2020-05-19 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
May 19, 2020 – 5:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
MN Stat. 13D.021 - Meeting by telephone or other electronic means: Conditions - MN stat. 13D.021 provides that a
meeting of a public body may be conducted via telephone or other electronic means if meeting in a public location is not
practical or prudent because of a health pandemic or declared emergency.
At its meeting on March 17, 2020, the Mendota Heights City Council declared a local emergency due to the CO VID-19
pandemic. As a part of this action, until further notice all City Council and committee meetings will be held by
telephone, through other electronic means, or with social distancing measures in place. All public meetings will
continue to follow the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
In compliance with the Governor’s Executive Order No. 20-20 and stay-at-home guidelines, the Council Chambers will
not be open to the public during its regular meeting. Interested individuals may access the meeting in real time or later
by viewing the meeting replay from Town Square Television (www.townsquare.tv\webstreaming) or the City’s website,
or by using the dial-in information below.
If the dial-in option is used, the line will be muted, so no outside comments or noise will be recorded. Note that long -
distance telephone charges may apply. Because of technological limitations, the number of participants using d ial-in
cannot exceed 100. As a result, web stream participation is strongly encouraged.
Dial in information: 1-312-535-8110
Access Code: 286 750 999 #
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Adopt Agenda
5. Presentations
a. Update on Fire Station Expansion/Remodel by Paul Oberhaus, CPMI
b. ISD 197 Update from Superintendent Peter Olson Skog
6. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of May 5, 2020 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of the May 11, 2020 Council Work Session Minutes
c. Approve April 2020 Treasurer’s Report
d. Approval of Claims List
7. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
*See guidelines below
8. Public Hearings - none
9. New and Unfinished Business
a. Approve Professional Services Contract for Natural Resources Management Plan
b. Approve Letter to MAC Noise Oversight Committee
c. Approval of Fiber Optic Indefeasible Right to Use Agreement –City Fiber Assets
10. Community Announcements
11. Council Comments
12. Adjourn
Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public
to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to comment. Comments must be placed in
writing, or email, and addressed to the City Clerk at lorris@mendota-heights.com, or sent in writing to City Hall, 1101 Victoria
Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118. All comments must be received by 4 PM CDT on the day of th e meeting. Comments
must be identified as “To be read at the (insert applicable date)TH City Council Meeting”.
Comments which are received in a timely manner will be read into the record by staff, at the appropriate point in the
meeting, and shall be limited to 5 spoken minutes per person and topic. Presentations which require longer than five minutes
will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk, and will appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be
repetitious.
Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or
for political campaign purposes. Council members will not make any decisions regarding comments made under the Citizen
Comments section at that presentation.
Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or
reacting to the comments made, but rather for receiving the information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign sta ff for
follow up to the issues raised.”
DATE: May 19, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Monthly Fire Station Update
Comment:
At the May 19th meeting, a written monthly status report from Construction Manager Paul Oberhaus of
CPMI will be read by City Administrator Mark McNeill.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 3
DATE: May 19, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Presentation by ISD 197 School Superintendent
Comment:
At the previous City Council meeting, a request was made to have local school administrators update the
City Council about issues which may be of interest to Mendota Heights residents.
At the May 19th City Council meeting, ISD 197 Peter Olson Skog will update the City Council via
WebEx.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 4
May 18, 2020
Distance Learning &
Facilities Updates
School District 197
Distance Learning
Distance Learning
◼Started April 6 and will extend through
the end of the school year
◼Students in early learning through
grade 12
◼Grades 1-4 accessing curriculum via
SeeSaw while grades 5-12 accessing
curriculum via Canvas
◼Represents a home-school partnership
◼Teachers and staff had to do a rapid
“pivot” from face-to-face learning to
support student learning at home
◼Unknown what Fall 2020 will look like
Technology
◼By the beginning of distance learning,
98% of students had internet access.
◼Xfinity helped achieve this by offering
free and low-cost internet. However,
there were still some barriers for some
families.
◼Paper-pencil version of all coursework
were distributed to remaining families.
◼District tech team was able to procure
disabled cell phones that could be used
as hot spots. This brought connectivity
to 100%
Childcare
◼Providing childcare to approximately
115 registered students
◼Three locations: Garlough, Pilot Knob,
and Moreland
◼Childcare provided for the children of
healthcare and emergency workers as
outlined by the governor’s executive
order
◼Childcare for emergency workers and
others as space allows will extend into
the summer (for a fee).
Food Distribution
◼To date, more than 60,000 meals
(breakfast and lunch) served
◼Nine locations: Early Learning,
Garlough, Mendota, Moreland, Pilot
Knob, Somerset, Friendly Hills,
Heritage, and Community of Saints
◼As of June 3, the school district will
transition to its traditional summer
meal program from one location
(Garlough).
◼Arrangements made on a case-by-case
basis if families cannot get to any of
the locations to get food
Transportation
◼Starting March 23, the district
implemented specific routes with
stops assigned for registered riders.
◼Each student who is registered into the
School District 197 childcare program
is provided with bus information.
School District 197
Facilities Update
Mendota Elementary
◼Structural steel and metal decking
installed for 2nd grade addition
◼Structural steel being installed for 1st
grade addition
◼Finishes being installed in new lab,
offices, and restrooms
◼Art, music, and special education
rooms that were originally scheduled
for October completion will now be
completed with the rest of the areas in
August.
Somerset Elementary
◼Foundation walls for gym addition are
completed.
◼Foundation completed for media
center and classroom addition.
◼Starting addition at 1936 link soon
Heritage E-STEM Magnet
◼Working on locker room remodel
◼Starting cafeteria remodel early
◼2nd level classrooms and common
spaces will start mid-May
◼Contractor looking at doing work on
first floor corridors this summer.
◼PLTW starting early.
Friendly Hills
◼Contractors ready to start site work.
◼Early start to cafeteria and remaining
first floor work.
Henry Sibley
◼Continuing with front entry (curtain
wall completed, interior brick work,
framing, steel for stairs) with an end of
May completion
◼Locker room renovation continuing
◼2nd floor corridors ceiling and lights
have been installed and are moving to
3rd floor shortly
◼District office buildout has started
along with the addition
◼Gym addition will start early.
◼Music and science began May 11.
Aquatics Center
◼Excavating shallow end of pool
◼Framing community education and
locker room areas
◼Mechanical and electrical work is
ongoing.
◼Covid-19 has caused a major delay as
gutters will not ship until the end of
June due to manufacturer shutdown.
Questions?
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota was held at 5:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan (arrived at 5:06 p.m.), Paper,
Miller, and Petschel were also present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was conducted:
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Paper aye
Councilor Petschel aye
Mayor Garlock aye
Motion carried.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling item f. for a separate
discussion.
a. Approval of April 21, 2020 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of April 16, 2020 Council Work Session Minutes
c. Acknowledgement of March 24, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
d. Approve Resolution 20202-31 Accepting a Donation of Equipment
e. Approve Resolution 2020-32 Accepting a Park Bench Donation
f. Approve HeathEast Use Agreements for the Fire Station
g. Approve the March 2020 Fire Synopsis Report
h. Approve the Claims List
page 5
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was conducted:
Councilor Paper aye
Councilor Petschel aye
Mayor Garlock aye
Councilor Miller aye
Motion carried.
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
F) APPROVE HEALTHEAST USE AGREEMENTS FOR THE FIRE STATION
Councilor Paper stated that he has some concern with the agreement with HealthEast for their use of the
Fire Station. He stated that the City is spending a lot of money on updating this facility and in return, the
City receives a number of Medical Director hours per month/year.
City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that this agreement formalizes what has been going on for years,
as HealthEast has had access to the day room area and kitchen.
Fire Chief Dave Dreelan stated that HealthEast has always been able to use the station as a regional
operating position, with two or three ambulances at the station. He stated that the agreement formalizes
the Medical Director. He stated that in the past the City has paid $2,000 to $3,000 per year for training
certifications. He explained that HealthEast will now conduct the yearly training hours for first responder
certification under this agreement. He noted that the agreement also specifies that HealthEast has its own
space and is responsible for its own consumables.
Councilor Duggan arrived.
City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that another benefit of having HealthEast stationed here is the
quicker response time for residents.
Councilor Paper commented that this is a big space that HealthEast is getting and asked if they will be
contributing towards utilities. He also asked for input on supply replenishment.
Fire Chief Dave Dreelan replied that anything that the fire department uses when on a medical call can be
replaced on scene through the ambulance to ensure that the first aid bag is replenished.
Councilor Paper asked for details on inventory and how often that is reviewed for the trucks. Fire Chief
Dave Dreelan reviewed the different expiration dates on materials carried on the trucks.
Councilor Paper stated that Fairview is a large company and wants to make sure that the City is not simply
signing this with blinders.
page 6
Fire Chief Dave Dreelan stated that the City Administrator and City Attorney had conversations related
to whether HealthEast could be charged. He confirmed that HealthEast holds the contract to provide
service to Mendota Heights, but that does not mean that they have to be stationed in Mendota Heights and
could respond from a further location. He stated that the fire station space is still the City’s space and can
be reclaimed.
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that the fire station bonds are tax exempt and therefore in-
kind services are being used for reimbursement as HealthEast/Fairview is a for profit business.
Councilor Paper asked if there can be a commitment on how often HealthEast will clean their space. Fire
Chief Dave Dreelan stated that he has not had a formal discussion related to cleaning but can do that and
report back to staff and Council with that plan.
Councilor Miller stated that in terms of inventory, the trucks are checked weekly and if an item is low and
was not replenished on the scene, there would be an opportunity to restock that supply through HealthEast.
Councilor Duggan asked for details on the potential termination of the lease and how that could be
handled, using the example of agreed upon training not being provided.
City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that staff would leave that to the Fire Chief as to how the services
could be recouped.
Fire Chief Dave Dreelan stated that he would be willing to work out an option to make it work. He stated
that the EMS training that the department has received from third party services has declined over the past
several years and from what they have seen, the HealthEast medics are much more willing to train with
the fire station and do a much better job. He stated that he is less worried about cleaning, as the true value
in this is increasing the professionalism of the fire department in the field.
Councilor Duggan asked if the Fire Chief has a say in the training that is provided.
Fire Chief Dave Dreelan replied that the four hours of medical direction per month is the constant
communication that occurs between himself and the HealthEast medical directors. He commented that
has been invaluable in the past few months with COVID-19. He explained that the 18 hours of training
annually is the training that is nationally required for firefighters.
Councilor Petschel commented that the City needs to keep its eye on the highest priority, which is the
safety and wellbeing of the residents. She commented that having ambulances at this location is a precious
commodity for the residents.
Mayor Garlock stated that in his time on the squad he appreciated that the ambulance was centrally located
to reduce response time. He commented that Mendota Heights provides service to other communities that
have a higher population of elderly, and also benefits from the quick response time.
Councilor Paper asked if HealthEast could assist with an annual CPR training event offered to residents.
page 7
Fire Chief Dave Dreelan confirmed that the Fire Department staff could also assist with that type of
training.
Councilor Petschel moved to approve THE THREE HEALTHEAST USER AGREEMENTS WITH THE
FIRE STATION.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was conducted:
Councilor Petschel aye
Mayor Garlock aye
Councilor Duggan aye
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Paper aye
Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the public wished to be heard.
PUBLIC HEARING
No items scheduled.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) RESOLUTION 2020-33 APPROVE VARIANCE TO ISD #197 FOR WIDER DRIVEWAY
ACCESS ON TO MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD FOR FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL, 701
MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Council was being asked to approve
Resolution 2020-33, approving a variance to Independent School District No. 197, for a wider driveway
access to Friendly Hills Middle School at 701 Mendota Heights Road.
Councilor Paper referenced the previous discussions about a stoplight and asked if that type of
improvement could help, or perhaps a crosswalk with lights that could function during before/after school
times.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that an analysis was completed by the School District and
additional improvements were not warranted, noting that the crosswalk lights were also not found to be
warranted. He stated that the School District is planning to look at additional pedestrian improvements
which could include striping improvements, signage and a possible school zone speed limit reduction.
Councilor Duggan asked if the buses would go onto Mendota Heights Road at the same time as the exiting
lanes of traffic. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the bus access lane is separate
and therefore the lanes will not intersect.
page 8
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that there is a crossing guard that stops the passenger
vehicle traffic from exiting when the school buses are leaving the site.
Mark Foreman, on behalf of the applicant, commented that the buses are required to take right turns out
to minimize conflict. He confirmed that adult crossing guards are used in the morning and afternoon to
assist in mitigating traffic concerns.
Councilor Duggan asked if there has been consideration for a traffic warning signal indicating that
oncoming traffic should slow or stop.
Mr. Foreman replied that he does not have that information. He noted that the Safe Route to School was
completed years ago by Dakota County and could have that information.
Councilor Duggan asked for clarification on the numbers used in the report, whether the width would be
36 or 38 feet. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that in 1996 there was discussion
to give the School District an allowance to go up to 36 feet but that did not happen. He stated that the
current request is for 38 feet, which was the requirement to fit the two turn lanes and entryway.
Councilor Duggan asked if there would be consideration for signage related to directional preferences and
speed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the improvements would not result in signage on
Mendota Heights Road, but noted that there will be a separate discussion related to pedestrian
improvements and possible signage.
Councilor Duggan asked the distance from the proposed new driveway to Hubert Drive. Public Works
Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the driveway will be expanded to the west and the eastern edge will
not change. He stated that the western access is for bus access and will not interfere with the western
driveway.
Councilor Duggan wanted to ensure that landscaping would not interfere with sightlines. Public Works
Director Ryan Ruzek commented that staff will review the plans for possible obstructions.
Councilor Petschel commented that she is fine with the size of the driveway and understands what this is
attempting to accomplish with traffic flow. She noted that will only be accomplished by the willingness
of the parents to follow that path, rather than parking on Mendota Heights Road. She encouraged the
Traffic Safety Committee to look into that issue when the pedestrian safety issue is discussed.
Councilor Duggan echoed those comments and asked if it would be reasonable to request no parking on
Mendota Heights Road.
Councilor Petschel commented that should be addressed by the Traffic Safety Committee, rather than
within this request.
Councilor Paper stated that he would be concerned with limiting parking on Mendota Heights Road, as
implementing that near the high school has only caused more problems. He commented that the situation
only occurs once per day in the afternoon for a limited period of time and that the School District is
requesting to make the driveway wider which will be a safety improvement.
page 9
Councilor Petschel disagreed that the elimination of parking near the high school has made the situation
worse. She stated that she is not recommending that there be no parking on Mendota Heights Road, but
simply asks that it be looked into in the future.
Mr. Foreman stated that the School District would welcome a discussion of safety on Mendota Heights
Road.
Councilor Miller stated that he supports this measure and believes this is a smart improvement for the
congestion.
Mayor Garlock stated that he also supports this action and suggested this go forward to the Traffic Safety
Committee for future discussion.
Councilor Petschel moved to approve RESOLUTION 2020-33 APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ISD
#197/FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL, 701 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was conducted:
Mayor Garlock aye
Councilor Duggan aye
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Paper aye
Councilor Petschel aye
Motion carried.
B) RESOLUTION 2020-34 APPROVE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
FOR PROPERTIES AT 1865 AND 1883 DODD ROAD
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Council was being asked to consider
Resolution 2020-34, approving a lot line adjustment between two properties located at 1865 and 1883
Dodd Road, both owned by Mr. Matt Gustafson.
Councilor Petschel commented that these are three legal lots and therefore she does not have any issues
returning to that original plat. She referenced the statement of the proposed resolution referring to the
driveway encroachment. She commented that Mr. Gustafson is not always going to own all the lots and
did not want to see a future issue, therefore would prefer to eliminate the driveway encroachment.
Councilor Miller agreed with Councilor Petschel. He would like the language adjusted to show the
driveway must be installed.
Councilor Paper asked if there would still be access to the backyard if the driveway were cut. Community
Development Director Tim Benetti provided additional details on the parking pad behind the home. He
stated that there would still be enough space to maneuver if the driveway were cut.
Councilor Duggan asked if the County has approved an access for the new home, should this be approved.
page 10
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that MnDOT would be the permitting authority
and that approval would be needed before a new access is provided.
Councilor Duggan referenced the issue of wetland/drainage, noting that it would be the responsibility of
the builder to ensure that there are not drainage problems for adjacent properties.
Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2020-34 APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
FOR 1865 AND 1883 DODD ROAD, with the stipulation that condition #2 be modified to reflect that the
applicant shall saw-cut and remove that part of the driveway/apron that encroaches over the shared lot line
between lots 35 and 36 to meet the five foot setback required for a driveway.
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was conducted:
Councilor Duggan aye
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Paper aye
Councilor Petschel aye
Mayor Garlock aye
Motion carried.
C) RESOLUTION 2020-25 APPROVE VARIANCES FOR NEW PRESS-BOX/COVERED
BLEACHER STRUCTURE AND LIGHT TOWERS FOR BASEBALL FIELD AT SAINT THOMAS
ACADEMY CAMPUS, 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained Resolution 2020-25, approving variances for
Saint Thomas Academy for a new multi-purpose press-box/bleacher stand structure with a canopy, along
with six new over-height light towers, all for the existing baseball field located on the campus property.
Councilor Duggan stated that over the years there has been a challenge in the development of schools and
he did not believe the ordinance has been updated accordingly for institutional uses within residential
areas. He believed that the process should be sped up to determine appropriate institutional uses within
residential areas. He asked for input from legal counsel on the approval that would be granted, should
this be adopted as the proposed action would include adoption of options one and two.
City Attorney Andrew Pratt asked the setback to the adjacent property if option two moved forward.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the smaller option two structure would not
require the setback variance but the height for the canopy and for the footprint of the structure would
remain as a variance. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended option one, but was also in
favor of option two, if the school chose to move forward with that option.
City Attorney Andrew Pratt stated that option one would include three variances, while option two would
include two variances. He explained that issuing approval in this manner would allow the school to move
forward with option one, but if fundraising is not secured to that level, the school could still move forward
page 11
with option two. He noted that the proposed resolution specifies that construction must begin within one
year from approval and therefore if that does not happen, the school would need to come back to the City
for approval. He explained that if the school chose to move forward with option two, the approval of
option one would expire after that one-year period.
Councilor Duggan noted that the City has generally approved the requests for lighting for the schools and
he has not had a problem with that as the lighting continues to be more efficient. He stated that a second
bleacher area will be a significant addition and asked for input on potential challenges.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the school prefers option one, should
their fundraising support that option, in order to accommodate its fan base.
Councilor Duggan asked if a three-dimensional representation has been seen for the new field in order to
get a sense of the scale. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that he has not seen that.
Jay Pomeroy, Anderson-Johnson Associates, replied that they did not do a three-dimensional layout. He
provided details on the bleachers and compared that to the existing bleachers and bleachers at another
school location.
Mayor Garlock stated that he supports option one and has faith in the fundraising ability of the school.
Councilor Petschel stated that she also supports option one but emphasized the statement that the approval
is only given to the applicant and all variance requests are reviewed by the City under their own merit.
She noted that this location is at the junction of two busy roads and is setback from homes. She commented
that the school building acts as a buffer to the neighborhood in terms of light and noise. She noted that
there is a condition proposed that if there are issues with the lighting or speaker system, which would need
to be mitigated by the applicant. She complimented staff and the Planning Commission for the inclusion
of those conditions.
Councilor Miller stated that he is happy to see that the proposed light fixtures will be updated and will
cause less spill into the community. He echoed the comments of Councilor Petschel that this is not
surrounded by a residential area.
Councilor Paper asked if there would be a time restriction on the lights in the evening hours.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that baseball games often run later than the
specified time but believed that the lights would be turned off following the conclusion of the game.
Councilor Paper inquired about other schools’ abilities to use this facility and asked if there will be other
end users of this field. Andy Faulkner, ICS, replied that there has been a conversation that the Academy’s
season is finished in June, and therefore, there would be opportunities for others to use the field after that
time.
Councilor Paper asked if the setback measurement is from the edge of the footing or the post and whether
the adjacent business is aware of these plans.
page 12
Mr. Pomeroy provided details on the setback measurement, explaining that the pole slips over the footing.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that with this type of light structure he did not
believe there would be any impacts to the adjacent business. He stated that a lot line adjustment was
previously completed between the two property owners.
Councilor Paper asked if there is an agreement for shared parking with the adjacent business.
Mr. Faulkner replied that the southern two rows of the adjacent business were allowable for baseball
parking in the past.
Mayor Garlock moved to approve RESOLUTION 2020-25 APPROVING VARIANCES FOR A NEW
PRESS-BOX/BLEACHER STRUCTURE AND LIGHT TOWERS FOR SAINT THOMAS ACADEMY
CAMPUS, 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was conducted:
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Paper aye
Councilor Petschel aye
Mayor Garlock aye
Councilor Duggan aye
Motion carried.
Councilor Duggan stated that he would like to initiate a future discussion related to Code changes
regarding institutional uses within residential areas.
D) ESTABLISH A COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE/TIME
City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the Council is being asked to establish a date and time for
the next Council work session.
It was the consensus of the Council to hold the work session on Monday, May 11th at 2:00 p.m.
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill thanked customers for golfing at the Par 3, which has been very busy.
He also thanked the Master Gardeners and the Natural Resources Coordinator for completing the spring
cleaning of the City’s pollinator friendly garden in front of City Hall.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Miller stated that three weeks ago the Fire Department received correspondence from a
neighborhood in the community related to a desire to drop off food for the firefighters. He stated that the
neighborhood stocked the new shelves with snacks and bottled water and thanked those that came together
page 13
to provide that for the Fire Department. He reported that the Fire Station recently accepted homemade
masks from the community and received 450 masks donated. He reviewed the different locations that the
masks were distributed to.
Councilor Paper encouraged everyone to stay well and keep an eye out for pedestrians.
Councilor Duggan stated that he would like to have strong communication between the City, schools and
communities to ensure that the City stays up to date on the impact that will occur when the schools reopen.
He referenced the impact to the small business community and stated that if the community does not
support local businesses, they will not survive the impact of COVID-19. He thanked everyone that
continues to remain safe.
Councilor Petschel noted the fighter planes that will be flying over the metro area on Wednesday morning
in honor of the first responders.
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was conducted:
Mayor Garlock aye
Councilor Duggan aye
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Paper aye
Councilor Petschel aye
Motion carried.
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 6:41 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 14
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Council Work Session
Held Tuesday, May 11, 2020
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a workshop of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at City
Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. via teleconference. Council members Duggan,
Miller, Paper, and Petschel were also present. Staff in attendance included City Administrator Mark
McNeill, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Fire Chief
Dave Dreelan, and City Clerk Lorri Smith.
DISCUSSION OF NATURAL RESOURCES PLAN
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained the status of updating of the Natural Resources Plan. He
explained that the Council had budgeted $75,000 this year for this project. The intent of the budgeted
amount was that any additional funding that may be needed could be budgeted in 2021.
Mr. Ruzek explained that six companies responded to the request for proposals. A steering committee was
formed and they reviewed the proposals. The committee is recommending the proposal from AES for
consideration. The cost from them came in at $121,450, which is above the amount budgeted. The
proposal could be broken into two phases, with one phase being completed this year for a cost of $71,449.
Councilor Petschel asked if the public engagement portion of the proposal could be scaled back to save
costs, since this was already completed thoroughly through the updating of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Ruzek stated that has already been scaled back but staff can review it again for additional cost savings in
this area.
Council Petschel asked if the areas of Pilot Knob, Dodd, and the Xcel corridor have been included in the
plan. Mr. Ruzek stated those areas have not been included.
Councilor Duggan asked if cemeteries and golf courses have been included in the plan. Mr. Ruzek stated
that no privately owned areas have been included, but staff is reviewing how those owners can be included.
He stated that Xcel has contributed $30,000 toward a corridor project, which included clearing of trees.
Staff intends to continue to work with them.
Councilor Miller stated it is important that the updating of this plan continue to move forward.
Councilor Paper inquired if the completion of Phase I of this plan would be enough for the city to start to
apply for grants.
Comments were received from the public:
Leslie Pilgrim – feels the public engagement part was approached in a comprehensive way during the
updating of the Comprehensive Plan. The costs proposed for public comment in the proposal bothers her.
page 15
February 19, 2020 Mendota Heights Council Workshop Page 2
Xcel Energy has committed to the corridor and we have a commitment from Great River Greening. She
would like to see the proposal lay out a pathway for the city to start to apply for grants. She would want to
see a list of commitments from the vendor to get access to grants.
Cindy Johnson – this is a science and research based document. The vendor being considered for selection
has a long term approach. She agrees the proposal costs for public engagement are too high.
Sue Light – she agrees that the public engagement portion of the plan is too expensive. This should be a
living document that staff can use. A plan is needed for funding. She would like to see the entire plan
approved, even if it is completed over two years.
Will Stein – we need a plan that will not sit on the shelf. Will need to look at the ordinances in the future.
This will set us up to implement the plan.
Councilor Paper inquired about the timing of this proposal. Mr. Ruzek stated if approved, this entire plan
may take 12 months to complete.
City Administrator McNeill stated that this could be added to the next City Council agenda for approval.
Mr. Ruzek noted that he will follow up with AES about making some amendments to the proposal before
that meeting.
DISCUSSION ON THE FIRE STATION SIGNAGE
AND PUBLIC USE OF TRAINING ROOM
Fire Chief Dave Dreelan discussed with the Council the new message board that will be installed in front of
the fire station. He gave the Council some suggestions on what types of messages to allow to be posted.
He noted that it may be difficult to advertise for events that are not city sponsored, since the city does not
have any specifics about those events and would not be able to answer any questions about the event.
The Council was in agreement that the message board should be reserved for official city business, to only
advertise City funded events or any safety warnings for the public.
The Council discussed the development of a Public Meeting Room Use Policy. It was noted that City Hall
meeting rooms are reserved and used by various outside groups. It is the intent that the new training room
at the Fire Station will also be used by the public. Staff is recommending a policy be developed and a use
fee and a damage deposit be required.
The Council agreed that a policy should be developed, and a fee for usage and a damage deposit should be
required. It was also discussed that only community based organizations should be allowed to rent the
meeting rooms.
DISCUSSION OF LIQUOR LICENSING FEES POSSIBLE REDUCTION
City Clerk Lorri Smith discussed with the Council the liquor licensing fees for on-sale licenses. The
current licensees are in the process of renewing their licenses for the next licensing period, July 1 st through
June 30. Due to the financial impact of COVID-19 and the closing of restaurants to the public since mid-
March, the Council has been asked to consider allowing installment payments for the license fees or to
lower the license fees.
page 16
February 19, 2020 Mendota Heights Council Workshop Page 3
Mayor Garlock stated he was in favor of reducing the license fees by 20% and allowing four installment
payments.
Councilor Paper stated that he was concerned about if this is enough of a reduction in fees, given the hard
times we are in. He wondered if the credit could be extended.
Councilor Miller stated that he supports a per month credit until the restaurants are able to fully open to the
public.
Chief McCarthy suggested that a provision be included that states if the licensee were to violate any liquor
laws, then the license fee would need to be paid in full.
The Council was in agreement to allow the license fees to be reduce by 16.67% (2 months) at this time, and
if the Governor’s order requiring the closing of restaurants to the public continues into the month of June
and later, then the City will allow an additional month of proportional credit to the on-sale licensees for
each month that the restaurants remain fully closed to sit-down dining options. The Council also wished
to allow the fees to be paid in four installments, and to require that the fees be paid in full upon a violation
of any liquor law.
COVID-19 UPDATE
Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson updated the Council on the COVID-19 issues on city
operations and finances. It was noted that the Administrator email ed a notice to all staff stating that
employees will be expected to return to their normal hours of work, beginning May 18th. He also included
detailed information and expections as the employees prepare to return.
It was noted that City Hall will not be opening up for the public to transact their business face-to-face at
this time. Public interaction will continue to be via telephone, email, US mail, and the public drop box.
Administrator McNeill noted some updates that are being considered, i.e. air circulation and safety glass
installed at the front counter.
Large ticket budget items that were scheduled to be included the 2021 budget were discussed. It was noted
by the Council that these items could be reconsidered a later year. The Council members noted the highly
valued AAA bond rating the City currently has in place and that the city needs to protect it.
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 4:00 pm.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 17
page 18
page 19
page 20
page 21
page 22
page 23
page 24
page 25
page 26
page 27
page 28
page 29
page 30
page 31
DATE: May 19, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician
SUBJECT: Award Professional Services Contract to Applied Ecological Services for the
completion of the Natural Resources Management Plan, Phase 1
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to accept the proposal submitted by Applied Ecological Services (AES),
and begin development of Phase 1 of the update to the City’s Natural Resources Management
Plan (NRMP).
BACKGROUND
As part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan process, the need for an update to the City’s existing
Natural Resources Management Plan was identified, and was approved by City Council for
inclusion in the City’s 2020 budget. The Plan was authored in 2002, and has not been
substantially updated since then.
A NRMP Steering Committee was formed as a result of work done on the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan. It is comprised of four residents (Cindy Johnson, Leslie Pilgrim, Sue Light, and Will
Stein), and were assisted by Krista Spreiter and Ryan Ruzek from City staff. The NRMP
Steering Committee developed and solicited a Request for Proposals for the update to the City’s
NRMP (attached).
Six proposals were submitted, and ranked by City Staff and the Steering Committee in the
following categories:
• Overall approach,
• Clarity of issue identification and implementation plan process,
• Understanding and approach of measureable goals,
• Public input and communication,
• Field work and data collection,
• Experience, and
• Cost and value of services.
DISCUSSION
The compiled scoring is shown on the attached spreadsheet with comments.
page 32
The proposal submitted by AES ranked very high in all categories, and was the overwhelming
choice for most reviewers. Supporting comments included an overall comprehensive and clear
understanding of the City’s goals for the plan update, as well as overall approach to the plan
development process, specificity in carrying out the goals of the plan update, approach to goal
and issue identification and implementation, the use of SMART goals as a strategy for goal
implementation and achievement, and their detailed and thorough approach to field work and
data collection.
Although AES did not provide the lowest bid, they offer a flexible approach, breaking the project
into two phases, with the first phase encompassing the majority of what the plan is expected to
accomplish. The second phase could then be implemented with the remaining goals in mind, as
budget allows. The first phase of the plan has been quoted at $71,276. The second phase is
proposed for the amount of $52,161.
AES has also modified their proposal based on feedback received at the City Council workshop
held on May 11, 2020. The revised proposal includes a reduction in the public engagement
process as well as a new deliverable of a completed grant application which can act as an initial
submittal as well as a template for future requests. The public engagement portion includes
consultant time for staff and steering committee meetings (getting input, identifying priorities,
reviewed plan draft) and a presentation to Council.
The city solicited a wide range of public input during the generation of the Natural Resources
chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive plan established goals for
the city to work towards; however, it will be this NRMP that will provide the framework for
achieving those goals. The identified goals and polices are attached.
The deliverables for Phase 1 are:
• Draft NRMP – A compilation and analysis of City-wide natural resources and program
information, with targeting and prioritization of natural resources and activities
o Vision & goals
o Compilation & summary of existing information
o Analysis & summary of AES’s natural resource inventory field data
o City-wide land cover map & tree species classification in wooded areas
o Identification & explanation of challenges & opportunities for management
o Assessment of City’s natural resource capacity & volunteer contribution
o Definition of City’s target plant communities & restoration approaches
o Prioritized natural resources actions & projects
o Plan for climate resilience in natural resource management
o Prioritization of funding sources
• Write grant proposal to secure funding to implement top priority project or activity
• Public education using digital communication methods of NRMP findings & project
priorities
Phase 2 would complete other tasks requested in the RFP, such as preparation of Management
Briefs for natural areas in the City and proposed changes to City policies.
The other five proposals ranged in price from $69,685 to $138,038.
page 33
BUDGET IMPACT
City Council has allotted $75,000 in the 2020 City Budget for the update to the Natural
Resources Management Plan. This amount would allow for the first phase of the plan, in the
amount of $71,276.
If budget allows, and City Council so desires, the second phase may be completed in 2021 for an
additional $52,161.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposal submitted by AES, and authorize
AES to begin the process of developing the City’s Natural Resources Management Plan Phase 1
Update.
ACTION REQUIRED
Approve a motion authorizing the Public Works Director to issue a ‘not-to-exceed’ Purchase
Order in the amount of $71,276 to Applied Ecological Services. This action requires a simple
majority vote.
page 34
APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
Specialists in Ecological Science, Restoration,
Management and Research
May 13, 2020
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Selection Committee:
Applied Ecological Services (AES) and SRF Consulting Group (SRF) have refined our scope of
services for the City of Mendota Heights’ Natural Resources Management Plan. Based on
conversations with you, we propose to prepare a draft NRMP in Phase 1 that will substantially
summarize City-wide natural resources and help with management delivery. We added a new
task in Phase 1: Prepare a grant proposal to secure funding for a top priority project or activity
identified in the draft NRMP. We dropped the public open house and opinion survey, but
retained three staff/steering committee meetings and a Council presentation, with enough
budget to prepare and deliver digital material to educate residents and the Council about natural
resources in the City, including the top priority project or activity for which a grant is sought.
Deliverables that will be provided in Phase 1 (2020) are:
• Three City Team Meetings (City Team = Staff + Steering Committee)
• Draft NRMP – A compilation and analysis of City-wide natural resources and program
information, with targeting and prioritization of natural resources and activities
o Vision & goals
o Compilation & summary of existing information
o Analysis & summary of AES’s natural resource inventory field data
o City-wide land cover map & tree species classification in wooded areas
o Identification & explanation of challenges & opportunities for natural resource
management
o Assessment of City’s natural resource capacity & volunteer contribution
o Definition of City’s target plant communities & restoration approaches
o Prioritized natural resources actions & projects
o Plan for climate resilience in natural resource management
o Prioritization of funding sources
• Write grant proposal to secure funding to implement top priority project or activity
• Public education using digital communication methods of NRMP findings & project
priorities
• Presentation of Draft NRMP to Council, open to public.
In Phase 2 we would complete other tasks requested in the RFP, such as preparation of
Management Briefs for natural areas in the City and proposed changes to City policies.
With kind regards,
Kim Alan Chapman, PhD
Regional Director | Project Director
651-341-5980 | kim@appliedeco.com
Doug Mensing, MS
Senior Ecologist | Project Manager
612-202-2252 | dougm@appliedeco.com
page 35
Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan
Summary of Estimated Costs
Task
Number Task Description AES Labor AES Expenses SRF Labor &
Expenses Total Budget Phase 1
(2020)
Phase 2
(2021)
01 Prepare Vision, Goals & Natural Resource Summary 1,080$ -$ -$ 1,080$ 1,080$
02 Describe Historical & Existing Natural Resources 41,520$ 890$ -$ 42,410$ 39,685$ $2,725
03 List Challenges and Opportunities for City’s Natural Resources 720$ -$ -$ 720$ 720$
04 Assess City’s Existing Natural Resources Program & Volunteer Activities $ 1,400 $ - $ - $ 1,400 1,400$
05 Define Target Plant Communities & Restoration Approaches $ 3,000 $ - $ - $ 3,000 3,000$
06 Identify & Plan for Priority Natural Resources & Actions $ 1,170 $ - $ - $ 1,170 1,170$
07 Prepare Implementation Plan & Innovative Management Approaches $ 18,610 $ - $ - $ 18,610 18,610$
08 Identify & Plan for Other Natural Resource Projects & Actions $ 3,180 $ - $ - $ 3,180 3,180$
09 Plan for Climate Resilience through Natural Resource Management $ 2,610 $ - $ - $ 2,610 2,610$
10 Recommend Changes to City Natural Resource Policies $ 2,320 $ - $ - $ 2,320 2,320$
11 Plan for Public Engagement, Education & Volunteerism $ 2,160 $ - $ - $ 2,160 2,160$
12 Prioritize Funding Sources & Write Grant Proposal $ 5,630 $ - $ - $ 5,630 5,630$
13 Future Review & Schedule $ 720 $ - $ - $ 720 720$
14 Team Meetings, Education of Residents, Council Presentation $ 8,810 $ 96 $ 2,867 $ 11,773 7,985$ 3,788$
15 Draft & Final NRMP $ 22,350 $ - $ 4,304 $ 26,654 7,996$ 18,658$
PROJECT TOTAL $ 115,280 $ 986 $ 7,171 $ 123,437 71,276$ 52,161$
Proposed Phasing
page 36
Review CriteriaProposer 1Proposer 2Proposer 3Proposer 4Proposer 5Proposer 6Total Hours614862568693Total Cost121,450.00$ 75,000.00$ 69,685.00$ 138,038.00$ 72,765.00$ 71,947.00$ Cost/HourNot Available$122.15Not Available$160.14$128.11$103.82Optional Services $6,300 - Engagement $7,000 - Water Resources $5,200 - Tree Canopy Assessment Clarity of proposal201513161514Overall approach to plan update process251916211816Clarity of issue identification and implementation plan process241718182017Understanding and approach for prioritized, targeted, measureable goals221718151815Approach to public input and communication, and staff and steering committee involvement in Plan update process222217201715Approach to field work and data collection221720151817Staff and Consultant Experience, including MH Experience222513212016Cost and value of services 202017132118Total Score177152132139147128Comments:Ranking 1 = (worst response to criteria) and 5 = (best response to criteria)Note: Reviewers shall weigh proposals against the details provided in the original RFP. Ranking should be done individually, that is, rank each RFP based on the response on a 1 to 5 scale for each critera. For example, each consultant could receive a "5" ranking for clarity of proposal.Impressive proposal. Liked Task 10 - 'Recommend Changes to City Natural Resource Policies' and that they have experience doing this for other Midwestern Cities. Strong experience with Dakota County.I did not rate lower on cost as they are both bringing a lot of experience and a very solid approach to the table (I think the value is there for the cost). Ranked them lower on goals as this part of the proposal was more vague to me in terms of what goals might be set and how they would be measured. Important that plans like this are implemented. I would recommend "swapping" much of the time they propose for publicengagement with the optional stem-by-stem survey along city boulevards and parks. Good points: City-owned parkland can only do so much to support the ecological health and resilience. Sharing responsibility among the City's institutions, businesses, and private landowners is important. *Lay out a year-by-year roadmap to plan and budget for the conservation, restoration and mgmt of city's NR. Systematic schedule and estimate of costs for specific tasks. Ecosystem approach for controlling invasives. SMART goals is a solid process. Ecological quality rank (necessary for communication with the public). Implementation plan for 5 and 10 years considering climate change, city policies, identification and prioritization of grant funding sources. Recommendations for a community engagement and education plan. Benefits section: imporant for community understanding. Supporting maps of geo and soil, tree canopy and wildlife populations , water features and drainage patterns. Review of policies and ordinances. Strong focus on resiliency. Suggestions for biocontrols. Prioritization of locations and actions with budgets and funding sources. *Cost effective methods and incentives for controlling invasive plants on private lands. Describe climate-induced changes in City ecosystems and recommend mitigating actions. Heat loading and land cover types to map hottest locations. Draft tree protection ordinance. Creative ideas for delivery methods for public: guided field trips, sandwich boards, evening talks, etc. Living document with adaptive management (important). Use of ecosystem approach with goal to restore natural processes. Developing a new ecological land cover map (pg.5) writing a story of ecosystem change. - good for public understanding.Pg. 5 acknowledges city property is only 16% of the area. Just looking at city property will not be effective.Use of SMART Goals. Conservation Concept. Table 18 on page 10 - 10 year phasing with costs is a good roadmap While their approach is sound, I don’t think we need this level of public input. Field survey scheduled during each season. Tree Canopy mapping. I also think it would be very good to purchase the optional boulevard and solitary tree survey. - Use money saved by not having so much public engagement.While the total cost is more than $75,000 the services they would provide are worth the investment in the future of Mendota Heights Natural Resources. History of work with Mendota Heights is a strength. If City staff has been pleased with past work, that should carry some weight.Their examples of priority actions for the City of Burnsville were strong. Examples of how goals were implemented and measured was more vague. How plans like these are implemented is very important. Will develop an outline of the NRMP document for staff to review after project kickoff. Drafts of each section will be delivered as they are developed. Context map of significant natural resources outside the city's boundaries. GIS tree canpoy assessment of city urban forest to include a map of opportunities for tree planting with focus on heat islands. Develop an approach for funding. Not clear that a detailed strategic plan with priorities, action items, and timeframes will be the deliverable. Questions/unclear: Data gaps (under task 2): "Data gaps will then be determined and survey needs will be identified". Is the time/expense of filling in data gaps covered in this proposal? Privately owned properties (under task 2): couldn't strategic private land owners be asked for permission for access to analyze if deemed helpful (e.g., golf courses, places of worship, and cemeteries comprise a large land area in MH). Task 4: GIS map development: how will these proposed maps be integrated into the strategic plan in support of specific action items/tactics? Task 7.4 "A management strategy will be developed for each of the city's natural areas." What does a management strategy entail? More information needed on add-on options of tree canopy improvement strategy through wide-spectrum aerial photographs and water resources plan review (impervious surface reduction good) .not much detail and vague, general language. There is no spring field work scheduled. should be each season. Tree survey and water resources assessment is optionalFamiliarity with Mendota Heights because of past projects with the city. Experience seemed heavy on the water resources side. This is important but only part of what's needed.Approach was not as clear as some of the other proposals and used some jargon and acronyms that I was not familiar with.Was impressed by some of the public outreach tools like crowd-sourcing to gather data. expertise appears to lean toward watershed and wetland restoration. Seasonal field visits well defined. Unclear what reference to "city staff and NRMP Steering Committee will be open to completing assignments during the planning process" means. They have a heavy emphasis on water management. Their completed projects don’t have the scope the Mendota Heights NRMP needs.This group relies too much on staff and steering committee to provide information and to perform “assignments”. City staff and volunteers will not be able to fill that role.Impressive proposal. Success with helping clients obtain grant funding.Co-leads monthly volunteer events. A good way to keep implementation going. Strong emphasis on better ways to do lawns and turf.Wasn't sure about special emphasis on Valley Park.Lebanon Hills NRMP is impressive experience. Good to have experience and relationship with Dakota County, a key partner.Overweighted focus on Valley Park? Analysis of our "engineered" parks could be done in-house separate from this proposal and not a good use of professional time ("conduct a field visit to evaluate each park for the potential to integrate native plantings and water quality features.") Page 7: Water quality. "A significant opportunity exists to improve water quality through the design of shoreland vegetative buffers, low maintenance turfs, and oak woodland enhancements to regulate nutrients and improve water quality." What is the specific work that would be done based on that comment? Iconic oak trees and bearing/witness trees very much a valued resource. Worth identifying on private property but need a process for engaging with landowners which seems beyond scope of RFP. Ecological turf educational program: good for an in-house/Master Gardener seminar but not as part of this NRMP project. Questions: Task 4. "We will also analyze public tree canopy using point data collected by the City to understand tree distribution." Does this data exist? How many field visits does this entail (4 seasons?). The approach seemed scattershot. From identifying areas where there could be collaboration with private homeowners next to public lands, to recommending a NRMP for Valley Park to locating spring ephemerals. These things would be good to do, but I think a more overall approach is best for the city.The project schedule looks good. I didn’t get a feeling for what their priorities are or how they will measure themThe kind of public engagement they recommend (open houses, etc) was done during the 2040 plan process. I don’t think we need to spend money and time on this for the NRMP. The 2 workshops they recommend or similar workshops could be done by Master Gardeners or Master Water Stewards. They said they would use the city’s tree data, but I don’t think the city has that data. The tree canopy survey they propose looks good. Otherwise the approach seems too high level in this proposal to know what they will do.They are the highest bid and offer a plan that is not specific and offers work/projects the RFP didn’t ask for.Good experience with aquatic management plans, one of the challengs for MH.Project Manager formerly worked for Dakota County, a key partner. Mentioned specifically reaching out to the County for input.Overall, approach was not as clear and detailed as some of the other proposals.Specific ideas or examples of implementation not as strong.Good: ID implementation strategies that may be more grant ready. Not sure of the value of the Crowd source/Citizen science map if we have no ability to act on the measurement. Better to focus on high priority areas that will be restored, maintained, regulary monitored (and funded)? Field work: 4 days? Is one day per season enough? Good: seasonal sampling for AISTheir suggestion to present a draft vision and goal statement at kickoff meeting is interesting and could be efficient. I would like to know if they have used this approach with other NRMP plans and how it worked for the clients. I am also not sure how a drone survey would help the plan. More info necessary.Their proposal says on page 4 they will provide general assessments of: soil survey, plant and wildlife communities and tree survey etc. I would like to see more explanation of what these assessments will include. for example is the tree survey just park trees?Graphic scorecards to highlight key info and keep project priorities and costs on track for 5 and 10 year goals.The crowd source/citizen science Map implementation looks interesting, but is this already being done in another way? For example Krista is involved in a project with Dakota County to map invasive plants. I don’t think a public open house/comment collection is necessary for this plan because comments were gathered in the 2040 comp plan process.Fieldwork updates with city after 2 site visits is good. can robust fieldwork be completed without the optional crowd source map? Schedule looks goodGood related project experience and qualified staffCover letter mentioned 2018 Surface Water Management Plan for MH, but proposal did not provide anything further about that effort. Was confused by that.Targeting Augusta, LeMay, and Rogers Lakes for aquatic vegetation surveys.Mentioned reviewing City policies, ordinances, rules.Did not seem to have as much experience developing and implementing City-wide NRMP's.not enough detailwetland assessment, tree assessment, aquatic surveys all look goodpage 37
NATURAL RESOURCES GOALS and POLICIES
GOAL 7.1: Develop a professional, comprehensive, strategic Natural Resources
Management Plan for City-wide natural areas and natural resources.
Policies:
7.1.1 Develop capabilities to monitor and implement the Natural Resources Management
Plan through City Staff expertise, as well as through partnerships with community
groups, volunteers, and adjacent communities and agencies, thus recognizing the
interconnectedness of ecosystems.
7.1.2 Implement a formal Natural Resources Management and Sustainability Commission
to aid in the execution of the strategic Natural Resources Plan. This Commission may
begin as a Task Force, whose charge would be to establish the by-laws and city
ordinance necessary to establish this commission.
7.1.3 Develop site-specific management plans that identify and prioritize opportunities to
enhance and protect the City’s high-quality areas and address significant issues, such
as: vegetation plans, tree planting plans, tree inventories, green infrastructure, surface
waters, roadside restoration, wildlife management, tree diseases, pests, and invasive
species.
7.1.4 Establish and continually update priorities for sites, including public parks and open
space, and management activities.
7.1.5 Develop and continually maintain tracking of management activities, using frameworks
such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to gather, manage, and analyze data.
7.1.6 Develop and implement City strategies to increase tree canopy, during existing
operational, new development, and redevelopment activities.
7.1.7 Seek partnerships and grant opportunities to help implement natural resources goals.
7.1.8 Work with Dakota County and other agencies to maintain and/or acquire, where
feasible, natural greenway corridors to foster ecosystem continuity.
7.1.9 Protect steep slopes, bluffs, and other sensitive areas from erosion and other threats,
specifically throughout the development process.
7.1.10 Encourage and promote the use of conservation design principles.
7.1.11 Explore the opportunity to develop a Natural Resource Matching Fund and work with
agency partners to achieve the vision & goals of the Natural Resources Management
Plan.
page 38
GOAL 7.2: Protect, connect, restore, buffer, and manage natural areas, wildlife habitat, and
other natural resources, for high ecological quality and diversity of plant and animal
species.
Policies:
7.2.1 Monitor new developments for restoration and invasive plant management.
7.2.2 Monitor tree disease and pest outbreaks (i.e. Emerald Ash Borer) with the
implementation of control and replanting programs, such as an Integrated Pest
Management program, for current tree diseases as well as emerging diseases and
pests.
7.2.3 Continue to partner with outside agencies and community groups to monitor and
control invasive species and noxious weeds.
7.2.4 Restore areas throughout the City with pollinator-friendly or native species to protect
and enhance habitat for native pollinators and birds in accordance with City Resolution
2015-79 (see Appendix - D).
7.2.5 Monitor wildlife populations and address over-population as needed.
7.2.6 In new development and redevelopment, retain mature trees that have high ecological
value, replace lost trees, and plant additional trees if not present originally.
7.2.7 Explore the development of ordinances and or policies that establish minimum soil
standards for development and redevelopment that can support turf, plantings, and/or
healthy turf alternatives.
7.2.8 Look for opportunities to reduce or minimize impervious cover City-wide.
7.2.9 Emphasize the use of, and identify areas including public open space and park land,
that could be restored to include native species, pollinator plants, wildlife habitat, or
turf alternatives.
7.2.10 Prior to approval of landscape and development plans, work with applicants to
encourage the preservation and installation of high ecosystem value communities.
7.2.11 Encourage avenues for homeowners to take on ownership of, and responsibility for,
boulevard trees where the location of the tree is considered appropriate as well as an
overall community benefit.
7.2.12 Implement the strategic planting of trees to avoid monoculture plantings and choose
tree species identified as most resilient to changing climate and weather patterns.
GOAL 7.3: Protect and restore the natural ecological functions of the City’s water
resources with emphasis on the improvement of stormwater management.
page 39
Policies:
7.3.1 Explore and develop operational and procedural modifications to better enhance and
support the thriving of the natural environment.
7.3.2 Work with partners to implement projects and develop and support programs that
encourage infiltration, to reduce stormwater runoff and pollution to water-bodies.
7.3.3 Work with partners to monitor Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS). Set goals for AIS
removal and management, and reintroduction of native species. Educate lakeshore
owners and residents about AIS.
7.3.4 Identify areas within the City, including public and private land that are lacking
adequate stormwater treatment, and other stormwater BMPs. Implement projects to
establish functioning stormwater treatment in order to protect and improve the City’s
water resources.
7.3.5 Implement the City’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) through the
use of ordinances, policies, and development standards.
7.3.6 Carry out steps toward meeting the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA)
Swimmable, Fishable, Fixable water quality standards.
7.3.7 Manage public riparian areas to be resilient to stormwater runoff.
7.3.8 Improve the process for review and inspection of native planting and permanent
stormwater Best Management Practices on development projects to increase
successful establishment.
GOAL 7.4: Enhance and provide public education and understanding of nature, natural
systems, and environmental issues by providing programs, materials, and information;
while promoting a culture of stewardship on public and private lands.
Policies:
7.4.1 Educate adults, families, schools, community groups, and staff on natural resources
topics, improving compliance and understanding of environmental regulations and
requirements.
7.4.2 Continue to develop, improve, and expand audiences through the use of diverse
methods of education and outreach including: programs, field trips, brochures,
exhibits, signage, articles, website, video, social media, service learning, and
community gatherings and events.
page 40
7.4.3 Collaborate with other agencies, such as Watershed Districts, Watershed
Management Organizations, and surrounding County and Metropolitan Cities to share
information and ideas regarding natural resources.
7.4.4 Develop and promote stormwater educational outreach programs, using available
programs offered through outside agencies, and utilizing volunteer groups such as
Master Gardeners, Master Water Stewards, and Master Naturalists.
7.4.5 Implement, encourage, and sustain collaborative City programs such as residential
curb-cut raingardens and green infrastructure, throughout road re-construction
projects.
7.4.6 Educate homeowners, commercial and institutional property owners, and City Public
Works Staff, on turf management Best Management Practices (BMPs), as well as lawn
alternatives, to reduce the amount of traditional turf throughout the City.
7.4.7 Develop a Natural Resources webpage on the City’s website that offers City
resources, community updates and activities, volunteer opportunities, links to useful
resources, and other topics as they relate to natural resources.
7.4.8 Provide education and training on tree care for private landowners.
7.4.9 Engage residents in the strategic planting of trees in order to encourage a more
diverse, native community forest.
7.4.10 Develop material (print as well as electronic media) to teach property owners
environmentally friendly ‘backyard’ practices, including but not limited to: sustainable
lawn care, native plantings, drought-tolerant landscaping, rain gardens, proper
disposal of yard and animal waste, and composting.
7.4.11 Educate residents, developers, and others on the impact of noise, and other forms of
pollution (i.e. light, air quality, heat, etc.).
7.4.12 Provide programs to support residents in their stewardship efforts. Explore innovative
ideas and opportunities to serve the community in stewardship efforts such as grant
and rebate programs, curb-side buckthorn pick-up program, City-sponsored tree sale,
etc.
7.4.13 Develop and implement City-led initiatives to engage citizens in the stewardship and
care of natural areas and infrastructure through programs such as Adopt-a-Park,
Adopt-a-Roadside Pollinator Planting, Adopt-a-Boulevard, Adopt-a-Tree, and Adopt-
a-Storm Drain.
7.4.14 Implement, evaluate, or enhance citizen participation in monitoring programs such as
the Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP), State and Metropolitan Council
water monitoring programs, as well as other Citizen Science monitoring programs that
monitor vegetation, aquatic invasive species, as well as those programs that monitor
wildlife such as birds, bats, bees, aquatic wildlife, and insects
page 41
7.4.15 Encourage citizen engagement in the City’s annual Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) Permit meeting and process, and use this as a forum to share concerns,
discuss proposed community initiatives, and offer suggestions concerning stormwater.
GOAL 7.5: Address issues that impact air quality, light pollution, and noise pollution, such
as vehicle emissions, traffic flow, air traffic, lighting, and street design.
Policies:
7.5.1 Evaluate proactive solutions to air quality issues such as the installation of an electric
vehicle charge stations, and mass transit options.
7.5.2 Consider taking an advocacy role to encourage the MPCA and the Minnesota
Department of Health to address air quality issues and improve air quality.
7.5.3 Strive to monitor and limit community exposure to excessive noise levels and review
and evaluate current City policies and ordinances regarding noise.
7.5.4 Develop ordinances that proactively and effectively deal with noise pollution and its
impact on all facets of the community, including human, ecological, safety, security,
and energy.
7.5.5 Encourage use of research-based systems, such as Backlight-Uplight-Glare (BUG)
that reduce light pollution and provide guidelines for effective control of unwanted or
unhealthy light for residents, as well as wildlife.
7.5.6 Develop ordinances that proactively and effectively deal with light pollution within the
city and work with neighboring communities to coordinate lighting solutions and
address its impact on all facets of community: human, ecological, safety, security, and
energy.
7.5.7 Increase efforts to provide healthier lighting solutions for residents and the
preservation of the City’s natural assets.
page 42
DATE: May 19, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Approve Letter to Airport Noise Oversight Committee
Comment:
Introduction:
The Council is asked to approve a letter to be sent to the Metropolitan Airports Commission Noise
Oversight Committee (NOC). This is in response to a request for action requested by a neighboring city
which could shift airport traffic over Mendota Heights and other cities.
Background:
In September, 2019, after having received a request from a group of neighborhood residents, the Eagan
City Council sent a letter to the NOC, requesting actions be taken to reduce air traffic over those
neighborhoods. There were a total of nine procedural adjustments. NOC recommended action by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), which forwarded those requests on to the FAA. The FAA is
the final authority in air traffic considerations.
The FAA found that two of those requests (numbers 1 and 4 in the correspondence) potentially have
merit. Request #4 would impact cities to the west. However, if request #1 is implemented, it could
potentially shift traffic from Runway 17 which has been over Eagan neighborhoods, to parallel Runways
12L and 12R, which directs air traffic over Mendota Heights (as well as Sunfish Lake and Inver Grove
Heights).
This should be of concern to the City of Mendota Heights, as well as other cities which are impacted by
airport noise. In the lengthy history of the NOC, it has never responded to noise complaints by shifting
air traffic from one city, to others.
This topic is on the agenda of the NOC for May 20th. Staff and Councilor Petschel discussed this topic
with staff from the Community Relations and Stakeholder Engagement sections of the MAC. A letter
was drafted, which outlines the City’s concerns about implementation of Request #1.
The City Council is asked to approve sending the letter to the NOC in time for the May 20th meeting. If
Council so approves, the letter will be read into the record of the NOC meeting.
It is expected that the Cities of Inver Grove Heights, and Sunfish Lake will send similar letters.
Also included in the packet for the City Council is NOC packet information, which provides more
background on the Eagan request.
page 43
Recommendation:
We recommend that the City Council approve the delivery of the letter with Mayor Garlock’s signature,
to the NOC, in time for the May 20th NOC meeting.
Action Required:
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, endorse the content commenting on the City of Eagan’s
Request to the FAA, and have it delivered for immediate consideration by the MAC Noise Oversight
Committee.
___________________________ _________________________
Cheryl Jacobson, Mark McNeill,
Assistant City Administrator City Administrator
page 44
May 20, 2020
Ms. Dianne Miller, Community Co-Chair
Mr. Jeff Hart, User Co-Chair
Noise Oversight Committee
Metropolitan Airports Commission
3800 E. 70th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55450
RE: Eagan Request to FAA
Dear Committee Co-Chairs, and Members of the NOC:
As a long standing member city of the NOC, the City of Mendota Heights has valued the
partnership of neighboring communities in addressing MSP airport noise and takes great pride in
the collaborative work that has been accomplished throughout the years.
Our city, being located at the end of the parallel runways, continues to be challenged by airport
noise and growing resident concern. Through support of airport standard operating procedures,
Mendota Heights has accepted its fair share of air traffic. We believe in a balanced approach and
do not advocate for simply shifting noise from one city to another.
On the Committee agenda for the May 20 meeting is action regarding follow-up from the
September, 2019, request from City of Eagan to the FAA. Initially, Eagan’s request sought NOC
endorsement of nine recommendations from the Eagan Airport Relations Commission, seeking
modifications to a number of FAA procedures which were suggested as a way to reduce the amount
of flight noise experienced by Eagan residents. Ultimately, four proposals were sent to the FAA
for consideration.
The City of Mendota Heights appreciates the amount of effort by the NOC, MAC staff and the
FAA to determine what proposals may be feasible in addressing Eagan resident concerns regarding
airport noise. The FAA’s February response has further narrowed down the list of feasible
recommendations to two.
Of specific concern to the City of Mendota Heights is the impact of Adjustment Request #1 which
asked to, “Direct departures from Runway 17, with an initial departure fix of COULT or
ZMBRO to Runway 12R or Runway 12L, unless the departure would impede or be impeded by
arrival traffic to those runways.” The FAA in its response determined that this request potentially
had merit, if limited to departure fix COULT.
page 45
Our issue with this request is that this would shift air traffic in this instance from one community
(Eagan), to others—Mendota Heights, Sunfish Lake, and Inver Grove Heights. While Mendota
Heights does not speak for those cities, we will note that NOC has never advocated the shifting of
air traffic from one city to another to solve noise issues. We are concerned about the precedent
that this would set, and believe that the NOC should be equally concerned. We feel that the FAA
might not be constrained in the future by this single departure fix, and could approve similar fixes
to other noise complaints.
NOC has always adhered to the Runway Use System (RUS), where air traffic could be directed to
move to the parallel runways at times when airport landing and arrival volumes will permit. The
City of Mendota Heights has been, and continues to be supportive of the continued use of the RUS.
However, the proposals outlined in the FAA February letter are not consistent with that practice.
Mendota Heights has had a long history of working collaboratively with neighboring impacted
cities to find resolutions to airport noise issues—i.e., Crossing in the Corridor, use of the river
corridor, and the like. Again, we have always accepted our fair share of MSP departure and arrival
traffic, and will continue to do so.
However, Mendota Heights is not supportive of the rationale outlined in Request #1, and we urge
NOC to not endorse Adjustment Request #1 for action by the MAC Commission. To do so would
be to set a very bad precedent.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
______________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
City of Mendota Heights
cc: Mendota Heights ARC
Mayor George Tourville, City of Inver Grove Heights
Mayor Dan O’Leary, City of Sunfish Lake
page 46
page 47
page 48
page 49
page 50
page 51
page 52
page 53
page 54
page 55
page 56
page 57
page 58
page 59
page 60
page 61
page 62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page 66
DATE: May 19, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Indefeasible Right to Use Agreement –Dakota Broadband Board
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked approve a Fiber Optic Indefeasible Right to Use Agreement between
the City of Mendota Heights and the Dakota Broadband Board.
BACKGROUND
In 2017, the City installed conduit and fiber and connected City buildings (City Hall, Public
Works, and the Fire Station) to the county-wide fiber network. For purposes of ongoing
administration and maintenance of the fiber network, the City, along with Dakota County and the
cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Farmington, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville,
Rosemount, West St. Paul and South St. Paul established the Dakota Broadband Board (DBB).
A last step in the development of the DBB is the approval of an Indefeasible Right to Use (IRU)
Agreement by each DBB member. The execution of this agreement was defined in the Joint Powers
Agreement signed by all DBB members. The IRU Agreement is a technical document that grants
the DBB the right to use, manage and maintain the City’s fiber assets. City fiber assets are defined
on the attached map. If the City adds additional fiber to its network in the future, Exhibit A to the
agreement may be amended to include the new fiber.
The IRU Agreement was reviewed by the City Attorney and approved by the DBB at their
February 12, 2020 meeting. The Agreement does not determine policy direction relating to use of
the DBB network, policy is determined by the DBB Board.
Attachments: IRU Agreement and City of Mendota Heights Fiber Asset Map
BUDGET IMPACT
Costs associated with City participation in the DBB and operation of the City’s fiber assets are
included in the annual budget. Approval of the IRU does not impact the budget.
RECOMMENDATION
page 67
Staff recommends approval of the Fiber Optic Indefeasible Right to Use Agreement for the
management and maintenance of certain city fiber assets by the Dakota Broadband Board (DBB).
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the Fiber Optic Indefeasible Right to Use
Agreement for the management and maintenance of certain city fiber assets by the Dakota Broadband
Board (DBB).
page 68
DBB Contract # ___________
FIBER OPTIC INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO USE
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AS GRANTOR
AND
DAKOTA BROADBAND BOARD AS GRANTEE
page 69
FIBER OPTIC INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO USE AGREEMENT
This Agreement for the indefeasible right to use (or “IRU”) together with the attached
exhibit (collectively the “Agreement” or the “IRU Agreement”) is made by and between the City
of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“IRU Grantor” or “the City”), and
Dakota Broadband Board, a Minnesota independent joint powers organization, acting by and
through its Board of Directors (“IRU Grantee”, or “the DBB”). The IRU Grantor and IRU Grantee
may be referred to herein individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.”
BACKGROUND
A. The City has installed and maintained, or plans to install and maintain, certain Fibers
and Fiber Facilities, and
B. The City is a participant in and a member of the Dakota Broadband Board and to further
the purpose and goals of the DBB, the City agrees to grant to the DBB the right to use,
manage and maintain Fibers and Fiber Facilities within certain Fiber Optic Cable
segments on the terms and conditions set forth below.
C. The DBB desires to use, manage and maintain optic Fibers and Fiber Facilities from
the City as described in this Agreement.
DEFINITIONS
The following terms are used in this IRU Agreement:
A. “County Right-of-Way” means the real property, including all fee simple, easements,
access rights, rights of use and other interests, owned and/or operated by Dakota
County, devoted to County road or highway purposes.
B. “City Right-of-Way” means the real property, including all fee simple, easements,
access rights, rights of use and other interests owned and/or operated by the City,
devoted to City road or highway purposes.
C. “Dakota Broadband Network” means a high-performance network connecting local
government facilities in Dakota County with the physical assets (conduit, fiber optic
cable, handholes, cabinets, network equipment) owned by DBB members but
maintained and managed by the DBB.
D. “Effective Date” is the date upon which all Parties have executed this Agreement.
E. “Fiber” means a glass strand or strands which is/are used to transmit a communication
signal along the glass strand in the form of pulses of light.
F. “Fiber Facilities” means a handhole, conduit, splice enclosures and related equipment,
but excluding any electronic or optronic equipment at termination points located in City
facilities.
page 70
G. “Fiber Optic Cable” or “Cable” means a collection of fibers with a protective outer
covering.
H. “IRU Assets” means the City’s IRU conduit, IRU Cable, IRU Fibers and Fiber
Facilities that is subject to this Agreement as more specifically described in Exhibit A.
I. “IRU Cable” means a Cable containing one or more Fibers, constructed and owned by
the City in which the DBB has an IRU pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
J. “IRU Fibers” means the specific City owned Fiber described in Exhibit A, an IRU for
which is granted to the DBB in the IRU Cable pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
K. “Indefeasible Right of Use” or “IRU” means an indefeasible right to use, maintain and
manage the IRU Fibers and Fiber Facilities, provided, however, that granting of such
IRU does not convey legal title to the IRU Fibers or Fiber Facilities.
L. “Optical Splice Point” means a point where the City’s Cable is connected to another
entity’s Cable within a splice enclosure.
M. “Relocation” means any physical movement of fiber optic cable or conduit required
due to reconstruction, modification, change in grade, expansion or relocation of a
County road or highway, or a city street or other public improvement.
In consideration of their mutual promises, the Parties expressly agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
LICENSES
Section 1.1 The DBB desires to obtain an IRU in the City’s IRU Assets further described
in Exhibit A to this Agreement, which is incorporated into this IRU by reference. In consideration
of the promises by the DBB in this Agreement, the City grants an IRU to the DBB in the IRU
Assets identified in Exhibit A hereto, subject to any interests the City has previously granted to
other cities or Dakota County, pursuant to IRUs or other contractual arrangements. The DBB shall
be entitled to use the IRU Assets for any lawful purposes subject to (i) agreeing to be bound by all
laws, regulations and any requirements of the City regarding access to City rights of way, and (ii)
otherwise complying with the terms and conditions of this IRU.
Section 1.2 Subject to the terms and conditions of this IRU Agreement, City hereby grants
to the DBB a license to access and use the IRU Assets during the term of this Agreement and any
extension of this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge and agree that they may add additional
IRU Assets owned by the City to become subject to this Agreement, and will agree upon an
amended Exhibit A that reflects the changes to the City IRU Assets to be subject to DBB use and
management, which shall supersede all previous versions of Exhibit A. Such amended Exhibit A
page 71
need not be formally approved by the DBB Board or the City Council of the City in order for the
amendment to become effective.
Section 1.3 The IRU Assets are provided to the DBB “as is.” If any new Fiber Facilities
or any fiber splices are needed to interconnect IRU Fibers to the Dakota Broadband Network, the
DBB shall be responsible for coordinating this work with the City and shall pay any and all costs
and fees associated with connecting the IRU Fibers to other fibers not owned by the City for
Dakota Broadband Network purposes. The DBB and the city or cities that own the Dakota
Broadband Network assets shall confer and agree upon which Party is responsible for the costs
and fees associated with connecting the IRU Fibers to other fibers for Dakota Broadband Network
purposes of parties outside of the DBB or shall agree upon an allocation of the costs and fees
between the Parties. If the Parties cannot agree upon the responsibility for costs and fees related
to Dakota Broadband Network connections, the issue shall be presented to the DBB Board and the
DBB Board decision on cost responsibility shall be final.
Section 1.4 Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in this Agreement, the
Parties acknowledge and agree nothing contained in this Agreement shall operate to limit, interfere
with, or otherwise adversely affect each Party’s right to manage, control, construct, relocate,
maintain, replace and expand the portion of its fiber optic network equipment and infrastructure
that is not subject to this Agreement, and is not included in the description of Fiber and Fiber
Facilities in Exhibit A.
ARTICLE II
EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM
The DBB may use the granted IRU Assets commencing on the Effective Date. This
Agreement has an initial term of 10 years, with two separate five-year renewals which shall be
effective unless the DBB Board affirmatively decides not to renew and provides ninety (90) days’
notice to the City prior to termination or unless terminated by agreement of the Parties in writing
or by one of the events in Article XI, Section 11.2 of this Agreement, whichever occurs first.
ARTICLE III
LICENSE FEES
The City will not impose, and the DBB shall not pay a fee for the use of the IRU Assets
during the term of this Agreement on any renewal of this Agreement. The City will contribute to
the cost of using, managing and maintaining the City’s Fiber Assets through its DBB participant
fees and other financial contributions as approved by the DBB Board.
page 72
ARTICLE IV
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
The DBB shall be responsible for the maintaining, repairing and when necessary replacing
the City’s IRU Assets assigned to the DBB as described in Exhibit A within the Dakota Broadband
Network managed by the DBB. Responsibility for the cost of maintenance and repair of new City
Fiber Facilities used within the Dakota Broadband Network will be as follows:
If the City has amended Exhibit A of its IRU Agreement with the DBB to include
the new Dakota Broadband Network/city fiber among the IRU Assets to be managed and
maintained by the DBB, the cost of maintenance and repair of the new Dakota Broadband
Network fiber is the responsibility of the DBB.
If the City has not amended Exhibit A of its IRU Agreement with the DBB to
include the new city fiber among the IRU Assets to be managed and maintained by the
DBB, the cost of maintenance and repair of the new Dakota Broadband Network/City fiber
is the responsibility of the city until the new Dakota Broadband Network fiber is added to
Exhibit A.
The response time to repair breaks or other failures causing an interruption in
communications through City IRU Assets will be the response time standards set forth in the
break/fix contract between the DBB, or its network administrator, and the selected break/fix repair
contractor.
ARTICLE V
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Section 5.1 The DBB’s use of the IRU Assets shall comply with all applicable
governmental codes, ordinances, laws, rules, regulations and/or restrictions.
Section 5.2 The City represents and warrants that it has the right to grant this IRU in its
IRU Assets.
ARTICLE VI
LIABILITY; INDEMNIFICATION
Section 6.1 Neither the City nor the DBB shall be liable to the other for any indirect,
special, punitive or consequential damages arising under this Agreement or from any breach or
partial breach of the provisions of this Agreement or arising out of any act or omission of either
Party hereto, its directors, officers, employees, servants, contractors and/or agents.
Section 6.2 The DBB assumes, releases and agrees to indemnify, defend, protect and save
City (including its officers, agents, representatives and employees) harmless from and against any
claim, damage, loss, liability, injury, cost and expense (including reasonable attorney’s fees and
expenses) in connection with any loss or damage to any person or property arising out of or
resulting in any way from the acts or omissions to act, negligence or willful misconduct of the
page 73
DBB, its directors, officers, employees, servants, contractors and/or agents in connection with the
exercise of its rights and obligations under the terms of this IRU.
The City assumes, releases and agrees to indemnify, defend, protect and save DBB (including its
officers, agents, representatives and employees) harmless from and against any claim, damage,
loss, liability, injury, cost and expense (including reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses) in
connection with any loss or damage to any person or property arising out of or resulting in any
way from the acts or omissions to act, negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its directors,
officers, employees, servants, contractors and/or agents in connection with the exercise of its rights
and obligations under the terms of this IRU.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, such indemnity is limited to the amount of available insurance
coverage and nothing herein shall be considered as a waiver of its statutory tort limits under Minn.
Stat. Chap. 466.
Section 6.3 Nothing contained herein shall operate as a limitation on the right of either
Party hereto to bring an action for damages, including consequential damages, against any third
party based on any acts or omissions of such third party as such acts or omissions may affect the
construction, operation or use of the Fiber, Cable, or IRU Fibers; provided, however, that (i) the
Parties to this Agreement shall not have any claim against the other Party for indirect, incidental,
special, punitive or consequential damages (including, but not limited to, any claim from any
customer for loss of services), and (ii) each Party hereto shall assign such rights or claims, execute
such documents and do whatever else may be reasonably necessary to enable the injured party to
pursue any such action against such third party.
ARTICLE VII
FORCE MAJEURE
The obligations of the parties hereto are subject to force majeure and neither party shall be
in default under this Agreement if any failure or delay in performance is caused by strike or other
labor dispute; accidents; acts of God; fire; flood; earthquake; lightning; unusually severe weather;
material or facility shortages or unavailability not resulting from such party’s failure to timely
place orders therefor; lack of transportation; acts of any governmental authority; condemnation or
the exercise of rights of eminent domain; war or civil disorder; or any other cause beyond the
reasonable control of either party hereto. The excused party shall use reasonable efforts under the
circumstances to avoid or remove such causes of non-performance and shall proceed to perform
with reasonable dispatch whenever such causes are removed or ceased.
ARTICLE VIII
RELOCATION OF CABLE
Section 8.1 The City shall have the right to relocate the IRU Assets at any time upon written
notice to the DBB (a "Relocation"). The City and/or Dakota County shall be responsible for all
costs associated with a Relocation of the IRU Assets in County Right-of-Way that is required by
alteration of the County Right-of-Way or by the request of a third party having authority to require
page 74
the move. The City may seek and receive funding or reimbursement from a third party for a
Relocation within County Right-of-Way.
The City shall be responsible for all costs associated with a Relocation of its IRU Assets in City
Right-of-Way that is required by alteration of the City Right-of-Way or by the request of a third
party having authority to require the move. The City may seek and receive funding or
reimbursement from a third party for a Relocation by the City.
Section 8.2 Either Party shall give the other Party at least sixty (60) days prior notice of
any Relocation, if possible. The City has the right to determine the extent of, the timing of, and
the methods to use for such Relocation; provided that any such relocated IRU Assets shall be
constructed and tested in accordance with industry standard specifications and requirements. In
addition, the City shall use reasonable efforts to ensure Relocation does not result in an adverse
change to the operations, performance or connection points with the DBB Fiber Optic Cable
network
Section 8.3 The DBB has the right to review the Relocation plans at least fourteen (14)
days prior to commencement of any Relocation. Either party may submit comments on the
Relocation plans, which comments shall not delay commencement of the Relocation. Both parties
shall have the right to have a representative present at the time a Relocation occurs.
ARTICLE IX
CONFIDENTIALITY
The Parties agree and recognize that this Agreement as well as information and documents
the Parties receive from one another during the term of this Agreement may be considered public
data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch 13, as amended. The
Parties agree to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act as it applies to all data
provided by the Parties under this Agreement, and as it applies to all data created, collected,
received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by any Party under this Agreement. The civil
remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by any
Party. If either Party receives a request to release data arising out of or related to the Fiber Facilities
or the use, operation or maintenance thereof, the Party receiving the request must immediately
notify the other Party of the request. The Parties will promptly consult and discuss the best way
to respond to the request.
ARTICLE X
ABANDONMENT; TERMINATION; EFFECT OF TERMINATION
Section 10.1 Should the City decide to abandon all or part of the IRU Fibers during the
term of this Agreement, it may do so by providing sixty (60) days’ notice informing the DBB in
writing of its intent to abandon. Such abandonment shall be at no cost to either Party except as set
forth in this Article. If the City provides notice of intent to abandon, the DBB may notify the City
prior to the expiration of the notice period of its intent to take ownership of the IRU Fibers. If the
page 75
DBB provides timely notice of such intent, the Parties will execute any agreements or documents
transferring legal title of the IRU Fibers to the DBB, at no cost to either Party.
Section 10.2 This Agreement shall terminate upon the first to occur of the following:
(a) Expiration of the term of this Agreement;
(b) Upon written notice from either Party to the other if a default occurs that is not
cured within the time allowed hereunder, or
(a) Upon a termination as provided in Section 10.4.
Section 10.3 If this Agreement terminates under Article X, Section 10.2(a), neither Party
shall have any liability to the other Party for the use of the IRU Fibers; If this Agreement terminates
under Article X, Section 10.2(b), the non-defaulting party shall not have any liability to the
defaulting party, and the defaulting party shall be liable for such damages to the non-defaulting
party as the non-defaulting party may establish in a court of law, except as limited by this
Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason, the Parties agree to promptly
execute any documents reasonably required to effect such termination.
Section 10.4 The City may terminate this Agreement as to any IRU Assets owned by it
with not less than two years prior written notice to the DBB. The DBB Board will consent to such
termination unless the removal will render the Optical Fiber Dakota Broadband Network
Backbone to be less than carrier class or violate any DBB contracts. The Parties recognize the two-
year notice period is necessary and appropriate to permit the DBB to make alternative provisions
for the continuance of service. The DBB Board may waive the two-year notice if it determines, in
its sole discretion, that early termination will not adversely impact the Network.
Section 10.5 Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason, the DBB shall cease to
have any rights to the IRU Assets or other rights under this Agreement or any obligations under
this Agreement except for obligations under this Article and any other obligations that arose prior
to such termination.
Section 10.6 If the City ceases to be a member of the DBB prior to the expiration or
termination of this Agreement, this IRU Agreement will continue to be in effect until expiration.
ARTICLE XI
DEFAULT
Section 11.1 Neither Party shall be in default under this Agreement unless and until the
other Party shall have given the defaulting party written notice of such default and the defaulting
party shall have failed to cure the default within thirty (30) days after written receipt of such notice;
provided, however, that where a default cannot be reasonably cured within the thirty (30) day
period, if the defaulting party shall promptly proceed to cure the default with due diligence, the
time for curing the default shall be extended for a period of up to ninety (90) days from the date
of receipt of the default notice or until the default is cured, whichever is shorter.
page 76
Section 11.2 Upon the failure by the defaulting party to timely cure any default after notice
thereof from the non-defaulting party, the non-defaulting party may take any action it determines,
in its discretion, to be necessary to correct the default, and/or pursue any legal remedies it may
have under applicable law or principles of equity relating to the breach.
ARTICLE XII
NOTICES
Section 12.1 Unless otherwise provided herein, all notices and communications concerning
this Agreement shall be in writing and addressed as follows:
If to the City: City of Mendota Heights
Attn: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
With a copy to: Andy Pratt, City Attorney
Best & Flanagan, LLP
60 South Sixth Street, Suite 2700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
If to DBB: Dakota Broadband Board
Attn: Carah Koch, Executive Director
430 Third Street
Farmington, MN 55024
With a copy to: Dakota Broadband Board Attorney: Paul Beaumaster
Dakota County Attorney’s Office
1560 Hwy 55
Hastings, MN 55033
Section 12.2 Unless otherwise provided herein, notices shall be sent by certified U.S. Mail,
return receipt requested, or by commercial overnight delivery service which provides
acknowledgment of delivery, and shall be deemed delivered: if sent by U.S. Mail, five (5) days
after deposit; if sent by commercial overnight delivery service, upon verification of receipt.
ARTICLE XIII
LIMITATION ON PROPERTY INTEREST
This Agreement does not grant the DBB any property interest or estate in or lien upon the
City’s property, the City’s Optical Fiber Network or any components thereof or any Intellectual
Property, except for use of the IRU Assets during the term of this Agreement. All liens, claims
and charges of the DBB shall not attach to any interest of the City or in any property owned by the
City.
page 77
This Agreement does not grant the City any property interest or estate in or lien upon the
DBB’s property, its Optical Fiber Dakota Broadband Network or any components thereof or any
Intellectual Property. All liens, claims and charges of the City shall not attach to any interest of
the DBB or in any property owned by the DBB.
ARTICLE XIV
GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of Minnesota without regard to its conflict of laws provision. The Parties agree that any action
arising out of this Agreement or with respect to the enforcement of this Agreement shall be venued
in the Dakota County District Court, State of Minnesota.
ARTICLE XV
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The performance by the DBB and the City of all duties and obligations under this
Agreement shall be as independent local government units and not as agents of the other Party,
and no person employed or utilized by a party shall be considered the employee or agent of the
other. Neither Party shall have the authority to enter into any agreement purporting to bind the
other without its specific written authorization. The Parties agree this Agreement does not create
a partnership between, or a joint venture of the DBB and the City.
ARTICLE XVI
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 16.1 The headings of the Articles in this Agreement are strictly for convenience
and shall not in any way be construed as amplifying or limiting any of the terms, provisions or
conditions of this IRU Agreement.
Section 16.2 When interpreting this Agreement, words used in the singular shall include
the plural and the plural, the singular, and “of’ is used in the inclusive sense, in all cases where
such meanings would be appropriate.
Section 16.3 If any provision of this Agreement is found by any court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then the parties hereby waive such provision to the
extent that it is found to be invalid or unenforceable and to the extent that to do so would not
deprive one of the parties of the substantial benefit of its bargain. Such provision, to the extent
allowable by law and the preceding sentence, shall not be voided or canceled, but instead will be
modified by such court so that it becomes enforceable with all of the other terms of this Agreement
continuing in full force and effect.
Section 16.4 This IRU Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument executed
by all Parties.
page 78
Section 16.5 No failure to exercise and no delay in exercising, on the part of either Party
hereto, any right, power or privilege hereunder shall operate as a waiver hereof, except as expressly
provided herein. Any waiver by either Party of a breach of any provision of this Agreement shall
not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a
modification of the terms of this Agreement unless and until agreed to in writing by both Parties.
Section 16.6 All actions, activities, consents, approvals and other undertakings of the
Parties in this IRU Agreement shall be performed in a reasonable and timely manner.
Section 16.7 Unless expressly defined herein, words having well known technical or trade
meanings shall be so construed.
Section 16.8 This IRU Agreement is solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and their
permitted successors and assigns.
ARTICLE XVII
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement and any Exhibits referenced and attached hereto or to be attached hereto
constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and supersede any and all prior negotiations,
understandings and agreements, whether oral or written.
IRU GRANTOR: IRU GRANTEE:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA BROADBAND BOARD
By: ________________________ By: ___________________________
Its: Mayor Its: Board Chair
Date: __________________________ Date: __________________________
By:
Its: Clerk
Approved as to Form
____________________________________
Assistant County Attorney Date
page 79
EXHIBIT A
Description of City IRU Assets Subject to the IRU
page 80
Harmon Park
West St Paul Pool
Eagan Civic Arena
West Saint Paul Dome
Eagan Transit Station
Eagan Fire Station #2
West St Paul Ice Arena
Cascade Bay Water Park
Northern Service Center
Eagan Police Department
Henry Sibley High School
Mendota Heights Fire Dept
Eagan Fire Administration
Woodland Elementary School
Friendly Hills Middle School
Heritage E-STEM Middle School
Glacier Hills Elementary School
ISD 197 Transportation Department
Garlough Magnet Elementary School
Mendota Heights Public Works Garage
Moreland Arts & Health Sciences Sch
South Metro Fire Department Station 1
Mendota Heights City Hall / Police Dept.
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIBER NETWORK
±
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Legend
")Building
!(Vault
Mendota Heights Network
Dakota County Network
TIES Fiber Network
Version: 1.0
Date: 03/25/20Prepared By: Craig Birkholz