Loading...
2020-08-04 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA August 4, 2020 5:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of July 21, 2020 City Council Minutes b. Approval of July 21, 2020 Council Work Session Minutes c. Approval of July 27, 2020 Special City Council Meeting Minutes d. Approval of July 27, 2020 Council Work Session Minutes e. Approve Resolution 2020-43 Acknowledging The Receipt Of Donations To The City for the Scott Patrick Memorial 5k and the Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby f. Approve Resolution 2020-47 Call for a Public Hearing to Consider the Sale of Conduit Debt for Augustana Regent at Burnsville, LLC g. Approve Natural and Scenic Area Grant for 2085 Valencour Circle h. Approve Grading Permit for 1879 Dodd Road i. Approval of Resolution 2020-44 Provide for Second Amendment to Educational Facilities Revenue Refunding Note (St. Thomas Academy Project) j. Approve Appointment of City Attorney k. Approve Fire Synopsis Report l. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Public Hearings none 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2020-48 Approve Dakota County Community Development Agency to Administer a Small Business Relief Grant Program b. Marie Avenue Street Improvements Change Order c. Resolution 2020-45 City Council Meetings Start Time 9. Community Announcements 10. Council Comments 11. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, July 21, 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, Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. MOMENT OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF OFFICER SCOTT PATRICK (EOW JULY 30, 2014) Mayor Garlock noted that July 30th will be the sixth anniversary of the killing of Police Officer Scott Patrick. He stated that members of the City and public will gather in his memory on that day at the place in West St. Paul where Officer Patrick was shot. The Council had a moment of silence to honor the memory of Officer Scott Patrick. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling item h. a. Approval of July 7, 2020 City Council Minutes b. Approval of July 14, 2020 Joint Council and Parks Rec Commission Minutes c. Approve Refund of Massage Therapist License d. Accept Wetland Delineation Report for the Parcel Located at 681 Brookside Lane e. Accept Wetland Delineation Report for the Parcel Located at 1770 Dodd Road f. Approve Resolution 2020-42 Accepting Donation of Television page 3 g. Approve Resolution 2020-36 Donation of Park Bench and Shade Trees h. Accept the Retirement of Firefighter Rich Gapinski i. Accept the Resignation of Firefighter Joe King j. Authorize the Purchase of a Dryer System for Turn-Out Gear k. Approve Building Activity Report for June 2020 l. Approve of June 2020 Treasurer’s Report m. Approval of Claims List Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS H) ACCEPT THE RETIREMENT OF FIREFIGHTER RICH GAPINSKI Councilor Miller recognized the contributions of Rich Gapinski to the community, noting that he spent a long career on the Fire Department and serving the residents of Mendota Heights. He stated that Rich will be greatly missed. Councilor Miller moved to accept THE RETIREMENT OF FIREFIGHTER RICH GAPINSKI. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2020-39 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FROM VERIZON WIRELESS FOR NEW CELLULAR-WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT AT DEERWOOD BANK – 1060 DAKOTA DRIVE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-12) TABLED FROM THE JULY 7, 2020 MEETING Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided background information on the case. The Council is being asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Verizon Wireless, requesting permission to install three new cellular-wireless communication panels on top of Deerwood Bank, located at 1060 Dakota Drive. This item was tabled at the July 7, 2020 meeting. page 4 Karyn Acevedo, representing Verizon, was present to answer any questions from the Council. Councilor Miller commented that there did not appear to be a significant change between the current RSRP levels and the projected levels. He asked why the bank location was chosen over other sites in this area. Ms. Acevedo replied that the bank location provides height and a line of sight from the highway. She explained that the equipment needs to be carefully placed to provide coverage and improve capacity. She stated that they have been working on this location for the past few years. Councilor Miller commented that there is a neighborhood in close proximity to the bank and that there would be more distance between City Hall and adjacent residential developments. Ms. Acevedo stated that the location they propose is desirable for Verizon. She stated that the business has a good relationship with the property owner and the property owner has been great to work with. Councilor Miller referenced the current mapping and post installation mapping, noting the small increase. He asked what the plan would be going forward if the equipment does not provide the desired results. Ms. Acevedo stated that all of the projects undergo modeling by radio frequency engineers. She stated that if the coverage and capacity are met, the project moves forward. Josh Martin, Engineer representing Verizon, stated that the purpose of this site is to offload capacity, therefore the RSRP load is not expected to increase much. He stated that they need additional bandwidth for additional users as the current download speeds do not meet Verizon’s standard. He stated that this site will be able to cover more buildings in the downtown and offer a capacity offload to the Mendota Heights water tower site. Councilor Duggan asked the difference between 4G and 5G service. Mr. Martin explained that they are similar, noting that 5G is meant to be a faster and more efficient. He stated that the only 5G Verizon has is on the millimeter wave. The amount of power and frequencies would remain the same. Councilor Duggan asked the likelihood that this system would be increased to 5G. Mr. Martin stated that perhaps certain clusters will be updated, and that they are deploying clusters in downtown Minneapolis. Councilor Duggan asked if Verizon would make that determination or whether it would be driven by the community. Mr. Martin commented that would be a decision of Verizon corporate. Councilor Duggan commented that next to this site is a daycare center and that business owner is concerned for the potential impacts of the radio frequency traveling. He commented that he understands that the equipment is on the roof and the waves therefore would flow at that level. He asked if there was a likelihood of a negative impact on the building next to this site. Mr. Martin commented that they need to transmit at the power allowed by the FCC. He stated that the equipment is not built to transmit above that frequency level allowed. In order to expose yourself to unsafe levels of radiation, you would need to be on the roof about two feet away, which would be out of page 5 compliance with the FCC rules. The equipment is shutoff when someone needs to work on it. He stated that this is nonionizing radiation which does not impact the body. Councilor Duggan asked if Verizon has received a health complaint from someone within 350 feet of equipment. Mr. Martin stated that he is not aware of the details of any such case. Councilor Petschel stated that it might be helpful if the differences between ionizing and nonionizing radiation were explained. She stated that her understanding is that an FM radio and TV remote would be nonionizing radiation. Mr. Martin confirmed that those devices are all on different radio frequencies. He provided additional details on nonionizing radiation and ionizing radiation. He stated that a microwave uses ionizing radiation. He stated that a cellular phone operates at around the same frequency as the tower equipment, the tower can transit further because of the antenna. Councilor Paper asked what increasing capacity provides for users. Mr. Martin explained that additional capacity improves the experience of cellular users attempting to download data. Councilor Paper asked if this site would have a benefit to the 5G network that will come. Mr. Martin stated that there are no plans for 5G. He stated that rooftop deployments can be helpful in millimeter wave transmission. Councilor Paper asked if this would improve coverage in areas of the City that are low in elevation. Mr. Martin stated that it would not make a huge impact on most of those locations because the frequency for this site is not that far. He stated that he would need to do more analysis to determine how service could be improved in low coverage areas. Councilor Paper asked how the City could ask Verizon to improve the coverage in those low areas. Mr. Martin stated that the City could contact someone at Verizon to have that discussion. He explained that certain triggers need to be met in order to build a new tower site, noting that it is a two-year process to build a site. He stated that small cells on light poles could be an option in some of the valleys. He explained that further analysis would be needed. Councilor Paper asked if 5G requires any additional larger towers, or whether the existing equipment could be used with small cells added. Mr. Martin replied that small cells are used, connected by fiber. Mayor Garlock provided details on a dead spot in the City of Mendota, and asked if this equipment would improve that coverage. Mr. Martin stated that it does not appear that this site would reach that location. Councilor Petschel asked if this site would reach across the street. Mr. Martin confirmed that the equipment would reach that location. Mayor Garlock invited members of the public to provide input. Tim Curly, 2049 Patricia Street, stated that he is still in favor of the tower being placed on the City property for public safety purposes. He stated that he is not in support of a tower on the bank which could be page 6 converted to 5G in the future. He stated that if the tower were placed on the City property, the revenue would go to the City and the taxpayers rather than the bank. He stated that if this is approved, he would like to see it in writing that the site is not updated to 5G. Uban Bade, owner of Mendota Child Daycare, stated that they have a lot of concerns. She recognized that Verizon has made statements saying the equipment is safe. She stated that they have young children entrusted to their care along with elderly residents that they provide care to. She asked for guarantees that there would be no problems related to the exposure. She asked about radiation from the lower unit located on the ground. She supports increased support for public safety, but they are still concerned with everyone’s health. She stated that while some studies have been completed, the long-term impacts are not yet known. She suggested that all of the equipment would be better placed on City property. Mr. Martin replied that the equipment on the ground does not produce radiation and reviewed some of the equipment that would be located on the ground location. Ms. Acevedo replied that equipment would be screened, similar to the trash enclosure that is already in that location. Councilor Paper stated that there is an existing trash enclosure and asked if the equipment would be located inside that enclosure. Ms. Acevedo replied that a new enclosure would be built next to it. She stated that the location was determined cooperatively with Verizon, the property owner, and the realtor. The location meets the zoning code setbacks of Mendota Heights. Councilor Miller asked if the equipment needs to be placed on the ground rather than the roof. Ms. Acevedo replied that it would depend on the structural capability of the roof and accessibility. She stated that when placed on the roof, it would only be accessible during bank hours. Ekraam Abdilahi, owner of Mendota Child Daycare, asked if the signal would reach Highway 62 if the equipment were placed on the City property. Mr. Martin stated that in his perspective it would not provide a difference in RF coverage. He stated that if the site were moved, the entire process would need to start over with site acquisition and analyzing information. He explained that it is not a simple decision to move equipment to another location. Verizon has gone through a long cooperative process to reach this point. Councilor Duggan stated that he is not aware that the City location was considered. He asked what other sites Verizon considered outside of the bank. Ms. Acevedo stated that they have been working on this for a few years. She stated that there was a site further west that did not work from an RF perspective. She commented that in her experience, it is a long process to work with a municipal site rather than a private business location. She provided additional details on the acquisition process and site selection. Mr. Martin noted that this location meets all of Verizon’s objectives. Mr. Curly stated that he would still like, in writing, that Verizon would not upgrade this site to 5G. Mr. Martin stated that the potential upgrade that could occur at this location would use the same equipment and would broadcast at the same power level. He commented that the equipment is safe and operates under the levels allowed by the FCC. He stated that there are many cellular sites that are not noticed that are close to schools, shopping centers and hospitals that operate under the same levels of RF energy. He page 7 commented on the process Verizon follows, noting that City approval is the last step. He stated that Verizon would not be able to share their build out plans with the general public three years ahead of the project. Councilor Duggan stated that quite a bit of material was submitted from the applicant related to cellular towers and studies. He stated that the information clearly states that there are no negative effects of the radio frequency. The resolution proposed states the proposed project would not negatively impact the health, safety, and welfare of the community. All cellular equipment would be compliant with the local, state, and national codes, therefore there are guarantees and protection. Councilor Petschel stated that there are cell towers on the high school that have been in place for years and there has never been an indication that there have been any issues. She stated that because she has had experience with this equipment being installed on schools, hospitals, and residential housing, she feels comfortable with this moving forward. Councilor Miller recognized the comments made by Mr. Curley related to past incidents when situations were believed to be safe that later proved to be untrue. He stated that information has been provided that this is safe and because this is a CUP, if information changes, adjustments could be made going forward. Councilor Duggan moved to approve RESOLUTION 2020-39 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO VERIZON WIRELESS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1060 DAKOTA DRIVE. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock briefly recessed the meeting. Mayor Garlock reconvened the meeting. B) RESOLUTION 2020-41 DENYING – OR – APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE REQUEST FROM FRED AND BEVERLY PETERSON, REQUESTING A PROPOSED THREE LOT SUBDIVISION TITLED “MOEHN ADDITION”, LOCATED AT 1770 DODD ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-10) Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a background on this item. The Council was being asked to consider adopting a resolution either denying or approving a preliminary plat of a new subdivision to be titled “MOEHN ADDITION”, with a variance to allow two lots with no frontage on a public roadway system. The applicants and property owners are Fred and Beverly Peterson. Councilor Miller asked the diameter of the existing hydrant on Dodd Road. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he believes it is an eight to 12-inch line. Councilor Miller asked where the new hydrant would come in from, specifically whether it would come from the existing hydrant line. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the new hydrant would come in from the main line and not the existing hydrant line. page 8 Councilor Petschel commented that, in 1992, Pine Creek Estates was created and utilities were stubbed in for the future development of the Peterson’s property. This was done against the advice of the planners because the City does not allow flag lots due to fire and life safety concerns. She stated that in the covenant for the joint driveway, the City refers to the fact that the Petersons have buildable lots and permitted stubbing in utilities to those lots. She stated that if the variance is approved, the covenant should be part of the public record. There was clearly an understanding between the Petersons and the City that the Petersons had developable lots. It would not be fair to deny the Petersons the ability to develop them. Councilor Miller stated that if the City has a policy to not allow flag lots, he finds it disappointing that it was approved in the 1990’s. He stated that he could not approve the variance because the City has a policy of not allowing flag lots. He stated that if the leadership at the time approved it, including language in the covenants, and by approving the stubbing of utilities, they should have created those lots at that time. He stated that he does not feel that this would be an appropriate variance. Councilor Duggan stated that at the time, it seemed a reasonable request. He commented that the Petersons approved of the project but were not ready to move forward at that time. He stated that there is an acknowledgement built in that the Petersons could proceed in the same manner. He stated that since that time the decision was made to not allow flag lots. He stated that he cannot see where the City can today deny this request because it is there in writing and the decision was made to wait rather than move forward at the time. He commented that the land has been beautifully maintained, and the applicant agrees to the conditions by staff. Councilor Paper asked if the current driveway falls on the property line. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the driveway falls half on the Peterson property and half on the Pine Creek property. Councilor Paper asked if equal amounts would be taken from both sides to widen the driveway. Mr. Peterson replied that there is an easement on both sides of the driveway that would be used to widen the driveway. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that a 16-foot driveway could fit on the side of the Peterson property. He noted that details would need to be worked out with all property owners involved in the joint driveway covenant. Councilor Paper asked where the utility stubs are on the property and where it is for one or two homes. Community Development Director Tim Benetti identified the sewer and water utility stub. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that three individual copper water services were installed but was unsure that the water line that was run would be adequately sized to serve and sprinkle one home. He stated that the City did require an eight-inch standard sewer main, which would be adequate to serve a number of properties. If a hydrant is required, the driveway would need to be torn up to provide that connection. Any water improvements would require approval from Saint Paul Water. He stated that one set of services were run, but the sewer can handle multiple homes. Councilor Paper asked if there has been any discussion of two lots rather than three. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that when staff met with the Petersons and their consultants, it was determined that area was impacted by wetlands and therefore the three-lot configuration was developed. He stated that the Petersons are keeping their lot larger intentionally but it could realistically be split into two. page 9 City Attorney Andrew Pratt stated that the variance is for three lots. He stated that the variance would need to be expanded to include the potential lot split for the existing house lot, in order to split that lot. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he did not recommended that inclusion and noted that the approval could even preclude that action. Councilor Paper asked and received confirmation that the building site for lot three would be far enough away from the creek. Mayor Garlock commented that he visited the site and spoke with Mr. Peterson, noting that a developer was on the property at that time. He stated that being a believer in fairness, he recommends reversing the recent recommendation from the Planning Commission. Mayor Garlock moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2020-41 APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MOEHN ADDITION WITH A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1770 DODD ROAD. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Petschel stated that she would like language added that this is the final plat. She stated that she would like the covenant to construct the joint driveway included in the record. Mayor Garlock and Councilor Duggan confirmed approval. Councilor Duggan requested to add an Item 10, stating that the primary Peterson home lot shall not be subdivided in the future. City Attorney Andrew Pratt confirmed that it would be appropriate to add a tenth condition of that nature. Councilor Paper asked what would preclude a future Council from reversing that condition. Councilor Petschel commented that the previous Council acknowledged the Peterson home and developable lots. She stated that this Council is stating that will not be the case in the future. Councilor Miller commented that although lots were mentioned, it was not officially recognized as multiple lots. Mayor Garlock commented that he believes this action would cleanup this situation while remaining fair and ethical to Mr. Peterson. Councilor Miller stated that lots are referenced, but that could include the existing lot and one new lot, therefore he struggles with a three-lot split versus two. He stated that it appears the intent would be to have one additional lot, not two. Councilor Duggan referenced Item seven of the draft resolution related to public safety. He stated that safety is paramount and therefore those requirements are included. page 10 Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided clarification on the public safety requirements that would be triggered for a 20-foot driveway and a 16-foot driveway. Councilor Miller stated that fundamentally he cannot vote in favor of this variance. He stated that he would be curious to know how many more situations, similar to this one, exist in the city. Councilor Petschel commented that each situation is unique and considered on its own merits. Mr. Peterson stated that the improvements that they will be making to the property will benefit the neighbors. He noted that a fire truck would be able to turnaround with the proposed new construction, whereas currently that same truck would need to back out. He stated that this agreement was made in 1992, and he is simply attempting to execute the agreement. He stated that the driveway would remain private and would be maintained by the homeowners and would not be additional burden on the City. Councilor Paper commented that he would support one additional lot rather than the two additional lots proposed. Ayes: 3 (Duggan, Garlock, and Petschel) Nays: 2 (Miller and Paper) C) LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR 696 BROOKSIDE LANE Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided background information on the request and stated that Thomas and Edythe Hockenberry are seeking a License Agreement from the City to construct a 144 square foot accessory structure within the platted utility easement along their rear property line. Councilor Petschel asked if the license agreement would end with this property owner and not run with the property. She asked if language should be included stating that the shed must be dismantled upon sale of the property. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek confirmed that the license agreement would end with this property owner. City Attorney Andrew Pratt stated that there is a condition that would allow the agreement to continue with the next property owner, given that the requirements of that condition are met. He stated that the other alternative would be to require the shed to be dismantled upon sale, noting that would be the decision of the Council. Councilor Miller stated that the responsibility would not fall to the seller, potentially, and could fall upon the new owner to remove the shed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that the property owner to the north has a similar easement and reached out to staff. That property owner does not have concerns as long as the shed is constructed closer to 1st Avenue rather than Brookside. page 11 Councilor Paper asked the approximate location. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek identified the existing sanitary sewer line location. He noted that the property owner would want the structure near that line. Councilor Paper asked and received confirmation that the shed could be slid out of the way if needed as there will not be a concrete floor. Councilor Duggan asked for clarification on the term “at will”. City Attorney Andrew Pratt stated that the City could request that to be moved for any reason or at any time. Councilor Petschel asked if it would make sense to add language that would specify that the floor cannot be concrete because it is over the sewer line. She stated that the shed should be able to be moved at will and therefore concrete floor would not make sense. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek confirmed that staff could come up language to that nature. City Attorney Andrew Pratt stated that Section 9 specifies that if the structure needs to be removed, the property will need to be restored to its unimproved condition. Councilor Miller moved to approve THE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND THOMAS AND EDYTHE HOCKENBERRY OF 696 BROOKSIDE LANE. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 D) CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WENTWORTH PARK WARMING HOUSE Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided background on the case and stated that the Council is asked to approve a contract with Structural Buildings for the Wentworth Warming House Improvements. Councilor Paper asked if there are drawings available. He also asked if solar panels could be supported. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he does not have drawings available but there will be additional opportunity to review design details. He noted that structural drawings will be included and the possibility of solar could be reviewed. Councilor Paper asked if the existing building would remain or be removed in cooperation with the Fire Department. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the plan would be to tear down the structure and use a dumpster to dispose of it. Councilor Miller stated that new changes from the EPA for required mitigations to do a live burn are making that cost prohibitive, and he would not recommend burning the existing structure. Councilor Duggan asked the actual cost. page 12 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that a budget proposal of $169,000 is being asked to be approved tonight. He stated that the other numbers are comparable quotes. He stated that this contractor will develop plans and solicit real bids for the proposed work. He noted that variance allowances are shown for different materials. $180,000 would be reimbursed to the City through a grant. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that for this building the cost would be $169,000 for the structure. In addition to that would be the cost for sewer and water connections, and the sidewalk connection. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the budget proposal makes assumptions that the gas and electric would be installed inside the building and they would complete the remainder of the work. Councilor Duggan asked if the comment will be made that the roof should be able to support solar. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek confirmed that discussion could occur. Councilor Petschel asked if a “not to exceed” amount should be included. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that this is a budget proposal. He stated that the Council could still make the decision to reject the bids. Councilor Duggan asked a reasonable estimate of having this built. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he is hoping to construct this project within or close to the budgeted amount. The budget proposal would be similar to an engineer’s estimate. Councilor Paper asked if approved tonight, what the likelihood is that this would be open for the winter season. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the contractor is currently scheduling his work into mid-September. Therefore, if action approving this at the current meeting is delayed, completion by winter would be difficult. He stated that if this contract moved forward immediately, the contractor seemed confident that this could be open this winter. Mayor Garlock moved to authorize THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE THE BUDGET PROPOSAL WITH STRUCTURAL BUILDINGS, AND ISSUE THE $25,000 DEPOSIT. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that the Teddy Bear Band will perform a live concert at Mendakota Park next week. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Garlock provided final numbers on the virtual 5k, reporting that the event had 294 participants and raised $9,200 for Special Olympics. He stated that the event will be bigger and better next year and will be held June 5, 2021, at Market Square Park. page 13 Councilor Petschel stated that she serves on the Traffic Safety Committee, noting that two requests from residents came forward for action and she was impressed with the planning and preparation of the residents. She encouraged residents to visit the pollinator friendly garden at City Hall. Councilor Miller stated that the Mendota Heights Fire Department is hiring, and will hold three open house events. He noted that interested residents can register on the city’s website. He said that this is an opportunity to give back to the community, and it is a rewarding experience. Councilor Paper commented that he believed that tonight was a good meeting with robust discussion. He stated that he appreciates the opportunity to be meeting in-person again. He stated that he is looking forward to moving forward with the Wentworth Park project. Councilor Duggan echoed the comment that is nice to be back in-person. He asked for details on the Scott Patrick memorial event. Mayor Garlock stated that each year they honor the anniversary of his death at the Smith/Dodd site on July 30th at noon, with a moment of silence at 12:20 p.m. Councilor Duggan stated that he was impressed with the heavy use and social distancing at the ball field the previous night. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:01 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, July 21, 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 4:00 p.m. 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, Community Development Director Tim Benetti, and City Clerk Lorri Smith. DISCUSSION OF PROCESS TO FILL VACANT CITY ATTORNEY POSITION City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the current city attorney, Andy Pratt, Best and Flanagan, has given his notice to leave his employment as city attorney. He said that his last day representing the City of Mendota Heights will be August 4, 2020. The Council discussed the proposals before them, and voiced their desire to interview three of the firms. By general consensus, the Council decided to interview the firms of Kennedy & Graven, Campbell Knutson, and LeVander Gillen & Miller. The date for the interviews was set for Monday, July 27, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. DISCUSSION ON COVID-19 PRECAUTIONS Mr. McNeill informed the Council that due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the City has received a few requests from the public to mandate the wearing of protective face masks in the city, in all public spaces. He provided the Council with a list of cities in the state that currently have this mandate in place. Councilor Duggan stated that he requested this item be place on the agenda for discussion. He thought it was important that this city mandate the wearing of masks due to the many people who come to our city to work during the day. By general consensus, the Council felt that the city should wait for the Governor Walz’s direction on this mandate. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 4:40 pm. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 15 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Special Meeting Held Monday, July 27, 2020 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the special meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 1:30 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Miller, Paper, and Petschel were also present. Also present were: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator; Tim Benetti, Community Development Director; Andy Pratt, City Attorney. AGREEMENTS FOR THE SALE OF THE VILLAGE LOTS City Attorney Andy Pratt explained the Developer’s Agreement that was before the Council for their consideration. He stated that this is a byproduct of the purchase agreement with the developer. The closing on this property has been set for Wednesday, July 29, 2020. The property includes the three undeveloped lots and one outlot located at The Village development. It was noted that the plat will be approved after the closing on the property. Attorney Pratt explained the definition of the project, the development requirements, the parkland dedication funds totaling $192,000, and the financial security. This agreement will be recorded with Dakota County Mr. Pratt reviewed the 3rd Amendment to the Real Estate Purchase Agreement and Escrow Agreement and the Trail and Utility Easement and Maintenance Agreement. It was noted that the outlot will be deeded to the developer, and once the plat is approved, the outlot will then be deeded back to the city. The developers were present to answer questions from the Council. They expect to break ground next week and expect that the project will be completed in 12 months. Councilor Petschel moved to approve the Development Agreement with MH Development, LLC. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 page 16 Councilor Petschel moved to approve the 3rd Amendment to the Real Estate Purchase Agreement and Escrow Agreement with MH Development, LLC. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock moved to approve the Trail and Utility Easement and Maintenance Agreement with MH Development LLC. Mayor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 DISCUSSION OF CITY ISSUANCE OF CONDUIT DEBT City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that the city was asked to indicate whether it is interested in issuing conduit debt on behalf of a non-profit agency with no direct ties to Mendota Heights. All city costs would be covered, and, in exchange, the city would receive an application fee and a small percentage of the par value of the bonds. This issuance would not affect the City’s credit rating. A public hearing would be needed. The Council directed staff to work with the non-profit agency for the issuance of this conduit debt. ADJOURN Councilor Duggan moved to adjourn. Council Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 2:10 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 17 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Work Session Held July 27, 2020 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at the City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 2:05 pm. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper and Petschel were also present. City staff present included Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator; Tim Benetti, Community Development Director. INTERVIEW CITY ATTORNEY CANDIDATES The city council interviewed the following law firms for the city attorney position: - Kennedy and Graven - LeVander, Gillen and Miller - Campbell Knutson Following the interviews, the council discussed the applicants. There was consensus to proceed with contract negotiations with the Campbell Knutson law firm. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 3:56 pm. ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 18 Request for City Council Action DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Resolution 2020-43 Accept Donations for Scott Patrick Memorial 5K and Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to formally accept donations which were received for the 2020 Officer Scott Patrick Memorial 5K and 2020 Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby. BACKGROUND By state law, all donations to the City must be accepted by the City Council by means of a resolution. On July 11 , the annual Scott Patrick Memorial 5K Race was held virtually due to COVID-19. A total of $18,878 was donated for the race for prizes that included cash, services and merchandise. There were 294 participants in the 5K this year, which raised over $9,200 for Special Olympics of Minnesota. On August 6, the annual Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby will be held. The City has received a $1,000 contribution in cash for the event. The City is grateful for the generosity of these donations. These community events would not be possible without the support of these donations. A special thank you to the 5K Race Director Neil Garlock, and the Public Works staff for all of their hard work to make these events possible. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve Resolution 2020-43. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion adopt RESOLUTION 2020-43 FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF DONATIONS TO THE CITY, THE SCOTT PATRICK MEMORIAL 5K RACE AND CLIFF TIMM MEMORIAL FISHING DERBY page 19 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-43 RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF DONATIONS TO THE CITY, THE SCOTT PATRICK MEMORIAL 5K RACE AND CLIFF TIMM MEMORIAL FISHING DERBY WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 “Gifts to Municipalities”; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights is accepting donations from the following people and organizations in support of the Scott Patrick Memorial 5K Race and Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby: 2020 Officer Scott Patrick Memorial 5K VENDOR DONATION VALUE Neil Garlock 50 Inch Samsung HDTV $320 Bob Brackey 55 Inch LG HDTV $410 Steve Morganson 55 Inch LG HDTV $410 Sunfish Cellars 3 - $50 Gift Cards $150 Lucky's - Mendota 20 - $10 Gift Cards $200 Pool & Yacht Club 2 - $100 Gift Cards $200 Holiday Station - Lilydale 2 - $25 Gift Cards $50 Gallagher's 3 - $25 Gift Cards $75 Cherokee Tavern $25 Gift Card $25 Paradise Car Wash - Eagan Complete Car Detail $285 Paradise Car Wash - Eagan 2 - 5 Pack Supreme Washes $280 Mitch Berg 50 Inch Samsung HDTV $320 Greg Boyle 50 Inch Samsung HDTV $320 Tom Depauw 50 Inch Samsung HDTV $320 Tappers 9 - $25 Gift Cards $225 Romero Auto Repair Oil Change $25 BP - Mendota Heights 2 Oil Changes $80 DeGidio's 4 - $50 Gift Cards $200 Artitude - St Paul $150 Gift Card - Framing $150 page 20 Soapy Joe's Car Wash 5 - Ultimate Full Service Washes $175 Soapy Joe's Car Wash 3 - Ultimate Washes $55 Soapy Joe's Car Wash 5 - Original Washes $50 The Fireside $30 Gift Card $30 Mauer Chev 2 Oil Changes $100 Mike Butcher Shop $30 Gift Card $30 Mendakota CC Round Of Golf For 4 (with carts and lunch) $600 Southview CC Social Membership $250 Inver Grove Ford Oil Change $50 Chet's Liquor Case Of Wine $120 Gordy Dahlberg $50 Buffalo Wild Wings Gift Card $50 Keith Ostrosky $50 Dixie's Gift Card $50 Dixie's On Grand $50 Dixie's Gift Card $50 Great Moon Buffet 2 - $25 Gift Cards $50 Granite City $50 Gift Card $50 Best Western Plus - Eagan 2 - One Night Stays $240 Tom Reid's $30 Gift Card $30 The Pizza Shop 3 - $25 Gift Cards $75 Boca Chica $30 Gift Card $30 Lost Spur Golf Course 2 Certificates - 9 Holes OF Golf For Two $100 Perkin's - Eagan $25 Gift Card $25 Buffalo Wild Wings Wing Party and Sauces $65 Shepard Road Parking 1 Free Week Of Parking $90 St Paul Hotel Bed And Breakfast Package $350 Landmark Jewelers 72 Inch White Pearl Necklace $300 Anytime Fitness 10 - 2 Month Membership & 8 Training Sessions $4000 Grand 7 2 - $50 Gift Cards $100 Bogey's 6 - $25 Gift Cards $150 Downtowner 2 - $25 Gift Cards $50 Kaposia Tree Service $150 Gift Card $150 Zerorez Gift Basket $165 John, Bill & Joe 55 Inch LG HDTV $410 Meisinger Construction 8 $25 Assorted Gift Cards $200 Julie Fronk 2 Bottles Of Wine $25 Goodfellows 450 Lip Balm & Cash $1000 Fixall Service Company 4 - $25 Assorted Gift Cards $100 Ed Iago Joe Mauer Signed Baseball $125 Gertens $25 Gift Card $25 Gateway Bank $1000 Cash $1000 Rita Dolan $25 Cash $25 David Frye $100 Cash $100 Ed Hayes 16 Pair of Juzo Socks $160 page 21 Robert & Shanna Marx Case Of Wine $140 Bob Brackey $2500 Cash $2500 Trailstop $50 Gift Card $50 Gary Cunningham 55 Inch TCL TV $300 Brian Woessner Post Race Snacks & Water $300 Julie Cooper $100 Home Depot Gift Card $100 City of Mendota Heights 3 - Rounds of Golf for 4 $168 Bogey's Girls Relax Basket $100 BC Contracting Potted Tree $375 Total $18,878 2020 Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby Donations VENDOR DONATION VALUE Charitable Gift Fund of Clifford Timm $1,000 cash $1,000 Total $1,000 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of August 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 22 DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Conduit Debt Issuance—Augustana Care Comment: Introduction: The Council is asked to call for a Public Hearing to consider the issuance of conduit debt for Augustana Regent at Burnsville, LLC Background: Conduit debt is when cities issue tax exempt financing on behalf of 501 (c) (3) non-profits—schools, health care providers, and certain types of housing agencies. In order to retain its tax-exempt status, “bank qualified” status, the IRS limits a city to the issuance of no more than $10 million in debt annually for itself, and in combination with others. Bond attorneys occasionally approach cities which are not anticipated to fully utilize their $10 million bank-qualified issuance allotment, to see if they will issue such debt on behalf of their qualifying clients. When this arrangement is made, the non-profit will see a significant savings in the form of more favorable interest rates on borrowed monies. A firm acting on behalf of a non-profit health care agency (Augustana Regent at Burnsville, LLC) has asked if Mendota Heights would be willing to serve as a conduit issuer, as Augustana is preparing to issue approximately $21 million of this type of bonds. The proceeds would be used to refinance, in part, the acquisition of The Regent, a 148 unit senior housing facility in Burnsville. Two other cities—Landfall Village and Hampton--will issue the bulk of the amount, but Augustana would have Mendota Heights issue approximately $1 million, although the final amount could be slightly higher or lower. The host city, Burnsville, is beyond its capacity to issue additional tax exempt debt this year. In 2016, the City of Mendota Heights revised its policy on the issuance of conduit debt. It adjusted its required fees to make certain that the city’s costs would be covered. In addition to an application fee of $2500, the City would require the reimbursement of any out of pocket fees, such as legal or financial costs. The City would also receive the greater of $10,000, or one half of 1% of the par value of the bonds. This fee is meant to cover any ancillary costs of the City, such as if the issuer is audited at some point in the future. In general, however, that amount is more than sufficient to cover city expenses. This issuance page 23 also does not affect the City’s credit rating, or its ability to issue its own general obligation bonds in 2020, or in subsequent years, assuming that the $10 million limitation is observed. If the Council is interested in issuing these bonds, it should call for a Public Hearing which is currently anticipated to be held at the City Council meeting of September 18, 2020 to consider the sale. The time of the Public Hearing that evening should be determined by the Council. Recommendation: There is little downside, and at least a modest financial benefit to the City to do issue the conduit debt, As such, we recommend approval. Action Required: If the Council concurs, it should call for a Public Hearing to consider the sale of conduit debt for Augustana Regent at Burnsville, LLC by adopting the following resolution: RESOLUTION 2020-47 .RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF SENIOR HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING NOTES TO FINANCE A PROJECT BY AUGUSTANA CARE AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF THE HEARING (AUGUSTANA REGENT AT BURNSVILLE PROJECT) Kristen Schabacker Mark McNeill Finance Director City Administrator page 24 Extract of Minutes of a Meeting of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall in said City on Tuesday, the 4th day of August, 2020, at _____ o'clock P.M. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member ___________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 2020 - 47 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF SENIOR HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING NOTES TO FINANCE A PROJECT BY AUGUSTANA CARE AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF THE HEARING (AUGUSTANA REGENT AT BURNSVILLE PROJECT) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _______________, and after full discussion thereof and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. page 25 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-47 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF SENIOR HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING NOTES TO FINANCE A PROJECT BY AUGUSTANA CARE AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF THE HEARING (AUGUSTANA REGENT AT BURNSVILLE PROJECT) WHEREAS, the purpose of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act"), is among other things, to confer upon cities the power to issue revenue bonds to finance projects as defined therein; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the "City") has received from Augustana Regent at Burnsville, LLC (the "Borrower"), a Minnesota limited liability company, the sole member of which is Augustana Care, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, the sole member of which is Cassia, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, a proposal that the City assist in refinancing a Project described in Exhibit A, which is located in the City of Burnsville, through the issuance of revenue notes or obligations (in one or more series) (the "Notes") pursuant to the Act; and WHEREAS, the City has been advised that a public hearing and City Council approval of the financing of the Project is required under the Act and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A public hearing on the proposal of the Borrower will be held at the time and place determined by the City Administrator. The general nature of the Project and an estimate of the aggregate principal amount of the Notes or other obligations to be issued to finance the Project are described in the Notice of Public Hearing. 2. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing to be given one publication in the official newspaper and newspaper of general circulation available in the City, not less than 15 days nor more than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing, substantially in the form of the attached Notice of Public Hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, this 4th day of August, 2020. _________________________________ ATTEST: Mayor _____________________________________ Clerk page 26 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to calling for a public hearing on approving the issuance of revenue obligations. WITNESS my hand this ___ day of August, 2020. _______________________________ Clerk page 27 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR ISSUANCE OF SENIOR HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING NOTES (AUGUSTANA REGENT AT BURNSVILLE PROJECT) Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the "City"), will meet in City Council chambers at the Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, in the City, at ____ p.m. on Tuesday, ________, 2020, to consider the City adopting a housing program to refinance, in part, a project hereinafter described pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, by the issuance of revenue notes or other obligations (the "Notes") by the City and one or more other governmental issuers (with the City, the "Issuers”). Augustana Regent at Burnsville, LLC (the "Borrower"), a Minnesota limited liability company, the sole member of which is Augustana Care, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, the sole member of which is Cassia, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, proposes to (a) refinance certain tax-exempt and taxable obligations of the Borrower, the proceeds of which were used for the acquisition of a Project consisting of 148 units of senior housing, including independent living, assisted living, and memory care units, located at 14500 Regent Lane in Burnsville, Minnesota (the "Project") and (b) finance certain improvements to the lobby, dining room, and apartments, and furniture upgrades. The Project, known as The Regent at Burnsville, is and will be owned and operated by the Borrower. The aggregate estimated principal amount of the Notes to finance the Project and related costs will be an amount not to exceed $23,000,000, with the aggregate estimated principal amount to be issued by the City not to exceed $3,000,000. The obligations, as and when issued, will not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance upon any property of the Issuers or the City of Burnsville, except the Project and the revenues to be derived from the Project. Such notes or obligations will not be a charge against the Issuers’ or the City of Burnsville's general credit or taxing powers but are payable from sums to be paid by the Borrower pursuant to a revenue agreement. A draft copy of the proposed housing program is available for inspection at City Hall during normal business hours. At the time and place fixed for the public hearing, the City Council of the City will give all persons who appear at the hearing an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal for the housing program and the Notes. Written comments will be considered if submitted at the above City office on or before the date of the hearing. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA By Mark McNeill Its Administrator page 28 July 23, 2020 BY E-MAIL Mark McNeill City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4106 Re: Issuance of Conduit Revenue Notes by the City of Mendota Heights for Augustana Regent Dear Mr. McNeill: This letter is in follow-up to a conversation that I had with Kristen Schabacker related to a request that the City of Mendota Heights has received from Augustana Regent at Burnsville, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Borrower”), the sole member of which is Augustana Care, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, the sole member of which is Cassia, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, regarding consideration by the City to act as an issuer of 501(c)(3) revenue obligations (the “Notes”) in an amount of approximately $1,000,000. The proceeds of the Notes would be loaned to the Borrower to be used to refinance, in part, the acquisition of The Regent, an approximately 148-unit senior housing facility, including independent living units, assisted living units, and memory care units, located in the City of Burnsville (the "Project"). The Cities of Hampton and Landfall Village will act as the other issuers of the remaining amount (approximately $10,000,000 each) needed to refinance the Project in full. Mendota Heights, Hampton, and Landfall Village are referred to collectively in this letter as the “Issuers.” Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, formerly known as Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, will act as bond counsel on the issuance of such Notes. The Notes are expected to be purchased directly by Bremer Bank, National Association (the “Lender”). State and federal laws allow local government units to enter into arrangements to issue tax- exempt obligations and loan the proceeds to nonprofit corporations to finance capital expenditures. This assistance reduces borrowing costs for nonprofit corporations and enables them to provide their services more cost effectively. It is a fairly common means of obtaining necessary financing for all nonprofit entities, including senior housing and health care providers like the Borrower. To accomplish this purpose, the Issuers will enter into Loan Agreements with the Borrower under which the Borrower will agree to pay all principal and interest on the Notes. The Issuers will assign all of their rights to payments under the Loan Agreements the Lender, who will page 29 purchase the Notes and loan the purchase price of the Notes directly to the Borrower. The Issuers are merely a conduit and the money and obligations flow only between the Lender and the Borrower. The Notes and the resolutions adopted by the Issuers will recite that the Notes, if and when issued, will not to be payable from or charged upon any of the Issuers’ funds, other than the revenues received under the Loan Agreements and pledged to the payment of the Notes, and the Issuers are not subject to any liability on the Notes. No holder of the Notes will ever have the right to compel any exercise by the Issuers of their taxing powers to pay any of the principal of the Notes or the interest or premium thereon, or to enforce payment of the Notes against any property of the Issuers except the interests of the Issuers in payments to be made by the Borrower under the Loan Agreements. The Notes will not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the Issuers, except the interests of the Issuers in payments to be made by the Borrower under the Loan Agreements. The Notes are not moral obligations on the part of the State or its political subdivisions, including the Issuers, and the Notes will not constitute a debt of the Issuers within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. The issuance of the Notes will not affect the Issuers’ credit rating on bonds they issue for municipal purposes. Each city may issue up to $10,000,000 of its own and 501(c)(3) bonds each calendar year as “bank-qualified” bonds, which is the type of obligation that the Lender wishes to acquire. Because the total cost of the financing is approximately $21,000,000 and Burnsville has its own bond issuance of $18,000,000 planned for 2020, Burnsville cannot issue bank-qualified debt for the benefit of the Borrower. Therefore, other cities are being sought to act as the issuers for the Notes. Under the federal tax law, alternative issuers are permitted, but a “nexus” between the jurisdictional city and the issuer is preferred. In this case, Mendota Heights has geographical proximity to Burnsville and is within the market area for the Project. Mendota Heights’ residents could be potential beneficiaries of the Project, either as employees or future residents of the Project. The Notes will affect the bank-qualified status of any of the City's tax-exempt obligations issued for its own governmental purposes in 2020. It is our understanding that the City does currently expect to issue bonds for its own purposes in 2020, but that it would be able to issue the necessary amount to fill the difference between the $20,000,000 that will be issued by Hampton and Landfall Village and the total amount of the debt, which is currently expected to be approximately $21,000,000. It should be noted that the proposed amendments to the 2010 notes for St. Thomas Academy have no bearing on the City’s bank-qualification capacity. The Notes will not affect the bank-qualified status of tax-exempt obligations in future years. The Notes will be issued in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C. A city may not issue bonds for a project located outside of its jurisdiction, as is requested in this case. page 30 However, the city in which a project is located may give permission for the issuance of bonds by another city. This is commonly referred to as “ host approval.” Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.656, subdivision 2(2), host approval may be given for a project located in the host city, by resolution of the host city. Burnsville, as the host city, will give permission to Mendota Heights (and the other Issuers) to issue its Notes. In addition, the Issuers and Burnsville will enter into a joint powers agreement for the purpose of issuing the Notes. Similarly, under the federal tax code, before a city can issue bonds for a project located outside of its jurisdiction, the host city must give its approval. Such approval can only be given following the holding of a public hearing. As noted above, under federal and State law, in order for the Notes to be a tax exempt obligation, they must be issued by a political subdivision. This requires that the City hold a public hearing and approve issuance of the Notes and approve the execution of related documents. If the City is willing to act as a conduit issuer for the Borrower, we propose that the City adopt a resolution at its August 4th meeting (which we will prepare) that calls for that public hearing. We will also prepare and take care of submitting the public hearing notice to the City’s official newspaper. Following the public hearing, the City Council would then consider for adoption a resolution approving the issuance of the Notes. We understand that the City has a $2,500 application fee and an issuer’s fee that is the greater of $10,000 or ½ of 1% of the principal amount of the Notes issued by the City. In addition, you should be aware that the Borrower is responsible for paying all costs of the transaction. There will be no costs paid by the City. I understand that the City Council is having a special meeting on July 27th, at which time you will present this request to the Council to discuss whether it is willing for the City to act as an issuer for the Borrower. page 31 Thank you for considering this request on behalf of Augustana. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, Catherine J. Courtney page 32 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approve Natural and Scenic Area Grant Agreement for 2085 Valencour Circle COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding natural and scenic area grant for 2085 Valencour Circle. This is for property which is being acquired, and will be incorporated into Historic Pilot Knob. BACKGROUND City Council approved staff to apply for a natural and scenic grant at their March 17, 2020 meeting. Staff submitted a grant 2085 Valencour Circle and was notified on June 10, 2020 that its application was selected for funding. The total project cost of acquiring 2085 Valencour Circle is $399,000 which includes the $359,000 purchase price and $40,000 to demo the buildings. The requested grant amount was $199,500, the city was authorized to receive $192,000, which is 50 percent of the appraised value of the home. DISCUSSION The grant period is from July 15, 2020 to June 30, 2022. The grant funding is done on a reimbursement based on actual invoices. As a condition of the grant, the city must install signage that identify the State as a sponsoring agency, this must also be included on any notices and pamphlets. Other conditions include the standard state auditing, reporting, inspections, data practices and also emphasis on natural resource management, invasive species prevention, and pollinator best management practices. BUDGET IMPACT The remaining funds required as a local match are to be split between the City and Dakota County. Dakota County is currently drafting a Joint Powers Agreement which will be presented at a future meeting. The local match is $207,000, half of which is $103,500. These funds will come from the proceeds of the sale of the Village lots. The grant funding and partnership with Dakota County make this project desirable and feasible. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the City Council approve the natural and scenic grant with the Minnesota DNR and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute such agreement. page 33 ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the attached STATE OF MINNESOTA GRANT CONTRACT to be executed by the Mayor and City Clerk. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 34 Grant Contract Agreement template for Competitively awarded, single/sole source, or formula grant process to Municipality FY21: Updated June 2020 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA GRANT CONTRACT AGREEMENT This grant contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Natural Resources ("STATE") and City of Mendota Heights, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 ("GRANTEE"). Recitals 1. Under Minn. Stat. 84.026, the commissioner of natural resources is authorized to enter into contractual agreements with any public or private entity for the provision of statutorily prescribed natural resources services by the department. 2. Under Minn. Laws 2019, 1st Special Session, Chapter 4, Article 2, Section 2, Subd. 9b, the State has allocated funds for grants for local parks, trail connections, and natural and scenic areas under Minn. Stat. 85.019. 3. The Grantee has made application to the State for a portion of the allocation for the purpose of conducting the project entitled Pilot Knob. 4. The Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this grant contract to the satisfaction of the State. Pursuant to Minn.Stat.16B.98, Subd.1, the Grantee agrees to minimize administrative costs as a condition of this grant. Grant Contract Agreement 1 Term of Grant Contract Agreement 1.1 Effective date: July 15, 2020 Notwithstanding Minnesota Statues, section 16A.41, the Commissioner may make payments for otherwise eligible grant-program expenditures that are made on or after the effective date of the appropriation. No payments will be made to the Grantee until this grant contract is fully executed. 1.2 Expiration date: June 30, 2022, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. 1.3 Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this grant contract: 8. Liability; 9. State Audits; 10. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property Rights; 12. Publicity and Endorsement; 13. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue, 15. Data Disclosure, 20. Resource Management and Protection and 24. Land Retention and Deed Restriction. 2 Grantee’s Duties The Grantee, who is not a state employee, will: Comply with required grants management policies and procedures set forth through Minn. Stat.16B.97 Subd. 4 (a) (1) and comply with Attachment A, Project Budget, which is incorporated and made a part of this contract. The Grantee agrees to complete the project in accordance with the approved budget to the extent practicable and within the project period specified in the grant contract. Any material change in the scope of the project, budget or completion date shall require prior written approval by the State. 3Time The Grantee must comply with all the time requirements described in this grant contract agreement. In the performance of this grant contract agreement, time is of the essence. 4 Consideration and Payment 4.1 Consideration. The State will pay for all services performed by the Grantee under this grant contract agreement as page 35 Grant Contract Agreement template for Competitively awarded, single/sole source, or formula grant process to Municipality FY21: Updated June 2020 2 follows: (a) Compensation The Grantee will be paid for all services performed pursuant to this grant contract not to exceed $192,500.00. (b) Matching Requirement: Grantee certifies that the following matching requirement for the Grant will be met by Grantee. The total project cost is $385,000.00. The Grantee agrees to provide a nonstate match of a least $192,500.00. (c) Total Obligation. The total obligation of the State for all compensation and reimbursements to the Grantee under this grant contract agreement will not exceed $192,500.00. 4.2 Payment The State will promptly pay the Grantee after the Grantee presents a payment request and required expenditure documentation for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the documentation. Invoices must be submitted timely and according to the following schedule: Upon completion of services or up to four requests during the contract period. A final reimbursement of no more than 10% may be withheld until final completion of services. 4.3 Contracting and Bidding Requirements Per Minn. Stat. §471.345, grantees that are municipalities as defined in Subd. 1 must follow the law. (a)For projects that include construction work of $25,000 or more, prevailing wage rules apply per Minn. Stat. §§177.41 through 177.44. These rules require that the wages of laborers and workers should be comparable to wages paid for similar work in the community as a whole. (b)The grantee must not contract with vendors who are suspended or debarred in MN: http://www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us/debarredreport.asp 5 Conditions of Payment All services provided by the Grantee under this grant contract agreement must be performed to the State’s satisfaction, as determined at the sole discretion of the State’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The Grantee will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state, or local law. 6 Authorized Representative The State's Authorized Representative is Audrey Mularie, Grants Specialist Coordinator, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155, 651-259-5549, audrey.mularie@state.mn.us or his/her successor, and has the responsibility to monitor the Grantee’s performance and the authority to accept the services provided under this grant contract agreement. If the services are satisfactory, the State's Authorized Representative will certify acceptance on each invoice submitted for payment. The Grantee’s Authorized Representative Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118, 651-255-1152,ryanr@mendota-heights.com. If the Grantee’s Authorized Representative changes at any time during this grant contract agreement, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. 7 Assignment Amendments, Waiver, and Grant Contract Agreement Complete 7.1 Assignment The Grantee shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant contract agreement without the prior written consent of the State, approved by the same parties who executed and approved this grant contract agreement, or their successors in office. 7.2 Amendments page 36 Grant Contract Agreement template for Competitively awarded, single/sole source, or formula grant process to Municipality FY21: Updated June 2020 3 Any amendments to this grant contract agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original grant contract, or their successors in office. 7.3 Waiver If the State fails to enforce any provision of this grant contract agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or the State’s right to enforce it. 7.4 Grant Contract Agreement Complete This grant contract agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between the State and the Grantee. No other understanding regarding this grant contract, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. 8 Liability The Grantee must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims or causes of action, including attorney’s fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this grant contract agreement by the Grantee or the Grantee’s agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies the Grantee may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this grant contract agreement. 9 State Audits Under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, Subd.8, the Grantee’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the Grantee or other party relevant to this grant contract agreement or transaction are subject to examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this grant contract agreement, receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required period of time to satisfy all state and program retention requirements, whichever is later. 10 Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property Rights 10.1 Government Data Practices The Grantee and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this grant contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee under this grant contract agreement. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. §13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Grantee or the State. If the Grantee receives a request to release the data referred to in this Clause, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. The State will give the Grantee instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. The Grantee’s response to the request shall comply with applicable law 10.2 Intellectual Property Rights (A) Intellectual Property Rights. The State owns all rights, title, and interest in all of the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under this contract. Works means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or originated by the Grantee, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this contract. Works includes “Documents.” Documents are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the Grantee, its employees, agents, or subcontractors, in the performance of this contract. The Documents will be the exclusive property of the State and all such Documents must be immediately returned to the State by the Grantee upon completion or cancellation of this contract. To the extent possible, those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act will be deemed to be “works made for hire.” The Grantee assigns all right, title, and interest it may page 37 Grant Contract Agreement template for Competitively awarded, single/sole source, or formula grant process to Municipality FY21: Updated June 2020 4 have in the Works and the Documents to the State. The Grantee must, at the request of the State, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the State’s ownership interest in the Works and Documents. (B)Obligations 1.Notification. Whenever any invention, improvement, or discovery (whether or not patentable) is made or conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice by the Grantee, including its employees and subcontractors, in the performance of this contract, the Grantee will immediately give the State’s Authorized Representative written notice thereof, and must promptly furnish the Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure thereon. 2.Representation.The Grantee must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure that all intellectual property rights in the Works and Documents are the sole property of the State, and that neither Grantee nor its employees, agents, or subcontractors retain any interest in and to the Works and Documents. The Grantee represents and warrants that the Works and Documents do not and will not infringe upon any intellectual property rights of other persons or entities. Notwithstanding Clause 8, the Grantee will indemnify; defend, to the extent permitted by the Attorney General; and hold harmless the State, at the Grantee’s expense, from any action or claim brought against the State to the extent that it is based on a claim that all or part of the Works or Documents infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others. The Grantee will be responsible for payment of any and all such claims, demands, obligations, liabilities, costs, and damages, including but not limited to, attorney fees. If such a claim or action arises, or in the Grantee’s or the State’s opinion is likely to arise, the Grantee must, at the State’s discretion, either procure for the State the right or license to use the intellectual property rights at issue or replace or modify the allegedly infringing Works or Documents as necessary and appropriate to obviate the infringement claim. This remedy of the State will be in addition to and not exclusive of other remedies provided by law. 11 Workers Compensation The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. §176.181, Subd. 2, pertaining to workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The Grantee’s employees and agents will not be considered State employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way the State’s obligation or responsibility. 12 Publicity and Endorsement 12.1 Publicity Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this grant contract agreement must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State’s Authorized Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Grantee individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from this grant contract. All projects primarily funded by state grant appropriations must publicly credit the State of Minnesota, including on the grantee’s website when practicable. 12.2 Signage Any site funded by this grant contract shall display a sign at a prominent location at the entrance to the site and in a form approved by the State that acknowledges funding through this grant. 13 Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this grant contract agreement. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this grant contract agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. page 38 Grant Contract Agreement template for Competitively awarded, single/sole source, or formula grant process to Municipality FY21: Updated June 2020 5 14 Termination 14.1 Termination by the State The State may immediately terminate this grant contract agreement with or without cause, upon 30 days’ written notice to the Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 14.2 Termination for Cause The State may immediately terminate this grant contract agreement if the State finds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this grant contract, that reasonable progress has not been made or that the purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. The State may take action to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed. 15 Data Disclosure Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, Subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Grantee consents to disclosure of its social security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Grantee to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any. 16 Affirmative Action and Non-Discrimination (a)The grantee agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status in regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a local commission, disability, sexual orientation, or age in regard to any position for which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified (Minn. Stat. 363A.02). The grantee agrees to take affirmative steps to employ, advance in employment, upgrade, train, and recruit minority persons, women, and persons with disabilities. (b)The grantee must not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of physical or mental disability in regard to any position for which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. The grantee agrees to take affirmative action to employ, advance in employment, and otherwise treat qualified disabled persons without discrimination based upon their physical or mental disability in all employment practices such as the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship, (Minnesota Rules, part 5000.3500). (c)The grantee agrees to comply with the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 17 Americans with Disabilities Act and Final Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas The Grantee shall construct, operate, and maintain all facilities and programs in compliance with all state and federal accessibility laws, regulations, and guidelines including the Final Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas. Information on compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act is available at U.S. Access Board. 18 Reporting The Grantee shall submit a progress report, in a form prescribed by the State, by January 1 of each year during the term of this grant contract. A final report must be submitted with the request for final reimbursement. Forms will be provided by the State. page 39 Grant Contract Agreement template for Competitively awarded, single/sole source, or formula grant process to Municipality FY21: Updated June 2020 6 19 Inspections The State’s authorized representatives shall be allowed, at any time, to conduct periodic site visits and inspections to ensure work progress in accordance with this grant contract, including a final inspection upon project completion. Following closure of the project, the State’s authorized representatives shall be allowed to conduct post-completion inspections of the site to ensure that the site is being properly operated and maintained and that no conversion of use has occurred. 20 Resource Management and Protection The Grantee shall protect, manage and maintain, or cause to maintain, the property acquired and/or developed pursuant to this grant contract. Properties shall be kept reasonably safe for public use, if applicable. All state and federal accessibility laws, regulations and standards shall be adhered to. Vegetation management and similar safeguards and supervision shall be provided to the extent feasible. Buildings, roads, trails and other structures and improvements, if any, shall be kept in reasonable repair throughout their estimated lifetime to prevent undue deterioration. The Grantee shall keep the facility open to the general public at reasonable hours and at times of the year consistent with the purpose and type of use of the property and appropriate management and protection of natural resources. 21 Invasive Species Prevention Grantees and subcontractors must follow Minnesota DNR’s Operational Order 113, which requires preventing or limiting the introduction, establishment and spread of invasive species during activities on public waters and DNR-administered lands. This applies to all activities performed on all lands under this grant agreement and is not limited to lands under DNR control or public waters. Operational Order 113 is incorporated into this contract by reference. Duties are listed in Op Order 113 under Sections II and III (p. 5-8). The grantee shall prevent invasive species from entering into or spreading within a project site by cleaning equipment and clothing prior to arriving at the project site. If the equipment or clothing arrives at the project site with soil, aggregate material, mulch, vegetation (including seeds) or animals, it shall be cleaned by Grantee furnished tool or equipment (brush/broom, compressed air or pressure washer) at the staging area. The Grantee or subcontractor shall dispose of material cleaned from equipment and clothing at a location determined by the Grantee or their representative. If the material cannot be disposed of onsite, secure material prior to transport (sealed container, covered truck, or wrap with tarp) and legally dispose of offsite. 22 Conflict of Interest It is the policy of the State to work to deliberately avoid actual, potential and perceived conflict of interests related to grant making at both the individual and organizational levels. A conflict of interest (actual, potential, or perceived) occurs when a person has actual or apparent duty or loyalty to more than one organization and the competing duties or loyalties may result in actions which are adverse to one or both parties. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical, improper, or illegal act results from it. The Grantee, by signing this contract with the State, certifies it has read and understands the Office of Grants Management Conflict of Interest Policy 08-01, will maintain an adequate Conflict of Interest Policy and, throughout the term of the contract, monitor and report any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest to the State’s Authorized Representative. 23 Minnesota Historical Sites Act and Minnesota Field Archaeology Act For projects involving land acquisition and/or construction, the State Historic Preservation Office must review the project to determine if the site is a potential location for historical or archeological findings. page 40 Grant Contract Agreement template for Competitively awarded, single/sole source, or formula grant process to Municipality FY21: Updated June 2020 7 If the State Historic Preservation Office determines that a survey is required, the survey would need to be completed prior to any site disturbance for development projects and prior to the final reimbursement of the grant funds for acquisition projects. 24 Pollinator Best Management Practices Habitat restorations and enhancements conducted on DNR lands and prairie restorations on state lands or on any lands using state funds are subject to pollinator best management practices and habitat restoration guidelines pursuant to Minn. Stat. 84.973. Practices and guidelines ensure an appropriate diversity of native species to provide habitat for pollinators through the growing season. Current specific practices and guidelines to be followed for contract and grant work can be found here: Link to December 2014 version. 25 Conservation Corps Minnesota The Grantee must give consideration to contracting with Conservation Corps Minnesota for contract restoration and enhancement services. 26 Purchasing Recycled and Recyclable Materials The Grantee must use this funding in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.0725, regarding purchasing recycled, repairable, and durable materials and Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.073, regarding purchasing and using paper stock and printing. 27 Energy Conservation and Sustainable Building Guidelines The Grantee must ensure that the project complies with the applicable energy conservation and sustainable building guidelines and standards contained in law, including Minnesota Statutes, sections 16B.325, 216C.19, and 216C.20, and rules adopted under those sections. The recipient may use the energy planning, advocacy, and State Energy Office units of the Department of Commerce to obtain information and technical assistance on energy conservation and alternative-energy development relating to planning and constructing the capital improvement project. 28 Single Audit All state and local governments, colleges and universities, and non-profit organizations that expend $750,000 or more of Federal awards in a fiscal year must have a single audit according to the new OMB Uniform Guidance: Cost Principles, Audit, and Administrative Awards Requirements for Federal Awards. This is $750,000 total Federal awards received from all sources. If an audit is completed, forward a copy of the report to both the State's Authorized Representative and the State Auditor. 29 Natural and Scenic Area Program Requirements The Grantee will comply with the requirements of Attachment B, Natural and Scenic Area Program Requirements. page 41 Grant Contract Agreement template for Competitively awarded, single/sole source, or formula grant process to Municipality FY21: Updated June 2020 8 1. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Stat.§16A.15 Signed: Date: SWIFT Contract/PO No(s). 2. GRANTEE The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the grant contract agreement on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances. By: Title: Date: By: Title: Date: 3. STATE AGENCY By: (with delegated authority) Title: Date: Distribution: Agency Grantee State’s Authorized Representative 180245/SWIFT PO# 3000175210 Karen Potvin Digitally signed by Karen Potvin Date: 2020.07.23 08:42:45 -05'00' page 42 Attachment A - Project Budget Project Component Mendota HeightsRecipient:City of Pilot KnobNS21-001Grant: Project Scope Acquire a 0.94-acre residential property as an addition to the 25-acre Oheyawahe (Dakota name meaning “a sacred place much visited: the place where people go for burials”)/Historic Pilot Knob (O/HPK) which was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2017. Grant Amount: Acquire .94 acres $192,500 $385,000 Total Cost Cost $385,000 Notes / Conditions Local Match: Total Cost: $192,500 $385,000 Jul 15, 2020 page 43 Attachment B Natural and Scenic Areas Grant Program Requirements 1.Natural and Scenic Area Program A.Compatible Use and Availability: Outdoor recreation use of natural and scenic areas should be limited to passive outdoor recreation activities, such as nature observation, walking or hiking, bird watching, cross country skiing, snow shoeing, canoeing, photography and similar low impact activities. In some cases, environmental education activities may be appropriate. Limited facilities to support these activities, such as trails, overlooks, interpretive displays, benches, informational and boundary signing, protective fencing, and parking, are allowable uses. In some cases, rest room facilities and limited picnic facilities may also be compatible. Future facilities shown on Attachment C are acceptable. All development should be designed to avoid damage to natural resources and features, steer activities away from sensitive areas (such as steep bluffs, erosion prone shorelines, rare plant communities, etc.), and discourage inappropriate recreational use. Facilities must meet all safety and accessibility standards. The area shall be signed as open and available to the public for outdoor recreation use and be accessible from parking by a trail meeting ADA accessibility requirements within one year from the official close out of the grant. Any existing man-made structures shall be removed or made available for outdoor recreation use within three years from the date of acquisition. B.Land Retention: Any lands acquired or developed with assistance from the Natural and Scenic Areas grant program must be retained solely for the uses proposed in the Grantee’s application. No other use can be made of these lands without prior written approval of the State acting through its commissioner of natural resources. The State will consider requests to convert these lands to other uses only if all practical alternatives have been evaluated and rejected on a sound basis and replacement lands of equal or greater fair market value and reasonably equivalent usefulness are acquired and dedicated to the uses proposed in the Grantee’s application. C.Deed Restriction The Grantee shall have the following condition recorded with the deed to all lands within the park as described in Attachment C to this agreement and submit an attested copy of the deed and the condition to the State: In order to comply with the Department of Natural Resources Natural and Scenic Area Project Agreement NS21-001, the City of Mendota Heights does hereby impose the following restrictions on the property described in Attachment C to that agreement: page 44 1. The property shall be managed and maintained consistent with the purpose and type of property acquired using appropriate management practices to protect the natural and/or scenic resources. 2. The Grantee shall not at any time convert any portion of this property to uses other than permitted in this Agreement without the prior written approval of the State acting through its commissioner of natural resources. 3. In accordance with Minnesota statute 116P.15, this interest in real property shall be administered in accordance with the terms, conditions, and purposes of the grant agreement or work program controlling the acquisition of the property. The interest in real property, or any portion of the interest in real property, shall not be sold, transferred, pledged, or otherwise disposed of or further encumbered without obtaining the prior written approval of the legislative citizens commission on Minnesota resources or its successor. If the holder of the interest in real property fails to comply with the terms and condition of the grant agreement or work program, ownership of the interest in real property shall transfer to this state. 2.MN Environment & Natural Resources Trust Fund A.Land Retention pursuant to Minnesota Statute 116P.5 An interest in real property acquired with an appropriation from the trust fund must be used in perpetuity or for the specific term of an easement interest for the purpose for which the appropriation was made. A recipient of funding who acquires an interest in real property subject to this section may not alter the intended use of such interest in real property or convey any interest in the real property acquired with the appropriation without the prior review and approval of the Legislative Citizens Commission on Minnesota Resources. The commission shall establish procedures to review requests from recipients to alter the use of or convey an interest in real property. These procedures shall allow for the replacement of the interest in real property with another interest in real property meeting the following criteria: (1)the interest is at least equal in fair market value as certified by the commissioner of natural resources to the interest being replaced; and (2)the interest is in a reasonably equivalent location and has a reasonably equivalent usefulness compared to the interest being replaced. 2. ANNUAL REPORTING OF THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED Minnesota Statute 116P.16 requires an annual verification to the LCCMR that purchased page 45 property remains in the use for the project to which the state appropriated money. By December 1 each year, a recipient of an appropriation from the trust fund that is used for the acquisition of an interest in real property must submit annual reports on the status of the real property to the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources in a form determined by the commission. The responsibility for reporting under this section may be transferred by the recipient of the appropriation to another person who holds the interest in the real property. The Grantee is responsible for the reporting requirements under 116P.16. 3.Restoration Plan <<if applicable>> For new land acquired, the Grantee must prepare a restoration and management plan that, to the degree practicable, is consistent with the highest quality conservation and ecological goals for the restoration site. Consideration should be given to soil, geology, topography, and other relevant factors that would provide the best chance for long-term success of the restoration projects. The plan must include the proposed timetable for implementing the restoration, including site preparation, establishment of diverse plant species, maintenance, and additional enhancement to establish the restoration; identify long-term maintenance and management needs of the restoration and how the maintenance, management, and enhancement will be financed; and take advantage of the best available science and include innovative techniques to achieve the best restoration, including sufficient funding for implementation. page 46  M     &.#+"&-. .. %+)*#".".**'!"*.*,*). .. +*+&.%+)*#"."#&.,#$!"*. +*+(.%+)*#"."#&.,#$!"*.".$&#$&*-. &". .,&).#".&    . . .  *. page 47 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Grading Permit for 1879 Dodd Road COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a grading permit for 1879 Dodd Road. BACKGROUND City Ordinance 14-1 requires that properties proposing any land disturbance activity in excess of 5,000 square feet apply for a grading permit if not part a separate approval process. DISCUSSION The City Council approved a lot line adjustment of 1865 and 1883 Dodd Road at their May 5, 2020 meeting. The lot line adjustment resulted in a buildable lot being created per the original survey. This new lot is addressed as 1879 Dodd Road. Staff has been working with the home owner on a wetland delineation and grading plan. Attached are the proposed site plans for the new home showing a temporary grading plan as the wetland delineation is not yet complete. This site will be required to protect the potential wetland feature until a final determination is made which will then either be exempt or will require wetland mitigation. The home owner has been working with a professional engineer and is creating three infiltration areas based on public testimony at the public hearing. A storm water management report is also included for review. The home owner is looking to take advantage of excess fill from the Village Lots construction which will benefit both this site and Grande Real Estate. This project will be subject to the rules and regulations of the Mendota Heights’ Land Disturbance Guidance Document. BUDGET IMPACT The Mendota Heights fee schedule identifies a $200 fee for this activity to cover staff time in reviewing and inspecting the improvements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve the grading permit for 1879 Dodd Road. page 48 ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion authorizing staff to issue the Grading Permit for the 1879 Dodd Road. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 49 PERMITCADD USER: Benjamin Lucas FILE: C:\USERS\BLUCAS\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\200605 - GUSTAFSON PROPERTIES - DODD ROAD\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C100 - EC & REM.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 7/30/2020 1:13 PM( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALESBINKnow what'sR1865 & 1883 DODD ROAD, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118BENJAMIN LUCAS07.30.202054265200605DODD ROAD PROPERTIES MASS GRADINGMATT GUSTAFSON07/08/20BJLC100EXISTING CONDITIONS &REMOVALS PLANBJLMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNCOPYRIGHT © 2020 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATEDESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATION07/08/2020GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL#01DESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:BENCHMARKS (BM)07/17/2020DRIVEWAY LAYOUT REVISION0207/30/2020FRONT YARD LAYOUT REVISION03GENERAL SITE DEMOLITION AND CLEARING NOTES:LEGENDEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEREMOVALSLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURTOPOGRAPHIC INDEX CONTOUR802800CURB & GUTTERSTORM SEWERSANITARY SEWERWATERMAIN|DRAINTILEGAS LINEUNDERGROUND ELECTRICTELEPHONESWALESPOT ELEVATIONFLARED END SECTION OUTLET800.00RIP RAPSIGN & BOLLARDADA PAVEMENT MARKINGBUILDINGOVERHEAD ELECTRICFLARED END SECTION INLETCOLIGHT POLESOIL BORINGSPARKING STALL COUNTCURB AND GUTTERREMOVE EXISTINGBITUMINOUS PAVEMENTBUILDING REMOVALSAWCUTREMOVE PIPETREE PROTECTIONREMOVALREMOVALCONCRETE REMOVALBJLpage 50 COPYRIGHT © 2020 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATEDESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATION07/08/2020GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL#01DESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:BENCHMARKS (BM)07/17/2020DRIVEWAY LAYOUT REVISION0207/30/2020FRONT YARD LAYOUT REVISION03PERMITCADD USER: Benjamin Lucas FILE: C:\USERS\BLUCAS\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\200605 - GUSTAFSON PROPERTIES - DODD ROAD\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C200 - EROS.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 7/30/2020 1:13 PM( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALESBINKnow what'sRBENJAMIN LUCAS07.30.20205426520060507/08/20BJLC200EROSION & SEDIMENTCONTROL PLAN - PH IBJLLEGENDPROPOSEDPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURTOPOGRAPHIC INDEX CONTOUR802800802800CURB & GUTTERSTORM SEWERDRAINTILESWALEFLARED END SECTION OUTLETRIP RAPCONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEEROSION CONTROL BLANKETTREE PROTECTION RINGBUILDINGFLARED END SECTION INLETGUTTER OUT CURBSILT FENCESFSOIL BORINGSDIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOWBIO-ROLLBJLITEMSILT FENCEUNITLINEAR FEETQUANTITY860CONSTRUCTION ROCK ENTRANCE EACH1PHASE I EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS QUANTITIESBIO LOGLINEAR FEET450GENERAL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES:TREE PROTECTION RINGEACH141865 & 1883 DODD ROAD, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118DODD ROAD PROPERTIES MASS GRADINGMATT GUSTAFSONMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNpage 51 PERMITCADD USER: Benjamin Lucas FILE: C:\USERS\BLUCAS\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\200605 - GUSTAFSON PROPERTIES - DODD ROAD\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C200 - EROS.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 7/30/2020 1:14 PM( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALESBINKnow what'sR1865 & 1883 DODD ROAD, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118BENJAMIN LUCAS07.30.202054265200605DODD ROAD PROPERTIES MASS GRADINGMATT GUSTAFSON07/08/20BJLC201EROSION & SEDIMENTCONTROL PLAN - PH IIBJLMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNCOPYRIGHT © 2020 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATEDESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATION07/08/2020GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL#01DESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:BENCHMARKS (BM)07/17/2020DRIVEWAY LAYOUT REVISION0207/30/2020FRONT YARD LAYOUT REVISION03LEGENDPROPOSEDPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURTOPOGRAPHIC INDEX CONTOUR802800802800CURB & GUTTERSTORM SEWERDRAINTILESWALEWETLANDFLARED END SECTION OUTLETRIP RAPCONSTRUCTION ENTRANCETREE PROTECTION RINGBUILDINGFLARED END SECTION INLETSILT FENCESFSOIL BORINGSDIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOWBIO-ROLLITEMSILT FENCEUNITLINEAR FEETQUANTITY600CONSTRUCTION ROCK ENTRANCE EACH1EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS QUANTITIESBIO LOGLINEAR FEET580BJLGENERAL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES:PAVEMENT AREA 2,205 SFBUILDING AREA4,487 SFSEEDING AREA34,322 SFPRE-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS 0 SFPOST-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS 6,692 SFAREA SUMMARYDISTURBED AREA41,014 SFTREE PROTECTION RINGEACH17page 52   ϬϳͲϮϵͲϮϬ  ϭϴϲϱΘϭϴϴϯKZK͗^dKZDtdZDE'DEdW>E Ϯ <'ZKhE dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŐƌĂĚŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚϭϴϲϱΘϭϴϴϯŽĚĚZŽĂĚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨDĞŶĚŽƚĂ,ĞŝŐŚƚƐ͕DŝŶŶĞƐŽƚĂ ;͞^ŝƚĞ͟Ϳ͘dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝůůĐŽŶƐŝƐƚŽĨƐƉůŝƚƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƚǁŽĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐĂŶĚĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐƚŚƌĞĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůŽƚƐĂŶĚ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŶŐĂŶĞǁƐŝŶŐůĞĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞǁŝƚŚĂĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJ͕ƌĞƚĂŝŶŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͕ĂŶĚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚDWƐ͘^ŝŶĐĞ ƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůůĂŶĚĚŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐƵŶĚĞƌĂŶĂĐƌĞ͕ǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂŶĚDWƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐĚŽŶŽƚĂƉƉůLJĨŽƌ ƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĚĞƐŝŐŶ͘dŚĞŝƚLJ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ŚĂƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůůŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞŵĞƚĨŽƌƌĂƚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽů ĂŶĚǀŽůƵŵĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůŽŶƚŚŝƐƐŝƚĞ͕ĂŶĚŝƐƚŚĞ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐhŶŝƚ;>'hͿĨŽƌƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌΘŐƌĂĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŵŝƚƚŝŶŐ͘dŚĞ ƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƐŝƚĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƌƵůĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞ ŐƌĂĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŵŝƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌDĞŶĚŽƚĂ,ĞŝŐŚƚƐ͘ ZĂƚĞŽŶƚƌŽů͗dŚĞŝƚLJƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌƵŶŽĨĨƌĂƚĞĨƌŽŵƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŚĂůůŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŽƌĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞ ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĨůŽǁƌĂƚĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞϮ͕ϭϬ͕ĂŶĚϭϬϬͲϳϰϮϰͲŚŽƵƌƌĂŝŶĨĂůůĞǀĞŶƚƐ͘ sŽůƵŵĞŽŶƚƌŽů͗dŚĞƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬĨŽƌƌƵŶŽĨĨǀŽůƵŵĞƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŝƐĞƋƵŝǀĂůĞŶƚƚŽϭ͘ϭŝŶĐŚĞƐŽĨƌƵŶŽĨĨŽĨĨ ĂůůŶĞǁŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐ͘ tĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ͗ŶŽƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůůĂŶĚĚŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐƵŶĚĞƌĂŶĂĐƌĞ͘ ^dKZDtdZDE'DEdW>E dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŽĞdžƉůĂŝŶƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶůŝŵŝƚƐŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚϭϴϲϱΘϭϴϴϯŽĚĚZŽĂĚŝŶDĞŶĚŽƚĂ,ĞŝŐŚƚƐ͕DŝŶŶĞƐŽƚĂ͘dŚĞ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶůŝŵŝƚƐĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĨŽƌϭ͘ϯϴĂĐƌĞƐŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĂŶĚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZKt͕ĞŶĐŽŵƉĂƐƐŝŶŐƚŚĞƉůĂŶŶĞĚůŝŵŝƚƐĨŽƌ ŵĂƐƐŐƌĂĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͕ĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŶĞǁƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞĂŶĚƵƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘dŚĞůĂŶĚĚŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞŽŶůLJĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĨŽƌϬ͘ϵϳ ĂĐƌĞƐ͘ůůĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJůŝŶĞĨůŽǁƐŽĨĨƐŝƚĞƚŽŝƚLJƐƚŽƌŵƐĞǁĞƌĂŶĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞƚŽƚŚĞ ƌƵŶŽĨĨƚŚĂƚŝƐƚŽďĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚďLJĂŶLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚDW͕ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞĂůůĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJůŝŶĞŝƐŶŽƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘^ĞĞƉƉĞŶĚŝdžĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĂŝŶĂŐĞDĂƉƐǁŝƚŚ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶůŝŵŝƚƐ͘ džŝƐƚŝŶŐ^ŝƚĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐƐŚŽǁƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŽŶͲƐŝƚĞ͘dŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚLJŽĨƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞ ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨĂŶĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞǀĞƌƚŝĐĂůĐŚĂŶŐĞŽĨϴͲϭϬĨĞĞƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJůŝŶĞŝŶǁĂƌĚƚŽƚŚĞĐĞŶƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ͘dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƚǁŽƐŝŶŐůĞĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞƐǁŝƚŚĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJƐĂŶĚĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌĚĞĐŬƐ͕ǁŝƚŚŽŶĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŚĂǀŝŶŐĂ ƵƚŝůŝƚLJƐŚĞĚ͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐĂŵĂŶŵĂĚĞǁĞƚůĂŶĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞƚǁŽĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽŵĞƐƚŚĂƚĐŽůůĞĐƚƐƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞ͛Ɛ ƌƵŶŽĨĨ͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĞdžĐĞƉƚŽĨƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞĐŽƌŶĞƌƐŽĨƚŚĞƚǁŽƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ͘dŚŝƐǁĞƚůĂŶĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚĂǀĞĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĚ ŽƵƚůĞƚ͕ŝŶƐƚĞĂĚƚŚĞƌƵŶŽĨĨƉƌĞƐƵŵĂďůLJŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ŽƌĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůLJŽǀĞƌĨůŽǁƐĂƚĂŶĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJϰĨĞĞƚ ĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞďŽƚƚŽŵŽĨƚŚĞǁĞƚůĂŶĚĂŶĚĨůŽǁƐƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽĨĨƐŝƚĞ͘ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞŶĞǁƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞĂŶĚƚŚĞĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJ͘WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDWƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ĂƐŵĂůůŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶŝŶƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚLJĂƌĚ͕ƚŚĂƚǁŝůůŽǀĞƌĨůŽǁƚŽŽĚĚZŽĂĚ͘dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞĂůƐŽƚǁŽŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶƐ ;ĚĞƉƌĞƐƐĞĚĂƌĞĂƐͿŝŶƚŚĞďĂĐŬLJĂƌĚŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂŶĚƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚŚĂƚƐŚĂƌĞĂŶĞƋƵĂůŝnjŝŶŐƉŝƉĞ ĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJŽǀĞƌĨůŽǁ͘dŚĞƌƵŶŽĨĨĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƌŽŽĨǁŝůůĂůƐŽďĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶŝŶƚŚĞďĂĐŬLJĂƌĚ ƉƌŝŽƌƚŽďĞŝŶŐƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞ͘ tĞĂŶĂůLJnjĞĚƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ^ŝƚĞŚLJĚƌŽůŽŐLJƵƐŝŶŐ,LJĚƌŽ͘dŽĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌƵŶŽĨĨƌĂƚĞƐ͕ƌƵŶŽĨĨǀŽůƵŵĞ͕ĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ͕ǁĞƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚŚLJĚƌŽůŽŐLJŵŽĚĞůŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ^ŝƚĞ͘tĞĚŝǀŝĚĞĚƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞŝŶƚŽĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐ͕ŝŶƉƵƚůĂŶĚƵƐĞ͕ƐŽŝůƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐƚŽƌĂŐĞ͕ĂŶĚ ƉƌĞĐŝƉŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĚĞƉƚŚƐĐŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽƌŵƐ͘  page 53   ϬϳͲϮϵͲϮϬ  ϭϴϲϱΘϭϴϴϯKZK͗^dKZDtdZDE'DEdW>E ϯ y/^d/E'KE/d/KE>h>d/KE^ dŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ^ŝƚĞĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚĂǀĞĂŶLJŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ>ŝŵŝƚƐ͘dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŶŽĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ ƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌDWƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶůŝŵŝƚƐ͕ƚŚĞƌƵŶŽĨĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞĚƌĂŝŶƐƚŽƚŚĞĐĞŶƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐƚŽĂ ŵĂŶŵĂĚĞǁĞƚůĂŶĚ͕ǁŝƚŚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƐĚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐŽĨĨƐŝƚĞĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĐŽƌŶĞƌƐ͘dŚĞƵŶĚĞƌůLJŝŶŐƐŽŝůƐŽŶƚŚŝƐ ^ŝƚĞǁĞƌĞůĂƌŐĞůLJĨŽƵŶĚƚŽďĞƐŝůƚLJůŽĂŵ;^DͿƚLJƉĞƐŽŝůƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘^ŝŶĐĞƚŚĞƌĞǁĂƐŶŽŐĞŽƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂů ĞdžƉůŽƌĂƚŝŽŶĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞƚŝŵĞŽĨƚŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚ͕ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵtĞď^Žŝů^ƵƌǀĞLJǁĂƐƵƐĞĚƚŽĂƐƐƵŵĞƚŚĞƐŽŝů ƚLJƉĞƐŽŶͲƐŝƚĞ͕ƐĞĞŵĂƉĂŶĚĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐŝŶƉƉĞŶĚŝdžĨŽƌŵŽƌĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞƐĞ͞^D͟ƚLJƉĞƐŽŝůƐĂƌĞĐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĞĚ ĂƐ͟͞ƐŽŝůƐǁŝƚŚĂŶŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƌĂƚĞŽĨϬ͘ϰϱŝŶͬŚƌ͘dŚĞϭ͘ϭ͟ǀŽůƵŵĞƌĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞŵĞƚĂƐƚŚĞ ŝŶƐƚĂŶƚĂŶĞŽƵƐǀŽůƵŵĞďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞďŽƚƚŽŵŽĨƚŚĞDWĂŶĚƚŚĞůŽǁĞƐƚŽƵƚůĞƚŽƉĞŶŝŶŐ͘ŶĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞĂƌĞĂ ĞdžŚŝďŝƚŝƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƉƉĞŶĚŝdžĨŽƌƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͘ WZKWK^KE/d/KE>h>d/KE^ dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞǁŝůůĂĚĚĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJ6,692ƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚŽĨŶĞǁŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐƚŽƚŚĞ ^ŝƚĞ͘ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐĞƌŝĞƐŽĨŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶƐĂŶĚƉĞƌĨŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŝƉĞƐĂƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽĐŽŶƚƌŽůƚŚĞƌƵŶŽĨĨƌĂƚĞĂŶĚ ƌĞƚĂŝŶĂƚůĞĂƐƚϭ͘ϭ͟ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŶĞǁŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐĂƌĞĂďĞĨŽƌĞĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐŝŶŐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘dŚĞŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶƐŚĂǀĞ ďĞĞŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚĞŶŽƵŐŚƐƚŽƌĂŐĞƚŽĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƌĂŝŶĞǀĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽŶƚƌŽůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨ ƚŚĞŝƚLJ͘dŚĞĨƌŽŶƚLJĂƌĚŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶŝƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚŽŶůLJĂŶŽǀĞƌůĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJŽǀĞƌĨůŽǁĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚƚŽǁĂƌĚ ŽĚĚƌŽĂĚ͘WĞƌĨŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŝƉĞƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽĞƋƵĂůŝnjĞƚŚĞƚǁŽůĂƌŐĞƌŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŽĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞ ƚŚĞĞdžĐĞƐƐƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƌƵŶŽĨĨĂďŽǀĞƚŚĞϭ͘ϭ͟ƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶǀŽůƵŵĞ͘džŝƐƚŝŶŐĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞƉĂƚƚĞƌŶƐŝŶƚŚĞZKtĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚǁŚĞŶƚLJŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŐƌĂĚĞƐďĂĐŬŝŶƚŽƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŐƌŽƵŶĚĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ƐĞĞ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞƌĞĂƐdžŚŝďŝƚŝŶƉƉĞŶĚŝdž͘   dŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĞŶŽƵŐŚƉĞĂŬĨůŽǁƌĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞϮͲ͕ϭϬͲ͕ĂŶĚϭϬϬͲLJĞĂƌĞǀĞŶƚƐ͕ƚŚƌĞĞŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶƐĂƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ͘ LJĐĂƉƚƵƌŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĞƚĂŝŶŝŶŐƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƌƵŶŽĨĨĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞ͕ƚŚĞƉĞĂŬŽĨĨͲƐŝƚĞĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞŝƐ ĂƚƚĞŶƵĂƚĞĚďĞůŽǁƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƌƵŶŽĨĨƌĂƚĞƐĂƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďLJƚŚĞŝƚLJ͘dĂďůĞϭƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůƉĞĂŬƌĂƚĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ ^ŝƚĞ͘ dĂďůĞϭ dŽƚĂůWĞĂŬZƵŶŽĨĨZĂƚĞƐ        ϭ^ĞĞƉƉĞŶĚŝdž,LJĚƌŽƌĞƉŽƌƚ͗džŝƐƚŝŶŐ͘ Ϯ^ĞĞƉƉĞŶĚŝdž,LJĚƌŽƌĞƉŽƌƚ͗WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ͘ sK>hDKEdZK> dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶƐĂƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚǀŽůƵŵĞƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬŝŶŵŝŶĚ͘dŚĞŽƵƚůĞƚƐ ĂƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚĂŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĚĞƉƚŚŽĨϭ͘ϴĨĞĞƚƚŽĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĂĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚƌĂǁĚŽǁŶŽĨƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŝŶϰϴŚŽƵƌƐŽƌ ůĞƐƐ͕ĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐĂŶŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƌĂƚĞŽĨϬ͘ϰϱŝŶͬŚƌ͘dŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬǀŽůƵŵĞŝƐĂƐƐƵŵĞĚƚŽďĞĂŶ ZĂŝŶĨĂůůǀĞŶƚ ;ϮϰŚŽƵƌͲƚůĂƐϭϰͿ džŝƐƚŝŶŐZƵŶŽĨĨ ZĂƚĞ;ĐĨƐͿϭ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚZƵŶŽĨĨ ZĂƚĞ;ĐĨƐͿϮ ϮͲLJƌϬ͘ϰϳ Ϭ͘ϰϴ ϭϬͲLJƌϭ͘ϳϳ ϭ͘ϱϳ ϭϬϬͲLJƌϲ͘Ϭϵϱ͘ϱϲ page 54   ϬϳͲϮϵͲϮϬ  ϭϴϲϱΘϭϴϴϯKZK͗^dKZDtdZDE'DEdW>E ϰ ŝŶƐƚĂŶƚĂŶĞŽƵƐǀŽůƵŵĞďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞŽƵƚůĞƚĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƚŚĞďŽƚƚŽŵĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞďĂƐŝŶ͘^ĞĞƚŚĞĐĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ďĞůŽǁĨŽƌƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶƐ͗ ࢃࢇ࢚ࢋ࢘ࡽ࢛ࢇ࢒࢏࢚࢟ࢂ࢕࢒࢛࢓ࢋሺࢉࢌሻ ൌ ሺࡺࢋ࢝ࡵ࢓࢖ࢋ࢘࢜࢏࢕࢛࢙࡭࢘ࢋࢇሻ ൈ ૚Ǥ૚࢏࢔൬ ૚ࢌ࢚ ૚૛࢏࢔൰ ൌሺૡǡ૛ૢ૞࢙ࢌሻ ൈ૚Ǥ૚࢏࢔൬ ૚ࢌ࢚ ૚૛࢏࢔൰ ൌ ૠ૟૙Ǥ૜ૡࢉࢌ dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶǀŽůƵŵĞƐŽĨƚŚĞ/ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƐŝŶƐĂƌĞĂƐĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗ &ƌŽŶƚ/ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƐŝŶ͗ ŽƚƚŽŵ ϴϴϯ͘ϬĨĞĞƚ K& ϴϴϰ͘ϮϱĨĞĞƚ ϭϬϬͲLJƌWĞĂŬůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ ϴϴϰ͘ϰϮĨĞĞƚ ĚũĂĐĞŶƚ&ŝŶŝƐŚĞĚ&ůŽŽƌůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ ϴϴϳ͘ϮϱĨĞĞƚ  ƋƵĂůŝnjĞĚ/ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƐŝŶ͗ ŽƚƚŽŵ ϴϳϲ͘ϳĨĞĞƚ KƵƚůĞƚ ϴϳϵ͘ϱϬĨĞĞƚ K& ϴϴϬ͘ϵϱĨĞĞƚ ϭϬϬͲLJƌWĞĂŬůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ ϴϴϬ͘ϰϳĨĞĞƚ ĚũĂĐĞŶƚ&ŝŶŝƐŚĞĚ&ůŽŽƌůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ ϴϴϰ͘ϬϬĨĞĞƚ ^/DEdΘZK^/KEKEdZK> ƵƌŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐƐƵĐŚĂƐƐŝůƚĨĞŶĐĞ͕ŝŶůĞƚƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĚƵƐƚĐŽŶƚƌŽů͕ƌŽĐŬĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞǁŝůůďĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚƉĞƌƚŚĞƉůĂŶƐ͘WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚDWƐƐƵĐŚĂƐƚŚĞŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶƐ͕ĂŶĚĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚƚƵƌĨ ĐŽǀĞƌΘƐǁĂůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽƉĞƌůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚƉĞƌƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚďLJƚŚĞŚŽŵĞŽǁŶĞƌ͘ KE>h^/KE dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶĨŽƌƚŚĞŐƌĂĚŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĨŽƌƚŚĞϭϴϲϱΘϭϴϴϯŽĚĚZŽĂĚ^ŝƚĞǁŝůů ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌďĞƐƚŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞƌĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ DĞŶĚŽƚĂ,ĞŝŐŚƚ͛ƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƌĂƚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽů͕ĂŶĚǀŽůƵŵĞĐŽŶƚƌŽů͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶ ĨŽƌƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌDWƐ͗ƚŚƌĞĞŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶƐ͕ŐƌĂƐƐĞĚƐǁĂůĞƐĂŶĚŶĂƚƵƌĂů ůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐ͘ dŚĞ^ŝƚĞǁĂƐŵŽĚĞůĞĚƵƐŝŶŐ,LJĚƌŽĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚϮͲ͕ϭϬͲ͕ĂŶĚϭϬϬͲLJĞĂƌƐƚŽƌŵĞǀĞŶƚƐƚŽĐŽŶĨŝƌŵ ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŵĞĞƚƐƚŚĞƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƌĂƚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƚLJ͘KƵƌĨŝŶĚŝŶŐƐŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞǁŝůů ƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůůLJĂĐŚŝĞǀĞƚŚĞŐŽĂůƐĨŽƌƉĞĂŬƌƵŶŽĨĨƌĂƚĞ͕ĂŶĚǀŽůƵŵĞĐŽŶƚƌŽů͘ page 55   ϬϳͲϮϵͲϮϬ  ϭϴϲϱΘϭϴϴϯKZK͗^dKZDtdZDE'DEdW>E  WWE/y͗Z/E'Zy,//d^  page 56 DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: St. Thomas Academy Amendments Comment: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve an amendment to provisions for $6.31 million in bonds which were issued in 2010 for a St. Thomas Academy construction project. BACKGROUND St. Thomas Academy is seeking approval from the City to provide for amendments to the note previously issued in 2010 for their middle school addition and renovation of existing facilities. There is a letter attached explaining their request and the impacts to the City. The City is not responsible for payment of the note but it is required to approve any amendments to the note. A representative from Taft law firm will be in attendance if you have any additional questions regarding this request. BUDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact to the City. St. Thomas has paid the non-refundable fee of $1,500 and will be responsible for any City expenses that would exceed this amount. RECOMMENDATION If the city council wishes to authorize the amendments to the Education Facility Revenue Note (St. Thomas Academy Project), Council should pass a motion adopting the attached resolution: RESOLUTION 2020-48 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO EDUCATIONAL FACILITY REVENUE NOTE (ST. THOMAS ACADEMY PROJECT), SERIES 2010 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO. page 57 2200 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: 612.977.8400 | Fax: 612.977.8650 taftlaw.com 12701983v1 Catherine J. Courtney (612) 977-8765 ccourtney@taftlaw.com Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP Chicago / Cincinnati / Cleveland / Columbus / Dayton / Delaware / Denver / Indianapolis / Minneapolis / Northern Kentucky / Phoenix July 24, 2020 BY E-MAIL Mark McNeill Kristen Schabacker City Councilmembers City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4106 Re: Amendments to Educational Facilities Revenue Refunding Note, Series 2010 (St. Thomas Academy) Dear Councilmembers, Mr. McNeill, and Ms. Schabacker: In 2010, the City of Mendota Heights (the “City”) issued its $6,310,000 Educational Facilities Revenue Refunding Note, Series 2010 (St. Thomas Academy Project) (the “Note”). The proceeds of the Note were loaned to St. Thomas Academy (the “Academy”) pursuant to a loan agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) to refinance the City’s Variable Rate Demand Purchase Revenue Bonds (St. Thomas Academy Project) Series 1999, which were used to finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of a middle school addition and the renovation and remodeling of the Academy’s existing educational facilities, including the acquisition of unimproved land adjacent thereto and the expansion of a parking lot (the “Project”). The Note was sold to U.S. Bank National Association (the “Bank”). The City’s rights (except for certain reserved rights) and obligations under the Loan Agreement were assigned to the Bank. In 2015, the City, at the request of the Academy and the Bank, approved certain amendments to the Note and the Loan Agreement. The Academy and the Bank have agreed to make certain additional amendments to the Note. No amendments to the Loan Agreement are being made at this time. While these amendments do not have any direct effect on the City, they are of a nature that requires the City’s approval. The amendments also result in what is called a “reissuance” under the federal tax code. From a tax perspective, it is like a new note is being issued, but without all of the same necessary page 58 12701983v1 Mark McNeill July 24,2020 Page 2 procedures and documentation as the original issuance. It will require the filing of a new Form 8038 with the IRS. The Note, as amended, will remain a special limited obligation of the City. It shall not be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenues pledged to the payment of the Note, nor shall the City be subject to any liability on the Note. The Bank (or any other holder) shall not have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Note or the interest on the Note, or to enforce payment of the Note against any property of the City. The Note shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limit. The Note was designated as “bank qualified” in 2010. Due to federal tax law changes, with the reissuance as a result of the amendments in 2015, it was newly designated in 2015. However, there is no need to newly designate the Note as bank qualified in 2020. It is “deemed designated” based on the designation in 2015 and the nature of the 2020 amendments. Bank qualification gives certain favorable treatment to bank holders, like the Bank, and results in a lower interest rate for the borrowers. A city may designate only $10,000,000 of tax exempt obligations in each calendar year for its own governmental bonds and for bonds issued on behalf of 501(c)(3) organizations, like the Academy. Because the Note, as amended, can be deemed designated in 2020, the City’s full $10,000,000 bank-qualification capacity remains available to it for other uses in 2020. Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, as successor by merger to Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, as the City’s Bond Counsel, has prepared the resolution that has been presented to the City Council that approves the requested amendments to the Note and Loan Agreement. Taft has also drafted those amendment documents and drafted or reviewed other documents relevant to the transaction, on behalf of the City. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, Catherine J. Courtney CJC Enclosure page 59 Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was duly held at City Hall in said City on Tuesday, the 4th day of August, 2020 at ____ o'clock P.M. The following Council members were present: and the following were absent: Council member ___________________ then introduced and read the following written resolution and moved its adoption: A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES REVENUE REFUNDING NOTE (ST. THOMAS ACADEMY PROJECT), SERIES 2010 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member __________________, and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. page 60 RESOLUTION 2020-48 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES REVENUE REFUNDING NOTE (ST. THOMAS ACADEMY PROJECT), SERIES 2010 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the “City”), as follows: SECTION 1 LEGAL AUTHORIZATION AND FINDINGS. 1.1 Findings. The City hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: (1) The City, pursuant to Resolution 10-63 adopted on August 17, 2010 (the “Original Resolution”), has previously issued its revenue note in an original aggregate principal amount of $6,310,000 to provide funds that were loaned to St. Thomas Academy, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the “Borrower”), to refinance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of a middle school addition and the renovation and remodeling of the Borrower’s existing facilities, including the acquisition of unimproved land adjacent thereto and the expansion of a parking lot located in the City, which facilities are owned and operated by the Borrower (the “Project”). The Original Resolution was modified pursuant to Resolution 2015-56 adopted on July 21, 2015 (the “First Amendment Resolution” and, with the Original Resolution, the “Note Resolution”). (2) The City issued the Educational Facilities Revenue Refunding Note, Series 2010 (St. Thomas Academy Project) dated September 1, 2010, as amended by the Amendment to Educational Facilities Revenue Refunding Note, Series 2010 (St. Thomas Academy Project) dated September 1, 2015 (collectively, the “Note”), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.152 to 469.165, as amended (the “Act”), and sold the Note to U.S. Bank National Association, a national banking association (the “Lender”). (3) Pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated September 1, 2010, as amended by a First Amendment to Loan Agreement dated September 1, 2015 (collectively, the “Loan Agreement”) between the City, the Borrower, and the Lender, the Borrower agreed to repay the Note in specified amounts and at specified times sufficient to pay in full when due the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Note. In addition, the Loan Agreement contains provisions relating to the expenditure of proceeds of the Note, the maintenance and operation of the Project, indemnification, insurance, and other agreements and covenants which are required or permitted by the Act and which the City, the Borrower and Lender deem necessary or desirable for the financing of the Project. (4) Pursuant to a Pledge Agreement (the “Pledge Agreement”) dated September 1, 2010 between the City and the Lender, the City pledged and granted a security interest in all of its rights, title, and interest in the Loan Agreement to the Lender (except for certain rights of indemnification and to reimbursement for certain costs and expenses). page 61 (5) The Lender and the Borrower have informed the City that they have agreed to certain changes in the terms of the Note. (6) The form of Second Amendment to Note between the City, the Borrower, and the Lender, proposed to be entered into in order to document changes in the terms of the Note has been submitted to the City Council and is on file in the office of the City Clerk (the “Note Amendment”). SECTION 2 AUTHORIZATION OF NOTE AMENDMENT. 2.1 Approval and Execution of Note Amendment. (1) The Note Amendment are made a part of this Resolution as though fully set forth herein and are hereby approved in substantially the form presented to the City Council. The Mayor and the Administrator are authorized and directed to execute, acknowledge, and deliver the Note Amendment on behalf of the City with such changes, insertions, and omissions therein as bond counsel to the City may hereafter deem appropriate, such execution to be conclusive evidence of approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. (2) The Mayor and the Administrator are authorized and directed to execute and deliver all other documents which may be required under the terms of the Note Amendment or by bond counsel, and to take such other action as may be required or deemed appropriate for the performance of the duties imposed thereby to carry out the purposes thereof. (3) The Mayor and Administrator and other officers of the City are authorized to furnish to the Lender, the Borrower, and bond counsel certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Note Amendment, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Note as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers’ custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. (4) In the event that for any reason the Mayor or the Administrator are unable to carry out the execution of any of the documents or other acts provided herein, any other officer of the City or member of its City Council as, in the opinion of the City’s attorney, are authorized to act in that capacity and undertake such execution or acts on behalf of the City, shall without further act or authorization execute and deliver the Note Amendment and do all things and execute all instruments and documents required to be done or executed by such officers, with full force and effect, which executions or acts shall be valid and binding on the City. 2.2 No Liability of City. Nothing in this resolution or in the documents prepared pursuant hereto shall authorize the expenditure of any municipal funds on the Project other than the revenues derived from the Project or otherwise granted to the City for this purpose. The Note, as amended, shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property or funds of the City except the revenues and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. The holders of the Note shall never have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the outstanding principal on page 62 the Note or the interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City. The Note recites in substance that the Note, including interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof. The Note shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. SECTION 3 BANK QUALIFIED. 3.1 Qualified Tax Exempt Obligations. In order to qualify the Note, as amended, as a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), the City hereby makes the following factual statements and representations; (1) the Note, as amended, is not treated as a "private activity bond" under Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; (2) the Note, as amended, is deemed designated as a qualified tax-exempt obligation for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; and (3) the aggregate face amount of the Note, as amended, does not exceed $10,000,000. page 63 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota this 4th day of August, 2020. _______________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Clerk page 64 CERTIFICATE STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ) I, Lorri Smith, duly appointed, acting and qualified Clerk of the City of Mendota Heights, do hereby certify that I have examined the City of Mendota Heights records and the Minute Book of said Authority for the meeting of the 4th of August, 2020 and that the attached copy of the RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES REVENUE REFUNDING NOTE (ST. THOMAS ACADEMY PROJECT), SERIES 2010 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO was approved and is a true and correct copy of the City Proceedings relating to said Resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day of __________, 2020. Clerk City of Mendota Heights page 65 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Second Amendment to Educational Facilities Revenue Refunding Note (St. Thomas Academy Project), Series 2010 WHEREAS, on September 1, 2010, the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the “Issuer”) issued its $6,310,000 Educational Facilities Revenue Refunding Note (St. Thomas Academy Project), Series 2010, which was amended by an Amendment to Educational Facilities Revenue Refunding Note (St. Thomas Academy Project) Series 2010, dated September 1, 2015 (the “Current Note”) promising to pay U.S. Bank National Association (the “Lender”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated as of September 1, 2010 as amended by a First Amendment to Loan Agreement dated as of September 1, 2015 (collectively, the “Loan Agreement”), between the Issuer, St. Thomas Academy, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the “Borrower”), and the Lender, the Borrower agreed to repay the Current Note in specified amounts and at specified times sufficient to pay in full when due the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Current Note; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a Pledge Agreement (the “Pledge Agreement”) dated as of September 1, 2010 between the Issuer and the Lender, the Issuer pledged and granted a security interest in all of its rights, title, and interest in the Loan Agreement to the Lender (except for certain rights of indemnification and to reimbursement for certain costs and expenses); and WHEREAS, the Lender and the Borrower have informed the Issuer that they have agreed to certain changes in the terms of the Current Note; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the Issuer adopted on August 4, 2020 (the “Resolution”), the Issuer has agreed to the requested changes to the terms of the Current Note; and WHEREAS, this Amendment is authorized to be attached to the Current Note to evidence the amendments made hereby. 1. The Current Note is hereby amended by deleting paragraph 2 in its entirety and replacing it with the following: 2. Effective as of September 1, 2020, and on September 1, 2024 (each a "Reset Date"), interest on each advance hereunder shall be adjusted to accrue at an annual rate equal to the product of (a) the sum of (i) the Credit Spread (as that term is defined herein) plus (ii) the Liquidity Premium (as that term is defined herein) plus (iii) the greater of (x) zero percent (0.0%) and (y) the one-month LIBOR rate quoted by the Lender from Reuters Screen LIBOR01 Page or any successor thereto, which shall be that one-month LIBOR rate in effect two New York Banking Days prior to the Reprice Date, adjusted for any reserve requirement and any subsequent costs arising from a change in government regulation, such rate to be reset monthly on each Reprice Date, times (b) the page 66 Multiplier (as that term is defined herein). The term "Credit Spread" means the then- current credit spread as determined by the Lender for a similarly situated borrower as the Borrower based on the Lender's then-current underwriting standards, and with credit administration approval, including, without limitation, factors such as the current credit profile, market conditions and current and historical operating performance. The term "Liquidity Premium" means the internal funding cost component determined by the Lender, in its sole discretion, based upon the current costs of term variable funding in the wholesale market. The term "Multiplier" means the percentage determined by the Lender, in its sole discretion, to assure the Lender a market rate of return on a tax exempt equivalent basis under the Act (as that term is defined in the Loan Agreement). If the Lender has determined that (a) the rate index described above (“LIBOR”) is no longer available, either because (i) LIBOR is not being quoted or published, (ii) any relevant agency or authority has announced that LIBOR will no longer be published or is no longer representative, or (iii) any similar circumstance exists such that LIBOR has become unavailable or ceased to exist, or (b) similar loans are being documented with a replacement rate to LIBOR, the Lender may, in its discretion, replace LIBOR with a replacement rate (which may include a successor index and a spread adjustment), taking into consideration any selection or recommendation of a replacement rate by any relevant agency or authority and evolving or prevailing market conventions. In connection with the selection and implementation of any such replacement rate, the Lender may make any technical, administrative or operational changes that the Lender decides may be appropriate to reflect the adoption and implementation of such replacement rate. The Lender does not warrant or accept any responsibility for the administration or submission of, or any other matter related to, LIBOR or with respect to any alternative or successor rate thereto, or replacement rate thereof, including without limitation whether any such alternative, successor or replacement rate will have the same value as, or be economically equivalent to, LIBOR. 2. The Current Note is hereby amended by deleting subparagraph 3A(b)(i) in its entirety and replacing it as follows: (i) “Margin Rate Factor” means the product of (a) one minus the Maximum Federal Corporate Tax Rate multiplied by (b) 1.26582. The effective date of any change in the Margin Rate Factor shall be the effective date of the decrease or increase (as applicable) in the Maximum Federal Corporate Tax Rate resulting in such change; and 3. The Current Note is hereby amended by deleting paragraph 8 in its entirety and replacing it with the following: 8. The Borrower shall be required to purchase this Note (in whole but not in part) on each Reset Date at a purchase price equal to the principal balance hereof plus accrued interest thereon, unless the Lender has given the Borrower notice, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, that it will not require the Borrower to purchase this Note at least 60 days prior to such Reset Date. page 67 4. The Current Note is hereby amended by deleting paragraph 16 in its entirety and replacing it with the following: 16. Upon a Determination of Taxability, as defined in the Loan Agreement, this Note shall convert to a taxable obligation and the interest rate for interest payable commencing the first (1st) day of the following month shall be adjusted to an interest rate per annum equal to the rate set forth and determined in accordance with the provisions of Section (a) of the first sentence of Paragraph 1 or Paragraph 2 above, as the case may be, multiplied by 1.26582 (the “Taxable Rate”) on the date of the Determination of Taxability. The interest rate shall be adjusted each time the interest rate is adjusted pursuant to the terms hereof to the Taxable Rate on such date. 5. The Current Note is hereby amended by adding a new Exhibit A thereto in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. All other terms and provisions of the Current Note remain in full force and effect. page 68 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, St. Thomas Academy, and U.S. Bank National Association have caused this Amendment to Note to be duly executed in their names and have caused this Amendment to Note to be dated as of ____________, 2020. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA By______________________________ Its Mayor By______________________________ Its Administrator [Amendment to Note] page 69 CONSENT OF: ST. THOMAS ACADEMY By_________________________________ Its ________________________________ [Amendment to Note] page 70 CONSENT OF: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION By_________________________________ Its ________________________________ [Amendment to Note] page 71 EXHIBIT A FORM OF NON-TENDER NOTICE [Date] St. Thomas Academy 949 Mendota Heights Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 RE: Educational Facility Revenue Refunding Note, Series 2010 (the “Note”) Ladies and Gentlemen: Pursuant to Section 8 of the Note, please be advised that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Lender”) will not require that the Borrower purchase the Note on September 1, 20__ (the “Reset Date”). The rate of interest payable under the Note from and after the Reset Date shall be determined pursuant to the provisions of the Note. Very truly yours, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION By: Name: Its: 20037519v2 page 72 DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Appointment of new City Attorney Comment: Introduction: The Council is asked to approve the appointment of Campbell- Knutson P.A., to provide general civil legal services for the City of Mendota Heights. Background: Andrew Pratt of Best and Flanagan has been serving as City Attorney. However, he notified the City recently that he has accepted another position which will make it impossible for him to continue to its Attorney. Best and Flanagan had been appointed following an advertisement and interview process in July, 2019. Because that process was so recent, the Council chose to review the responses which had been received at that time, and selected three firms to interview for the current vacancy. The interviews were held on July 27th. The Council selected Campbell-Knutson of Eagan to become the City’s law firm. Campbell-Knutson was founded in 1986; municipal law is the only area of law that it practices. It has 13 full-time attorneys, and serves more than 25 cities in Minnesota. In Dakota County, it is City Attorney for Burnsville, Farmington, and Lakeville, Elliot Knetch will be the primary provider for Mendota Heights. He has had an extensive amount of experience in the field of municipal law. A contract for legal services is attached. The information contained is consistent with the Request for Proposals response which the City Council had received previously. Budget Impact: As shown in the contract, Campbell-Knutson will charge $165/ hour for attorneys doing civil work, and $90/ hour for legal assistants. Pass through rates for developments or other third parties, litigation, arbitration, and appellate matters will be at a varying hourly fees, depending on the attorney; those rates will range from $200 to $400 per hour. These hourly rates are not dissimilar to what has been charged to the City by previous legal providers. However, Campbell-Knutson has not proposed a flat rate for such things as meeting attendance. It is page 73 open to negotiating a retainer or meeting rate, but does recommend to wait for a period of time to determine the typical number of hours which would be spent. Recommendation: I recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Contract for Legal Services. If approved, this would become effective August 5th. Mr. Pratt’s last Mendota Heights City Council meeting will be August 4th. Action Required: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion approve the proposed Contract for Legal Services with Campbell Knutson, P.A. of Eagan, Minnesota. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 74 AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND CAMPBELL KNUTSON, Professional Association THIS AGREEMENT, dated August ____, 2020, is by and between the CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and CAMPBELL KNUTSON, Professional Association, a Minnesota corporation ("Attorney"). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. SERVICES AND RELATIONSHIP. A. The Attorney shall furnish and perform general civil municipal legal services for the City. B. The Attorney shall be engaged as an independent contractor and not as a City employee. The Attorney is free to contract with other entities. 2. TERM. A. The Attorney shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council, and this Agreement may be terminated without cause by resolution of the City Council. B. The Attorney may terminate this Agreement at any time, provided that the Attorney shall give the City thirty (30) days written notice before the termination becomes effective. 3. PAYMENT. A. General Civil Municipal: Attorneys: $165.00 per hour Paralegals/Legal Assistants/ Law Clerk: $90.00 per hour Our minimum increment of time is 0.2 hours page 75 B. Pass-through Legal Services: The customary hourly rate of the particular attorney or paralegal/legal assistant doing the work currently vary between $200.00 and $400.00 for attorneys and $125.00 and $150.00 for paralegal/legal assistant. We bill pass-through legal rates for attorneys and paralegal/legal assistants for the following matters: 1. Where the City is reimbursed from a developer or other third party; 2. Representing the City in litigation, arbitration, and appellate matters; 3. Public improvement projects involving special assessments or improvements to private property. C. Costs: Out-of-pocket costs without mark-up. Costs include: • Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis legal research • filing and recording fees • postage of over 50¢ • photocopies at 20¢ per copy • color copies at 40¢ per copy • litigation (court filing fees, expert witnesses, acquisitions, subpoenas, service of process, etc.) • mileage at IRS rate, currently 59¢ per mile D. The City will normally pay for services within thirty (30) days of receipt of a statement for services rendered. 4. INSURANCE. The Attorney will purchase and maintain sufficient insurance to protect Attorney against claims for legal malpractice. 5. MISCELLANEOUS. A. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. B. Assignment. The Attorney may not assign or refer any of the legal services to be performed hereunder without the written consent of the Mendota Heights City Administrator. page 76 C. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be in effect on the date first above written. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended without the approval in writing of the Mendota Heights City Council. Dated: ______________, 2020. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BY: __________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor AND _________________________________ Lorri Smith, Clerk page 77 Dated: ______________, 2020. CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association BY: __________________________________ Elliott B. Knetsch, Vice President page 78 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: June 2020 Fire Synopsis Fire Calls: In June, the Mendota Heights Fire Department was paged out for 25 calls and they were located in the following areas: Types of calls: Fires: 4 One structure fire, one dumpster fire and two grass/outside vegetation fires. Medical/Extrication: 3 These three calls were medical in nature. Hazardous Situations: 3 One carbon monoxide call with carbon monoxide present, one call was for electrical lines arcing and burning in the trees, and one call was for a lightning strike investigation. Service Calls: 1 The fire department had one call from a company attempting to set up a system test. False Alarms: 6 The Mendota Heights Fire Department responded to six calls for false alarms. Of those four calls, four were system malfunctions and two calls were deemed to be unintentional. Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 5 We were cancelled before our arrival to five calls in June. Mutual/Auto Aid Requests: 3 The MHFD received two calls for auto/mutual aid to South Metro Fire. We were cancelled before arriving in both cases. In addition, we were paged and responded to a structure fire with our tender, as requested. The tender was staged on standby and the crew of that truck was used on the fire ground in other roles. Mendota Heights 18 calls Lilydale 0 calls Mendota 1 call Sunfish Lake 3 calls Other 3 calls page 79 Training Requirements January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020: Due to COVID 19, the months of March, April and June had our traditional trainings replaced with online opportunities. Classes shown in bold below were mandatory and ones that are not in bold were optional. A total of 14 training opportunities had to be fulfilled (the same as in any other six month training period). 1. Blood Borne Pathogens / Right to Know / Lock Out-Tag Out (February & March) 2. SCBA / Firefighter CPR (February and March) 3. Incident Report Writing (Elite online) 4. Covid-19 & Medical PPE Videos 5. Water Mapping & Air Entrainment (two courses online - UL Fire Safety Academy) 6. Suppression Tactics in Single Family Homes (online course - UL Fire Safety Academy) 7. Hands on-training at the station in June (multiple dates being offered) 1. BNSF Railway HazMat (online) 2. Introduction to Heat Transfer and Fire Measurements (online UL Fire Safety Academy) 3. Research for the Development of More Effective Tactics (online UL Fire Safety Academy) 4. Evidence-Based Approaches to Reduce Exposure Risks (online UL Fire Safety Academy) 5. Cardiovascular and Chemical Exposure Risks During Training (online UL Fire Safety Academy) 6. Xcel Energy Responding to Gas and Electrical Emergencies (online through Xcel) page 80 Number of Calls 25 Total Calls for the Year 158 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $0 Structure - MH Residential 1 $35,000 $30,000 $65,000 Structure - Contract Areas $0 Cooking Fire - confined $0 Vehicle - MH $500 $3,500 Vehicle - Contract Areas $0 Grass/Brush/No Value MH 2 Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire 1 OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $35,000 $30,000 $500 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist Vehicle accident w/injuries Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$65,500 Medical, other 3 HAZARDOUS SITUATION MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $65,000 Spills/Leaks Carbon Monoxide Incident 2 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $3,500 Power line down Arcing, shorting 1 MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $68,500 Hazardous, Other 2 SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal CONTRACT AREAS LOSS TO DATE $0 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other 1 GOOD INTENT Good Intent Dispatched & Cancelled 5 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 18 106 139 HazMat release investigation 0 9 16 Good Intent, Other 1 7 5 FALSE ALARMS 3 11 6 False Alarm 3 25 12 Malfunction 4 Total:25 158 178 Unintentional 2 False Alarm, other FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH MUTUAL AID 1 INSPECTIONS Total Calls 25 INVESTIGATIONS RE-INSPECTION WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year MEETINGS FIRE CALLS 437.25 2699.75 2867.5 MEETINGS 48.5 469 442.5 ADMINISTRATION TRAINING 198.5 1212 2032.5 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 18 359 205 PLAN REVIEW/TRAINING FIRE MARSHAL 0 97.9 TOTAL:0 TOTALS 702.25 4739.75 5645.4 REMARKS: Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Other MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT JUNE 2020 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Mendota Heights page 81 page 82 page 83 page 84 page 85 page 86 page 87 page 88 page 89 page 90 page 91 page 92 page 93 DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Small Business Relief Grant Program Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to authorize the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) to implement a Small Business Relief Grant Program, to provide help for COVID-19 related economic stresses experienced by small businesses. Background: The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law in March, 2020. This more than $2 trillion economic relief package provides economic stimulus, with distributions to individuals, businesses, institutions, and state and local units of government. Mendota Heights received approximately $855,000 in funding as its share of CARES Funds from the State of Minnesota. The City can use this to reimburse for a variety of things related to COVID 19 expenses. Beginning in August, the City must report monthly on expenses which it has incurred, and for which it is using the funds. The current eligible period is March 1st, to November 15th, although there appear to be discussion for extending the expiration date. The eligible expenditure criteria are broad, and have not been well defined at this point. Included in the eligible expenses is the possibility of providing aid to small businesses which have been impacted by the Coronavirus pandemic. Dakota County has set up a program which is being administered by the CDA, and is currently in place. It is being funded by Dakota County’s decision to direct $10 million, or about 19% of its share of CARES funds for this purpose. The major criteria are that it will provide for grants of up to $10,000, for businesses which met the following requirements as of March 1, 2020: • Have equivalent of 50 full-time (or equivalent) or fewer employees • Be locally owned and operated for-profit organization with a physical location, whether owned or leased, located in Dakota County • Be majority owned by a permanent resident of Minnesota • Be in good standing with the Minnesota Secretary of State and the Minnesota Department of Revenue • Be in good standing with Dakota County and the city in which the business is located page 94 • Demonstrate the business was adversely affected by Minnesota Governor’s Executive Orders related to COVID-19 business restrictions • Demonstrate financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak Proceeds must be used to offset costs, such as payroll, rent, utilities, or purchases from vendors. The proceeds cannot be used to offset lost revenues, nor be used by in-home businesses. Capital expenses, such as remodeling or new furnishings to make a facility be more COVID compliant, are not eligible. Finally, the County’s program is intended to provide assistance to as many businesses as possible, so recipients of the State grant and loan programs or other city assistance for COVID 19 will not qualify for this program. However, if a business received direct federal assistance, such as the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) or a SBA loan, it would still be eligible for the County program. Originally, it was proposed that the County would coordinate similar programs for all of the cities in the County, assuming that they would go with the County’s decision to adhere to DEED requirements for eligibility. However, because of a desire for different eligibilities, some cities (i.e. Burnsville and Lakeville) have chosen to offer their own programs with different eligibilities. Others, like West St. Paul, are providing more emphasis for assistance to restaurants and bars. However, others are comfortable with the qualifying criteria, and have piggybacked onto the Dakota County program. Farmington has added a financial allocation, with the stipulation that its money would go to Farmington businesses. For all of the cities, 10% seems to be a common allocation for the Small Cities Assistance programs. Because this program has moved so quickly, the CDA has hired a third-party administrator (NextStage) to process the applications. The County’s program has been underway since July 27th, and is accepting applications through August 14th. In the first stage, businesses are being asked to self-certify, and if they are selected, they must supply documents. After August 14th, the contractor will review the applications to ensure that they are in compliance with the criteria; if more applications exist than funding is available to cover, the successful recipients will be chosen by lottery. In the case of Farmington, the applicants from that city will be included in the County’s initial pool. If they are not selected from that, they will then be eligible for consideration from the 10% that Farmington provided. Again, if there are more applicants than City funding, the Farmington “winners’ will be chosen by lottery. In view of the short amount of time which is available to be considered for these funds, and because Mendota Heights does not have an existing economic development program set up, it would be the most efficient to do as has Farmington, and work through the CDA program. Additional information, and the proposal of NextStage, are shown in the attachments. Funding Impact: Regarding the question of whether or not to help small businesses in Mendota Heights, in the event that the City has sufficient eligible expenses to keep all of it CARES allocation, setting up page 95 a Small Business Economic Assistance Program will reduce the overall funding by $85,500. However, that is unlikely, and any unused funds will, by law, need to go to Dakota County. If the City chooses to participate in the County’s program being administered by the CDA, the only money to be exchanged is the fee for the third-party administrator, NextStage. Its fee is 3.44%, which will mean fees of just under $3000 to set up and run the program, which we see as being very reasonable. Those fees are also eligible for CARES funding. If this is approved, a formal document to approve the exchange of funds between the County, CDA, and the City will be forthcoming. Because of the tight timeframe, this will be need to be considered at a future City Council meeting. Recommendation: While Mendota Heights has provided some relief to restaurants and other license holders in the form of a reduction of fees, it has not been able to provide most businesses with any sort of assistance. Therefore, we recommend that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the CDA to administer a Small Cities Relief Grant Program on behalf of the City utilizing the County’s qualification criteria, and committing 10% of the City’s share of CARES funds to finance it. Action Required: If the Council concurs, it should approve the following resolution: RESOLUTION 2020-48 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO ADMINISTER A SMALL BUSINESS RELIEF GRANT PROGRAM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Tim Benetti Mark McNeill Community Development Director City Administrator page 96 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-48 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO ADMINISTER A SMALL BUSINESS RELIEF GRANT PROGRAM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has received funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act; and WHEREAS, the CARES Act is intended to provide economic assistance and relief to individuals, governments, and organizations, including small businesses, who have suffered economically as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, assistance to small businesses is vital to preserving the economic vitality of the City; and WHEREAS, to that end, the City of Mendota Heights is willing to commit ten per cent of its CARES allocation to assist small businesses in the community; and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Community Development Agency is administering a program to assist small businesses on behalf of Dakota County, and has indicated its willingness to allowing the City of Mendota Heights to participate in, and supplement the available funding for this program to assist businesses located in Mendota Heights. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Dakota County Community Development Agency is hereby requested and authorized to enter into an arrangement with the City of Mendota Heights to administer on its behalf a Small Business Relief Grant Program, utilizing the criteria which has been established for other entities which are utilizing the CDA Small Business Relief Grant Program. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of August, 2020 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 97   1    Updated July 27, 2020 The purpose of the Dakota County Small Business Relief Grant Program (“Program”) is to provide temporary financial support to small businesses in Dakota County adversely impacted by the COVID- 19 pandemic and the COVID-19 peacetime emergency. The goal of the Program is to help businesses through the current economic crisis and prevent blight in neighborhoods that may result from disinvestment. Terms  Businesses may apply one time for an emergency grant up to $10,000, based on economic hardship from COVID-19.  Funds shall be used exclusively for the following eligible expenses: o Up to three months of operating expenses, including payroll, rent/lease payments, mortgage payments, utilities, payments to suppliers, or other critical business expenses as approved by the Program Administrator. Eligible Businesses Businesses must meet all the following criteria as of March 1, 2020 to be eligible:  Have equivalent of 50 full-time (or equivalent) or fewer employees  Be locally owned and operated for-profit organization with a physical, location, whether owned or leased, located in Dakota County  Be majority owned by a permanent resident of Minnesota  Be in good standing with the Minnesota Secretary of State and the Minnesota Department of Revenue  Be in good standing with Dakota County and the city in which the business is located  Demonstrate the business was adversely affected by Executive Orders related to COVID-19 business restrictions  Demonstrate financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak page 98   2    Ineligible Businesses  Businesses that do not have a physical address in Dakota County  Home based businesses (except for licensed childcare providers)  Non-profit organizations  Businesses that derive any income from adult-oriented uses  Businesses in default conditions prior to February 29, 2020  Businesses deriving income from passive investments without operational ties to operating businesses  Businesses primarily focusing on speculative activities based on fluctuations in price rather than the normal course of trade  Businesses earning more than half of its annual net revenue from lending  Businesses engaging in pyramid sales, where a participant's primary incentive is based on the sales of an ever-increasing number of participants  Businesses engaging in activities prohibited by federal law or applicable law in the local jurisdiction of the business  Businesses engaging in gambling enterprises, unless the business earns less than 50% of its annual net revenue from lottery sales Businesses that have applied for and/or were awarded any COVID-related federal funding, such as the Small Business Administration (SBA) Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) or Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) are eligible for this grant. However, to serve as many businesses as possible, duplication of state and local COVID-related emergency funds is not allowed. Businesses that have been awarded or have received COVID- related emergency funds through the State of Minnesota from either the Small Business Emergency Loan (SBEL) or DEED Small Business Relief Grant Program are ineligible for this grant. Application Process  Applications will be accepted beginning Monday, July 27th through Friday, August 14th  Application link is posted in English and Spanish online at: https://www.dakotacda.org/community-development/small-business-relief-grants/  If applications exceed available funding, a randomization process will be used to determine final grant recipients.  All applicants will be notified by email on or before Wednesday, August 26.  Upon notice of an approved application, the following documentation must be provided to the Program Administrator within five business days: o Revenue verification. 2019 Federal Business Tax return or appropriate business tax schedule – based on entity type.  Businesses that have not yet completed a 2019 Federal Return are eligible to apply and substitute other documentation of revenue, and will need to provide their 2019 Federal Return when completed page 99   3    o Impact and loss of revenue verification. Evidence of negative impact and loss of revenue due to COVID-19 pandemic and peacetime emergency. Applicant should submit documentation that best demonstrates the impact and is deemed acceptable to Program Administrator.  Examples of acceptable documentation include: Sales Tax Reporting; monthly profit and loss statements; comparable point of sales, cash register reports, merchant statements or other sales records o Employee verification. Evidence of employment prior to March 1, 2020. Acceptable documentation may include: company’s 2019 federal form W3; period reporting from a 3rd party payroll processor; applicant’s Federal Form 941/Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return; or other State or Federal payroll-related filing. o Evidence of grant eligible expenses that occurred in past three months, (e.g. rent/lease agreement, utility statements, supplier invoices, payroll, tax payments, payments to suppliers, etc.). Provide documentation that expenses total or exceed the amount requested in grant application  Failure to submit required documentation will result in forfeiture of grant award.  Upon notice review and acceptance of additional documentation, the business will enter into a grant agreement with Dakota County.  Terms will be included in the grant agreement, including the reporting requirement to provide information to the CDA 90 days after execution of grant on status of business and actual use of grant funds. Note: Dakota County and Dakota County CDA reserve the right to revise these guidelines as needed to best address the impact of the current pandemic. page 100 1 NextStage Proposal to administer The Dakota County Business Relief Program 2020 July 1, 2020 This document is an outline of a possible Scope of Service and Fee Structure for NextStage to assist Dakota County (the County) and the Dakota County Community Development Agency (the CDA) with the set-up and delivery of the Dakota County Business Relief Program. This draft was based on the program details provided in the Dakota County Small Business Relief Program (Proposed Guidelines), and incorporates NextStage’s direct experience in design, operationalization, and implementation of a similar program- the Hennepin County Small Business Relief Fund- a program utilizing similar eligibility criteria, and compliance requirements attached to its funding source- the federal CARES Act. This document is a draft, and intended for discussion purposes; we welcome the opportunity to discuss, clarify and negotiate all aspects of this proposal to meet the County’s needs. Thank you for your consideration: Sincerely, Lee Hall, CEO NextStage PROGRAM PHASES: I. Application Management II. Review of Eligibility III. Grant Closing & Agreements for Approved Grants IV. Disbursement of Grant Funds V. Grant Audits VI. Program Reporting Application Management: Application Development - NextStage will design an application for the Dakota County Small Business Relief Program that captures contact and business data necessary to pre-sort for initial eligibility, and to contact selected applicants to initiate the confirmation and agreement process. At the CDA’s request, NextStage can include demographic or survey questions the County/CDA would like to gather on all applicants - either for survey purposes or to establish preferences in awards. page 101 2 Application Delivery - NextStage will publish and host the application on-line, and electronically gather all application responses into a sortable spreadsheet. NextStage will supply IT support and maintain the underlying architecture for the application portal, but provide will page links and access to the County- and any designated County partners - in order to share and publicize the program. Application Review and Selection- At the designated closing time for the application, NextStage will sever the portal link and conduct a high-level review of applications for eligibility, removing duplicate applications and those with obvious disqualifiers- such as a location not in Dakota County. NextStage will randomize the remaining list, and assign each application a unique file number. The CDA at its discretion can pre-set parameters for the selection process - identifying either application criteria to give preference in a broad sorting, or sub-dividing the list and awarding sub-grouping based on those divisions. Along with a witness/witnesses designated by the CDA, NextStage will conduct the selection based on either a straight randomization, or utilizing a set of rules of preference or distribution devised by the CDA. Applicant Notification - Utilizing language and messaging approved by the CDA, NextStage will notify applicants identified by the randomization of their initial selection, and instruct them on the requirements and process for confirming eligibility. NextStage will notify all applicants not initially selected that they have been placed on a waitlist and will be notified if a slot or funding opens up. Review of Eligibility: NextStage will manage the collection and review of client documentation confirming program and grant eligibility as defined by the County’s program rules, and any requirements tied to the funding source. NextStage will create a secure platform to allow clients to upload documents demonstrating eligibility, and retain and store those documents for six (6) years (or a time period requested by the County). NextStage will provide selected applicants with an outline of required program documents, a preliminary eligible budget template and certifications, and a secure link to upload those materials. Each applicant will be assigned to a member of NextStage’s Review Team, who will conduct follow-up and outreach with applicants, assist with identifying and gathering the necessary documentation, and answer any questions the applicant may have. For each selected applicant, a NextStage Reviewer will confirm the legal name of the business and its status as active and in good standing with the Secretary of State, confirm and note the physical address in Dakota County the applicant conducts business from, and confirm client eligibility in each category defined by the County’s program guidelines - noting the source document utilized in the confirmation of each. A NextStage Reviewer will collect a proposed use of funds budget for each qualified applicant, and provide technical assistance to applicants to determine a final grant budget reflective of that business’ eligible expenses. The Reviewer shall notify the applicant of the final approval, and note the qualified grant amount in the approval in order to facilitate generation of grant agreements. page 102 3 Where an applicant is deemed unqualified based on program criteria, NextStage shall notify the applicant, provide the reason and basis for disqualification, and either confirm the disqualification if accurate, or work with the applicant to identify additional documentation to establish qualification. NextStage will track and report on the type and nature of documents used to confirm each eligibility point, and will retain those documents for program audit for a period of six (6) years. At no point will client tax returns, payroll documents or other personal or financial records pass through County control nor will NextStage deliver source documents or specifics of those documents to County or CDA staff and/or elected officials in order to maintain an arms-length relationship between business applicants, and County/CDA officials, and to protect client data privacy. Grant Closing & Agreements for Approved Grants: NextStage shall produce individual grant agreements for each approved grant recipient based on an agreement format provided by the County/CDA. NextStage will conduct a virtual closing with each client, securing an electronic signature on the agreement through DocuSign, and collecting the grant budget, payment instructions, and any other closing documents deemed necessary by the County/CDA. NextStage will deliver those agreements and attachments to the County/CDA for payment in whatever format requested. Alternately, at the County/CDA’s direction, NextStage can prepare and deliver a list of confirmed qualified applicants and necessary data points in a format acceptable to the County/CDA to facilitate the County/CDA’s drafting of grant agreements should they choose to manage that step in the process in- house. Disbursement of Grant Funds: This proposal assumes that the disbursement of funds is to be conducted/controlled by the County/CDA. NextStage will assist in gathering any relevant tax and bank forms necessary to facilitate those payments, to be delivered in a manner acceptable to the County/CDA. If requested, NextStage has the capability to issue payments to approved applications by Bank ACH; procedures, authorization and cost for doing so would need to be established prior to the start of program funding. Grant Audits: Within approximately 90 days of the closing of the grant round, NextStage would conduct an audit of a percentage of grant recipients to determine and document eligible use of grant funds. NextStage will contact businesses selected for audit, and – utilizing the grant budget included in the grant agreement and certified by the grantee - request evidence of expense and payment equal to, or greater, than the total grant award, and consistent with program eligible expenses. NextStage will retain the grantee’s audit documentation alongside their eligibility documents for the agreed upon retention period. page 103 4 Upon completion of all audits, NextStage will issue a report to the County/CDA detailing the finding of those audits, including number and percentage of grantee pass/fails, and total dollars and percent of total grant dollars vs confirmed grant-eligible expenses. The number or percentage of total grantees to be audited should be determined by the County/CDA. However, audit and expense confirmation will be time consuming, and detailed work, and - as grantees will already have the funds in hand - there are limited incentives to apply to encourage timely compliance. For a large-scale program, it will be expensive and impractical to audit all or even most grants. The County/CDA and NextStage should agree on a percentage/count for audit that provides a meaningful sample of data, but we would recommend a number between 5-10% of recipients depending on total number of awards. Program Reporting: Upon completion of the application, review, award and audit stages, NextStage will issue a final report to the County/CDA summarizing the project, detailing all recipients, and providing some level of data analysis. NextStage will work with County/CDA staff to determine potential datapoints, but these may include: • Total number of awards, total dollars awarded. • Break-down of recipients by City, Industry, Revenue and Employment. • Demographic breakdown of applicant pool vs final award pool. • Percent of applicants determined ineligible in review, and breakdown of reason for ineligibility. EXPECTED TIMELINE: • Program Design, Operationalizing Requirements and Standards- 1 Week • Application Design, Public Advertising of Grant Opportunity- 2 Weeks • Open Application Period- 2 Weeks • Initial Data Review and Cleaning, Sort and Selection of Applicants- 2 Days • Secure Portal File and Access Link Generation, Client notifications and Secure Invitation- 5 Days • Application Assistance, Eligibility Review, Grant Documentation and Closing- 4- 6 Weeks • Performance of Eligible Expense Audits- 2-4 Weeks • Final Report- 1 Week Estimated Term of Program: 13-17 Weeks. page 104 5 COMPENSATION PROPOSAL: Task Description Task Rate Grant Count 200 500 1000 Application Management $10,000 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Eligibility Review & Documentation $200/Grant $ 40,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 200,000.00 Grant Agreement Generation and Closing $75/Grant $ 15,000.00 $ 37,500.00 $ 75,000.00 Grant Eligible Use Audit $250/Grant $ 5,000.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 25,000.00 Final Report $3,000 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 Overhead/Admin 10% $ 7,300.00 $ 16,300.00 $ 31,300.00 Total Proposed Fee $ 80,300.00 $ 179,300.00 $ 344,300.00 Percent of Program @ $10,000/Grant 4.02% 3.59% 3.44% ORGANIZATION NextStage Overview & Experience: NextStage is a Minnesota non-profit corporation, focused on providing support, training and financing assistance to Twin Cities metro area entrepreneurs through their planning, start-up and growth phases. While NextStage is a relatively new organization, it is the collaboration of individuals with significant experience assisting entrepreneurs, and managing and community economic development initiatives- including training programs, portfolio management, and the design and delivery of community economic development programs in partnership with City and County Development Authorities throughout the Twin Cities. Since early May, NextStage has provided technical assisting with the delivery of the Hennepin County Small Business Relief Fund, a $20 million initiative to provide small grants to local businesses that meet program eligibility. NextStage staff is managing the applicant data, collecting and reviewing eligibility documentation, and drafting and closing on grant agreements for County funding. We anticipate completing the review and agreement closing phases of this project by mid-July. NextStage is currently assisting the Scott County CDA in the launch of the Scott County Small Business Recovery Fund. NextStage consulted with CDA staff on overall program design, and will serve as the principal program manager for the fund. This includes application design and collection, sorting and selection, review and confirmation of eligibility, agreement generation and closing, and fund distribution. The Scott County Small Business Recovery Program is set to open in early July, with program delivery expected to take 2-3 months. Capacity: At present, NextStage has two full-time staff, and five part-time Reviewers working on the Hennepin County program. As systems and processes have become refined, NextStage has been able to move more than 200 applications a week through review, document generation and closing. With the significant work on the Hennepin County program expected to wrap up by mid-July, the organization will page 105 6 shift a portion of its focus and capacity to servicing the Scott County program. However, the Scott County program essentially mirrors the Hennepin County program in terms of NextStage’s responsibilities, and is significantly smaller in scale. NextStage has the existing capacity to launch and manage a similar program alongside the Scott County program, and has the platform to add additional processors to manage an even larger volume of applications if necessary. The larger challenge from a capacity standpoint is program administration, including the management of program data, generating individual grant documents, and conducting virtual closings. Should NextStage be selected to provide program assistance to Dakota County, and that timeline would overlap with its commitment to Scott County, NextStage has identified and negotiated terms for a highly qualified candidate to join NextStage’s team as an additional Program Administrator. Key Staff: Lee Hall - CEO, has worked in the Community Development field for more than 20 years. In addition to providing hands-on assistance and training to thousands of new and growing entrepreneur ventures, he has designed, managed and directly administered multiple local and regional economic development and small business-focused initiatives in partnership with City and County-level development authorities throughout the Twin Cities. In his career he has served as the Chief Financial and Operating Officer of the Business Initiative Development Center (BIDC), and The Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD) where he supervised a staff of 15 , and was responsible for broad financial management- including general accounting, tracking and reporting on private and governmental grants, and audit compliance. Prior to entering the non-profit field, Lee worked as a commercial lender for a regional bank, and as a Contract CFO for multiple small to mid-sized businesses. Lee will act as the Overall Project Manager. He will provide general supervision, and quality control at each stage of the process; act as the principle liaison between the County and NextStage, and directly manage the organization and flow of application and program data including the generation and closing of grant agreements. Kris Maritz - Business Advisor, has over 30 years of experience in finance, management, strategic and business planning for both local and international organizations. She holds a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Missouri-Columbia and an M.B.A. in Finance from the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Kris specializes in loan packaging, real estate financing and works with start-ups as well as expanding businesses. Kris’ previous non-profit lending experience includes the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD) where she was a Business Advisor for the Open to Business Program for 13 years, African Development Center (ADC), City of Minneapolis Community Planning & Economic Development (CPED), and Metropolitan Economic Development Association (MEDA). Kris will act as the full-time Senior Reviewer on this project, providing direct application review, and managing and supporting the Review Team. page 106 7 Natalia Pretelt - Business Advisor, has worked with small businesses locally and nationally since 2003. Natalia has an MBA from the University of St. Thomas, and is a member of Wells Fargo’s SBA department where she packages and documents small business loan applications for compliance with and submission to the SBA. Natalia’s previous experience includes serving as the Loan Program Manager for another non-profit CDFI lender, where she was responsible for all closing and servicing aspects of the organization’s portfolio, including generating closing documents, filing and perfecting security agreements, managing and posting loan payments, and conducting collection activities. Natalia has been assisting NextStage’s Review Team with the Hennepin County program on a contract basis. In order to effectively manage programs for Scott and Dakota Counties simultaneously, Natalia would shift into a grant management role, which would utilize her extensive experience in loan documentation and management, and provide additional capacity and back-up for the agreement and closing functions. GeekLogic- NextStage’s Technology Partner, leverages 12+ years of strategic planning, design, and solution implementation. The firm specializes in building systems for its clients that fit their specific needs, and helps them leverage those tools to streamline their business for efficiency and growth. GeekLogic has extensive experience partnering with municipalities, having worked with and provided information technology support to the City of Pismo Beach, the City of San Luis Obispo, and the City of Ventura, California. Most recently GEEKLOGIC has been assisting NextStage in creating the cloud-based architecture and multi-client communication necessary to setup and deliver the Hennepin County Small Business Relief Fund. Program Reviewers - At present, NextStage is utilizing a team of five Reviewers to communicate with applicants and gather eligibility documents, review application materials, and clear applications for closing. NextStage’s IT systems allow these individuals to work securely from their own location, and on their own schedule. Our systems are easily scalable to add additional support to meet a higher volume of applications. The Review Team consists of finance professionals, consultants, and entrepreneurs who have the necessary understanding and familiarity with the tax and payroll documents being provided by the applicants to confirm eligibility, and were recruited Lee and Kris’ extensive professional networks. Three of the five current Reviewers are bilingual (Spanish), and NextStage is contracting with a Program Assistant to assist the Review Team with contact and translation for Somali business owners. page 107 8 Insurance and Liability: NextStage maintains the following coverage types and amounts relevant to this proposal: NEXTSTAGE INSURANCE COVERAGES (1) Commercial General Liability (CGL) General Aggregate $2,000,000 Products—Completed Operations Aggregate $2,000,000 Personal and Advertising Injury Each Occurrence—Combined Bodily Injury and Property Damage $1,500,000 $1,500,000 (2) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Workers’ Compensation Employer’s Liability: Bodily injury by accident—Each Accident Employer’s Liability: Bodily injury by Disease—Policy Limit Employer’s Liability: Bodily injury by Disease—Each Employee Statutory $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 (3) Professional Liability (PL/E&O) Per Claim Aggregate $1,000,000 $2,000,000 REFERENCES: For information on NextStage’s performance on a similar project, please contact: Patricia Fitzgerald Community and Economic Development Manager Housing and Economic Development | Hennepin County working remotely: 612-532-4588 patricia.fitzgerald@hennepin.us page 108 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 3, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Marie Avenue Street Improvements – Change Order #1 COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve Change Order #1 for the Marie Avenue Street Improvement Project. BACKGROUND Mendota Heights awarded a contract to S.M. Hentges for the Marie Avenue Street Improvement Project. It was known going into the project that the existing roadway was constructed without a gravel base using only a thick bituminous pavement section. However, the extent of the structural deficiencies was not known until the asphalt pavement was removed. It then became apparent that a significant amount of base correction will be needed, which was not provided for in the contract plans and specifications. Therefore, a Change Order will be needed. DISCUSSION Change Order #1 is requested to install a sand and gravel base section along an approximate 1000 foot long section from the 35E bridge to the low point near Valley Park. This section of the road was reclaimed as specified. Attempts to stabilize localized soft areas have been unsuccessful do to ground water seeping into the roadway from the adjacent slopes. The sand layer will include a drain tile to remove excess water from the base and provide a solid base for the new roadway. This excess water is the cause of the previous large cracks going up the slope. The city consultant, TKDA, provided this additional information: “As we discussed, a portion of the Marie Avenue Phase I streets is not suitable for paving. We are seeing soft spots in a number of areas between the Interstate 35E bridge and Valley Park. As you are aware we are seeing variations in the soil in this area. Pockets of clay have been found mixed with other soil material. Water seepage from the slope near the I-35E continues to add water to these soils. This is further degrading the street section. A hardy attempt to correct soil pockets and seepage areas was made over the last few days. Spot correction in this area is not performing well, especially considering the seepage from the slope from the continuing rain over the last month. page 109 Regrettably, it is my opinion that we need to correct the street section in this area. It is recommended that this area be corrected with subgrade excavation (2 feet), place geotextile fabric, drain tile, sand (select granular), and reclaimed class 5 (10”). Attached is an estimate for street correction of Marie Avenue from Station 40+00 to 50+00. The estimated total is $163,000 to correct this area based on the contractor bid pricing. If areas of reclamation can be used, the total estimated correction costs could be reduced. As an important City Collector Street, Marie Avenue must be able to withstand the test of time and future freeze/thaw cycles. The added geotextile barrier and sand section in this area will allow for drainage to be removed and preservation of the aggregate base for the roadway.” TKDA is optimistic that the final cost of this added work will be under their estimate. BUDGET IMPACT The estimated project cost for the Marie Avenue Street Improvements was $3,600,000; the contract with S.M Hentges is currently $3,177,819.30. The additional work outside of this contract plus the original scope of work would have a new contract amount of $3,340,819.30. This equates to 5.1 percent increase of the contract amount. A review of the project standing at this point is showing a current underspending of $60,000 which may also help with completing the project closer to the original contract amount. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve Change Order #1. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion authorizing Change Order #1 for the Marie Avenue Street Improvement project. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 110 DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Starting Times Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to discuss and determine a starting time for its regular meetings, staring in September. Background: Because of a change in the schedule for the Mayor’s “day job”, since April 21 the City Council has been starting its regular meetings on the first and third Tuesdays at 5 PM. The initial meetings were virtual, and so starting times were not as much of an issue. However, with the reopening to face to face meetings in July, there has been discussion as to whether the earlier starting time is still appropriate. The Council had earlier said that it would make a decision on a continuation of the 5 PM time at the August 18th meeting. However, elsewhere on the August 4th agenda is a resolution to call for a Public Hearing on September 1st. The specific time should therefore be established at the August 4th meeting, so that the Public Hearing may be properly noticed. Councilor Miller’s outside employment schedule relating to schools and athletics is unknown as of this writing. He has indicated that he is hopeful that it will be more clearly known by the end of the first week of August. Recommendation: The City Council should determine whether it wants to continue to meet at 5:00 PM, or revert to the previous 7:00 PM. Any change is recommended to become effective beginning September 1st. Action Required: If a change is desired, the attached resolution will need to be adopted by simple majority vote: A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE STARTING TIME FOR REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL Mark McNeill City Administrator page 111 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020 - 45 A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE STARTING TIME FOR REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, on April 7th, 2020, the City Council approved resolution 2020-28, which changed the starting time for the regular meetings of the City Council from 7:00 PM, to 5:00 PM; and WHEREAS, said change was made to accommodate a conflict which then existed with the outside work schedule of the Mayor of the City of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, because of a new potential conflict, the continuation of the 5:00 PM start may cause another Councilor to regularly miss meetings, and WHEREAS, a change back to 7:00 PM would better accommodate the schedules of all of the Council; and WHEREAS, Section 1-5-3(A)(1) of the Mendota Heights City Code requires that any changes to the City Council’s regular meeting time shall be established by a resolution of the Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter, and desires to change the starting time of regular City Council meetings back to 7:00 P.M. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the starting time of regular City Council meetings held on the first and third Tuesdays of the month shall be changed to 7:00 P.M. and shall remain so until future action is taken by the City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this change shall be September 1, 2020. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of August, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 112