2020-02-11 Parks and Rec Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 11, 2020- 6:30 P.M.
Mendota Heights City Hall—City Council Chambers
AGENDA
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
a.Introduction of New Commissioner
3.Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
4.Pledge of Allegiance
5.Approval of Agenda
6.Approval of Minutes
a.January 14, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes
7.Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
*See guidelines below
8.Acknowledgement of Reports
a.Par 3 Update
b.Recreation Update
c.Natural Resources Update
9.Unfinished Business
a.Rules of Order
b.Assign Commissioner Parks
c.Community Engagement Check In
d.Pickleball Opportunities
e.Dodd Road Trail Connection
10.New Business
a.Playground Subcommittee Appointment
b.Rogers Lake Skate Park Improvements
11.Staff Announcements
12.Student Representative Update
13.Commission Comments and Park Updates
14.Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights
will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 651-452-1850.
Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the commission on items
which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak.
Comments should be directed to the Chair. 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 Recreation Program Coordinator to appear on a future Parks and Recreation commission 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.
Commissioners will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation.
Questions from the Commission 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 Chair may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.
DATE: February 11, 2020
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Introduction of New Commissioner
BACKGROUND
On January 21st the City Council appointed Amy Smith to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Each new member typically provides a brief biography to help introduce themselves to the
other commissioners. Below is her biography.
Amy Smith and her family live in the Bridgeview Shores neighborhood and have participated in
Park and Rec programs in Mendota Heights since 2012. Amy and her husband Joe have two
daughters, Addie (12) and Michaela (10) who attend Friendly Hills Middle School. Amy is a
proud Golden Gopher as she graduated from the U of MN Twin Cities and was a member of the
Women's soccer team. She currently owns her own executive search firm focused on the
medical device field. Amy is looking forward to working with the Parks and Rec Commission.
1
DATE: February 11, 2020
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
BACKGROUND
Section 2.3 of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission Rules of Order states: “At
the February meeting each year, the commission elects from its membership a Chairperson and
a Vice-Chairperson.” The terms of both officers will last one year and become effective at the
February meeting. According to Section 2.4 of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation
Commission Rules of Order, “The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson take office immediately
following their election and hold office until their successors are elected and assume office.”
The duties of officers are as follows:
The Chairperson, or if absent, the Vice-Chairperson presides at meetings, appoints
committees and performs other duties as may be ordered by the commission.
The Chairperson conducts meetings so as to keep them moving rapidly and efficiently as
possible and reminds members, witnesses, and petitioners to discuss only the subject at
hand. The Chairperson is a voting member of the commission.
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff requests that the Commission accept nominations and elect a Chair and Vice-Chair. This
matter requires a majority vote. The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson will be elected
separately.
2
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING
JANUARY 14, 2020
The January meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on
Tuesday, January 14, 2020, 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 Hinderscheid, Bob Klepperich, Stephanie Meyer, David
Miller, Dan Sherer and 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 Cotter, to approve the agenda AYES 7: NAYS 0
5.a Approval of Minutes from December 10, 2019 Regular Meeting
Motion Meyer/second Hinderscheid, to approve the minutes of the December 10, 2019 Parks
and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting. AYES 7: NAYS 0
6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
None.
7. Acknowledgement of Reports
Chair Goldade read the titles of the three updates (Par 3, Recreation, and Field and Facility Use
Policy Updates) and polled the Commissioners for questions.
7.a Par 3 Update
Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, briefly reviewed the 2019 November
Financial Report. She stated that December will not have revenue but will have expenses. She
noted that a final report will be forthcoming for 2019.
7.b Recreation Update
Chair Goldade commended staff for the excellent work on the Orbit Earth Expo.
7.c Field and Facility Use Policy Update
Ms. Lawrence stated that this is an informational document. She stated that the Field and
Facility Use Policy amendments were approved by the City Council. She noted that most of the
amendments were specific to language and highlighted some of the changes. She stated that
the process included good discussions with the Council, Commission, and user groups.
Commissioner Miller suggested that staff highlight the changes in the document to make it
easier for the Commission to find the changes.
3
Chair Goldade asked if there is a deadline for Mendota Heights residents to make reservations.
Ms. Lawrence stated that page two of the policy identifies deadlines, noting that the first
deadline would be February for the 2020 Field and Facility season of March through July.
Motion Klepperich/second Cotter to acknowledge the staff reports. AYES 7: NAYES 0
8. Unfinished Business
8.a Community Engagement Check In
Ms. Lawrence stated that they met with the Rotary which she believed was a worthwhile
meeting. She stated that residents are happy with the parks and feel that the parks are clean
and well maintained. She noted that there were positive comments related to park equipment,
trails, and partnerships with surrounding communities. She reported that the residents would
like to see a marketing campaign for the parks, more adult league options, more family friendly
pop-up events in the parks, more movies in the park, possible pursuit of a splashpad, perhaps a
trail to access the high school to increase safety for students, work out equipment along the
trails, and additional trail maps at the parks. She stated that there was discussion about the
possibility of partnering with businesses to provide more nature-based play programing, which is
an increasing trend. She advised that the Mendota Heights Living magazine was discussed and
praised, noting that is not a City publication.
Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that they met with the Rotary on January 8th and he was
impressed that a good number of the attendees utilizing the parks and/or recreation programs.
He thanked staff and the Rotary Club for the information they were able to obtain.
Chair Goldade stated that he was happy that the group was excited to talk about the parks and
share ideas. He stated that a number of Rotary members spoke as grandparents that enjoy the
parks with their grandchildren.
Commissioner Meyer asked if there were any examples of good parks given.
Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that they did ask if there were features in other parks that
the members liked but could not remember any examples that were provided.
Ms. Lawrence commented that the only park she remembered being named was Madison’s
Place in Woodbury, which is a large destination park with great features. She noted that
Mendota Heights does not have the space available to create a park of that scale at this time.
Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that the President of the Rotary Club is also the Executive
Director of the YMCA and expressed interest in perhaps partnering on future projects and
funding.
Chair Goldade stated that this process is providing great information and highlighted some of
the upcoming engagement groups.
8.b Par 3 Trail Connection
Public Works Director, Ryan Ruzek, stated that a resident previously asked the City about the
possibilities of a soft trail along the edge of the Par 3 golf course. He identified the platted right-
of-way that goes to the edge of the Par 3, noting that it appears to be an undeveloped right-of-
way but there is a homeowner with fencing and landscaping within that area. He stated that
4
staff walked along the edge and there are some challenging grades along the area, some which
would require large amounts of fill. He provided a rough estimate of $200,000 for the trail and
highlighted some of the challenges that would exist. He advised that the City did commission a
Dodd Road corridor study and an alternative option for that connection could go along Dodd
Road. He stated that although the alternative trail connection option along Dodd Road would
have a similarly estimated cost, it would align more with the long-range goal of the City.
Commissioner Cotter asked for additional information on how the East route option would better
fit into the City’s long-range plans.
Mr. Ruzek replied that in 2016 the City received a grant from the County and had a consultant
study the entire Dodd Road corridor. He stated that report could be shared with the
Commission and should be posted on the City’s website. He explained that the larger goal
would be to construct a trail along the entire corridor.
Commissioner Cotter asked for input on whether it could be preferred to construct segments of
the trail in a piecemeal fashion.
Mr. Ruzek stated that staff is currently seeking quotes for two intersection control points along
Dodd Road. He stated that the Capital Improvement Plan identifies potential intersection
improvements beginning in 2023. He explained that segments of the trail could be constructed
along with intersection improvements.
Commissioner Sherer agreed that the East option would provide better connectivity and would
be a preferred route. He stated that this segment appears to be a current gap in the corridor.
Mr. Ruzek stated that staff is working with the County and West St. Paul on the reconstruction
of Delaware Avenue that would include a trail on one or both sides. He discussed the feasibility
of other trail segments along Dodd.
Commissioner Sherer referenced the elementary school on Dodd, noting that children walk
along Dodd without sidewalks or trails.
Mr. Ruzek advised of current connections to the elementary school as well as potential
crossings that would provide safer routes.
Commissioner Cotter asked if completing a trail along with an intersection improvement would
provide a cost benefit.
Mr. Ruzek confirmed that typically you can see some economy of scale in a larger project
compared to a smaller project.
Chair Goldade asked for details on the trail that would be required, including possible curb and
buffer.
Mr. Ruzek confirmed that MnDOT would require curb and a five-foot grass boulevard before the
eight to ten-foot-wide bituminous trail.
Chair Goldade asked if an application would need to be submitted to MnDOT.
5
Mr. Ruzek explained that would depend upon how the City decides to fund that improvement.
He noted that if the trail is included with a road improvement, the City could use State Aid funds.
He stated that if local funds were used, the City would need to obtain a permit from MnDOT. He
stated that the typical timeline for that type of approval would be 30 to 45 days but could extend
out to 90 days. He stated that drainage concerns would be one of the largest concerns from
MnDOT. He provided additional information on stormwater elements currently in the area. He
stated that staff is looking for input on whether the Commission would like to continue to
consider a trail along the W est side of the Par 3 or whether the Eastern option along Dodd Road
would be sufficient, and whether the Dodd Road trail should be pursued as a standalone project
or in conjunction with an intersection improvement.
Chair Goldade asked if the City has previously acquired Safe Routes to School funds and
whether the City would be interested in that option.
Mr. Ruzek explained the additional steps that would be necessary. He noted that staff could
reach out to a local school to determine if they would like to participate in the future. He was
unsure that this segment would qualify as it is not directly adjacent to a school.
Commissioner Meyer asked if staff believes the Dodd Road segment would make more sense.
She stated that personally she does not like either of the options. She explained that the Dodd
Road segment does not appear that it will extend all the way down to Wentworth and therefore
residents will still zigzag down different areas.
Mr. Ruzek confirmed that this segment would connect the two neighborhoods that have a
barrier between them.
Commissioner Sherer stated that he recalled that the residents that spoke were looking for a
walking path that would connect the two neighborhoods. He commented that seemed like an
easier option but having to meet ADA requirements would add additional challenges and costs.
Mr. Ruzek stated that the City follows the State bike and trail manual whenever trails are
constructed.
Commissioner Sherer stated that the Par 3 option has a segment along one of the greens,
which would make users a target for golf balls.
Commissioner Meyer referenced a portion of the Dodd Road trail and asked if that would be too
close to the sand trap or tee box.
Mr. Ruzek commented that the trail could be constructed within MnDOT right-of-way and would
not touch the Par 3 course.
Ms. Lawrence stated that there are irrigation heads that would need to be relocated/redirected
along the Dodd Road segment.
Commissioner Miller stated that it first seemed that the East path along Dodd would make
sense as there would eventually be a path along that roadway. He recognized that there would
also be an advantage towards taking people off a busy road and putting the trail through nature,
therefore he would prefer the Western option.
6
Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that given the challenges and expense, he would prefer not
to pursue either option.
Commissioner Klepperich stated that he would favor the Eastern option along Dodd Road
because of the construction complications of the Western option. He commented that he
believes eventually there will be paths along Dodd Road. He stated that the costs would be well
beyond what the parks fund could support and therefore alternative funding would need to be
pursued.
Commissioner Sherer stated that he would support the option along Dodd Road as that is
consistent with the goals of both the City and MnDOT.
Commissioner Cotter stated that he would also support the Eastern option along Dodd Road,
although that would require additional information. He stated that it could be beneficial to
combine the project with the intersection project as there could be a possibility to utilize State
Aid funding.
Student Representative Boland commented that the Eastern option would seem more realistic
because of the challenges that would exist for the Par 3 option.
Commissioner Meyer stated that while she prefers a nature-based option, she does agree that
the Eastern option would make more sense.
Chair Goldade agreed that the Eastern option seems more practical and fits with the long-range
goals of the City and County.
Mr. Ruzek stated that he can bring the issue of whether the trail should occur as a standalone
project or combined with an intersection project to the next meeting.
8.c Pickleball Court Planning
Chair Goldade reviewed the definitions of designated pickleball court and multi-use court,
providing an example of a multi-use court within the City.
Mr. Ruzek stated that the City previously reviewed possible additions for pickleball courts and
identified a potential location at Hagstrom King Park that was brought forward in the past by a
resident. He stated that the request did not move forward at that time and the City instead
pursued improvements to a multi-use court at Marie Park. He identified the tennis courts at
Valley Park which could be repurposed for another use. He noted that the court currently has
sport court tiles because of the pour drainage in the park. He was unsure if the pickleball court
could utilize that type of tile or whether it would need to be removed in order to be repurposed.
He estimated the cost for the construction and necessary trail connections and fencing at the
Hagstrom King park to be $125,000 compared to the repurposing of the Valley Park court which
would be about $80,000.
Commissioner Hinderscheid asked for a comparison of the two parks in terms of proximity of
homes noting that sound has been an issue for pickleball.
Mr. Ruzek identified the proximity of the homes to each of the court/proposed court locations.
He noted that both parks are near busy roadways that cause noise.
7
Commissioner Hinderscheid commented that it would appear the Valley Park location would
potentially have less issues with noise for adjacent homes.
Commissioner Cotter asked if there has been a thought to spacing out the courts more, as there
is a multi-purpose court available at Marie Park and Valley Park is just one mile away.
Mr. Ruzek explained that if the designated courts were done at Valley Park, the multi-purpose
court at Marie Park would eventually become a dedicated hockey court.
Commissioner Meyer identified additional flat land behind the pavilion at Valley Park and asked
if that would provide an opportunity for future expansion.
Mr. Ruzek stated that disturbing trees and vegetation would not be well supported.
Commissioner Klepperich asked if there has been a consensus to not reduce the number of
tennis courts.
Ms. Lawrence noted that in a previous study it was found that the City has a sufficient number of
tennis courts and the study would not recommend removing courts. She stated that she has
received the largest amount of tennis court permits for 2020, noting that most prefer to use
Marie Park because the courts are brand new.
Commissioner Scherer commented that the court at Valley Park is used.
Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that the Commission has discussed pickleball for a long time
and it is one of the fastest growing sports. He stated that it is time Mendota Heights moves
forward on pickleball. He stated that his preference would be the option at Valley Park as he
would be sensitive to the issue of noise for adjacent homes.
Commissioner Miller echoed the comment, noting that there are other tennis courts available for
those users in that area. He noted that Valley Park is also a centralized location.
Commissioner Klepperich suggested resurfacing Friendly Hills in 2020 with the Commission
then recommending that the Council budget for designated pickleball courts in 2021. He noted
that the decision could then be made at that time whether to choose Valley or Hagstrom King.
Commissioner Sherer stated that he does not support removing tennis courts. He referenced
the flat area at Friendly Hills and asked if that could be a location for designated court space.
Ms. Lawrence commented that could be a good location, but it has been used for soccer in the
past.
Commissioner Cotter stated that it is obvious that there is a desire for pickleball courts. He
stated that the City already spent funds at Marie Park to create the multi-purpose court and
therefore is unsure about spending additional funds one mile away to create a dedicated court
at Valley Park. He stated that he likes the idea of resurfacing at Friendly Hills for the time being
and attempting to gain support from the Council in terms of funding, which would also provide
additional time to find a good location for dedicated pickleball courts.
8
Student Representative Boland stated that some residents in his neighborhood have attempted
to play pickleball on the tennis courts at Friendly Hills. He stated that he would also not support
removing tennis courts to create pickleball courts.
Commissioner Meyer stated that he likes the idea of Valley Park because of the isolated
location and would support that option.
Chair Goldade stated that he likes the idea of dedicated pickleball courts and also would like to
see that option south of 62. He confirmed the consensus of the Commission to reopen the
discussion on pickleball and will decide on a location during a future agenda.
Commissioner Klepperich asked if the Commission should pursue resurfacing at Friendly Hills,
or whether that should be delayed.
Mr. Ruzek explained that the City will be obtaining a quote in the future related to resurfacing at
Friendly Hills and additional work could be done to determine if there would be space available
that could be used for a pickleball court.
9. New Business
None.
10. Staff Announcements
Ms. Lawrence shared the following announcements:
• Blade with the Blue on February 8th– registration is required
• Royal Ball on February 9th
• Other events can be found on the city’s website
Ms. Lawrence also thanked Commissioner Miller for his contributions to the Commission, noting
that he will be greatly missed.
Commissioner Miller stated that he has found it enjoyable to be a part of this group.
11. Student Representative Update
Student Representative Boland stated that he spoke with a parent in his neighborhood and
received positive feedback related to the skating areas at Friendly Hills Park and Hagstrom
King.
12. Commission Comments and Park Updates
Chair Goldade thanked Commissioner Miller for his contribution to the Commission.
Commissioner Cotter
• Thanked Commissioner Miller for this service to the Commission.
• He has been impressed with the number of winter skaters and the great use of the City’s
rinks.
Commissioner Sherer
9
• Thanked Commissioner Miller for his service.
• He commended Ms. Lawrence on her recent recognition.
Commissioner Klepperich
• Thanked Commissioner Miller and wished him well in his retirement.
• Acknowledged Ms. Lawrence for the recognition she received from the Recreation and
Parks Association.
Commissioner Meyer
• She echoed the congratulations to Ms. Lawrence and thanks to Commissioner Miller.
• She stated that she was also pleased to see the skating numbers and high use of the
rinks and parks.
Commissioner Hinderscheid
• He congratulated Ms. Lawrence for her award and the favorable golf report.
• He stated that it is nice to see the small fenced area for the dog park, noting that the dog
park continues to be well used.
• Thanked Commissioner Miller for his years of service and wisdom he has brought to the
Commission.
Commissioner Miller
• He explained that he has been able to think about different uses of the parks through the
eyes of his grandchildren.
Chair Goldade
• The Commission continues to discuss Wentworth and potential upgrades to the warming
house and tennis court.
• He referenced a recent article about Valley Park in the Friday News
• He congratulated Ms. Lawrence for her award and again thanked Commissioner Miller
for his years of service.
13. Adjourn
Motion Miller/Second Klepperich, to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 PM
AYES 7: NAYS 0
Minutes drafted by:
Amanda Staple
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
10
DATE: February 11, 2020
TO: Parks & Recreation Commission
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Par 3 Update
2019 Year in Review
Staff plans to present the 2019 Parks and Recreation Year in Review at the April Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting. This presentation will include Par 3 Financial information and
an overview of accomplishments from the previous year.
2020 Programming
Staff has finalized Summer programming for the Par 3. This year Adult Lessons and Junior
Tournaments will be added to city’s offerings.
Maintenance Preparation
Staff is busy preparing for the 2020 golf season by working on an update maintenance plan and
schedule for the seasonal staff. With updated equipment, staff feels that schedules can be
adjusted and maintenance standards can be increased.
11
DATE: February 11, 2020
TO: Parks & Recreation Commission
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Recreation Update
Blade with the Blue
The City of Mendota Heights recreation department will be partnering with the police
department to host “Blade with the Blue” on Saturday, February 8. Staff will provide an
overview of the event at the meeting.
Royal Ball Cancellation
The Royal Ball, which was scheduled for Sunday, February 9 was cancelled due to low turnout.
Staff is working to re-evaluate the event and come up with different options going forward.
Summer Program Offerings
Staff is busy working to schedule fun programming for the community for the summer of 2020.
Registration will open Monday, March 2 at 8am. Registration can be completed on the City’s
website or in person at City Hall.
Warming House Update
Attached is the warming house log. The log is compiled from the rink attendant’s daily reports.
Wentworth warming house is open for the season, but is unstaffed, so there is no data from
this rink. Ice conditions have been poor due to the warm temperatures, but staff is continuing
to flood daily in order to improve conditions.
12
Friendly Hills # of Skaters Avg Temp Marie # of Skaters Avg Temp
12/19/2019 9 23.8 12/19/2019 8 25.6
12/20/2019 34 29.2 12/20/2019 73 27.4
12/21/2019 44 36.6 12/21/2019 63 36.8
12/22/2019 32 37.5 12/22/2019 71 40.3
12/23/2019 49 16.5 12/23/2019 80 17
12/24/2019 1 36.5 12/24/2019 32 36.5
12/27/2019 13 32.2 12/27/2019 50 27
12/29/2019 0 36.2 12/29/2019 0 36.2
12/30/2019 22 28 12/30/2019 0 28.75
12/31/2019 3 22.3 12/31/2019 6 23.5
December Total:207 29.88 December Total:383 29.905
1/1/2020 33 31.3 1/1/2020 53 29.8
1/2/2020 1 30.4 1/2/2020 22 29.6
1/3/2020 8 28.4 1/3/2020 26 28.6
1/4/2020 44 36.6 1/4/2020 44 36.6
1/5/2020 14 34.5 1/5/2020 38 34.8
1/6/2020 6 34.4 1/6/2020 2 34.4
1/7/2020 10 16.6 1/7/2020 18 15.6
1/8/2020 11 9.4 1/8/2020 4 8.4
1/9/2020 25 29.4 1/9/2020 7 33.2
1/10/2020 31 14.2 1/10/2020 30 13.4
1/11/2020 44 36.6 1/11/2020 44 36.6
1/12/2020 28 18.5 1/12/2020 33 19.8
1/13/2020 5 25.2 1/13/2020 19 26.4
1/14/2020 13 19.2 1/14/2020 15 19.8
1/15/2020 2 11.2 1/15/2020 5 19.6
1/16/2020 6 1.6 1/16/2020 11 1.6
1/18/2020 44 7.5 1/18/2020 44 7.7
1/19/2020 42 10 1/19/2020 18 11
1/20/2020 33 14.6 1/20/2020 32 15.3
1/21/2020 12 16.4 1/21/2020 13 14.4
1/22/2020 0 33.4 1/22/2020 0 35
1/23/2020 12 31.6 1/23/2020 41 30.8
1/24/2020 6 31.4 1/24/2020 30 31.4
1/25/2020 44 30.4 1/25/2020 44 30.2
1/26/2020 35 27.8 1/26/2020 26 28.5
1/27/2020 4 23.6 1/27/2020 4 25
1/28/2020 4 18.2 1/28/2020 25 18
1/29/2020 10 20.4 1/29/2020 10 22.4
1/30/2020 41 25 1/30/2020 34 26.2
1/31/2020 21 32.2 1/31/2020 13 30.6
January Total:589 23.333333 January Total:705 23.82333
2/1/2020 44 34.5 2/1/2020 44 34.8
2/4/2020 13 19.4 2/4/2020 15 19
2/5/2020 10 24.4 2/5/2020 36 25.2
2/6/2020 34 26.8 2/6/2020 16 28
13
DATE: February 11, 2020
TO: Parks & Recreation Commission
FROM: Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Update
BACKGROUND
MN Department of Transportation Outfall Remediation Project – Valley Park
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT) will be performing a stormwater outfall
remediation project beginning February of 2020. The project entails removing and replacing two existing
stormwater outlet structures within MN DOT I-35E Right-of-Way, within Valley Park, that convey
stormwater under I-35E and then outlet to Interstate Valley Creek. The goal of the project is to reduce
stormwater velocity, and also reduce or eliminate current erosion that is happening around the
structures. Tree removal will be necessary in order to access the two structures (plans attached). Plans
for tree removal have been reviewed by Natural Resources staff, the City Engineer, and resident Master
Gardeners. Efforts have been made to save mature and high-value trees where feasible. The structural
work is scheduled to take place in July of 2020.
Valley Park Pollinator Corridor
The City has partnered with the State of MN, Great River Greening and Xcel Energy to restore and create
nine acres of pollinator habitat in the Valley Park utility corridor (map attached). Site preparation has
begun, which includes cutting of invasive plant species and herbicide treatments. A dormant seeding has
also been completed by Applied Ecological Services, a subcontractor, on the southern section of the
corridor. Signs have been posted within the park to better inform the public. This project is part of the
larger Metro Big Rivers Phase 8 plan, which focuses on protecting and improving wildlife habitats.
Roger’s Lake Aeration Permit
The City has obtained a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to install and
operate an aerator on Rogers Lake during the winter months. Lake aerators increase the levels of
dissolved oxygen in the water, preventing winterkill of fish and other aquatic life, as well as helping to
improve overall water quality. Safety signs have been posted per the requirements of the permit. The
City has obtained a permit to operate the aeration system since 2013.
EAB Management
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) was confirmed in Mendota Heights in 2015, and is expected to eventually
infect and kill all untreated ash trees in the City (approximately 10,000 trees). The City applied for and
has received a grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) to plant 100 trees
over the next two years to help replace ash trees lost due to EAB. The trees selected for replacement
include a diverse selection of comparable, quality shade tree species that have been pre-approved by
the MN DNR. The project is made possible due to funds available through the Environment and Natural
14
Resources Trust Fund. The City will also continue its contract with Rainbow Tree Care to aid in the
management of EAB. The contract includes discounted treatment rates for residents, as well as
treatment of 48 park trees. City staff continues to inventory and assess the City’s public ash trees.
Education and outreach to residents on Emerald Ash Borer will continue to be implemented, including
notices sent to residents that Staff has identified as having infected ash trees.
Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Historic Site
A task force has been created, at the direction of City Council, in order to pursue short and long-term
goals for the improvement and management of the historic Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Site. Staff plans to
work with the seven appointed members (Al Singer, Autumn Hubbel, Christine Soutter, Dale Bachmeier,
Juanita Espinosa, Gail Lewellan, and a seventh member yet to be appointed) in this effort.
Partnership with Great River Greening
The City has again partnered with Great River Greening to aid in the management of invasive species in
2019. Great River Greening will continue management of the Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Historic Site, Valley
Park, Rogers Lake Park, and has begun the management of Copperfield Ponds Park this year as well.
Earth and Arbor Day Event
The City’s Earth and Arbor Day event has been scheduled for April 25, 2020. Events include educational
booths and activities and a presentation by the Minnesota Zoomobile to be held at City Hall, and a
volunteer tree planting event to be held at Hagstrom King Park. The schedule for the event is as follows:
Saturday, April 25th
• World of Wildlife – Minnesota Zoomobile Program
City Hall Council Chambers
11am – 11:45am
• Educational Booths and Activities
City Hall Lobby
10am – 12pm
• Volunteer Tree Planting Event
Hagstrom King Park
1pm
Spring Tree Sale
A resident spring tree sale is again planned for the spring of 2020. Residents will have the option of
purchasing 1-2 shade trees for their private property at the discounted rate of $45/tree. The on-line sale
begins March 11, and runs through May 8. Tree pick-up is on Saturday, May 16 at the City’s Public Works
facility. Choices include:
• Kentucky Coffee Tree
• Japanese Tree Lilac
• Hackberry
• Linden
• Bur Oak
The goal of the tree sale is to encourage residents to plant trees, which help to replace canopy loss due
to Emerald Ash Borer, provide food and habitat for pollinators and other wildlife, and beautify Mendota
Heights.
ACTION REQUIRED
None – for informational purposes only although comments are welcomed.
15
STREAM
35E-MARIE DRAFT ACCESS PLAN
SHEET NO. OF SHEETS1 1 (TH 35E)PATH & FILENAME:Projects\DM_ROS\035E\1982\000\Maint_Issues\RP101_EnergyDissipators\Hydraulics\35E-Marie-Overview-AccesPlan.dgnDISTRICT #:MetroPLOTTED/REVISED:PLOT NAME:35E-Marie-Overview-AccesPlanSTATE PROJ. NO. 27-SEP-2019 100
SCALE IN FEETACCESS PATH
UTILITY POLE
OUTFALL REMEDIATION #1
STATION PAD
APPROXIMATE PUMP
GAS
OUTFALL REMEDIATION #2
FENCE/ROW
TRUCK DIMENSION
TRAILAS1003
BASEAS1004STUB
PK PK
PK
PK
PK
PK
PK
PK AS1019STUB
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
?
?
?
M
M
ADELINE
T
H3
5
E
T
H3
5
E
16
17
DATE: February 11, 2020
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Rules of Order
Background
Each year in February it is recommended the commission review the Parks and Recreation
Commission rules of order so that all commissioners are up-to-date and informed.
Requested Action
Informational Only.
18
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
RULES OF ORDER
In accordance with the City of Mendota Heights Ordinance No. 109, “Establishing A Parks
and Recreation Commission,” the following rules of order are adopted by the parks and
recreation commission to facilitate the performance of its duties and the exercising of its
functions as a Commission created by the city council.
SECTION 1. MEETING
1.1 – Time. Regular meetings of the commission are held on the second Tuesday
of each month at 6:30 p.m., unless otherwise agreed to and so stated in the agenda.
When the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, there is no meeting that month
unless otherwise noted.
1.2 - Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson or
the Secretary.
1.3 – Place. Meetings are held in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101
Victoria Curve.
1.4 – Public. All meetings and hearings, and all records and minutes are open to
the public.
1.5 – Quorum. Four parks and recreation commission members, at the beginning of
the meeting, constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
When a quorum is not present, the Chairperson may adjourn the meeting for the
purpose of hearing interested parties on items on the agenda. No final or official
action is taken at such a meeting. However, the facts and information gathered at such
a meeting may be taken as a basis for action at a subsequent meeting at which a
quorum is present.
1.6 – Vote. Voting is by voice. Commission members voice votes on each issue are
recorded. In the event that any member shall have a financial interest in a matter
before the commission, the member shall disclose the interest and refrain from voting
upon the matter, and the secretary shall so record in the minutes that no vote was cast
by such member.
SECTION 2. ORGANIZATION
2.1 – Membership. The number of members of the Parks & Recreation Commission is
established by the City Council. Three-year appointments are made by the Mayor and
approved by the City Council.
19
2.2 – Absenteeism. A Commission member with four unexcused absences from
regular meetings is dropped from the commission and the Secretary then informs the
City Council so that another appointment is made.
An absence is excused if the member notifies the Secretary or Chairperson before 4:00
p.m. of the day of the meeting that the member will be unable to attend. Minutes of
the meetings will record whether the absent member was excused or not excused.
2.3 – Election of Officers. At the February meeting each year, the commission elects
from its membership a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson.
If the Chairperson retires from the commission before the next organizational
meeting, the Vice-Chairperson becomes Chairperson. If both Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson retire, new officers are elected at the next meeting.
If both Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson are absent from a meeting, the commission
elects a temporary Chairperson by voice vote.
The Secretary to the parks and recreation commission is appointed by the city
administrator from the city staff.
2.4 – Tenure of Officers. The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson take office
immediately following their election and hold office until their successors are elected
and assume office.
2.5 – Duties of Officers. The Chairperson, or if absent, the Vice-Chairperson presides
at meetings, appoints committees and performs other duties as may be ordered by the
commission.
The Chairperson conducts meetings so as to keep them moving as rapidly and
efficiently as possible and reminds members, witnesses and petitioners to discuss only
the subject at hand.
The Chairperson is a voting member of the commission.
The Secretary is responsible for recording the minutes, keeping records of commission
actions, conveying commission recommendations to the city council and providing
general administrative and clerical service to the commission.
SECTION 3. PUBLIC COMMENT
3.1 – Public Input on Agenda Items. The following procedure is followed when
citizens wish to provide input into a parks and recreation commission discussion.
a. Staff shall make presentation
b. The commission asks questions
c. The applicant shall make a presentation
20
d. The commission asks questions
e. The audience is allowed to speak in favor of the request
f. The audience is allowed to speak against the request
g. The applicant and/or staff responds
h. Commission members may ask questions throughout the discussion
3.2 – Public Comment. The parks and recreation commission does not hold public
hearings, but may from time to time have public comment.
SECTION 4. MISCELLANEOUS
4.1 Amendments. These Rules of Order may be amended with the approval by voice
vote by a majority (four) of the members of the parks and recreation commission.
4.1 Adoption. These Rules of Order were duly adopted by the Parks and Recreation
Commission of the City of Mendota Heights on the 13th day of April, 2010.
21
DATE: February 11, 2020
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Assign Commissioner Parks
Background
In the past commissioners have been assigned parks to visit and report any problems to the
Recreation Program Coordinator. Examples of what to look for include: conditions of trails,
playground equipment, ball fields, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Commissioners are asked
to visit their parks monthly.
Below is a list of the parks to be assigned:
Victoria Highlands
Roger’s Lake
Valley View Heights
Ivy Hills
Dog Park
Marie Park
Valley Park
Wentworth
Friendly Hills
Hagstrom-King
Kensington
Mendakota
Market Square Park
Civic Center
Requested Action
The commission should decide if there are any other parks in Mendota Heights they see fit to be
on the list and assign parks to the commissioners.
22
DATE: February 11, 2020
TO: Parks & Recreation Commission
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Community Engagement Check In
INTRODUCTION
Earlier this year the Commission decided they wanted to gain insight from residents and local
stakeholders by conducting a new community engagement effort. Below are the groups that
commissioners were going to meet with in the community:
• Community Education: Bob Klepperich, Stephanie Meyer
• Mom’s Club: Daniel Sherer, David Miller
• Rotary Club: Pat Hinderscheid, Steve Goldade
• Mendota Heights Senior Living Facility: Patrick Cotter, Steve Goldade
• Local Students: Matthew Boland, Steve Goldade
The commissioners meeting with the Mom’s Club and Rotary Club completed their community
engagement efforts and shared their results with the Commission.
ACTION REQUIRED
The Commission should share about their experiences once complete.
23
DATE: February 11, 2020
TO: Parks & Recreation Commission
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Pickleball Opportunities
INTRODUCTION
The Commission discussed options for Pickleball at its January meeting.
Two possible park locations were discussed which included Hagstrom-King Park and Valley Park
for a stand-alone pickleball court. In addition, there was a discussion about striping the
Friendly Hills hockey rink similar to the Marie Park rink. The Marie park rink was completed late
in 2019 and usage of this court has not been surveyed.
Hagstrom-King’s original layout showed a future expansion for a tennis court. Following this
memo is a graphic showing what a potential pickleball court would look like. The rendering
shows a 4 court configuration but two may be adequate. An estimated cost for this
improvement may exceed $125,000 and would require the assistance of a consultant for an
estimated fee of around $25,000 for the surveying, material testing, design, and construction
management.
Valley Park has an existing tennis court which could be converted to pickleball. The existing
court would need to have its sport court tiles removed and the asphalt surface replaced. An
estimated cost for this improvement would be around $80,000 and may be able to be done in-
house if time permits.
Other municipalities have had issues with noise from pickleball which should also be considered
in the Commission discussion.
The dimensions of a pickleball court are the same as a badminton which is 20 feet by 44 feet. A
standard double tennis court is 36 feet by 78 feet, a space of around 60 feet by 120 feet is
typically provided.
ACTION REQUIRED
The Commission should discuss the options for a stand-alone court, surfacing to Friendly Hills or
to delay a recommendation until feedback can be acquired about usage at Marie Park. The
tennis court at Valley Park should also be studied for use if that is a preferred option.
24
Marie Park
25
821
1818
1820 1822
182318211814
MARIE AVE
VALLEY CURV
E
ARVIN DRValley Park Tennis Court
Date: 1/6/2020
City of
Mendota
Heights0100
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
26
27
DATE: February 11, 2020
TO: Parks & Recreation Commission
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Dodd Road Trail Connection
INTRODUCTION
The Commission desired to discuss a resident email regarding a potential trail along Dodd Road
and a trail gap between Bachelor Ave and Evergreen Knoll.
An email was received from a resident that served on the Citizen Advisory Committee for the
Dodd Road reconstruction project. Also attached to this memo is the corridor study for a Dodd
Road trail. The corridor study exhibits shows where there is available right-of-way.
The city has twice applied for a Regional solicitation grant along this corridor but the project did
not score in the top half of projects and has not been selected for funding.
Chair Goldade & Parks Commissioners,
Recently, I viewed the Parks Commission Meeting where you discussed the Par 3 Trail Connection. Since
you are being asked to make a recommendation on that trail connection I thought it was important to
tell you about the reconstruction on that corridor and the previous outreach to the community regarding
this corridor. I hope you will find this information beneficial when considering the planning of trails.
Prior to the reconstruction of the High Bridge/Dodd Rd corridor by MNDOT, I had the pleasure of serving
on the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) for that project. The CAC was tasked with engaging the
community for input regarding the construction and giving the feedback to MNDOT in order to make the
best project for all the cities involved. MNDOT was leading this new and innovative initiative in its
management of reconstruction projects. MNDOT wanted CAC members with expertise in certain areas
or with interests/expertise unique to their community. Representatives from each city were invited by
their city to apply for a position on the CAC. CAC members had expertise in a wide range of
fields/interests important along the corridor: they included business owners along the corridor, suicide
prevention specialists, residential property owners on the corridor, bicycle commuters, school board
members, and much more. The CAC was comprised of about 20 or so residents/stakeholders of the cities
of St. Paul, West St. Paul, and Mendota Heights... each of us having an expertise or interest that their city
felt was important. I, Stephanie Levine (school board member), and Glen Lucken (business owner on the
corridor), represented Mendota Heights. (My expertise/interest was that I am an U of M Master
Gardener that volunteers with MH to help with sustainable landscape planning including pollinator
28
planting and planning for water quality. I am also a parent of one of the many cross country runners that
runs daily along that corridor.)
In 2016, the CAC had a number of collaborative meetings with MNDOT which was led by MNDOT South
Area Engineer, Tara McBride.
Two primary concerns emerged for the residents near the High Bridge: reducing accessibility for suicide
attempts and creating a barrier between the traffic and pedestrians on the bridge (vs. the existing curb
next to traffic) while also accommodating bicyclists. The primary concern for MH residents was to have a
trail along Dodd for the safety of pedestrians & motorists by getting pedestrians/bicyclists off the street
and also to have safe crossing points while achieving a connection from the northern most end of MH to
the southern end of MH.
One of the combined primary concerns for residents of all 3 cities, represented on the CAC along this
corridor was to connect the High Bridge to Dodd Rd and continue along Dodd Rd to Hwy 494 (end of
construction) via a trail system. This was an easy and unanimous decision by the CAC... that the High
Bridge should connect all 3 of the cities via Dodd Rd with a pedestrian/bike trail. No discussion was
needed as everyone and their constituents were in strong agreement. It would connect the suburbs to
the city via the High Bridge and the city to the suburban trail way and the River to River Greenway.
More specifically Stephanie, Glen, and I, shared residents' concerns and reasons which included the
following: MH residents wanted a path along the entire Dodd corridor which would encompass a path
for safety to Wentworth Ave, to Somerset school, to Par 3, to MH Village & Plaza, and to the end of the
project at 494 (or at least to Visitation or Mendota Heights Rd.).
Also, in our contact with various groups at the 3 local MH high schools: Sibley, Vis, STA, we found they
all wanted a trail along Dodd for pedestrians & bicyclists for accessibility to and from school. In addition,
all 3 high schools have cross country teams and runners that run along Dodd as part of their necessary
training mileage to access their routes. Thus all schools desired a trail along Dodd and Delaware (They
also frequently run along Delaware to access their other routes.). Dodd and Delaware are the main
connector roads from the south side of the city to the furthest northern part of the city so these were
strong residential desires to make these major connections in our trail system.
In addition, when the CAC did our site visits to the High Bridge and the Dodd corridor the entire CAC
agreed on the elements of safety not only for the High Bridge but also for the Dodd corridor. In addition
to the unanimous trail decision, the CAC also unanimously agreed that there needed to be a painted
crosswalk at Emerson to cross to Somerset school with manual flashers when a pedestrian wanted to
cross, a trail under Hwy 110, and another painted crosswalk from Wagon Wheel to cross to Decorah Ln.
with manual flashers when a pedestrian was present. (The flashers & crosswalk would provide a safe
crossing at Somerset school. At Wagon Wheel it would connect the neighborhoods dissected by Dodd
and allow for a more safe crossing for students going to Friendly Hills, Vis, STA.)
Throughout the process we learned of the many challenges with construction on that corridor but we still
felt that there was hope and a means to meet the goals of the CAC especially since they were so clearly
obvious as well as so easily unanimous. Unfortunately, before our time on the CAC was finished Tara
McBride was moved by MNDOT to lead another project and a new project manager was assigned which
impacted the project and the presence of the CAC.
Some of the challenges to the project were gaining right of way especially on the west side near
Somerset due to property setbacks so we proposed the trail to go on the Golf Course side and then to
follow that side to Hwy 110. MNDOT was not going to pursue that at the time and MH was not going to
without MNDOT. We thought there would still be a trail from Wentworth to Hwy 110 and approval of
the crosswalks with flashing lights at both Somerset school and Wagon Wheel Rd. As the process
29
continued to move forward with virtually no meetings (or input from the CAC), we were disappointed to
learn late in the game that the CAC plans were not going to be pursued as we all thought.
While the CAC was successful in their efforts on the High Bridge we were disappointed in the results for
the trail and crosswalk safety measures. So we attempted to continue to engage the new MNDOT Project
Lead and bring together the city of MH and MNDOT on board with the CAC recommendations. Sadly, we
were unsuccessful much to the disappointment of residents and the CAC. We kept trying and made small
wins (such as the *trail from Marie to the MH Village) and in other areas but it was not what we were
originally on track to accomplish. *Note: That has also since changed and will only be from Wesley to
MH Village.
While it is very disappointing that many things out of the CAC's control were decided, I think there is still
hope for those improvements that residents desire along the Dodd corridor. Residents will be happy to
hear that a portion of the trail even though small, is being considered by the city. The suggestion by Ryan
Ruzek to finish it to Wentworth is fantastic and will be much appreciated by MH residents and is a start
toward reaching the goal of that corridor.
I thought it was important for you to know and understand the work and efforts that were made along
this corridor and the desires of MH residents as well as the larger community. I think that adding the
trail connecting Bachelor to Evergreen Knolls along Dodd (& possibly to Wentworth) is a great step
toward reaching the goals of the community. Since there does not seem to be a slow down in the
construction industry, in my opinion if you decide to wait three years to add it to another project, it may
be scrapped due to continuing increases in construction costs.
I would also like to mention that it would be great to see MH pursue the option of green infrastructure
which may also bring the costs down. Rather than adding curb and gutter, utilizing a green
infrastructure swale system that is shown the MN Stormwater Manual (which uses MNDOT
specifications) just might be the best infrastructure solution financially as well as environmentally. And it
could also provide a native vegetative buffer for residents using the trail as well as provide for our native
Rusty Patch Bumblebee. A Dodd road trail is not only a great corridor for connecting our residents
walking/biking but also a great opportunity for a corridor connecting our pollinators in our city.
I just received information about Met Council's 2020 Regional Solicitation Funding. These are grants that
MH could apply for in mid-February that can be used to close gaps in trail systems as the city of
Bloomington recently received funding. See article: https://metrocouncil.org/News-
Events/Transportation/Newsletters/Regional-solicitation-funding-for-bike-network.aspx
Go to this link for info on two grants that would work well for MH Dodd corridor...scroll to bottom to the
"2020 Regional Solicitation Applications". Click on the links for the "Multi-use Trails and Bicycle Facilities"
link and the "Safe Routes to Schools" link for the application
criteria https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Planning-2/Transportation-Funding/Regional-
Solicitation-NEW.aspx
I hope you found this information beneficial. And I hope you support the CAC's recommendation for a
trail along the Dodd (and Delaware) corridors to complete the connection of our city that residents (and
the larger community) desire.
ACTION REQUIRED
The Commission may provide feedback on the Dodd Road Trail report and discuss
implementation options.
30
Dodd Road
Trail Feasibility
Study
Prepared for:
City of Mendota Heights
Prepared by:
Fay Simer, AICP
November 7, 2017
31
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... I
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION ..................................................................................................... 4
3.0 TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS ............................................................................................ 6
TRAIL ELEMENTS AND WIDTHS .......................................................................................... 6
OTHER RIGHT-OF-WAY USES ............................................................................................. 7
3.2.1 Burying Utilities ................................................................................................. 8
3.2.2 Relocating Utilities ........................................................................................... 8
3.2.3 Replacing Drainage Ditches ......................................................................... 9
4.0 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................... 11
5.0 MOST FEASIBLE TRAIL ALIGNMENT .............................................................................. 13
PHYSICAL FEATURES ........................................................................................................ 14
RIGHT-OF-WAY AVAILABILITY ......................................................................................... 15
6.0 COMMUNITY INPUT ..................................................................................................... 26
MENDOTA HEIGHTS 5K/PARKS CELEBRATION .............................................................. 26
PARKVIEW PLAZA AND VILLAGE COMMONS (08.25.16 AND 08.31.16) ................... 26
ST. THOMAS ACADEMY AND VISITATION SHOOL SURVEYS ........................................ 27
COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE 10.17.16 ............................................................................. 27
7.0 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES ................................................................................... 28
8.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 29
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Private Right-of-Way Required for Trail ..................................................................... 16
Table 2: Trail Construction Cost Estimates ............................................................................... 28
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway Master Plan ...................................................... 2
Figure 2: 2040 Transportation Policy Plan .................................................................................. 3
Figure 3: Dodd Road Corridor and Existing Trail Facilities in Mendota Heights .................... 5
Figure 4: Assumed Widths of Right-of-Way Uses ....................................................................... 7
Figure 5: Surface Drainage with Retaining Wall Below ........................................................... 9
Figure 6: Surface Drainage and Ditch with Retaining Wall Above ....................................... 9
Figure 7: Drainage with Storm Sewer ....................................................................................... 10
Figure 8: Assessment of potential trail alignment ................................................................... 12
Figure 9: Most Feasible Trail Alignment .................................................................................... 13
32
Figure 10: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 1 (Delaware Ave. to Chippewa
Ave.) .............................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 11: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 2 (Chippewa Ave. to Emerson Ave.) ........ 18
Figure 12: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 3 (Emerson Ave. to Wentworth Ave.) ........ 19
Figure 13: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 4 (Wentworth Ave. to Marie Ave.) ............. 20
Figure 14: Proposed Trail Alignment in Segment 5 (Marie Ave. to Maple St.) .................... 22
Figure 15: Existing Trail in Segment 6 (Maple St. to S. Plaza Drive) ....................................... 23
Figure 16: Trail Alignments in Segment 7 (Decorah Lane to South Plaza Drive) ................ 24
Figure 17: Trail Alignment in Segment 8 Using Public Right-of-Way ..................................... 24
Figure 18: Trail Alignment in Segment 9 Using Public Right-of-Way ..................................... 25
LIST OF APPENDICES
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ......................... A.1
DETAILED COST ESTIMATES ....................................................................... B.1
33
Executive Summary
The City of Mendota Heights retained Stantec Consulting Services to evaluate preliminary
feasibility of an off-road trail along Dodd Road. Dodd Road runs approximately 3.8 miles north-
south the entire length of the City. Approximately one mile of this corridor is served by an existing
trail or by a funded trail that will be constructed in 2018. Stantec analyzed 2.8 miles of the
corridor between Delaware Ave. and Marie Ave. and between Wagon Wheel Trail and
Mendota Heights Road.
To identify the best location for a trail alignment, Stantec generated assumptions regarding the
total surface width required for a trail facility. A trail would require a twenty foot -wide corridor
adjacent to the roadway shoulder. This corridor would accommodate an eight -foot wide
walking and bicycling trail, clear zones, private utilities, and drainage infrastructure for
stormwater generated by both the trail and the road.
Stantec conducted a desktop assessment and field review to understand the physical
conditions within the public right-of-way that would impact trail construction, and assess the
availability of public right-of-way for a trail. The following principles guided our analysis of
potential locations for a trail alignment along Dodd Road:
• Utilize available public right-of-way as much as possible
• Minimize relocation of utilities
• Minimize disruption to slopes and trees
• Minimize crossings; maintain a continuous trail segment along one side of Do dd Road for
as long as possible
Based on this analysis, Stantec has determined that the most -feasible alignment for an off-road
trail along Dodd Road would run on the west side of Dodd Road from Delaware Ave. to Marie
Ave. Trail users would cross Dodd Road at Marie Ave. to a planned trail segment along the east
side of Dodd from Marie to Maple St., connecting to an existing trail that runs from Maple St.
south of Highway 110 on the east side of Dodd Road. From Highway 110 to Mendota Heights
Road, Stantec determines the most-feasible trail alignment to be on the east side of Dodd Road.
Our preliminary cost estimate for constructing this trail in its entirety is $3.6 million, including soft
costs. This does not include right-of-way acquisition. In order to construct the trail, the City of
Mendota Heights would need to acquire approximately 75,000 square feet of right-of-way from
approximately 71 privately owned parcels.
The City of Mendota Heights conducted outreach meetings with community stakeholders to
understand preferences regarding a trail alignment. Participants generally supported a trail
along the corridor and indicated a desire for safer walking and bicycl ing facilities on Dodd
Road.
34
Stantec recommends the City pursue the following next steps in order to advance
implementation of a trail in this corridor:
• Continue to discuss the proposed alignment with citizens and elected officials to
generate buy-in and support for the trail concept.
• Pursue trail construction in segments. This helps spread costs out over time. Begin
construction along southern trail segments where right -of-way is publicly owned.
Completed segments can help build public support for the trail and for extending the
alignment further north where right-of-way acquisition is required.
• Initiate individual meetings with property owners along the trail alignment to assess
support for the trail project and readiness to sell property or easements for trails
segments.
• Continue conversations with Xcel Energy staff and other utility companies regarding
relocation needs of private utilities. Utility staff expressed appreciation for early notice of
these discussions and can more easily join productive partnerships when they are
included early in the process.
• Look for opportunities through the development review process to acquire trail
easements as properties change ownership.
• Work with MnDOT to install crossing improvements such as medians at key location s on
Dodd Road during its 2018 resurfacing project to improve safe access to the trail.
• Both segments 7A and 7B create a continuous off-road connection throughout the trail
corridor. While it is likely only feasible to construct one alignment in the short term, the
City should pursue both alignments in the long term to maximize the trail’s connectivity
with existing trail and the City’s park system.
35
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report documents preliminary feasibility analysis of an off-road trail along Dodd Road in the
City of Mendota Heights, MN. This corridor represents a gap in the City’s extensive trail network.
Currently, there are no sidewalks or trails along most of Dodd Road. The road is paved with wide
shoulders, which are used regularly by both cyclists and pedestrians. Enhancing bicycling and
walking facilities in this corridor would greatly improve connectivity of the city-wide trail system
and create a continuous north-south connection through Mendota Heights.
Improving walking and bicycling facilities along Dodd Road is consistent with local and regional
plans. The City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies planned improvements
on Dodd Road between TH110 and Marie Avenue as a priority in its Parks and Open Space
Plan.1 This trail connection will be implemented during MnDOT’s 2018 resurfacing project on
Dodd Road. Dakota County’s Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway Master Plan, depicted in Figure
1, identifies portions of Dodd Road in Mendota Heights as the preferred and/or alternative
alignment for a future greenway corridor that would include bicycling and walking facilities. 2
The Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Transportation Policy Plan identifies Dodd Road as part of a Tier
1 Priority Regional Bicycle Transportation Corridor.3 The Met Council defines these as the highest
priority corridors for regional transportation planning and investment , located where they can
attract the most riders and most effectively enhance mode choice in favor of biking and
walking.
The City of Mendota Heights asked Stantec to perform a preliminary feasibility analysis of an off-
road trail along Dodd Road. City of Mendota Heights staff also conducted outreach meetings
with community members to gauge interest and support for a potential trail alignment,
summarized in Section 6. This report documents right-of-way availability for a trail along Dodd
Road; assesses major geographic features such as mature trees, wetlands, and slopes that could
impact the trail’s physical design and constructability; and presents a preliminary
recommendation for a trail alignment along Dodd Road based on these characteristics . An
estimated cost to construct this alignment is also included in this report.
This study and City-led community outreach regarding the trail alignment was funded by a grant
from Dakota County as part of the Statewide Health Improvement Program.
1 City of Mendota Heights website. Accessed 9.19.16. http://www.mendota-heights.com/vertical/sites/%7BA0FB05B5-
4CF8-4485-84AA-0C48D0BC98D7%7D/uploads/%7BC3D7F995-5084-416B-8992-95A9EDFE7BF8%7D.PDF
2 Dakota County website. Accessed 9.19.16.
https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/parks/Planning/Greenways/Documents/MendotaLebanonHillsGreenwayMasterPlan.pdf
3 Metropolitan Council website. Accessed 9.19.16. http://www.metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Planning-2/Key-
Transportation-Planning-Documents/Transportation-Policy-Plan-(1)/The-Adopted-2040-TPP-(1)/Final-2040-Transportation-
Policy-Plan/2040-TPP-Chapter-7-Bike-and-Pedestrian-Investment.aspx
36
Figure 1: Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway Master Plan
37
Figure 2: 2040 Transportation Policy Plan
38
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Mendota Heights’ existing trail system is depicted in Figure 3 on the following page.
The Dodd Road corridor is highlighted in this graphic in light tan. Bicycling and pedestrian needs
along the majority of Dodd Road are currently served by wide shoulders. An additional off-road
trail would provide greater separation and protection from vehicular traffic.
Stantec analyzed the Dodd Road corridor between Del aware Ave. and Marie Ave., and from
Wagon Wheel Trail to Mendota Heights Road. Stantec did not review Dodd Road between
Marie Ave. and Wagon Wheel Trail, because this segment is served by an existing off-road trail
from TH 110 to Maple Street that will be extended north to Marie Ave. during MnDOT’s planned
2018 resurfacing of Dodd Road. The total corridor is approximately 3.8 miles long and runs north-
south through the City. The segments included in this study are approximately 2.8 miles long.
39
Figure 3: Dodd Road Corridor and Existing Trail Facilities in Mendota Heights
40
3.0 TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS
TRAIL ELEMENTS AND WIDTHS
To identify the best location for a trail alignment, Stantec generated assumptions regarding the
total surface width required for a trail facility. The trail design standards listed below were
developed based on recommendations from City staff on widths of existing City trails, the
MnDOT Bikeway Design Manual, the 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities, and a June 2016 conversation with Xcel Energy staff regarding standard utility sizes and
right-of-way requirements.
This study uses the following assumptions regarding trail design standards:
• A multi-use trail along Dodd Road will be constructed as close to the road shoulder as
possible
• The total surface width needed for a trail corridor is twenty feet. The multi-use trail corridor
includes:
o 8’ bituminous surface two-way walking and bicycling trail
o 2’ clear space on either side of trail
o 3’ additional vegetative clearance between trail and roadway shoulder
o 7’ additional separation between trail and adjacent properties to accommodate
drainage and utilities within public right-of-way
Figure 4 is a visual depiction of this trail design accommodating all of the elements listed above.
41
Figure 4: Assumed Widths of Right-of-Way Uses
OTHER RIGHT-OF-WAY USES
The available public right-of-way along Dodd Road (i.e. publicly-owned land that does not
include the roadway surface or shoulder) currently serves two major uses: it houses p rivate
utilities (e.g. power lines, power poles, and utility boxes) and contains drainage infrastruct ure to
carry stormwater. Construction of a trail along Dodd Road must continue to accommodate
these uses within the public right -of-way.
The width of the publicly-owned right-of-way along Dodd Road varies greatly throughout the
corridor. The road surface is typically 38 feet wide. In some locations, the total right -of-way is as
narrow as 40 feet. At the southern end of the corridor, the right -of-way is owned by Dakota
County and is as wide as 300 feet. The width of the available public right -of-way varies block by
block and parcel by parcel. In some locations along the corridor, a 20 foot right -of-way width is
available adjacent to the road. In other locations, between 5 feet and 20 feet of right -of-way
would need to be acquired in order to accommodate a 20 foot trail corridor with drainage and
utility infrastructure. Constructing as much of the trail as possible within the public right-of-way
reduces the cost of acquiring land or easements from neighboring property owners for the trail.
Furthermore, assembling easements from dozens of property owners fronting the corridor could
take many years.
42
Because of the constrained width of public right-of-way, accommodating a trail within this
space would require changing the location of existing public and private utility infrastructure.
Although public agencies are required to provide space for private utilities in the public right-of-
way, agencies have some discretion in determining where within their right-of-way these utilities
are located. Stantec explored the idea of moving or burying private utilities in order to create
more room within existing right-of-way for a trail. In order to understand whether private utilities
along Dodd Road could be buried underground or moved (e.g. to the side of the road opposite
the proposed trail alignment), Stantec and City staff had a conversation with Xcel Energy
representatives on June 30, 2016. This conversation focused on general concepts of burying and
relocating utilities and did not review any detailed designs or investigate specific conditions
along the corridor.
3.2.1 Burying Utilities
Private utilities may be buried underground at the expense of the requesting entity. Burying
power lines eliminates the need for most power poles, creating room along the ground surface
for other uses such as trails. According to Xcel staff, the additional cost of burying utilities along
two miles of Dodd Road could range from $1.5 to $2 million. Furthermore, some elements of the
system such as utility boxes cannot be buried underground and would still need to be
accommodated within the public right-of-way at the surface. Because of the high cost of this
option, Stantec and City staff determined that it was not realistic to consider utility burial as part
of this trail project and to only investigate options for trail construction that accommodate
above-ground private utility infrastructure.
3.2.2 Relocating Utilities
The City of Mendota Heights could require Xcel and other utility companies to relocate power
poles within the public right-of-way to create space for a trail. All utility equipment must be
contained completely in the public right-of-way, including the full length of overhanging power
pole arms. Any new right-of-way needed for the relocation of private utilities must be purchased
by the City of Mendota Heights.
The majority of overhead power lines along Dodd Road are on the west side of the corridor,
although in some segments utility lines are on the east side of the corridor as well. Xcel staff
believe that poles on the west side of Dodd Road are used by Xcel; poles on the east side are
used by Century Link. Both utilities could be combined on the same pole; however, this would
likely require constructing taller, larger poles that may not be politically acceptable to nearby
residents.
Stantec explored the idea of moving existing poles closer to the roadway to create more room
for a trail along the edge of the right-of-way closest to the neighboring property line. However,
MnDOT clear zone requirements do not allow poles to be moved closer to the roadway than
they are today. Therefore, Stantec and City staff determined that the preliminary concept
designs explored in this study should incorporate space for p rivate utilities alongside the
43
proposed trail, between the trail and the adjoining property line. This configuration is depicted in
Figure 4.
3.2.3 Replacing Drainage Ditches
In some segments along Dodd Road, stormwater drainage is carried by ditches. In order to
repurpose right-of-way space for a trail, drainage ditches can be eliminated by adding storm
sewers to transfer water in pipes. Figures 5-7 depict modifications to stormwater drainage
systems along Dodd Road to ensure that drainage can still occur within the public right -of-way.
These modifications are included in the cost estimat es to construct a trail presented in Section 6.
Figure 5: Surface Drainage with Retaining Wall Below
Figure 6: Surface Drainage and Ditch with Retaining Wall Above
44
Figure 7: Drainage with Storm Sewer
45
4.0 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
To identify a potential alignment for the trail along Dodd Road, Stantec first conducted a review
of aerial photography to identify major physical barriers to trail construction along the corridor
alignment. We next analyzed the width of the public right-of-way along both sides of Dodd
Road to determine which side of the road (east or west) would be most feasible for a trail
alignment given both physical conditions and available public right -of-way.
The following principles guided our analysis of potential locations for a trail alignment along
Dodd Road:
• Utilize available public right-of-way as much as possible
• Minimize relocation of utilities
• Minimize disruption to slopes and trees
• Minimize crossings; maintain a continuous trail segment along one side of Dodd Road for
as long as possible.
Stantec divided the corridor into nine segments based on different characteristics of each
segment. An initial assessment of each segment is depicted in Figure 8 on the following page.
Note: Stantec did not review Segments 5 or 6. Segment 6 includes an existing trail segment
along Dodd Road. This trail will be extended into Segment 5 during a 2018 resurfacing project on
Dodd Road.
46
Figure 8: Assessment of potential trail alignment
47
5.0 MOST FEASIBLE TRAIL ALIGNMENT
After completing the desktop assessment, Stantec performed a field review of Segments 1-4 and
Segments 7-9 to verify actual conditions and assess potential limitations to the constructability of
a trail based on the physical features present. The field review confirmed findings from the
desktop assessment and informed which side of Dodd Road Stantec determined to be most
feasible for the trail alignment. This alignment is depicted in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Most Feasible Trail Alignment
48
PHYSICAL FEATURES
The following is a summary of existing conditions within each segment along Dodd Road that
would impact trail construction, and major activities that would be required to accommodate a
trail within this alignment.
Segment 1 – Delaware Ave. to Chippewa Ave.
• Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail
• Remove and replace existing stone retaining wall
• Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor
• Clear 15-20 trees and shrubs
Segment 2 – Chippewa Ave. to Emerson Ave.
• Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail
• Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor
• Clear 35-40 trees and shrubs
Segment 3 – Emerson Ave. to Wentworth Ave.
• Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor
• Clear 15-20 trees and shrubs
Segment 4 – Wentworth Ave. to Marie Ave.
• Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail
• Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor
• Clear 55-60 trees and shrubs
Segment 5 – Marie Ave. to Maple St.
• Not analyzed as part of this study. Trail extension planned as part of 2018 Dodd Road
resurfacing project.
Segment 6 – Maple St. to Hwy 110
• Not analyzed as part of this study. Trail exists along east side of Dodd Road.
49
Segment 7A – Apache St. to Decorah Ln. (off-road on public right-of-way)
• Clear 30’ wide corridor through existing woods; approximately 30 trees and brush
Segment 7B – Hokah Ave. to Decorah Ln. (along Dodd Road)
• Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail
• Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor
• Clear 15-20 trees and shrubs
Segment 8 – Decorah Ln. to Lake Dr.
• Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail
• Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor
• Clear 30-35 trees and shrubs
Segment 9 – Lake Dr. to Mendota Heights Road
• Extend grading limits in public right-of-way to 30-45’ to eliminate retaining walls
• Clear 10-15 trees and brush
RIGHT-OF-WAY AVAILABILITY
As described in Section 3, a twenty-foot wide right-of-way corridor along Dodd Road is required
to construct a trail. In many cases, the City of Mendota Heights would need to acquire portions
of the twenty-foot right-of-way corridor from adjoining property owners, either through land
purchase or easements. In some instances, easements on individual properties would be as
narrow as five feet; in others, all twenty feet would need to be acquired. Table 1 summarizes the
total right-of-way that would need to be acquired from private property owners to support a
trail. Locations where right-of-way acquisition is required within each segment are depicted in
Figures 10-16 beginning on page 17.
50
Table 1: Private Right-of-Way Required for Trail
Total Right-of-way
Acquisition Needed
(square feet)
Number of Parcels
Impacted
Segment 1 6,400 14
Segment 2 24,100 23
Segment 3 27,000 25
Segment 4 12,700 5
Segment 7B 4,900 4
Segment 5, 6, 7A, 8,9 Public right-of-way
available or trail exists
TOTAL 75,100 71
Note: Constructing either Segment 7A or Segment 7B would result in a continuous north -south
trail connection along Dodd Road. Although building a trail in Segment 7B requires the
acquisition of private right-of-way, this segment connects the proposed trail with existing trail
west of Dodd Road and to Mendakota Park. For this reason, both alignments are included in this
study.
51
Figure 10: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 1 (Delaware Ave. to Chippewa Ave.)
52
Figure 11: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 2 (Chippewa Ave. to Emerson Ave.)
53
Figure 12: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 3 (Emerson Ave. to Wentworth Ave.)
54
Figure 13: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 4 (Wentworth Ave. to Marie Ave.)
55
56
Figure 14: Proposed Trail Alignment in Segment 5 (Marie Ave. to Maple St.)
57
Figure 15: Existing Trail in Segment 6 (Maple St. to S. Plaza Drive)
58
Figure 16: Trail Alignments in Segment 7 (Decorah Lane to South Plaza Drive)
Figure 17: Trail Alignment in Segment 8 Using Public Right-of-Way
(Decorah Lane to Lake Drive)
59
Figure 18: Trail Alignment in Segment 9 Using Public Right-of-Way
(Lake Drive to Mendota Heights Road)
60
6.0 COMMUNITY INPUT
The City of Mendota Heights shared t rail design concepts at public meetings throughout the
summer of 2016. While this report details technical considerations that would make a trail
feasible, acquiring right-of-way from adjoining property owners is ultimately a political decision
that requires strong support from the community and buy-in from both property owners and
potential trail users. The following is a summary of comments and discussion at public meetings
held to discuss a potential trail alignment. Appendix A includes the public participation plan for
this outreach effort.
MENDOTA HEIGHTS 5K/PARKS CELEBRATION
City of Mendota Heights planning staff attended this event on June 4, 2016. Staff presented trail
concepts and asked for feedback on the proposed Dodd Road alignment. Participants
expressed the following desires regarding the potential trail:
• Overwhelmingly positive comments about establishing a trail along the corridor
• Safer corridor for walking and biking
• A separated trail facility is preferred over a wide shoulder
• Safer connection to Somerset Elementary School
• Pedestrian crossing improvements
PARKVIEW PLAZA AND VILLAGE COMMONS (08.25.16 AND
08.31.16)
City of Mendota Heights planning staff visited two senior housing facilities located along the
Dodd Road corridor on August 25 and August 31, 2016. Staff presented trail concepts and asked
for feedback on the proposed Dodd Road alignment. Participants expressed the following
desires regarding the potential trail:
• Most residents would not use a trail facility on Dodd Road
• Walking/biking would not replace any vehicle trips for those that drive
• Some recreational walkers may use Dodd Road to reach other walking trails
• Pedestrian crossing at South Plaza Drive
• Connection to River to River Greenway
• Trail crossing Dodd Road at TH 110
61
ST. THOMAS ACADEMY AND VISITATION SHOOL SURVEYS
Mendota Heights staff sent surveys to St. Thomas Academy, Visitation School, Friendly Hills Middle
School, Somerset Elementary and Sibley High School to gather input from school-aged children
about a potential trail along Dodd Road. 119 students from St. Thomas Academy School and
Visitation School responded to the survey, including students from third, fourth, seventh, eight h
and ninth grades. Ten percent of students who responded say they walk or bicycle along Dodd
Road today, primarily to travel between home and school. Other top destinations included
Mendota Plaza and nearby parks. When asked “If bike-walk facilities were along Dodd Road,
how frequently would you use them,” 50 percent of students said they would use them daily,
weekly, or monthly. The following comments are representative of typical desires for Dodd Road
students requested via the survey:
• I would love a bike path on Dodd Road. My family loves to go on bike rides and it would be
awesome to be able to bike to or from after school activities. My siblings and I usually do golf
which is about 45 min. walking from our house and we usually walk along Dodd Road for about 20
min and most cars are very careful, but it is still scary, if we had a bike path or SIDEWALKS it would
be amazing.
• Traffic signs with more cross walks would be nice.
• A biking path is a really good idea.
• With our cross country team, we run on Dodd Road quite frequently, and it is a little scary running
inches away from cars. Our team would benefit greatly from something that could prevent that.
Full results of the student survey are included in Appendix A.
COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE 10.17.16
The City of Mendota Heights hosted an open house on October 17, 2016 to share the draft of this
study with residents. Stantec presented a summary of the draft study at the open house and
again at a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting later that evening. Stantec gave a third
presentation of the study to the Planning Commission on October 25, 2016. At the open house,
participants expressed mixed opinions about the importance of a trail along Dodd Road. Many
expressed that bicycling and walking should be made safer on this corridor, especially near
Somerset School. Others, particularly homeowners along Dodd Road, expressed opinions that a
trail should not be considered because the 20 foot trail corridor would be invasive of private
right-of-way for homes with short setback distances from the road. Written comments provided
at the meeting or e-mailed in advance to City staff are transcribed in Appendix A.
62
7.0 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
Stantec prepared a preliminary cost estimate to construct each trail segment. Costs do not
include right of way acquisition or temporary construction easements. Costs include a 20
percent construction contingency and a 25 percent engineering contingency (e.g. design,
construction administration, survey, geotechnical work and legal fees for acquisitions). Detailed
descriptions of the construction requirements for each segment are provided in Appendix B.
Table 2: Trail Construction Cost Estimates
Trail Segment Length
(LF)
Probable
Construction
Cost/LF
Probable
Construction
Cost
Segment 1 - Delaware Ave to Chippewa Ave 900 $ 252.67 $ 227,400
Segment 2 - Chippewa Ave to Emerson Ave 2600 $ 269.02 $ 699,450
Segment 3 - Emerson Ave to Wentworth Ave 2800 $ 224.49 $ 628,575
Segment 4 - Wentworth Ave to Marie Ave 2800 $ 297.46 $ 832,875
Segment 5 - Marie Ave to Maple St [Trail construction planned]
Segment 6 & 7 - Maple St to Hokah Ave [Existing trail facilities to remain]
Segment 7A - Apache St to Decorah Lane (Off-
road through public right-of-way)
1500 $ 117.75 $ 176,625
Segment 7B - Hokah Ave to Decorah Lane (Along
Dodd Rd)
1000 $ 230.03 $ 230,025
Segment 8 - Decorah Lane to Lake Dr 1650 $ 372.41 $ 614,475
Segment 9 - Lake Dr to Mendota Heights Rd 1600 $ 144.14 $ 230,625
Total Segment 1 - 9 14850
$ 3,640,050
63
8.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Public right-of-way along Dodd Road is finite and must serve multiple functions. Adding a trail
entirely within the existing right -of-way is not feasible. Therefore, the City of Mendota Heights
would have to acquire additional right-of-way along some portions of Dodd Road in order to
construct a trail. In addition, private utilities within the right-of-way would also need to be
relocated to support the trail alignment. Stantec recommends the City pursue the following next
steps in order to advance implementation of a trail in this corridor:
• Continue to discuss the proposed alignment with citizens and elected officials to
generate buy-in and support for the trail concept.
• Pursue trail construction in segments. This helps spread costs out over time. Begin
construction along southern trail segments where right -of-way is publicly owned.
Completed segments can help build public support for the trail and for extending the
alignment further north where right-of-way acquisition is required.
• Initiate individual meetings with property owners along the trail alignment to assess
support for the trail project and readiness to sell property or easements for trails
segments.
• Continue conversations with Xcel Energy staff and other utility companies regarding
relocation needs of private utilities. Utility staff expressed appreciation for early notice of
these discussions and can more easily join productive partnerships when they are
included early in the process.
• Look for opportunities through the development review process to acquire trail
easements as properties change ownership.
• Work with MnDOT to install crossing improvements such as medians at key locations on
Dodd Road during its 2018 resurfacing project to improve safe access to the trail.
• Both segments 7A and 7B create a continuous off-road connection throughout the trail
corridor. While it is likely only feasible to construct one alignment in the short term, the
City should pursue both alignments in the long term to maximize the trail’s connectivity
with existing trail and the City’s park system.
64
APPENDICES
65
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN AND PUBLIC INPUT
RECEIVED
66
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
Dodd Road Corridor Study
Purpose:
Dakota County’s Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) is funded by a
grant from the Minnesota Department of Health to reduce chronic disease and
improve health for all. The SHIP grant requires that the City engage target
populations through community outreach as part of the proposed project. The
City recognizes that public participation is an important component of the
planning process. This plan is intended to outline public engagement strategies
and methods to fulfil the grant award requirements.
Project Scope:
The City intends to conduct an in-depth analysis of the Dodd Road (State Trunk
Highway 149) corridor in an effort to identify safe trail facility options and funding
sources. Dodd Road is a key north-south transportation corridor through the
community that requires a detailed analysis to identify opportunities and
constraints to establishing an off-street trail facility. The study will include
stakeholder engagement outreach to certain user groups that are more likely to
depend on non-motorized transportation, including seniors and children.
Public Participation Methods:
In an effort to promote community engagement in the planning process and
recognize the SHIP target populations, the following activities will be undertaken:
Parks and Recreation Commission
The Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission will be presented project
updates and will advise staff and consultants throughout the planning process.
The Commission meets monthly and includes seven members and two high-
school aged student representatives. All Commission meetings are posted in
advance and open to the public. The meeting agendas will allow for public
comment on the planning process. In addition to the regularly scheduled
meetings, staff plans to host an open house prior to one of the Commission
meetings.
Commission Members:
Joel Paper (Chair)
Ira Kipp
Pat Hinderscheid
Stephanie Brod Levine
David Miller
Jay Miller
Michael Toth
Claire Dunham (student)
Miles Bowen (student)
67
Focus Group Open Houses
Parkview Plaza and Village Commons are senior living/affordable housing
facilities operated by the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA)
and located along the Dodd Road corridor. The CDA’s Senior Housing Program is
designed for adults over age 55 who meet the income eligibility requirements.
The Village at Mendota Heights and Mendota Plaza are mixed-use commercial
developments that serve as local and regional destinations located along the
corridor. Staff plans to hold open houses at both facilities and prior to one of the
Commission meetings to present the preliminary findings and get feedback from
the residents.
Surveys
Staff plans to develop a short survey to be completed by students of area
public/private schools and by attendees of the Parks Celebration to inform them
about the planning process and get feedback regarding potential use of an off-
street trail facility along the corridor.
Electronic Communications
Staff plans to utilize several electronic communication outlets to inform and
engage stakeholders in the planning process. The City’s website and social media
applications will be updated with current information on the planning process,
including meeting agendas and materials. In addition, articles will be included in
the weekly Friday News email and in the September edition of the Heights
Highlights newsletter mailed to all property owners.
Public Participation Timeline:
Staff anticipates starting the project in May and finishing by the end of December
2016.
Public Participation Method Stakeholder(s) Tentative Timeline
Parks and Recreation
Commission Meetings (6-7) Commissioners, Residents Monthly meetings
(May – November)
Focus Group Open Houses (4) Seniors citizens, business owners July – November
Surveys (5) Students, residents September – October (schools)
June 4 (Parks Celebration)
Electronic Communications Residents, “friends/followers”
Continuous (website/social media)
Weekly (Friday News)
September (Heights Highlights)
68
St. Thomas Academy and Visitation School Student Survey Results
School
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
St. Thomas Academy 41.2% 49
Visitation 58.8% 70
answered question 119
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Drive Walk Bicycle Other (please
specify)
How do you currently travel on Dodd
Road?
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Less than 1 mile 1-3 miles More than 3 miles
How long is your typical trip?
69
Other comments or suggestions?
• A biking path is a really good idea.
• Add a bike lane like they do in Washington D.C.
• Bike lanes and sidewalks.
• Get the communities opinion, good job taking the initiative of asking our opinion.
Walking path to reach different places.
• Good idea for path.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Daily Weekly Monthly Never
If bike-walk facilities were along
Dodd Road, how frequently would
you use them?
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Lighting Shade Benches Street crossing
improvements
What other improvements would you like
to see on Dodd Road to make walking and
biking safer, easier, and more fun?
70
• Having a bike path would be very helpful.
• I do not use Dodd Road, but I know many people do and would enjoy a bike/walk
path.
• I don't live in Mendota Heights, so I would never use a bike lane.
• I live on Dodd Road and when I walk my dog, I feel like I'm going to get hit, I would like
a sidewalk, and for cross country for Saint Thomas we cross from Blue Bill to the other
side of Dodd, and we have had two incidents where cars don't stop or watch for us
when we cross. They have almost hit us twice. Please add a stop sign and, or cross
walk.
• I mean I don't live around here so...
• I think a path to use for athletics would be very practical.
• I think there should be sidewalks because they would really be useful since sports run
along Dodd & lots of kids bike to school. It would be an improvement to the
community.
• I think we need to have more sidewalks for walking people or runners.
• I would love a bike path on Dodd Road. My family loves to go on bike rides and it
would be awesome to be able to bike to or from after school activities. My siblings and
I usually do golf which is about 45 min. walking from our house and we usually walk
along Dodd Road for about 20 min and most cars are very careful, but it is still scary, if
we had a bike path or SIDEWALKS it would be amazing.
• I would use it for going to soccer games/practices.
• I'd like more bike trails and bicycling infrastructure along the Dodd Road corridor.
Wider trails, better crossings (including possible reduced speed limits) would also be
helpful. Unrelated to bicycling, but still important, is public transportation. better
maintained, higher frequency public transportation will enrich the area, if installed.
• It would be nice if there was a boulevard in the middle (like Summit Avenue in St. Paul).
• Less noisy. A bike counter to see how many bikes ride that path every day!
• Make a bike park.
• Make a bike path for runners, bikers and students.
• Make a bike trail on Sunfish lane Angel road.
• People are going too fast!
• People drive very fast on Dodd, so it would be beneficial for so many people to have a
sidewalk/bike path. I might not use it to walk to school, but for sports, gym class, and
other people, it would help out so much and make it much safer.
• Please put in a bike path.
• Put in benches.
• Sidewalk
• Slowing down or roundabouts
• The stop light by the Mendota Plaza/Village is very slow in the morning on the way to
school.
• Track often runs on Dodd, and I feel unsafe knowing that there isn't much space to run.
A trail would be much better.
• Traffic signs with more cross walks would be nice.
• Visitation's Phy. Ed class may use this if a bike path was put into place.
• With our cross country team, we run on Dodd Road quite frequently, and it is a little
scary running inches away from cars. Our team would benefit greatly from something
that could prevent that.
71
• Yes, put in a trail.
• You don't want to put in a bike lane because people would not be happy. It would
take up parking space and create traffic. For sure some awareness signs for crossing!!
• You should make bench stop and drinking fountain.
• You should put more sidewalks, and biking trails because it gives people more
opportunities to come and go to school.
72
Written Comment (From Open House 10.17.16) Name Date
Thank you for starting the conversation. My primary concern is safety on Dodd and
Delaware for all- bikes and peds and cars. Where is Somerset golf course in this
conversation?
Julie Gugun 10.17.16
I oppose this trail alignment. Where is the use/where is the need. Terribly inconvenient. Too
much cost.
Jerry Geis 10.17.16
Yes. Create a bike trail. It’s a pure good. It’s needed, helpful and reasonable. I have ridden
my bicycle many time up and down Dodd; it’s scary, but there’s no other way to traverse
the area it serves. I hope I don’t need to mention Somerset Elementary & Sibley High
School. I’m almost but not quite a senior citizen- my demographic supports a
bike/pedestrian path.
Celeste Riley 10.17.16
100% in favor of the trail on Dodd. Dodd is used so much by pedestrians and it is so unsafe
right now.
Becca Glass 10.17.16
I don’t have high hopes for this happening, but I hope it does. I have 2 young children who
I plan to raise in Mendota Heights, and the prospect of a safe route to bike to school or the
village for ice cream makes the livability & enjoyability of my neighborhood that much
greater. As millennials begin to start families, it is the forward thinking burbs who will attract
them.
Brian Udell 10.17.16
Just can’t leave well enough alone. Benefit the few to the dismay of the many. It’s a trunk
highway, snow emergency route which works very well.
James Stehr 10.17.16
The trail would be far too close to our house and would take away about 1/3 of our
driveway and most of our privacy.
Linda Stehr 10.17.16
The existing trails run to Delaware Avenue as well. Delaware Avenue – between Hwy 110
and Dodd (North) is heavily travelled by walkers/bikers from the high school. Teen drivers
are also plenty on Delaware Avenue. Seems like the City would provide greater safety to a
greater number of users if the trail were built along Delaware Avenue from Hwy. 110 to the
north end of the proposed trail.
Mary Deitchler 10.17.16
Thank you for developing the study, I don’t live on Dodd, but I know it is dangerous for
walkers & bikers and we need a solution if to assure safety, we have been lucky so far!!
Please consider bike & walk path!!
Denise Dunham 10.17.16
73
Written Comment (E-mailed to staff) Name Date
I am strongly opposed for a few reasons:
1. Property assessment/increased taxes both for the current proposed project and the
required maintenance in the future.
2. Encroachment onto my property/property value reduction
3. Increased foot traffic near my property and the associated increased security risk.
4. Reduction in the scenic/aesthetic value of Dodd Road as a county highway.
I have a few questions about the proposed trail.
1. Is the trail proposed for the east or west side of Dodd Road?
2. How wide will the trail be?
3. Where will the trail start and stop?
4. Will there be any railings or fences associated with the trail?
5. What is the environmental impact of the additional asphalt on the wildlife in the
Mendota Heights ecosystem? Dodd Road already crosses numerus tributaries leading to
the flood plain of the Mississippi River.
Joel Farley 10.15.16
Hi. I am not able to attend the Oct 17 meeting re: Dodd Road, but wanted to voice my
support for a plan that makes this road safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. Of special
interest to me is the intersection at Delaware and Dodd. This intersection is busy, at a weird
angle, and only has sidewalk on the northeast corner. We live in the Ivy Falls area, and my
son attends Heritage Middle School (his home school). In order to walk or bike to school, he
has to navigate this dangerous intersection and is forced to walk several blocks (either
north on Dodd or along Delaware/Butler) without any sidewalk.
Encouraging biking/walking is good for the public health and well-being of a community.
Having bike and walking paths leads to greater community satisfaction and is attractive to
people living and moving to an area. I hope you will be able to take advantage of this
construction project to enhance the trail system in Mendota Heights.
Maia Hendel 10.10.16
74
I live near Dodd Road in Mendota Heights and I ride a bicycle 50-100 miles a week year
round. The problem on Dodd Road is the section from Mendota Heights Road South to Blue
Gention Road in Eagan. The wide shoulders are nice North of 110, and the traffic is slower
and there are no Freeway ramps. Please work with Eagan and fix the real problem first.
NA 9.23.16
My family moved to Mendota Heights from Highland Park (St. Paul) one year ago. We love
the community and our neighborhood (Ivy Falls) but we feel the only thing that's missing is
access to the rest of Mendota Heights from our house on Ivy Falls Ave and a
bike/pedestrian trail on Dodd Road would enable us to access the rest of Mendota
Heights. We feel that Dodd Road is too busy and there is not enough room for it to be
utilized by foot and bike traffic. We have two young girls who will be attending Somerset
Elementary in the upcoming years and the only way we would want to bike or walk to
school would be through the back pathway through our neighborhood. If there were
access along Dodd, we would certainly use that as an alternative. Not to mention being
able to bike/walk to the shopping area of Mendota and accessing the other trails that we
already have.
Thank you for taking the time to allow us to voice our enthusiasm for a possible bike/walk
path along Dodd Rd, I know it would be a great asset to the community and would
encourage more healthy activities for our Mendota Heights residents.
Chad
Schuirmann
9.23.16
I am writing in strong support of an off-street pedestrian/bike trail along Dodd. People are
already traversing this stretch, but on the shoulder, and it feels dangerous for them and for
drivers. It would also be nice when my kids are a little older to be able to more safely travel
up and down Dodd, as it is one of our border streets of our neighborhood (Somerset
Heights).
Sara (Eric) Rice 9.23.16
I am writing in support of a safe path or sidewalk on Dodd road from Delaware to Mendota
Heights Road. I travel on Dodd at least twice a day and frequently see children and adults
riding their bikes, walking or running along the road. It always makes me nervous to see a
teen or child on the side of Dodd riding their bike, because I know there is only so much
room I can give them.
A new path would dramatically improve the walkability and safety of Mendota Heights.
Please do you best to push for this new path/sidewalk.
Christopher
Schultz
9.15.16
75
Hope you are well. I am writing to lend my enthusiastic support to the idea of a Dodd Road
corridor. A safe pathway on or near Dodd road would increase foot and bike traffic to the
many businesses at Dodd and 110 and would allow more of our community’s children to
bike or walk to and from school and after school activities. This would improve congestion
in school parking lots in the morning/afternoons and for evening activities and promote
physical activity in our communities.
This may also help to decrease obesity and inactivity-related conditions in our community.
Kris Ann 9.15.16
I would be so happy to see a bike/pedestrian trail along Dodd Road! Corrine
McCarthy
9.12.16
We moved to Ivy Falls Ave last summer from Highland Park. I grew up in Mendota Heights
and when my husband and I made the decision to move back to Mendota Heights, I was
so excited. We are thrilled to be back in Mendota Heights. Dodd Road is the only
disappointment to the area due to the fact that it does not have pedestrian access. We
feel that if it this bike/pedestrian trail was added to Dodd road it would give the area more
of a community feel. And it would our community allow access to all the wonderful parks
and businesses. We love our neighborhood, but we feel very limited in where we can
comfortably walk. We won't walk on Dodd with our small children and our hope is to send
them to Somerset for elementary school. This would allow our girls a quick and safe way to
walk to school.
My husband and I are very hopeful this new trail will be added to the already wonderful
trail system in Mendota Heights.
Meghan
Schuirmann
9.10.16
76
I can't make your open house, but think that this off-street bike/pedestrian trail is a great
idea and about 30 years overdue.
I live on the corner of South Lane and Wesley Lane.
When I run and bike, I avoid Dodd at all costs due to the volume of traffic.
In fact, early this week, when I went to turn south onto Dodd Road off of Wesley Lane, I had
to wait for a young family (dad, mom, one small kid on a bike and two in a double stroller}
as they made their way south on the eastside of Dodd Road into oncoming traffic.
I thought to myself how dangerous that is for those people to put their lives into the hands
of a distracted driver. Only takes one text to wipe out a family.
Please make this project happen ASAP before someone gets killed on that road.
Mitchell Rossman 9.10.16
I won't be able to attend the Dodd Road Corridor Study Open House so I wanted to email
to let you know that I fully support building a bike path on Dodd. The path would allow me
to take my family bike riding from our house on Hingham Circle and connect with the great
bike path that runs from Marie to Hwy 110 along 35E N.
Myles McKee 9.10.16
77
DETAILED COST ESTIMATES
78
Segment 1 - Delaware Ave to Chippewa Ave
Length 900 LF
Width Area
Bit 8 LF Bit 7200 SF
Gravel 12 LF Gravel 10800 SF
Shouldering 2 LF Shoulder 1800 SF
Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 10800 SF
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 10800 SF
Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 9000 SF
Clearing 8 LF Clearing 7200 SF
Thickness
Bit 2.5 IN
Gravel 6 IN
Shouldering 2.5 IN
Common Ex 0.71 FT
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT
Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT
No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price
1 Mobilization LS 1 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$
2 Traffic Control LS 1 700.00$ 700.00$
3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
4 Remove Curb/ Bit Trail / Conc Walk SY 60 5.00$ 300.00$
5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 290 20.00$ 5,800.00$
6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 230 20.00$ 4,600.00$
7 Subgrade Excavation CY 120 20.00$ 2,400.00$
8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 120 15.00$ 1,800.00$
9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 280 15.00$ 4,200.00$
10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 600 40.00$ 24,000.00$
11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 3 3,500.00$ 10,500.00$
12 Retaining Wall SF 1400 30.00$ 42,000.00$
13 Chain Link Fence LF 300 20.00$ 6,000.00$
14 Aggregate Base TN 460 15.00$ 6,900.00$
15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 40 20.00$ 800.00$
16 Bituminous Pavement TN 140 80.00$ 11,200.00$
17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 3 2,000.00$ 6,000.00$
18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 230 30.00$ 6,900.00$
19 Erosion Control LS 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
20 Turf Establishment SY 1000 3.00$ 3,000.00$
21 Signing & Striping LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
Subtotal Construction Costs 151,600.00$
+/- 20% Construction Contingency 30,320.00$
181,920.00$
+/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 45,480.00$
Total Cost 227,400.00$
79
Segment 2 - Chippewa Ave to Emerson Ave
Length 2600 LF
Width Area
Bit 8 LF Bit 20800 SF
Gravel 12 LF Gravel 31200 SF
Shouldering 2 LF Shoulder 5200 SF
Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 31200 SF
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 31200 SF
Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 26000 SF
Clearing 8 LF Clearing 20800 SF
Thickness
Bit 2.5 IN
Gravel 6 IN
Shouldering 2.5 IN
Common Ex 0.71 FT
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT
Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT
No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price
1 Mobilization LS 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
2 Traffic Control LS 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
4 Remove Curb/ Bit Trail / Conc Walk SY 180 5.00$ 900.00$
5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 830 20.00$ 16,600.00$
6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 170 20.00$ 3,400.00$
7 Subgrade Excavation CY 350 20.00$ 7,000.00$
8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 350 15.00$ 5,250.00$
9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 3230 15.00$ 48,450.00$
10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 1600 40.00$ 64,000.00$
11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 8 3,500.00$ 28,000.00$
12 Retaining Wall SF 4450 30.00$ 133,500.00$
13 Chain Link Fence LF 1050 20.00$ 21,000.00$
14 Aggregate Base TN 1320 15.00$ 19,800.00$
15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 100 20.00$ 2,000.00$
16 Bituminous Pavement TN 390 80.00$ 31,200.00$
17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 9 2,000.00$ 18,000.00$
18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 650 30.00$ 19,500.00$
19 Erosion Control LS 1 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
20 Turf Establishment SY 2900 3.00$ 8,700.00$
21 Signing & Striping LS 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
Subtotal Construction Costs 466,300.00$
+/- 20% Construction Contingency 93,260.00$
559,560.00$
+/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 139,890.00$
Total Cost 699,450.00$
80
Segment 3 - Emerson Ave to Wentworth Ave
Length 2800 LF
Width Area
Bit 8 LF Bit 22400 SF
Gravel 12 LF Gravel 33600 SF
Shouldering 2 LF Shoulder 5600 SF
Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 33600 SF
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 33600 SF
Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 28000 SF
Clearing 8 LF Clearing 22400 SF
Thickness
Bit 2.5 IN
Gravel 6 IN
Shouldering 2.5 IN
Common Ex 0.71 FT
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT
Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT
No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price
1 Mobilization LS 1 18,000.00$ 18,000.00$
2 Traffic Control LS 1 1,800.00$ 1,800.00$
3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
4 Remove Curb/ Bit Trail / Conc Walk SY 60 5.00$ 300.00$
5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 890 20.00$ 17,800.00$
6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 790 20.00$ 15,800.00$
7 Subgrade Excavation CY 380 20.00$ 7,600.00$
8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 380 15.00$ 5,700.00$
9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 950 15.00$ 14,250.00$
10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 200 40.00$ 8,000.00$
11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 1 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$
12 Retaining Wall SF 5980 30.00$ 179,400.00$
13 Chain Link Fence LF 1495 20.00$ 29,900.00$
14 Aggregate Base TN 1420 15.00$ 21,300.00$
15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 100 20.00$ 2,000.00$
16 Bituminous Pavement TN 420 80.00$ 33,600.00$
17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 9 2,000.00$ 18,000.00$
18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 700 30.00$ 21,000.00$
19 Erosion Control LS 1 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$
20 Turf Establishment SY 3200 3.00$ 9,600.00$
21 Signing & Striping LS 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
Subtotal Construction Costs 419,050.00$
+/- 20% Construction Contingency 83,810.00$
502,860.00$
+/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 125,715.00$
Total Cost 628,575.00$
81
Segment 4 - Wentworth Ave to Marie Ave
Length 2800 LF
Width Area
Bit 8 LF Bit 22400 SF
Gravel 12 LF Gravel 33600 SF
Shouldering 2 LF Shoulder 5600 SF
Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 33600 SF
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 33600 SF
Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 28000 SF
Clearing 8 LF Clearing 22400 SF
Thickness
Bit 2.5 IN
Gravel 6 IN
Shouldering 2.5 IN
Common Ex 0.71 FT
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT
Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT
No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price
1 Mobilization LS 1 26,000.00$ 26,000.00$
2 Traffic Control LS 1 2,600.00$ 2,600.00$
3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
4 Remove Curb/ Bit Trail / Conc Walk SY 120 5.00$ 600.00$
5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 890 20.00$ 17,800.00$
6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 800 20.00$ 16,000.00$
7 Subgrade Excavation CY 380 20.00$ 7,600.00$
8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 380 15.00$ 5,700.00$
9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 1380 15.00$ 20,700.00$
10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 1300 40.00$ 52,000.00$
11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 7 3,500.00$ 24,500.00$
12 Retaining Wall SF 7325 30.00$ 219,750.00$
13 Chain Link Fence LF 1650 20.00$ 33,000.00$
14 Aggregate Base TN 1420 15.00$ 21,300.00$
15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 100 20.00$ 2,000.00$
16 Bituminous Pavement TN 420 80.00$ 33,600.00$
17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 9 2,000.00$ 18,000.00$
18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 700 30.00$ 21,000.00$
19 Erosion Control LS 1 5,500.00$ 5,500.00$
20 Turf Establishment SY 3200 3.00$ 9,600.00$
21 Signing & Striping LS 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
Subtotal Construction Costs 555,250.00$
+/- 20% Construction Contingency 111,050.00$
666,300.00$
+/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 166,575.00$
Total Cost 832,875.00$
82
Segment 7A - Apache St to Decorah Lane (Off Street through County Right of Way)
Length 1500 LF
Width Area
Bit 8 LF Bit 12000 SF
Gravel 12 LF Gravel 18000 SF
Shouldering 4 LF Shoulder 6000 SF
Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 18000 SF
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 18000 SF
Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 15000 SF
Clearing 30 LF Clearing 45000 SF
Thickness
Bit 2.5 IN
Gravel 6 IN
Shouldering 2.5 IN
Common Ex 0.71 FT
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT
Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT
No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price
1 Mobilization LS 1 5,500.00$ 5,500.00$
2 Traffic Control LS 1 500.00$ 500.00$
3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
4 Remove Curb/ Bit Trail / Conc Walk SY 20 5.00$ 100.00$
5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 480 20.00$ 9,600.00$
6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 0 20.00$ -$
7 Subgrade Excavation CY 670 20.00$ 13,400.00$
8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 670 15.00$ 10,050.00$
9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 0 15.00$ -$
10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 200 40.00$ 8,000.00$
11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 1 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$
12 Retaining Wall SF 0 30.00$ -$
13 Chain Link Fence LF 0 20.00$ -$
14 Aggregate Base TN 760 15.00$ 11,400.00$
15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 110 20.00$ 2,200.00$
16 Bituminous Pavement TN 230 80.00$ 18,400.00$
17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 380 30.00$ 11,400.00$
19 Erosion Control LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
20 Turf Establishment SY 1700 3.00$ 5,100.00$
21 Signing & Striping LS 1 600.00$ 600.00$
Subtotal Construction Costs 117,750.00$
+/- 20% Construction Contingency 23,550.00$
141,300.00$
+/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 35,325.00$
Total Cost 176,625.00$
83
Segment 7B - Hokah Ave to Decorah Lane (Along Dodd Rd)
Length 1000 LF
Width Area
Bit 8 LF Bit 8000 SF
Gravel 12 LF Gravel 12000 SF
Shouldering 2 LF Shoulder 2000 SF
Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 12000 SF
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 12000 SF
Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 10000 SF
Clearing 8 LF Clearing 8000 SF
Thickness
Bit 2.5 IN
Gravel 6 IN
Shouldering 2.5 IN
Common Ex 0.71 FT
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT
Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT
No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price
1 Mobilization LS 1 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$
2 Traffic Control LS 1 700.00$ 700.00$
3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
4 Remove Curb/ Bit Trail / Conc Walk SY 20 5.00$ 100.00$
5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 320 20.00$ 6,400.00$
6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 230 20.00$ 4,600.00$
7 Subgrade Excavation CY 140 20.00$ 2,800.00$
8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 140 15.00$ 2,100.00$
9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 840 15.00$ 12,600.00$
10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 600 40.00$ 24,000.00$
11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 3 3,500.00$ 10,500.00$
12 Retaining Wall SF 1050 30.00$ 31,500.00$
13 Chain Link Fence LF 300 20.00$ 6,000.00$
14 Aggregate Base TN 510 15.00$ 7,650.00$
15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 40 20.00$ 800.00$
16 Bituminous Pavement TN 150 80.00$ 12,000.00$
17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 3 2,000.00$ 6,000.00$
18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 250 30.00$ 7,500.00$
19 Erosion Control LS 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
20 Turf Establishment SY 1200 3.00$ 3,600.00$
21 Signing & Striping LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
Subtotal Construction Costs 153,350.00$
+/- 20% Construction Contingency 30,670.00$
184,020.00$
+/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 46,005.00$
Total Cost 230,025.00$
84
Segment 8 - Decorah Lane to Lake Dr
Length 1650 LF
Width Area
Bit 8 LF Bit 13200 SF
Gravel 12 LF Gravel 19800 SF
Shouldering 2 LF Shoulder 3300 SF
Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 19800 SF
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 19800 SF
Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 16500 SF
Clearing 8 LF Clearing 13200 SF
Thickness
Bit 2.5 IN
Gravel 6 IN
Shouldering 2.5 IN
Common Ex 0.71 FT
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT
Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT
No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price
1 Mobilization LS 1 19,000.00$ 19,000.00$
2 Traffic Control LS 1 1,900.00$ 1,900.00$
3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$
4 Remove Pagel Rd Intersection SY 400 20.00$ 8,000.00$
5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 530 20.00$ 10,600.00$
6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 0 20.00$ -$
7 Subgrade Excavation CY 220 20.00$ 4,400.00$
8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 220 15.00$ 3,300.00$
9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 1740 15.00$ 26,100.00$
10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 500 40.00$ 20,000.00$
11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 3 3,500.00$ 10,500.00$
12 Retaining Wall SF 7025 30.00$ 210,750.00$
13 Chain Link Fence LF 1250 20.00$ 25,000.00$
14 Aggregate Base TN 840 15.00$ 12,600.00$
15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 60 20.00$ 1,200.00$
16 Bituminous Pavement TN 250 80.00$ 20,000.00$
17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 3 2,000.00$ 6,000.00$
18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 420 30.00$ 12,600.00$
19 Erosion Control LS 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
20 Turf Establishment SY 1900 3.00$ 5,700.00$
21 Signing & Striping LS 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
Subtotal Construction Costs 409,650.00$
+/- 20% Construction Contingency 81,930.00$
491,580.00$
+/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 122,895.00$
Total Cost 614,475.00$
85
Segment 9 - Lake Dr to Mendota Heights Rd
Length 1600 LF
Width Area
Bit 8 LF Bit 12800 SF
Gravel 12 LF Gravel 19200 SF
Shouldering 2 LF Shoulder 3200 SF
Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 19200 SF
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 19200 SF
Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 16000 SF
Clearing 8 LF Clearing 12800 SF
Thickness
Bit 2.5 IN
Gravel 6 IN
Shouldering 2.5 IN
Common Ex 0.71 FT
Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT
Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT
No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price
1 Mobilization LS 1 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$
2 Traffic Control LS 1 750.00$ 750.00$
3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
4 Remove Curb/ Bit Trail / Conc Walk SY 40 5.00$ 200.00$
5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 510 20.00$ 10,200.00$
6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 790 20.00$ 15,800.00$
7 Subgrade Excavation CY 220 20.00$ 4,400.00$
8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 220 15.00$ 3,300.00$
9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 2530 15.00$ 37,950.00$
10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 200 40.00$ 8,000.00$
11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 1 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$
12 Retaining Wall SF 0 30.00$ -$
13 Chain Link Fence LF 0 20.00$ -$
14 Aggregate Base TN 810 15.00$ 12,150.00$
15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 60 20.00$ 1,200.00$
16 Bituminous Pavement TN 240 80.00$ 19,200.00$
17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 2 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$
18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 400 30.00$ 12,000.00$
19 Erosion Control LS 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
20 Turf Establishment SY 1800 3.00$ 5,400.00$
21 Signing & Striping LS 1 1,700.00$ 1,700.00$
Subtotal Construction Costs 153,750.00$
+/- 20% Construction Contingency 30,750.00$
184,500.00$
+/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 46,125.00$
Total Cost 230,625.00$
86
DATE: February 11, 2020
TO: Parks & Recreation Commission
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Playground Subcommittee Appointment
INTRODUCTION
The Parks & Recreation Commission established a playground subcommittee to assist in
establishing playground improvements to Wentworth and Hagstrom-King Parks. Three
members of the Commission volunteered for this committee.
The Commission recommended improvements to Marie Park for 2020.
ACTION REQUIRED
The Park & Recreation Commission is asked to discuss appointing Commissioners to the Marie
Park playground subcommittee.
87
DATE: February 11, 2020
TO: Parks & Recreation Commission
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Rogers Lake Skate Park Improvements
INTRODUCTION
Staff received a quote for improvements to the Rogers Lake skate park.
Proposed improvements for 2020 would include three new features. The three features would
include a Round Rail, a Grind Box and a Wall Ride feature.
ACTION REQUIRED
The Commission may provide a recommendation on proceeding with the proposed
improvements.
88
Rogers Lake SkatePark 2019 Upgrades
JOB LOCATION INFORMATION
Name Rogers Lake SkatePark
Address 994 Wagon Wheel Trail
City, State ZIP Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Phone
(651) 255-1152
Email ryanr@mendota-heights.com
Project name 2019 SkatePark Updates
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
Company Action Sports of MN Inc
Name Mark Rodriguez
Address 850 Florida Ave South
City, State ZIP Golden Valley, MN 55423
Phone 763 797 5283
Email mrod@3rdlair.com
Completion date Spring/Summer 2019
COMPANY PROPOSAL
We have spent the last couple of weeks communicating with various users of Rogers Lake SkatePark in Mendota Heights, MN. We
held a focus group meeting on Sat March 16 to begin a dialogue and build an email list. From there we communicated with 25
skatepark users via email. In addition, we spoke to additional skatepark users on Mon/Tues April 8/9 while at the park fixing threshold
metal
Based on the feedback we received, we have put together the following proposal that includes adding 3 additional features to the park;
a round rail, a grind box, and a wall ride ramp. Almost all users made clear that they enjoy the simplicity of the park. The proposed
features were all brought up numerous times as things people would like to have. Additional requests include bowl corners on the
perimeter corners of the park that would increase the overall flow. These are more in-depth features and would make great year 2 and
beyond additions. We believe we can build/install all 3 of these new features in a 5-day work with a budget of $10,000.
Submitted by (Company Representative) Date
OWNER ACCEPTANCE I, Ryan Ruzek, do accept the above scope of work.
Submitted by (authorized representative) Date
89
Work Timeline/Labor Cost/Overhead New Feature Supplies Cost
40-hour work week Round Rail: $400
Labor and Overhead = $5500 Grind Box: $2000
Wall Ride: $2100
Round Rail
Grind Box
90
Wall Ride
91