' long-term rating on the city's previously issued GO debt. The outlook is stable. A pledge of the city's full -faith -credit -and -resources and an agreement to levy ad valorem property taxes without limitation as to rate or amount secures the bonds. The city intends to issue approximately $7 million in GO debt and proceeds will be used to expand and remodel the city's existing fire station. The city's' GO bonds are eligible to be rated above the sovereign because we believe the city can maintain better credit characteristics than the U.S. can in a stress scenario. Under our criteria, "Ratings Above The Sovereign --Corporate And Government Ratings: Methodology And Assumptions" (published Nov. 19, 2013, on RatingsDirect), U.S. local governments are considered to have moderate sensitivity to country risk. The institutional framework in the U.S. is predictable for local governments, allowing them significant autonomy, independent treasury management, and no history of government intervention. Mendota Heights is a wealthy suburb located just south of St. Paul. Due to its strong and embedded financial management policies and practices, it has maintained strong financial performance and very strong available reserves near 100% of general fund expenditures. The city continues to experience increasing home values and economic growth, and we expect this to continue during the next few fiscal years. In addition, we believe financial performance and reserves will remain strong as the city is not currently not experiencing any significant budgetary pressures. The 'AAA' rating is based on our opinion of the city's: • Very strong economy, with access to a broad and diverse metropolitan statistical area (MSA); www.spgiobal.com/ratingsdirect April 11, 2019 2 Summary: Mendota Heights, Minnesota; General Obligation • Strong management, with good financial policies and practices under our Financial Management Assessment methodology; • Strong budgetary performance, with operating surpluses in the general fund and at the total governmental fund level in fiscal 2017; • Very strong budgetary flexibility, with a high available fund balance in fiscal 2017 of 105% of operating expenditures; • Very strong liquidity, with total government available cash at 101.4% of total governmental fund expenditures and 6.7x governmental debt service, and access to external liquidity we consider strong; • Weak debt and contingent liability position, with debt service carrying charges at 15.2% of expenditures and net direct debt that is 172.8% of total governmental fund revenue, but rapid amortization, with 69.7% of debt scheduled to be retired in 10 years; and • Strong institutional framework score. Very strong economy We consider Mendota Heights' economy very strong. The city, with an estimated population of 11,036, is located in Dakota County in the Minneapolis -St. Paul -Bloomington MSA, which we consider to be broad and diverse. The city has a projected per capita effective buying income of 211% of the national level and per capita market value of $192,109. Overall, the city's market value grew by 2.6% over the past year to $2.1 billion in 2018. The county unemployment rate was 3.0% in 2017. The 10 -square -mile city is located approximately two miles south of St. Paul. The city's tax base is primarily residential (68%) and commercial/industrial (27%). Net tax capacity has recovered since the recession, with six consecutive years of growth since 2012, indicating stabilization in the housing market and property values and reflecting positive trends in the wider Twin Cities MSA. Officials expect this growth to continue, estimating another increase in market value of approximately 8.9%. Based on improving residential values, along with new residential development, we expect the city's property values to continue to improve and the area economy to remain very strong. Strong management We view the city's management as strong, with good financial policies and practices under our Financial Management Assessment methodology, indicating financial practices exist in most areas, but that governance officials might not formalize or monitor all of them on a regular basis. In developing its budget, the city examines up to three years of historical information and uses line -item budgeting. In addition, the city provides quarterly budget -to -actual updates to the city council regarding budgeting performance, and the council can amend the budget if needed. In 2016, the city developed a 10 -year long-term financial plan, which it continues to use as a guide for future financial planning. While this plan is not currently updated annually, the city is currently working on updating the plan. It also annually updates a five-year capital improvement plan that identifies sources and uses of funds. Mendota Heights has its own investment policy and reports its holdings and performance monthly. It does not have its own debt management policy but adheres to state guidelines. The city recently revised its formal reserve policy, which www.spgtobal.com/ratingsdirect April 11, 2019 3 Summary: Mendota Heights, Minnesota; General Obligation now requires the city to hold at least 75% of operating expenditures to support cash flow needs based on the timing of the receipt of tax revenues. The city has exceeded this level historically, and we expect it will continue to do so. The most recent revision to the policy increased the minimum percentage of expenditures from 65%. Strong budgetary performance Mendota Heights' budgetary performance is strong in our opinion. The city had operating surpluses of 15% of expenditures in the general fund and of 14.6% across all governmental funds in fiscal 2017. Although we expect budgetary performance to remain strong, our assessment accounts for the fact that we believe the city will likely not experience a surplus of more than 5% of expenditures during the next two fiscal years. The city outperformed its budget in fiscal 2017, posting a $1.1 million operating surplus in the general fund. Contributing to this result were higher -than -budgeted licensing and permit fees. In addition, the city's police department recorded lower expenditures in part due to an open captain position that was unfilled during the year and lower street department expenditures. Based on preliminary results for fiscal 2018, management again expects to outperform its budget and projects a surplus of at least $500,000. Licenses and permit revenue is came in better than budgeted and the city still had vacancies in its police department resulting in expenditures coming in lower than budgeted. With regard to total governmental funds performance, we expect a positive result, similar to those of previous years. While we expect the city's ongoing trend of positive operating results to continue in 2018, we anticipate the surplus to be smaller than it was in 2017. For fiscal 2019, we understand the city has adopted a 9.82% levy increase and expects to use approximately $300,000 of general fund reserves to pay for capital purchases. Property taxes typically account for roughly three-quarters of general fund revenue. Given the city's growing tax base and the lack of expenditure pressure, we expect budgetary performance to remain strong. Very strong budgetary flexibility Mendota Heights' budgetary flexibility is very strong, in our view, with a high available fund balance in fiscal 2017 of 105% of operating expenditures, or $8 million. We expect the available fund balance to remain above 75% of expenditures for the current and next fiscal years, which we view as a positive credit factor. We expect the city to maintain reserves in excess of 75% of general fund expenditures, even as the council plans to use $300,000 of reserves in 2019 for equipment purchases. Our expectation is based on the city's trend of adopting balanced budgets and exceeding revenue forecasts, and its recent revision of its fund balance policy requiring it to maintain 75% in reserve. The city strives to maintain high general fund reserves to provide for cash flow requirements and contingency needs because it receives its major revenues (including property taxes) in the second half of its fiscal year. Very strong liquidity In our opinion, Mendota Heights' liquidity is very strong, with total government available cash at 101.4% of total governmental fund expenditures and 6.7x governmental debt service in 2017. In our view, the city has strong access to external liquidity if necessary. www.spgiobat.com/ratingsdirect April 11, 2019 4 Summary: Mendota Heights, Minnesota; General Obligation The city's total unrestricted cash holdings exceed $10.6 million, and given its strong trend of positive operating results and commitment to maintain a very high level of reserves, we do not expect its cash position to change significantly over the next two years. Most investments are held in money-market accounts and highly rated securities. We believe the city has no significant outstanding contingent liabilities, including no outstanding direct -placement or privately purchased debt. Weak debt and contingent liability profile In our view, Mendota Heights' debt and contingent liability profile is weak. Total governmental fund debt service is 15.2% of total governmental fund expenditures, and net direct debt is 172.8% of total governmental fund revenue. Approximately 69.7% of the direct debt is scheduled to be repaid within 10 years, which is in our view a positive credit factor. Including the 2019 GO bonds, the city has approximately $20.7 million in net direct debt. Following this issuance, the city intends to issue up to $1.7 million in additional GO debt this year for street projects. The city typically issues GO bonds annually for street improvements. It may also issue additional debt in 2021 for a new fire truck. Overall, we expect the city's debt profile to remain weak. Mendota Heights' combined required pension and actual other postemployment benefits (OPEB) contributions totaled 4.6% of total governmental fund expenditures in 2017. Of that amount, 3.7% represented required contributions to pension obligations, and 0.9% represented OPEB payments. The city made its full annual required pension contribution in 2017. The city participates in cost-sharing multiple -employer defined -benefit pension plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA administers the General Employees Retirement Fund (GERF) and the Public Employees Police and Fire Fund (PEPFF). The city's annual required pension contribution to both GERF and PEPFF is determined by state statute and is based on a percentage of payroll. Contributions are not based on an actuarial determined contribution, and have not been keeping up with the plan's increasing liabilities, which indicates that employer contributions may rise in the future. Using reporting standards in accordance with Governmental Accounting Standard Board (GASB) Statement Nos. 67 and 68, the city's proportionate share of the net pension liability as of 2017 was $1.8 million for GERF and $2 million for PEPFF. The most recent GASB valuations showed plan funding ratios of 75.9% for GERF and 85.4% for PEPFF as of June 30, 2017. The city's total contribution to PERA is a small percentage of its total budget. If contribution rates were to rise, we expect the city would have the ability to manage the increase, given its historically strong operating results, willingness and ability to raise its tax levy to cover growing costs, and strong management. Eligible retirees have the option to purchase health insurance through the city at their own expense. As a result, a portion of the city's contributions to its health care plan for active employees constitutes an implicit subsidy on behalf of these retirees. Strong institutional framework The institutional framework score for Minnesota cities with a population greater than 2,500 is strong. Outlook The stable outlook reflects our view that Mendota Heights will likely maintain its very strong budgetary flexibility, www.spgiobal.com/ratingsdirect April 11, 2019 5 Summary: Mendota Heights, Minnesota; General Obligation liquidity, and economic profile, given its growing tax base and strong management policies. As a result, we do not expect to revise the rating within the two-year outlook period. Downside scenario While we believe this is unlikely, we could lower the rating if the city experienced sustained deterioration in financial performance, or if the city were to significantly draw down its available general fund reserves. Related Research • S&P Public Finance Local GO Criteria: How We Adjust Data For Analytic Consistency, Sept. 12, 2013 • Incorporating GASB 67 And 68: Evaluating Pension/OPEB Obligations Under Standard & Poor's U.S. Local Government GO Criteria, Sept. 2, 2015 Certain terms used in this report, particularly certain adjectives used to express our view on rating relevant factors, have specific meanings ascribed to them in our criteria, and should therefore be read in conjunction with such criteria. Please see Ratings Criteria at www.standardandpoors.com for further information. Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect at www.capitaliq.com. All ratings affected by this rating action can be found on S&P Global Ratings' public website at www.standardandpoors.com. Use the Ratings search box located in the left column. www.spgiobal.com/ratingsdirect April 11, 2019 6 Summary: Mendota Heights, Minnesota; General Obligation Copyright © 2019 by Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved. No content (including ratings, credit -related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third -party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shalt S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without [imitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Credit -related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P's opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating -related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses. To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof. S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process. S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, includingvia S&P publications and third -party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees. STANDARD & POOR'S, S&P and RATINGSDIRECT are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. www.spgiobal.com/ratingsdirect April 11, 2019 7 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 16, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-75 Public Hearing on Mendota Heights Industrial Park Easement Vacation COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to hold proceedings for Resolution 2019-75, a public hearing on an easement vacation commenced by City Council. BACKGROUND The Mendota Heights Industrial Park plat was approved by City Council in 1969. In 1994, Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 were platted as the BDS Addition. DISCUSSION The property at 2440 Enterprise Drive was recently sold. The title company reviewing this sale noticed that when the platting occurred in 1994, the platted easements along the side lot lines for Lot 2 and Lot 3 were not vacated. Staff is presenting this easement vacation as a housekeeping item that should have occurred during the initial platting. It is proposed that the drainage and utility easement on the east lot line of Lot 2, Block 1 and the west lot line of Lot 3, Block 1 be vacated. New easements were dedicated on the BDS addition plat and no utilities existing in the underlying easement. BUDGET IMPACT This vacation is proposed to be initiated by the city. The costs for this vacation will include a mailing to all parcels in the plat and recording of the document at Dakota County. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution for the easement vacation. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2019-75, “RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EASEMENT VACATION WITHIN THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL PARK”. This action requires a super majority vote. page 131 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-75 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EASEMENT VACATION WITHIN LOT 2 AND LOT 3, BLOCK 1, MENDOTA HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL PARK WHEREAS, Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 1, Mendota Heights Industrial Park were platted as the BDS Addition; and WHEREAS, Platted drainage and utility easements on Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 1, Mendota Heights Industrial Park are not required for drainage and utility purposes; and WHEREAS, a notice of hearing on said vacation has been duly published and posted more than two weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing on said vacation, all in accordance with the applicable statutes; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said vacation on October 16, 2019, at the City Hall of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said vacation and all persons were afforded an opportunity to present their views and objections to the granting of said vacation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the vacation of the drainage and utility easement within Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 1, Mendota Heights Industrial Park situated in the City of Mendota Heights is in the best interest of the public and the City, and it is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. That the above described drainage and utility easement be and the same is hereby vacated. 3. That the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and present to the proper Dakota County officials notice of completion of these vacation proceedings, all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of October, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 132 page 133 page 134 page 135 page 136 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: October 16, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-72 Approving a Critical Area Permit for 1135 Orchard Place Planning Case No. 2019-26 Introduction City Council is asked to conduct a public hearing and consider adopting a resolution approving a Critical Area Permit for a new single-family development in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. The property is located at 1135 Orchard Place. Background Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a Critical Area Permit for all development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals. Matthew Mosvick, as Applicant/Owner is seeking permission to construct a new single-family dwelling, subject to the requirements of the applicable R-1 One Family Residential zoning district, and the related Critical Area Overlay District standards. On September 24, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record. A copy of the 09/24/2019 Planning Staff Report, along with the PC meeting minutes (excerpts) are appended to this memo. Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this critical area permit, and has broad discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the Critical Area Permit with specific findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-72 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1135 ORCHARD PLACE. Action Required The Council should open the public hearing; take any public comments, close the hearing, and give final consideration on Resolution No. 2019-72, which would approve the proposed critical area permit for 1135 Orchard Place. The action on the resolution requires a simple majority vote. page 137 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-72 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1135 ORCHARD PLACE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-26) WHEREAS, Matt Mosvick (as “Applicant/Owner”) applied for a Critical Area Permit as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-26, and for the property located at 1135 Orchard Place (the “Subject Property”), which is legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, Title 12-3-1 of the City Code (Critical Area Overlay District) requires a critical area permit for all development activities necessitating a building permit or special zoning approval, and the Applicant is seeking permission to construct a new single-family residential dwelling, subject to the requirements of the applicable zoning district and related Critical Area Overlay District standards; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the Critical Area Permit for the subject property, with certain findings of fact to support such recommendation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Critical Area Permit for 1135 Orchard Place as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-26 can be approved based on the following findings of fact: A. The proposed single-family dwelling project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. B. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new single-family dwelling is deemed minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. page 138 C. The proposed single-family dwelling project will be in keeping with the character of the area. D. The construction of this new single-family dwelling will comply with all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-26, dated and presented September 23, 2019 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that that the Critical Area Permit for the property located at 1135 Orchard Place and as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-26 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City of Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new construction work. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends. 5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of October, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 139 EXHIBIT A PID No. 27-02700-01-041 ADDRESS: 1135 ORCHARD PLACE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 LEGAL: The North 214.50 feet of the West 100.00 feet of the East 750.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, Dakota County, Minnesota. Subject to an easement for road purposes over and across the South 30.00 feet thereof. Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 140 Planning Staff Report DATE: September 24, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-26 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICANT: Matt Mosvick PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1135 Orchard Place ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: October 28, 2019 INTRODUCTION The Applicants is seeking a Critical Area Permit to construct a new single family dwelling, located at 1135 Orchard Place. Since the property is situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, Zoning Code Section 12-3-5 requires a critical area permit for all major development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approval. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has not received any objection or comments related to this application. BACKGROUND The subject site is generally located in the mid-block between Lexington Avenue and Orchard Circle. page 141 This new lot was created under a lot split application approved by the City Council on June 4, 2019 (Res. No. 2019-42). Mr. Mosvick split his mother’s property next door at 1133 Orchard Place, and is now requesting this permit to build a new home for his own family on the newly created parcel. The plan calls for a new 4,650-sf. single family dwelling, with an attached three-car garage (see front elevation image – below). The survey site plan calls for the home to have a setback of 57.0 feet (measured from the newly desiccated 30-ft. ROW easement off Orchard Place). This increased setback is an average setback determined between his mother’s home to the east and the separate residence to the west. Side yard setbacks will be 16.5-ft. on each side, and a rear yard setback of approximately 48-ft. (from new deck edge). page 142 ANALYSIS According to Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is: …to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource to promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, to preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems… The pertinent provisions of the Critical Area Overlay District that apply to this application are: Section 12-3-5. Site Plan Requirements: A: Site Plan Required: No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Section 12-3-8: Development Standards: A. Objectives: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on- site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent B. Structure Setbacks: All new structures shall meet the following minimum setbacks: 1. Setback from Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet (40') landward from the bluff line of the river. 2. Setback from Normal High Water Mark: No structure or road shall be constructed less than one hundred feet (100') from the normal high water mark of any water body. The new home will be situated approx. 1,240 feet from the edge of the Mississippi River; and there are no bluffs or bluff lines identified on the subject property. The construction of this new residential dwelling will comply with all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant must demonstrate the development of this site will not impact neighboring residential properties, and must ensure that proper and positive drainage is maintained during and after construction of the new home. For all intents and purposes, construction of this new dwelling should have little, if any effect upon the existing Mississippi Critical Area or the surrounding neighborhood environment. INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) • Acknowledged receipt of the application; no objections to this development request. page 143 ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Critical Area Permit request for 1135 Orchard Place, which would allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project is compliant with the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, with certain conditions; or 2. Deny the Critical Area Permit request for 1135 Orchard Place, based on the findings of fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Applicants and allow them more time to refine the site plans for the property, and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit request for 1135 Orchard Place, which would allow the construction of a new single-family residential dwelling, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project is compliant with the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, and with the following conditions: 1. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City of Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new construction work. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends. 5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. page 144 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit for 1135 Orchard Place The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed single-family dwelling project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. 2. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new single-family dwelling is deemed minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. 3. The proposed single-family dwelling project will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and is in keeping with the character of the area. 4. The construction of this new single-family dwelling will comply with all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances. page 145 page 146 F.D.RADON -UPUP (17) EQ. R.& 10" TREADSW/ 1" NOSINGDRAWING TITLE:7−16−19LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:LDLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:© CO PYRIGHT 2019ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.ISSUE FOR BID ONLY7-16-19SHEET INDEX:CCOVERA1 FRONT & SIDE ELEVATIONA2 REAR & SIDE ELEVATIONA4 FOUNDATION & FIN. BSMT.A5 FIRST FLOOR PLANS1. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO HAVE A MINIMUM RATINGOF R-20.2. ALL ATTIC SPACES ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM RATINGOF R-49.3. ALL FLOOR SPACES OVER UNCONDITIONED SPACE OR CANTILEVERED ARE TO BE INSULATED TO MIN. R30.1. ALL CEILINGS ARE TO HAVE 5/8" NON-SAG GYPSUM BOARD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. ALL WALLS ARE TO HAVE 12" GYPSUM BOARD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.3. GARAGE CEILING AND WALLS THAT ADJOIN HOUSE WALLS ARE TO BE 58" GYPSUM BOARD PER CODE.1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS TO BE DOUBLE PANE GLASS PANELS WITH LOW-E RATINGS.2. ANY WINDOW WITHIN 24" OF A DOOR SWING MUSTBE TEMPERED PER CODE.3. ANY WINDOW ABOVE A TUB/WET AREA MUST BETEMPERED PER CODE.4. ANY WINDOW WITHIN A STAIRWAY MUST BETEMPERED PER CODE.5. WINDOW GLAZING MUST BE AT LEAST 18" A.F.F. WHEN WINDOW IS ABOVE 6' FROM GRADE. IF WITHIN18", WINDOW MUST BE TEMPERED.6. ALL BEDROOMS TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE WINDOWTHAT HAS A CLEAR EGRESS OPENING OF 5.7 SQ. FT.WITH MIN. DIMENSIONS OF 24" IN HEIGHT AND 20"IN WIDTH, SILL HEIGHT NOT TO BE GREATER THAN 44"A.F.F.7. WINDOWS WITH SILLS WITHIN 3' OF THE FLOORTHEY SERVE AND ARE 72" ABOVE GRADE MUST EITHERHAVE A FALL PREVENTION OR OPENING LIMITERDEVICE PER CODE.1. ALL ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TOBE VERIFIED AND INSTALLED PER CODE BY APPROVEDTRADES AND INSTALLERS.2. HVAC CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LAYOUT FORDUCT-RUNS BEFORE INSTALLATION, IF MODIFICATIONIS REQUIRED, REPORT INFORMATION/CHANGES TOCONTRACTOR & LITTFIN DESIGN.1. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE 16" O.C. WITH ADOUBLE TOP PLATE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. WALL FRAMING SHALL BE S.P.F. STUD GRADE ORBETTER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE (U.N.O.)3. ALL HEADERS SHALL BE PER PLAN4. ALL EXTERIOR HEADERS SHALL HAVE (1)2X6 BEARING STUD & (1) 2X6 FULL HEIGHT KINGSTUD ON EACH SIDE U.N.O. (REVIEW PLANS)5. ALL INTERNAL HEADERS & BEAMS SHALL HAVE(1)2X6 OR (1)2X4 BEARING STUD ON EACH SIDE U.N.O.6. EXTERIOR SHEATHING SHALL BE 7/16" MATERIAL CONSISTING OF ORIENTED STRAND BOARD (OSB).-ALLFLOOR AND CEILING SYSTEMS TO BE CHECKED ANDDESIGNED BY THE DESIGNATED MANUFACTURER.FLOOR PLANS TO BE ON SITE.7. HEADER SIZES ARE TO BE USED PER PLAN AND DEVIATION FROM ANY SIZE MUST BEAPPROVED BY DESIGNERS.8. PRESSURE TREADED WOOD IS TO BE USED WHEREWOOD IS IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE AND AT 2X6MUD SILL. TREATED MEMBERS TO BE S.Y.P.#2 ORBETTER.9. FOR OPENINGS IN EXTERIOR WALLS (OR WALLS W/LATERAL LOADING:a. 0'-0" - 4'-0" = 1 JACK STUDb. 4'-0" - 8'-0" = 2 JACK STUDSc. 8'-0" - 12'-0" = 3 JACK STUDSd. GREATER THAN 12' = CONSULT ENG.10. POSTS CALLED OUT ARE NUMBER OF KING STUDSREQUIRED PER SIDE OF OPENING.1. ALL CONCRETE FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONSYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED FOR A 2000 P.SF. SOIL.2. FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL BE FULL HEIGHT ATUNBALANCED FILL GREATER THAN 3'4".3. 1/2" ANCHOR BOLTS EMBEDDED 7" MINIMUM @ 6' O.C. MAX. 12" MIN, FROM EACH END. MINIMUM OF 2 BOLTS IN EACH SILL PLATE (REFER TO STRUCTURALPAGES).4. PAD FOOTING REINFORCEMENT IS TO BE LOCATED(3") FROM BOTTOM OF FOOTING TYP. (WHENREQUIRED)5. REFER TO STRUCTURAL PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING RE-BAR/ETC.6. SINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION TYPE IRC-1-2015 MINNESOTA STATE RESIDENTIAL CODE-2017 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE-2015 MINNESOTA STATE MECHANICAL&FUEL GASCODE-2015 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CODE-2015 MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODEDESIGNED WITH 2000 PSF SOILS, ALL FOUNDATIONCONSTRUCTION MUST FACTOR IN THIS AT A MINIMUM.DESIGNED WITH "EXPOSURE B" CLASSIFICATIONS ANDWINDGUSTS OF 90 MPH PER 2015 MN RESIDENTIAL CODEREGULATIONS.-ALL FOUNDATION WALL STRUCTURAL INFORMATIONUSED TO CONSTRUCT THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM IS TOBE ON SITE WHEN POURING OR BUILDING WALLS.-ALL STRUCTURAL BEAMS, POSTS & TALL WALLS ARETO BE BUILT PER I-LEVEL SPECIFICATIONS.-ALL MANUFACTURED FLOOR & ROOF TRUSSES ARETO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERSSPECIFICATIONS.-ALL MANUFACTURED FLOOR & ROOF TRUSSSPECIFICATIONS ARE TO BE ON SITE DURINGINSTALLATION.-SH3050 EQUALS SINGLE HUNG 3'0" BY 5'0"-FX2646 EQUALS FIXED 2'6" BY 4'6"CCOVERSHEETSCALED PRINT @ 24X36page 147 1'-8 1/4"3'-4"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"1'-8 1/4"9'-0"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"1/4" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION16'-0"7'-8 1/4"9'-2 1/4"4'-3 5/8"2'-1 5/8"1'-6"1'-6"4'-0"1'-6 3/4"3'-4"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"8'-9 1/2"6'-8"1'-8 1/4"3'-4"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"1/4" = 1'-0" LEFT ELEVATION24'-0"DRAWING TITLE:7−16−19LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:LDLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:© CO PYRIGHT 2019ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.ISSUE FOR BID ONLY7-16-19A1FRONT &LEFTELEVATIONSCALED PRINT @ 24X369. DOTTED AREA ON ROOF PLANINDICATES LOCATION OFICE/WATER BARRIER.10. HOLD STONE OFF GRADEMINIMUM OF 3".11. REFER TO MANUF.SPECIFICATIONS FOR STONE.12. GARAGE BUCK BOARDMATERIAL IS TO BE COMPOSITEWOOD AND SIZED TO COVER THEEDGE OF STONE.14.ALL BEAMS HOLDING UP PORCHROOFS ARE TO BE DROPPEDUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.1. ALL EXT. TRIM TO BE FLASHED PER CODE.2. SUPPLY DRIPCAPS ON ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS.3. SUPPLY SEPARATION BETWEEN WOOD, COMPOSITEWOOD AND ANY OTHER WOOD MATERIAL PERSPECIFICATIONS.4. SUPPLY AT LEAST 6" OF SPACE BETWEEN BOTTOMS OFWINDOWS AND ROOFS.5. GRADE CONDITIONS MAY VARY ON SITE.6. PROVIDE ROOF AND SOFFIT VENTS PER IRC CODEREGULATIONS.7. ALL FURNACE FLUES, PLUMBING VENTS, FIREPLACEVENTS AND OTHER PENETRATIONS THROUGH ROOF ORWALLS TO EXTEND THROUGH REAR OF HOME WHENEVERPOSSIBLE.8. ALL PENETRATIONS THROUGH EXTERIOR WALLS ORROOFING MUST BE SEALED AND FLASHED PER MANUF.SPECIFICATIONS AND IRC CODE REGULATIONS.page 148 ©COPYRIGHT 2019MLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320-224-7844page 149 1'-6 3/4"3'-4"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"5'-9 1/2"3'-8"1'-6 3/4"3'-4"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"8'-9 1/2"6'-8"1/4" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION11'-6 3/4"3'-4"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"5'-9 1/2"3'-8"1'-8 1/4"3'-4"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"1/4" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATION24'-0"DRAWING TITLE:7−16−19LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:LDLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:© CO PYRIGHT 2019ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.ISSUE FOR BID ONLY7-16-19A2REAR &RIGHT SIDESCALED PRINT @ 24X369. DOTTED AREA ON ROOF PLANINDICATES LOCATION OFICE/WATER BARRIER.10. HOLD STONE OFF GRADEMINIMUM OF 3".11. REFER TO MANUF.SPECIFICATIONS FOR STONE.12. GARAGE BUCK BOARDMATERIAL IS TO BE COMPOSITEWOOD AND SIZED TO COVER THEEDGE OF STONE.14.ALL BEAMS HOLDING UP PORCHROOFS ARE TO BE DROPPEDUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.1. ALL EXT. TRIM TO BE FLASHEDPER CODE.2. SUPPLY DRIPCAPS ON ALLWINDOWS AND DOORS.3. SUPPLY SEPARATION BETWEENWOOD, COMPOSITE WOOD ANDANY OTHER WOOD MATERIAL PERSPECIFICATIONS.4. SUPPLY AT LEAST 6" OF SPACEBETWEEN BOTTOMS OF WINDOWSAND ROOFS.5. GRADE CONDITIONS MAY VARYON SITE.6. PROVIDE ROOF AND SOFFITVENTS PER IRC CODEREGULATIONS.7. ALL FURNACE FLUES, PLUMBINGVENTS, FIREPLACE VENTS ANDOTHER PENETRATIONS THROUGHROOF OR WALLS TO EXTENDTHROUGH REAR OF HOMEWHENEVER POSSIBLE.8. ALL PENETRATIONS THROUGHEXTERIOR WALLS OR ROOFINGMUST BE SEALED AND FLASHEDPER MANUF. SPECIFICATIONS ANDIRC CODE REGULATIONS.page 150 ©COPYRIGHT 2019MLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320-224-7844page 151 ©COPYRIGHT 2019MLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320-224-7844page 152 September 24, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 11 Hunter – the Weisbecker lot – is not in the critical area. The property on Lexington at the end of Marie Avenue – it is unknown at this time if they obtained a Critical Area Permit. Mr. Phillips mentioned other properties and asked why some work is under the critical area requirements and some are not. Chair Magnuson replied that all properties located in the critical area are required to obtain Critical Area Permits if there is construction on the properties. She believed there was an issue whether a boulder wall constitutes construction or not because it is not a structure – if under four feet tall. Residents who live in the Mississippi Area Corridor are advised to check and see if their actions require a permit. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-26, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed single-family dwelling project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. 2. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new single-family dwelling is deemed minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. 3. The proposed single-family dwelling project will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and is in keeping with the character of the area. 4. The construction of this new single-family dwelling will comply with all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City of Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new construction work. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends. 5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 2, 2019 meeting. page 154 September 24, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 11 B) PLANNING CASE 2019-26 MATTHEW MOSVICK, 1135 ORCHARD PLACE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Matthew Mosvick was seeking a Critical Area Permit to construct a new single family home at 1135 Orchard Place. The property is located in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, thus the requirement for a Critical Area Permit. This item was heard under a public hearing and notices were sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. There were no comments or objections received. The parcel is located mid-block between Lexington Avenue and Orchard Circle, just north of Ocean Heights. This lot was created in June 2019 under Resolution 2019-42, approval of a lot split, when Mr. Mosvick separated the lot from his mother’s lot next door. Mr. Mosvick plans to construct a 4,650 square foot dwelling with an attached three-car garage; there would a single access point onto Orchard Place. The dwelling would have a setback of 57 - feet, side yard setbacks will be 16.5-feet on each side, and a rear yard setback of approximately 48-feet from the deck edge. Mr. Benetti shared the provisions necessary for a Critical Area Permit and noted that the construction of the new building would have little, if any, affect upon the existing Mississippi Critical Area or the surrounding neighborhood environment. He also noted that this is one of the very few lots that has no bluff line; it is over 1,200 from the Mississippi River; and there are no adjacent water bodies. Commissioner Corbett noted that Condition #4 provides a work hours and asked if it was consistent with the Orchard Heights Development. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was the same. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Matt Mosvick had nothing to add to Mr. Benetti’s report. Mr. Jay Phillips, 1127 Orchard Place, stated that he may break protocol here a bit because he was unfamiliar with the critical area and how far it extends. He was under the impression that his home was not in the critical area; however, if Mr. Mosvick’s home is then his is probably as well. Chair Magnuson noted that he probably was and asked for confirmation from Mr. Benetti. Mr. Benetti replied that most of the properties along the north edge of Orchard are in the critical area but he was unsure how far towards Lexington Avenue it went. This is a line set by the Department of Natural Resources and the city has no control over it. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that public works has a map and Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek was obtaining that. Upon review of the map, it was discovered that all of the properties on the north edge of Orchard – all of the way to Lexington Avenue – are in the Mississippi Critical Area. Mr. Phillips then listed new constructions in the identified critical area and asked, if they were required to, did they obtain Critical Area Permits. Mr. Benetti replied that the Hunter house was just reviewed a few months ago for a Critical Area Permit. The new house on the east side of the page 153 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 16, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-78 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for the Wesley Neighborhood Improvements COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to preside over an assessment hearing and adopt the assessment roll for the Wesley Neighborhood Improvements. BACKGROUND Council ordered the Wesley Neighborhood Improvements at their February 7, 2019 meeting, and directed staff to prepare plans and specifications for this street reconstruction project. The plans were approved and authorized to bid at the June 5, 2019 meeting. Council accepted bids and awarded the project to Bituminous Roadways at their August 7, 2019 meeting. DISCUSSION The Public Hearing for the consideration of special assessments for the Wesley Neighborhood Improvements was advertised for the City Council meeting at 7:00 P.M. on October 16, 2019. The project is close to substantially complete with all storm sewer and concrete installed. The contractor is continuing to complete the gravel base with paving scheduled for October 16, 2019. BUDGET IMPACT The total construction contract cost for the Wesley Neighborhood Improvements is $1,399,999.41, not including, indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance. PROJECT COSTS ITEM CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT* TOTAL WESLEY IMPROVEMENTS $753,108.08 $150,621.62 $903,729.70 DODD ROAD TRAIL $410,841.23 $82,168.25 $493,009.48 WATERMAIN $11,050.10 $11,050.10 STORM SEWER $225,000.00 $225,000.00 Totals $1,399,999.41 $232,789.87 $1,632,789.28 * Includes 20% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance. page 155 ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS – WESLEY IMPROVEMENTS Assessable Costs $903,729.70 Assessment $451,864.85 Assessable Units 50 Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $9,037.30 Proposed Unit Assessment $5,500.00 FUNDING SOURCES ITEM COST ESTIMATE ASSESSMENT MUNICIPAL BONDS UTILITY FUNDS MSA WESLEY IMPROVEMENTS $903,729.70 $291,500 $612,229.70 DODD ROAD TRAIL $493,009.48 $93,009.48 $400,000.00 WATERMAIN $11,050.10 11,050.10 STORM SEWER $225,000.00 $225,000.00 Totals $1,632,789.28 $291,500 $705,239.18 $236,050.10 $400,000 Staff is proposing that single family assessments be capped at $5,500. All proposed assessments are payable over a 10 year period at an interest rate not to exceed 4.5 percent. The information shown above is based on the original contract amount and does take into account reductions from removing the trail between Wesley and Mager or reductions in the renegotiated rain garden pricing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council conduct the required Public Hearing and adopt the attached assessment roll as prepared, or amend them if council deems it appropriate to do so. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE WESLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS. This action requires a super majority vote. page 156 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-78 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE WESLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Mendota Heights City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement to rehabilitate Mager Court, South Lane, Spring Creek Circle, Wesley Court, and Wesley Lane referred to as the Wesley Neighborhood Improvements. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that: 1. Such proposed assessments, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of 10 years. The first of the installments shall be the annual principal plus interest calculated from the public hearing date to the end of this year plus twelve months of the next year and shall bear interest at the rate of up to 4.5% per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Finance Director, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution. The property owner may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Finance Director the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, excepting the installment portion appearing upon the current year’s property tax statement. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of said assessment rolls with each then unpaid installment and interest set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessments in the manner provided by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this sixteenth day of October, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 157 page 158 page 159 page 160 City of Mendota Heights - Assessment Roll Street Rehabilitation = 10 years Interest Rate = 4.5%Job # 201803 Wesley Lane Neighborhood Hearing Date Oct. 16, 2019 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2702500 26010 Louis H. Eschle 1844 Dodd Road $5,500.00street rehab Saint Paul, MN 55118-4305 1 26Section 25 Town 28 Range 23 S 136.8 ft of N 1/2 of NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 E of Dodd Road ex E 801.5 ft 2738600 02010 Louis William & Alison Marie Hawkins 1912 South Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 1 2Jefferson Heights 2738600 02020 Nicole Marie Conzemius 1925 South Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2 2Jefferson Heights 2764750 01011 Ketih Schweiger 697 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 1 1Rolling Woods Addition W 101 ft 2764750 01012 Ketih Schweiger 697 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 1 1Rolling Woods Addition ex W 101 ft 2764750 01020 Kenneth H. & Rosemary Larson 703 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4349 2 1Rolling Woods Addition 10/7/2019 Page 1 of 9Wesley Lane page 161 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2764750 01030 Thomas H Jr. Klein 709 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4349 3 1Rolling Woods Addition 2764750 01040 Jameel R. Qiblawi 715 Wesley Lane $5,500.00 Angela L Wutz Qiblawi street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 4 1Rolling Woods Addition 2764750 01050 Phillip R. Hinze 721 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4349 5 1Rolling Woods Addition 2764750 01060 Irene & James Y. Goldberg 718 Mager Court $5,500.00 Florence Goldberg street rehab Saint Paul, MN 55118-4356 6 1Rolling Woods Addtion 2764750 01070 Michael B. & Stacy J. Dockman 714 Mager Court $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 7 1Rolling Woods Addtion 2764750 01080 David P. & Mary Louis Drebsbach 710 Mager Court $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 8 1Rolling Woods Addtion 2764750 01090 Daniel R. & Lisa M. Bue 706 Mager Court $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 9 1Rolling Woods Addtion 10/7/2019 Page 2 of 9Wesley Lane page 162 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2764750 01100 Patrick L. & Katherine S. Smith 695 Wesley Court $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 10 1Rolling Woods Addition 2764750 01110 Mathew D. & Tracy L. McCollister 687 Wesley Court $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 11 1Rolling Woods Addition 2764750 01120 Diane K. Caruso 675 Wesley Court $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 12 1Rolling Woods Addition 2764750 01130 Diane K. Caruso 675 Wesley Court $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 13 1Rolling Woods Addition 2764750 01140 Rick & Lynn McNabb 672 Wesley Court $5,500.00street rehab Saint Paul, MN 55118-4350 14 1Rolling Woods Addition 2764750 01150 Steven J. & Susan S. Finn 665 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Saint Paul, MN 55118-4347 15 1Rolling Woods Addition 2764750 01160 Stephen W. & Mary K. Santos 673 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4347 16 1Rolling Woods Addition 10/7/2019 Page 3 of 9Wesley Lane page 163 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2764750 01170 Steven T. & Marie A. Krueckeberg 680 Wesley Court $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4350 17 1Rolling Woods Addition 2764750 01180 Andrew T. & Sara J. Ruff 686 Wesley Court $5,500.00street rehab Saint Paul, MN 55118-4350 18 1Rolling Woods Addition 2764751 01010 Julie & Paul Burkhardt 664 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Saint Paul, MN 55118-4348 1 1Rolling Woods 2nd Addition 2764751 01020 Thomas A. & Michelle L. Tstes Mingo 672 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2 1Rolling Woods 2nd Addition 2764751 01030 Steven J. & Thersa Rief 680 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Saint Paul, MN 55118-4348 3 1Rolling Woods 2nd Addition 2764751 01040 Michael S. & Kathleen Joyce 688 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Saint Paul, MN 55118-4348 4 1Rolling Woods 2nd Addition 2764751 01050 Daniel J. & Anne McKim Eldredge 692 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 5 1Rolling Woods 2nd Addition 10/7/2019 Page 4 of 9Wesley Lane page 164 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2764751 01061 St. Paul United Methodist Church 700 Wesley Lane $22,000.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 6 1Rolling Woods 2nd Addition 2764751 01062 Wade A. & Molly E. Sedgwick 696 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 6 1Rolling Woods 2nd Addition Pt of Lot 6 Blk 1 lying E'ly of line beg 100 ft W of NE cor S parr with E line 30 ft thence S'ly 167.66 ft to pt on S line 90 ft W of SE cor & there term 2771500 01010 Simon W. & Maya A. Abramovich 719 Spring Creek Circle $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 1 1Spring Creek Acres 2771500 01050 Elizabeth A. Staples 727 Spring Creek Circle $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4300 5 1Spring Creek Acres 2771500 01060 Anne Sylvester 724 Spring Creek Circle $5,500.00 Louis Sylvester street rehab Saint Paul, MN 5118-4300 6 1Spring Creek Acres 2771500 01070 Michelle L. Hodge 720 Spring Creek Circle $5,500.00street rehab Saint Paul, MN 5118-4300 7 1Spring Creek Acres 2771500 01080 John R. Samec 716 Spring Creek Circle $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 8 1Spring Creek Acres 10/7/2019 Page 5 of 9Wesley Lane page 165 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2775900 01070 Matthew Jordan & Heidi Marie Johnson 1902 South Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 7 1The Ponds of Mendota Heights 2775900 01080 Glatzmaier John W. Tste 1520 27th St. W. $5,500.00street rehab Minneapolis, MN 55408 8 1The Ponds of Mendota Heights 2775900 01090 Robert Casselman 670 Pelham Blvd, Unit 201 $5,500.00street rehab St. Paul, MN 55114 9 1The Ponds of Mendota Heights 2775900 01100 Terry H. & Cynthia A. Rust 1872 South Lane $5,500.00street rehab Saint Paul, MN 55118-4348 10 1The Ponds of Mendota Heights 2775900 01110 Justin M. & Elizabeth Joyce 1862 South Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 11 1The Ponds of Mendota Heights 2775900 01120 Laureen Marie Bruber 1852 South Lane $5,500.00 Herbert James III Bruber street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4328 12 1The Ponds of Mendota Heights 2775900 01140 Stephen A. Baker 1851 South Lane $5,500.00 Clarice Ann Grimm Baker street rehab Saint Paul, MN 55118-4346 14 1The Ponds of Mendota Heights 10/7/2019 Page 6 of 9Wesley Lane page 166 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2775900 01150 Nicholas G. & Sonia N. Houle 1861 South Lane $5,500.00street rehab Saint Paul, MN 55118-4346 15 1The Ponds of Mendota Heights 2775900 01160 Michael D. & Charlene McHugh 1871 South Lane $5,500.00street rehab Saint Paul, MN 55118-4346 16 1The Ponds of Mendota Heights 2775900 01170 Joan M. Jakubas 645 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 17 1The Ponds of Mendota Heights 2775900 01180 Brian J. & Kathryn A. Klecan 651 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 18 1The Ponds of Mendota Heights 2775900 01190 Johnson Julie Ann Living Trust 657 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 19 1The Ponds of Mendota Heights 2775900 02010 Elie Gertner 656 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 1 2The Ponds of Mendota Heights 2775900 02020 Timothy J. & Barbara Doran 650 Wesley Lane $5,500.00street rehab Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2 2The Ponds of Mendota Heights 10/7/2019 Page 7 of 9Wesley Lane page 167 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2775900 02030 Mitchell A. & Carol W. Rossman 1891 South Lane $5,500.00street rehab Saint Paul, MN 55118-4346 3 2The Ponds of Mendota Heights 2775900 02040 Kenneth J. Kaiser & 1901 South Lane $5,500.00 Mary E. Weber street rehab Saint Paul, MN 55118-4346 4 2The Ponds of Mendota Heights 10/7/2019 Page 8 of 9Wesley Lane page 168 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount Number of Properties: 50 Total Assessment $291,500.00 10/7/2019 Page 9 of 9Wesley Lane page 169 page 170 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 16, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-79 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to preside over an assessment hearing and adopt the assessment roll for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements. BACKGROUND Council ordered the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements at their February 7, 2019 meeting, and directed staff to prepare plans and specifications for this project. The plans were approved and authorized to bid at the July 16, 2019 meeting. Council accepted bids and awarded the project to Rosti Construction at their September 3, 2019 meeting. DISCUSSION The Public Hearing for the consideration of special assessments for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements was advertised for the City Council meeting at 7:00 P.M. on October 16, 2019. The project is planned for substantial completion on October 25. Final completion is planned for May of 2020. BUDGET IMPACT The total construction contract cost for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements is $324,883, not including, indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance. PROJECT COSTS ITEM CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT TOTAL Outlot E Retaining Wall Reconstruction $292,780 $73,195 $365,975 Victoria - Walsh Street Modular Block Wall $32,103 $8,026 $40,129 TOTALS $324,883 $81,221 $406,104 page 171 FUNDING SOURCES ITEM COST ESTIMATE ASSESSMENT MUNICIPAL BONDS Outlot E Retaining Wall Reconstruction $365,975 $182,988 $182,988 Victoria - Walsh Street Modular Block Wall $40,129 $40,129 Totals $406,104 $182,988 $223,117 ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - OUTLOT E RETAINING WALL RECONSTRUCTION Assessable Costs $365,975 Assessment $182,988 Assessable Units 55 Estimated Unit Assessments per City Policy The Village of Mendota Heights Town Center Properties * $95,173 Dakota County CDA $25,868 Mendota Heights Town Center LLC $61,947 Proposed Assessment Total $182,988 ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS *The Village of Mendota Heights Town Center Assessable Costs $95,173 Assessable Units 53 Proposed Unit Assessment per City Policy $1,796 All proposed assessments are payable over a 10 year period at an interest rate not to exceed 4.5 percent. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council conduct the required Public Hearing and adopt the attached assessment roll as prepared, or amend them if council deems it appropriate to do so. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE TOWN CENTER/VILLAGE OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BOULDER RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS. This action requires a super majority vote. page 172 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-79 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE TOWN CENTER/VILLAGE OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BOULDER RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Mendota Heights City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement to reconstruct boulder retaining walls on Outlot F, Mendota Heights Town Center. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that: 1. Such proposed assessments, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of 10 years. The first of the installments shall be the annual principal plus interest calculated from the public hearing date to the end of this year plus twelve months of the next year and shall bear interest at the rate of up to 4.5% per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Finance Director, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution. The property owner may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Finance Director the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, excepting the installment portion appearing upon the current year’s property tax statement. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of said assessment rolls with each then unpaid installment and interest set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessments in the manner provided by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this sixteenth day of October, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 173 2$.670$5.(767/,1'(1670$,1 67 0$3/(67 )5217$ * ( 5 ' 08/%(55</1.$5/+2+(167( ,1 3/2$.675$03'DNRWD&RXQW\*,6 9LOODJH5HWDLQLQJ:DOOV 'DWH &LW\RI 0HQGRWD +HLJKWV 6&$/(,1)((7 *,60DS'LVFODLPHU 7KLVGDWDLVIRULQIRUPDWLRQDOSXUSRVHVRQO\DQGVKRXOGQRWEHVXEVWLWXWHGIRUDWUXHWLWOHVHDUFKSURSHUW\DSSUDLVDOSODW VXUYH\RUIRU]RQLQJYHULILFDWLRQ7KH&LW\RI0HQGRWD+HLJKWVDVVXPHVQROHJDOUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHG LQWKLVGDWD7KH&LW\RI0HQGRWD+HLJKWVRUDQ\RWKHUHQWLW\IURPZKLFKGDWDZDVREWDLQHGDVVXPHVQROLDELOLW\IRUDQ\HUURUV RURPLVVLRQVKHUHLQ,IGLVFUHSDQFLHVDUHIRXQGSOHDVHFRQWDFWWKH&LW\RI0HQGRWD+HLJKWV &RQWDFW*RSKHU6WDWH2QH&DOODWIRUXWLOLW\ORFDWLRQVKRXUVSULRUWRDQ\H[FDYDWLRQ ([LVWLQJ:DOOVWREHUHSODFHG 7\S /HJHQG $VVHVVHG3URSHUWLHV 0D\ 2XWORW( 2XWORW( :DOOVWREH UHSODFHG W\S 8BMMOPUQBSUPGGFBTJCJMJUZ SFQPSU 1SJWBUF page 174 City of Mendota Heights - Assessment Roll Interest Rate = 4.5% Town Center Retaining Wall Job #201810 Boulder Retaining Wall = 10 years Hearing Date October 16, 2019 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2748335 06020 Dakota County CDA 1228 Town Centre Drive $25,868.00Retaining Wall Eagan, MN 55123 Mendota Heights Town Center 2 6 2748335 06030 Mendota Heights Town Center LLC 1221 Lake Street W., Suite 203 $61,947.00Retaining Wall Minneapolis, MN 55408 Mendota Heights Town Center 3 6 2748335 10101 Mary McNamara 1937 Oak Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #101 2 5 2748335 10102 Mark J. McKasy 1939 Oak Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #102 2 5 2748335 10103 Tom P. & Anne M. Rusch 1941 Oak Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #103 2 5 2748335 10104 Stephen C. Tste Glynn 1943 Oak Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #104 2 5 10/7/2019 Page 1 of 9 page 175 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2748335 10105 Theresa Sexton 1945 Oak Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #105 2 5 2748335 10106 Norman & Corrine Geiger 1947 Oak Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #106 2 5 2748335 10702 Paul Jr. & Nona S. Fenton 702 Linden Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #702 3 5 2748335 10704 Karyn M. Devinny 704 Linden Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #704 3 5 2748335 10706 John Paul & Deanne Marie Bennett 706 Linden Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #706 3 5 2748335 10708 Leslie A. Tste Callahan 708 Linden Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #708 3 5 2748335 10710 Henry J. Tste Brandis & 710 Linden Street $1,795.00 Debra S. Tste Brandis Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #710 3 5 10/7/2019 Page 2 of 9 page 176 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2748335 10712 Robert A. Jablonski 712 Linden Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #712 3 5 2748335 10714 Keith & Barbara B. Tstes Theisen 714 Linden Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #714 3 5 2748335 11951 Stephan Gary Kleine 1951 Oak Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #1951 1 5 2748335 11953 Patricia A. Jagunich 1953 Oak Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #1953 1 5 2748335 11955 Linda Marie Byrne 1955 Oak Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #1955 1 5 2748335 11957 Jeffery T. & Linda M. Graves 1957 Oak Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #1957 1 5 2748335 11959 Sara E. Braziller 1959 Oak Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #1959 1 5 10/7/2019 Page 3 of 9 page 177 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2748335 11961 Paul A. S. & Judy K. Tstes Helland 1961 Oak Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #1961 1 5 2748335 11963 Jill M. Skogheim 1963 Oak Street $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #1963 1 5 2748335 70101 Ronald L. & Janet A. Odalen 701 Linden Street Unit 101 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701101 2 4 2748335 70102 Michael W. Stanley & 701 Linden Street Unit 102 $1,795.00 Michelle J. Henry- Stanley Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1168 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit#701102 2 4 2748335 70103 Brady Family Revocable Trust 969 Acacia Drive NE $1,795.00Retaining Wall Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701103 2 4 2748335 70104 Patrica J. Johnson Tst 701 Linden Street Unit 104 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701104 2 4 2748335 70105 John A. & Nancy Price 701 Linden Street Unit 105 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701105 2 4 10/7/2019 Page 4 of 9 page 178 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2748335 70106 Albert & Kathleen Woodward 701 Linden Street Unit 106 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701106 2 4 2748335 70107 Joseph A. & Gloria C. Cascalenda 701 Linden Street Unit 107 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701107 2 4 2748335 70108 Dale E. & Ruth E. Warland 701 Linden Street Unit 108 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701108 2 4 2748335 70201 Charles & Mary B. Tsts Field 701 Linden Street Unit 201 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701201 2 4 2748335 70202 Kenneth A. & Marie A. Iverson 900 Village Lane, Unit 143 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Pass Christian, MS 39571 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701202 2 4 2748335 70203 Richard B. Tste Schachtman & 701 Linden Street Unit 203 $1,795.00 Janice M. Tste Schachtman Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701203 2 4 2748335 70204 Robert E. & Kathleen M. Gilsdorf 701 Linden Street Unit 204 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701204 2 4 10/7/2019 Page 5 of 9 page 179 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2748335 70205 Kathleen Carey Kovar 701 Linden Street Unit 205 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701205 2 4 2748335 70206 Patrick J. & Patricia Marren 701 Linden Street Unit 206 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701206 2 4 2748335 70207 James A. & Kathleen P Tstes Geske 701 Linden Street Unit 207 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701207 2 4 2748335 70208 Maureen T. Revocable Trust Cosgriff 701 Linden Street Unit 208 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #701208 2 4 2748335 71101 David W. & Marcia L. Tstes Hierseman 11809 Yarmouth Lane $1,795.00Retaining Wall Frisco, TX 75036 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715101 1 4 2748335 71102 JPRM Investments LLC 715 Linden Street Unit 102 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715102 1 4 2748335 71103 Jacyln M. & Mark D. Tarman 715 Linden Street Unit 103 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715103 1 4 10/7/2019 Page 6 of 9 page 180 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2748335 71104 Bremer Trust NA Tste & PO Box 986 $1,795.00 Michelle D. Tste Valadez Retaining Wall Saint Cloud, MN 56302 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715104 1 4 2748335 71105 Maureen Devins 715 Linden Street Unit 105 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715105 1 4 2748335 71106 Harry D. & Jane A. McPeak 715 Linden Street Unit 106 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715106 1 4 2748335 71107 Eugene C. & Joan M. Dorsa 715 Linden Street Unit 107 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715107 1 4 2748335 71108 Dana J. Berg 715 Linden Street Unit 108 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715108 1 4 2748335 71109 Thomas E. & Laura L. Schmidt 715 Linden Street Unit 109 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715109 1 4 2748335 71110 Bruce D. & Brenda D. Machacek 715 Linden Street Unit 110 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715110 1 4 10/7/2019 Page 7 of 9 page 181 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2748335 71204 Joseph Kapla 715 Linden Street Unit 204 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715204 1 4 2748335 71205 Malcolm M. & Nancy L. Tstes McKay 715 Linden Street Unit 205 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715205 1 4 2748335 71206 Yevgenia Vizelman 168 Stonebridge Road $1,795.00Retaining Wall Lilydale, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715206 1 4 2748335 71207 Gloria J. Chadima 715 Linden Street Unit 210 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715207 1 4 2748335 71209 Laurel A. & Merrill E. Zieman 715 Linden Street Unit 209 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715209 1 4 2748335 71213 Brad & Kara L. Wallace 715 Linden Street Unit 201 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715201 & 715203 1 4 2748335 72210 Gloria J. Chadima 715 Linden Street Unit 210 $1,795.00Retaining Wall Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CIC #464 The Village Residences Unit #715208 & Unit 715210 1 4 10/7/2019 Page 8 of 9 page 182 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount Number of Properties: 55 Total Assessment $182,950.00 10/7/2019 Page 9 of 9 page 183 page 184 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Discussion of Liquor License Separation from Schools/Houses of Worship Date: October 16, 2019 Comment: Introduction: The Council is asked to amend a section of the City Code to eliminate distance restrictions from a liquor license holder to a place of worship, or a school. Background: In the discussion of the Village Lots development, the City Council was made aware that if the proposed restaurant is to serve alcohol, some changes will be needed to the City Code. Section 3-1-12 of the City Code provides that: …”Location: Except for temporary on-sale licenses, no license shall be granted for a location within one thousand (1000) feet of a school, or seven hundred twenty five (725) feet of any church. In the case of a school, the distance is to be measured in a straight line from the lot on which the establishment is to be located to the nearest point of the lot on which the school is located. In the case of a church, the distance is to be measured from the lot upon which the establishment is to be located to the nearest point of the church building. The erection of a school or church within the prohibited area after an original application has been granted shall not, in and of itself, render such premises ineligible for the renewal of a license.” The site for the restaurant is within 725 feet of St. Paul’s United Methodist Church. It would be constructed on one of multiple blocks and an outlot in the Village development, which would most likely be consolidated into a single block for development. If that is the case, a section of that new lot could be as close as 180 feet from the nearest point of the adjacent church building, even though much of the development would be screened from the view of the church by one of the existing condominium buildings. For a September 24th work session of the City Council which was held to give preliminary discussion to the topic, the Community Development Director provided aerial photos showing the known houses of worship in Mendota Heights, with concentric rings of 300, 500, and 725 feet from the property lines. page 185 Discussion: One of the major decisions for the Council will be to determine if such a distance separation is still warranted. The City Clerk performed an informal survey of other cities in Dakota County, as well as the City of St. Paul, to determine which cities still require a separation, and if so, what the distance might be. The results are as follows: St. Paul – no restrictions from churches; 300 feet from schools. Lakeville – no restrictions, eliminated quite some time ago. Burnsville - No restrictions from churches. Respondent was not sure about schools Apple Valley – no restrictions Inver Grove Heights – Off sale only-500' from school or church-distance measured between the nearest property lines of the parcels. Rosemount – 300‘ from school or church-measured from main front entrance of the school or church and the liquor establishment following the route of ordinary pedestrian travel. South St. Paul – Off sale only-750’ from a school, 500’ from a church, the distance to be measured from the nearest point of the property lines from one property to another; From the responses received, it was noted that it is probable that those cities which still have distance restrictions have not considered that requirement for some time. The current Mendota Heights restrictions include both on and off-sale, and do not differentiate 3.2 beer from full alcohol. There are two apparent inconsistencies currently existing in Mendota Heights. One is the Speedway convenience store on TH 62, which is located within 500 feet of Holy Family Maronite Church. The convenience store was built in 1997; the church building was constructed in 1981. The other situation is the Somerset Country Club property line, and the less than 1000 feet distance that it is from Somerset Elementary School. Staff is unclear as to how those licenses were issued. Alternatives: 1. The Council can keep the existing restrictions. If it does, it will likely eliminate possibilities for the sit down restaurant which has been proposed for the Village lots site. 2. The Council can eliminate the distance separation restrictions for houses of worship, schools, or both. 3. The Council could change how the restrictions are determined, assuming that it still wants to keep the restrictions. For example, it could make the distance measurable from the main building entrance of the place of worship, rather than lot line to lot line. Not knowing if the two lots and the outlot are to be combined for the development proposal, we should assume the most restrictive proposal possible. That would mean the point of the development parcel which is closest to the church’s front door. If that is the case, if the current Village lots proposal is to be accommodated using the current ordinance provisions, no license could be granted for a location which is within 250 feet of the main entrance of any church (house of worship). A second alternative would be the main entrance of the place of worship, to the man entrance of the licensed establishment. However, until the preliminary design plans for the building are completed, there is no way to know for certain what that distance would be. page 186 Attached is an aerial photo showing three concentric distances from the property lines of St. Paul’s United Methodist Church, and an aerial showing the distance from the main entrance of the church to the closest point of Outlot D. Note that Outlot D is currently owned by the City, but discussions have occurred regarding deeding that closest portion of the outlot to the adjacent neighbors, as a portion contains a retaining wall. Also attached are aerials showing the 1000 foot distances from schools. St. Paul’s United Methodist Church has been advised of the discussion of this issue, and has been invited to attend the City Council meeting. The City’s schools are also being notified. Finally, notice that this topic is going to be discussed at the October 16th meeting has been posted on the City’s website since September 26th. Recommendation: From staff’s experience, the proximately of a licensed alcohol establishment to a school or house of worship has not posed problems, and is probably not necessary, especially in Mendota Heights where the serving of alcohol must be as part of a restaurant. As such, we recommend that the distance restriction be eliminated. Action Required: If the City Council is agreeable to the removal of the spacing restriction between an establishment holding a license to sell alcohol, and a place of worship or a school, it should amend City Code 3-1-12. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 187 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 543 AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 1, OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY CODE REGARDING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Title 3, Chapter 1 – Alcoholic Beverages is amended as follows: 3-1-12: PLACES INELIGIBLE FOR LICENSE: A. Location: Except for temporary on-sale licenses, no license shall be granted for a location within one thousand feet (1,000') of a school or seven hundred twenty five feet (725') of any church. In the case of a school, the distance is to be measured in a straight line from the lot on which the establishment is to be located to the nearest point of the lot on which the school is located. In the case of a church, the distance is to be measured from the lot on which the establishment is to be located to the nearest point of the church building. The erection of a school or church within the prohibited area after an original application has been granted shall not, in and of itself, render such premises ineligible for renewal of a license. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an ordinance this 16th day of October, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 188 WESLEY LN 700 Wesley Lane Date: 10/10/2019 City of Mendota Heights040 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.250 Feetpage 189 765 700 702 750 682 688 748 676 747 684 650 775 764 1925 699 1844 755 1818719 679 720 670 679689 1883 755 697 706 780 1865 727 727 745 1836 663667 776 655 646 664 657 765 724 1933 695 1938 1870 1944 737 1887 1876 1899 6971941 1937 656 650 1894 654 1888 1882 672 698 675 645 1857 655659681 685 660 651 660668692 667 680 685 686 693 674 659 1834 664672680688692 1960 1871 696 687710718 721 666 664 703 714 709715 688710 672 666 660 656 673680 665686 720 716 651 726 658 654779 766 730 641 720 696700 653 652 772 1835 730 1861 781 1891 1901 1826 770 698 673 651657663669689DODD RDLINDEN ST WESLEY LN WIL L O W L N MULLBERRY LN HILLTOP RDVALLEY CURVE RDCALLAHAN PL MAPLE ST OAK STMA R K E T S T RIDGE PL MAGER CT HWY OAK STKARL HOHENSTE IN P L SPRING CREEK CIR ST. PAUL METHODIST CHURCH725' - 500' - 300' BUFFER LINE(Property Line) City of Mendota Heights0290 SCALE IN FEETDate: 9/17/2019 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. page 190 I-494 HUBER DRMENDOTA HEIGHTS RD K E O K U K L N PUEBLO LNDODD RD RAMP CONCORD WA Y POND VIEW DRA P A C H E S T HAMPSHIRE DR DECO R A H L N APACHE LN M O H I C A N L N LOCKWOOD DRPARK LNAPACH E C T WHITFIELD DRARBOR CTHAVENVIE W C T N A V A J O L N PONDHAVEN LN MO N E T C T STOCKBRIDGE RDPUEBLO DRM O H I C A N C T BEDFORD CTOCALA LNPON D V I E W C T I-494 City of Mendota Heights0510 SCALE IN FEETDate: 9/9/2019 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. FRIENDLY HILLS SCHOOL(1000-FT. BUFFER BOUNDARY) page 191 HWY 62 MARIE AVE W DELAWARE AVEMENDOTA RDSOUTH LNWARRIOR DRCALLAHAN PL KNOB RDMENDOTA RD W PRIVATE ROAD HIDDEN C R E E K T R L LINDEN ST DOD G E L N CHARLTON RDWESLEY LN SIBLEY CT NATURE VIEW LNPRESERVE PATH CHARDEL CTDARLA CT HWY 62 City of Mendota Heights0680 SCALE IN FEETDate: 9/9/2019 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. HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL(1000-FT. BUFFER BOUNDARY) page 192 HWY 62 WALSH LNLEXINGTON AVEAVANTI DR VICTORIA RDVICTORIA RD STWIN CIRCLE DRMENDOTA RD RAMP KAY AVE DAKOTA DR VAIL DR SUMMIT LNFARO LNHWY 62 LOOP STRATFORD RD I-35EORCHARD HL OXFO R D C T VICTORIA CT BWANA CT WEST CIRCLE CT VICTORI A R D S SUMMIT LNHWY 62 I-35ECity of Mendota Heights0340 SCALE IN FEETDate: 9/9/2019 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. MENDOTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL(1000-FT. BUFFER BOUNDARY) page 193 DODD RD1ST AVE 3RD AVE LAURA ST2ND AVE SYLVANDALE R D SOMERSET RDIVY FALLS AVE EMERSON AVE SUNSET LN DORSET RDCOLESHIRE LN VANDALL STSTAPLES AVE BROOKSIDE LN ME A R S A V E CLEMENT STLAURA CT City of Mendota Heights0410 SCALE IN FEETDate: 9/9/2019 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. SOMERSET ELEMENTARY (1000-FT. BUFFER BOUNDARY) page 194 I-494I-35EDODD RDLAKE DRI-35E RAMPMENDOTA HEIGHTS RD WAGON WHEEL TRL LEXINGTON AVEBLUEBILL DR CHERI LN PAGEL RD494 RAMPI-94 RAMP APACHE STI-494 RAMP ONEILL R D BLUE GENTIAN RD DODD RD RAMPSWAN DRMONET CT I-494 LOOP BLUE GE N TI A N CI R KEOKUK LNALICE LNSWAN CT494 LOOP PRIVATE ROADARBOR CTKRESSIN AVEI-35E LOOP CONDON CTHAZEL CT MONET LNWAGON WHEEL RDI-494 494 RAMPI-35E RAMP I-35EI-94 RAMPCity of Mendota Heights0850 SCALE IN FEETDate: 9/9/2019 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. ST. THOMAS ACADEMY / VISITATION (1000-FT. BUFFER BOUNDARY) page 195