Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-12-17 Council Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA December 17, 2019 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Police Officer Swearing In 6. Presentations a. Update on Fire Station Expansion/Remodel by Paul Oberhaus, CPMI 7. Consent Agenda a. Approve December 3, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Approve December 3, 2019 City Council Closed Session Minutes c. Approve November 6, 2019 Parks Recreation Commission Work Session Minutes d. Approve November 12, 2019 Parks Recreation Commission Minutes e. Approve Ordinance No. 549 Amend Code Title 5, Chapter 5, Concerning Domestic Animals f. Approve Resolution 2019-99 Adopt 2020 Pay Classification Plan for Non-Union Employees g. Approve the Office Support Assistant Job Description and Authorize Position Recruitment h. Approve an Amendment to the Fire Department Solar Project Capital Lease with Ideal Energies, LLC and Green Solar Leasing, LLC i. Accept the Wetland Delineation Report and Findings of ‘No Wetland’ for 777 Wentworth Ave j. Approve Resolution 2019-100 Accepting Project for the Lemay Shores Subdivision k. Approve the Replacement of the Par 3 Greens Mower l. Acknowledge the November 2019 Building Activity Report m. Acknowledge October 2019 Par 3 Financial Report n. Approve November 2019 Treasurer’s Report o. Approve Claims List 8. Citizen Comment Period *see guidelines below 9. Public Hearings - none 10. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2019-98 Approving the Submittal of the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update to the Metropolitan Council b. Parks and Recreation Field and Facility Use Policy c. Marie Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvements – Professional Services Change Order 11. Community Announcements 12. Council Comments 13. 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.” DATE: December 17, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police & Emergency Manager SUBJECT: Oath of Office Presentation INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to do a ceremonial swearing in of Officer Alex Randall. BACKGROUND In 2019, the Council approved the hiring of Alex Randall as a police officer. Officers Randall has successfully passed his field training and tonight we ask that he be sworn in. Officer Alex Randall was hired by the Council in August of 2019. Prior to working in Mendota Heights, Alex served as a Park Ranger for Dakota County. Alex has a Bachelor’s degree from Mankato State University and serves as a Calvary Scout in the Minnesota National Guard. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Mayor do the ceremonial Oath of Office for Officer Randall. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council desires to implement the recommendation, bring the candidate forward to be sworn in by the Mayor. page 3 DATE: December 17, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Construction Manager Update Comment: The Construction Manager for the Fire Station project, Paul Oberhaus of CPMI, will be in attendance at the December 17th City Council meeting to provide his monthly update on the progress of the project. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 4 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, December 3, 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. PRESENTATIONS A) FIREFIGHTER BADGE PINNING Assistant Fire Chief Scott Goldenstein introduced Firefighters Joe Ahlstrom, Joe King, Amy Patrick, Dan Rice, and Nick Reding. They have completed their one-year probationary period. Mayor Garlock presided over the swearing in of each firefighter. CLOSED SESSION MEETING SUMMARY Mayor Garlock provided a summary of the closed session meeting held prior to this City Council meeting regarding labor negotiations. He stated that no action was taken by the Council. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling items c.) Approve Renewal of Tobacco Licenses and d.) Approve Ordinance No. 550 Amending City Code Title 3, Chapter 4 Concerning Building Contractors Licensing. page 5 a. Approve November 19, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Approve November 19, 2019 Council Work Session Minutes c. Approve Renewal of Tobacco Licenses d. Approve Ordinance No. 550 Amend Code Title 3, Chapter 4 Concerning Contractor Licensing e. Accept Resignation of Community Service Officer and Authorize Position Recruitment f. Acknowledge October 2019 Fire Synopsis Report g. Approve October 2019 Treasurer’s Report h. Approve Claims List Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS C) APPROVE RENEWAL OF TOBACCO LICENSES Councilor Duggan asked if the businesses listed had received a copy of the city code regulations regarding tobacco licensing. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that the establishments have been informed of the recent changes made. Staff will ensure that the applicants have received a copy of the section of the City Code regulating tobacco. Councilor Duggan asked if this would be the proper time to discuss CBD products as most consider this a part of the tobacco code. It was agreed that this would be a separate discussion for the future. Councilor Duggan moved to RENEW THE CURRENT TOBACCO LICENSES. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 D) APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 550 AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 3, CHAPTER 4 CONCERNING BUILDING CONTRACTORS LICENSING Councilor Duggan noted the announcement made today regarding the Minnehaha Academy and the challenges they had, which necessitated their move to Mendota Heights for a short time. They are now back at their original location. It seems that there might have been some challenges for them. This is a preamble to the idea of Mendota Heights eliminating the licensing of contractors. He stated he cannot support this Ordinance without a discussion as to what exactly it might mean. Councilor Petschel stated that she thought it was quite clear that licensing is already being done by the Department of Labor and Industry; not by the city. Also, upon application for a building permit, the contractor must provide proof that they are licensed by the Department of Labor and Industry and that they have the proper insurance in place. The city is not doing the licensing, the state does the licensing. page 6 Councilor Duggan expressed his concern and questioned who is in charge – the state or the city. Every time the city gives more authority or power to the state, the city loses a little bit. He believed that the city should have some sort of a say. He wondered how the City is to know that the individuals coming to do contractor work in the City are actually licensed by the state. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that this has no effect on inspections, those will still be done by the city and that is the city’s responsibility. For the licensing of contractors, the city does not have the capacity to do a background investigation on all of the contractors. Councilor Duggan stated that he believed the city needs to look at the language in the code to indicate that the city is going beyond just accepting someone’s word that they are currently licensed. Mayor Garlock replied that there would still be a building permit process and inspections would continue. City Administrator Mark McNeill suggested this topic be deferred to an upcoming Council Work Session. Councilor Petschel moved to defer ORDINANCE NO. 550 AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 3, CHAPTER 4 CONCERNING BUILDING CONTRACTORS LICENSING to an upcoming work session of the Council. Council Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. PUBLIC HEARING A) ORDINANCE NO. 551 ESTABLISH FEES AND CHARGES FOR 2020, AND APPROVE SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that annually the city updates its fee schedule for services. Staff is proposing to make the following changes to the current fee schedule, which include: • Administration: Eliminate the non-compliance sump pump connection fee • Administration: Delete dog licensing. Microchip technology helps the Police Department find the owners. • Building Codes: Delete contractor licensing. It was recommended to withhold this item until the Code change has been officially approved by the Council. • Building Codes: Delete the portion of the Public Utility or Improved Public ROW Connection. • Police Department: Increase DVD/Electronic Storage Device from $10 to $15 per 8.5 GB. • Police Department: Add Dangerous Dog Registration at $500/year. page 7 Councilor Duggan noted that under Administration there was a Certification of Delinquent Sewer Accounts that was changed from $50/per certification to $50/per certification plus 7% interest. He asked if the 7% interest was on both the bill and the late fee. Mr. McNeill replied that it was his understanding that it would just be on the bill. He stated that the city wants to make sure that people have motivation to stay current with their fees. Councilmember Duggan asked for confirmation that the resident would receive a notice in October or November saying that they have not paid their fees. Mr. McNeill confirmed. In regards to the Mining Permit fee, Councilor Duggan asked for an example of mining in Mendota Heights. Mr. McNeill noted this is probably not something the city would see; however, there may be a time when a soil correction is needed (i.e. The Orchard) and that may qualify as a mining operation. Councilor Paper asked how the city determines what a dangerous dog is. Mr. McNeill replied that a dog is cited by the Police Department and the owner is notified. The owner may appeal the decision and request a hearing on the dangerous dog determination. If a hearing is requested, then a hearing officer would make a final determination on whether it is in fact a dangerous dog or not. Councilor Paper asked about tennis court reservations and why there is an application fee but no fee for use of the court. Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson replied that the city receives several requests for reserving tennis courts each year. The city charges an application fee. In the work sessions held where Park and Recreation Facility and Field Use Fees were discussed, charging a rental fee for tennis courts was not addressed, but that is something that could be discussed in the future. Mayor Garlock moved to open the public hearing. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 There being no one coming forward to speak, Mayor Garlock moved to close the public hearing. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Regarding the Critical Area Permit fee, Councilor Duggan asked what the ‘security deposit determined by staff’ may be and why is it determined by staff. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that was something that was determined during last year’s preparation of the fee schedule. It was determined to be a fair and reasonable based on the level of work. It is usually a determination made by the City Engineer and the City Planner. In regards to the Park Dedication Fee for New Commercial/Industrial Lot being 10% of the assessed value of unimproved land determined by County Assessor, Councilor Duggan asked how ‘unimproved’ is determined. Mr. Benetti replied that the city knows what the value of the land is, so if there was a need for a park land dedication, it would be 10% of that current land value of the unimproved part. Councilor Duggan asked if there was a better way to define this, rather than just ‘unimproved’. City Attorney Andrew Pratt replied that it could certainly be better defined, but the language is largely lifted from State Statutes. Improvements would mean anything like roads, sewers, or buildings. Unimproved is typically vacant land. The County Assessor does the valuations, and that is where staff gets the value from. page 8 Councilor Petschel moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 551 ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES FOR SERVICES FOR 2020, with the exception of deleting the Contractors Licensing fee, as it will be discussed at an upcoming work session meeting. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilor Petschel moved to authorize the Summary Publication of Ordinance No. 551. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2019-97 APPROVE FINAL 2019 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2020 AND ADOPT THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2020 Finance Director Kristen Schabacker explained the proposed final budget and levy for 2020. In September, the Council adopted the preliminary budget and levy, which was certified to Dakota County. The levy before the Council this evening had three adjustments: • Insurance contribution provided by the city to the employees has been reduced • Expenditures for the casualty property insurance premiums has been increased • Debt service levy has been slightly increased This resulted in the levy being reduced by a total to $73,062. Councilor Duggan asked if the action taken earlier to defer the contractor licensing fees would have an impact on the budget. Ms. Schabacker replied those licensing revenues are not included in the 2020 budget. Councilor Duggan asked when the Par 3 bonds would be paid off. Ms. Schabacker replied that the final payment for those bonds is due February 1, 2023. Councilor Duggan questioned several line items: • Elections increased by 123.53% o Due to three elections scheduled for 2020. There were no elections budgeted for 2019. • Liability and Auto Insurance increased by 38.89% o property casualty insurance premium increase. • Books and Subscriptions increased by 3000% o Some are electronic; however, the remaining was assumed to be charges that had been applied to other line items in the past but now are being reflected more accurately. page 9 • Solar Leases increased by 100% - was that because they were just starting and beginning to catch up o Solar leases will be offset by savings in the city’s electrical bills. This should be a wash over time and will be a benefit to the city. • Professional Services increased 900% o This amount includes additional traffic studies requested by the Public Works Director. • Mileage and Auto Allowance increased by 150% o This amount was adjusted to reflect historical expenditures. • Water Service-Public Works increased by 66.67% - is that going to St. Paul Regional Water o This is the monthly water bill for Public Works – 1/3 is charged to streets, 1/3 is charged to parks, and 1/3 is charged to the sewer department. • Doggie Bag Waste Dispensers, $2,500 – how many dispensers are included in this amount o An actual number of dispensers was not available. This information will be provided later. • Legal Publications, a 100% increase o This is for legal publications for any sewer project that may go out to bid. Mayor Garlock opened the floor for comments or questions from the public, of which there were none. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-97 APPROVING FINAL 2019 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2020 AND ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2020. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) ORDINANCE NO. 552 AMEND CODE SECTION 12-1G-2 ALLOW INCREASED FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) STANDARD NOT TO EXCEED 1.25 FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY USES IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT - METRO STORAGE, LLC – APPLICANT Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided background on this application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance from Metro Storage, LLC to allow for a new three-story, 117,810 square foot personal self-storage facility. The variance was needed to allow them to exceed the floor area ratio from 0.5 to 1.24. The Planning Commission initially made a motion to deny the Variance (3-3-1), which resulted in no recommendation. After working with the Planning Commission and the Council, staff brought a code amendment to the Council to eliminate the FAR for all uses in the Industrial District. This amendment was denied on a 3-2 vote. Additional discussions were held with Metro Storage, LLC and the action before the Council is to review a code amendment for only “Personal self-storage facility” use and request a new standard – that being “H. The floor area ratio for any personal self-storage facility in the Industrial district shall not exceed 1.25”. This would not affect other industrial uses or the current 0.5 FAR standard under such district. This item was heard under a public hearing by the Planning Commission on November 26, 2019 who recommended approval by a vote of 6-0. page 10 Councilor Duggan asked who came up with the 1.25 FAR concept. Mr. Benetti replied that the applicant came up with the 1.25 figure. Councilor Duggan stated that this is not their city and not their rules. The city should be the one to determine those. He stated what he does not understand is, there was no discussion in the early application of the FAR until they came back requesting the Conditional Use Permit. He explained that he was very uncomfortable with the applicant getting around the need for a variance by changing the Code regulations. Councilor Petschel stated, as a point of clarification, that when the first item came before the Council, adding personal self-storage facilities as an approved use in the Industrial District, it had nothing to do with the building plans. There were no formal architectural plans presented to the city. Nobody knew that the building would be challenged by the FAR. She did not support the change to the City Code to allow personal self-storage uses in the Industrial Park and has never been in favor of this project from the beginning. She continued by stating that she does not like the fact that the Council has been presented with a project that says, ‘change your conditional use’ and ‘change your FAR’. Councilor Duggan stated that the rules have been made for the city and not for individual businesses. The current standards are being pushed aside. He did not believe this was the way a city should be run. Councilor Duggan stated he did not believe that the Council could create an ordinance that would then permit a variance. The applicant knew what they were going to do; whether they thought about it or not, the rule was still there. The applicant is saying that they cannot do business under that rule, so they need a variance. Mr. Pratt replied that this is true, unless the Council as the legislative body of the city wants to change the actual code language. Councilor Duggan stated that if he had known they would need a variance to the FAR regulation, then he would not have been supportive of this request in August. Councilor Miller stated that he was in agreement with Councilors Duggan and Petschel. He toured the facility in question in Burnsville and thought it was a well-managed, beautiful building. Had he known that the FAR would be an issue, then he would not have continued to support it. He was confident that if it was built in Mendota Heights, it would be run as well and be just as beautiful. Councilor Paper stated that the Planning Commission was unanimous in their recommendation to allow the FAR up to 1.25 for this specific use. He wondered, if the Council had determined the appropriate number on their own by discussing it in a work session setting, if things would be different. Councilor Duggan replied that the City already had the 0.5 FAR in place. He did not see any reason to change it. Councilor Petschel pointed out that the initial request that came before the Council was the consideration of the use in the Industrial Park. No architectural drawings were presented at that time, and they typically are not presented at that time. After the use is approved, then the architectural drawings and specifications come forward, and at that point, staff does the formula to see exactly what the FAR is going to be with the building. This is a series of steps an applicant goes through in terms of approving a building. To keep going back and saying ‘had I known’ – the Council had no way of knowing because there were no architectural drawings available. She did not support the change in the use but that was a totally different consideration than what is before the Council now, which is actual architectural drawings and a formula that exceeds the existing FAR. page 11 Councilor Paper asked how staff defines a floor. Mr. Benetti replied that the definition is ‘usable floor space’. Mayor Garlock noted that he has received a lot of favorable comments from residents that would like to see a self-storage facility in the Industrial Park. He took the time to go to Burnsville to look at their facility. Their facility is better than a lot of the facilities in the Industrial Park. He was in favor of changing it to a permitable use in the Industrial Park. Then he looked at the recommendations from the Planning Commission to remove the FAR from the ordinance, which was a 6-0 recommendation. He was in favor of that also. It was sent back to the Planning Commission for them to work out something with the applicant. It comes back to the Council now with a 6-0 vote from the Planning Commission recommending approval to increase the FAR for self-storage facilities only. He stated that he was in favor of that also. Councilor Duggan asked if this would come under the concept of spot zoning. Mr. Pratt replied this is not spot zoning because the changes under consideration apply to all defined personal self-storage facilities within the Industrial District. Councilor Miller questioned if the Council had set up a series of additional parameters that would make any future self-storage occupants limited in what they could do within the Industrial Park. Mr. Pratt confirmed. Mayor Garlock opened the floor for questions or comments from the public. Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that early on, the applicant tried to provide detailed information about the storage facility. The Council rejected it because that was not the issue before them. What was before the Council was whether or not the Council would permit self-storage facilities in the community. It was also clear that the applicant knew what they were going to put there. They should have known about the FAR as well. The changing of the FAR to 1.25 based on a particular business is poor city planning. He stated that he did not feel that this application was a good idea. Mr. Jim Walston, representing Metro Storage, stated that there is a perception problem with what Metro Storage is trying to accomplish. They identified this site and the property has been vacant for decades. It is an ideal site for this type of use. It is going to have great curb appeal and meets all criteria except for the FAR. It was brought up a few times in the previous discussion that Metro Storage is telling the city to push aside its ordinances and telling the city what to do to meet their own business objectives. Metro Storage has gone through all of the legal requirements asked by the city to apply for what they wanted to do. They respect the city’s governing authority over its own land use decisions. They have been patient and have extended the statutory deadlines. As he stood before the Council on November 6, 2019, it was discussed that they meet with city staff to come up with a solution. They did that and brought it to the Planning Commission. They voted 6-0 in favor and now it is before the Council. He stated that the practical impacts of having a FAR that is higher than 0.5 are being overstated. There has been some research done by the city staff that indicated there were a number of municipalities having a FAR in excess of 0.5; or some cities have deleted it altogether. With other regulatory restrictions the city has for this type of use; the height, the setbacks, the green space, parking, etc.; in addition to those other page 12 items that the Council put forward, Metro Storage is able to meet all of them. With FAR, because this is a later generation of a type of facility for self-storage, the city does have the stacking and that would be an issue if there was a more intense use. People are not accessing their storage units on a daily basis. The intense use of that just does not happen in this type of business. The FAR requirements, if this amendment is approved, would not be inconsistent with other cities. Councilor Duggan moved to deny ORDINANCE NO. 552 AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G. BY ADDING A NEW FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARD FOR PERSONAL SELF- STORAGE FACILITY USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Garlock) City Attorney Andrew Pratt informed the Council that a variance application may come forward. C) DISCUSSION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HISTORIC PILOT KNOB TASK FORCE City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that the Council has been looking for a way to plan for preservation and improvements to Historic Pilot Knob. Pilot Knob is of regional significance for both local and Native American histories. One of the concerns was that while there are a number of agencies and groups that have had portions of responsibilities for the well-being of Historic Pilot Knob, there has not really been any single group charged with its oversight. He said that a couple of months ago, the Council had appointed a study group to take a look at what some of the options might be and to make recommendations. The group recommended that there should be established goals and objectives relating to: 1. Capital Improvement Priorities 2. Natural Resources Management 3. Programs 4. Short- and Long-Term Strategies The committee recommended that since these goals and objectives would have end dates established, this should be structured as a task force rather than as an ongoing city commission. The recommendation was that this task force would be made up of seven individuals who would have relations to Pilot Knob. Members of the Task Force would serve until the activities and goals were accomplished or until they chose to resign. Councilor Duggan noted that this is long overdue. He believes Pilot Knob to be a keystone of the city. He stated that it has always been the goal of the Pilot Knob Preservation Association to get this site listed on the national historical register and they have succeeded. It is a fabulous site and is a part of Mendota Heights. Councilor Miller stated this is a place of cultural, spiritual, and historical significance and he was excited to see this get started. page 13 Council Petschel stated that this is a project that started with baby steps and has moved to various partnerships, and is now a recognized historic site. It deserves more attention and guidance. Looking at the future needs of this site is something the city wants to be involved in, however, is not something the city can afford on its own. Councilor Petschel listed the opportunities that a task force could provide. Ms. Gail Lewellan, representing the Pilot Knob Preservation Association, stated that what has been stated is very much in concert with the concept that the study committee talked about. This is an opportunity to form stronger partnerships with the groups that also have a stake in Pilot Knob. It is a National Register of Historic Places site that is under the Council’s care and the decision making will continue to be under the Council’s care. This site has become a very important destination for school children to visit and learn about. There are some challenges to accessibility and with erosion. There is a need for additional interpretation at the site. In light of that, she requested that the Council approve the recommendation for the task force. Councilor Paper stated that this site is so historically significant both good and bad; locally, statewide, federally; it has tremendous meaning to so many people and Mendota Heights is lucky to be the stewards it. It is the city’s responsibility now to figure out a way to let more people know about this site. Councilor Duggan moved to authorize the establishment of a Task Force for Historic Pilot Knob, and authorize the study group to identify candidates for appointment by the Council to the Task Force. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill encourage everyone to check the City’s website for winter break activities. He stated that the City is hiring ice rink attendants and encouraged those interested to apply. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Duggan encouraged residents to shop locally and drive safely during this holiday season. He asked how the new public works equipment was working. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that Mr. Boland informed him that the city has four truck routes that are taken care of through a single axle dump truck, with a front and a wing plow. There are six other routes that are smaller, with pick-up trucks for routes that include cul-de-sacs, trails, and parking lots. Councilor Duggan asked if there were any holiday celebrations taking place at Mendota Plaza or Mendota Village. Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that staff has issued a permit for a Menorah Lighting. That event will take place in Market Square Park. page 14 Councilor Duggan expressed his appreciation to Ms. Lewellan and the Pilot Knob Preservation Association for all of the work they have done. Councilor Paper stated he is excited to see what happens with Pilot Knob with more attention being paid to it. He stated the Menorah Lighting is scheduled for December 22, 2019. He expressed appreciation to the Public Works Department for the work that they do. He appreciates seeing noticeably less salt on the roads, which he believes is a win/win for everyone. Councilor Miller complimented the Public Works Department for a great job. If a resident has a fire hydrant outside of their house, he encouraged them to remove the snow from around it. Mayor Garlock stated that everyone should be proud of the St. Thomas Academy football team for making it to the championship game in the State High School Football Tournament. Councilor Petschel referenced something she read in the Pioneer Press. The University of Minnesota has a new endeavor that is extremely well funded. It is a Department of Pests. They want to address the emerald ash borer, the pine beetle, and buckthorn in the state. One thing they had proposed was to cut the buckthorn and then treat the stumps. Now they are saying to not do that because it comes back and re- seeds itself. There needs to be native plantings planted very densely around the buckthorn to cut off the sunlight, the water, etc. from the buckthorn and choke it out. That is proving to be more successful. It is going to be important to follow their research. Councilor Petschel thanked everyone who lives on Wagon Wheel as it is a beautiful drive with all of the decorative lights. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock ATTEST: Mayor _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 15 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Closed Session Held December 3, 2019 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a closed session of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at the City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 6:34 pm. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS A motion to adjourn to a closed session pursuant to Minnesota Statute §13D.03 for discussion of labor negotiations strategy was made by Councilor Petschel, and seconded by Councilor Duggan. The motion passed unanimously. Those present in the closed session included Mayor Garlock, Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, and Petschel. Also in attendance were City Administrator Mark McNeill and Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson. Councilor Paper arrived at 6:56 PM. At 6:59 pm, a motion was made by Councilor Miller, seconded by Mayor Garlock, to return to the open meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The City Administrator noted that no official action was taken by the Council in the closed session. The Council will provide a summary of the closed session at the regular meeting. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 pm. ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission Work Session Held November 6, 2019 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Parks and Recreation Commission, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118. CALL TO ORDER Chair Steve Goldade called the meeting to order at 4:32pm. Commissioners Dan Sherer, Bob Klepperich, Patrick Cotter, David Miller and Pat Hinderscheid were also present. Stephanie Meyer arrived at 4:35 pm. City staff present included Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator; Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator; and Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director. REVIEW OPEN MEETING LAW Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator, reminded the commission of the state’s Open Meeting Law Statute. Each year staff reminds the commissioners of the statute, answers questions, and explains the importance of following the Minnesota Statute requirements. Commissioners discussed the proper avenue to share information and agreed they were in compliance. REVIEW ADDITION TO AGENDA PROCESS Meredith Lawrence explained the Chair and Vice-Chair’s policy for additions to the agenda for regularly scheduled meetings. Packets are emailed to commissioners by Friday at 6:00pm the week prior to the meeting. If commissioners have items they would like added to the agenda they must email the Recreation Program Coordinator, Chair and Vice Chair by the day before the meeting at noon to be considered. Once the request is received staff will work with the Chair and Vice Chair to determine if the item can be added based on available information and time, as well as meeting agenda length and urgency of the request. Chair Goldade expressed his desire to receive commission input, but he wants it to be organized and properly prepared by staff. He would also like to keep the meetings between 60 and 90 minutes in respect to people’s time. PARKS FUNDING/BUDGET Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator, presented background on the Special Parks Fund and General Levy Funds. The commission discussed the city’s two budgeted financial obligations: Par 3 and Ice Arena Bonds. The commission discussed whether the $4,000 Park Dedication fees were still fair compared to other comparable cities. The commissioners all felt the fees should be reviewed every few years. page 17 PRIORITY LIST DISCUSSION/REVIEW PARKS TOUR Ms. Jacobson gave the commissioners the results from the proposed priority list that the Commission and City Council came up with at the July Joint Work Session. She reviewed the importance of providing staff direction on projects they would like to recommend to the City Council. The commissioners reviewed the list based off the number of votes received from the commissioners and City Council. Staff recommended the commission focus on projects that the City Council and Commission on behalf of the residents are interested in. The commissioners asked staff to recommend adding dugouts to Mendakota Park. There is some concern that there may not be space in the current facility, so staff will research this. The commission discussed the long-term plan for playground replacements. Staff recommended a playground replacement every other year, which would enable playgrounds to be utilized until they reach the end of their useful life. The commissioners will review the 2018 Inspection report to determine which playground should be replaced next. Commissioners agreed that Marie Park is the likely candidate. The commission will discuss long-term planning for playground replacement at the December Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. The commissioners discussed the possibility of adding a Par 3 Trail Connection in addition to an Ivy Hills Park Trail Connection. Commissioners asked questions regarding the possible projects and asked staff to gather information and present it at the December Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. ADJOURN The commission adjourned the meeting at 6:18. Minutes Taken By: Meredith Lawrence Recreation Program Coordinator page 18 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING November 12, 2019 The November meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, November 12, 2019, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. 1. Call to Order – Chair Steve Goldade called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Steve Goldade, Commissioners: Patrick Cotter, Pat Hinderschied, Bob Klepperich, Stephanie Meyer, David Miller, and Dan Sherer; absent: Student Representative Matthew Boland. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator, Cheryl Jacobson and Public Works Director, Ryan Ruzek. 3. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 4. Approval of Agenda Motion Klepperich/second Miller, to approve the agenda AYES 7: NAYS 0 5.a Approval of Minutes from September 10, 2019 Regular Meeting Motion Hinderscheid/second Miller to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission regular meeting. AYES 7: NAYS 0 5.b Approval of Minutes from September 25, 2019 Parks Tour Meeting Motion Klepperich/second Cotter to approve the minutes of the September 25, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Parks Tour meeting. AYES 7: NAYS 0 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) None. 7. Acknowledgement of Reports 7.a Par 3 Update The Par 3 Update was provided to the Commission members prior to the meeting. There were no specific questions or concerns raised about the report. Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, briefly reviewed the 2019 September Financial Report. Staff is very happy with the performance of the Par 3 financially this season and are looking forward to operations next year and keeping the course functioning financially. Commissioner Hinderscheid asked about the equipment in the parking lot and what the purpose was. Ms. Lawrence replied that there is a road project on Dodd Road and the contractor is using the Par 3 lot for staging. page 19 Chair Goldade asked if there was a program that was exciting for Ms. Lawrence at the Par 3. Ms. Lawrence replied that they did do some different programs this year that brought in more revenue and good community building programming. Commissioner Hinderscheid asked for an update on the marketing for the course. Ms. Lawrence replied that they have scaled back on the marketing pretty heavily. Staff has gone to more of a digital social media marketing platform and are utilizing more of the city publications, although Groupon is still being utilized. Not all of the financials are available for the end of year, but staff expects to provide that in the annual report. 7.b Recreation Update There were no specific questions or concerns raised about the report. Chair Goldade noted that the city is still looking for skating instructors and warming house attendants. 7.c Parks Improvement Update Public Works Director, Ryan Ruzek, noted that the playground improvements were underway at Hagstrom-King Park Playground and Wentworth Park. There is quite a bit of work left to do at Hagstrom-King. Wentworth Park is nearing completion. Staff will possibly move in some boulders and other features in the spring. Wentworth Park will still be under work with the warming house, parking lot and trails. There will be future discussions on tennis court improvements. Mr. Ruzek continued for the Warming House he is looking at possibly getting a 30 x 40-foot pole-frame construction. He received a second quote. The first company had quoted a cost of approximately $145,000 - $150,000. The second quote he received was approximately $210,000. He is waiting for a final response from the attorney on whether the utilities need to be included in the project. If they are, that would put the city over the state’s threshold of $175,000 requiring competitive bidding. The city would have to have its own blueprints drafted before they could competitively bid the project. Staff hopes to have utilities installed around May 2020, and hopefully get the building built in the spring of 2020. Chair Goldade asked that the Commission be informed when this goes before the City Council. Commissioner Hinderscheid asked if there were any solar opportunities at this building. Mr. Ruzek replied that has not been addressed. It is sitting in a pretty open area, just of the south of where the building will be located is a hockey rink, so there could be a tree blocking sunlight. Chair Goldade reminded the public that there is grant money being used to make improvements at Wentworth. Motion Meyer/second Cotter to acknowledge the staff reports AYES 7: NAYES 0 8. Unfinished Business page 20 8.a Parks Tour Review Chair Goldade noted that the Commission has been purposeful getting out in the parks doing tours, and seeing what is going on in them. They did one in the spring and wanted to do another in late fall. Recreation Program Coordinator Ms. Meredith Lawrence provided a review of what they discovered on their tours. Commissioner Hinderscheid noted that at Ivy Hills Park, one of the tennis courts can be converted for volleyball. Commissioner Cotter stated how impressed he was with how well the parks are maintained. Every park they visited was incredibly well maintained; kudos to the staff. Chair Goldade requested everyone to start thinking about the spring park tour. He also encouraged the public to let them know which parks they would like the Commission to visit. 8.b Summary of Work Session Chair Goldade explained that from time-to-time they gather as representatives of the citizens of Mendota Heights in order to provide feedback to the City Council and the city in regard to updates and improvements they want to see in the parks. The Commission spent time last week working on priorities. Ms. Meredith Lawrence noted that the Commission met last Wednesday, November 5, 2019, to discuss park improvements for next year, and hopefully for years in the future. In the work session, no official recommendations were made to the Council; however, they did go through the priority list that was discussed with the Council at the summer work session. It is hoped that the Commission could start looking at playground needs and what playground could be next remodeled. At the December Commission meeting, staff will be coming back and providing the Commission with more information. Staff provided the Commission with the playground inspection report that was completed in May 2018. The Commission was asked to review the inspection report before the December Commission meeting. Commissioner Hinderscheid asked for a placeholder to review the Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground annual grant to take advantage of possible savings. Chair Goldade noted that this is an exciting time for parks in Mendota Heights due to recent developments; that is one way the city funds the parks. For instance, the development at Highway 62 and Dodd Road, as well as others in the city, is the time that the city has to really make a difference in what they are doing in the parks. That Special Parks Fund, along with the city budget, are two ways that fund what is improved in the parks. Chair Goldade continued by stating that some of the exciting work that came out of the work session was this idea that they want to schedule park updates on an every other year basis; similar to what is being done at Hagstrom King and Wentworth. Looking at the nine parks that have playgrounds and putting them on some sort of schedule for updates. So the Commission page 21 will be looking for input on that and encourages residents to speak to a Commissioner or staff about ideas. Also, the idea of addressing annual safety issues and maintenance needs at all of the parks at any time is a great idea. The city staff is doing a great job of keeping the parks a place where kids and adults can successfully play and have fun. 8.c 2020 Tennis Court Rehabilitation Mr. Ruzek noted that as part of the parks tour, they looked at the Wentworth Park tennis court, which seemed to show some excessive cracking, settlement, and uneven wear of the surface. The existing chain link fencing looked like it had a number of corrosion issues; the entrance has the fence over it, which makes the court non-ADA compliant. It is staff’s recommendation that the city apply for a USTA grant, similar to the Marie Park tennis court, to look at rehabilitating Wentworth Park tennis courts. If staff can get plans out to bid, they could be looking at late 2020. In regard to Friendly Hills Tennis Court, the surface looked acceptable so staff’s recommendation would be to meet about getting a surfacing company out there and get a couple of assessments and written quotes. It is hoped that both of these tennis courts could be improved in 2020. It was suggested that one of these courts should have a pickleball court striped next to the tennis court; one pickleball court and one tennis court within an existing tennis court frame. Mr. Ruzek suggested the Commission discuss this. The issue he saw, if they were looking at Wentworth Park, he was unsure if the city would receive its entire $20,000 if it only has one tennis court and one pickleball court. The city may have to give up some of those grant funds for the Wentworth Park improvements. The improvements at Friendly Hills Tennis Court, he believes that does get used quite a bit by tennis players. Removing one tennis court may not be the best fit for that location. There is a paved hockey rink that staff could look at improving at Friendly Hills if it is felt that the Marie Park configuration does draw or meet the needs of the pickleball users in the city. Commissioner Hinderscheid asked if the city had every received any feedback on the sport court at Ivy Hills Park. Mr. Ruzek replied that residents either do not like the sport courts or they prefer the asphalt. It seems to be a pretty even number of calls for both types of surfaces. The sport courts are a little softer, so it is easier on the knees and joints; however, the ball reacts differently. Commissioner Hinderscheid noted that he met with Ms. Katie Lowe, the Executive Director of the YMCA, and while there were discussing pickleball, she noted that pickleball was a hugely popular item at the Y.M.C.A. Commissioner Sherer asked for clarification on what type of resurfacing they would be discussing; for cost comparative purposes they would not be talking about just sealing of the cracks, it would be a full-on resurfacing material and repainting for the Friendly Hills proposal. Mr. Ruzek replied that at Friendly Hills he was unsure if they could just go ahead with a sand acrylic filler to fill in some of the low areas, if they need to do any stripping of the existing surfacing so that they can get a better adhesion with the new product – those are unknowns at this time. page 22 Chair Goldade noted that the city currently had four pickleball courts at Marie Park in the hockey rink; and staff has mentioned a couple of times of adding more pickleball courts to the hockey rink at Friendly Hills; and he thought he heard Mr. Ruzek say that if they were to do one tennis court and one pickleball court, the city could possibly lose grant money from the USTA. Mr. Ruzek noted that he did not believe that the USTA would offer any grant dollars for just resurfacing at Friendly Hills; he thought it would require a full reconstruction. Chair Goldade, referencing the information Commissioner Hinderscheid provided that pickleball is very popular, asked if staff was receiving phone calls for more pickleball courts. Ms. Lawrence replied that before the Marie pickleball courts were completed she did receive a lot of phone calls. Now that they are complete, she has not received any; however, based on other cities it does seem like it is a popular activity and if more courts were available, more people would play. The city has not had a full season with the Marie pickleball courts, and she would be curious to see how much they are utilized. Commissioner Hinderscheid commented that the city has been contacted by someone in the community about providing pickleball. He encouraged the Commission to go down to Eagan and see how utilized their courts are. He also believed it to be one of the fastest growing sports as it is great for seniors. He would strongly advocate for having at least one dedicated pickleball court. Commissioner Cotter asked if there had been a discussion about eventually being able to make the ice rink at Friendly Hills into pickleball so there would not be the issue of trying to combine a tennis court and a pickleball court. Ms. Lawrence replied that this is something that Mr. Ruzek has recommended in the past. Staff believes that would be the best option. Commissioner Miller asked about noise complaints relating to pickleball. Ms. Lawrence replied that was one of the biggest issues that other cities are having right now with pickleball. Motion Cotter/second Meyer to recommend moving forward with the full Wentworth Park tennis court project (applying for a USTA grant) and moving forward with the resurfacing of the Friendly Hills Tennis Court Chair Goldade asked for an amendment that they add four pickleball courts at the Friendly Hills Hockey Rink. It was determined that this be added as a separate motion. Commissioner Sherer followed up with regard to Friendly Hills, staff looked at the cost of resurfacing and if it is truly a cost benefit to go ahead with that, otherwise if it is like most pavement resurfacing it is something that is a band-aid and cracks tend to come back in a couple of years – in his opinion the $20,000 cost would not be worth it. Mr. Ruzek replied that staff could actively seek quotes and bring that information back to the Commission in the spring or early summer and hopefully answer some of these questions. Chair Goldade summarized the motion as being a full asphalt tennis court replacement at Wentworth Park and bids on sealing the Friendly Hills tennis courts AYES 7: NAYES 0 In response to the question of pickleball courts being discussed this evening or being brought back at a future meeting. page 23 Motion Hinderscheid/second Miller to ask staff to research the feasibility of developing dedicated pickleball courts somewhere in Mendota Heights Commissioner Klepperich stated that this had already been done. Ms. Lawrence noted that staff did bring a recommendation last spring to do dedicated pickleball courts at Hagstrom-King Park and that was not brought forward to the Council. Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that he was not just focusing on Hagstrom King Park. Chair Goldade asked to keep pickleball on the agenda for December and ask staff to think about where they might put them, including reviewing the Hagstrom King proposal and more information on the Friendly Hills Hockey. Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that would be fine. Chair Goldade stated that he would support keeping it on as an agenda item and if Mr. Ruzek was not going to be available in December that it be added to the January 2020 meeting. He did believe that there are people in the city that are interested in it and it would give them a chance to provide feedback to the Commission. It is cost prohibitive and there are a bunch of negatives; however, the Commission has changed since they talked about Hagstrom King Park so he would be supportive of keeping it on the agenda for further discussion. Commissioner Cotter agreed as he would like to learn a little bit more about what the options are. 8.d Community Engagement Check In Chair Goldade noted that the Mom’s Club did meet with their Community Group. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence noted that a few of the teams were hitting roadblocks with some of their community groups. She asked for a check-in on what is an attainable new deadline to have the information back. Mendota Heights Senior Living Facility – Patrick Cotter, Steve Goldade • Plan to meet November 26, 2019, at The Village Commons at 1:00 p.m. Local Students – Matthew Boland, Steve Goldade • Chair Goldade has not had a chance to meet with Student Representative Boland Community Education – Bob Klepperich, Stephanie Meyer • They were not able to identify a good group to meet with • They have identified a Neighborhood Watch that they may be able to work with • There is also a Book Club that could be a possibility to consult Rotary Club – Pat Hinderscheid, Steve Goldade • Met with President of the West St. Paul/Mendota Heights Rotary Club • There are 35-40 members of the Rotary Club; their initiatives include development community partnerships with other groups, cities, park and recreation projects/programs • They can raise money for community projects; they raised money for a park in West St. Paul • The local Rotary Club can apply for grants from the Rotary District • The club can also provide volunteers for projects • Everyone in the club is engaged in the community page 24 • The President is going to schedule a date for the Commission to make a Parks and Recreation Presentation • They meet every Wednesday from 7:30 – 8:30 p.m. at Southview Country Club • They are currently booked out until January 2020 and they will provide a date sometime in January It is the hope of the Commission to have these Community Engagement Meetings finished by their January 2020 meeting. 9. New Business 9.a Community Engagement Presentation Commissioners Sherer and Miller presented their findings from the Community Engagement Session with the Mom’s Club: • Met with 5-6 members at Commissioner Sherer’s home • All were residents of Mendota Heights • Went through the survey questions and had general conversation about the parks How long have they lived in Mendota Heights? • 3 years to all of their lives Top reasons for living in the community • Uniqueness of Mendota Heights having mature trees, open space, large lots • Attracted to the neighborhood playgrounds and the connectivity provided by the trial system Does the family use the playground equipment at the parks? • Overwhelmingly yes • Frequently • Every day in the warm months What do you like about the parks? • Green space • Park shelter What would you change? • More swings at the playgrounds as kids will fight over them • More equipment better suited for older kids – ages 8+ o More climbing structures o Bigger slides o Ninja course type of equipment o More drinking fountains o More shade – not just trees but maybe small canopies o Storage bins for regular common-use items to be shared o Sandboxes or places to dig o Covered dugouts at the playing fields o Community pool with water slides o Misting or spraying for cooling • Moms with kids of different ages like the amenities/options at Hagstrom-King page 25 10. Staff Announcements Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence shared the following announcements: • The city is in desperate need of seasonal staff; warming house attendance and skating instructor. Application available on the city’s website and at City Hall • Orbit Earth – a new event – received a grant from ISD 197 Foundation so this will be a free event over the winter break (December 30 at 1:30 – 2:30 at Mendota Elementary). Staff needs to know how many to expect so registration is encouraged • Other events can be found on the city’s website 11. Student Representative Update None. 12. Commission Comments and Park Updates Commissioner Cotter • Was out at Rogers Lake and two things struck him from the comments this evening o Sand volleyball is a great activity, the sand is well maintained o The skate park – conducive to teenagers Commissioner Sherer • Hagstrom-King playground installations is progressing • Basketball courts are being used • Everything is looking great at the parks Commissioner Klepperich • Drove through the parking lot at Mendakota Park today, his truck thermometer said 18 degrees, he did not get out of the truck and there was no one there • It looked very peaceful and quiet, very clean and nice • He also drove by Hagstrom-King and they were pouring concrete footings to anchor the playground equipment Commissioner Meyer • Everything great at Marie Park and Kensington Park • She also went on a little field trip and checked out the playground in a little more detail for future discussion. She will share pictures at the next meeting Commissioner Hinderscheid • There is a picnic table at the Dog Park that has a canopy that provides some shade; however, he agrees that it could use more shade • He was very encouraged this summer and fall to see how much the tennis courts at Ivy Hills Park were used • Thanked Ms. Lawrence for the favorable results at the Par 3 • Appreciated all of the comments from the Mom’s Club • Very encouraged by all of the improvements in the pipeline right now Commissioner Miller • He believed the work session was very productive and helpful and will reset the direction of the parks page 26 • Most of the little league equipment at Victoria Highlands playground has been cleaned up; there are still some things that probably will sit there all winter – bases and tarps, but nothing that would be harmful or a big deal • Victoria Highlands playground and park are in good shape Chair Goldade • Excited the new playground equipment is going in at Wentworth Park • The Valley Park path has been reopened • Excited for the future agenda items, which include playground updates and more discussions about pickleball • Encouraged resident / community involvement and feedback • Thanked staff for all the preparations made for the work session last week and for the meeting this evening 13. Adjourn Motion Cotter/Second Sherer to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 PM AYES 7: NAYS 0 Minutes Taken By: C. Darlene Oehlke Independent Contractor page 27 Request for City Council Action DATE: December 17, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Ordinance 549 Amend City Code Section 5-3 Concerning Domestic Animals and Approve the Summary Publication COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is asked to approve Ordinance 549 amending City Code Title 5, Chapter 3 concerning Domestic Animals. Background The current City Code, Section 5-3, provides for the licensing of dogs. It is proposed to remove this section of the Code and not require residents to license their dogs beginning in 2020. The dog license fee was removed from the fee schedule and the proposed revenue was not included in the proposed budget for 2020. The Code amendment would also not require a dog license for use of the off leash dog area located near Pilot Knob. The ordinance will also update other sections of the Domestic Animal Code, to bring the language up to date and make it consistent with State Statutes regarding the registration of dangerous dogs and the appeal hearing for dog owners. A dangerous dog registration fee of $500 has been included in the 2020 fee schedule. This is the maximum the city is allow to charge per MN State Statutes. A definition for habitual barking was also added as “noise over at least a five-minute period of time with one minute or less lapse of time between each barking or crying noise during the five-minute period”. Recommendation Staff recommends that Ordinance 549 be approved which would delete City Code Sec. 5-3 concerning the licensing of dogs and update Sections 5-3-4 through 5-3-7 of the City Code to clarify and bring the language up to date with State Statutes. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt Ordinance 549 Amending Mendota Heights City Code Title 5, Chapter 3 Concerning Domestic Animals, and also approve the summary publication of the ordinance. Approval of the Ordinance requires a simple majority vote of the Council. Approval of the Summary Publication of the Ordinance requires a 4/5th vote of the Council. page 28 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 549 AMENDING MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY CODE TITLE 5, CHAPTER 3 CONCERNING DOMESTIC ANIMALS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, desires to no longer license dogs beginning in the year 2020. The Council also desires to amend Title 5, Chapter 3 of the City Code to provide clarity and make it consistent with state statutes. The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights hereby ordains: Section 5-3-2 regarding the licensing of dogs is hereby deleted in its entirety. Sections 5-3-3 through 5-3-7 are hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as follows: 5-3-3: REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS INVOLVING DOGS: B. Confinement Of Certain Dogs: 1. Dangerous, Vicious Dogs: The owner of a dog shall confine within a building or secure enclosure every fierce, dangerous or viciousdog, except when securely muzzled and in the control of an adult person in accordance with this chapter. C. Biting Dogs: No owner shall permit his/her dog to attack or bite a person or another domestic animal outside the owner's premises. D. Dog Waste: 2. Waste Removal Required: It is unlawful for the owner of any dog or any person having custody of or in control of a dog, causing orto permitting anythe dog to be on any property, public or private, not owned or possessed by such person, to and fail to remove excrement left by such dog to a proper receptacle. 5-3-4: POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND DANGEROUS DOGS: B. Declaration Of Potentially Dangerous Dog Or Dangerous Dog: 3. Appeal And Hearing: a. Any owner of a dog declared dangerous may appeal by serving upon the city clerk, within three (3)fourteen (14) business days of receiptthe date of the notice declaring the dog dangerous,, inclusive of the date the notice is received, a written notice of appeal. page 29 b. A hearing officer shall hear the appeal hearing within fourteen (14) days of the date the declaration notice is served upon the dog ownerof the request for a hearing. The appeal hearing shall be conducted in an informal manner, and the Minnesota rules of civil procedure and rules of evidence shall not be strictly applied. A record shall be made of the hearing. The hearing need not be transcribed but may be transcribed at the sole expense of the party who requests transcription. c. After considering all evidence submitted, the hearing officer shall make written findings of fact and reach a conclusion whether the dog is a dangerous dog within ten (10) days after the hearing. The findings and conclusions shall be made and served upon the dog owner within five (5) business days of the appeal hearingas soon as practical. D. Registration Of Dangerous Dogs: All dangerous dogs must be registered with the Mendota Heights police department annually during the month of January of each year. At the time of registration, each owner of a dangerous dog must provide the city clerk with proof of liability insurance. and payment in full of the required fee as set forth in the fee schedule adopted by the City Council. If a portion of the year has elapsed when a new registration is made, a registration will be issued for the remainder of the year for a pro rata fee. In computing such fee, any unexpired fraction of a month shall be counted as one month. 5-3-5: NUISANCE CONDITIONS: A. Barking Dogs: No person shall keep or harbor a dog which habitually barks or cries. Any such dog is hereby declared a public nuisance. Habitual barking or crying is defined as noise over at least a five-minute period of time with one minute or less lapse of time between each barking or crying noise during the five-minute period. 5-3-7: IMPOUNDMENT AND REDEMPTION PROVISIONS: C. Impounding Dogs: 2. Impoundment Period: Any dog so impounded shall be confined in the animal shelter in a humane manner for a period of not less than five (5) days, if not claimed prior thereto by the owner. If said dog is not claimed by its owner within the five (5) day period, it shall become property of the city, and may be disposed of in a humane manner or may be sold to or placed in the custody of some other suitable person. If a dog is destroyed pursuant to this chapter, the license for such dog shall expire. 3. Licensed Dogs; Notice To Owner: Immediately upon the impounding of a dog wearing a current license, the animal warden shall make reasonable effort to notify the owner of such dog of such impoundment and of the conditions whereby the owner may regain custody of the dog. The animal warden shall immediately confirm any verbal notice in writing. D. Redemption Of Impounded Dogs; Costs: page 30 2. Any dog impounded hereunder, not being held for suspected disease, may be reclaimed by the owner within five (5) days, upon payment by the owner to the city of an impounding fee as determined by the city council, plus the cost of the city for keeping such dog in the city animal shelter. If the dog so reclaimed requires a license under the provisions of this chapter, such license shall be obtained pursuant to section 5-3-2 of this chapter before such dog is released. This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 17th day of December, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 31 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 549 AMENDING SECTION 5-3 DOMESTIC ANIMALS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, desires to no longer license dogs beginning in the year 2020. The Council also desires to amend Title 5, Chapter 3 of the City Code for clarity and to make it consistent with Minnesota State Statutes. The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, MN ordains: Section 5-3-2: Dog Licensing Provisions is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 5-3-4: Potentially Dangerous and Dangerous Dogs; and Section 5-3-7: Impoundment and Redemption Provisions are amended to maintain consistency with Minnesota State Statutes. Sections 5-3-3 through 5-3-7 are also being amended for clarity. This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. The complete text of this ordinance may be obtained at the city hall or from the City’s website at www.mendota-heights.com. page 32 DATE: December 17, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2020 Employee Position Placement/Pay Classification Plan BACKGROUND Included with this memo is the 2020 Employee Position Placement/Pay Classification Plan for non-union employees for 2020. The 2020 plan reflects a 3.00% increase. BUDGET IMPACT This wage increase is budgeted for in the 2020 budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the attached resolution adopting the 2020 Employee Position Placement/Pay Classification Plan. This action requires a simple majority vote of the city council. page 33 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019 - 99 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2020 PAY CLASSIFICATION PLAN FOR NON-UNION EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a grade and step pay system for non-union employees; and WHEREAS, based upon recommendations of the City Administrator, the City Council has determined the appropriate placement of each position in a grade and the incumbent employee in a step; and WHEREAS, it is also necessary to set salaries for part-time employees. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the following 2020 compensation items are approved as of January 1, 2020: 1. The 2020 Employee Position Placement/Pay Classification Plan for non-union employees. 2. The following salaries shall be implemented for part-time employees: Fire Chief $19,794* Assistant Fire Chief $11,601* Fire Marshal $33.28an hour *Annual compensation for administrative and other department responsibilities excluding fire calls. 3. The following stipends are implemented for: Captains $1,865/annually Training Officer $4,096/annually Assistant Training Officer $1,638/annually 4. The following hourly rates of pay for volunteer firefighters for fire calls and training: 0-1 Years $10.30 FF I, First Responder, Hazmat Operational $13.67 FF II, First Responder, Hazmat Operational $15.70 Lieutenant $16.38 page 34 Captain $17.75 Assistant Training Officer $17.75 Training Officer $20.48 Assistant Fire Chief $24.58** Fire Chief $24.58** Special Operations Team Member Call Out Same as Mendota Hts Police Officer on SOT **Hourly compensation for fire calls and training. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 17th day of December 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 35 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PROPOSED SALARY MATRIX (2020) Grade Position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 $39,232 $40,605 $42,026 $43,497 $45,019 $46,595 $48,226 2 Community Service Officer $41,586 $43,042 $44,548 $46,107 $47,721 $49,391 $51,120 3 $44,081 $45,624 $47,220 $48,874 $50,584 $52,355 $54,187 4 Office Support Assistant $46,726 $48,362 $50,054 $51,806 $53,619 $55,495 $57,438 5 Accounting Clerk Utility Billing Clerk Police Support Specialist $49,530 $51,263 $53,057 $54,914 $56,836 $58,825 $60,884 6 Secretary/Deputy City Clerk $52,501 $54,339 $56,241 $58,209 $60,247 $62,355 $64,538 7 Natural Resources Technician $55,651 $57,599 $59,615 $61,701 $63,861 $66,096 $68,410 8 Recreation Program Coordinator Communications Coordinator $58,990 $61,055 $63,192 $65,404 $67,693 $70,062 $72,514 9 $62,530 $64,718 $66,983 $69,328 $71,754 $74,266 $76,865 10 Senior Engineering Technician $66,282 $68,601 $71,002 $73,487 $76,059 $78,722 $81,477 11 City Clerk $70,258 $72,717 $75,262 $77,897 $80,623 $83,445 $86,366 12 $74,474 $77,080 $79,779 $82,571 $85,460 $88,451 $91,547 13 $78,942 $81,706 $84,565 $87,525 $90,589 $93,759 $97,040 14 Public Works Superintendent $83,679 $86,608 $89,639 $92,776 $96,024 $99,385 $102,863 15 $88,699 $91,804 $95,018 $98,343 $101,785 $105,347 $109,035 16 Police Captain Community Development Director $94,021 $97,312 $100,719 $104,243 $107,893 $111,668 $115,576 17 Finance Director Assistant City Administrator $99,663 $103,151 $106,762 $110,498 $114,365 $118,369 $122,511 18 Public Works Director Police Chief $105,643 $109,341 $113,167 $117,127 $121,228 $125,470 $129,861 19 $111,982 $115,901 $119,957 $124,155 $128,501 $132,999 $137,653 20 City Administrator $118,700 $122,854 $127,155 $131,605 $136,211 $140,978 $145,913 21 $125,822 $130,226 $134,784 $139,501 $144,383 $149,438 $154,668 22 $133,372 $138,040 $142,871 $147,871 $153,047 $158,404 $163,947 Step 4 = Midpoint Step page 36 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 17, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Office Support Assistant Job Description and Position Recruitment INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve the job description, set the pay grade and authorize staff to begin the recruitment process to fill the Office Support Assistant position included in the FY2020 budget. BACKGROUND During the 2020 budget process, staff identified the need for additional clerical and administrative support within city departments, specifically Administration/Recreation, Finance and Community Development. The new Office Support Assistant position will be responsible for assisting city departments with a variety of clerical and administrative support tasks. The position will work under the direction of the Assistant City Administrator, with guidance from the Recreation Program Coordinator, Finance Director and Community Development Director. Examples of the work performed include assisting in the implementation of park and recreation programs, activities and special events; assisting with the scheduling of fields and facilities; providing administrative support to various advisory commissions including taking minutes at monthly meetings; document imaging and electronic file management support and clerical support for code enforcement. In order to move the hiring process along, staff is seeking approval of the job description and pay grade as well as authorization to begin recruitment, in hopes of having the position filled by February 1, 2020. BUDGET IMPACT The Office Support Assistant position is included in the 2020 budget. The Office Support Assistant is a benefitted, full-time position. The position is ranked at pay grade four on the city’s Pay Classification Plan/Pay Matrix. The anticipated 2020 pay range is $22.46 to 27.61 per hour. If the 2020 Pay Matrix is approved at the December 17 meeting, the Office Support Assistant position will be posted at an hourly rate of $22.46 to $24.91 per hour, which is step one through step four (midpoint) of pay grade four. page 37 ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Office Support Assistant job description, the assigned pay grade of grade four and authorize staff to begin the recruitment process to fill the position. ACTION REQUIRED If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the Office Support Assistant job description, the assigned pay grade and authorize staff to begin the recruitment process to fill the position. page 38 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Office Support Assistant Department: Administration FLSA Status: Non-Exempt General Definition of Work Performs intermediate administrative work coordinating and completing a variety of clerical and administrative support tasks related to city departments. Assists with parks and recreation programs, activities and special events, completes data entry, document imaging, prepares correspondence and documents, and provides information. This position will provide back-up capacity for other office support positions, including coverage for the city hall reception desk. Work is performed under the supervision of the Assistant City Administrator, with guidance from the Recreation Program Coordinator, Finance Director and Community Development Director. Qualification Requirements To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential function satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or ability required. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. Essential Functions 1. Provides administrative support to the daily operations of Parks and Recreation Department. Assists the Recreation Program Coordinator in the implementation of park and recreation programs, activities and special events including responding to public inquiries; processing registrations and payments; interacting with participants; preparing rosters and participant materials; ordering supplies, and chaperoning activities and events. 2. Assists with the scheduling and use of city fields and facilities and the permitting of special events; assists with preparation, and set-up of facilities and fields within computerized scheduling system; tracks use of fields and facilities by permit holders. 3. Assists with advisory commission meetings by preparing, assembling and delivering meeting agendas and packets; assists in preparing presentations, reports, correspondence and other meeting materials; tracks advisory commission items for inclusion on city council agendas; takes meeting minutes and attends meetings, as needed. 4. Provides administrative and clerical support to city departments including processing and preparing correspondence and documents, distributing and responding mail/email, answering phone calls, making copies, managing flow of information, and utilizing computer programs/software. 5. Provides customer service to the public in person, via the telephone and/or email; takes and routes incoming calls, answers questions from the general public, and assists customers. 6. Assists Community Development Director with enforcement of City Code violations; processes complaints, prepares correspondence and tracks violations and notices. 7. Organizes and maintains electronic document management systems for various departments by performing document imaging. Maintains files in records retention system; monitors, retains and purges records, as needed. 8. Provides back-up for city reception desk staff, as needed. 9. Performs other duties, as assigned Knowledge, Skills and Abilities General knowledge of standard office, administrative and clerical procedures; general knowledge of the functions and activities of the city; ability to speak clearly; ability to understand and follow written and oral directions; ability to operate standard office equipment; ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with associates and the general public; ability to work independently and to prioritize work. page 39 Education and Experience High school diploma or equivalent and moderate experience in general office and clerical work, including customer service, multi- tasking, and intermediate computer skills, or equivalent combination of education and experience. Special Requirements Valid Driver’s license Proficient in Microsoft Office Suite programs Ability to attend meetings, activities and events outside of the normal workday Physical Requirements This work requires the occasional exertion of up to 25 pounds of force; work regularly requires sitting, speaking or hearing, using hands to finger, handle or feel, reaching with hands and arms and repetitive motions and occasionally requires standing, walking, pushing or pulling and lifting; no special vision is required; vocal communication is required for expressing or exchanging ideas by means of the spoken word; hearing is required to perceive information at normal spoken word levels and to receive detailed information through oral communications and/or to make fine distinctions in sound; work requires preparing and analyzing written or computer data and observing general surroundings and activities. Environmental Conditions This work occasionally requires exposure to outdoor weather conditions; work is generally in a moderately noisy location (e.g. business office, light traffic). page 40 DATE: December 17, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Fire Station Solar Array Amendment Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to approve an amendment to an agreement for the roof-top mounted solar array which will be constructed on the roof of the new addition to the fire station. The parties involved are the City, which is the owner, Ideal Energies, LLC (the seller) and Green Solar Leasing, LLC, as the tenant. Background: The City currently has approximately 160 kilowatt hours (Kwh) of electrical generating capacity in solar panels which are mounted on the roofs of the Public Works Building, the Par 3 maintenance building, the original section of the fire station, and on a ground-mounted array west of City Hall. The City is also a “subscriber” to a solar garden which is under construction in Rice County. On February 19, 2019, the City entered into an agreement with Ideal Energies for the construction of an additional approximate 20 Kwh solar energy array, which would be placed on the roof of the new addition to the fire station. That anticipated that the array would be funded through a 2019 grant, and would become operational by summer, 2020. However, because of construction delays with the Fire Station, the panels were not able to be ordered in time for 2019 delivery—the roof needed to be inspected for obstacles and space availability before the actual layout could be determined. Because the grant from Xcel which would have funded the new array will expire at the end of this year, other funding alternatives had to be made if additional solar for the fire station addition was to remain an option. Fortunately, Ideal was able to secure an alternative grant which will be able to provide substantially the same array. However, because the source of the funding, the size output, and the financial payback are all different, the February, 2019, the contract will have to be amended. Budget Impact: There is no up-front cost to the City for this, as it was for any of the solar arrays currently in place. The acquisition costs of the solar panels are paid through a grant provided by Xcel Energy’s Solar Rewards program. The partner company of Ideal Energies—Green Solar Leasing—owns and operates the panels, and the City leases the solar panels from that partner company. The City funds the payment of the lease page 41 through the savings in the cost of electricity produced—there is a $.06 per Kwh savings in the 2020 Federal energy program. Because Federal Tax Credits and production based incentives from Xcel have changed from 2019 to 2020, the time to “pay off” the lease (and therefore when the city will receive the energy produced for free) would now be 16 years, vs. the previous 13 years. At that time, City could would exercise its “call” provision, and buy the system from Green Solar Leasing for $1. After the purchase, the City would contract for whatever maintenance that might be needed. The City will save approximately 20% of the cost of electricity produced during the initial 16 years. The document provided by Ideal shows that overall net cost savings to the City during the 40 year expected life of this array will be in excess of $140,000. Those estimates are based on an estimated 4% increase in retail electrical rates during that time. Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the amendment to the Solar Project Capital Lease. Action Required: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the amendment to the Solar Project Capital Lease, dated February 19, 2019. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 42 page 43 page 44 page 45 page 46 page 47 page 48 page 49 page 50 page 51 page 52 page 53 page 54 page 55 page 56 page 57 page 58 page 59 page 60 page 61 page 62 page 63 page 64 page 65 page 66 page 67 page 68 page 69 page 70 page 71 ver.11.15.19 2019 Xcel SolarRewards General Service Rate Plan Rooftop Ballasted Solar Array - 19.2 kWDC 400 Watt Solar Panels @ 10°tilt & 180° az w/ 14.4 kWAC SolarEdge Inverters Capital Lease - Solar for Minnesota Non-Profits, Schools & Public Organizations [Men. Heights - FS] A GREEN2 OPPORTUNITY Make Money. Save the Planet. Cashflow Summary © 2019 iDEAL Energies, LLC page 72 System Size (kW DC) Inversion Ratio (DC / AC) Maximum AC Output of Inverters (AC KW) Maximum Peak AC Output including AC line losses (kW) Expected Energy Production (kWh/kW DC) Expected Energy Production (kWh/Year) 573 1102 2095 2418 2919 2969 2869 2559 2044 1605 729 390 22272 2.6%4.9%9.4%10.9%13.1%13.3%12.9%11.5%9.2%7.2%3.3%1.8%100.0% 5 9 14 14 14 14 13 13 12 11 7 4 35.8%66.3%97.9%100.0%100.0%100.0%95.9%92.1%87.3%79.6%50.6%28.6% 1160 Solar Array Technical Information Rooftop Ballasted Solar Array - 19.2 kWDC 400 Watt Solar Panels @ 10°tilt & 180° az w/ 14.4 kWAC SolarEdge Inverters Xcel SolarRewards General Service Rate Plan Solar Array Specification (Typical) 19.20 1.333 14.4 14.0 22,272 Information on Expected Solar Array Production (kWh) Expected Energy Production from the Solar Array Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun TotalOctNovDec Typical Solar Array Energy Production (kWh) using NREL modeling, Helioscope or PV Syst modelling tools with average adjusted historical weather conditions in Minneapolis, MN using TMY3 Weather Data. http://www.nrel.gov Estimated performance is based on information including but not limited to the equipment used, the solar array's kW DC size, AC/DC line losses, standard rectangular configuration, and the array pointing due south. Your System's energy production will vary with actual equipment, layout and weather conditions. Expected Energy Production below does not include any annual degradation in solar panel kWDC output. Total AC Energy Output by Month (kWh)Peak AC Output by Month (kWAC)Jul Aug Sept 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Energy Output (kWh) Total AC Energy Output by Month (kWh) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Energy Output (kW) Peak AC Output by Month (kWAC) page 73 Solar system size (kW DC) 19.20 Year 1 system production (kWh/year)22272 kWh generated per kW DC of Solar Panels 1160 Annual degradation - reduction in kWh output (% / year)0.50% Ten year average increase in utility costs (% / year)4.00% 1 22272 1,632$ 618$ 2,249$ 2,249$ 2 22161 1,689$ 639$ 2,328$ 4,577$ 3 22050 1,747$ 661$ 2,409$ 6,985$ Year 1 Energy Savings from utility expense reduction ($)$1,632 4 21940 1,808$ 684$ 2,492$ 9,478$ Year 1 Energy Savings per kWh ($ / kW/h)$0.0733 5 21830 1,871$ 708$ 2,579$ 12,057$ Utility Billing Plan General Service Rate Plan 6 21721 1,936$ 733$ 2,669$ 14,726$ 7 21612 2,003$ 758$ 2,762$ 17,487$ 8 21504 2,073$ 785$ 2,858$ 20,345$ 9 21396 2,145$ 812$ 2,957$ 23,302$ 10 21289 2,220$ 840$ 3,060$ 26,362$ Year 1 Demand Savings from utility expense reduction ($)$618 11 21183 2,297$ 869$ 3,167$ 29,529$ Year 1 Demand Savings per kWh ($ / kWh)$0.0277 12 21077 2,377$ 900$ 3,277$ 32,806$ Peak AC output available for reducing demand (kW)13.97 13 20972 2,460$ 931$ 3,391$ 36,197$ Estimated AC output that reduces demand charges (%)25.0%14 20867 2,546$ 963$ 3,509$ 39,706$ Year 1 average demand reduction realized (kW AC / month)3.5 15 20763 2,634$ 997$ 3,631$ 43,337$ Year 1 average demand cost ($ / kW)$14.74 16 20659 2,726$ 1,032$ 3,757$ 47,094$ 17 20556 2,821$ 1,068$ 3,888$ 50,982$ 18 20453 2,919$ 1,105$ 4,023$ 55,006$ 19 20351 3,020$ 1,143$ 4,164$ 59,169$ 20 20249 3,126$ 1,183$ 4,308$ 63,478$ Year 1 combined utility bill expense savings ($/kWh)$0.1010 21 20148 3,234$ 1,224$ 4,458$ 67,936$ Year 1 energy charge expense utility bill savings ($/kWh)$0.0733 22 20047 3,347$ 1,267$ 4,613$ 72,550$ Year 1 demand charge savings per kWh ($ / kWh)$0.0277 23 19947 3,463$ 1,311$ 4,774$ 77,324$ 24 19847 3,584$ 1,356$ 4,940$ 82,264$ 25 19748 3,709$ 1,404$ 5,112$ 87,376$ 26 19649 3,838$ 1,452$ 5,290$ 92,666$ 27 19551 3,971$ 1,503$ 5,474$ 98,140$ 28 19453 4,109$ 1,555$ 5,665$ 103,805$ 29 19356 4,252$ 1,609$ 5,862$ 109,666$ 30 19259 4,400$ 1,665$ 6,066$ 115,732$ 31 19163 4,554$ 1,723$ 6,277$ 122,009$ 32 19067 4,712$ 1,783$ 6,495$ 128,504$ 33 18972 4,876$ 1,845$ 6,721$ 135,225$ 34 18877 5,046$ 1,910$ 6,955$ 142,180$ 35 18783 5,221$ 1,976$ 7,197$ 149,378$ 36 18689 5,403$ 2,045$ 7,448$ 156,826$ 37 18596 5,591$ 2,116$ 7,707$ 164,533$ 38 18503 5,786$ 2,190$ 7,975$ 172,508$ 39 18410 5,987$ 2,266$ 8,253$ 180,761$ 40 18318 6,195$ 2,345$ 8,540$ 189,300$ Utility Bill Savings Net Metering - w/ Energy and Demand Expense Savings Rooftop Ballasted Solar Array - 19.2 kWDC 400 Watt Solar Panels @ 10°tilt & 180° az w/ 14.4 kWAC SolarEdge Inverters Xcel SolarRewards General Service Rate Plan System Sizing & Energy Assumptions Utility Bill Expense Savings YearElectricity Produced (kWh/year) Energy & Demand Expense Savings Total Savings Energy Expense Savings ($/year) Demand Expense Savings ($/year) Annual Savings ($) Cumulative Annual Savings ($) Energy (kWh) Expense Savings Demand (kW) Expense Savings Combined Energy & Demand Expense Savings For documentation on the above assumptions, please refer to the support documents available from your iDEAL sales representative. If you would like to use different assumptions, please ask. page 74 1 $2,249 $1,800 $450 2 $2,328 $1,862 $465 3 $2,409 $1,927 $482 4 $2,492 $1,994 $498 5 $2,579 $2,063 $516 6 $2,669 $2,135 $534 7 $2,762 $2,209 $552 8 $2,858 $2,286 $572 9 $2,957 $2,366 $591 10 $3,060 $2,448 $612 11 $3,167 $2,533 $633 12 $3,277 $2,622 $655 13 $3,391 $2,713 $678 14 $3,509 $2,807 $702 15 $3,631 $2,905 $726 16 $3,757 $3,006 $751 17 $3,888 $3,888 18 $4,023 $4,023 19 $4,164 $4,164 20 $4,308 $4,308 21 $4,458 $4,458 22 $4,613 $4,613 23 $4,774 $4,774 24 $4,940 $4,940 25 $5,112 $5,112 Total $87,376 $37,676 $49,700 Utility Bill Expense Savings w/ your Solar Array YearUtility Bill Power Purchase Expense Reduction Solar Array Power Purchase Expense Power Purchase Expense Savings w/ Solar Array Assuming the early termination of the Utility Bill Expense Savings 20 year Lease and Power Purchase Agreements by exercise of the Put or Call Option after Green2 Solar Leasing Utility Bill Expense & Savings vs. Utility Financing Summary Rooftop Ballasted Solar Array - 19.2 kWDC 400 Watt Solar Panels @ 10°tilt & 180° az w/ 14.4 kWAC SolarEdge Inverters Xcel SolarRewards General Service Rate Plan Utility Bill Expense Savings during years you will receive approximately... year 16 20.0% 1 to The orange bars extending above the dark blue bars represent the Total Additional Annual Energy Expense Savings Achieved when the Put or Call is used to terminate the Lease & Power Purchase Agreements early Thereafter, you will receive ALL of the ENERGY generated from your solar array for FREE! Assuming an Average Annual Utility Rate Increase of 4.00% 16 Year 1Year 6Year 11Year 16Year 21Year 26Year 31Year 36Total Annual Energy Expense Savings Lease Terminated Early Lease Runs full term page 75 G2SL's Power Sales Income G2SL's Rent & Operating Expense G2SL's Net Cashflow 1 $2,249 $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 1 2 $2,328 $1,862 $1,862 $1,862 2 3 $2,409 $1,927 $1,927 $1,927 3 4 $2,492 $1,994 $1,994 $1,994 4 5 $2,579 $2,063 $2,063 $2,063 5 6 $2,669 $2,135 $2,135 $2,135 6 7 $2,762 $2,209 $2,209 $2,209 7 8 $2,858 $2,286 $2,286 $2,286 8 9 $2,957 $2,366 $2,366 $2,366 9 10 $3,060 $2,448 $2,448 $2,448 10 11 $3,167 $2,533 $2,533 $2,533 11 12 $3,277 $2,622 $2,622 $2,622 12 13 $3,391 $2,713 $2,713 $2,713 13 14 $3,509 $2,807 $2,807 $2,807 14 15 $3,631 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 15 16 $3,757 $3,006 $3,006 $3,006 16 17 $3,888 $1 $1,427 $780 17 $780 -$280 $500 18 $4,023 $0 $0 $780 18 $780 -$280 $500 19 $4,164 $0 $0 $780 19 $780 -$280 $500 20 $4,308 $0 $0 $780 20 $780 -$280 $500 21 $4,458 $0 $0 $0 21 22 $4,613 $0 $0 $0 22 23 $4,774 $0 $0 $0 23 24 $4,940 $0 $0 $0 24 25 $5,112 $0 $0 $0 25 26 $5,290 $0 $0 27 $5,474 $0 $0 28 $5,665 $0 $0 15% 29 $5,862 $0 $0 30 $6,066 $0 $0 31 $6,277 $0 $0 32 $6,495 $0 $0 note 1 33 $6,721 $0 $0 34 $6,955 $0 $0 35 $7,197 $0 $0 36 $7,448 $0 $0 37 $7,707 $0 $0 38 $7,975 $0 $0 note 2 39 $8,253 $0 $0 40 $8,540 $0 $0 note 3 Put Price (see note 1 )$1 If neither party exercises their Put or Call Options - the Lease & Power Purchase Agreements run full-term unless G2SL and the Customer mutually agree to terminate them early. Maximizing our Customer's Financial Outcome using the Put or Call (Example) Rooftop Ballasted Solar Array - 19.2 kWDC 400 Watt Solar Panels @ 10°tilt & 180° az w/ 14.4 kWAC SolarEdge Inverters Xcel SolarRewards General Service Rate Plan Scenarios: Green2 Solar Leasing Exercises Put, Customer Exercises Call & Lease Runs Full Term G2SL's Put Option Price @ Fixed Amount Customer's Call Option Price @ Fair Market Value (FMV)Utility Bill Expense Savings w/ Solar Array Lease Runs Full Term G2SL Exercises its Put Customer Exercises its Call Customer's Expense Savings Achieved using the Put or Call YearYear$3,120 -$1,120 $2,000 Net Cashflow @ a Discount Rate of Call Price (see note 2 )$1,427 $189,300 $40,796$39,104$37,677 Green2 Solar Leasing's Put Option - During months 1 to 3 after the Put Date, G2SL can require the Customer to purchase its remaining interest in the Lease and Power Purchase Agreements through the full term for the Put Price. The Put Price can be for a fixed value and is provided above. Customer's Call Option - If G2SL does not exercise its Put Option during months 1 to 3, during months 4 to 12, the Customer can require G2SL to sell its remaining interest in the Lease and Power Purchase Agreements for the Call Price. The Call Price must be for fair market value (FMV). Since the Customer owns the Solar Array day one, G2SL's entire interest in the transaction is the its net cashflow (power purchase income, less rent and operating expenses) remaining under the Lease and Power Purchase Agreements if they ran full term. To determine FMV, a discount is applied to the net remaining cashflow as per the example above. page 76 Utility Bill Savings Rent Revenue Total Annual Customer Revenue Energy Payment to GreenSky (subject to sales tax) Insurance Expense & Utility Fees Total Annual Expenses Total Annual Energy Expense Savings Total Cumulative Annual Energy Expense Savings Year 1 2,249$ 50$ 2,299$ (1,800)$ (150)$ (1,950)$ 350$ 350$ Year 2 2,328$ 50$ 2,378$ (1,862)$ (153)$ (2,015)$ 362$ 712$ Year 3 2,409$ 50$ 2,459$ (1,927)$ (156)$ (2,083)$ 376$ 1,088$ Year 4 2,492$ 50$ 2,542$ (1,994)$ (159)$ (2,153)$ 389$ 1,477$ Year 5 2,579$ 50$ 2,629$ (2,063)$ (162)$ (2,226)$ 403$ 1,881$ Year 6 2,669$ 50$ 2,719$ (2,135)$ (166)$ (2,301)$ 418$ 2,299$ Year 7 2,762$ 50$ 2,812$ (2,209)$ (169)$ (2,378)$ 433$ 2,732$ Year 8 2,858$ 50$ 2,908$ (2,286)$ (172)$ (2,459)$ 449$ 3,181$ Year 9 2,957$ 50$ 3,007$ (2,366)$ (176)$ (2,542)$ 466$ 3,647$ Year 10 3,060$ 50$ 3,110$ (2,448)$ (179)$ (2,627)$ 483$ 4,130$ Year 11 3,167$ 50$ 3,217$ (2,533)$ (183)$ (2,716)$ 500$ 4,630$ Year 12 3,277$ 50$ 3,327$ (2,622)$ (186)$ (2,808)$ 519$ 5,149$ Year 13 3,391$ 50$ 3,441$ (2,713)$ (190)$ (2,903)$ 538$ 5,687$ Year 14 3,509$ 50$ 3,559$ (2,807)$ (194)$ (3,001)$ 558$ 6,245$ Year 15 3,631$ 50$ 3,681$ (2,905)$ (198)$ (3,103)$ 578$ 6,823$ Year 16 3,757$ 50$ 3,807$ (3,006)$ (202)$ (3,208)$ 600$ 7,422$ Year 17 3,888$ -$ 3,888$ -$ (206)$ (206)$ 3,682$ 11,105$ Year 18 4,023$ -$ 4,023$ -$ (210)$ (210)$ 3,814$ 14,918$ Year 19 4,164$ -$ 4,164$ -$ (214)$ (214)$ 3,949$ 18,868$ Year 20 4,308$ -$ 4,308$ -$ (218)$ (218)$ 4,090$ 22,958$ Year 21 4,458$ -$ 4,458$ -$ (223)$ (223)$ 4,236$ 27,193$ Year 22 4,613$ -$ 4,613$ -$ (227)$ (227)$ 4,386$ 31,580$ Year 23 4,774$ -$ 4,774$ -$ (232)$ (232)$ 4,542$ 36,122$ Year 24 4,940$ -$ 4,940$ -$ (236)$ (236)$ 4,704$ 40,826$ Year 25 5,112$ -$ 5,112$ -$ (241)$ (241)$ 4,871$ 45,697$ Year 26 5,290$ -$ 5,290$ -$ (246)$ (246)$ 5,044$ 50,741$ Year 27 5,474$ -$ 5,474$ -$ (251)$ (251)$ 5,223$ 55,964$ Year 28 5,665$ -$ 5,665$ -$ (256)$ (256)$ 5,409$ 61,373$ Year 29 5,862$ -$ 5,862$ -$ (261)$ (261)$ 5,601$ 66,973$ Year 30 6,066$ -$ 6,066$ -$ (266)$ (266)$ 5,799$ 72,773$ Year 31 6,277$ -$ 6,277$ -$ (271)$ (271)$ 6,005$ 78,778$ Year 32 6,495$ -$ 6,495$ -$ (277)$ (277)$ 6,218$ 84,996$ Year 33 6,721$ -$ 6,721$ -$ (282)$ (282)$ 6,439$ 91,435$ Year 34 6,955$ -$ 6,955$ -$ (288)$ (288)$ 6,667$ 98,102$ Year 35 7,197$ -$ 7,197$ -$ (294)$ (294)$ 6,903$ 105,006$ Year 36 7,448$ -$ 7,448$ -$ (300)$ (300)$ 7,148$ 112,154$ Year 37 7,707$ -$ 7,707$ -$ (306)$ (306)$ 7,401$ 119,555$ Year 38 7,975$ -$ 7,975$ -$ (312)$ (312)$ 7,663$ 127,219$ Year 39 8,253$ -$ 8,253$ -$ (318)$ (318)$ 7,935$ 135,153$ Year 40 8,540$ -$ 8,540$ -$ (324)$ (324)$ 8,215$ 143,369$ TOTAL 189,300$ 800$ 190,100$ (37,676)$ (9,055)$ (46,732)$ 143,369$ This Cashflow summary is intended only as an example. Assumes Put or Call is exercised per the transaction documents. 40 Year Customer Cash Flow Example - Net Metering w/ Utility Bill Savings Rooftop Ballasted Solar Array - 19.2 kWDC 400 Watt Solar Panels @ 10°tilt & 180° az w/ 14.4 kWAC SolarEdge Inverters Xcel SolarRewards General Service Rate Plan YearCustomer's Utility Savings and Rent Income Customer's Expenses Annual Savings page 77 40 Year Customer Cash Flow Example - Net Metering w/ Utility Bill Savings Rooftop Ballasted Solar Array - 19.2 kWDC 400 Watt Solar Panels @ 10°tilt & 180° az w/ 14.4 kWAC SolarEdge Inverters Xcel SolarRewards General Service Rate Plan Year 1Year 6Year 11Year 16Year 21Year 26Year 31Year 36Total Annual Energy Expense Savings Lease Terminated Early Lease Runs full term Year 1Year 6Year 11Year 16Year 21Year 26Year 31Year 36Total Cumulative Annual Energy Expense Savings Lease Runs full term Lease Terminated Early The orange bars extending above the dark blue bars on the graph represent the Total Additional Annual Energy Expense Savings achieved when the Lease and Power Purchase Agreements are terminated early The orange bars extending above the dark blue bars on the graph represent the Additional Total Cumulative Annual Energy Expense Savings achieved when the Lease and Power Purchase Agreements are terminated early page 78 Solar Survey Site Electrical Systems Review System Layout and Electrical Engineering Structural Engineering & Analytical Testing (review of roof / soil adequacy to support the system) Rebate Application, Procurement, and Processing Fees, if any Utility Interconnection Agreement(s) Solar Array Equipment Solar Array Installation Electrical Connection – connect system to your building's electrical switchgear System monitoring equipment and software for web based monitoring Building Permit & Inspection Electrical Permit & Inspection Project Management Training Start-up Solar Array Supporting Documentation Federal Tax Credit Documentation All Other Required Deliverables Project Task & Deliverables iDEAL Energies Deliverables - A Turnkey Service Rooftop Ballasted Solar Array - 19.2 kWDC 400 Watt Solar Panels @ 10°tilt & 180° az w/ 14.4 kWAC SolarEdge Inverters Xcel SolarRewards General Service Rate Plan page 79 Client 1. Is the Fee Title Owner of the solar array 2. Receives annual rent from Green2 Solar Leasing 4. Insures the solar array 6. Bills Client for Power generated from the solar array 1. Pays Purchase Price to Ideal Energies for Client 3. Pays Green2 Solar Leasing for power generated from the solar array If either party elects to exercise their options [Put Option: Green2 Solar Leasing requires the Client to purchase Green2 Solar Leasing's remaining interest for $1; or Call Option: the Client requires Green2 Solar Leasing to sell its remaining interest to the Client at Fair Market Value] the Lease and Power Purchase Agreements terminate, and you will receive free Energy from your Solar Array thereafter! Put & Call Capital Lease - How It Works Rooftop Ballasted Solar Array - 19.2 kWDC 400 Watt Solar Panels @ 10°tilt & 180° az w/ 14.4 kWAC SolarEdge Inverters Xcel SolarRewards General Service Rate Plan Our Capital Lease Program Green2 Solar Leasing Ownership Our Client purchases their solar array from Ideal Energies and immediately owns it outright. (Client is the fee title owner) Power Purchase The Client pays Green2 Solar Leasing for the energy generated from the solar array at a discount vs. utility rates. Facility Lease Under the Facility Lease, Green2 Solar Leasing pays Ideal Energies for the solar array, and becomes the tax owner so they can leverage tax benefits on the Client's behalf. The Facility Lease also assigns any rebates to Green2 Solar Leasing to help pay for the solar array. Immediately after the purchase, the Client Leases the solar array to Green2 Solar Leasing for annual lease payments, and Green2 Solar Leasing operates and maintains it on the Client's behalf. Purchase, Lease-back, and Power Purchase Highlights 2. Pays annual rent to Client 3. Receives and uses available tax benefits 4. Receives and uses available Rebates 5. Operates and maintains solar array for Client Lease Agreement Power Purchase Agreement Put & Call Agreement Client Owns solar array; leases solar array & roof to Green2 Solar; Buys solar array's energy iDEAL Sells & Installs Client's Solar Array Green2 Solar Leases,operates and maintains solar array pays rent;Sells solar array's energy to Client page 80 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 17, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Accepting Wetland Delineation Report and Findings of ‘No Wetland’ for the parcel at 777 Wentworth Avenue COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Joint Water Resources Application for determination of ‘No Wetland’ for the parcel at 777 Wentworth Avenue West. BACKGROUND The City Council of Mendota Heights is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) that administers Chapter 8420 of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). A Wetland Delineation and Determination Report for the existing 2.7 acre residential property at 777 Wentworth Avenue. The application was submitted by Midwest Natural Resources, on behalf of Edward Sweeney, applicant and property owner, on November 14, 2019. DISCUSSION Midwest Natural Resources delineated the subject property on April 29th and June 28th, 2019, and determined that no wetland was present within the site. The National Wetland Inventory Map, as well as the DNR Public Waters Inventory, show no wetlands present on the site. The City’s Natural Resources Technician reviewed the delineation on-site on November 15, 2019, and concurred with the determination as submitted in the report. No additional comments were received from the Technical Evaluation Panel. BUDGET IMPACT None, this process is a judicial requirement of the City. If council accepts the determination and report, a Notice of Decision will be sent to Technical Evaluation Panel members and their respective agencies (Dakota County SWCD, BWSR, LMRWMO, Army Corps of Engineers), as well as the applicant and any members of the public that requested notice (none). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve and accept the Wetland Delineation Report and Determination as submitted by Midwest Natural Resources, and direct staff to issue the Notice of Decision. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion accepting the Wetland Delineation Report and Determination, and authorize staff to issue a Notice of Decision. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 81 Request for City Council Action DATE: December 17, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-100 Accepting Improvements for Lemay Shores INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve resolution 2019-100, accepting the project and approving the trail reimbursement for the Lemay Shores subdivision. BACKGROUND The City Council entered into a contract Hoffman-Mendota Shore, LLC on June 17, 2014 outlining the developer requirements for the Lemay Shores subdivision. Hoffman-Mendota Shore, LLC then transferred this contract to Ryland which has now been acquired by Lennar. The contract work for the Lemay Shores subdivision has been completed, inspected, and approved. Lennar has provided the city with a one-year maintenance bond to replace the existing Letter of Credit. DISCUSSION At the time of executing the contract, Mendota Heights required a park dedication fee of $2,700 per unit which equated to a fee of $162,000 for the 60 units. Section 2.1(c) of the agreement states that the developer is entitled to a credit not to exceed $25,000 for construction of a paved trail that runs from the Augusta Shores subdivision to the Lemay Shores subdivision. BUDGET IMPACT Lennar has submitted the attached invoice showing their costs of $33,795.52 for the trail construction. The city is required to credit Lennar $25,000 from the Special Parks Fund. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Resolution No. 2019-100 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING TRAIL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE LEMAY SHORES SUBDIVISION” ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2019-100 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING TRAIL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE LEMAY SHORES SUBDIVISION” by simple majority vote. page 82 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-100 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING TRAIL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE LEMAY SHORES SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Mendota Heights on June 17, 2014, with Hoffman-Mendota Shores, LLC transferred to Lennar, of Plymouth, Minnesota, has satisfactorily completed the improvements for the Lemay Shores subdivision, in accordance with such contract. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby directed to issue a proper order for the reimbursement of constructing a paved trail on such contract in the amount of $25,000. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventeenth day of December, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 83 page 84 page 85 page 86 page 87 page 88 page 89 page 90 page 91 page 92 page 93 page 94 page 95 page 96 page 97 page 98 page 99 page 100 page 101 page 102 page 103 page 104 page 105 page 106 page 107 page 108 page 109 page 110 page 111 page 112 page 113 page 114 page 115 page 116 page 117 page 118 page 119 page 120 page 121 page 122 page 123 page 124 page 125 page 126 page 127 page 128 Request for City Council Action DATE: December 17, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Approval of Greens Mower Replacement INTRODUCTION City Council is asked to approve the purchase of a greens mower for the Mendota Heights Par 3. BACKGROUND To properly maintain the golf course, Par 3 maintenance staff uses a greens mower to cut the greens. This piece of equipment is owned and maintained by the City. The current greens mower is a 2008 Toro Greensmaster 3150. The machine has approximately 2,100 hours on it. Due to its age, there are a number of repairs needed in order for the equipment to run properly and safely. Needed repairs include sharpening and updating the reels, rebuilding the engine due to a leak in the sump gaskets and valve cover gaskets, replacing two of the three rollers and rebuilding of the lift arms. The City’s mechanic has estimated that the cost of known repairs is $5,600, which exceeds the trade-in value. Staff has worked with MTI, a state cooperative purchasing contract holder, to recommend a suitable replacement greens mower given the characteristics of the Par 3, and the type of work being performed. MTI recommends a Toro Greensmaster TriFlex 3300. This mower features DPA Cutting Units with clicking reel adjustments, which do not require daily greasing. Included is a universal rear rotating brush, balloon style tires, and lift-in-turn cutting units, which provides for a more consistent and clean cut. Staff is recommending replacing two older pieces of equipment with the recommended new machine. Staff is proposing to trade in both the 2008 Toro Greensmaster 3150 and the city’s current verti-cutting mower, a 1996 Greensmaster 3000 which has approximately 3,700 hours. The new mower would include groomers, which are thinner blades that have a high rotational speed that help reduce scalping. The mower also comes with a set of thatching reels, which will be used to verti-cut the course on a regular basis. page 129 MTI has offered $5,500 for a trade in value on the two existing pieces of equipment. With the trade in factored in to the cost of the machine, the total cost of the Toro Greensmaster TriFlex 3300, including tax is $48,525.57. BUDGET IMPACT The Par 3 budget does not include funding for the replacement of equipment or the purchase of new/additional equipment. It is recommended by the City Administrator that this be taken from the General Fund balance, which is to be the source of funding for several other one-time capital items in the FY 20 budget. In the 2020 budget, $47,000 was budgeted out of the General Fund balance for a new greens mower. By authorizing the purchase now, the City will avoid a 5% price increase which will become effective January 1st. The City Administrator notes that, unlike other mowers which have recently been purchased for the Par 3, the greens cutter is unique, and is usable primarily in a golf setting. The other mowers are more versatile, and could be used for parks and athletic field maintenance, should that be needed in the future. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the purchase of a Toro Greensmaster TriFlex 3300 for $48,525.57 for the Par 3. If approved, delivery would come prior to the opening of the 2020 golfing season. ACTION REQUESTED If the Council agrees, it should, by motion authorize staff to purchase a Toro Greensmaster TriFlex 3300 for the Par 3. page 130 page 131 page 132 page 133 12/2/2019 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official November 1, 2019 thru November 30, 2019 January 1, 2019 thru November 30, 2019 January 1, 2018 thru November 30, 2018 January 1, 2017 thru November 30, 2017 Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected SFD 0 -$ $0.00 SFD 8 5,921,742.00$ $59,946.17 SFD 7 3,717,052.00$ $41,628.28 SFD 7 3,994,201.34$ 42,821.23$ 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 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 20 4,938,993.89$ $54,408.16 Townhouse 12 2,665,000.00$ 26,838.62$ Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$ Misc 33 342,677.75$ 5,544.54$ Misc 634 9,459,296.92$ 157,141.30$ Misc 570 8,321,939.57$ 113,524.45$ Misc 615 9,461,921.42$ 126,501.36$ Commercial 0 -$ $0.00 Commercial 22 11,886,972.00$ $51,258.78 Commercial 16 8,791,959.00$ $63,172.89 Commercial 33 9,637,380.00$ 96,379.71$ Sub Total 33 342,677.75$ 5,544.54$ Sub Total 665 36,403,010.92$ 331,865.89$ Sub Total 614 35,236,764.46$ 338,444.62$ Sub Total 669 48,780,502.76$ 450,943.57$ 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 13 $1,595.00 Plumbing 205 $29,518.67 Plumbing 205 $31,814.59 Plumbing 185 31,364.61$ Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 -$ Sewer 2 $150.00 Sewer 14 $1,050.00 Sewer 37 $2,775.00 Sewer 37 2,788.00$ Mechanical 33 $3,517.36 Mechanical 292 397.00$ $38,308.49 Mechanical 446 $56,875.89 Mechanical 362 58,074.72$ Sub Total 48 5,262.36$ Sub Total 511 68,877.16$ Sub Total 688 $91,465.48 Sub Total 584 92,227.33$ License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 304 $15,200.00 Contractor 282 $14,100.00 Contractor 322 16,100.00$ Total 81 342,677.75$ 10,806.90$ Total 1480 36,403,010.92$ 415,943.05$ Total 1584 35,236,764.46$ 444,010.10$ Total 1575 48,780,502.76$ 559,270.90$ NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals page 134 DATE: December 17, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Acknowledge October Par 3 Financial Report INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to acknowledge the October Par 3 Financial Report. BACKGROUND Attached is the October Par 3 Financial Report. During the month of October the course had a total of 76 rounds of golf played. The course was open for 6 days. The October 2019 precipitation numbers were higher than the monthly average. The course received 4.05 inches of rain compared to the monthly average 2.43 inches. Total revenue for the month of October was $754. This includes greens fees and concessions. Including October, the course has a year-to-date revenue total of $145,557. The course’s September expenditures totaled $13,820. The year-to-date expenditure total is $133,729. The course’s operating revenues for the 2019 season currently exceed operating expenditures by $11,828. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council acknowledge the October, 2019 Par 3 Financial Report. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion acknowledge the October, 2019 Par 3 Financial Report. page 135 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3 BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT October 2019 (83% OF YEAR) October REVENUES October YTD YTD YTD BUDGET 2019 2019 %2018 GREENS, LEAGUE & TOURN FEES $100,000 $590 $92,405 92.41%$83,881 RECREATION PROGRAMS $38,000 $0 $33,454 88.04%$29,970 CONCESSIONS $18,000 $98 $19,418 107.88%$18,045 SUNDRY REVENUE $0 $66 $280 100.00%$115 INTEREST $250 $0 $0 0.00%$0 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS $0 $0 $0 0.00%$0 PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $156,250 $754 $145,557 93.16%$132,011 EXPENDITURES October YTD YTD YTD BUDGET 2019 2019 %2018 CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $34,300 $2,390 $27,146 79.14%$25,591 ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $22,608 $1,515 $15,357 67.93%$15,506 FICA/PERA $10,282 $659 $6,239 60.68%$6,133 MEDICAL INSURANCE $6,653 $554 $5,544 83.33%$5,280 U/E & W/C INSURANCE $2,080 $0 $2,816 135.37%$2,100 RENTALS $4,500 $278 $3,786 84.13%$2,692 UTILITIES $12,660 $1,278 $9,716 76.75%$10,378 PROFESSIONAL FEES - AUDIT $2,650 $0 $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 $1,914 $15,820 71.91%$15,820 PROF FEES - TREE MAINTENANCE $1,500 $0 $0 0.00%$0 ADVERTISING/NEWSLETTER $400 $0 $235 58.78%$284 LIABILITY/AUTO INSURANCE $4,200 $0 $3,807 90.64%$3,290 OPERATING COSTS/SUPPLIES $6,350 $126 $4,973 78.32%$6,639 FUEL $1,350 $254 $1,450 107.38%$1,614 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $28,250 $3,901 $26,605 94.18%$21,835 SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $4,000 $714 $3,303 82.58%$2,768 CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $0 0.00%$0 ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $4,175 $239 $3,624 86.81%$3,728 PAR 3 EXPENDITURES TOTAL $172,958 $13,820 $133,729 77.32%$129,838 page 136 page 137 page 138 page 139 page 140 page 141 page 142 page 143 page 144 page 145 page 146 page 147 page 148 page 149 page 150 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: December 17, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Submittal of the Draft Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update to the Metropolitan Council Introduction The Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution authorizing the submittal of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update to the Metropolitan Council for official review. Background On April 23rd, the Planning Commission held a meeting and conducted a public hearing, whereby a unanimous recommendation was made for the council to approve the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Shortly afterwards on May 16th, the City Council held a workshop meeting, reviewed the draft plan document and recommendations from the PC, and suggested a number of revisions and edits. On June 4th, the revised and final draft version of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was presented to the City Council at the regular meeting; additional public comments were allowed; and a motion was made to approve the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan, with added directive for city staff to send the plan out for adjacent jurisdictional and agency review (see attached minutes). On June 11th, planning staff sent out the attached letter notifying the twenty [government affiliated] affected jurisdictions and one public environmental advocacy group, that the Mendota Heights Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan was available for review and comment. The required six-month review period expired on December 11th; and as of this date, the city received seven reply comment letters (appended to memo). Now that this six-month period has elapsed, staff is requesting the City Council authorize submission of the Final Draft 2040 Plan to the Metropolitan Council. The comment letters will also be included with the plan submittal. The 2040 Plan remains available for viewing on the city’s website at: https://www.mendota-heights.com/vertical/Sites/%7BA0FB05B5-4CF8-4485-84AA-0C48D0BC98D7%7D/uploads/MENDOTA_HEIGHTS_DRAFT_2040_COMPREHENSIVE_PLAN_-_June_2019.pdf It is anticipated that the Metropolitan Council will review the city’s draft plan and provide its own separate comments, which will likely require additional revisions by the city. The Planning Commission and City Council will have another opportunity to review these comments and recommendations from the Met Council, and make any additional revisions or edits prior to the final acceptance of the plan by the Met Council. Staff anticipates the final and official adoption of plan by City Council to occur in mid-2020. Recommendation Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 2019-98, a resolution approving submittal of the Draft 2040 Mendota Heights Comprehensive Plan Update to the Metropolitan Council. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 151 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-98 A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF THE DRAFT 2040 MENDOTA HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 requires each local governmental unit to review and, if necessary, amend its entire comprehensive plan and its fiscal devices and official controls at least once every ten years to ensure its comprehensive plan conforms to metropolitan system plans and ensure its fiscal devices and official controls do not conflict with the comprehensive plan or permit activities that conflict with metropolitan system plans; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes sections 473.858 and 473.864 require local governmental units to complete their “decennial” reviews by December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-37, requesting the Metropolitan Council grant an extension to this review period to April 1, 2019, and whereupon the expiration of this date, representatives from Metropolitan Council communicated later to city staff that submittal of the city’s plan could be delayed to the end of 2019; and WHEREAS, the City Council, the Planning Commission, along with city staff and the city’s planning consultants have prepared a proposed Comprehensive Plan intended to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and Metropolitan Council guidelines and procedures; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.858, the proposed Comprehensive Plan was submitted to adjacent governmental units and affected special districts and school districts for review and comment on June 11, 2019, and the statutory six-month review and comment period has elapsed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the proposed Comprehensive Plan and all public comments, and thereafter submitted its recommendations to this City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted its last public hearing on April 23, 2019 and gave a favorable (unanimous) recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed draft of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mendota Heights; and page 152 WHEREAS, the City County conducted a public hearing on June 4, 2019 relative to the adoption of the proposed draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan and those recommendations, public comments, and comments from adjacent jurisdictions and affected districts; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.858 requires a local governmental unit to submit its proposed comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council following recommendation by the Planning Commission and after consideration but before final approval by the governing body of the local governmental unit. WHEREAS, based on its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Planning Commission and staff recommendations, the City Council of Mendota Heights is ready to submit its proposed plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.864; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS that city staff is directed to distribute said 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mendota Heights to the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 2019 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.864. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 17th day of December, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk (SEAL) Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 153 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Council was being asked to consider the final draft of the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that this was not an official adoption of the plan, only accepting the recommendation of the Planning Commission. He expressed his appreciation to the Council for their discussion and review at the May 16th Council Workshop meeting. Mr. Benetti provided updates from that meeting as follows: • Chapter 1 – Introduction & Background o Minor edits and changes were made • Chapter 2 – Land Use o Minor grammatical changes made o Removed Policy 2.4.5 o Modified the MR – Medium Density Residential land use category o Discussed modifications to the HR – High Density Residential density allowance; however, no changes were made. Staff was asked to bring back more information, which was included in the packet of information o Concerns were raised regarding address 340 D Street which is currently listed as ‘Industrial Preferred’ on the Dakota County Property Information Record; the city requested it be designated as ‘Industrial’ • Chapter 3 – Transportation o Added a statement that the city will support park and ride facilities if demand is met or requested o Identified HCM as Highway Capacity Manual o A statement draft by Councilor Petschel was added – “Daily trips on Dodd and Delaware are projected to increase to levels creating unacceptable conditions at various city intersections. Although some solutions lie within the city itself, rising levels of “pass through” traffic from development to the south of the city need to be addressed. This must be accomplished through a regional traffic plan that involves Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, MnDOT and Dakota County. This should be a formal process with clear goals and objectives.” o Deleted Policy 3.3.5 o Ch. 8 Resilience: Pg 8-12, Policy 8.7.1 has been deleted • Chapter 4 – Parks and Trails; Chapter 5 – Housing; Chapter 6 – Economic Development; • Chapter 7 – Natural Resources; Chapter 8 – Resilience; Chapter 9 – Critical Area; Chapter 10 Implementation o Few changes Councilor Miller stated that he appreciated the time and energy that staff and the Planning Commission put into this; however, he did not feel that there has been a compelling argument made that would allow the Council to reasonably change the city’s density calculations. When looking at the 2030 Plan in its entirety, the city was almost completely built-out when that plan came out. Between that plan and when the city started working on the 2040 Plan, they have not had a dramatic change in population. It was his opinion that the city should not be changing the density calculations because there is no need. Councilor Duggan noted that he would support that. He also stated that he looked through his records on the history of Mendota Heights in relation to the Comprehensive Plans. In the past, letters have been page 154 sent to the Metropolitan Council (MetCouncil) in relation to where the city was in regards to densities during those times; and he believed those letters pertained to approvals being given regarding densities. He referenced previous future population estimates. In the documentation on the Land Use Plan, it reads “Low Density Residential (LR): is the most prevalent land use category in the city and provides for single family development. This designation is intended for a density not to exceed 2.9 units per acre. The corresponding zoning district classifications are One Family Residential R-1 (2.9 units per acre), R-1B (1.45 units per acre) and R-1C (2.18 units per acre).” Councilor Duggan noted that what was left out was the fact that the R-1B and R-1C dealt with lots of 30,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet – as opposed to the minimum standard of 15,000 square feet that was determined and approved in the mid 1980’s. So those are now in place. Mr. Benetti replied that they are in place; however, the city does not have any zoning category of R-1B or R-1C. Councilor Duggan noted that Medium Density Residential (R-2) provides for townhome and attached housing development at urban densities of up to 4.35 units per acre. He stated that he feels the majority of vacant land within this designation is located along I-494 and east of Acacia Cemetery. Councilor Duggan noted that these are the approved densities. He recalled from the last Council meeting, they accepted that 5.9 units per acre was a reasonable medium density consideration. Councilor Duggan continued by stating that the current high density is actually 8.54 units per acre except under the PUD system. Councilor Duggan, referencing the section titled “LAND USE CHANGES FROM 2030 TO 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS” asked if the owners had been informed of these changes reflecting current use versus guided or zoned use. Mr. Benetti replied that staff sent out notices to these properties. The lots along Valencour Circle were guided as NP-Nature Preserve but since their use was single family, it was a logical step to change them to single family. If the properties remained guided as NP- Nature Preserve it could cause a problem if the owners decided to sell. Councilor Duggan pointed out other land use changes in the Comprehensive Plan and asked for confirmation that the land owners were properly notified of the proposed changes. Mr. Benetti replied that the city was not obligated to notify every property owner; however, they are obligated to publish a notice in the City’s official newspaper. The city can go above and beyond that, which they have done - they advertised for and held nine public hearings for receiving public comments on the draft plan. Councilor Petschel noted that it was interesting how people could read through this document and focus on different things. For instance, the land use changes from 2030 to 2040 have resulted in more open space. Councilor Duggan returned the focus to the list of changes from the 2030 Plan to 2040 Plan, notably the Augusta Shores / Lemay Shores Townhomes; Kingsley Estates; Victoria Highlands; Eagle Ridge; Valley View Heights Park zoning. He noted that these are large tracts of homes and wondered if they were left alone what the impact would be. He stated that based on the changes being suggested, these would change, in some of these cases, from medium to high density or high to medium density. page 155 Councilor Petschel disagreed. She pointed out that the changes were being made to reflect what is on the ground now. The Council is looking forward to the year 2040 and this needs to be accurate. It needs to reflect what is on the ground now. Many of the current zoning designations on these pieces of property make no sense. Mr. Benetti clarified that if a structure is a legal non-confirming building and it burns to the ground, the property owner can rebuild within the same footprint and same height without penalty or asking for variances. Anything built outside of the previous footprint or height, would require a variance. Councilor Duggan, referencing MnDOT Right-of-Way on Decorah Lane under the LAND USE CHANGES heading, asked if it was needed. Mr. Benetti replied that this is a small triangular site, is part of the MnDOT right-of-way, and is a recommended change. Councilor Miller noted that if MnDOT gave up their rights to the property and it became a buildable lot, then the owner would need to apply for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was true. Mr. Miller commented that he reviewed the land use plan and was surprised at the number of lots in the R-1 District that actually had multi-family or twin-home uses on them. He believed these to be housekeeping changes. The MetCouncil, of course, has the ability to correct what the Planning Commission and staff have done in their comments. Mr. Benetti stated that this was exactly how the Planning Commission was looking at these changes. Councilor Duggan asked if they have resolved that High-Density is 8.54 units per acre. Mr. Benetti replied that there is no magic number. This number – 25 units per acre – was presented by the Planning Consultant two years ago. The comparison matrix of other cities shows that Mendota Heights is in line with the Low Density and within range of the Medium Density. The Planning Commission felt that those numbers were adequate. If the Council has another suggestion for High Density, they can put that forward. Councilor Duggan stated that all of the discussion that he has heard from the public has been about the open space and low density. He did not think anyone was interested in higher density. He suggested that the city leave the density at the 0-2.9 for Low Density Single Family Residential; 3.0-5.9 for Medium Density; and then 6.0-8.0 for High Density. Councilor Petschel went on the record by saying that she had no issues adjusting the High Density number to whatever the Council feels it should be. She stated that Councilor Duggan is correct that the majority of the residential building that took place in the city was done in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s. At that point in time, the City Council did a number of very wise things. They set a minimum lot size that is very generous, they set substantial setbacks, and also height to the peak. It is these things that are the template that the city was developed under. It is what gives the city the feeling of openness. Councilor Petschel continued by saying that she hears people equating lot splits to density. She believed that residents need to understand that the lot splits acknowledge the minimum lot size and the required setbacks. She wanted it to be clear that the discussions regarding lot splits and Medium to High Density are not the same discussions. page 156 Mr. Benetti asked when looking at a development like the Lexington Apartments which is about 15+ units per acre, is that what the Council envisions as High Density; or do they envision The Reserve at 60+ units per acre; or Michael Development at 22 units per acre. Mayor Garlock replied that, in this case, it does not seem to be too overbearing because of what is around it. The backside has the freeway, across the street is a huge cemetery, and it seems fitting at that location. After discussion, Mayor Garlock moved to set the density levels as Low Density Single Family Residential – 0 to 2.9 units per acre; Medium Density – 3.0 to 5.9 units per acre; High Density – 6.0 to 9.0 units per acre. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilor Paper, referencing 340 D Street, asked what INDUSTRIAL PREFERRED meant. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed this was the general use category for the property. This is a homesteaded property; meaning there appears to be some type of residential unit included on the property. Mayor Garlock suggested the land use category of Industrial remain on the property with a footnote added that the city holds the right to change it when the property is sold. Mr. Michael Toth, 849 Cherry Lane, Planning Commissioner, stated that he believed the property is classified as Industrial / Preferred Residential. He understands this to mean that it’s currently designated as industrial but they would prefer that it be residential. Ms. Cindy Johnson, 1755 Victoria Road South, stated that she appreciated the City Council taking a close look at the density numbers and she agreed they should be realistic. She shared information on a recent study from the MetCouncil on the top 10 best and worst lakes according to their 2017 monitoring work. She reviewed with the Council the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s recommendations for keeping lakes clean. She stated that Lake Augusta was named one of the MetCouncil’s top ten worst lakes. The Natural Resources Chapter of the Comp Plan is a very important section that guides city leaders on the protection of our natural resources. The city needs to address many aspects of natural resources, such as invasive species, water quality and pollution. These are taking away the beauty and the functioning eco-system. This is an important guide for the city to help to protect our natural resources. She expressed her thanks and gratitude for all of the hard work put into the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Beth Pearlman, 1773 Diane Road, echoed Ms. Johnson’s comments and expressed her appreciation for the careful consideration given to the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commissioners, especially Chapters 7 and 8. She has heard some people ask if it’s going to be expensive to have careful planning of our natural resources. She believed it would actually cost the city much more if they did nothing. It also means that Mendota Heights is an example of what a small city can do. page 157 She stated she agreed that The Village at Mendota Heights is wonderful for the city to have and she wondered if it would be there if the City had not allow the extra density in that area. She cautioned the Councilors to not pare back the density numbers too much. The city needs to balance environmental needs with enough people to support commerce, diversity of people, and seniors. Councilor Petschel moved to approve the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan and direct city staff to send the plan out for adjacent jurisdictional review. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 page 158 page 159 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Affected Jurisdictions & Agencies Jurisdiction Name Jurisdiction Type Bloomington Adjacent Community Eagan Adjacent Community Inver Grove Heights Adjacent Community Lilydale Adjacent Community Mendota Adjacent Community St. Paul Adjacent Community Sunfish Lake Adjacent Community West St. Paul Adjacent Community Dakota County Adjacent Community Hennepin County Adjacent Community Ramsey County Adjacent Community 197; West St. Paul-Mendota Hts.-Eagan School District Eagan-Inver Grove Heights Watershed Management Organization Watershed Management Organization Lower Minnesota River Watershed District Watershed Management Organization Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization Watershed Management Organization Dakota County Park Operating Agency MnDOT State Agency MAC State Agency Minn. DNR (Commissioner)State Agency National Park Service; MNRRA Federal Agency Friends of the Mississippi River Public Advocacy Group page 160 page 161 page 162 page 163 page 164 page 165 page 166 page 167 page 168 page 169 Request for City Council Action DATE: December 17, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Approval of Field and Facility Use Policy Revisions COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve revisions to the Field and Facility Use Policy. BACKGROUND The City coordinates and issues permits for the use of City fields and facilities. City fields and facilities are often used in a multi-purpose manner and are requested by a variety of sports providers and users each year. The Field and Facility Use policy has been in place since the early 1990’s, and has evolved as demand for the City fields and facilities has increased and as the sports environment has changed. The Field and Facility Use policy was last amended in November of 2018, for implementation in 2019. Field and Facility Use Policy Staff is proposing the following revisions to the policy which include general updates and additional clarifying language to address current issues and questions. The implementation and application of the policy along with recommended revisions were reviewed by the City Council at a work session on November 19. The highlighted changes include additional or revised language: • Providing for the issuance of permits three times per year. To accommodate the potential for early winter requests, permits for use from December through February will be due on the first business day in November. Permit requests for use March through July would be accepted beginning the first business day in February. Permit requests for August through November would be due the first business day in May. • Providing notification that the City does not guarantee that a priority group or user will receive fields or times that are requested. The City will make every effort to work with all users in the scheduling of City fields and facilities, especially for reservations that are requested for similar days and times. The City will not confirm reservations for impacted groups/users until after area meetings are held and actual team schedules are confirmed. • Requiring the submittal of a Coaches Training and Background Screening Compliance certification. The Certification is to be submitted once a year, prior to the first permitted page 170 day of each year, regardless of the sport. The certification shall be signed by an authorized representative of the organization. • Requiring that proof of insurance is submitted on an annual basis. Insurance language in section I of the policy was reviewed by the City’s Loss Prevention Specialist with the League of Minnesota Cities, and suggested language changes are included in the policy revision. • Addressing the non-use of city permitted fields by a user. When permits are issued, a specific field is reserved for the user, to the exclusion of others. Users will be required to provide team schedules that indicate all allocated fields and facilities have been scheduled, when requested by the City. • Allowing for permits that are cancelled by the user due to inclement weather to be rescheduled or credited (not billed) if the City is notified by the user within two business days of the user’s cancellation. • During the November work session, a recommendation was made by Council to waive field use and preparation fees and concession use fees for priority group three in-house tournament events. The Policy has been revised to include this provision. The waiver of fees does not apply to invitational tournaments. Attachments: Field and Facility Use Policy BUDGET IMPACT The recommended Field and Facility Use policy changes are primarily language changes and do not have an impact on the budget. Fees for field and facility use are included in the City’s annual Fee Schedule. The 2020 Fee Schedule includes fees for in-house tournaments for priority group 3 users. If approval of the waiver of in house tournament fees is included in the policy revision, approximately $2,165 would not be collected, based on past usage levels. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised Field and Facility Use Policy. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the revised Field and Facility Use Policy. page 171 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIELD AND FACILITY USE POLICY CONTACT: Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651‐452‐1850 APPROVED: November, 2018 REVISED: XXXXXXXX, 2019 page 172 Page 2 City of Mendota Heights Field and Facility Use Policy A. PURPOSE The City of Mendota Heights, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, coordinates and issues permits for the use of athletic fields and facilities owned by the City. The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the allocation and management of City athletic fields and facilities. For purposes of this policy, fields shall be defined as an athletic area where people participate in sports and shall include facilities and fields, ice rinks, and tennis and basketball courts. The objectives to this policy include: allocating the use of the current athletic fields to support Parks and Recreation programs throughout the City and , or for Mendota Heights’ residents, preserving the facilities offered by minimizing wear and tear, and preventing overuse while conserving maintenance costs. B. FIELD USE PERMITS The City will coordinate and allocate the use of city athletic fields and facilities for city and non‐ city organizations, groups, and individuals to play, practice, hold tournaments, and other sport and non‐sport related events. Field and facility use permits are issued following the City’s permit process. Permit applicants must be 18 years of age or older. A permit is issued only after an allocation request is made, all required documents and information is received, and the City has approved the request, either in‐part or in its entirety. A request does not constitute an approval. All reservations require the issuance of a permit. The use of a field or facility begins and ends at the times stated on the permit including set‐up and clean‐up. Any special requests or arrangements must be made as part of the permit application process. This includes special lining requests for fields. Each permit must also include an approximation of users at the facility for parking and amenity considerations. The City reserves the right to deny, limit or revoke use permits based upon an applicant’s performance history including compliance with established rules and policies, field conditions after use, and unruly behavior of participants and guests. Application Deadlines Permits will be issued three timestwice throughout the year based on the following timeline: Permit requests for use from December through February will be due on the first business day in November. Permit requests for useage during the first portion of the season from (January March through July) will be due on the first business day in JanuaryFebruary. page 173 Page 3 Permit requests for usage use during the second portion of the season (from August through DecemberOctober) will be due on the first business day in MayJune. To balance use, the City reserves the right to allocate specific fields to specific users and to limit the number of fields allocated to any one group or user. The City does not guarantee that a priority group or user will receive the fields or times requested. The City will make every effort to work with all users in the scheduling of City fields and facilities. In certain cases, when reservation requests are received for the same or similar days and times, reservations shall not be confirmed by the City until after area meetings are held and actual team schedules are confirmed. Reservations received after the deadline will be handled on a first‐come, first‐serve basis. The City reserves the right to keep unreserved athletic fields and facilities available to the general public for open, unstructured or public recreation on a first come/first serve basis during normal operating hours. Field request Fforms are available at City Hall or on the City’s website. C. PRIORITY GROUP CLASSIFICATIONS Due to the limited number of fields and facilities and the volume of requests, the City has established criteria for priority use. An organization’s priority group classification will be considered during the assignment of the priority for field and facility allocation. Priority use of fields will be given to traditional primary season sports and by priority group classification. Priority use of field will be allocated as follows: Priority #1: City of Mendota Heights Sponsored or Co‐Sponsored Programming, Events and Activities This includes activities that are organized through or in connection with the City of Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Department, directly sponsored by the City, or as a cooperative program with other jurisdictions. Reservations for City sponsored activities, programs, games, practices, leagues and tournaments may be taken at any time for any date. There are no use fees charged for City reservations. Priority #2: Public and Private Schools Located in Mendota Heights This includes schools that are located within the City of Mendota Heights. An agreement must be in place that defines the City of Mendota Heights’ reciprocal use of the school’s athletic facilities. If there is no agreement in place, the priority shall be moved to priority #4 and use fees will be assessed. On an annual basis, public and private schools recognized in this priority category must submit the following: page 174 Page 4 Certification of Coaches Training and Background Check Screening Compliance. The City requires that a recognized public or private school must submit, on an annual basis, a signed Coaches Training and Background Check Screening Compliance Certification. The Certification shall be signed by an authorized representative and must be on file with the City before the first permitted day of each year, regardless of the sport. Proof of Insurance. The City requires that a recognized public or private school must submit, on an annual basis, proof of insurance. Proof must be on file with the City before the first reservation day of each year, regardless of the sport. See Section I for insurance requirements. Priority #3: Recognized Youth Athletic Associations This includes Youth Athletic Associations that are recognized by the City of Mendota Heights. Recognized youth athletic associations are defined by the following characteristics: The association has nonprofit status under Section 501c3 or other applicable provision as defined by Internal Revenue Services (IRS) and is in good standing with the Minnesota Secretary of State. The association conducts sports programs that are primarily social and/or recreational in nature. The association administers and abides by an “everyone plays” philosophy and has a no cut policy. The association serves the athletic needs of youth in Mendota Heights, is primarily Mendota Heights based and has providedprovides significant benefit and service to and for residents of the City of Mendota Heights. Upon request, the association is able to provide team rosters to substantiate that the association (by sport) serves a majority Mendota Heights residents. Registration must be open to the public. The association must not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, economic status, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or ability. Team assignments may be determined by ability, however, the organization must have a policy for determining teams based on ability. The association conducts youth sports programming through volunteer coaches and board of directors selected by the membership. The association completes background check screenings on all coaches, assistant coaches, board members, volunteers and anyone who has contact with children. The association has a written background check screening policy. In addition to the characteristics of an association defined herein, recognized Youth Athletic Associations must submit the following to the City, upon request: Documentation from the Internal Revenue Service showing tax exempt status under Section 501c3 or other applicable provision. page 175 Page 5 Association bylaws and , policies and procedures which govern operations. A list of the Board of Directors for the association and current contact information including telephone and email address. On an annual basis, Youth Athletic Associations recognized in this priority category must submit the following: Certification of Coaches Training and Background Check Screening Compliance. The City requires that a recognized Association must submit, on an annual basis, a signed Coaches Training and Background Check Screening Compliance Certification. The Certification shall be signed by an authorized representative and must be on file with the City before the first permitted day of each year, regardless of the sport. Proof of Insurance. The City requires that a recognized Association must submit, on an annual basis, proof of insurance. Proof must be on file with the City before the first reservation day of each year, regardless of the sport. See Section I for insurance requirements. Rosters by Season. For demographic and billing purposes, the City requires that a recognized Association submit rosters by sport. Provided information shall include sport types, team name, year, name of participant, and address including city and zip code. including areas covered such as injury prevention, game rules, child abuse prevention, concussion training, and emergency procedures. The City will make every effort to accommodate all permit requests. In the event of competing requests from recognized associations in this category, the City will determine allocation of fields and facilities based on the following factors: The percentage of verifiable Mendota Heights residents served in the permit request. The request which has the majority of Mendota Heights residents confirmed will receive a higher priority. Residency percentages will be established using rosters from the most current season. Rosters must be submitted no later than one week before the first reservation date. Rosters must be submitted in .xls or .csv format. Information provided must include: sport type, team name, season of sport/year, participant name, address including city and zip code. Previous experience with the City of Mendota Heights. Date and time of permit request. Priority #4: Recognized Community Youth Sports Clubs and Leagues page 176 Page 6 This includes sports organizations which provide athletic leagues or clubs for Mendota Heights’ youth and are separate from the Youth Athletic Associations. The City recognizes that recreational play may be available through clubs and leagues and encourages organizations with recreational offerings to partner with City recognized Youth Athletic Associations for maximum field and facility accommodation. Youth sports clubs and leagues are defined by the following characteristics: The organization may be for‐profit or have nonprofit status under Section 501c3 or other applicable provision as defined by Internal Revenue Services (IRS) and is in good standing with the Minnesota Secretary of State. The organization conducts sports programs that are primarily competitive in nature. The curriculum and programming is focused on the maximum development and exposure of players to the next level of play. The organization conducts youth sports programming through paid coaches, board members and/or administrative staff. The organization does not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, background, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or ability. Team assignments may be determined by ability. There must be a policy for determining teams based on ability. The organization completes background check screenings on all coaches, assistant coaches, board members, volunteers and anyone who has contact with children. The association has a written background check screening policy. In addition to the characteristics of a Youth Sport Club or League defined herein, recognized Youth Sport Clubs and Leagues must submit the following to the City, upon request: The organization’s bylaws and , policies and procedures which govern operations. A list of the Board of Directors for the organization and current contact information including telephone and email address. Proof of coach’s certification training, including areas covered such as injury prevention, game rules, child abuse prevention, concussion training, and emergency procedures. On an annual basis, Community Youth Sports Clubs and Leagues recognized in this priority category must submit the following: Certification of Coaches Training and Background Check Screening Compliance. The City requires that a recognized Community Youth Sports Club or League must submit, on an annual basis, a signed Coaches Training and Background Check Screening Compliance Certification. The Certification shall be signed by an authorized representative and must page 177 Page 7 be on file with the City before the first reservation day of each year, regardless of the sport. Proof of Insurance. The City requires that a recognized Community Youth Sports Club or League must submit, on an annual basis, proof of insurance. Proof must be on file with the City before the first reservation day of each year, regardless of the sport. See Section I for insurance requirements. Rosters by Season. For demographic and billing purposes, the City requires that a recognized Community Youth Sports Club or League submit rosters by sport. Provided information shall include sport types, team name, year, name of participant, and address including city and zip code. In an event of competing requests from recognized organizations in the category, the City will determine allocation based on the following factors: The percentage of verifiable Mendota Heights residents served in the permit request. The request which has the majority of Mendota Heights residents confirmed will receive a higher priority. Residency percentages will be established using rosters from the most current season. Rosters must be submitted no later than one week before the first reservation date. Rosters must be submitted in .xls or .csv format. Information provided must include: sport type, team name, season of sport/year, participant name, address including city and zip code. Previous experience with the City of Mendota Heights. Date and time of permit request. Priority #5: Mendota Heights Residents Use of the Facility for Personal Use This includes residents of Mendota Heights using fields and facilities for personal use. In an event of competing requests in the category, the City will determine allocation based on the following factors: Date and time of permit request Previous experience with the City of Mendota Heights Priority #6: Mendota Heights‐Based Businesses/Commercial Organizations This includes business and commercial organizations that have a Mendota Heights office as evidenced by their address to use the facilities. In an event of competing requests in this category, the City will determine allocation based on the following factors: page 178 Page 8 Data and time of the permit request Previous experience with the City of Mendota Heights Priority #7: Non‐Mendota Heights Organizations, Businesses, and Individuals This includes all non‐Mendota Heights residents, organizations, groups, and businesses who want to use the facilities. In an event of competing requests in this category, the City will determine allocation based on the following factors: Date and time of the permit request Previous experience with the City of Mendota Heights D. SPORT SEASON PRIORITY A sport in its traditional season will be given priority consideration for field and facility use over an out‐of‐season sport. The following are considered traditional sport seasons: Spring/Summer: Baseball, Softball, T‐Ball, Lacrosse Fall: Soccer, Football Winter: Hockey Fields and facilities will be used for the intended sport unless otherwise authorized by the City. The City will attempt to accommodate emerging sports, when feasible. E. FEES The City may charge application and use fees in order to recover public costs to operate, maintain, repair, improve and administer the use of City fields. For each application submitted, an application fee shall be assessed. Field use fees shall be approved by the City Council and included in the City’s Fee Schedule. Use fees are subject to change at the discretion of the City Council. All users who receive a permit for exclusive use of a field must pay the appropriate fee per the City fee schedule. Payments for permits must be received in advance of the start of the reservation. If a permit has multiple reservations over several dates, the City will bill and payments may be made on a monthly basis. Payments can be made by cash, check or credit/debit card. F. NON‐USE OF FIELDS, FIELD EXCHANGE, OR SUBLEASE When permits are issued, a specific field is reserved for the user, to the exclusion of others. Recognizing this exclusivity, groups should only reserve the fields intended for use. Users may not assign their scheduled time to other groups or sublease fields under any circumstance. Any such action will result in the loss of rental/allocation privileges. A user may not “give up or exchange” their allocation or any part of it, without a written agreement page 179 Page 9 between the impacted parties and City approval. Subleasing of fields without City approval will result in revocation of all permits for all parties. Any organization that has been allocated space and subsequently determines that it cannot use it according to the permit issued shall notify the City so that the field may be reallocated or otherwise used by another group or the general public. Blanket permitting of City field and facilities by any user group is prohibited. Users will be required to provide team schedules that indicate all allocated fields and facilities have been scheduled, when requested. The City will verify the use of reserved field and facilities. A pattern of continued non‐use of a rented, permitted field may will result in the revocation of the user permit and the assignment of the field or facility to another user group.. G. FIELD CLOSURE, PERMIT CANCELLATION AND REFUNDS The City is responsible for determining if a field shall be scheduled for use or not and reserves the right to decide to periodically not schedule specific athletic fields and facilities. The City attempts to be flexible in accommodating user groups, but ultimately, the health and safety of the user and the condition and playability of a field takes priority. This may require the closure of fields or facilities, denial of use of a field or facility, and/or the assignment of alternate sites for use. Field closures will be communicated to permit holders by the Recreation Program Coordinator. The City may cancel use of City fields/facilities for reasons including, but not limited to, any of the following reasons: City maintenance work involving the facility or field When the health or safety of participants is threatened Inclement weather Wear and tear of the field including field retirement for regrowth and rehabilitation Unforeseen events including fire, drought, natural disaster or vandalism Non‐adherence to field and facility use policy, City ordinances, or use rules and regulations Permits cancelled by the City of Mendota Heights may be rescheduled as availability allows, or may be refunded in full. Permits cancelled due to non‐adherence with field and facility use policy, City Ordinances, or use rules and regulations will not be refunded. Permits cancelled by the user: More than 30 days in advance will receive a 100% refund (excluding application fee) 15‐30 days in advance will receive a 50% refund (excluding application fee) Less than 14 days in advance will not receive a refund In the event of a weather related cancellation by the user, the user must notify the Recreation Program Coordinator within two (2) business days after the cancellation to confirm a credit or to arrange rescheduling. If the City is not notified within two (2) page 180 Page 10 business days by the user that the event was cancelled due to inclement weather, the user will be billed as if the event occurred. H. MAINTENANCE The City performs maintenance on a routine basis to ensure fields and facilities are in good repair. The City will determine the appropriate number of hours each field can be used per season. Permit users will not be able to use the fields more than the hours allowed. This will be based on the field’s current condition and estimated intended City use throughout the year. Infield dragging. Infield dragging is done during the week (Monday – Friday) according to the schedule as defined by the City. Fields are not dragged or striped on the weekend (Saturday and Sunday) or on holidays; unless the user has paid a tournament preparation fee. If fields are too wet, fields will not be dragged with motorized equipment, the City will still chalk and hand rake to reduce low spots in the infield. Lining and striping of fields. Lining and striping of fields shall be done during the week (Monday –Friday) according to the schedule as defined by the City. Fields are not lined or striped on the weekend (Saturday and Sunday) or on holidays. A single fFields will not be lined for with more than one field overlay sport per field per season, unless the City can accommodate it. Foul lines will be painted in the outfield on all baseball fields during the season, but infield chalking will only be done at Mendakota and Civic Center fields. Groups wanting to chalk fields shall have received approval from the Recreation Program Coordinator, prior to chalking. Rink Flooding. Flooding of outdoor rinks will occur on an as needed basis, based on weather and rink conditions. Clean up and disposing of waste. Users are expected to dispose of waste in proper trash and recycling receptacles. The City of Mendota Heights prides itself on being a clean and green community, and renters are asked to recycle as much of their waste as possible. I. INSURANCE The permit holder agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, arising out of the use of the facility by the permit holder and its members, guests and agents resulting from the issuance of a field and facility use permit. Field and facility users must provide insurance coverage throughout the period of use naming the City of Mendota Heights as “additional insured”. Permit holders will be required to provide proof of general liability insurance coverage at a minimum amount of $2,000,000 for property damage and bodily injury. Proof of insurance via a Certificate of Insurance must be provided at least 14 days prior to the first date of play or special event. page 181 Page 11 J. CONCESSION SALES No organization or person shall sell or offer any product, food or service for sale without the prior written approval of the City. The sale of beer or other alcoholic beverages is prohibited. Requests which include the use of food trucks will be considered on a case‐by‐case basis. Food trucks require a permit, which is issued by the City Clerk. Requests must be made at least 14 days in advance of the event. Groups wanting to use concession stands or offer food or beverages for sale will need to obtain the appropriate permits and/or licenses from the County or State and have said permits or licenses during the entire time of the event. A copy of the approved permit must be submitted to the City in order to obtain keys to the concessions stand. K. ATHLETIC SPECIAL EVENTS Athletic special events are activities on City property that include, but are not limited to, tournaments, clinics, camps, or any other activity other than regular season practices and gamespractices, games and evaluations. Permits. Special events require a separate permit and should be requested outside of regular season play permits. Permit requests for special events will be accepted from user groups during the permit application timeframe identified in Section B of this policy. Tournament Special Event Contact and Information. Users must have an appointed tournament director/event manager on site, who can be contacted by City staff. Users will supply the Parks and Recreation Department with a schedule of games. Games shall not start before 8:00 am on any day of a tournament and may not be scheduled to start later than 6:30pm. If users want to schedule games at different times than allowed, the user must receive approval from the Recreation Program Coordinator. Users must include in the application if spectators will be charged admission. Advertisement banners or signs may not be placed at any facility without permission from the Recreation Program Coordinator. Special Event Fees. The City may charge application and special event use fees in order to recover public costs to operate, maintain, repair, improve and administer the use of City fields. For each application submitted, an application fee shall be assessed. Special Event use fees shall be approved by the City Council and included in the City’s Fee Schedule. Use fees are subject to change at the discretion of the City Council. The City reserves the right to waive field use and preparation fees and concession stand fees for “in‐house” tournaments hosted by users recognized in priority group three (3). For purposes of this provision, “in‐house” shall be defined as tournament style play where games are played between competing teams all from within the same organization. Special event fees including field and concession fees for invitational tournaments shall be charged. page 182 Page 12 All users who receive a permit for exclusive use of a field must pay the appropriate fee per the City fee schedule. The City will bill and payment shall be made prior to the event. Payments can be made by cash, check or credit/debit card. In the event of weather related cancellations by the permit holder, the permit holder will be billed unless the permit holder contacts the Recreation Program Coordinator within two (2) business days after a weather related cancellation to confirm a credit or to arrange rescheduling. Field Preparation, Maintenance and Clean‐Up. Fields will not be prepped throughout the tournament day. Maintenance staff will prep the fields before the first scheduled game(s) of the day, if the user elects to pay the preparation fees. Users may not modify or alter City fields in any way. The City will not provide equipment for groups to prep fields on their own throughout the tournament. All users of City park field and facilities are expected to leave the area(s) in the same or better condition than which it was found. Users will be responsible for picking up all trash at the end of each day’s events. Users who fail to clean up may be charged by the City for excessive clean up. It is the responsibility of the permit holder to make sure areas are cleaned up. Facility Capacity. Users must provide the number of teams and estimated number of playing participants. Due to space limitations regarding parking and spectator capacity, the City has the right to decrease the number of games in order to comply with the facility’s size. Users are responsible for maintaining control over the conduct of participants and spectators while using fields and facilities. Tournament hosts will be responsible for traffic and parking control and adhere to all City parking regulations. Parking is allowed only in designated areas. No vehicles are allowed on City fields, sidewalks or paths.. Users are responsible for the coordination and rental of any additional portable restrooms and/or hand washing stations that are needed in order to accommodate special events and shall be coordinated in conjunction with the Recreation Program Coordinator.. L. CITY CONTACT All communication with the Recreation Program Coordinator must be made through the spokesperson of the group. Athletic associations, clubs and leagues must choose one person who will be the City’s main contact. This eliminates confusion and establishes direct, efficient communication. Users should report any facility damage, accidents, dangerous or unsafe conditions to: City of Mendota Heights Recreation Program Coordinator Phone: 651‐255‐1354 (During regular business hours: Monday – Thursday 7:00 am to 4:30 pm and Friday from 7:00 am to 11:30 am) page 183 Page 13 Weekend/After Hours Phone: 651‐302‐3301 Email: meredithl@mendota‐heights.com (Email is checked Monday‐Friday during regular business hours) page 184 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 17, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Marie Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvements – Professional Services Change Order COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a Change Order for the Marie Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvement Professional Services contract with TKDA Engineering. BACKGROUND Mendota Heights awarded a contract to TKDA Engineering for the design, surveying and inspection of the Marie Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvement Project. The Wesley Lane and Dodd Road trail from Maple Street to Wesley Lane are substantially complete. Due to an unfavorable bidding market and changes to the project scope (removal of a block of trail, storm sewer revisions, excessive ground water, etc.), the project has had several revisions and a rebidding in an attempt to reduce project costs. DISCUSSION This Change Order is a request from the city consultant, TKDA Engineering, for an increase in the contract amount to perform the necessary work on Marie Avenue. The request is further broken down into: • Feasibility Study cost revisions for splitting project • Dodd Road Trail concepts, parcel sketches and curb design • Redesign of the Dodd Road Trail with storm sewer revisions for removal of the block of trail • Street width change on Marie Avenue from Sutton to Dodd including a trail realignment • Pedestrian Tunnel alternatives • Additional rain garden design • Project rebidding • Resubmitting plans for MnDOT approval for trail removal page 185 BUDGET IMPACT The contract with TKDA Engineering for the project is $274,400. TKDA has current billings on the project of $253,000 leaving a remainder of $21,400 which is inadequate to complete the remainder of Marie Avenue. TKDA submitted a conservative additional contract amount of $192,000 to complete the Phase 2 of the project. Subtracting the remainder from phase 1 ($21,400), would require an increase of $170,600 to the TKDA contract amount. The new contract amount would be $445,000 which is equivalent to 11 percent of the opinion of construction costs. Indirect costs are estimated at 20 percent of the contract. Funding for the change orders is not expected to have a major impact to the overall project costs and is within the estimated indirect costs. An additional scope of work was provided for trail construction from Wesley Lane to Marie Avenue of $44,000. This additional work does not require action at this time but is available if the city chooses to advance this section. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the Professional Services contract Change Order with TKDA Engineering. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion authorizing a Professional Services contract Change Order to TKDA for the Marie Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvement project. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 186 November 13, 2019 Via Email Only: ryanr@mendota-heights.com Mr. Ryan Ruzek, PE Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 Re: Additional Engineering Services – Amendment No. 3 Marie Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvements, City Project 201803 TKDA Project No. 0016948.000 Dear Mr. Ruzek: Pursuant to our communications with you, we propose to provide Additional Engineering Services related to 2020 Street Improvements to Marie Avenue in connection with this Project. This request will amend our original proposal dated May 30, 2018. As discussed and detailed in the attachment, the Project scope is being expanded based on the additional work along Dodd Road which was partially built in 2019 and street improvements to Marie Avenue in 2020. The additional fees will not exceed $170,600, which results in a total Project not to exceed amount of $445,000. A supplemental Project Fee Estimate is attached. The work plan shows Optional Work totaling $44,000 for trail work from Wesley to Marie Avenue. If you have any questions, please contact Larry Poppler at 651.292.4457 or larry.poppler@tkda.com. Sincerely, Lawrence P. Poppler, PE Dennis M. Postler, PE Project Manager Vice President, Municipal Services LPP:DMP:ksb:jks ATTACHMENT: AMENDMENT FEE ESTIMATE AMENDMENT DETAIL SHEET ACCEPTED FOR THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA By: _________________________________________________________________________ (signature) Printed Name/Title Date page 187 Project Fee Estimate City of Mendota Heights Date: 11/13/2019 Marie Avenue Project 2020 By:LPP Sr Reg Eng Reg Eng Graduate Engineer Const. Obs/ Survey Hydrologist Sr Reg Eng Sr Reg Eng Reg Eng Reg Eng Grad Eng Tech II 2 Plans and Specifications Project Mapping and Setup - -$ Revise existing completed sheets 8 8 664$ Prepare "GIS Grade" Street Design plan sheets 2 8 24 34 3,360$ Prepare Pedestrian Ramp and Bumpout plans (IF NEEDED)2 8 32 8 50 4,976$ Prepare Watermain Relocation plan sheets - -$ Prepare Storm Ponding plan sheets 2 6 24 8 40 4,504$ Prepare Trail realignment and Underpass plans 2 32 12 4 10 25 215 300 29,449$ Prepare Lexington pavement and Trail plans 2 16 32 4 54 5,620$ Prepare Retaining Wall plans 1 8 16 8 33 3,868$ Details and Front End sheets 1 4 4 9 1,016$ Specifications 4 10 24 38 3,744$ Update Cost Estimate 1 16 24 41 4,164$ Utility Coordination 4 16 20 2,080$ Meetings with City Staff 6 6 12 1,872$ Public Meetings (3)6 3 9 1,500$ State Aid Administration 2 10 12 1,616$ Project Management 8 8 1,504$ SUBTOTAL HOURS 43 127 192 8 8 8 18 - 25 215 24 668 SUBTOTAL COST 8,084$ 15,748$ 15,936$ 952$ 1,392$ 1,208$ 3,060$ -$ 3,100$ 18,705$ 1,752$ 69,937$ Expenses: Travel & Subsistence (TS)41$ Subtotal 69,978$ C Bid Solicitation Stage 1 Advertisement for Bids 2 2 4 394$ Distribute Plans and Specifications to Bidders 4 4 292$ Maintain Plan Holder List 2 2 146$ Respond to Bidder's Questions; Issue Addenda 1 4 2 7 830$ Bid Opening and Tabulate Bids (@ Mendota Hts CH)3 1 2 6 834$ Prepare Contract Award Recommendation Letter 1 1 1 3 385$ Project Management 2 2 376$ SUBTOTAL HOURS 7 8 - - - - - - - - 13 28 SUBTOTAL COST 1,316$ 992$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 949$ 3,257$ Expenses: Travel & Subsistence (TS)10$ Reproduction & Reprographics (RR)200$ Subtotal 3,467$ C Construction Stage 2 Construction Observation/Administration Walk Project Corridor to Determine Curb Removal 4 12 16 1,492$ Construction Staking 40 40 80 8,080$ Curb Staking Sutton to Dodd 8 8 16 1,616$ Construction Observation 20 20 700 4 744 65,020$ Administration 4 4 8 1,248$ Land Bridge Inspection 1 1 8 80 90 8,236$ Project Management 2 2 376$ SUBTOTAL HOURS 26 28 760 48 - - 5 1 8 80 - 956 SUBTOTAL COST 4,888$ 3,472$ 63,080$ 5,712$ -$ -$ 850$ 114$ 992$ 6,960$ -$ 86,068$ Expenses: Travel & Subsistence (TS)620$ Survey Equipment Rental 1,600$ Subconsultant (Element)18,477$ Subconsultant Mark-up 10%1,848$ Subtotal 108,613$ C Post Construction Stage 3 As-Builts Survey and Plan preparation 2 16 16 24 58 6,544$ Warranty Claims 2 8 8 18 2,320$ SUBTOTAL HOURS 4 24 16 32 - - - - - - - 76 SUBTOTAL COST 752$ 2,976$ 1,328$ 3,808$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,864$ Expenses: Travel & Subsistence (TS)45$ Equipment Rental 960$ Subtotal 9,869$ ROUNDED 9,900$ TOTAL HOURS 80 187 968 88 8 8 23 1 33 295 37 1,728 TOTAL LABOR COST 15,040$ 23,188$ 80,344$ 10,472$ 1,392$ 1,208$ 3,910$ 114$ 4,092$ 25,665$ 2,701$ 168,126$ TOTAL EXPENSES 23,801$ TOTAL PROJECT 191,927$ TOTAL (ROUNDED)192,000$ Total Dollars Estimated Person Hours Required Total Hours Project: Client: Task Task Description page 188 Project Fee Estimate City of Mendota Heights Date: 11/13/2019 Marie Avenue Project 2020 By:LPP Sr Reg Eng Reg Eng Graduate Engineer Const. Obs/ Survey Hydrologist Sr Reg Eng Sr Reg Eng Reg Eng Reg Eng Grad Eng Tech II Total Dollars Estimated Person Hours Required Total Hours Project: Client: Task Task Description OPTIONAL WORK Dodd Trail (Wesley to Marie) Survey and Mapping - -$ Prepare Plan Sheets for Roadway - -$ Prepare Water and sewer plan sheet 2 4 16 22 2,200$ Prepare grading and trail plans based on previous plans 2 16 32 50 5,016$ Prepare curb realignment sheets 1 8 16 25 2,508$ Specifications 2 4 16 22 2,040$ Utility Coordination 2 16 18 1,704$ Property Sketches 2 16 18 1,704$ Construction Staking 16 16 32 3,232$ Constructiion Observation 4 40 100 144 14,012$ Post Construction 24 16 40 4,304$ Coordination Meetings (5)10 10 20 3,120$ Project Management 6 6 1,128$ SUBTOTAL HOURS 31 106 228 16 - - - - - - 16 397 SUBTOTAL COST 5,828$ 13,144$ 18,924$ 1,904$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,168$ 40,968$ Expenses: Travel & Subsistence (TS)165$ Survey Equipment Rental 640$ Subconsultant Geotechnical Exploration (Element) Subconsultant Construction Testing (Element)2,000$ Subconsultant Mark-up 10%200$ Subtotal Expenses 3,005$ Subtotal 43,973$ ROUNDED 44,000$ TOTAL HOURS 31 106 228 16 - - - - - - 16 397$ TOTAL 43,973$ TOTAL (ROUNDED)44,000$ page 189 Mendota Heights Amendment 3 Details Original TKDA Contract: $244,300 Amendment #1 – Dodd Road Survey $3,600 Amendment #2 – Land Bridge Design and Inspection $26,500 Total Existing TKDA Contract: $274,400 Based on funding, project split ½ of Marie Avenue and Wesley neighborhood for 2019 which added the following work tasks: 1. Feasibility study cost revisions for splitting project 2. Dodd Road Trail concepts (City uncertain of how it would proceed based on resident input) 3. Dodd Road Trail parcel sketches 4. Dodd Road Trail design with curb and gutter added along Dodd Road 5. Dodd Road Trail redesign with storm sewer added with drainage calculations 6. Marie Avenue street width changed from Sutton to Dodd with trail realignment 7. Tunnel alignment alternatives explored 8. Rain Gardens added Project bid, and City received only one high bid. Project split to Dodd Road Trail from Mager to Maple and the Wesley neighborhood and Rebid 9. Repackage plans / MNDOT review process / Rebid project 10. Dodd Road trail and storm staking 11. Dodd Road trail and storm sewer inspection 12. Repackage plans for MNDOT due to removal of trail from Wesley to Mager Current TKDA Expenditures: $236,000 Anticipated billing for Dodd Road Trail and Wesley Neighborhood including Element Invoice: $17,000 Total Expected TKDA Expenditures: $253,000 Remaining Budget: $21,400 ($274,400-$253,000) Work Plan for 2020 work on Marie: $192,000 (see attached) Total Amendment #3: $170,600 ($192,000 - $21,400) • Includes addition materials testing for Land Bridge work from Element • Assumes Steve Bunch inspection in 2020 assuming 700 hours (14 Weeks at 50 hours) Overall Construction costs estimated at $4.0 Million. Total engineering with amendments $445,000 ($274,400 + $170,600) or roughly 11% for both design and inspection. Optional Dodd Trail from Wesley to Marie if bid and constructed with Marie Ave: $44,000 page 190