2020-10-07 Council Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Wednesday, October 7, 2020
6:00 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 September 15, 2020 City Council Minutes
b. Acknowledge the August 25, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
c. Approve the Summary Publication of Ordinance 559
d. Resolution 2020-65 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the 2020 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning
and Televising Project
e. Approve Professional Services Contract for the Somerset Elementary Sewer Realignment
f. Approve Resolution 2020-66 Supporting the Dakota County 2021-2025 Capital
Improvement Plan
g. Accepting Wetland Delineation Report and Wetland Determination for the parcels located
at 1865 and 1883 Dodd Road
h. Approve Joint Water Resources Application of Wetland Exemption for the parcel located at
681 Brookside Lane
i. Acknowledge the Retirement of Jason Stone from the Fire Department
j. Approve the purchase of Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) from Emergency
Response Solutions
k. Approve Small Business CARES Grant Assistance
l. Acknowledge the August Building Activity Report
m. Approval of August 2020 Treasurer’s Report
n. Approval of Claims List
6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
*See guidelines below
7. Public Hearing
a. Resolution 2020-63 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for the Marie Avenue Street
Improvements
b. Resolution 2020-67 Approving Property Tax Abatements
c. Resolution 2020-46 Approving a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for
1217 Victoria Curve (Planning Case No. 2020-14)
8. New and Unfinished Business
a. Meeting Room Use Policies
b. Resolution 2020-64 Supporting the Designation of the Northern Dakota County Chapter of
the “Beyond the Yellow Ribbon” Veterans and Service Family Network
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 ai r 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, September 15, 2020
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilors Paper and Petschel were also present.
Councilors Duggan and Miller were absent.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda with
the addition of the summary publication document added to item g.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
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 d. for additional
discussion.
a. Approval of September 1, 2020 City Council Minutes
b. Acknowledge August 12, 2020 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes
c. Acknowledge July 2020 Par 3 Financial Report
d. Acceptance of Retirement of Firefighter Rich Burrows
e. Acknowledge July 2020 Fire Synopsis
f. Approve Resolution 2020-59 Providing for the Sale of $3,665,000 General Obligation Bonds,
Series 2020A
g. Approve Ordinance 559 Granting a Cable Television Franchise to Comcast of St. Paul, Inc. and to
approve the summary publication of the ordinance
h. Accepting Wetland Delineation Report and Findings of “No Wetland” for 2393 Pilot Knob Road
i. Resolution 2020-57 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the 2020 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project
j. Resolution 2020-58 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Lemay Lake Erosion Control Project
k. Approval of Claims List
page 3
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
D) ACCEPTANCE OF RETIREMENT OF FIREFIGHTER RICH BURROWS
Councilor Paper thanked Rich Burrows for the years of service he has provided to the community.
Mayor Garlock also thanked him for the valuable service he provided for all those years.
Councilor Petschel moved to APPROVE ACCEPTANCE OF RETIREMENT OF FIREFIGHTER RICH
BURROWS.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the public wished to be heard.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
No items scheduled.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) ADOPTING PRELIMINARY BUDGET AND LEVY
Finance Director Kristen Schabacker presented the budget and tax levy proposed for 2021. She stated
the Council has been working on this budget in work sessions since August. The action before the
Council is to approve the preliminary budget and levy so it can be certified to Dakota County.
Ms. Schabacker shared that the proposed levy for 2021 is $10,482,617, representing a 4.32% increase
over 2020. The budget for all funds is $15,822,544. The taxable market value for the city is
approximately $2.4 billion, representing an increase of 5.32% over 2020. The 2020 city tax rate was
38.315, and the proposed 2020 tax rate is 37.870.
The average residential home value increase is approximately 4.1% from 2020. The median home value
in Mendota Heights is approximately $426,600. A home valued at the median will be paying $1,659 for
city property tax; last year the median home value was $409,798 and would have paid $1,614 – the
average increase is 2.79% or $45/year.
page 4
She said that new in this preliminary budget for 2021 included a cost of living adjustment for
employees, and an increase in the workers comp insurance premium. The capital items included in the
budget, as outlined in the memo, will be paid for from the proceeds from the sale of the vacant Village
lots.
The individual department budgets for 2020 are proposed to increase as follows:
• Police Department – 3.31%
• Administration – (-1.59%)
• Engineering – 3.38%
• Park and Recreation – 6.34%
• Street Department – 4.08%
• Fire Department – (-0.81%)
• Code Enforcement – flat
• IT – (-5.19%)
• Planning/Recycling/Council – 1.64%
The total General Fund budget increase is proposed to be 2.5%.
The budgeted revenues are projected to be:
• Tax Levy – up 3.26%
• Licenses / permits – down (-14.43%)
• Fines – up 22.98%
• Charges for services – up 1.38%
• Intergovernmental revenue – up 4.79%
• Miscellaneous revenue – down (-6.15%)
This must be a balanced budget so the revenues are also projected to increase by 2.5%
The levy percent changes are projected as:
• General Fund – up 3.26%
• Legal/Contingency/Emergency Preparedness – remained the same
• Fire Relief – remain the same
• Infrastructure/Facility Reserve – $0
• Fire Station Bonds – up 0.10%
• Special Levies – up 16.03%
• Par 3 Bonds – 0.30%, last year for payment on these
• Street Light District – 0% change
Total Preliminary Tax Levy – up 4.32%.
Ms. Schabacker explained that once the Preliminary Tax Levy is adopted, it cannot be increased but it
can be decreased before the final budget and levy are adopted in December 2020. At the December 1,
2020, City Council Meeting, a public hearing will be held. The final levy and budget would be certified
to Dakota County prior to December 28, 2020.
Mayor Garlock asked if the workers comp rate would stabilize in the next year.
page 5
Finance Director Kristen Schabacker stated that there is still one claim outstanding that will not cause the
policy to decrease in cost.
Councilor Paper stated that he believed there was discussion to include a reserve fund for equipment.
Finance Director Kristen Schabacker stated that there are funds in the Village lots and those funds could
be moved to the equipment reserves in December, if desired. She noted that because of COVID, the
decision was made to keep things stable.
Councilor Petschel asked the percentage of the fund balance within the current budget.
Finance Director Kristen Schabacker stated that she did not make that calculation but believed at the end
of the previous year the balance was close to 100 percent of the operating expenses and fund balance. She
estimated that would remain stable as there is nothing included that would change that fund balance.
Mayor Garlock moved to approve RESOLUTION 2020-60 APPROVING PROPOSED 2020 TAX LEVY
COLLECTIBLE IN 2021.
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Mayor Garlock moved to approve RESOLUTION 2020-61 ADOPTING 2021 PRELIMINARY
BUDGET.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Mayor Garlock moved to approve RESOLUTION 2020-62 APPROVING FINAL 2020 TAX LEVY FOR
SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT NO. 1 COLLECTIBLE IN 2021.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced that aeration was completed at the Par 3 Golf
Course and therefore fall rates have begun for golfers.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Petschel commended Finance Director Kristen Schabacker for another stellar job on the City’s
annual budget and for her work with Ehler’s for bonding rates which will save the City about $135,000.
Councilor Paper stated that the local children are back in school, whether in-person or through distance
learning, and wished the kids and teachers well.
page 6
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 6:21 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 7
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 25, 2020
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August
25, 2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John
Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Litton Field, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those
absent: None
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of July 28, 2020 Minutes
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2020.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSTAIN: 2 (Mazzitello and Petschel)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE 2020-16
GRAND REAL ESTATE ADVISORS/MH DEVELOPMENT LLC, 725 LINDEN
STREET AND 735 MAPLE STREET – PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Pope Architects, acting on behalf
of Grand Real Estate Advisors, is requesting consideration of a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat of
the former City-owned parcels, generally located in The Village at Mendota Heights. The lots are
bounded by Dodd Road to the west, Maple Street to the south, and Linden Street to the east. The
proposed title of the plat is “Mendota Heights Senior Living”.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation
on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s
website).
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings.
page 8
Chair Magnuson asked if Outlot A would contain trees that would provide screening between the
condominiums and this facility.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that area would remain undisturbed and
function as a needed drainage area and would also provide buffering.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS SENIOR LIVING, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 1, 2020
meeting.
B) PLANNING CASE 2020-18
JOHN STEVEKEN, 781 PONDHAVEN LANE – WETLAND PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that John Steveken is seeking approval
of a Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool on the property
located at 781 Pondhaven Lane.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation
on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s
website).
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the height requirement for a pool is five feet.
page 9
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that the ordinance requires a minimum
of five feet.
Commissioner Toth referenced the ordinary high-water level of 874 and asked if that water level
has been stable over the years.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained how the number was developed through
modeling. He noted that the buffer requirement begins from that point.
Chair Magnuson stated that she cannot recall a situation where someone has been allowed to
encroach on the 25-foot setback and asked what would be done to ensure that there would not be
damage to the wetland from erosion or land disturbance.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the Natural Resources Technician is a
great resource and advocate for helping residents with projects of this nature and also conducts
reviews to ensure erosion control measures are in place.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that minimum construction activity is required for
fencing and therefore staff is not too concerned.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that there will be disturbance within the 25-foot buffer to
construct the pool and noted that draft condition four states that the applicant must restore plantings
in coordination with the Natural Resources Technician.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A WETLANDS PERMIT TO JOHN STEVEKEN AND
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 781 PONDHAVEN LANE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL AND FENCE LOCATED
WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE NEW POOL STRUCTURE SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL STANDARDS AND
RULES UNDER TITLE 9 BUILDING REGULATIONS SECTION 9-2-1: SWIMMING
POOLS, AND TITLE 12 ZONING OF THE CITY CODE, AND THE MINNESOTA
STATE BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS. THE NEW FENCE MUST BE A
page 10
MINIMUM OF 5 FEET IN HEIGHT AND FULLY INSTALLED AND INSPECTED
PRIOR TO USING THE SWIMMING POOL
2. THE NEW SWIMMING POOL AND RELATED STRUCTURE WORK SHALL
COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS NOTED
UNDER TITLE 12, CHAPTER 2 WETLANDS SYSTEMS OF CITY CODE.
3. DRAINING OR BACK-FLUSHING OF WATER FROM THE POOL SHALL BE
DIRECTED ONTO THE OWNER’S PROPERTY ONLY AND SHALL NOT DRAIN
DIRECTLY INTO THE POND/WETLAND SYSTEMS. ANY DRAINAGE ONTO
PUBLIC STREETS OR OTHER PUBLIC DRAINAGE WAYS SHALL REQUIRE
PERMISSION OF THE APPROPRIATE LOCAL CITY OFFICIALS.
4. THE APPLICANT/OWNER SHALL REPLANT AND RE-VEGETATE THE 25 FOOT
WETLAND BUFFER AREA WITH PLANTINGS AND MATERIALS PER THE
DIRECTION FO THE CITY’S NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICIAN.
5. ANY NEW EXCAVATING, GRADING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
RELATED TO THE NEW POOL AND FENCE WORK SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE
WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND
CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. FULL EROSION/SEDIMENT MEASURES SHALL BE
INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK AND MAINTAINED
THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
6. A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT
OF ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK ON THIS POOL. SITE CONSTRUCTION SHALL
OCCUR ONLY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. WEEKDAYS;
AND 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS.
7. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE
RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED, PROTECTED AND PERMANENT
GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE POOL PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 1, 2020
meeting.
Staff Announcements / Updates
Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review:
The Park Commission reviewed the Culligan request and provided comments. Staff shared
concerns along with concerns expressed by neighboring property owners. The applicant is
completing soil borings/samples. This request is scheduled to come back to the Planning
Commission at the September meeting. The applicant is also investigating some of the variances
included in the original application.
In August, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request from 1217 Victoria
Curve but that application has been postponed because of concerns from neighbors. The applicant
page 11
is reviewing the possibility of moving the home further south and will continue to hold discussions
with the neighboring property owners. He asked if the Planning Commission would feel
comfortable with the case still going forward to the City Council if the home were moved, as a
second public hearing would be held at the City Council or whether the Commission would feel it
necessary for the case to return to the Commission.
Commissioner Katz stated that he would like the case brought back to review in its totality.
Commissioner Field agreed that it would be difficult to have that recommendation of approval
remain if there are changes made to the request. The Commission confirmed consensus.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked and received confirmation that changes to the application would
result in the 60-day review period timeline starting over.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the City Council has changed its
meeting time to 6:00 p.m. He asked if the Commission would be interested in moving its start
time to 6:00 p.m. as well.
The Commission confirmed consensus with leaving the start time at 7:00 p.m.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti reported that the cell tower CUP was approved for
Verizon at Deerwood Bank and noted that Peterson Plat was also approved by the City Council
with a vote of 3-2.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:33 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
page 12
DATE: October 7, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Summary of Ordinance Publication
Comment:
Introduction:
The City Council is asked to approve the summary of the ordinance which approved the renewal of the
Cable Television Franchise with Comcast, so that it may be published in the City’s legal newspaper.
Background:
At its meeting of September 15th, the City Council considered and approved action to agree to a ten year
renewal of a cable television franchise ordinance with Comcast. Information about this had been made at
the September 1st City Council meeting by an attorney for NDC4.
Because of the physical length of the ordinance which approved the franchise renewal, the City Council
also approved an ordinance summary. This summary (attached) outlines the major points of the renewal,
and offers a significant savings in the costs of legal publication. Anyone wishing to see the entire document
can access it through the City website, but there is a legal requirement to publish at least a summary.
There were only three members of the City Council who were able to be in attendance at the September
15th meeting. While the Ordinance which approved the franchise renewal could be approved by only three
members, by State law the ordinance summary must be approved by a 4/5 majority.
Therefore, the City Council is being asked to approve again the ordinance summary, assuming that at least
four members of the City Council are present at the October 7th meeting.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the City Council approve the publication of the ordinance summary.
Action Required:
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the summary of Ordinance 559, and approve its
publication.
The action requires a supermajority approval (4/5 vote).
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 13
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 559
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO COMCAST OF ST. PAUL, INC. (“COMCAST”)
TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA
HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS ACCOMPANYING THE GRANT OF
THE FRANCHISE; PROVIDING FOR REGULATION AND USE OF THE SYSTEM AND THE
PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY; AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE
PROVISIONS HEREIN.
On September 15, 2020, the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (“City”) adopted an Ordinance granting
a Cable Television Franchise to Comcast. The Ordinance serves two purposes. First, it grants a non-
exclusive cable franchise to Comcast to operate and maintain a cable system within the City. Second, it
provides requirements for the provision of cable television services including technical standards,
customer service obligations, and related matters.
The Ordinance includes the following key terms: 1) establishes a franchise term of ten (10) years; 2)
imposes on Comcast a franchise fee of five percent (5%) of Comcast’s annual gross revenues; 3)
incorporates the City Code regarding right-of-way protections; 4) requires Comcast to dedicate channel
capacity for public, education and government (“PEG”) programming; 5) establishes a PEG Fee of two
and one-quarter percent (2.25%) of Comcast’s annual gross revenues; 5) imposes strong customer service
standards regarding Comcast’s provision of cable services; and 8) requires a performance bond and letter
of credit to enforce Comcast’s compliance with the Ordinance.
It is hereby determined that publication of this title and summary will clearly inform the public of the
intent and effect of Ordinance No. 559. A copy of the entire Ordinance shall be posted at the Mendota
Heights City Hall.
It is hereby directed that only the above title and summary of Ordinance No. 559 be published,
conforming to Minn. Stat. §331A.01, with the following:
NOTICE
Persons interested in reviewing a complete copy of the Ordinance may do so at the City Hall at 1101
Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118, during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Friday.
Passed by the Mendota Heights City Council this 7th day of October, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
/s/Neil Garlock, Mayor
Attest:
/s/ Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 14
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: October 7, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2020-65 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the 2020 Sanitary Sewer
Cleaning and Televising Project
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to accept bids and award a contract for the 2020 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning
and Televising Project.
BACKGROUND
Our sanitary sewer system is aging. Many of our pipes are 60 years old and will soon be in need
of repair. Cleaning our sewer system on a regular cycle will help extend the life of the pipes.
Televising of the system will show where immediate repairs are needed. Lining pipes in need of
repair with cured-in-place-pipe will extend the life of our system.
DISCUSSION
The City of Mendota Heights maintains 74 miles of sanitary sewer pipe. Currently Rich
Burrows, along with one seasonal employee, clean approximately 10 miles of pipe per year. The
proposed project is for the cleaning of approximately 3.3 miles of the City’s sanitary sewer
system and televising approximately 14.2 miles of the City’s sanitary sewer system. At our
current rate, we are cleaning the system every 6 years. The Southeast quadrant of Mendota
Heights is proposed to cleaned and inspected with this project.
BUDGET IMPACT
Five proposals (see attached resolution) were received and opened on Wednesday, September 30,
2020 for the Sanitary Sewer Televising and Cleaning Project. Hydro-Klean, LLC submitted the
low bid of $63,247.53. Their bid was lower than the Engineer’s Estimate of $95,425.30.
The Sanitary Sewer Fund has an annual budget amount of $62,000 allocated to the cleaning and
televising of the system.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council accept the bids and award the contract to Hydro-Klean, LLC
for their bid in the amount of $63,247.53.
page 15
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE 2020
SANITARY SEWER CLEANING AND TELEVISING. This action requires a simple
majority vote.
page 16
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020-65
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE 2020
SANITARY SEWER CLEANING AND TELEVISING PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the proposed cleaning and televising
of sanitary sewers to serve the area referred to as 2020 Sanitary Sewer Televising and Cleaning
Project (City Project No. 202004), bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law and
the following bids were received complying with said advertisement:
NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID
Hydro-Klean, LLC $63,247.53
Equix Integrity, Inc. $79,665.60
Visu-Sewer, Inc. $84,065.47
RTS Shearing, LLC $89,196.17
National Power Rodding Corp. $161,031.00
and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director recommended that the low bid submitted by Hydro-
Klean, LLC of Rogers, Minnesota, be accepted.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1. That the bids for the above project are hereby received and accepted.
2. That the bid of Hydro-Klean, LLC of Rogers, Minnesota, submitted for the cleaning and
televising of the above described project be and the same is hereby accepted.
3. That the contract be awarded to Hydro-Klean, LLC of Rogers, Minnesota, and that the
Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all
contracts and documents necessary to consummate the awarding of said bids.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of October, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 17
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTSPROJECT:2020 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and TelevisingPROJECT #:202004 DATE: 9/30/2020I certify that I have personally opened and read all bids, verified this abstract and find it correct.By:__________________________________________________________ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTIONUNITENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED UNIT PRICEENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNTSCHEDULE 'A' - CLEANING AND TELEVISING1 Clean and Televise 8" Sewer in R.O.W.*L.F. 6,299 $2.00 $12,598.00 $1.35 $8,503.65 $1.45 $9,133.55 $1.10 $6,928.90 $2.21 $13,920.79 $2.00 $12,598.002 Clean and Televise 9" Sewer in R.O.W.**L.F. 1,815 $2.25 $4,083.75 $1.35 $2,450.25 $1.45 $2,631.75 $1.10 $1,996.50 $2.21 $4,011.15 $2.00 $3,630.003 Clean and Televise 10" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 3,034 $2.50 $7,585.00 $1.35 $4,095.90 $1.45 $4,399.30 $1.10 $3,337.40 $2.26 $6,856.84 $2.00 $6,068.004 Clean and Televise 12" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 3,388 $2.75 $9,317.00 $1.35 $4,573.80 $1.45 $4,912.60 $1.10 $3,726.80 $2.31 $7,826.28 $2.00 $6,776.005 Clean and Televise 8" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 1,040 $2.75 $2,860.00 $2.00 $2,080.00 $1.90 $1,976.00 $1.10 $1,144.00 $3.00 $3,120.00 $5.00 $5,200.006 Clean and Televise 10" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 526 $3.00 $1,578.00 $2.00 $1,052.00 $1.90 $999.40 $1.10 $578.60 $3.25 $1,709.50 $5.00 $2,630.007 Clean and Televise 18" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 1,182 $3.25 $3,841.50 $2.00 $2,364.00 $2.50 $2,955.00 $4.60 $5,437.20 $4.00 $4,728.00 $5.00 $5,910.008 Televise Only 8" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 36,637 $0.85 $31,141.45 $0.59 $21,615.83 $0.90 $32,973.30 $0.99 $36,270.63 $0.77 $28,210.49 $1.50 $54,955.509 Televise Only 9" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 11,058 $0.85 $9,399.30 $0.59 $6,524.22 $0.90 $9,952.20 $0.99 $10,947.42 $0.77 $8,514.66 $1.50 $16,587.0010 Televise Only 10" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 3,937 $0.85 $3,346.45 $0.59 $2,322.83 $0.90 $3,543.30 $0.99 $3,897.63 $0.77 $3,031.49 $1.50 $5,905.5011 Televise Only 12" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 178 $0.85 $151.30 $0.59 $105.02 $0.90 $160.20 $0.99 $176.22 $0.77 $137.06 $1.50 $267.0012 Televise Only 15" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 2,737 $0.85 $2,326.45 $0.59 $1,614.83 $0.90 $2,463.30 $0.99 $2,709.63 $0.77 $2,107.49 $2.00 $5,474.0013 Televise Only 6" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 150 $1.35 $202.50 $1.20 $180.00 $0.95 $142.50 $0.99 $148.50 $0.77 $115.50 $5.00 $750.0014 Televise Only 8" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 2,862 $1.35 $3,863.70 $1.20 $3,434.40 $0.95 $2,718.90 $0.99 $2,833.38 $0.77 $2,203.74 $5.00 $14,310.0015 Televise Only 9" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 134 $1.35 $180.90 $1.20 $160.80 $0.95 $127.30 $0.99 $132.66 $0.77 $103.18 $5.00 $670.0016 Vacuum Lift StationsHR 2 $225.00 $450.00 $335.00 $670.00 $288.00 $576.00 $650.00 $1,300.00 $300.00 $600.00 $650.00 $1,300.0017 MobilizationL.S. 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00SUBTOTAL$95,425.30 $63,247.53 $79,665.60 $84,065.47 $89,196.17 $161,031.00*Use of city hydrants subject to approval by SPRWS.**Televising to include processing video, report, etc.SUMMARYSCHEDULE 'A' - CLEANING AND TELEVISING$95,425.30 $63,247.53 $79,665.60 $84,065.47 $89,196.17 $161,031.00National Power Rodding Corp.Hydro-Klean, LLC Equix Integrity, Inc. Visu-Sewer, Inc. RTS Shearing, LLCApparent Low Bid to be Awarded at the Next City Council Meeting on 10/6/2020BID ABSTRACTPage 1 of 1page 18
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: October 7, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Authorize Professional Services Contract for the Somerset Elementary Sewer
Realignment
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to authorize a professional services contract for the realignment of the sanitary
sewer service for Somerset Elementary.
BACKGROUND
The city of Mendota Heights installed a sanitary sewer and water main in the north end of the city in
1963. Somerset elementary was serviced by a 6 inch lateral pipe which ran under Ivy Falls Creek.
Subsequent erosion over the years has exposed this pipe which is no longer buried and is subject to
freezing in winter months.
DISCUSSION
Properties in Mendota Heights own their sewer laterals all the way to the city main. In this case, the
private lateral is functional however, the creek which runs above this pipe has resulted in this line
failing. Staff is proposing to realign the service connection to eliminate the creek crossing and
provide adequate cover over the pipe to meet design standards.
The attached report identifies options that were considered. The preferred option is to directionally
drill a new 6 inch lateral from the existing school service to an existing manhole to the west of the
school.
Staff solicited quotes from two professional consultants. Both firms submitted competitive quotes
for the design, bidding, construction staking & observation, and production of record drawings.
TKDA submitted the low quote of $16,000 for this service (quote attached). The other quote from
Bolton & Menk was $17,560.
BUDGET IMPACT
The Sanitary Utility Fund is proposed as a funding source for this improvement. The fund has an
adequate balance for this improvement. The funding will be revised in the design process and
brought back to Council prior to a request to approve the plans and authorize bidding for this project.
page 19
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council authorize the professional services contract to TKDA for
$16,000.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize Staff to execute a professional services
contract with TKDA for $16,000. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 20
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 1, 2020
To: Ryan Ruzek, P.E.
Director of Public Works
From: Kevin P. Kielb, P.E.
Subject: Preliminary Analysis of Sewer Service at Independent School District 197
City of Mendota Heights
We have completed an analysis of the sanitary sewer service at Independent School District 197, located
near Dodd Road and Emerson Avenue. The existing sanitary sewer service is located on the south side of
the school and traverses a creek before connecting to a sanitary sewer main. The existing service is
exposed for approximately 20 feet as it crosses the creek and has experienced freezing issues over the past
several years.
We have identified three potential solutions to alleviate the freezing issue. The solutions and associated
preliminary construction cost estimates are presented below. The attached exhibit depicts the location of
the existing sanitary sewer service line and presents a graphical depiction of the alternatives considered.
Also attached is our preliminary construction cost estimate, which provides additional information related
to the alternatives analyzed.
Option 1 – Directionally Drilled Gravity Sewer (Preferred Alternative)
Existing manholes were examined as possible gravity sewer routes. Due to insufficient ground cover
when crossing the creek bottom, several of the existing manhole connections were deemed infeasible.
Connecting to existing manhole No. 2, as shown in the attached exhibit, was determined to be a feasible
gravity sewer option. Construction costs associated with this option are estimated at $89,650.
Option 2 –Lift Station (or Grinder Pump) and Directionally Drilled Forcemain
A small lift station or grinder pump could be installed on the service line prior to the creek. A
directionally drilled forcemain would then be installed to a manhole located in Dodd Road. Construction
costs associated with the lift station and forcemain are estimated at $115,145. In addition to the capital
costs, this alternative will require continual costs for power and maintenance. If power is disrupted, the
sanitary sewer system will not be functional until power was restored.
Option 3 – Creek Channel Reinforcement
The creek bottom and side slopes could be lined with concrete to allow for approximately 2 -3 feet of
cover over the sanitary sewer service. The channel lining would occur from the outlet of the existing 84”
culvert to 15 feet downstream of the sanitary sewer crossing. Construction would include insulation
around the service line, an 8” thick concrete channel bottom and sidewalls. Construction costs associated
with the reinforcement option are estimated at $97,000.
page 21
037-276970201151
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 197
037-270380020010
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 197
037-270380023010
INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DIST 197
037-273760104060
1308 LAURA
LIM KAISER G
037-273760104070
1324 LAURA
MOAN KARRING T
037-270380020020
1355 DODD
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 197
037-276970301030
1385 DODD
HOLT CAROLE J
037-276970301051
1395 DODD
HINDING CHRISTIAN
& SANDRA
037-276970301070
1399 DODD
SHULSTAD ROBERT H TSTE
037-276970301091
641 1ST
MELOM JOHN R & LYNN M
037-276970301020
644 BROOKSIDE
CARD JOSEPH D
& PAMELA B
037-276970206110
645 1ST
OKEEFE KEVIN D & MARLA
037-276970206050
646 BROOKSIDE
KRUEGER ROBERT B
& LYNN M
037-276970206090
649 1ST
NUCKLES KIMBERLY
037-276970206070
650 BROOKSIDE
ZIEBOL GERALD J
037-276970206080
651 1ST
KEMP DANIEL & NICOLE
037-276970202162
655 BROOKSIDE
MCMANUS TIMOTHY J
& AMY M
037-276970205160
657 1ST
PAGNOTTA VINCENT J & DANA M
037-276970205020
660 BROOKSIDE
TRUE PHILLIP H & LYNDA MC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>l l
l l
l l
RIPRAP & CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT
R=869.68
I=856.08
R=874.21
I=864.59
R=886.05
I=865.36
R=895.28
I=884.89
R=914.56
I=897.97
R=868.62
I=855.74
R=912
I=904.1
EX MH 1
EX MH 2
EX MH 3
EX MH 4 EX MH 5 EX MH 6 EX MH 7
EX MH 8
900
890
880
870
910
900 910920>>>>>>EX MH 9
R=922.31
I=913.48>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>S
S
S
SSS
S
S
S
S
S
l l l ll ll lH:\MHGT\R12122547\CAD\C3D\FIGR-122547-LAYOUT.dwg 8/31/2020 4:23:27 PMR
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 197
City of Mendota Heights
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE ANALYSIS
September 2020
R
FEETSCALE
0 50 100DODD RDBROOKSIDE LN
1ST AVELAURA LNINDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT 197
LEGEND
>6" DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED
GRAVITY SEWER OPTIONS
l l 2" DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED
FORCEMAIN OPTIONS
FORCEMAIN GRINDER PUMP
LIFT STATION
>EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
CREEK REINFORCEMENT OPTION
>>EXISTING STORM SEWER CULVERT
APPROXIMATE CREEK BOTTOM
EXISTING BITUMINOUS TRAIL
APPROX 0.5' OF PIPE COVER
APPROX 2' OF PIPE COVER
APPROX 4' OF PIPE COVER
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
CONFLICT
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
page 22
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
ISD 197 SEWER SERVICE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
BMI PROJECT NO. R12.122547 Date: 8/31/2020
OPTION 1 - DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED GRAVITY SEWER
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LUMP SUM $6,000.00 $6,000.00
2 CLEARING & GRUBBING 0.2 ACRE $15,000.00 $3,000.00
3 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 115 SQ YD $20.00 $2,300.00
4 ABANDON EXISTING SEWER SERVICE 115 LIN FT $40.00 $4,600.00
5 6" DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED SEWER 530 LIN FT $75.00 $39,750.00
6 CONNECT TO EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE (CORE)2 EACH $2,500.00 $5,000.00
7 BITUMINOUS PATCH 115 SQ YD $100.00 $11,500.00
8 TURF ESTABLISHMENT & EROSION CONTROL 700 SQ YD $25.00 $17,500.00
ESTIMATED OPTION 1 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL:$89,650.00
OPTION 2 - LIFT STATION (OR GRINDER PUMP) AND DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED FORCEMAIN
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LUMP SUM $8,000.00 $8,000.00
2 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER 20 LIN FT $12.00 $240.00
3 REMOVE SIDEWALK 165 SQ FT $5.00 $825.00
4 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 12 SQ YD $20.00 $240.00
5 ABANDON EXISTING SEWER SERVICE 60 LIN FT $40.00 $2,400.00
6 2" DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED FORCEMAIN 175 LIN FT $45.00 $7,875.00
7 GRINDER PUMP STATION 1 LUMP SUM $75,000.00 $75,000.00
8 CONNECT TO EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE (CORE)1 EACH $3,500.00 $3,500.00
9 CONNECT TO EXISTING SEWER PIPE 1 EACH $1,000.00 $1,000.00
10 CURB & GUTTER 20 LIN FT $25.00 $500.00
11 CONCRETE SIDEWALK 165 SQ FT $6.00 $990.00
12 BITUMINOUS PATCH 12 SQ YD $100.00 $1,200.00
13 TURF ESTABLISHMENT & EROSION CONTROL 225 SQ YD $15.00 $3,375.00
ELECTRIC SERVICE 1 LUMP SUM $10,000.00 $10,000.00
ESTIMATED OPTION 2 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL:$115,145.00
OPTION 3 - CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT OF CREEK
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LUMP SUM $6,800.00 $6,800.00
2 CLEARING & GRUBBING 0.2 ACRE $25,000.00 $5,000.00
3 INSULATION 75 SQ YD $40.00 $3,000.00
4 CONCRETE DITCH PAVING 1,400 SQ FT $57.00 $79,800.00
5 TURF ESTABLISHMENT & EROSION CONTROL 160 SQ YD $15.00 $2,400.00
ESTIMATED OPTION 3 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL:$97,000.00
TOTAL AMOUNTITEM NO. ITEM
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT UNIT PRICE
9/1/2020, 9:38 AM
Engineer's Estimate
Bolton & Menk, Inc.Page 1 of 1
page 23
TKDA | 444 Cedar Street Suite 1500 | Saint Paul, MN 55101 651.292.4400 • tkda.com
An employee -owned company promoting affirmati ve action and equal opportunity.
September 29, 2020 Via Email Only: ryanr@mendota-heights.com
Mr. Ryan Ruzek, PE
Director of Public Works
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Proposal for Engineering Services
Independent School District 197 Sewer Service
Dear Mr. Ruzek:
In response to your request, we propose to provide Engineering Services in connection design and construction
services for a new sanitary sewer service to Somerset Heights Elementary School (Project). Our services will be
provided in the manner described in this Proposal subject to the terms and conditions set forth in our Mater
Agreement for Professional Services dated June 21, 2016. Hereinafter, the City of Mendota Heights is referred to
as the City.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City has completed an alternatives analysis for the replacement of the sanitary sewer service serving Somerset
Heights Elementary School. The existing service is shallow and frequently freezes during the winter. The City plans
to replace the existing service with a new directionally drilled pipe.
II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY TKDA
Based on TKDA’s understanding of the Project, we propose to provide the following services:
Design Services
o Site visit to review the existing site conditions.
o Preparation of draft construction plans and specifications for City review (six drawings assumed).
o Preparation of an Opinion of Probable Cost for the proposed work.
o Incorporation of City comments into final plans and specifications for soliciting of quotes.
Bidding Services
o Assist the City in soliciting quotes from contractors.
o Respond to contractor questions during the solicitation period.
o Review quotes and provide the City with a Recommendation of Award letter.
Construction Services
o Construction staking for the Project.
o Limited construction observation (six, four-hour site visits assumed).
o Preparation of record drawings based on field observations and contractor documentation.
III. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
If authorized in writing by the City, we will furnish or obtain from others Additional Services which are not considered
as basic services under this Proposal. Additional Services shall be billable on an Hourly Time and Materials basis
and such billings shall be over and above any maximum amounts set forth in this Proposal.
page 24
Mr. Ryan Ruzek | City of Mendota Heights
Proposal for Engineering Services
September 29, 2020
Page 2
IV. CITY’S RESPONSIBILITIES
These responsibilities shall include, but are not limited to the following:
A. Designate one individual to act as a representative with respect to the work to be performed, and such person
shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define policies, and
make decisions with respect to critical elements pertinent to the Project.
B. Provide TKDA with access to the site as required to perform services listed in SECTION II.
C. Provide TKDA with results of the geotechnical investigation for the project.
D. Provide TKDA with the topographic survey of the Project site.
V. PERIOD OF SERVICE
We will expect to start our services promptly upon written authorization subject to an executed mutually agreeable
Supplemental Agreement under our Master Agreement and to complete SECTION II services within three (3) weeks
after receipt of the topographic survey and geotechnical investigation report.
VI. COMPENSATION
Compensation to TKDA for services provided as described in SECTION II of this Proposal shall be on an Hourly
Time and Materials basis for a total not to exceed amount of $16,000. Payment shall be made in accordance with
our Agreement.
The level of effort required to accomplish SECTION II services can be affected by factors which are beyond our
control. Therefore, if it appears at any time charges for services rendered under SECTION II will exceed the above,
we agree we will not perform services or incur costs which will result in billings in excess of such amount until we
have been advised by you additional funds are available and our work can proceed.
VII. CONTRACTUAL INTENT
We thank you for the opportunity to submit this Proposal. This Proposal will be open for acceptance for 60 days,
unless the provisions herein are changed by us in writing prior to that time and agree to execute a mutually
agreeable Supplemental Agreement under our Master Agreement that incorporates this Proposal.
If you have any questions, please contact Dan Nesler at 651.726.7977 or dan.nesler@tkda.com.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Nesler, PE Douglas W. Fischer, PE
Project Manager Vice President, Municipal Services
DAN:DWF:ksb:ayo
page 25
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: October 7, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2020-66 Supporting the Dakota County 2021-2025 Capital
Improvement Plan
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2020-66 supporting the Dakota County 2021-2025
Capital Improvement Plan.
BACKGROUND
Every year Dakota County updates their five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). In
conjunction with these updates, the County asks for resolutions of support from County cities
and townships to present to the County Board at their budget meetings from November 3rd-5th,
2020. A copy of the Draft 2021-2025 CIP is attached for your review.
DISCUSSION
Mendota Heights has limited projects listed within the 2021-2025 Dakota County Capital
Improvement Plan.
Design of future Improvements to CSAH 63 (Delaware Avenue) Marie Ave to Dodd
Road (TH 149) – 2023 Design, Possible 2025 Construction
Right-of-way acquisition for CSAH 63 (Delaware Avenue) Marie Ave to Dodd Road
(TH 149) – 2024 ROW, Possible 2025 Construction
Construction for CSAH 63 (Delaware Avenue) Marie Ave to Dodd Road (TH 149) –
2024 ROW, Possible 2025 Construction
Resurfacing CO RD 43 (Lexington Avenue) between Victoria Road and Highway 13 –
2021 Construction
The following items were shown on last year’s 2020-2024 CIP
Big Rivers Regional Trail – Mendota Heights Trailhead Improvements (IN PROCESS)
page 26
Additional Improvements included rehabilitation of the Marie Avenue Underpass and a new at-
grade crossing on Marie Avenue. Dakota County also resurfaced Wachtler, Wentworth, and
Delaware in 2020.
If Council desires improvements to any County Roads (Wentworth, Wachtler, Delaware,
Lexington), please express this desire to staff. County projects typically carry a 55%
County/45% City cost share. A new cost share policy has been adopted by Dakota County that
reduces the city share on certain projects to 25%. Dakota County is also in the process of further
amending their cost share policy which may reduce the local share to 10% on certain projects
and may include trail improvements at 0% local match.
BUDGET IMPACT
None at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve Resolution 2020-66 supporting the Dakota County
2021-2025 Capital Improvement Plan.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to support the Dakota County 2021-2025 CIP, they should adopt a Resolution
in support of the CIP. RESOLUTION 2020-66, A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
PROJECTS LISTED IN THE DRAFT 2021-2025 DAKOTA COUNTY CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
Adoption of this Resolution would require a simple majority vote.
page 27
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-66
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROJECTS LISTED IN THE DRAFT
2021-2025 DAKOTA COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, Dakota County has asked cities and townships to request projects for
inclusion in the 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Plan and the City of Mendota Heights values
the cooperative working relationship it has with Dakota County; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights supports the continued maintenance and
improvement of our regional road network, trails and park system; and is further supportive of
the proposed work on the regional trail network; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is also supportive of vehicular and pedestrian
public safety as well as storm water drainage improvements throughout the public right-of-way
in the city; and
WHEREAS, Dakota County intends to begin a CSAH 63 Reconstruction Project in
2023, 2024 and 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights intends to participate in costs associated with
the project in accordance with Council approved Cost Sharing Agreements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights Capital Improvement Plan does not show
adequate cost sharing funding for the CSAH 63 in 2023, 2024 and 2025; and
WHEREAS, Dakota County may have to delay invoicing the City of Mendota Heights
cost sharing of the CSAH 63 project until funding is available; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota supports the efforts of Dakota County to improve public safety,
transportation, storm water drainage, parks, trails, and recreational facilities through the Draft
2021-2025 Capital Improvement Plan.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of October, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL
ATTEST: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By_____________________________ By________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk Neil Garlock, Mayor
page 28
JL Key Project
Number Road Segment Short Description City Location Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH County
Funding
Sales and Use
Tax County Levy Fund Category Lead Agency
2021-2025 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2023 Section
PRESERVATION:
Paved Highway Surface (Wheelage Tax $ & Gravel Tax $)7,710,000 - - - 6,560,000 1,150,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Gravel Highway Surface (CR's 76,89,91,93)750,000 - - - - 750,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Gravel Highway Surface - Repairs Spot Locations 50,000 - - - - 50,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Traffic Safety & Operation Durable Pavement Markings 350,000 - - - 300,000 50,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities 1,100,000 - - - - 1,100,000 - Transportation Fund
Retaining Wall Maintenance 330,000 - - - 230,000 100,000 - Transportation Fund
Storm Sewer Maintenance 400,000 80,000 - - - 320,000 - Transportation Fund
2023 Sales and Use Tax Preservation SubTotal:- - - - - - - -
2023 Transportation Preservation SubTotal:10,690,000 80,000 - - 7,090,000 3,520,000 - -
2023 Preservation Total:10,690,000 80,000 - - 7,090,000 3,520,000 - -
MANAGEMENT:
T11027 11-27 CSAH 11 At Burnsville Parkway ROW Acquisition Roundabout Burnsville 325,000 146,250 - - 178,750 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T28044 28-44 CSAH 28 At Elrene Rd, at Mike Collins Dr Construction Eagan 400,000 180,000 - - 200,000 20,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T33015 33-15 CSAH 33 At 140th St/Connemara Trail Roundabout Construct Roundabout Apple Valley/Rosemount 1,950,000 877,500 - - 1,052,500 20,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T46057 46-57 CSAH 46 At CSAH 85 (Goodwin Ave)ROW Acquisition Roundabout Nininger & Vermillion Twps 150,000 - - - 150,000 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T54009 54-09 CSAH 54 At CSAH 68 (200th St) ROW Acquisition Roundabout Ravenna Twp 130,000 - - - 115,000 15,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T83010 83-10 CR 83 CSAH 88 (292nd St) to Cannon River Construction Randolph City/Twp 975,000 - - - - 975,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T850xx 85-xx CSAH 85 At TH 50 (only Co $ shown)Construction (only Co $ shown)City of New Trier 900,000 - - - 450,000 450,000 - Transportation Fund MnDOT
T88023 88-23 CSAH 88 CR 94 (Cooper Ave) to TH 56 Construction City of Randolph 3,265,300 - - - 3,232,300 33,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T94005 94-05 CR 94 CSAH 47 to CSAH 88 (292nd St)ROW Acquisition Randolph, Sciota, Waterford Twps 2,000,000 - - - - 2,000,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Trails Trail Gap Set Aside - Location TBD Design/ROW/Construct Trail Gaps TBD 2,000,000 300,000 - - - 1,700,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Jurisdictional Classification (CSAH 88, CR 83, CR 6)Randolph, WSP 3,175,000 - - - - 3,175,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
ROW Preservation & Management 500,000 225,000 - - - 275,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Safety & Management 1,500,000 - - - 500,000 1,000,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Signal Projects Signal Revisions/Communications 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
NEW 42-144 CSAH 42 W. Dakota County Line to TH 52 Safety and Capacity Improvements Burnsville, Apple Valley, Rosemount 5,150,000 1,795,000 - - - - 3,355,000 - Sales and Use Tax Fund Dakota County
NEW Reimburse Parks CIP: Parks & GW Improvements - TBD Construction 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 - Sales and Use Tax Fund Dakota County
2023 Sales and Use Tax Management SubTotal:6,150,000 1,795,000 - - - - 4,355,000 -
2023 Transportation Management SubTotal:17,570,300 1,878,750 - - 6,028,550 9,663,000 - -
2023 Management Total 23,720,300 3,673,750 - - 6,028,550 9,663,000 4,355,000 -
REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION:
T59005 59-05 CR 59 TH 19 to CSAH 47 (Northfield Blvd)Construction Sciota Township 5,760,000 - - - - 3,043,079 2,716,921 Transportation Fund Dakota County
T81014 81-14 "New" 81 CSAH 66 (200th St) to CSAH 46/48 Construction Empire/Vermillion Twp 6,000,000 - - - 5,940,000 60,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T810xx 81-xx CR 81 TH 50 (220th St) to CSAH 66 (200th St)ROW Acquisition Empire & Vermillion Twps 1,585,600 - - - - 1,585,600 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T89007 89-07 CR 89 TH 50 (240th St) to CSAH 62 Construction (Wheelage Tax $)Hampton, Douglas, Marshan Twps 8,850,000 - - - - 8,850,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T91029 91-29 CSAH 91 210th St to TH 316 (Flex Hwy $)Construction (Flex Hwy $)Marshan Township 4,500,000 - - - 4,455,000 45,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T91030 91-30 CSAH 91 Miesville Tr to TH 61 ROW Acquisition Miesville, Douglas Twp 825,000 - - - 825,000 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
97-CR1 Twp Bridge Replace Bridge L3253, 230th St Construction Bridge Castle Rock Twp 200,000 - - 180,000 - 20,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
97-CR2 Twp Bridge Replace Bridge L3254, 230th St Construction Bridge Castle Rock Twp 200,000 - - 180,000 - 20,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Traffic Signal Replacement Replace/New/Geometrics 1,250,000 587,500 - - 662,500 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
NEW 86-41 CSAH 86 West Dakota County line to CSAH 23 (Galaxie Ave)ROW Eureka & Greenvale Twp (Scott Co) 1,500,000 - - - - - 1,500,000 - Sales and Use Tax Fund Dakota County
2023 Sales and Use Tax Replacement & Modernization SubTotal:1,500,000 - - - - - 1,500,000 -
2023 Transportation Replacement & Modernization SubTotal 29,170,600 587,500 - 360,000 11,882,500 13,623,679 - 2,716,921
2023 Replacement & Modernization Total 30,670,600 587,500 - 360,000 11,882,500 13,623,679 1,500,000 2,716,921
EXPANSION:
NEW 66-15 CSAH 66 New CSAH 66 alignment and a new CSAH 66 AND TH 52 Interchange
l ti
ROW Empire Township, Vermillion Township
d V illi
2,000,000 - - - - - 2,000,000 - Sales and Use Tax Fund Dakota County
ST00011 99-013 CSAH 46 TH 3 to TH 52 Construction Rosemount, Empire 22,000,000 1,980,000 - - - - 20,020,000 - Sales and Use Tax Fund Dakota County
2023 Sales and Use Tax Expansion SubTotal:24,000,000 1,980,000 - - - - 22,020,000 -
2023 Transportation Expansion SubTotal:- - - - - - - -
2023 Expansion Total 24,000,000 1,980,000 - - - - 22,020,000 -
RESOURCES:
T26060 26-60 CSAH 26 Trunk Highway 3 to CSAH 73 (Babcock Tr)Design Study Consultant Inver Grove Heights 300,000 135,000 - - 165,000 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T53004 53-04 CR 53 CSAH 47 (Northfield Blvd) to CSAH 86 Design Sciota & Waterford Twp 100,000 - - - - 100,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T63xxx 63-xx CSAH 63 Marie Ave to TH 149 (Dodd Rd)Design Consultant Mendota Heights, West St Paul 600,000 150,000 - - 450,000 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T80027 80-27 CSAH 80 TH 3 to 1 mile W of CSAH 79 (Blaine Ave)Design Castle Rock Township 200,000 - - - 200,000 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Attorney Reimbursement 262,017 - - - - 262,017 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
CIP Reimbursement to Operations 5,173,161 635,972 - - 2,730,867 1,806,322 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Future Studies/Professional Services 400,000 60,000 - - - 340,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Township Road Distribution 20,900 - - - - 20,900 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Consultant Construction Administration 600,000 - - - 300,000 300,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
ST00009 Reimburse Transportation Operations 1,236,026 - - - - - 1,236,026 - Sales and Use Tax Fund
2023 Sales and Use Tax Resources SubTotal:1,236,026 - - - - - 1,236,026 -
2023 Transportation Resources SubTotal:7,656,078 980,972 - - 3,845,867 2,829,239 - -
2023 Resources Total 8,892,104 980,972 - - 3,845,867 2,829,239 1,236,026 -
DRAFT
page 29
JL Key Project
Number Road Segment Short Description City Location Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH County
Funding
Sales and Use
Tax County Levy Fund Category Lead Agency
2021-2025 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2024 Section
PRESERVATION:
Paved Highway Surface (Wheelage Tax $ & Gravel Tax $)7,710,000 - - - 6,560,000 1,150,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Gravel Highway Surface (No Resurfacing)350,000 - - - - 350,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Gravel Highway Surface - Repairs Spot Locations 50,000 - - - - 50,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Traffic Safety & Operation Durable Pavement Markings 350,000 - - - 300,000 50,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities 1,100,000 - - - - 1,100,000 - Transportation Fund
Retaining Wall Maintenance 330,000 - - - 230,000 100,000 - Transportation Fund
Storm Sewer Maintenance 400,000 80,000 - - - 320,000 - Transportation Fund
2024 Sales and Use Tax Preservation SubTotal:- - - - - - - -
2024 Transportation Preservation SubTotal:10,290,000 80,000 - - 7,090,000 3,120,000 - -
2024 Preservation Total:10,290,000 80,000 - - 7,090,000 3,120,000 - -
MANAGEMENT:
T11027 11-27 CSAH 11 At Burnsville Parkway Construct Roundabout Burnsville 1,750,000 157,500 1,400,000 - 172,500 20,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T46057 46-57 CSAH 46 At CSAH 85 (Goodwin Ave)Construct Roundabout Nininger & Vermillion Twps 1,200,000 - - - 1,100,000 100,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T54009 54-09 CSAH 54 At CSAH 68 (200th St)Construct Roundabout Ravenna Twp 1,550,000 - 1,395,000 - 100,000 55,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T86xxx 86-xx CSAH 86 At TH 56 (Co Advance Fund MnDOT)ROW Acq Roundabout (MnDOT lead)Randolph Twp 150,000 - -75,000 75,000 - - Transportation Fund MnDOT
T94005 94-05 CR 94 CSAH 47 to CSAH 88 (292nd St)Construction Randolph, Sciota, Waterford Twps 7,950,000 - -- - 5,205,910 2,744,090 Transportation Fund Dakota County
xx-xx Trails Trail Gap Set Aside - CSAH 73, CSAH 32 Design/ROW/Construct Trail Gaps IGH, WSP, Burnsville 2,796,160 81,324 2,239,040 - - 475,796 - Transportation Fund City
Jurisdictional Classification (CP 94-05)1,000,000 - - - - 1,000,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
ROW Preservation & Management 500,000 225,000 - - - 275,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Safety & Management 1,500,000 - - - 500,000 1,000,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Signal Projects Signal Revisions/Communications 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
NEW Reimburse Parks CIP: Parks & GW Improvements - TBD Construction 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 - Sales and Use Tax Fund Dakota County
2024 Sales and Use Tax Management SubTotal:1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 -
2024 Transportation Management SubTotal:18,696,160 613,824 5,034,040 75,000 2,097,500 8,131,706 - 2,744,090
2024 Management Total 19,696,160 613,824 5,034,040 75,000 2,097,500 8,131,706 1,000,000 2,744,090
REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION:
T53004 53-04 CR 53 CSAH 47 (Northfield Blvd) to CSAH 86 ROW Acquisition Sciota & Waterford Twp 700,000 - - - - 700,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T63xxx 63-xx CSAH 63 Marie Ave to TH 149 (Dodd Rd)ROW Acquisition Mendota Heights, West St Paul 2,000,000 500,000 - - 1,500,000 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T80027 80-27 CSAH 80 TH 3 to 1 mile W of CSAH 79 (Blaine Ave)ROW Acquisition Castle Rock Township 1,400,000 - - - 1,400,000 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T81xxx 81-xx CR 81 TH 50 (220th St) to CSAH 66 (200th St)Construction (Wheelage Tax $)Empire & Vermillion Twps 5,500,000 - - - - 5,500,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T91030 91-30 CSAH 91 Miesville Tr to TH 61 (Flex Hwy $)Construction (Flex Hwy $)Miesville, Douglas Twp 3,000,000 - - - 2,970,000 30,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Traffic Signal Replacement Replace/New/Geometrics 1,000,000 500,000 - - 500,000 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
NEW 86-41 CSAH 86 West Dakota County line to CSAH 23 (Galaxie Ave)Construction Eureka & Greenvale Twp (Scott Co) 6,000,000 - - - - - 6,000,000 - Sales and Use Tax Fund Dakota County
2024 Sales and Use Tax Replacement & Modernization SubTotal:6,000,000 - - - - - 6,000,000 -
2024 Transportation Replacement & Modernization SubTotal:13,600,000 1,000,000 - - 6,370,000 6,230,000 - -
2024 Replacement & Modernization Total 19,600,000 1,000,000 - - 6,370,000 6,230,000 6,000,000 -
EXPANSION:
T60xxx 60-xx New 60 Extend CH 60/185th-CSAH 9 to Highview Construction Lakeville 2,250,000 1,012,500 - - 1,112,500 125,000 - Transportation Fund
NEW 66-15 CSAH 66 New CSAH 66 alignment and a new CSAH 66 AND TH 52 Interchange
location Construction Empire Township, Vermillion Township
and Vermillion 10,000,000 - - - - - 10,000,000 - Sales and Use Tax Fund Dakota County
2024 Sales and Use Tax Expansion SubTotal:10,000,000 - - - - - 10,000,000 -
2024 Transportation Expansion SubTotal:2,250,000 1,012,500 - - 1,112,500 125,000 - -
2024 Expansion Total 12,250,000 1,012,500 - - 1,112,500 125,000 10,000,000 -
RESOURCES:
T26xxx 26-xx CSAH 26 Trunk Highway 13 to CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob)Roadway Study Consultant Eagan 175,000 78,750 - - 96,250 - - Transportation Fund
T33xxx 33-xx CSAH 33 140th St/Connemara to CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob)(Roadway) Scoping Study Consultant Apple Valley/Rosemount 175,000 78,750 - - 96,250 - - Transportation Fund
Attorney Reimbursement 262,017 - - - - 262,017 - Transportation Fund
CIP Reimbursement to Operations 5,431,819 667,771 - - 2,867,411 1,896,637 - Transportation Fund
Future Studies/Professional Services 400,000 60,000 - - - 340,000 - Transportation Fund
Township Road Distribution 20,900 - - - - 20,900 - Transportation Fund
Consultant Construction Administration 600,000 - - - 300,000 300,000 - Transportation Fund
ST00009 Reimburse Transportation Operations 1,297,828 - - - - - 1,297,828 - Sales and Use Tax Fund
2024 Sales and Use Tax Resources SubTotal:1,297,828 - - - - - 1,297,828 -
2024 Transportation Resources SubTotal:7,064,736 885,271 - - 3,359,911 2,819,554 - -
2024 Resources Total 8,362,564 885,271 - - 3,359,911 2,819,554 1,297,828 -
TRANSIT:
ST00003 Various Various Bus Shelter Pad Construction TBD 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 - Sales and Use Tax Fund Dakota County/MVTA
ST00005 Transit Service Expansion Set Aside Various/TBD 350,000 - - - - - 350,000 - Sales and Use Tax Fund
2024 Sales and Use Tax Transit SubTotal:400,000 - - - - - 400,000 -
2024 TransportationTransit SubTotal:- - - - - - - -
2024 Transit Total 400,000 - - - - - 400,000 -
2024 Sales and Use Tax SubTotal 18,697,828 - - - - - 18,697,828 -
2024 Transportation SubTotal 51,900,896 3,591,595 5,034,040 75,000 20,029,911 20,426,260 - 2,744,090
70,598,724 3,591,595 5,034,040 75,000 20,029,911 20,426,260 18,697,828 2,744,090 2024 Grand Total
DRAFT
page 30
JL Key Project
Number Road Segment Short Description City Location Annual Cost City Federal State CSAH County
Funding
Sales and Use
Tax County Levy Fund Category Lead Agency
2021-2025 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2025 Section
PRESERVATION:
Paved Highway Surface (Wheelage Tax $ & Gravel Tax $)7,710,000 - - - 6,560,000 1,150,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Gravel Highway Surface (CR's 83,94 & maybe 73)800,000 - - - - 800,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Gravel Highway Surface - Repairs Spot Locations 50,000 - - - - 50,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Traffic Safety & Operation Durable Pavement Markings 350,000 - - - 300,000 50,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities 1,100,000 - - - - 1,100,000 - Transportation Fund
Retaining Wall Maintenance 330,000 - - - 230,000 100,000 - Transportation Fund
Storm Sewer Maintenance 400,000 80,000 - - - 320,000 - Transportation Fund
2025 Sales and Use Tax Preservation SubTotal:- - - - - - - -
2025 Transportation Preservation SubTotal:10,740,000 80,000 - - 7,090,000 3,570,000 - -
2025 Preservation Total 10,740,000 80,000 - - 7,090,000 3,570,000 - -
MANAGEMENT:
T86xxx 86-xx CSAH 86 At TH 56 (Co Advance Fund MnDOT)Construct Roundabout (MnDOT lead)Randolph Twp 1,500,000 - - 750,000 750,000 - - Transportation Fund MnDOT
xx-xx Trails Trail Gap Set Aside - Location TBD Design/ROW/Construct Trail Gaps TBD 2,000,000 300,000 - - - 1,700,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Jurisdictional Classification (CP 53-04, CR 45, CR 48)2,000,000 - - - - 2,000,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
ROW Preservation & Management 500,000 225,000 - - - 275,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Safety & Management (Wheelage Tax $)1,500,000 - - - 500,000 1,000,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Signal Projects Signal Revisions/Communications 300,000 150,000 - - 150,000 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
NEW TH 13 TH 13 Grade Seperated Ped Crossing DC Share Burnsville 305,800 - - - - - 305,800 - Sales and Use Tax Fund Burnsvillle
Reimburse Parks CIP: Parks & GW Improvements - TBD Construction 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 - Sales and Use Tax Fund Dakota County
2025 Sales and Use Tax Management SubTotal:1,305,800 - - - - - 1,305,800 -
2025 Transportation Management SubTotal:7,800,000 675,000 - 750,000 1,400,000 4,975,000 - -
2025 Management Total 9,105,800 675,000 - 750,000 1,400,000 4,975,000 1,305,800 -
REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION:
T53004 53-04 CR 53 CSAH 47 (Northfield Blvd) to CSAH 86 Construction (Wheelage Tax $)Sciota & Waterford Twp 3,844,000 - - - - 1,072,469 2,771,531 Transportation Fund Dakota County
T63xxx 63-xx CSAH 63 Marie Ave to TH 149 (Dodd Rd)Construction Mendota Heights, West St Paul 6,900,000 1,035,000 - - 5,865,000 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
T80027 80-27 CSAH 80 TH 3 to 1 mile W of CSAH 79 (Blaine Ave)Construction Castle Rock Township 7,284,000 - - - 7,209,000 75,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Traffic Signal Replacement Replace/New/Geometrics 1,000,000 500,000 - - 500,000 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
2025 Sales and Use Tax Replacement & Modernization SubTotal:- - - - - - - -
2025 Transportation Replacement & Modernization SubTotal 19,028,000 1,535,000 - - 13,574,000 1,147,469 - 2,771,531
2025 Replacement & Modernization Total 19,028,000 1,535,000 - - 13,574,000 1,147,469 - 2,771,531
EXPANSION:
ST00004 NEW TH 77 TH 77 Capacity Improvements Apple Valley, Eagan 20,000,000 - - - - - 20,000,000 - Sales and Use Tax Fund MnDOT
2025 Sales and Use Tax Expansion SubTotal:20,000,000 - - - - - 20,000,000 -
2025 Transportation Expansion SubTotal:- - - - - - - -
2025 Expansion Total 20,000,000 - - - - - 20,000,000 -
RESOURCES:
T28048 28-48 CSAH 28 TH 3 to 0.62 mile east Design Consultant Inver Grove Heights 150,000 67,500 - - 82,500 - - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Attorney Reimbursement 262,017 - - - - 262,017 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
CIP Reimbursement to Operations (Wheelage Tax $)5,431,819 667,771 - - 2,867,411 1,896,637 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Future Studies/Professional Services 400,000 60,000 - - - 340,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Township Road Distribution 20,900 - - - - 20,900 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
Consultant Construction Administration 600,000 - - - 300,000 300,000 - Transportation Fund Dakota County
ST00009 Reimburse Transportation Operations 1,362,719 - - - - - 1,362,719 - Sales and Use Tax Fund
2025 Sales and Use Tax Resources SubTotal:1,362,719 - - - - - 1,362,719 -
2025 Transportation Resources SubTotal:6,864,736 795,271 - - 3,249,911 2,819,554 - -
2025 Resources Total 8,227,455 795,271 - - 3,249,911 2,819,554 1,362,719 -
TRANSIT:
ST00003 Various Various Bus Shelter Pad Construction TBD 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 - Sales and Use Tax Fund Dakota County/MVTA
NEW Kenrick Park and Ride Expansion Lakeville 750,000 - - - - - 750,000 - Sales and Use Tax Fund Metro Transit
2025 Sales and Use Tax Transit SubTotal:800,000 - - - - - 800,000 -
2025 Transportation Transit SubTotal:- - - - - - - -
2025 Transit Total 800,000 - - - - - 800,000 -
2025 Sales and Use Tax SubTotal 23,468,519 - - - - - 23,468,519 -
2025 Transportation SubTotal 44,432,736 3,085,271 - 750,000 25,313,911 12,512,023 - 2,771,531
67,901,255 3,085,271 - 750,000 25,313,911 12,512,023 23,468,519 2,771,531 2025 Grand Total
DRAFT
page 31
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: October 7, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician
SUBJECT: Accepting Wetland Delineation Report and Wetland Determination for the parcels
located at 1865 and 1883 Dodd Road
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve a Joint Water Resources Application for wetland determination
and Wetland Delineation Report for the parcels located at 1865 and 1883 Dodd Road.
BACKGROUND
The City Council of Mendota Heights is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) that administers
Chapter 8420 of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). A Wetland Delineation and
Determination Report for the site at 1865 and 1883 Dodd Road was submitted by Kjolhaug
Environmental, on behalf of Matt Gustafson, applicant, on July 31, 2020.
DISCUSSION
Kjolhaug Environmental delineated the project site in June of 2020, and delineated one Type 2,
wet meadow wetland basin, which was identified within the project boundaries. The National
Wetland Inventory Map and MN Department of Natural Resources Public Waters Inventory
shows no wetlands on the site. The City’s Natural Resources Technician reviewed the site in
August of 2020, however fill had been placed over the delineated markers. The applicant
removed the fill from the area. The site was reviewed again after the fill had been removed, and
concurred with the delineation as submitted in the report. No additional comments were received
from the Technical Evaluation Panel.
The applicant will need to submit a No-Loss WCA application to be approved by the City
Council before any disturbances to the wetland would be authorized.
BUDGET IMPACT
None, this process is a judicial requirement of the City. If the Council accepts the report, a Notice
of Decision will be sent to Technical Evaluation Panel members and their respective agencies
(Dakota County SWCD, BWSR, LMRWMO, MN DNR, and Army Corps of Engineers), as well
as the applicant and any members of the public that requested notice (none).
page 32
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve and accept the Wetland Delineation Report and
Determination as submitted by Kjolhaug Environmental, and direct staff to issue the Notice of
Decision.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion accepting the
Wetland Delineation Report and Determination, and authorize staff to issue a Notice of Decision.
This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 33
1865/83 Dodd Road Site
Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota
Wetland Delineation Report
Prepared for
Gold Square Properties LLC.
by
Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc.
(KES Project No. 2020-062)
July 31, 2020
page 34
1865/83 Dodd Road Site
Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota
Wetland Delineation Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1
2. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 2
3. METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 2
4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information .......................................... 3
4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations........................................................................ 4
4.3 Other Areas ....................................................................................................................... 4
4.4 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination ................................... 4
5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION ............................................................................. 5
TABLES
Table 1. Soil types mapped on the 1865/83 Dodd Road site ................................................. 3
FIGURES
1. Site Location
2. Existing Conditions
3. National Wetlands Inventory
4. Soil Survey
5. DNR Public Waters Inventory
6. National Hydrography Dataset
APPENDICES
A. Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota
B. Wetland Delineation Data Forms
C. Precipitation Data
page 35
1
1865/83 Dodd Road Site
Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota
Wetland Delineation Report
1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY
• The 2.13-acre 1865/83 Dodd Road site was inspected on June 17, 2020 for the presence
and extent of wetland.
• The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map did not show any mapped wetlands within
the project boundaries.
• The soil survey showed non-hydric soil types on the property which included Waukegan
and Antigo soils.
• The DNR Public Waters Inventory did not show any DNR Public Waters, Wetlands or
Watercourses mapped within 1,000 feet of the project boundaries.
• The National Hydrography Dataset showed one watercourse located approximately 550
feet north of the project boundaries.
• One excavated Type 2 (PEM1Bx) wet meadow wetland was identified and delineated
within the project boundaries. It was dominated by American manna grass and was
isolated with no visible natural or constructed outlets.
page 36
1865 Dodd Road Site Wetland Delineation Report
2
2. OVERVIEW
The 2.13-acre 1865/83 Dodd Road site was inspected on June 17, 2020 for the presence and
extent of wetland. The property was located in the Northwest ¼ of Section 25, Township 28
North, Range 23 West, City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota. The site was
situated west of intersection between Dodd Road and Wesley Lane (Figure 1). The property
corresponded to Dakota County PIDs 27-71050-00-370 & 27-71050-00-360.
The site consisted of two single-family homes with manicured turfgrass and landscaping. The
site had a mature canopy of trees which included locust, silver maple, elm, ash, aspen, and
boxelder. The topography sloped from an elevation of 886 feet msl in the southern portion of the
site down to a low of 876 feet msl in the eastern and southeastern portion of the site. The
majority of the property drained overland toward the basin in the eastern portion of the property
and remains onsite.
The property was bordered on the north, west, and south by single-family homes, and on the east
by Dodd Road.
One wetland was delineated within the site boundaries. The delineated wetland boundaries and
existing conditions are shown on Figure 2.
Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water
Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) a wetland boundary and type
determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2) delineation
concurrence and an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) under Section 404 of the
Federal Clean Water Act.
3. METHODS
Wetlands were identified using the Routine Determination method described in the Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region
(Version 2.0) as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act.
Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetland that met criteria for
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland-upland boundaries were
marked with pin flags that were located by a Trimble R1 GPS receiver.
Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at a representative location along the wetland-
upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal
coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, a 15-foot radius for the
shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled.
page 37
1865 Dodd Road Site Wetland Delineation Report
3
Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 24 inches (unless otherwise noted) using a
Munsell Soil Color Book and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used
are from Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric
Soils, Version 8.1, 2017).
Mapped soils are separated into five classes based on the composition of hydric components and
the Hydric Rating by Map Unit color classes utilized on Web Soil Survey. The five classes
include Hydric (100 percent hydric components), Predominantly Hydric (66 to 99 percent hydric
components), Partially Hydric (33 to 65 percent hydric components), Predominantly Non-Hydric
(1 to 32 percent hydric components), and Non-Hydric (less than one percent hydric components).
Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant
species was taken from the 2016 National Wetland Plant List (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2016. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3, Engineer Research and Development Center,
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH).
4. RESULTS
4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service) showed no wetlands within the property boundaries (Figure 3).
The Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2015) showed that non-hydric soils included Antigo and
Waukegan silt loam, no Hydric soils were mapped onsite. Soil types mapped on the property are
listed in Table 1 and a map showing soil types is included in Figure 4.
Table 1. Soil types mapped on the 1865/83 Dodd Road site
Symbol Soil Name Acres % of
Area % Hydric Hydric Category
49B Antigo silt loam, 1 to 8 % slope 1.67 78 0 Non-hydric
411A Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1% slope 0.46 22 0 Non-hydric
The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
2015) showed no DNR Public Waters, Public Waters Wetlands, or Public Watercourses within
1,000 feet of the property (Figure 5).
The National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) showed one small unnamed
perennial stream/river located approximately 550 feet north of the site boundary (Figure 6).
page 38
1865 Dodd Road Site Wetland Delineation Report
4
4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations
Potential wetlands were evaluated during field observations on June 17, 2020. One wetland was
identified and delineated on the property (Figure 2). Corresponding data forms are included in
Appendix B. The following description of the wetland and adjacent upland reflects conditions
observed at the time of the field visit. Herbaceous vegetation was actively growing at the time of
the wetland delineation. Precipitation conditions were drier than the normal range based on
available 30-day rolling total precipitation and typical(normal) based on the three-month
antecedent precipitation data (Appendix C).
Wetland 1 was an excavated Type 2 (PEM1Bx) wet meadow wetland located on the eastern
portion of the property. The wetland fringe consisted of mowed Kentucky bluegrass and visible
signs of drowned-out vegetation. The central part of the wetland was dominated by American
manna grass with scattered smartweed and giant goldenrod. Saturation was not observed in the
central portion of the wetland, but two secondary wetland hydrology indicators were observed:
(D5) FAC neutral test, and (D2) geomorphic position. This wetland covered 0.06 acres within
the project boundaries.
Adjacent upland consisted of mowed Kentucky bluegrass and ground ivy with scattered Canada
thistle. Primary and secondary hydrology indicators were not observed on the upland.
The wetland boundary corresponded to a topographic rise that coincided with a transition from
American manna grass to mowed ground ivy and Kentucky bluegrass with Canada thistle. The
wetland was not shown on the NWI map and was mapped as non-hydric soil (Antigo &
Waukegan) on the soil survey. A 4mm thick liner was observed in the excavated depression.
Wetland 1 was an isolated excavated depression in mapped upland soils with no apparent inlets
or outlets. This area may be incidental and supplemental information may be provided to support
that determination.
4.3 Other Areas
No other areas with hydrophytic vegetation or wetland hydrology were observed on the site. No
other areas were shown as hydric soil on the soil survey or as wetland on the NWI map.
4.4 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water
Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) a wetland boundary and type
determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2) delineation
concurrence and an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) under Section 404 of the
Federal Clean Water Act.
page 39
880882884878
8
7
6
87
4 886872
87
0
868 876878878
884886Figure 2 - Existing Conditions
1865 Dodd Road (KES 2020-062)Mendota Heights, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 50
Feet
Project Boundary
Transects
Wetland Boundary
2 ft Lidar
Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, 2019 Dakota County Imagery
Wetland 10.06-ac
SP1-1
page 40
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: October 7, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician
SUBJECT: Approve Joint Water Resources Application of Wetland Exemption for the parcel
located at 681 Brookside Lane
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Joint Water Resources
Application for Exemption, for the parcel located at 681 Brookside Lane.
BACKGROUND
A Joint Water Resources Application for Exemption under Minnesota Rules 8420.0420, Subp. 8:
De minimis, was submitted by Mallory Madden, applicant, on August 19, 2020.
DISCUSSION
The proposed project includes the construction of an earthen berm and culvert that would
connect two upland areas of the application’s backyard. The culvert would provide the
continuation of a drainage course that flows through the wetland, and from one side of the
applicant’s yard to the other. The purpose of the project is to allow easier access to, and further
utilization of all portions of the applicant’s property.
Under 8420.0420 Exemption Standards, subp. 8: De minimis, A. (3) (c), WCA rules state that a
replacement plan is not required for projects that impact up to 400 square feet of type 1, 2, or 6
wetland outside of the building and shoreland setback zones. Because the subject wetland has
been identified as a Type 2 wetland, and the proposed impacts are 348 square feet, the proposed
project qualifies for this Exemption. The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) member representing
the Board of Water and Soil Resources submitted a comment stating “Based on the information
provided this application appears to meet the de minimis exemption as long as it’s outside the
shoreland protection zone and building setback zone.” No additional comments were received
from the TEP.
BUDGET IMPACT
None, this process is a judicial requirement of the City. If the Council approves the application, a
Notice of Decision will be sent to TEP members and their respective agencies as well as the
applicant and any members of the public that requested notice.
page 41
The applicant will need to apply for a Mendota Heights Storm Water and Erosion Control permit
for this project and submit an escrow for enforcement of the Land Disturbance Guidance
Document.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the application as submitted by Midwest Natural
Resources, and direct staff to issue the Notice of Decision.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion approving the
application for Exemption, and authorize staff to issue a Notice of Decision. This action requires
a simple majority vote.
page 42
SheetGRADING Sketch for:681 BROOKSIDE LANEDrawn by:Cad File:Date:1 of 1JMM8/13/2020 - 3CIVIL ENGINEERSLAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS2422 Enterprise DriveMendota Heights, MN 55120(651) 681-1914www.pioneereng.comFax: 681-9488c2020 Pioneer Engineering01-ENG-120106-SHEET-GRADpage 43
Request for City Council Action
DATE: October 7, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Firefighter Retirement—Jason Stone
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to accept the retirement notice of Jason Stone as a firefighter with the
Mendota Heights Fire Department.
BACKGROUND
Firefighter Jason Stone has announced his retirement from the Fire Department effective
September 30, 2020. Jason has been an active member of the department for the past 10 years.
While Jason’s retirement will be formally recognized at the Department’s dinner in
February, staff would like to acknowledge Jason’s contributions to the department and
community and thank him for his time served.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
ACTION RECOMMENDED
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the retirement notice of Jason Stone as a
firefighter with the Mendota Heights Fire Department and formally thank Jason for his 10 years
of service.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept the retirement of Jason Stone from the
Mendota Heights Fire Department and formally thank Jason for his 10 years of service to
the community as a Mendota Heights firefighter.
page 44
DATE: October 8, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief.
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) Purchase
Comment:
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve the purchase of new SCBA for the Fire Department.
BACKGROUND
Included in the Fire Department’s 2021 CIP expenditures budget is the replacement of self-
contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) in the amount of $225,000. This safety equipment is
critically, and vitally important to our firefighters as it is what allows the firefighters to enter hot,
toxic, and immediately dangerous environments.
The department currently has 26 complete SCBA units, 32 spare cylinders, and 40 individual
face pieces. The proposed expenditure is for the replacement of the same amount of units.
The current SCBA’s were manufactured by the MSA Company 15 years ago. Federal standards
mandate that the cylinders be retired after 15 years of service, which will occur on March 1,
2021. Other components of the SCBA are outdated and need to be upgraded or replaced. The
cost of replacing the cylinders, preforming the required updates and the enhancements found in
modern SCBA justify the cost of buying new ones.
Due to longer than normal lead times, the department is seeking council’s permission to order the
new SCBA immediately. Delivery is anticipated to be in early January, which will allow sufficient
time to training with the new SCBA, prior to the expiration of the current ones.
The fire department formed a SCBA committee for the purpose of determining what brand of
SCBA would best serve the department and with what features the new SCBA should be equipped.
The committee determined that MSA, SCBA will best meet the needs of the department now and
in the future.
page 45
Because the SCBA are used in atmospheres which are immediately dangerous to life and health
(IDHL) MSA permits only authorized regional dealers to sell, service, warranty and test the SCBA.
The regional MSA dealer for the Twin Cities is Emergency Response Solutions, which is located
in East Bethel, MN.
Emergency Response Solutions currently has a Contract Assignment and Assumption Agreement
between the Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments (H-GAC), and Mine Safety
Appliances Company, (MSA) to provide MSA, SCBA in Minnesota at government pricing. The
SCBA that the committee is recommending is offered on the H-GAC and will be purchased as part
of that consortium.
The City Attorney has affirmed that the Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments pricing
meets the need for competitive bid requirements.
BUDGET IMPACT
The quote from Emergency Response solutions is $219,030.13. This expense was provided for in
the 2021 CIP, and is within budget amount.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the purchase of MSA, SCBA described at the
cost of $219,030.13
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should authorize the purchase of the SCBA from Emergency Response
Solutions, in the amount of $219,030.
page 46
DATE: October 7, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Small Business CARES Grant Assistance
Comment:
Introduction:
The City Council is asked to approve two documents which formalizes actions which will provide for grants
of up to $10,000 each for qualifying small businesses in Mendota Heights, The grants would be funded
by up to 10% of the City’s allocation of Federal CARES monies.
Background:
At its meeting of August 4th, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-48, which authorized the Dakota
County Community Development Agency to administer a Small Business Relief Grant program on behalf
of the City. In this, qualifying businesses with 50 or fewer employees which had experienced economic
stress after March 15, 2020, which were related to the COVID-19 pandemic could be eligible for grants of
up to $10,000. Depending on the number of applicants, winners could be drawn by a lottery.
Funding for the grants would be from the City’s CARES Funds allocation. The City Council agreed that
up to 10% of the CARES funding could be used for this program, meaning that $85,827.60 would be
available. Dakota County had also allocated CARES monies, so Mendota Heights businesses who were
interested would first be drawn from the County pool, and then the Mendota Heights allocation would be
used for any remaining Mendota Heights businesses.
As it turned out, the number of businesses which applied for funds nearly evenly matched with the amount
of funds which were available, so almost all qualifying businesses will receive grants.
At the August 4th meeting, the City agreed to have a third party (NEXTSTAGE) to administer the program
on behalf of the City and the CDA.
In order for the program to proceed, the City Council must approve two documents:
1. Joint Powers Agreement
2. Subrecipient Agreement
The City Attorney advises that the joint powers agreement is the City’s cooperative agreement with the
County to act collaboratively, pursuant to Minnesota law to exercise our common powers (i.e. to authorize
the City to work cooperatively with the County for the CARES Program). The subrecipient agreement
simply declares that City entrusts the County to serve as a pass-through entity with the CARES Funds. It is
the City’s specific authorization for the County to oversee and administer the program.
page 47
Once these documents are approved, the actual grant agreement (JPA Exhibit A—attached) can be
negotiated and executed. In the interests of expediency, the City Attorney has advised that the City Council
may be asked to authorize the documents to be executed by the City Administrator. That will allow funds
to be disbursed immediately.
Budget Impact:
Funding for the Small Business Relief Grant Program is funded by the City’s portion of the CARES Act
money. It should be noted that any unexpended portion of the City’s allocation of CARES funds which is
not committed by November 15th is to be returned to Dakota County, although efforts are being undertaken
by the League of Minnesota Cities to extend that deadline.
Recommendation:
In order for the Small Business Relief Grant Program to proceed, I recommend that both of the documents
be approved.
Action Required:
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the following documents to be approved:
1. Subrecipient Agreement between the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota and the Dakota
County Community Development Agency for Collaboration of the Small Business Relief
Grant Program, Funded with Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES)
Act Funds; and
2. Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota and the Dakota
County Community Development Agency for Administration of the Small Business Relief
Grant Program, Funded with Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES)
Act Funds; and
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 48
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, AND THE
DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR COLLABORATION OF THE SMALL
BUSINESS RELIEF GRANT PROGRAM
FUNDED WITH CORONAVIRUS AID, RELIEF, AND ECONOMIC SECURITY (CARES) ACT FUNDS
August 4, 2020 – February 15, 2021
The parties to this Agreement are the City of Mendota Heights. Minnesota (City) and the Dakota
County Community Development Agency (CDA), collective referred to as “the Parties”. This Agreement
is made pursuant to the authority conferred upon the parties by Minn. Stat. § 471.59.
WHEREAS, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act as signed into law
by President Trump on March 27, 2020;
WHEREAS, the CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (Fund) and appropriated $150
billion to the Fund; and
WHEREAS, the Fund is to be used to make payments for specific uses to State and certain local
governments; and
WHEREAS, City received an allocation of $858,276 of the Fund (the City Allocation) from the State
of Minnesota that must meet the eligibility criteria established by the U.S. Department of Treasury and the
Minnesota Coronavirus Relief Fund Certification (Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, Section 601(d) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 5001 of the CARES Act,
requires States, Tribal governments, or units of local governments use the funds received to cover only those
costs that (1) are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (2) were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as
of March 27, 2020, for the State or government and (3) were incurred during the period that begins on March
1, 2020, and ends on December 30, 2020;
WHEREAS, the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic has created emergency and exigent
circumstances for individuals and businesses necessitating immediate response and implementation of
programs to provide relief aid to impacted communities and business; and
WHEREAS, the creation of a small business relief grant program is an eligible Fund expenditure to
reimburse the costs of business interruption caused by required closures; and
WHEREAS, creation of a small business relief grant program (Program) was approved by the
Mendota Heights, Minnesota City Council on August 4, 2020 (Resolution No. 2020-48) authorizing the
CDA to administer the program on behalf of the City, to be funded with the City Allocation; and
WHEREAS, City authorized up to $85,827.60 to fund grant awards and up to $2952.47 for
administrative expenses related to the Program; and
page 49
WHEREAS, the City Allocation must be expended by November 15, 2020 or be returned to Dakota
County.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement,
the City and the CDA agree with all of the recitals set forth above, and agree to the following:
I. Scope of Services to be provided by the CDA
A. The CDA agrees to act as the subrecipient for the City in the administration of the Program, which
utilizes a portion of the City Allocation funds from the State of Minnesota. As the subrecipient, the
CDA agrees to oversee the program and processes.
B. The CDA agrees to comply with federal procurement provisions to procure and enter into a
contractual agreement with a qualified contractor to implement the Program.
C. The CDA agrees to develop marketing materials and advertise the Program in collaboration with
Dakota County, cities, chambers of commerce, and business associations, to reach as many eligible
businesses as possible to apply for the Program.
D. The CDA agrees to oversee the work of the Contractor on every stage of the Program from
applications development, to selection, review, award of grants, and to audit of grantees.
E. Review all fully executed grant agreements and funding requests to each grantee (small business)
before submitting to City for payment.
F. The CDA shall keep detailed records of the Program and provide regular updates to the City.
G. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §16C.05, subd. 5, the CDA agrees that the City, the State Auditor, or any
of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as
they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt,
and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, et., which are pertinent to the accounting
practices and procedures of the CDA and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. CDA
agrees to maintain these records for a period of six years from the date of termination of this
Agreement and will require the Contractor to comply with this requirement.
II. Time of Performance
The services to be provided pursuant to the Agreement shall commence on or after July 14, 2020 and
continue until February 15, 2021, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs
first. Presently, the City Allocation must be expended by November 15, 2020 or returned to the County.
City and the CDA acknowledge the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic has created emergency and exigent
circumstances necessitating expedited response and implementation of programs, including the Program, to
provide relief aid to impacted communities and business.
page 50
III. Duties of the City
In consideration of the performance of the duties and obligations of the CDA, the City hereby authorizes
the CDA ability to reimburse the actual administrative and project-related costs of carrying out its duties
and obligations hereunder out of the City Allocation up to an amount allowable by Mendota Heights City
Council Resolution No.2020-48. Such costs include the following:
A. Contractor costs incurred in order to carry out its duties and obligations pursuant to this Agreement;
B. Reasonable and necessary administrative expenses.
IV. Financial Recordkeeping
The CDA shall:
A. Obtain, review, and pay regular invoices for services incurred by Contractor.
B. Maintain records and documentation on reasonable and necessary administrative expenses.
C. Submit a report on November 1, 2020 identifying the amounts of any outstanding Program
reimbursement requests eligible for reimbursement from the City Allocation that must be paid by
November 15, 2020.
D. Submit regular Program reimbursement requests to the City in a timely manner. No reimbursement
requests will be submitted to the City later than November 1, 2020.
E. Review all fully executed grant agreements and funding requests to each grantee (small business)
before submitting to City for payment.
V. General Provisions
A. Compliance with Laws. CDA shall abide by all federal, state or local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules
and regulations now in effect or hereunder adopted pertaining to activities governed by the
Agreement.
B. Minnesota Law to Govern. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the substantive and procedural laws of the State of Minnesota, without giving effect to the principles
of conflict of laws. All proceedings related to this Agreement shall be venued in the State of
Minnesota.
C. Independent Contractor. The CDA is an independent contractor and nothing herein shall be
construed to create the relationship of employer and employee between the City and the CDA or any
employee of the CDA. The CDA shall at all times be free to exercise initiative, judgment and
discretion as to how best to provide the services pursuant to this Agreement. The CDA acknowledges
and agrees that the CDA is not entitled to receive any of the benefits received by City employees
and is not eligible for workers or reemployment compensation benefits.
page 51
D. Indemnification.
Each party to this Agreement shall be liable for the acts of its officers, employees or agents and the
results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other
party, its officers, employees or agents. The provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn.
Stat. ch. 466 and other applicable laws govern liability of the City and the CDA. Each insurance
party warrants that they are able to comply with the aforementioned indemnity requirement
through an insurance or self-insurance program and that each has minimum coverage with the
liability limits contained in Minn. Stat. ch. 466. In the event of any claims or actions filed against
either party, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to allow a claimant to obtain separate
judgments or separate liability caps from the individual Parties. The provisions of this section shall
survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
E. Waiver. Waiver of any default shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of
breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms
of this Agreement unless stated to be such.
F. Modifications. Any alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of the provisions of this
Agreement, and incorporated attachments, shall only be valid when they have been reduced to
writing and signed by authorized representatives of the City and the CDA.
G. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable. If any part of this
Agreement is rendered void, invalid, or unenforceable, such rendering shall not affect the validity or
enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement unless the part or parts which are void, invalid, or
otherwise unenforceable shall substantially impair the value of the entire Agreement with respect to
either party.
H. Merger. This Agreement, together with the Joint Powers Agreement between the parties of equal
date herewith, is the final expression of the agreement of the City and the CDA and the complete
and exclusive statement of the terms agreed upon and shall not supersede all prior negotiations,
understandings or agreements. There are not representations, warranties, stipulations, either oral or
written, not herein contained.
I. Assignment. Except as identified in the Joint Powers Agreement between the parties of equal date
herewith, the CDA shall not enter into any subcontract for the performance of the services
contemplated under this Agreement or assign any interest in the Agreement without prior written
consent of the City and subject to such conditions as the City deems necessary. The CDA shall be
responsible for the performance of its subcontractors or assignees unless otherwise agreed in writing.
J. Subrecipient Agreements. If the CDA operates as the administrative agent for any other municipality
for a small business assistance program similar to the Program, the CDA will enter into a separate
subrecipient agreements with those entities.
K. Records and Reports. The CDA shall maintain all records as prescribed by applicable federal
regulations. The CDA further agrees to maintain records relating to all services provided by it
pursuant to the Agreement and shall retain all such documentation for a period of six (6) years from
page 52
the date services were last provided pursuant to this Agreement or longer if any audit in progress
requires a longer retention period. Such records are subject to the examination, duplications,
transcription and audit by the City, and Legislative or State Auditor, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §16C.05,
subd. 5, and duly authorized officials and officers of the United States government.
L. Audits. Compliance with Single Audit Act. The CDA understands that these funds are subject to the
requirements under the Single Audit Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7507) and the related provisions of the
Uniform Guidance, 2 C.F.R. § 200.303 regarding internal controls, §§ 200.330 through 200.332
regarding subrecipient monitoring and management, and subpart F regarding audit requirements.
M. Termination. If the CDA materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement, the City may
take one or more of the actions identified in 24 CFR §85.43, as appropriate in the circumstances.
The City may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part for convenience, as provided in 24 CFR
§85.44.
N. Rights and Remedies. All remedies available to either the City or the CDA under the terms of this
Agreement or by law are cumulative and may be exercised concurrently or separately, and the
exercise of any one remedy shall not be deemed an election of such remedy to the exclusion of other
remedies. Waiver of any default shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver or
breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed to modify the terms of this
Agreement unless stated to be such in writing and signed by authorized representatives of the City
and the CDA.
O. Notices. Notification required to be provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided to the
following named persons and addresses unless otherwise stated in the Agreement or in an
amendment to this Agreement:
To City: Mark McNeill To CDA:
City Administrator Tony Schertler
1101 Victoria Curve Executive Director
Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dakota County CDA
1228Town Centre Drive
Eagan, MN 55123
In addition, notification to the CDA regarding termination shall be provided to the Office of the
Dakota County Attorney, 1560 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033, and notification to the City shall
be provided to the City Attorney at Campbell-Knutson, P.A., 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290,
Eagan MN 55121.
P. Liaison. To assist the parties in the day-to-day performance of this Agreement, a liaison shall be
designated by the City and the CDA. The parties shall keep each other continually informed. At the
time of the execution of this Agreement, the following persons are the designated liaisons:
City’s Liaison: Mark McNeill CDA Liaison: Lisa Alfson
Phone Number: 651-452-1850 Phone Number: 651-675-4400
page 53
Q. Certifications. The CDA certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief that:
1. No federally appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid by or behalf of the CDA to any
person or persons for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any
agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member
of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal
grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the
extension, continuation, renewal, amendment or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan
or cooperative agreements.
2. If any funds other than federally appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person
for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in
connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the CDA shall
complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying” in accordance
with its instructions.
3. The CDA shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents
for all the subawards at all tiers (including subcontractors, subgrants, and contracts) under grants,
loans, and cooperative agreements and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose
accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon with reliance was placed
when this Agreement was made or entering. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for
making or entering into this Agreement imposed by 31 U.S.C. §1332. Any person who fails to
file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not
more than $100,000 for each such failure.
R. Survivability. The right and obligations found in I.G.; V.D. Indemnification, V.K Records and
Reports; and V.L. Audits shall survive expiration or termination of this agreement.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
By:
Assistant County Attorney/Date Tony Schertler, Executive Director
KS-2020- Date of Signature:
Res. No._________________
page 54
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
By:_________________________________________
_______________________, Mayor
By:_________________________________________
_______________________, City Clerk
Res. No. 2020-48
page 55
Exhibit A
Coronavirus Relief Fund Certification
page 56
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AND THE DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE SMALL BUSINESS RELIEF GRANT PROGRAM
FUNDED WITH CORONAVIRUS AID, RELIEF, AND ECONOMIC SECURITY (CARES) ACT FUNDS
PARTIES
The parties to this Agreement are the Dakota County Community Development Agency (herein called “CDA”) and the City
of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (herein called the “CITY”),, collective referred to as “the Parties”. This Agreement is made
pursuant to the authority conferred upon the parties by Minn. Stat. § 471.59.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act as signed into law by President Trump on
March 27, 2020, providing the State of Minnesota $1.87 billion, of which 45 percent may be distributed to local
jurisdictions as Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF) pursuant to eligibility criteria established by the U.S. Department of
Treasury; and
WHEREAS, the creation of a small business relief grant program is an eligible CRF expenditure to reimburse the costs of
business interruption caused by required closures.
WHEREAS, the CDA was authorized by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners on July 14, 2020, to implement a
small business relief grant on behalf of Dakota County with Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
funding by County Board Resolution No. 20-346 (the “Dakota County Grant Program”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CDA Board Resolution No. 20-6292, the CDA Board of Commissioners authorized the CDA
Executive Director to enter into a Contract for Professional Services with NEXTSTAGE, a Minnesota non-profit organized
under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 317A, for the implementation of a small business relief grant program effective July 14,
2020; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CDA Board Resolution No. 20-_________, the CDA Board of Commissioners authorized a First
Amended Contract for Professional Services with the NEXTSTAGE to allow the service performed by NEXTSTAGE to be
extended to small business grant programs implement for cities in Dakota County to be administered by the CDA under
the same terms and conditions as the Dakota County Grant Program, including grant agreement form attach as Exhibit
“A”; and
WHEREAS, by City Council Resolution No. 2020-48, CITY authorized up to $85,827.60 to fund grant awards and up to
$2952.47 for administrative expenses to implement a small business relief grant under the same guidelines as the Dakota
County Grant Program as described in the attached Exhibit A (the “Program Guidelines”), but available exclusively to
eligible business applicants located within the CITY’s corporate limits (the “CITY’s Grant Program”); and
WHEREAS, CITY requests the CDA to administer the CITY’s Grant Program through the services of NEXTSTAGE; and
WHEREAS, the CARES fund allocation must be expended by November 15, 2020 or returned to the State of Minnesota.
ACCORDINGLY, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
1. Term of Agreement.
1.1 Effective Date: The date all required signatures are obtained.
1.2 Expiration Date: February 15, 2021, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever
occurs first, but all payments must be made prior to November 15, 2020
1.3 Survival of Terms. The following clauses shall survive the expiration or cancellation of this Agreement: 8
Liability and Indemnification; 9 Records Retention and Audits; 10 Government Data Practices; 12
Governing Law, Jurisdiction and Venue.
2. Cooperation
page 57
The Parties agree to cooperate and use their reasonable efforts to ensure prompt implementation of the various
provisions of this Agreement, and to in good faith, undertake resolution of any dispute in an equitable and timely
manner.
3. Roles and Responsibilities
3.1 Duties of the City
3.1.1 Make direct payments (via check) to businesses awarded grants up to a total of $85,827.60 for all
grants awarded.
3.1.2 Make payments to CDA for Program administrative costs up to a total of $2952.47 to implement
and administer the program, including associated contract cost, pursuant to the fee schedule
attached as Exhibit “B”.
3.1.2 Collect and track program performance measurements.
3.1.4 Complete all Monthly Expenditure Reports for Local Governments to MMB.
3.2 Duties of the CDA
3.2.1 The CDA has procured and entered into a contractual agreement with NEXTSTAGE, a qualified
contractor to implement the Program.
3.2.2 The CDA has developed marketing materials and advertised the Program in collaboration with
Dakota County, cities, chambers of commerce, and business associations, to reach as many
eligible businesses as possible to apply for small business relief grants.
3.2.3 The CDA will oversee work of NEXTSTAGE on every stage of CITY’s Grant Program from
application development, to selection, review, and award of grants, to audit of grantees.
3.2.4 Review all fully executed grant agreements in the form attached as Exhibit “B” and funding
requests to each grantee (small business) before submitting to City for payment.
3.2.5 Comply with the terms of the subrecipient agreement for the allocation and use of CARES funds
for this Program.
4. Funding/Payment.
4.1 The CITY will allocate $85827.60 to fund grant awards and another $2952.47 for administrative expenses
related to the CITY’s Grant Program.
4.2 The CDA will submit reimbursement requests to the CITY for approved Program administrative expenses
within 30 days of paying the original invoices.
4.3 Reimbursements to the CDA from the CITY shall be due within 30 days of receipt of reimbursement
request.
4.4 The funding is subject to CITY and CDA entering into a subrecipient agreement for the allocation and use
of CARES funds.
page 58
5. Authorized Representatives.
The following named person are designated the Authorized Representatives of the Parties for the purposes of this
Agreement. These persons have the authority to bind the party they represent and to consent to modifications,
except that the Authorized representative shall have only the authority specifically or generally granted by their
respective governing boards. Notice required to be provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided to the
following named persons and addresses unless otherwise stated in this Agreement of in a modification of this
Agreement:
TO THE CITY: Mark McNeill
City Administrator
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
TO THE CDA: Tony Schertler
Executive Director
Community Development Agency
1228 Town Centre Drive
Eagan, MN 55123
In addition, notification to the CDA regarding termination of this Agreement by the CITY shall be provided to the
Office of the Dakota County Attorney, Civil Division, 1560 Highway 55, Hastings, Minnesota 55033. and
notification to the City shall be provided to the City Attorney at Campbell-Knutson, P.A., 860 Blue Gentian Road,
Suite 290, Eagan MN 55121.
6. LIAISONS.
To assist the Parties in the day-to-day performance of this Agreement and to ensure compliance and provide
ongoing consultation, a liaison shall be designated by the CITY and the CDA. The Parties shall keep each other
continually informed, in writing, of any change in the designated liaison. At the time of execution of this
Agreement, the following persons are designated liaisons:
FOR THE CITY: Mark McNeill
FOR THE CDA: Lisa Alfson
7. Assignment, Amendments, Waiver and Contract Complete.
7.1 Assignment. No party shall assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the
prior written consent of the party.
7.2 Amendments. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has
been approved and executed by each party.
7.3 Waiver. If either Party fails to enforce any provision of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the
provision or that Party’s right to enforce it.
7.4 Agreement Complete. This Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between the CITY and
the CDA. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether in written or oral form, may be used
to bind either party.
8. Liability and Indemnification.
Each party to this Agreement shall be liable for the acts of its officers, employees or agents and the results
thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party, its officers,
employees or agents. The provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 466 and other applicable
laws govern liability of the CITY and the CDA. Each insurance party warrants that they are able to comply with the
aforementioned indemnity requirement through an insurance or self-insurance program and that each has
minimum coverage with the liability limits contained in Minn. Stat. ch. 466. In the event of any claims or actions
filed against either party, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to allow a claimant to obtain separate
judgments or separate liability caps from the individual Parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the
expiration or termination of this Agreement.
page 59
9. Records Retention and Audits
Each party shall retain receipts for and maintain detailed records of all expenses related to this Agreement. The
Parties records, documents, papers, accounting procedures and practices, and other records relevant to this
Agreement are subject to the examination, duplication, transcription and audit by the other party, the Legislative
Auditor, or State Auditor under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5. If services under this Agreement use federal funds,
these records are also subject to review by the Comptroller General of the United States and his or her approved
representative. Following termination of this Agreement the Parties must keep records for six years, or longer if
any audit-in-progress needs a longer retention time.
10. Government Data Practices
The Parties must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn.Stat. Ch. 13 as it applies to all
data provided under this Agreement and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used,
maintained, or disseminated by the Parties under this Agreement. The civil remedies of Minn.Stat. 13.08 apply to
the release of the data referred to in this clause by either of the Parties.
11. Termination
Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause by giving seven days written notice or without cause by
giving 30 days written notice, of its intent to terminate, to the other party. Such notice to terminate for cause shall
specify the circumstances warranting termination of this Agreement. Cause shall mean a material breach of this
Agreement and any supplemental agreements or amendments thereto. Notice of Termination shall be made by
certified mail or personal delivery to the authorized representative of the other party.
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the CITY may immediately terminate this
Agreement if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, Minnesota Agencies, or other funding
source, or if its funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow payment of amounts dues under this
Agreement. Written Notice of Termination sent by the CITY to the CDA by facsimile is sufficient notice under this
section. The CITY is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after written Notice of Termination for
lack of funding. The CITY will not be assessed any penalty or damages if the Agreement is terminated dues to
lack of funding.
12. Governing Law, Jurisdiction and Venue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive and procedural laws of
the State of Minnesota, without giving effect to the principles of conflict of laws. All proceedings related to this
Agreement shall be venued in the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
By:
Assistant County Attorney/Date Tony Schertler, Executive Director
KS-2020- Date of Signature:
Res. No._________________
page 60
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
By:_________________________________________
_______________________, Mayor
By:_________________________________________
_______________________, City Clerk
Res. No.2020-48
page 61
EXHIBIT A
GRANT AGREEMENT FORM
page 62
EXHIBIT B
FEE SCHEDULE
page 63
GRANT AGREEMENT FOR
DAKOTA COUNTY SMALL BUSINESS RELIEF GRANT PROGRAM
This Agreement is between the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (“CITY”) and
(GRANTEE’s Name) _____________________________(“GRANTEE”),
_________________________________ (GRANTEE’s address).
WHEREAS, as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES)
Act, the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) was established to assist States and eligible units of
local government to respond to COVID -19; and
WHEREAS, one of the eligible uses of CRF dollars is providing grants to small
businesses to reimburse the costs of business interruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (“COUNCIL”) approved
the disbursement of a portion of the funds it received under CARES as grants to small businesses
for eligible business interruption expenses; and
WHEREAS, the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) is managing
the grant administration in accordance with an agreement between the CDA and CITY.
WHEREAS, the CDA has contracted with NEXTSTAGE, a Minnesota non-profit
organization, for grant administration services; and
WHEREAS, GRANTEE has made an application for a grant award and has been selected
for grant funding in accordance with the terms of this Agreement;
The CITY and GRANTEE agree as follows:
1. TERM AND AMOUNT OF GRANT
GRANTEE shall complete all grant requirements (“Grant Requirements”) commencing
upon both parties signing this agreement and expiring six months thereafter or when all
requirements of the Agreement have been complete, whichever comes first, unless
cancelled or terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions herein.
The total amount of this grant is $__________ (“Grant Funds”).
2. GRANT REQUIREMENTS
By entering into this Grant Agreement, GRANTEE certifies that it is a for-profit business
organized under the laws of Minnesota with a physical establishment located within the
Exhibit A
page 64
boundaries of the City of Mendota Heights and that as of March 1, 2020, all of the
following are true and correct:
• GRANTEE had no more than 50 full-time (or equivalent) employees; and
• GRANTEE was and still is majority owned by a permanent resident of
Minnesota.
GRANTEE acknowledges that the source of funds for this Grant Agreement is from the
CRF provided to the CIT Y and approved for disbursement by the COUNCIL as small
business grants to reimburse the costs of business interruption caused by the COVID-19
pandemic. GRANTEE acknowledges that this grant may be subject to federal and state
taxes.
GRANTEE further certifies that as of the date this Agreement is signed, all of the
following are true and correct:
• GRANTEE is in good standing and required filings are current with the
Minnesota Secretary of State;
• GRANTEE is in good standing with the Minnesota Department of Revenue;
• GRANTEE is in good standing with Dakota County and the CITY;
• GRANTEE is current on property taxes that were ordinarily due and payable on
or before May 15, 2020, or on a County-approved payment plan, if applicable;
• GRANTEE experienced significant loss in revenue since March 15, 2020, and
incurred costs due to COVID-19-related business interruption and required
closures; GRANTEE was adversely affected by Executive Orders related to
COVID-19 business restrictions and experienced financial hardship as a result of
COVID-19; and
• GRANTEE has not and will not receive COVID-related emergency funds related
to its application through the State of Minnesota, including but not limited to
funds from either the Small Business Emergency Loan (SBEL) or DEED Small
Business Relief Grant Program
3. DOCUMENTATION OF ELIGIBLE COSTS OF BUSINESS INTERRUPTION
As part of its application, GRANTEE has provided documentation to demonstrate that
the GRANTEE has experienced a business interruption (“Interruption”) due to COVID-
19 and is otherwise eligible to receive the grant funds in accordance with the Grant
Requirements stated above.
GRANTEE shall provide an itemized and documented list of eligible costs incurred as a
result of the Interruption, as more fully described in Attachment A.
The undersigned representative of the GRANTEE represents that the undersigned is duly
authorized to bind the Grantee to this Agreement and affirms all statements and
information that has been submitted or will be submitted to the CITY are true and correct
and that the documented costs have not and will not be reimbursed through any other
federal, state or local funding source.
page 65
4. GRANT DISBURSEMENT
CITY shall pay Grant Funds directly to GRANTEE within twenty (20) business days of a fully executed Grant Agreement and submission of all necessary documentation
supporting the eligible costs and submission of GRANTEE’s W-9.
5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Nothing is intended nor should be construed as creating or establishing the relationship of
a partnership or a joint venture between the parties or as constituting GRANTEE as the
agent, representative, or employee of the CITY for any purpose. GRANTEE is and shall
remain an independent contractor under this Agreement.
6. NON-DISCRIMINATION
GRANTEE shall not exclude any person from full employment rights nor prohibit
participation in or the benefits of any program, service or activity on the grounds of any
protected status or class including but not limited to race, color, creed, religion, age, sex,
disability, marital status, sexual orientation, public assistance status, or national origin.
No person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination
shall be subjected to discrimination.
7. INDEMNIFICATION
GRANTEE shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the CITY, CDA, NEXTSTAGE
and their present and former officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from
any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, demands for
repayment or expenses, including attorney’s fees, resulting directly or indirectly from
any fraudulent act or use of Grant Funds by the GRANTEE, a subcontractor, anyone
directly or indirectly employed by GRANTEE, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or
omissions GRANTEE may be liable in the performance of this Agreement.
8. DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY
In accordance with Minnesota Statute Section 13.599, all applications and their contents
are private or nonpublic until the applications are opened. Once the applications are
opened, the name and address of each applicant and the amount requested is public. All
other data in an application is private or nonpublic data until completion of the evaluation
process, which is defined by statute as when the CITY has completed negotiating the grant
agreement with the selected applicant.
After the CITY has completed the evaluation process, all remaining data in the applications
is public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in Minn. Stat. §
13.37, Subd. 1(b). A statement by an applicant that the application is copyrighted or
otherwise protected does not prevent public access to the application or its contents. (Minn.
Stat. § 13.599, subd. 3(a)).
page 66
If an applicant submits any information in an application that it believes to be trade secret
information, as defined by Minnesota Statute Section 13.37, the applicant must:
• Clearly mark all trade secret materials in its application at the time it is submitted,
• Include a statement attached to its application justifying the trade secret designation for
each item, and
• Defend any action seeking release of the materials it believes to be trade secret, and
indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its agents and employees, from any judgments or
damages awarded against CITY in favor of the party requesting the materials, and any and
all costs connected with that defense.
• This indemnification survives CITY’s award of a grant agreement. In submitting an
application in response to this Program, the applicant agrees that this indemnification
survives as long as the trade secret materials are in possession of CITY. The CITY will not
consider the prices submitted by the responder to be proprietary or trade secret materials.
CITY reserves the right to reject a claim that any particular information in an application
is trade secret information if it determines the applicant has not met the burden of
establishing that the information constitutes a trade secret. CITY will not consider the
budgets submitted by applicants to be proprietary or trade secret materials. Use of generic
trade secret language encompassing substantial portions of the application or simple
assertions of trade secret without substantial explanation of the basis for that designation
will be insufficient to warrant a trade secret designation.
If a grant is awarded to an applicant, CITY may use or disclose the trade secret data to the
extent provided by law. Any decision by the CITY to disclose information determined to
be trade secret information will be made consistent with the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes chapter 13) and other relevant laws and regulations.
If certain information is found to constitute trade secret information, the remainder of the
application will become public; in the event a data request is received for application
information, only the trade secret data will be removed and remain nonpublic.
9. RECORDS – AVAILABILITY/ACCESS AND RIGHT TO AUDIT
Subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, subd. 5, NEXTSTAGE
(Grant Administrator), the CITY, the CDA, the State Auditor, or any of their authorized
representatives which may include other independent financial analysts at any time
during normal business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall
have access to and the right to request submission of documentation, examine, audit,
excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, or other data, which are
pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of GRANTEE and involve
transactions relating to this Agreement. GRANTEE shall maintain these materials and
allow access during the period of this Agreement and for six (6) years after its expiration,
cancellation or termination.
page 67
10. SUCCESSORS, SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENTS
A. GRANTEE shall not assign, transfer or pledge this Agreement whether in whole
or in part, nor assign any monies due or to become due to it without the prior
written consent of the CITY. A consent to assign shall be subject to such
conditions and provisions as the CITY may deem necessary, accomplished by
execution of a form prepared by the CITY and signed by GRANTEE, and the
assignee. Permission to assign, however, shall under no circumstances relieve
GRANTEE of its liabilities and obligations under the Agreement.
B. GRANTEE shall not subcontract this Agreement whether in whole or in part,
without the prior written consent of the CITY.
11. MERGER, MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY
A. The entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and supersedes all
oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject
matter. All items that are referenced or that are attached are incorporated and
made a part of this Agreement. If there is any conflict between the terms of this
Agreement and referenced or attached items, the terms of this Agreement shall
prevail.
GRANTEE and/or the CITY are each bound by its own electronic signature(s) on
this Agreement, and each agrees and accepts the electronic signature of the other
party.
B. Any alterations, variations or modifications of the provisions of this Agreement
shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to
this Agreement signed by the parties. Except as expressly provided, the
substantive legal terms contained in this Agreement including but not limited to
Indemnification, Insurance, Merger, Modification and Severability, Default and
Cancellation/Termination or Minnesota Law Governs may not be altered, varied,
modified or waived by any change order, implementation plan, scope of work,
development specification or other development process or document.
C. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
remaining provisions will not be affected.
12. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION/TERMINATION
A. If GRANTEE fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement including
providing false, misleading or incomplete information in documents submitted to
the CITY or documented in Attachment A, fails to use Grant Funds exclusively
for costs included in Exhibit A or uses other sources of federal funds for costs
included in Exhibit A, the performance of the Agreement or otherwise breaches or
fails to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, it shall be in default.
page 68
Unless GRANTEE’s default is excused in writing by the CITY, the CITY may
upon written notice immediately cancel or terminate this Agreement in its entirety
and may demand repayment in full of the Grant Funds. Additionally, failure to
comply with the terms of this Agreement shall be just cause for the CITY to delay
payment until GRANTEE’s compliance. In the event of a decision to withhold
payment, the CITY shall furnish prior written notice to GRANTEE.
B. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, GRANTEE
shall remain liable to the CITY for damages sustained by the CITY by virtue of
any breach of this Agreement by GRANTEE. Upon notice to GRANTEE of the
claimed breach and the amount of the claimed damage, the CITY may withhold
any payments to GRANTEE for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact
amount of damages due the CIT Y from GRANTEE is determined. Following
notice from the CITY, CDA or NEXTSTAGE of the claimed breach and damage,
GRANTEE and the CITY shall attempt to resolve the dispute in good faith.
C. The above remedies shall be in addition to any other right or remedy available to
the CITY under this Agreement, law, statute, rule, and/or equity.
D. The CITY’s failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to
exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or
waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not
constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the
Agreement.
E. If this Agreement expires or is cancelled or terminated, with or without cause, by
either party, at any time, GRANTEE shall not be entitled to any payment, fees or
other monies.
F. Upon written notice, the CITY may immediately suspend or cancel/terminate this
Agreement in the event any of the following occur: (i) the CITY does not obtain
anticipated funding from the federal government for this project; (ii) funding for
this project from an the federal government is withdrawn, frozen, shut down, is
otherwise made unavailable or the CITY loses the outside funding for any other
reason.
13. SURVIVAL OF PROVISIONS
Provisions that by their nature are intended to survive the term, cancellation or
termination of this Agreement do survive such term, cancellation or termination. Such
provisions include but are not limited to: SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED; GRANT
REQUIREMENTS; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; INDEMNIFICATION; DUTY
TO NOTIFY; DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY; RECORDS-
AVAILABILITY/ACCESS; DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION/TERMINATION;
MEDIA OUTREACH; and MINNESOTA LAW GOVERNS.
page 69
14. GRANT ADMINISTRATION
The CDA is managing the grant administration in accordance to the agreement between
the CDA and CITY. The CDA has contracted with NEXTSTAGE for grant
administration services. NEXTSTAGE will serve as liaison between the CDA, CITY,
and GRANTEE.
_____________________________________shall manage the agreement on behalf of
GRANTEE. GRANTEE may replace such person but shall immediately give written
notice to the CITY of the name, phone number and email address of such substitute
person and of any other subsequent substitute person.
15. COMPLIANCE AND NON-DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION
A. GRANTEE shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local statutes,
funding sources, regulations, rules and ordinances currently in force or later
enacted.
B. GRANTEE certifies that it is not prohibited from doing business with either the
federal government or the state of Minnesota as a result of debarment or
suspension proceedings.
C. Because the source or partial source of funds for payment under this Agreement is
from federal or state monies or from a federal, state or other grant source,
GRANTEE is bound by and shall comply with applicable law, rules, regulations,
applicable documentation or other directives relating to the source and utilization
of such funds including but not limited to applying for Grant Funds that have been
or will be reimbursed under any federal, county, city or state program.
16. NOTICES
Unless the parties otherwise agree in writing, any notice or demand which must be given
or made by a party under this Agreement or any statute or ordinance shall be in writing
and shall be sent registered or certified mail. Notices to the CITY shall be sent to the
Director of Community Development at the address given in the opening paragraph of
this Agreement. Notice to GRANTEE shall be sent to the address stated in the opening
paragraph of this Agreement.
17. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
GRANTEE affirms that to the best of GRANTEE’s knowledge, GRANTEE’s
involvement in this Agreement does not result in a conflict of interest with any party or
entity which may be affected by the terms of this Agreement. Should any conflict or
potential conflict of interest become known to GRANTEE, GRANTEE shall immediately
notify the CITY of the conflict or potential conflict, specifying the part of this Agreement
giving rise to the conflict or potential conflict, and advise the CITY whether GRANTEE
page 70
will or will not resign from the other engagement or representation. Unless waived by
the CITY, a conflict or potential conflict may, in the CITY’s discretion, be cause for
cancellation or termination of this Agreement.
18. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN
The laws of the state of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations
concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations
between the parties and their performance. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for
any litigation will be those courts located within the County of Dakota, State of
Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the parties will be in the
appropriate federal court within the state of Minnesota.
[Signature page follows]
page 71
I hereby agree to the terms outlined in the Agreement.
CITY:
CITY of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
By:
City Administrator
Date:
GRANTEE:
GRANTEE Name
By:
Owner’s Name
Its
Date:
page 72
NextStage Proposal
to administer
The Dakota County Business Relief Program 2020
July 1, 2020
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%
The combined number of grant agreements for both County and City fund-businesses exceeds 1,0000.
page 73
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 74
• 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 75
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 76
page 77
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 78
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 79
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 80
9/15/2020 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official
August 1, 2020 thru August 31, 2020 January 1, 2020 thru August 31, 2020 January 1, 2019 thru August 31, 2019 January 1, 2018 thru August 31, 2018
Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected
SFD 1 630,850.00$ $6,784.39 SFD 5 2,740,715.00$ $30,341.45 SFD 5 4,036,742.00$ $39,824.00 SFD 5 2,738,348.00$ 30,437.15$
Apartment 1 14,000,000.00$ $95,628.64 Apartment 1 14,000,000.00$ $95,628.64 Apartment 1 9,135,000.00$ $63,519.64 Apartment 1 9,466,820.00$ 65,710.84$
Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 18 4,653,526.00$ 49,381.28$
Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$
Misc 89 1,093,359.82$ 14,071.97$ Misc 474 6,194,021.08$ 81,597.61$ Misc 480 6,570,830.73$ 121,400.81$ Misc 389 5,560,289.30$ 79,380.26$
Commercial 2 282,000.00$ $2,545.00 Commercial 9 1,344,090.00$ $12,215.19 Commercial 19 11,430,117.00$ $45,778.39 Commercial 14 8,101,959.00$ 58,716.14$
Sub Total 93 16,006,209.82$ 119,030.00$ Sub Total 489 24,278,826.08$ 219,782.89$ Sub Total 505 31,172,689.73$ 270,522.84$ Sub Total 427 30,520,942.30$ 283,625.67$
Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected
Plumbing 10 $1,064.00 Plumbing 121 $10,800.20 Plumbing 163 $24,650.67 Plumbing 162 27,631.55$
Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 -$
Sewer 2 $150.00 Sewer 13 $975.00 Sewer 7 $525.00 Sewer 34 2,550.00$
Mechanical 39 $3,205.41 Mechanical 214 397.00$ $19,159.14 Mechanical 204 $28,361.50 Mechanical 342 46,025.57$
Sub Total 51 4,419.41$ Sub Total 348 30,934.34$ Sub Total 374 $53,537.17 Sub Total 538 76,207.12$
License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected
Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 271 $13,550.00 Contractor 282 14,100.00$
Total 144 16,006,209.82$ 123,449.41$ Total 837 24,278,826.08$ 250,717.23$ Total 1150 31,172,689.73$ 337,610.01$ Total 1247 30,520,942.30$ 373,932.79$
NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals
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
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page 98
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: October 7, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2020-63 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for the Marie Avenue
Street Improvements
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to preside over an assessment hearing and adopt the assessment roll for the
Marie Avenue Street Improvements.
BACKGROUND
Council ordered the Marie Avenue Street Improvements at their February 7, 2019 meeting, and
directed staff to prepare plans and specifications for this street reconstruction project. The plans
were approved and authorized to bid at the March 17, 2020 meeting. Council accepted bids and
awarded the project to SMH Hentges at their April 21, 2020 meeting.
DISCUSSION
The Public Hearing for the consideration of special assessments for the Marie Avenue Street
Improvements was advertised for the City Council meeting at 6:00 P.M. on October 7, 2020.
The project is substantially complete with all paving, curbing, restoration, and appurtenant work.
The contractor is planning to complete the remaining pond excavation in December 2020.
BUDGET IMPACT
The Marie Avenue Street Improvements are proposed to be financed by Special Assessments,
Municipal Bonds, Municipal State Aid, and Utility Funds. The total cost for the Marie Avenue
Street Improvements is $3,817,492. The project costs are further expanded to include indirect
costs for administration, engineering, finance, legal, etc.:
COSTS
Construction Indirect Costs Total
Marie Avenue Street and Trail Work/Bridge $ 2,661,863 $ 374,829 $ 3,036,692
Watermain (Sutton to Dodd Road) $ 180,511 $ 27,077 $ 207,588
Dakota County Trail and Tunnel work $ 200,682 $ 30,102 $ 230,784
City Non - Part (Valley Park, etc.) $ 52,444 $ 7,867 $ 60,310
Pond Sediment Removal $ 245,320 $ 36,798 $ 282,118
$ 3,340,819 $ 476,673 $ 3,817,492
page 99
The city is proposing to utilize Municipal State Aid funding for this project. The amount shown
from this account is $1,529,502. The current balance in the MSA account is:
MUNICIPAL STATE AID
Current Balance $ 1,668,996
Estimated 2021 Allocation $ 503,438
Pilot Knob Road/Mendota Heights Road $ (100,000)
Dodd Road Trail $ (400,000)
Marie Avenue Street Rehabilitation $ (1,529,502)
Balance $ 142,932
The MSA account will remain at a positive balance after the 2021 allocation. This allocation
may be subject to change as it is funded through the State gas tax.
Staff is proposing that residential assessments be capped at $5,500.
All proposed assessments are payable over a 10 year period at an interest rate not to exceed 5%
(percent).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council conduct the required Public Hearing and adopt the attached
assessment roll as prepared, or amend them if Council deems it appropriate to do so.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion adopting A
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE MARIE
AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS. This action requires a super majority vote.
FUNDING
Tax Levy $ 1,254,000 Assessment $ 5,500.00
Assessments $ 313,500
Municipal State Aid $ 1,529,502 Bond Amt $ 1,567,500
Utility Fund - Water $ 207,588
Utility Fund - Storm Sewer $ 282,118
Dakota County $ 230,784
$ 3,817,492
page 100
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020-63
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE MARIE
AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Mendota Heights City
Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the
improvement to rehabilitate Marie Avenue from Lexington Avenue to Dodd Road referred to as the Marie
Avenue Street Improvements.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that:
1. Such proposed assessments, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby
accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each
tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the
amount of the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period
of 10 years. The first of the installments shall be the annual principal plus interest calculated from
the public hearing date to the end of this year plus twelve months of the next year and shall bear
interest at the rate of up to 5% per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment
resolution. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all
unpaid installments.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to
the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the
date of payment, to the City Finance Director, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire
assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution. The property owner may,
at any time thereafter, pay to the City Finance Director the entire amount of the assessment
remaining unpaid, excepting the installment portion appearing upon the current year’s property
tax statement.
4. The City Clerk shall prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of said
assessment rolls with each then unpaid installment and interest set forth separately, to be
extended upon the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect
said assessments in the manner provided by law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of October, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 101
page 102
page 103
page 104
page 105
page 106
page 107
page 108
page 109
page 110
page 111
DATE: October 7, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director
SUBJECT: 2020 Bond Issue Public Hearing
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
At its meeting of October 7th, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the Tax Abatement Bonds that
will be issued for the Marie Avenue Street Project.
BACKGROUND
Typically, the City issues General Obligation Bonds to pay for the street improvements. However, for this
year’s Marie Avenue project, the City will instead be issuing tax abatement bonds, as it is unable to assess
a minimum of 20% of the project costs. This inability to assess is due to the significant amount of park
property which fronts Marie Avenue, and the relatively large size of the project, which includes the extra
costs of the “land bridge” trail, water main replacement, and storm water work.
For practical purposes, there is no difference between the different methods of funding—both the
benefitting properties, and the other properties in the city will pay the same tax rates which they would have
under the alternate method of funding.
Stacie Kvilvang of the City’s financial consultant Ehlers and Associates will be at the October 7th meeting
to answer any questions about the difference between these two bond issues. I have attached additional
information which she has provided regarding the bonds.
BUDGET IMPACT
This public hearing is required to consider the sale of Tax Abatement Bonds which is proposed for issuance
to pay for for the Marie Avenue Street project.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that council hold the public hearing, and pass a motion to adopt the enabling resolution.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, upon completion of the Public Hearing, it should, by motion adopt the following
resolution:
Resolution 2020-67
”RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENTS.”
page 112
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kristen Schabacker – Finance Director
FROM: Stacie Kvilvang - Ehlers
DATE: October 7, 2020
SUBJECT: Tax Abatement Bonds – Marie Avenue Rehabilitation
The City is moving forward with the process to make necessary improvements to the above referenced project
in the amount of approximately $1.625 million. Since the City was unable to assess at least 20% of the project
costs to benefitting property owners, the City cannot finance this portion under Minnesota Statute 429, as they
typically have done in the past. However, the City has the authority under Minnesota Statute 469 to issue Tax
Abatement Bonds for the improvements. To meet the City’s financing parameters, it is anticipated that the City
will issue abatement bonds with an 11-year term. The bonds will be paid with a combination of special
assessments from benefiting properties, tax abatement for the principal amount of the bonds and a tax levy for
the remaining interest payments.
In order to grant tax abatement for a public improvement, the City is required to hold a public hearing on the
amount of the abatement to be granted, identify the properties from which they will abate the City’s portion of the
taxes and describe the public purpose for granting the abatement. The public purpose and the required findings
are outlined in the attached resolution.
Following is a listing of the Property Identification Numbers (PIN) in which the City will abate its portion of taxes.
These parcels were listed in the public hearing notice as required by Statute and are located in the vicinity of the
improvements being completed.
Abating the taxes from these parcels to pay the principal amount of the debt service will have no impact on
these property owners (no change in their taxes paid). The annual abatement is included in the City’s annual
tax levy and is spread among all property owners in the City.
Please contact me at 651-697-8506 with any questions.
277110001050 271555001060 278195801010 271650001020 276470001020 272250001070 278195101010
277150001020 271555001050 278195201010 271650001050 276470001030 271650001030 270230054030
277110001030 271555001040 278195901020 274495000012 276470001060 271555001070 276400001010
277110001020 271555001030 278195402030 276470001050 276470001070 278195201030 278115001010
277150001030 270230053020 278195901010 276470001040 276470002060 278195801020 273280004030
277110001010 278195701020 278195402020 276470001010 276470002050 278195201020 273280004040
277150001040 278196001020 278195402010 276470002070 276470002040 270230053031 278195801030
278115001040 278195701010 278195401020 276470002010 276470002030 271555001020 272250101040
277110001040 278196001010 278195401010 276470003050 276470002020 271555001090 278196101010
278115001030 278195601010 278195301030 270260025011 276470003060 277105000060 278195101020
278115001020 278196101030 278195301020 272245201010 276470003070 277110201110 276400001020
272250101010 278195501030 278195301010 272245201020 276470003040 277090002010 273280004010
272250101020 278196101020 278195101040 272245901010 270260005020 272250101050 278195501010
272250101030 278195501020 278195101030 276400001032 271650001010 272250001080
page 113
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MINNESOTA
HELD: OCTOBER 7, 2020
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall in Mendota Heights,
Minnesota, on October 7, 2020, at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose, in part, of approving tax
abatements to assist in financing the Marie Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood road
rehabilitation project in the City of Mendota Heights.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Member ______________________ introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION 2020-67
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the
"City"), as follows:
WHEREAS, the City proposes to assist in financing the Marie Avenue and Wesley Lane
Neighborhood road rehabilitation project in the City of Mendota Heights (the "Project"). The
City proposes to use the abatement for the purposes provided for in the Abatement Law (as
hereinafter defined), including the Project. The proposed term of the abatement will be for up to
fifteen (15) years in an amount not to exceed $1,625,000. The abatement will apply to the City's
share of the property taxes (the "Abatement") derived from the property described by property
identification numbers on the attached "Exhibit A" (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, on the date hereof, the Council held a public hearing on the question of the
Abatement, and said hearing was preceded by at least 10 days but not more than 30 days prior
published notice thereof; and
WHEREAS, the City Council proposes to issue its General Obligation Tax Abatement
Bond, Series 2020A (the "Bond") in an amount not to exceed $1,625,000; and
WHEREAS. the Abatement will be pledged to the payments of the Bond. The proceeds
of the Bond shall be used to finance the Project.
WHEREAS, the Abatement is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.1812
through 469.1815, as amended (the "Abatement Law").
page 114
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Findings for the Abatement. The City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
(a) The Council expects the benefits to the City of the Abatement to at least
equal or exceed the costs to the City thereof.
(b) Granting the Abatement is in the public interest because it will:
(i) help provide access to services for residents of the political
subdivision; and
(ii) finance or provide public infrastructure.
(c) The Property is not and will not be located in a tax increment financing
district during the Abatement period.
(d) In any year, the total amount of property taxes abated by the City by this
and other existing abatement resolutions, shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of net tax
capacity of the City for the taxes payable year to which the abatement applies or
$200,000, whichever is greater (the "Abatement Limit"). The City may grant other
abatements permitted under the Abatement Law after the date of this resolution, provided
that to the extent the total abatements in any year exceed the Abatement Limit the
allocation of the Abatement limit to such other abatements is subordinate to the
Abatement granted by this resolution.
2. Terms of Abatement. The Abatement is hereby approved. The terms of the
Abatement are as follows:
(a) The Abatement shall be for up to a fifteen (15) year anticipated to
commence for the taxes payable in the year 2022. The City reserves the right to modify
the commencement date, but the abatement period shall not exceed fifteen (15) years.
(b) The City will abate the City's share of property tax amount which the City
receives from the Property, cumulatively not to exceed $1,625,000.
(c) The Abatement shall be subject to all the terms and limitations of the
Abatement Law.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member
_____________________________ and, after a full discussion thereof and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
page 115
Adopted on October 7, 2020 by the City Council of Mendota Heights.
_______________________________________
Mayor
Attest:
______________________________
City Clerk
page 116
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Mendota
Heights, Dakota County, 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 the
approval of property tax abatements.
WITNESS my hand this 7th day of October, 2020.
___________________________________
City Clerk
page 117
Exhibit A
Parcel ID Numbers for "Property"
277110001050 271555001060 278195801010 271650001020 276470001020
277150001020 271555001050 278195201010 271650001050 276470001030
277110001030 271555001040 278195901020 274495000012 276470001060
277110001020 271555001030 278195402030 276470001050 276470001070
277150001030 270230053020 278195901010 276470001040 276470002060
277110001010 278195701020 278195402020 276470001010 276470002050
277150001040 278196001020 278195402010 276470002070 276470002040
278115001040 278195701010 278195401020 276470002010 276470002030
277110001040 278196001010 278195401010 276470003050 276470002020
278115001030 278195601010 278195301030 270260025011 276470003060
278115001020 278196101030 278195301020 272245201010 276470003070
272250101010 278195501030 278195301010 272245201020 276470003040
272250101020 278196101020 278195101040 272245901010 270260005020
272250101030 278195501020 278195101030 276400001032 271650001010
272250101040 278196101010 278195101020 276400001020 273280004010
272250101050 278195501010 278195101010 276400001010 273280004030
272250001080 278195801030 270230054030 278115001010 273280004040
272250001070 278195201030 270230053031 277105000060 271650001030 278195801020 271555001020 277110201110 271555001070 278195201020 271555001090 277090002010
page 118
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2020
TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Planning Application Case No. 2020-14
Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for 1217 Victoria Curve
Introduction
City Council is asked to adopt a resolution approving a critical area permit (CAP) to construct a new single
family dwelling on a property situated in the Critical Area Overlay District, along with conditional use
permit (CUP) to construct an oversized attached garage up to 1,480-sf. in size.
Background
Calvin Tran with Tempo Homes is seeking to build a new single-family dwelling for the Truong family.
The new home is proposed as a 3,142-sf. (total) two-story, single-family dwelling. The owner also requests
approval of a 1,480-sf. (area) garage, which requires a CUP for any attached garage more than 1,200-sf.
but no more than 1,500-sf. in size.
This matter first appeared before the Planning Commission under a public hearing at the July 28, 2020
meeting, which included a site plan of a new home situated on the rear portion of the lot. After completing
the hearing, the commission recommended unanimously (5-0) to approve the CAP and CUP.
On August 17th and the day before the scheduled hearing by the city council, the city received a report from
Westwood Engineering (hired by the neighboring residents), which report was emailed directly to City
Council and staff. The report raised a number of issues with the proposed grading and drainage plans for
this new home; and recommended the new home be moved further south and closer to the Victoria Curve.
This report prompted a formal request from the Applicant to delay their application review.
Afterwards, the Applicants met with city staff and neighboring residents on a number of occasions, and
later agreed to host a meeting with the neighbors on September 3rd at City Hall to discuss the issues related
to this new home project. At this meeting, the Owner agreed to consider moving the house further south
into the lot, and have their engineer address/respond to some of the drainage and soil issues raised in the
separate Westwood Report.
At the September 22, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, a supplemental planning report was presented
with an amended site plan, along with a new engineering/drainage report. A public hearing was conducted,
and comments were noted for the record, including one additional letter. A copy of the 09/22/2020 Planning
Staff Report, amended site plan and all related attachments, along with excerpt minutes are appended to
this memo.
page 119
Discussion
The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning
decisions, such as this critical area permit and conditional use permit, and has broad discretion. A
determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0) to approve a Critical Area Permit and
Conditional Use Permit applications for the property located at 1217 Victoria Curve, based on the findings-
of-fact supporting such a recommendation, with conditions.
Action Requested
Pursuant to City Code Section 12-3-17.C, the City Council is required to hold a public hearing on critical
area permit requests. The Council should open the public hearing; take public comments, close the hearing,
and give final consideration on this matter.
If the City Council wishes to affirm the recommendation from the planning commission, and there are no
other issues related to this application, it should make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-46
APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1217 VICTORIA CURVE.
page 120
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020-46
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR 1217 VICTORIA CURVE
[PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-14]
WHEREAS, Tempo Homes (the “Applicant”) and acting on behalf of Vinh Truong (the
“Owner”) requests approval of a critical area permit (CAP) and conditional use permit (CUP) as
proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-14, for the property located at 1217 Victoria Curve and
legally described in attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-3-1 of the City Code (Critical Area Overlay District), a
critical area permit is required for all development activities necessitating a building permit or
special zoning approval, and the Applicant is seeking permission to construct a new single-family
residential dwelling, subject to the requirements of the applicable zoning district and related
Critical Area Overlay District standards; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C., any attached private garage
in a residential zone more than one thousand two hundred (1,200) and up to one thousand five
hundred (1,500) square feet is allowed via a conditional use permit, and the Applicant/Owner is
requesting to construct a 1,480-sq. ft. attached garage; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the proposed CAP and CUP applications, and whereupon closing the hearing,
recommended unanimously (5-0 vote) to approve both the critical area permit and conditional use
permit, which would allow the allow the Applicant to construct a new single-family dwelling in
the Critical Area Overlay District, which includes an attached garage up to 1,480-sf. in area, with
certain conditions and specific findings of fact to support said approval; and
page 121
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission
conducted a follow-up public hearing on a revised site plan submitted by the Applicant to the
original CAP and CUP applications, and whereupon closing that second hearing, recommended
unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the amended site and grading plan for the Critical Area Permit
and Conditional Use Permit, which would allow the Applicant to construct a new single-family
dwelling in the Critical Area Overlay District with an attached garage up to 1,480-sf. in area, with
certain conditions and specific findings of fact to support said approval, and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2020, the Mendota Heights City Council conducted a separate
public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing that hearing, hereby declared that the Critical
Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-14 may be
approved, based on the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed single-family dwelling project meets the general purpose and intent
of the Critical Area Overlay District.
B. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new single-family dwelling is
deemed minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area
Overlay District.
C. The proposed oversized garage requested under this application can be considered
a reasonable request, and will be compliant with the conditions included in the City
Zoning Code that allow such structures by means of a conditional use permit.
D. The proposed single family dwelling with over-sized garage will not be detrimental
to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any
serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding
property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
E. The overall construction of this proposed residential home with over-sized garage
will comply with all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and other
applicable ordinances; represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses; fits well
with the current developed character of the neighborhood; and will be a nice
addition to the neighborhood.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-14,
which would allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling in the Critical Area Overlay
District with an attached garage 1,480-sf. in area, is hereby approved with the following conditions:
1. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved
by the City of Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new
construction work.
page 122
2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during
grading and construction work activities.
3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal,
state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land
Disturbance Guidance Document.
4. A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for review
and approval as part of any new building permit process. The Applicant agrees to
replant one new tree (minimum 2.5” caliper size for deciduous and 6’-ft. for
evergreens) for each significant tree removed from the site for this home project.
As per the city’s Pollinator Friendly Policy, all new trees and landscaping shall
meet the city’s Native Plant List.
5. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM
Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends.
6. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an
established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of October, 2020
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
page 123
EXHIBIT A
Property Address: 1217 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Property ID No.: 27-15600-00-022
Legal Description:
Lot 2, BURNS HEIGHTS, except the North one-third (1/3) thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota
[Torrens Property]
page 124
Planning Staff Report
(Supplemental to July 28, 2020 Report)
DATE:September 22, 2020
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:Planning Case No. 2020-14
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT:Calvin Tran w/ Tempo Homes (Applicant) & Vinh Truong (Owner)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:1217 Victoria Curve
ZONING/GUIDED:R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:October 27, 2020 (60-Day Review Extension)
INTRODUCTION
Calvin Tran and Vinh Truong are requesting re-consideration of a previously considered Critical Area
Permit (CAP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications on the property located at 1217 Victoria
Curve. The CAP is needed for all major development activities in the critical area overlay district; and the
CUP approves an oversized attached garage up to 1,480-sf. in size.
This item is being presented once again under a fully noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing
was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the
subject property.
BACKGROUND
At the July 28th regular meeting, these applications were presented to the Planning Commission under a
public hearing, with an original site plan showing the new home located in the back half of the parcel,
approximately 133-feet from the front lot line. All other setbacks met Zoning Code. Staff provided a
number of letters of concern as attachments with the first report; and some neighbors did appear before the
Planning Commission that evening expressing their concerns with the new home project and layout (refer
to 07/28/2020 PC Mtg. minutes).
Upon the close of the hearing, the PC voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend approval of the CAP and
CUP request for this property. This recommendation was then scheduled to be forwarded and presented to
the City Council for consideration under a separate public hearing at the August 18
th regular meeting (note:
City Code requires an additional public hearing before the city council on all CAP requests).
On August 17th, the city was provided a copy of a report from Westwood Engineering, hired by the
neighboring residents, which questioned and raised issues with the proposed grading and drainage plans for
page 125
Planning Case #2020--14 (Tempo Homes) Page 2
this site and new home. The recommendations made in the report called for the new home to move further
south and closer to the Victoria Curve roadway frontage; in essence match up with the front setbacks of the
neighboring dwellings.
Since staff, the applicant and their own engineering consultant did not have enough time to review and
address this Westwood report, staff asked the applicants to postpone the Aug. 18th hearing, which they
obliged by agreeing to (officially in writing).
Staff shortly thereafter met with the Applicants and their engineering consultant to review the Westwood
report and discuss other site issues; and staff later met with some of the neighboring residents and walked
the surrounding areas of the subject property. The Applicants met individually with some of the
neighboring residents; and later agreed to host a meeting with the immediate neighbors on September 3rd at
City Hall to discuss the issues related to this new home project. At this meeting, the Owner agreed to
consider moving the house further south into the lot, and have their engineer address/respond to some of
the drainage and soil issues raised in the separate Westwood Report.
UPDATED SITE PLAN
The setbacks on the previously reviewed site plan called for the home with a front line setback of 132.5 ft.,
side yard setbacks of 15.3-ft. and 20-ft. respectively, and 62.3-ft. from the rear line. The revised plan now
calls for the same foot-print on the home, with new setbacks of 56.8-ft. from the front/south line; 17.4-ft.
from the side/east lot line; 20-ft. from the side/west lot line; and 138-ft. from the rear/north line.
As was noted in the previous site plan presentation, Zoning Code includes a special setback standard on
new developments situated between adjoining structures along a street edge, whereby the minimum front
yard setback is determined by the adjoining structures, commonly referred to as the “string-line” rule. City
Code Section 12-1D-4; Subpart D. Front Yard Requirements states:
1. Each lot shall have a front yard of not less than thirty feet (30') in depth facing any street or road.
2. Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no
building shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the
required district setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures. See figure 1D-
4.2 of this section.
FIGURE 1D-4.2: FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
The neighboring home of 1215 Victoria Curve is setback 49.3 ft., while 1219 Victoria Curve is approx. 44
ft. from the front line. Based on this rule, the minimum front yard setback on this new house would be
approx. 46 ft. The new front-yard setback of 56.8-ft. as shown on this revised plan meets this minimum
setback standard.
page 126
Planning Case #2020--14 (Tempo Homes) Page 3
Architecturally, the house design remains as a modern, two-story flat-roofed structure, with full-basement
look-out (instead of a walk-out in previous plans), with 3,124-sf. of living space. The home includes an
attached garage 1,480-sf. in size, with two 18-ft. wide overhead doors. Zoning Code permits attached
garages up to 1,200-sf. in size, and those over 1,200-sf. but not exceeding 1,500-sf. in size may be allowed
by conditional use permit. Code also states garage doors must not exceed 36 (linear) feet in measurement.
The plan calls a similar circular turn-around driveway in the front yard area of the home, with a curved
driveway leading down to Victoria Curve.
The plan also identifies 13 significant trees (of 6” or more) that need to be removed as part of the house and
driveway construction; along with approx. 20 trees in the front ROW area, due to re-grading and shaping
this front yard area down to Victoria Curve roadway section, in order to provide positive drainage towards
the street. It was recommended the contractor/owner attempt to save and protect as many trees on the lot
as possible, especially along the side yard areas to preserve a natural vegetative screen and buffer from next
door neighbors. The contractor will notify the city if more trees along these side yard areas need to be
removed due to construction of the new home.
The site plan also includes a revised grading plan for the site and new home location. The grading plan
shows most of the drainage along the west and south (front) areas will be directed towards Victoria Curve
and into this large (wide) right-of-way space for this roadway. The contractor indicated he plans to install
roof scuppers and gutters that funnel or direct most of the water run-off from the dwelling down and out
southward towards Victoria Curve (the front yard area).
A minimal amount of surface drainage along the east and north sides of the new home will be directed
northeasterly, which follows or matches in with the drainage patterns already existing on this parcel.
The small retaining wall on the westside of the lot proposed under the first plan submittal has been removed
or is no longer needed under this revised plan.
Please refer to the Applicant’s Engineering Report from Lake and Land Surveying for information on area
soils; along with a detailed report/study addressing drainage, with existing vs. proposed drainage area plans
provided. The city’s Public Works Director and the Applicant’s consultant engineer will be available at
the hearing to answer any questions related to drainage and other information contained in their report.
(Note: this is a condensed version of the report. The HydroCAD calculations, tables and graphs are not
included as these are technical in nature. A full copy of the report can be provided for review if requested).
ANALYSIS (Same as Provided for in the 07/28/2020 Report)
Critical Are Permit
According to Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is:
…to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource to
promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, to
preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element
in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems…
The pertinent provisions of the Critical Area Overlay District that apply to this application are:
Section 12-3-5. Site Plan Requirements:
A: Site Plan Required: No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or
certificate shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter
until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
page 127
Planning Case #2020--14 (Tempo Homes) Page 4
Section 12-3-8: Development Standards:
A. Objectives: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and
natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed
to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-
site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent
pollution of surface and ground water.
B. Structure Setbacks: All new structures shall meet the following minimum setbacks:
1. Setback from Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet (40') landward
from the bluff line of the river.
2. Setback from Normal High Water Mark: No structure or road shall be constructed less than
one hundred feet (100') from the normal high water mark of any water body.
C. Height of Structures: All new structures shall be limited to the lesser of the underlying zoning
district regulations or thirty-five feet (35')
The subject property does not contain any bluffs or bluff impact zones. The subject property is situated
over 250-ft. from the nearest bluff impact zone under the current MRCCA-GIS mappingfor the community,
which is located immediately to the west of the property (red shaded area – image below).
There are no water bodies or features in or directly adjacent to the subject property. The nearest major
water body is Augusta Lake, which is located southwest of the subject property, and is well over 1,450-feet
from the closest corner of the lot. The next closest water feature is City Hall Pond directly to the east,
which sits approximately 830-ft. from this site.
Zoning Code limits the heights of homes to 2-stories and 25-feet in overall or measured height. For flat
roofed dwellings, the uppermost point or projection of the roof is measured. The new home is shown with
a 25-ft. measured height.
The construction of this new residential dwelling will comply with all standards and regulations of the
Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant must demonstrate the development of this site will not impact
neighboring residential properties, and must ensure that proper and positive drainage is maintained during
and after construction of the new home.
page 128
Planning Case #2020--14 (Tempo Homes) Page 5
City staff still believe that approving this critical area permit and allowing construction of this proposed
(and revised layout) of the single-family dwelling, should have little, if any effect upon the existing
Mississippi Critical Area or the surrounding neighborhood environment.
Conditional Use Permit
The proposed attached, private garage requires a conditional use permit (CUP) to exceed the maximum
allowed size of an attached garage in the R-1 District. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory
Structures, Subpart C.1; residential dwellings are permitted to have one attached private garage up to 1,200-
sq. ft. in area, and provides an allowance for owners to request up to 1,500-sq. ft. by means of a CUP.
Under this request, the Applicant is seeking to provide a 1,480-sq. ft. garage.
Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains standards for reviewing a conditional use permit request, with
the following principles to be taken into consideration:
The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupantsor surrounding lands;
existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and
the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan.
In addition, City Code provides the following standards which must be met:
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community;
will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards;
will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and
the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the
comprehensive plan.
The new garage proposed by the Applicant is designed to fit within the overall “squared” footprint of the
dwelling structure, and should easily accommodate the needs of parking personal vehicles and added
personal storage and equipment. All setbacks will be met under this revised plan.
Although the former owner did remove a number of trees and vegetation under the previously approved
Administrative Critical Area Permit, this new house project and driveway will necessitate the removals of
some additional trees and vegetation to accommodate this project. The Applicant identified all significant
trees 6-inches or greater on the plans. The Applicant has indicated they will re-plant one new tree for every
significant tree 6” or more in diameter that is removed under this new home project.
City staff believes the new single-family residential dwelling, with the oversized attached private garage,
will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the neighborhood or the community; or
cause any serious traffic congestion, hazards; or seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The
proposed dwelling appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the
comprehensive plan; and the CUP as presented herein is supported and may be approved.
INTERAGENCY REVIEW
In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing
notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
x DNR Staff acknowledged receipt of the new/revised plan set, and indicated appreciation of the
Applicant’s efforts to reducing overall impervious surface coverage with new home layout; and
plans for tree replacement. No other comments, objections or conditions submitted; nor any request
for additional information in this case.
page 129
Planning Case #2020--14 (Tempo Homes) Page 6
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit request for 1217 Victoria Curve,
which would allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling with an oversized attached
garage up to 1,480-sf. in area, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project is compliant
with the policies and standards of the City Code with certain conditions; or
2. Deny the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit request for 1217 Victoria Curve, based
on the findings of fact that the applications do not meet certain policies and standards of City Code,
as determined by the Planning Commission; or
3. Table the application; and request the Applicant to officially extend their statutory review period
for adetermined and agreed amount of time. The original 60-Day review period for this application
was set to expire August 28, 2020; but was officially extended by city staff an additional 60-Days
(as allowed by State Statute) to October 27, 2020.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for 1217
Victoria Curve, which would allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling with an oversized
attached garage up to 1,480-sq. ft. in size, with the following conditions:
1. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City of
Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new construction work.
2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and
construction work activities.
3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
Document.
4. A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval
as part of any new building permit process. The Applicant agrees to replant one new tree (minimum
2.5” caliper size for deciduous and 6’-ft. for evergreens) for each significant tree removed from the
site for this home project. As per the city’s Pollinator Friendly Policy, all new trees and landscaping
shall meet the city’s Native Plant List.
5. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AMto 8:00 PM Monday through
Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends.
6. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and
permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed.
ATTACHMENTS
- Location Map – 1217 Victoria Curve
- Plan Set – including Survey; Site & Grading Plan; Erosion Control Plan; and Tree Preservation Plan
- New Dwelling Elevation Plans
- Engineering & Drainage Report – Lake & Land Surveying 09/11/2020 (condensed version)
- Neighboring Resident Emails (receive d after the 07/28/2020 PC meeting)
page 130
Planning Case #2020--14 (Tempo Homes) Page 7
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit
for
1217 Victoria Curve
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed single-family dwelling project meets the general purpose and intent of the Critical
Area Overlay District.
2. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new single-family dwelling is deemed
minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District.
3. The proposed oversized garage requested under this application can be considered a reasonable
request, and will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Zoning Code that allow such
structures by means of a conditional use permit.
4. The proposed single family dwelling with over-sized garage will not be detrimental to the health,
safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor
hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The overall construction of this proposed residential home with over-sized garage will comply with
all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances; represents
reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals
for residential land uses; fits well with the current developed character of the neighborhood; and
will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.
page 131
$16666666666666666 66666666666666
66666666666666
66
666666666666666 6 6
666 66666 6
6666666
6
FMFMFMFMFMFMF
M
11791215
1919
1948
2025
1190
1200
19911949
1242
1954
1199 1187
1936
1219
1942
12001206
1205
1941
1921
1169
1903
1181
1940
1916
1230
1224
1920
1935
1235 1908
1914
1905 190719081248
2020
1203
1193
1933
1163370
1901
1290
1290
1264
1902
HWY 62 HUNTER LNCULLIGAN LN
GLENHILL RDCENTRE POINTE CUR
VICTORIA CUR
VERONICA LN
HWY 62 0'476'351'
295'327'322'282'360'
249'226'
308'
299'205'287.5'217'175'15
1
'95'128'80'75'88'58
'62'274'0'249'1217 VICTORIA CURVE
(Tempo Homes)
City of
Mendota
Heights0190
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:
This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,
survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained
in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors
or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
7/2/2020
SUBJECT PROPERTY
page 132
page 133
page 134
page 135
page 136
page 137
page 138
91REVISIONSBYDESIGN and DRAFTING BY:
page 139
29TEMPO HOMES
page 140
LAKE & LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Land Surveying, Civil and Geotechnical Engineering
1200 CENTRE POINTE CURVE STE 375, ST. PAUL MN 55120
PHONE: 651-776-6211 EXT 222 / FAX: 651-776-6711
JONFARACI@HOTMAIL.COM
September 11, 2020
Mr. Mark McNeill, City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Mr. Vinh Truong - 1217 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 – Site Plan Requirements
Job No. 2020.027
Dear Mr. McNeill,
As per City Code § 12.3-5(C)(2): Site Planning Requirements.
The applicant
2. The following information shall be provided in the site plan:
a. Location of the property, including such information as the name and numbers of adjoining
roads, railroads, existing subdivisions, or other landmarks.
See Vicinity Map.
b. The name and address of the owner(s) or developer(s), the section, township, range, north
point, date, and scale of drawings, and number of sheets.
See Certificate of Survey
c. Existing topography as indicated on a contour map having a contour interval no greater than
two feet (2') per contour; the contour map shall also clearly delineate any bluff line, all streams,
including intermittent streams and swales, rivers, water bodies, and wetlands located on the site.
See Certificate of Survey, Site & Grading Plan
d. A plan delineating the existing drainage of the water setting forth in which direction the
volume, and at what rate the stormwater is conveyed from the site in setting forth those areas on the
site where stormwater collects and is gradually percolated into the ground or slowly released to
stream or lake.
See attached existing Hydrocad models with drainage areas.
e. A description of the soils on the site including a map indicating soil types by areas to be
disturbed as well as a soil report containing information on the suitability of the soils for the type of
development proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing any remedial
steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils suitable. All areas proposed for grading shall be
identified by soil type, both as to soil type of existing topsoil and soil type of the new contour. The
location and extent of any erosion areas shall be included in the soil’s description.
Soil map and soil types attached and were provided by the USDA Web Soil Survey.
As per the 2020 MN Residential Code, Chapter 4 of the 2018 IRC, R401.4 Soil Testing building
officials shall determine to require soil tests. In lieu of a compete Geotechnical Evaluation table
R401.41 shall be used. Area of excavated soil storage, to be removed from the site, is shown
on the Site and Grading Plan.
page 141
LAKE & LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Land Surveying, Civil and Geotechnical Engineering
1200 CENTRE POINTE CURVE STE 375, ST. PAUL MN 55120
PHONE: 651-776-6211 EXT 222 / FAX: 651-776-6711
JONFARACI@HOTMAIL.COM
f. A description of the flora and fauna, which occupy the site or are occasionally found thereon,
setting forth with detail those areas where unique plant or animal species may be found on the site.
As per the City Planner, existing trees 6” in diameter and larger are shown on the Certificate of
Survey. The Tree Preservation Plan shows tree to be removed.
g. A description of any features, buildings, or areas which are of historic significance.
No historical significance as per aerial photos, indicates that the property was of agricultural use
from 1937 to 1957, changing to vacant urban property as the farming stopped to present.
h. A map indicating proposed finished grading shown at contours at the same intervals
proposed above or as required to clearly indicate the relationship of proposed changes to existing
topography and remaining features.
Final construction house plans to match Site and Grading Plan.
i. A landscape plan drawn to an appropriate scale including dimensions, distance, location,
type, size, and description of all existing vegetation, clearly locating and describing any vegetation
proposed for removal and all proposed landscape materials which will be added to this site as part of
the development.
Tree Preservation Plan shows which trees are to be removed, all disturbed areas to have 4
inches of topsoil, fertilizer and sod or seed.
j. A proposed drainage plan of the developed site delineating in which direction, volume, and at
what rate stormwater will be conveyed from the site and setting forth the areas of the site where
stormwater will be allowed to collect and gradually percolate into the soil, or be slowly released to
stream or lake. The plan shall also set forth hydraulic capacity of all structures to be constructed or
exiting structures to be utilized, including volume, or holding ponds and design storms.
See attached proposed Hydrocad models with drainage areas.
k. An erosion and sedimentation control plan indicating the type, location, and necessary
technical information on control measures to be taken both during and after construction including a
statement expressing the calculated anticipated gross soil loss expressed in tons/acres/year both
during and after construction.
Gross soil loss calculations are not required for Single-Family Home Construction in the City of
Mendota Heights. In order to minimize soil loss, upon excavation of the foundation, removal of
all excess soil, trees, and debris from the site, all disturbed areas within 10 feet of the
foundation shall be temporary seeded and the driveway shall be graveled. See Erosion Control
Plan.
l. The proposed size, alignment, height, and intended use of any structures to be erected or
located on the site.
See Architectural Plans for the proposed house, and Site and Grading Plan.
page 142
LAKE & LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Land Surveying, Civil and Geotechnical Engineering
1200 CENTRE POINTE CURVE STE 375, ST. PAUL MN 55120
PHONE: 651-776-6211 EXT 222 / FAX: 651-776-6711
JONFARACI@HOTMAIL.COM
m. A clear delineation of all areas which shall be paved or surfaced including a description of
the surfacing material to be used.
See Site and Grading Plan.
n. A description of the method to be provided for vehicular and pedestrian access to the
proposed development and public access to the river and/or public river view opportunities both
before and after development; a description of the development's impact on existing views of and
along the river.
Not Applicable
o. A description of all parking facilities to be provided as part of the development of the site
including an analysis of parking needs generated by the proposed development.
No parking facilities are required for a Single-Family house. The Architectural Plans, and The
Site and Grading Plan shows a 4-stall garage with the driveway in front of garage allowing for
4 additional cars.
p. A delineation of the area or areas to be dedicated for public use.
Not Applicable
q. A delineation of the location and amounts of excavated soils to be stored on the site during
construction.
Cut and fill volumes are provided on the Site and Grading Plan. Area of excavated soil storage,
to be removed from the site, is shown on the Site and Grading Plan.
r. Any other information pertinent to that particular project which in the opinion of the inspector
or applicant is necessary or helpful for the review of the project. (Ord. 387, 10-7-2003)
It is my opinion that all of the information pertinent to this project has been addressed as per,
2020 Minnesota Residential Building Code, the above City of Mendota Heights requirements,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Storm Water and Best Management Practices,
for constructing a Single-Family House.
ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the Laws of the State of
Minnesota.
Respectfully submitted,
LAKE & LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Jonathan L. Faraci, P.E.
Minnesota Registration 16464
Encl.
page 143
page 144
page 145
page 146
page 147
page 148
page 149
100mUSNG UTM DMS DM Degrees15T VK 88355 70387LayersPDFsOpen Street MapsMap Catalog4*5&-0$"5*0/page 150
6RLO0DS²'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
1
:
1
:
1
:
1
:1
0DSSURMHFWLRQ :HE0HUFDWRU&RUQHUFRRUGLQDWHV :*6(GJHWLFV 870=RQH1:*6
)HHW
0HWHUV
0DS6FDOH LISULQWHGRQ$SRUWUDLW [ VKHHW
6RLO0DSPD\QRWEHYDOLGDWWKLVVFDOH
page 151
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²6HS7KHRUWKRSKRWRRURWKHUEDVHPDSRQZKLFKWKHVRLOOLQHVZHUHFRPSLOHGDQGGLJLWL]HGSUREDEO\GLIIHUVIURPWKHEDFNJURXQGLPDJHU\GLVSOD\HGRQWKHVHPDSV$VDUHVXOWVRPHPLQRUVKLIWLQJRIPDSXQLWERXQGDULHVPD\EHHYLGHQW6RLO0DS²'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH:HE6RLO6XUYH\1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\ 3DJHRIpage 152
0DS8QLW/HJHQG
0DS8QLW6\PERO 0DS8QLW1DPH $FUHVLQ$2,3HUFHQWRI$2,
%:DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQW
VORSHVHURGHG
&:DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQW
VORSHVPRGHUDWHO\HURGHG
.HQQHEHFVLOWORDP
7RWDOVIRU$UHDRI,QWHUHVW
6RLO0DS²'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
page 153
'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
%²:DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVHURGHG
0DS8QLW6HWWLQJ
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO I \N
(OHYDWLRQ WRIHHW
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ WRLQFKHV
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH WRGHJUHHV)
)URVWIUHHSHULRG WRGD\V
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ $OODUHDVDUHSULPHIDUPODQG
0DS8QLW&RPSRVLWLRQ
:DGHQDHURGHGDQGVLPLODUVRLOV SHUFHQW
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV SHUFHQW
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRI
WKHPDSXQLW
'HVFULSWLRQRI:DGHQD(URGHG
6HWWLQJ
/DQGIRUP 2XWZDVKSODLQV
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WZRGLPHQVLRQDO %DFNVORSH
'RZQVORSHVKDSH /LQHDU
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH /LQHDU
3DUHQWPDWHULDO 2XWZDVK
7\SLFDOSURILOH
$SWR LQFKHV ORDP
%Z WRLQFKHV ORDP
&WRLQFKHV VDQG
3URSHUWLHVDQGTXDOLWLHV
6ORSH WRSHUFHQW
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH 0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
'UDLQDJHFODVV :HOOGUDLQHG
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW 0RGHUDWHO\KLJKWRKLJK WR LQKU
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH 0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ 1RQH
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ 1RQH
&DOFLXPFDUERQDWHPD[LPXPFRQWHQW SHUFHQW
$YDLODEOHZDWHUFDSDFLW\ 0RGHUDWH DERXWLQFKHV
,QWHUSUHWLYHJURXSV
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ LUULJDWHG 1RQHVSHFLILHG
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ QRQLUULJDWHG H
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS %
(FRORJLFDOVLWH 5;<016DQG\8SODQG3UDLULHV
)RUDJHVXLWDELOLW\JURXS 6ORSLQJ8SODQG$FLG * ;101
2WKHUYHJHWDWLYHFODVVLILFDWLRQ 6ORSLQJ8SODQG$FLG
* ;101
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQ :DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVHURGHG'DNRWD&RXQW\
0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
page 154
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ 1R
0LQRU&RPSRQHQWV
.HQQHEHF
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW SHUFHQW
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ 1R
'DWD6RXUFH,QIRUPDWLRQ
6RLO6XUYH\$UHD 'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
6XUYH\$UHD'DWD 9HUVLRQ-XQ
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQ :DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVHURGHG'DNRWD&RXQW\
0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
page 155
'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
².HQQHEHFVLOWORDP
0DS8QLW6HWWLQJ
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO I [F
(OHYDWLRQ WRIHHW
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ WRLQFKHV
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH WRGHJUHHV)
)URVWIUHHSHULRG WRGD\V
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ $OODUHDVDUHSULPHIDUPODQG
0DS8QLW&RPSRVLWLRQ
.HQQHEHFDQGVLPLODUVRLOV SHUFHQW
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRI
WKHPDSXQLW
'HVFULSWLRQRI.HQQHEHF
6HWWLQJ
/DQGIRUP 2XWZDVKSODLQV
'RZQVORSHVKDSH &RQFDYH
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH /LQHDU
3DUHQWPDWHULDO $OOXYLXP
7\SLFDOSURILOH
$S$$WRLQFKHV VLOWORDP
&WRLQFKHV VLOWORDP
3URSHUWLHVDQGTXDOLWLHV
6ORSH WRSHUFHQW
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH 0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
'UDLQDJHFODVV 0RGHUDWHO\ZHOOGUDLQHG
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW 0RGHUDWHO\KLJKWRKLJK WR LQKU
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH $ERXWLQFKHV
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ 1RQH
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ 1RQH
$YDLODEOHZDWHUFDSDFLW\ 9HU\KLJK DERXWLQFKHV
,QWHUSUHWLYHJURXSV
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ LUULJDWHG 1RQHVSHFLILHG
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ QRQLUULJDWHG
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS &
)RUDJHVXLWDELOLW\JURXS 6ORSLQJ8SODQG$FLG *;101
2WKHUYHJHWDWLYHFODVVLILFDWLRQ 6ORSLQJ8SODQG$FLG
*;101
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQ .HQQHEHFVLOWORDP'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
page 156
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ 1R
'DWD6RXUFH,QIRUPDWLRQ
6RLO6XUYH\$UHD 'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
6XUYH\$UHD'DWD 9HUVLRQ-XQ
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQ .HQQHEHFVLOWORDP'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
page 157
'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
&²:DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVPRGHUDWHO\
HURGHG
0DS8QLW6HWWLQJ
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO ZG
(OHYDWLRQ WRIHHW
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ WRLQFKHV
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH WRGHJUHHV)
)URVWIUHHSHULRG WRGD\V
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ )DUPODQGRIVWDWHZLGHLPSRUWDQFH
0DS8QLW&RPSRVLWLRQ
:DGHQDPRGHUDWHO\HURGHGDQGVLPLODUVRLOV SHUFHQW
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV SHUFHQW
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRI
WKHPDSXQLW
'HVFULSWLRQRI:DGHQD0RGHUDWHO\(URGHG
6HWWLQJ
/DQGIRUP 7HUUDFHVRXWZDVKSODLQV
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WZRGLPHQVLRQDO 6XPPLWVKRXOGHUEDFNVORSH
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO 7UHDGULVH
'RZQVORSHVKDSH &RQYH[
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH /LQHDU
3DUHQWPDWHULDO /RDP\JODFLRIOXYLDOGHSRVLWVRYHUVDQG\DQG
JUDYHOO\RXWZDVK
7\SLFDOSURILOH
$SWRLQFKHV ORDP
$WRLQFKHV ORDP
%ZWRLQFKHV ORDP
&WR LQFKHV JUDYHOO\ORDP\FRDUVHVDQG
3URSHUWLHVDQGTXDOLWLHV
6ORSH WRSHUFHQW
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH 0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
'UDLQDJHFODVV :HOOGUDLQHG
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW 0RGHUDWHO\KLJKWRKLJK WRLQKU
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH 0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ 1RQH
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ 1RQH
&DOFLXPFDUERQDWHPD[LPXPFRQWHQW SHUFHQW
0D[LPXPVDOLQLW\ 1RQVDOLQHWRYHU\VOLJKWO\VDOLQH WR
PPKRVFP
$YDLODEOHZDWHUFDSDFLW\ 0RGHUDWH DERXWLQFKHV
,QWHUSUHWLYHJURXSV
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ LUULJDWHG 1RQHVSHFLILHG
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQ :DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVPRGHUDWHO\HURGHG'DNRWD
&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
page 158
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ QRQLUULJDWHG H
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS %
(FRORJLFDOVLWH 5;<016DQG\8SODQG3UDLULHV
)RUDJHVXLWDELOLW\JURXS 6ORSLQJ8SODQG1HXWUDO *;601
2WKHUYHJHWDWLYHFODVVLILFDWLRQ 6ORSLQJ8SODQG1HXWUDO
*;601
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ 1R
0LQRU&RPSRQHQWV
(VWKHUYLOOH
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW SHUFHQW
/DQGIRUP 7HUUDFHVRXWZDVKSODLQV
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WZRGLPHQVLRQDO 6XPPLWVKRXOGHUEDFNVORSH
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO 7UHDGULVH
'RZQVORSHVKDSH &RQYH[
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH /LQHDU
(FRORJLFDOVLWH 5;<016DQG\8SODQG3UDLULHV
2WKHUYHJHWDWLYHFODVVLILFDWLRQ 6DQG\ *;601
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ 1R
'LFNLQVRQ
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW SHUFHQW
/DQGIRUP 2XWZDVKSODLQVWHUUDFHV
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WZRGLPHQVLRQDO 6XPPLWVKRXOGHUEDFNVORSH
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO 7UHDGULVH
'RZQVORSHVKDSH &RQYH[
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH /LQHDU
(FRORJLFDOVLWH 5;<016DQG\8SODQG3UDLULHV
2WKHUYHJHWDWLYHFODVVLILFDWLRQ 6ORSLQJ8SODQG1HXWUDO
*;601
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ 1R
'DWD6RXUFH,QIRUPDWLRQ
6RLO6XUYH\$UHD 'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
6XUYH\$UHD'DWD 9HUVLRQ-XQ
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQ :DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVPRGHUDWHO\HURGHG'DNRWD
&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
page 159
LAKE & LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Land Surveying, Civil and Geotechnical Engineering
1200 CENTRE POINTE CURVE STE 375, ST. PAUL MN 55120
PHONE: 651-776-6211 EXT 222 / FAX: 651-776-6711
JONFARACI@HOTMAIL.COM
September 11, 2020
Mr. Mark McNeill, City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Mr. Vinh Truong - 1217 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118– Drainage Calculations
Job No. 2020.027
Dear Mr. McNeill,
Please find the attached revised Drainage Summary.
1) Peak storm water runoff rates may not exceed existing rates for the 2-year, 10-year, & 100-year storm events, see
HydroCAD TR-20.
Table I Summary of HydroCAD TR-20 Drainage Calculations to the Northeast
2-YR 24 HR STORM
10-YR 24 HR STORM
100-YR 24 HR STORM
PROPOSED PEAK
RUNOFF (CFS)
0.04
0.19
0.85
EXISTING PEAK
RUNOFF (CFS)
0.05
0.25
1.09
DIFERENCE
LESS THAN EXISTING
LESS THAN EXISTING
LESS THAN EXISTING
Table II Summary of HydroCAD TR-20 Drainage Calculations to the Northeast
2-YR 24 HR STORM
10-YR 24 HR STORM
100-YR 24 HR STORM
PROPOSED RUNOFF
VOLIME (AF)
0.007
0.025
0.090
EXISTING RUNOFF
VOLUME (AF)
0.010
0.035
`
0.127
DIFERENCE
LESS THAN EXISTING
LESS THAN EXISTING
LESS THAN EXISTING
page 160
LAKE & LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Land Surveying, Civil and Geotechnical Engineering
1200 CENTRE POINTE CURVE STE 375, ST. PAUL MN 55120
PHONE: 651-776-6211 EXT 222 / FAX: 651-776-6711
JONFARACI@HOTMAIL.COM
Table III Summary of HydroCAD TR-20 Drainage Calculations to the South
2-YR 24 HR STORM
10-YR 24 HR STORM
100-YR 24 HR STORM
PROPOSED PEAK
RUNOFF (CFS)
0.34
0.70
1.65
EXISTING PEAK
RUNOFF (CFS)
0.02
0.13
0.57
DIFERENCE
MORE THAN EXISTING,
AS PER CITY ENGINEER
EXISTING STORM SEWER
SIZED TO HANDLE
INCREASE.
MORE THAN EXISTING,
AS PER CITY ENGINEER
EXISTING STORM SEWER
SIZED TO HANDLE INCREASE.
MORE THAN EXISTING,
AS PER CITY ENGINEER
EXISTING STORM SEWER
SIZED TO HANDLE INCREASE.
Table IV Summary of HydroCAD TR-20 Drainage Calculations to the South
2-YR 24 HR STORM
10-YR 24 HR STORM
100-YR 24 HR STORM
PROPOSED RUNOFF
VOLIME (AF)
0.026
0.053
0.126
EXISTING RUNOFF
VOLUME (AF)
0.002
0.009
`
0.031
ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the Laws of the State of Minnesota.
Respectfully submitted,
LAKE & LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Jonathan L. Faraci, P.E.
Minnesota Registration 16464
page 161
page 162
page 163
9/10/2020 Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=44.8847&lon=-93.1540&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 1/2
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2
Location name: Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA*
Latitude: 44.8847°, Longitude: -93.154°
Elevation: 910.51 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale
Unruh, Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin
NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland
PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1
Duration Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 0.355
(0.295‑0.435)
0.421
(0.349‑0.516)
0.533
(0.441‑0.656)
0.632
(0.518‑0.781)
0.774
(0.612‑0.999)
0.889
(0.683‑1.16)
1.01
(0.743‑1.36)
1.14
(0.796‑1.57)
1.31
(0.877‑1.87)
1.45
(0.938‑2.10)
10-min 0.520
(0.432‑0.638)
0.616
(0.511‑0.756)
0.781
(0.645‑0.961)
0.925
(0.759‑1.14)
1.13
(0.896‑1.46)
1.30
(0.999‑1.70)
1.48
(1.09‑1.99)
1.66
(1.17‑2.30)
1.92
(1.28‑2.74)
2.12
(1.37‑3.07)
15-min 0.634
(0.527‑0.777)
0.752
(0.624‑0.922)
0.953
(0.787‑1.17)
1.13
(0.925‑1.39)
1.38
(1.09‑1.78)
1.59
(1.22‑2.08)
1.80
(1.33‑2.42)
2.03
(1.42‑2.81)
2.34
(1.57‑3.34)
2.59
(1.68‑3.74)
30-min 0.885
(0.735‑1.09)
1.06
(0.876‑1.30)
1.35
(1.12‑1.66)
1.61
(1.32‑1.98)
1.97
(1.56‑2.55)
2.27
(1.75‑2.98)
2.59
(1.90‑3.48)
2.92
(2.04‑4.04)
3.37
(2.25‑4.81)
3.73
(2.42‑5.39)
60-min 1.16
(0.960‑1.42)
1.37
(1.14‑1.68)
1.76
(1.46‑2.17)
2.12
(1.74‑2.62)
2.67
(2.13‑3.49)
3.14
(2.42‑4.14)
3.65
(2.70‑4.94)
4.20
(2.95‑5.85)
4.98
(3.34‑7.15)
5.62
(3.64‑8.13)
2-hr 1.43
(1.19‑1.73)
1.69
(1.41‑2.05)
2.17
(1.81‑2.65)
2.64
(2.18‑3.24)
3.37
(2.72‑4.40)
4.01
(3.12‑5.27)
4.71
(3.51‑6.35)
5.48
(3.89‑7.60)
6.60
(4.47‑9.41)
7.52
(4.91‑10.8)
3-hr 1.60
(1.34‑1.93)
1.88
(1.57‑2.27)
2.42
(2.02‑2.94)
2.96
(2.46‑3.61)
3.83
(3.12‑5.01)
4.61
(3.62‑6.07)
5.47
(4.11‑7.39)
6.44
(4.61‑8.94)
7.87
(5.36‑11.2)
9.05
(5.94‑12.9)
6-hr 1.88
(1.59‑2.26)
2.19
(1.85‑2.63)
2.82
(2.37‑3.39)
3.46
(2.89‑4.18)
4.51
(3.71‑5.88)
5.47
(4.33‑7.16)
6.54
(4.96‑8.79)
7.76
(5.60‑10.7)
9.56
(6.58‑13.5)
11.1
(7.32‑15.7)
12-hr 2.12
(1.81‑2.53)
2.49
(2.12‑2.97)
3.21
(2.72‑3.83)
3.91
(3.28‑4.69)
5.02
(4.13‑6.44)
6.01
(4.78‑7.76)
7.10
(5.41‑9.40)
8.31
(6.03‑11.3)
10.1
(6.99‑14.1)
11.6
(7.71‑16.3)
24-hr 2.46
(2.11‑2.90)
2.81
(2.40‑3.32)
3.50
(2.99‑4.15)
4.20
(3.56‑5.00)
5.33
(4.43‑6.78)
6.34
(5.09‑8.13)
7.47
(5.75‑9.83)
8.74
(6.40‑11.8)
10.6
(7.42‑14.8)
12.2
(8.19‑17.0)
2-day 2.86
(2.47‑3.34)
3.18
(2.75‑3.73)
3.85
(3.31‑4.52)
4.54
(3.87‑5.35)
5.67
(4.75‑7.16)
6.69
(5.42‑8.52)
7.85
(6.09‑10.3)
9.16
(6.77‑12.3)
11.1
(7.83‑15.3)
12.7
(8.63‑17.6)
3-day 3.14
(2.72‑3.66)
3.46
(3.00‑4.03)
4.12
(3.56‑4.82)
4.81
(4.12‑5.64)
5.94
(5.00‑7.46)
6.98
(5.67‑8.83)
8.15
(6.35‑10.6)
9.47
(7.03‑12.7)
11.4
(8.11‑15.7)
13.1
(8.92‑18.0)
4-day 3.36
(2.92‑3.90)
3.70
(3.21‑4.30)
4.38
(3.79‑5.11)
5.08
(4.37‑5.95)
6.23
(5.25‑7.77)
7.26
(5.92‑9.15)
8.43
(6.59‑10.9)
9.75
(7.26‑13.0)
11.7
(8.32‑16.0)
13.3
(9.12‑18.3)
7-day 3.89
(3.40‑4.48)
4.33
(3.78‑4.99)
5.14
(4.47‑5.95)
5.91
(5.11‑6.87)
7.11
(5.99‑8.71)
8.15
(6.65‑10.1)
9.28
(7.27‑11.8)
10.5
(7.86‑13.8)
12.3
(8.80‑16.7)
13.8
(9.51‑18.8)
10-day 4.38
(3.84‑5.02)
4.90
(4.30‑5.63)
5.83
(5.09‑6.71)
6.67
(5.78‑7.71)
7.91
(6.65‑9.58)
8.95
(7.31‑11.0)
10.1
(7.90‑12.7)
11.2
(8.41‑14.6)
12.9
(9.25‑17.3)
14.3
(9.88‑19.4)
20-day 5.93
(5.24‑6.74)
6.63
(5.86‑7.55)
7.81
(6.87‑8.91)
8.79
(7.68‑10.1)
10.2
(8.56‑12.1)
11.2
(9.22‑13.6)
12.3
(9.72‑15.3)
13.4
(10.1‑17.2)
14.9
(10.8‑19.8)
16.1
(11.2‑21.7)
30-day 7.31
(6.49‑8.27)
8.16
(7.24‑9.24)
9.54
(8.43‑10.8)
10.7
(9.35‑12.2)
12.2
(10.2‑14.3)
13.3
(10.9‑15.9)
14.4
(11.4‑17.7)
15.5
(11.7‑19.7)
16.9
(12.2‑22.2)
18.0
(12.6‑24.1)
45-day 9.12
(8.14‑10.3)
10.2
(9.07‑11.5)
11.8
(10.5‑13.4)
13.2
(11.6‑14.9)
14.9
(12.5‑17.3)
16.1
(13.3‑19.1)
17.3
(13.7‑21.0)
18.4
(13.9‑23.1)
19.7
(14.3‑25.6)
20.6
(14.6‑27.5)
60-day 10.7
(9.58‑12.0)
12.0
(10.7‑13.4)
13.9
(12.4‑15.7)
15.4
(13.6‑17.4)
17.3
(14.6‑20.0)
18.6
(15.4‑22.0)
19.8
(15.8‑24.1)
21.0
(15.9‑26.2)
22.3
(16.2‑28.8)
23.1
(16.4‑30.7)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates
(for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper
bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
page 164
9/10/2020 Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=44.8847&lon=-93.1540&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 2/2
Large scale terrain
Large scale map
Large scale aerial
Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: HDSC.Questions@noaa.gov
Disclaimer
+
–
3km
2mi
+
–
100km
60mi
+
–
100km
60mi
+
–
100km
60mi
page 165
From:Neil Garlock
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Fwd: Proposed home construction at 1217 Victoria Curve.
Date:Friday, August 14, 2020 8:04:46 AM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Alan <olstein@comcast.net>
Date: August 13, 2020 at 8:56:50 PM CDT
To: Neil Garlock <neilg@mendota-heights.com>
Subject: Proposed home construction at 1217 Victoria Curve.
Dear Mayor Garelock:
To: Mendota Heights City Council and Mayor Garlock
We live at 1954 Glenhill Road in Mendota Heights. We are writing you to express our
concerns and objections to the request for approval of a Critical Area Permit and
Conditional Use Permit for property located at 1217 Victoria Curve (the “Property”).
Our home is adjacent to the west of the Property, fronting on Glenhill Road. Because
of the 130- foot setback planned for this home, our neighborhood and our home will be
adversely impacted. The lengthy setback is entirely inconsistent with the character of
the neighborhood. All current homes have consistent set -backs ( ~ 50’ ) and we
believe this consistency should be continued with the home to be constructed on the
Property. As the attached diagram shows, the 130 -foot set back will affect our sight
line and greatly diminish the view we have enjoyed for the 20 years we have lived in
our home. Additionally, the wintertime will afford the residents a clear view of our
master and bath and bedroom.
We are also concerned about the drainage which will result from the 130 -foot setback.
The plan is for the area where the home is to be built to be raised to an elevation of 913
ft., so it will be higher than all of the lots adjacent to the Property. The back of our
house is at 908 ft. elevation, which is 5 feet below the elevation of the proposed house.
While there is a retaining wall proposed for the western periphery of the property the
wall does not extend the entire length of the yard and therefore drainage from the
northwest corner of the property will end up in both our yard and the yard of Kae
Lovaas. The height of the retaining wall is not specified in the site plan, which the
Critical Area Overlay rules require (12-3-5 C-l). We already have a drainage issue on
the area between our house and that of our neighbor, Kae Lovaas, at 1948 Glenhill
page 166
Road. Kae and we jointly hired a grading expert to raise the grading in this area, but
the excess water buildup when it rains continues. The planned home on the Property
will only exacerbate this drainage problem.
Calvin Tran from Tempo Homes testified at the Planning Commission hearing that the
reason for the significant setback was because they wanted to save some trees.
However, the trees on the lot are largely cottonwood and Buckthorn shrubs, which are
not entirely desirable. Trees will have to be removed regardless of the location of the
home, because the Property is totally covered by trees and vegetation. It is possible
that more trees will have to be removed to make space for the lengthy driveway
resulting from the 130-foot setback than if the home was built within the 50-foot
setback for all adjacent homes. If this house were to comport with the setbacks of all
the houses in the neighborhood much of the vegetation could be spared and the
drainage problems would be alleviated because the house would be that much closer to
Victoria Curve.
We have been informed by Xcel Energy that because of the lengthy set back, they have
been asked to move the power line which would be affected by the planned home, to
follow along the property lines of the Bolin’s, us and Kae Lovaas. These new power
lines will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and our property. This
significant change to the power lines would be entirely unnecessary if the house is
required to conform to the setback for all of the other homes in the neighborhood, since
the power line would have to be buried to accommodate the footprint of the house. In
addition to the objectionable esthetics of having a “wrap-around” overhead power line,
these overhead power lines would render the delivery of power to the surrounding
homes at greater risk during turbulent storms from straight line winds and downed
trees.
It should also be mentioned that Tempo Homes has made no efforts to discuss this
project with the adjacent homeowners. We were shocked to receive the notice of the
Planning Commission hearing two weeks before the hearing. We knew absolutely
nothing about this planned project. At the Planning Commission meeting, after hearing
from several neighbors, Mary Magnuson told Calvin Tran from Tempo Homes that he
should contact the neighbors to discuss their concerns. He has not done so. Further,
unable to find any contact information online about Calvin Tran or Tempo Homes, I
asked Tim Benetti for Mr. Tran’s contact information. I then sent Mr. Tran an e-mail
message stating that I would like to discuss our concerns with him. I received a
response that he was working with City officials. He had no interest in hearing our
concerns.
In addition, this project does not comply with the requirements for a Critical Area
Permit. For example:
1.Section 12-3-5 B. states that a written application for site plan approval must be
filed with the zoning administrator “containing evidence adequate to show that
the proposed use will conform with the standards set forth in this chapter.” It is
page 167
our understanding that no such application has been filed.
2.Section 12-3-5 C. 2. lists the elements of a site plan which must be submitted.
The site plan we were provided by the City of Mendota Heights fails to include:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->•<!--[endif]-->A proposed drainage plan
of the developed site delineating in which direction, volume and at
what rate storm water will be conveyed from the site and setting
forth the areas of the site where storm water will be allowed to
collect and gradually percolate into the soil, or be slowly released
to stream or lake. The plan shall also set forth hydraulic capacity
of all structures to be constructed or exiting structures to be
utilized, including volume or holding ponds and design storms.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<!--[endif]-->Section 12-3-8 B. f: states that “
Construction of a single family dwelling on a lot approved by the city …. In no
case shall a dwelling be placed closer to the bluff line or normal high water
than the average setback of the structures on the immediately adjacent
lots.”
4.Section 12-3-16 states that when considering a proposal for a variance or other
applications within the Mississippi River corridor critical area, the planning
commission and city council must address a number of items in making their
decision. One of the items is “The compatibility of the proposed development
with uses on adjacent land.” (No. 10)
For all of the above reasons, we respectfully request that the City Council deny
approval of a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the Property as
presently planned.
page 168
From:Neil Garlock
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Fwd: 1217 Victoria Curve Home Construction up for approval at next City Council Meeting
Date:Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:15:13 AM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "egbolin@comcast.net" <egbolin@comcast.net>
Date: August 11, 2020 at 8:19:29 PM CDT
To: Neil Garlock <neilg@mendota-heights.com>
Subject: 1217 Victoria Curve Home Construction up for approval at next City Council
Meeting
Mayor Garlock,
We live at 1215 Victoria Curve, next to the proposed house at 1217 Victoria Curve
which will come before the Council for permit approvals at next Tuesday's Council
Meeting.
While we look forward to having new neighbors, we have several concerns
regarding their plans. We respectfully request you to consider the concerns listed
below.
Water Flow/Drainage Issues:
The Site Plan contemplates adding 3 feet of fill in front of the house,
increasing the elevation from 910' to 913'. The corner of our house is 908'.
The build up creates a severe slope toward neighboring properties, including
ours, of approx. 33% to 35% from the edge of the built-up areas.
The elevation difference where the properties touch neighbors lot lines is
minimal. This increased elevation is at the center of the properties.
The Site Plan's water flow is designed to send the bulk of the drainage to
Victoria Curve, yet the home is set at the back of the lot.
In addition, the length of the driveway, plus the circular feature, results in a
greatly increased impervious area.
Our Soil has a very heavy clay content, which is not accurately reflected in
the State's overall soil mapping. This has created flooding in our basement in
the past (south side of house) and we have spent a considerable amount of
money berming and excavating/sealing some of our basement walls already.
To date we have not had that issue on our west side and do not wish to have
a problem there.
Sight Lines:
Currently there are only 6 homes on Victoria Curve, all with the same set
back from the street. 1217 will be the last site developed along Victoria
Curve. The proposed home is set substantially back from that line,
page 169
obstructing the views of numerous neighbors' backyard space.
When we renovated our home, we built assuming an in-line home being
built on the vacant lot. But, we will now be looking directly at their home
and they will be looking into our sunroom and backyard patio. The
photo attached is from edge of our lot where their home will be placed.
We will have an opposite view of their home.
Not only will we feel like we are living in a 'fish bowl', but this will
negatively affect the value of our home.
The homes surrounding the remainder of the block (on either side of Glenhill,
Culligan, and Hunter) all have equivalent setbacks. 1217 would be the only
house among the immediate 24 homes that has a different setback. There
has been an orderly development up to this point. This will adversely affect
the character of the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission, and we, were told the house could not be aligned
with the other homes due to the steep trajectory or slope of the driveway as it
would create a driveway too steep for city code.
We engaged counsel for advice (Taft law firm(fka Briggs & Morgan))
and they estimated the driveway could easily be developed to meet city
code with the house aligned with the other homes.
The Planning Commission, and we, were told the house drawings submitted
were flipped and that the garage would abut our yard. That, apparently, was
incorrect and the taller living space will look over our yard, thus increasing
privacy issues.
The Community Development Director told the Planning Commission, and us,
that it took some discussion to clarify the vague string rule with the City's
Attorney, but that it does not apply to homes moved back in lots, only those
moved forward. However, a reading of the rule would result in the house
being situated no greater than 1/3 of the lot depth. The plan currently shows
a 54% setback.
We would request a review of the placement of the proposed home and further
analysis of the drainage issues.
We hoped to discuss with the homeowner and contractor several ideas we have
regarding the soil drainage, the home's location, and privacy issues. However, our
current neighbors reached out to the contractor and were told (rather bluntly) that
they are following up with the Community Development Director and following city
and state guidelines to address any issues. They implied they did not want or need
to talk to us.
Because we have been unable to speak with the contractor or homeowner, we
reached our to Tim Benetti last week to request copies of all his correspondence,
meetings, phone conversations and emails related to the proposed construction.
We were hoping to look for their rationale for proceeding the way they are. We
have been told these are public records. Unfortunately we have not heard back
from Mr. Benetti, yet.
As of today, we discovered a new issue. Xcel indicated they are designing a
relocation of the above-ground power lines around the perimeter of the 1217 lot. It
currently bisects the lot with 123 linear feet. This new configuration will result in
369 linear feet (3 times the existing length) and will directly impact 3 adjacent lots
with overhead lines. We are just beginning to look into this, but additional overhead
lines bordering our lot is not advantageous.
page 170
We welcome new neighbors and Mendota Heights' desire to support new
development. And, we have always appreciated the city's desire to make sure new
development did not adversely affect existing homes and neighborhoods.
Could we spend a few moments, at your convenience, to discuss this with you in
person before the Council Meeting on Tuesday? We will follow up in the next few
days .
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Edie & Greg Bolin
EGBolin@comcast.net
651-905-9318
page 171
From:Kae Lovaas
To:Neil Garlock; Ultan Duggan; Jay Miller; Joel Paper; Liz Petschel
Cc:Vinh Truong; Calvin Tran; Tim Benetti; Mark McNeill; Ryan Ruzek; Greg Bolin; Alan Olstein; Phyllis Karasov
Subject:Planning Case No. 2020-14, 1217 Victoria Curve
Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 8:51:59 PM
Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,
Re: Planning Case No 2020-14, 1217 Victoria Curve
We have met with Vinh Troung, the property owner, and Calvin Tran, the contractor for the above
project. They have shared with us their plan to move the home planned for 1217 Victoria Curve to
the southern portion of the lot, such that the front of the new home will basically align with the
front of the other homes on the block. We support this plan and believe that this is the best plan for
this property.
When Mr. Truong shared this plan, we submitted it to our engineer and they reported that the new
plan improves the rate and flow of water run-off.
Thanks to all of you for your attention to this matter as we have worked through a variety of
concerns. Through positive discussion with the homeowner and his contractor, we have a successful
outcome. Now we all look forward to the building of a new home and the arrival of new neighbors
at 1217 Victoria Curve.
Greg and Edie Bolin – 1215 Victoria Curve
Phyllis Karasov and Alan Olstein – 1954 Glenhill Rd.
Kae Jewell – 1948 Glenhill Rd.
cc: Vinh Truong
Calvin Tran
Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director
page 172
page 173
page 174
From:egbolin@comcast.net
To:Tim Benetti
Cc:Ryan Ruzek
Subject:Proposed Home at 1217 Victoria Curve
Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 7:57:56 PM
Tim,
Please add this to the information the City Council will receive for their meeting next
week. We have reviewed the "Certificate of Survey" and the "Site & Grading Plan"
that you forwarded today and have additional comments.
During the Planning Commission meeting last night, several Commissioners
discussed the various elevations of the 1217 property. We do not read surveys on
even a limited basis, so we could not always follow along.
I spoke last night at the meeting and at the end of my time, Commissioner Magnuson
asked me the difference in elevation between my property and the 1217 property. I
responded that it was 1 or 2 feet. That is the present difference between the
properties.
What I did not realize, and what was not made clear at the meeting (at least to us), is
that the owner of the 1217 property will build up their lot an additional 3 feet in the
middle. It appears the top of their driveway and even the front steps of the proposed
house are at an elevation of 913.87.
The foundation of my house directly east of this area, is at an elevation of 908.28.
This is a difference of 5.59 feet lower, not 1 or 2 feet. Please note that we have a
basement under this part of the house and it has never flooded in 20+ years.
It also appears this decrease in elevation of 5.59 feet will occur over a distance of
approximately 30 feet. This seems rather drastic for a slope that is not there now and
will be man-made.
Furthermore, the water will run straight at our house with no diversion. That will
negatively impact our home.
Frankly, after reviewing the Site & Grading Plan, the build-up appears to flood our
entire yard all along the property line, not just by our home.
We request of the City Council that this item be tabled for further study.
Please call with any questions.
Greg & Edie Bolin
1215 Victoria Curve
651-247-9080
page 175
From:Neil Garlock
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Fwd: Proposed House at 1217 Victoria Curve
Date:Friday, August 14, 2020 8:05:25 AM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Neil Garlock <neilg@mendota-heights.com>
Date: August 13, 2020 at 4:46:46 PM CDT
To: "egbolin@comcast.net" <egbolin@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Proposed House at 1217 Victoria Curve
See you tomorrow after 1
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 13, 2020, at 2:34 PM, "egbolin@comcast.net"
<egbolin@comcast.net> wrote:
Mayor Neil Garlock,,
We are writing to follow up on our email sent on Tuesday.
Specifically, we would like to expand upon the first bullet points
under "Sight Lines" and the subsequent paragraph regarding
the Xcel power lines.
We described how all of the homes in the immediate
neighborhood along Victoria Curve, Hunter Lane, Glenhill
Road, and Culligan Lane all have equivalent setbacks. The lot
at 1217 is the very last undeveloped lot on our block. The
proposed house at 1217 would be the only home substantially
set back from one of those roads. The attached Exhibit A
shows the homes and the setbacks. As you can see, the red
lines show there is very little variation. The purple, cross-
hatched rectangle is the approximate location of the proposed
home at 1217.
Everyone's backyard presently forms an open green space.
The location of the proposed home is not a good fit for the
neighborhood since it will impact the open space. Additionally,
page 176
the proposed location of 1217 directly and negatively affects
the overall character of the neighborhood, which is opposite of
the goals embedded in Mendota Heights' comprehensive plan.
The immediate neighborhood has had orderly development up
to this point. The above items contradict orderly development.
With respect to comments regarding the Xcel power lines, we
understand the owner/builder at 1217 is in discussion with Xcel
about relocating the power lines from bisecting the 1217 lot to
surrounding the lot on the north side. This is depicted on the
attached Exhibit B. Again, the purple, cross-hatched rectangle
is the approximate location of the proposed home at 1217.
The dashed purple line is the current power line. The dashed
green line is their proposed relocation of the lines.
The relocation of the power lines negatively affects the open
green space; is not a good fit for the neighborhood; negatively
affects the overall character of the neighborhood; and
contradicts orderly development.
Sorry to bother you with another email, but the exhibits
illustrate clearly what we tried to describe on Tuesday. (I
should have thought of it then.)
Thank you for your time.
Edie & Greg Bolin
<Exhibit A - Set Backs.jpeg>
<Exhibit B - Power Lines.jpeg>
page 177
From:Mark&Julie Hunt
To:Tim Benetti;Mark McNeill;Ryan Ruzek;Liz Petschel;Jay Miller;Joel Paper;Ultan Duggan;Neil Garlock
Subject:Your vote deciding the 1217 Victoria Curve variance request
Date:Friday, August 14, 2020 9:04:05 PM
Dear Mayor Garlock, Council Members and Mendota Heights Staff:
We would like to voice our concerns over the requests for variances from
the homeowner and contractor at 1217 Victoria Curve. Though we welcome them in
our neighborhood and look forward to meeting them when their house is
complete,we oppose their plan that only benefits their desire to be further away
from a busy highway (understand that), but negatively impacts the existing
neighborhood homes, and fails to meet the standards created in the Comprehensive
Plan put forth by the City.
What we see when we look at this plan and the reason for denial:
1) It appears the surrounding neighbors will be unnecessarily dealing with the
hardship and costs that will occur because the drainage into their backyards was not
addressed adequately. The elevation change in the home to give them a walkout,
setting back the house further away from the designed sewer drainage infrastructure
already in place along Victoria Curve, seems to indicate there will be future problems
for the existing neighbors to deal with. The Contractor's water drainage map at the
Planning Commission meeting on July 28th, showed this very thing yet he had no
plan in place that we are aware of that would address this issue to the west except
possible landscaping remedies, and try to find a solution to the neighbors' valid issues
and concerns. As you are aware, the residents along the east side of Glenhill Road
have incurred great expense to mitigate the water issues surrounding their homes.
2) I am sure that the Comprehensive Plan that focuses on things like a good fit
for the neighborhood, character of the neighborhood, orderly development and
maintaining green space was well thought out and created to hold developers to a
standard that the City wants to maintain. The variance requests do not honor this plan
and its intentions.
We hope that the homeowner/contractor and the surrounding neighbors can come to
an agreement on a plan that pleases all.
We ask the council to deny this petition.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mark and Julie Hunt
1224 Culligan Lane
page 178
From:Neil Garlock
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Fwd: proposed home at 1217 Victoria Curve
Date:Sunday, August 16, 2020 3:58:03 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: kimberly prehatney <kprehatney@comcast.net>
Date: August 16, 2020 at 1:34:12 PM CDT
To: Neil Garlock <neilg@mendota-heights.com>, Ultan Duggan
<duggan.ultan@gmail.com>, Jay Miller <jaym@mendota-heights.com>, Joel
Paper <joelp@mendota-heights.com>, Liz Petschel <lizpetschel@gmail.com>
Subject: proposed home at 1217 Victoria Curve
Am asking reconsideration in the positioning of the proposed home at
address 1217 Victoria Curve.
Thank you
Kim Prehatney
1181 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
page 179
From:Kae Lovaas
To:Neil Garlock
Cc:Tim Benetti;Ryan Ruzek
Subject:1217 Victoria Curve - Permit Hearing at 8/18/2020 City Council Meeting
Date:Friday, August 14, 2020 11:40:46 AM
Mayor Garlock,
My name is Kae Lovaas Jewell and I live at 1948 Glenhill Road. I have lived in this home for 20 years
and love Mendota Heights and our neighborhood. I would like to comment on the proposed critical
area and conditional use permits for the property at 1217 Victoria Curve. Approximately the back
1/3 of my southern lot line abuts the back (north) lot line of the proposed home that will front onto
Victoria Curve. It is exciting to have a new home and new family move into our neighborhood. We
have so few vacant lots that this is a rare opportunity to welcome new neighbors. I know they will
love the community as much as I do.
Even though I welcome the new home and family, I have three concerns about the proposed home
plan. I would like to share my concerns with you so that as you review the request for the critical
area and conditional use permits you bear in mind my concerns.
Drainage
•Pooling of water has been an ongoing issue on my lot. I currently have a large drain on the
south side of my lot. The city drainage plan has the two homes north of me draining through
my yard from north to south. I needed to put in this large drain to move as much of that
water off my land as quickly as possible. In a heavy rain, it looks like I have a river running
from north to south across my lot and behind my house. I have also had pooling issues on
the south side of my home, between my home and the Olstein/Karasov home at 1954
Glenhill Rd. Together we have had to regrade that area and remove a tree with the goal of
minimizing the pooling. That being said, it is still an issue in heavy rain and during winter
snow melt.
•The proposed new home at 1217 Victoria Curve is plotted to sit on the back 1/3 of the lot.
It is also planned as a flat roof structure. There is a plan for some water to drain off of the
back of the Victoria Curve lot and onto my lot. I know that I already have drainage from that
lot but I believe it will be exacerbated by the removal of trees that will be required for
building the new structure.
Sight Line
•Positioning the proposed house so far back on the lot is going to create very odd sight lines
for the neighborhood. The Bolin family live at 1215 Victoria, immediately to the east of the
property being discussed. With the proposed positioning of the new home, they will sit in
their backyard and look at the front of the new home. The Olstein/Karasov home, that faces
onto Glenhill Road, will now look out their backyard at the west side of the new home. One
of the things to remember is that this area is primarily covered with deciduous trees. During
the winter I can see all the way to the back of my lot and through my woods to Hunter Lane.
So what you are looking at during the summer is not what we will see during the winter
months.
page 180
•In addition to how the positioning of the house impacts the immediate neighbors, I am
equally concerned about the overall appearance of the neighborhood. I feel it is important
to maintain the character of the neighborhood. The proposed positioning is not in character
with this block or the surrounding blocks.
Electric Poles and Lines
•It is my understanding that the new home owner is requesting Xcel Energy reroute the
current overhead power line in what is called a wrap-around. This would require two to
three times the amount of power line for the lot and two new power poles. One
new power pole would be near the SE corner of my lot and the second would be near my lot
line where I connect with the NW corner of the lot under discussion.
•It appears that the new poles will require the removal of some trees and the trimming of
existing trees along the lot line. I leave my forest wild but I do work to maintain the trees. In
spite of that, I have had a tree fall on my cyclone fence that is along the lot line adjoining
1217 Victoria Curve. In the future, that could be a tree falling on the power line. I also know
from experience that once you start removing trees and exposing parts of the forest that
were previously protected by other trees, you are likely to have the new front line of trees at
risk of uprooting.
•Earlier I mentioned the fact that during the winter there is significantly more visibility in my
woods. I currently have underground power and do not have to look at power lines or
poles. It would be less than desirable to now have electric lines and poles at the back of my
lot.
In Conclusion
1. I’m pleased that the vacant lot will now be built on and I welcome our new neighbors.
2.It appears to me that the homeowner’s desire for a walkout home has required the
placement of the home in a difficult position on the lot and the need to increase the
elevation of the lot. If the home were moved forward and in alignment with the other
homes on the block the drainage concerns would be minimized, sight lines would not be an
issue and the power would not need to be changed. The home would now be conforming
to the neighborhood and would carry out the character of the neighborhood.
If you question the ponding issue on my property, I invite you to my backyard where you can see
the elevation of the neighboring property relative to the storm water drainage grate on my
property. I would love to show you my concerns. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
I respectfully encourage you to require the homeowner to position the home in alignment with the
other homes on the block and in the neighborhood, to not add additional power lines and poles and
to manage the run-off from the property so as not to add to the current ponding problems.
Thank you,
Kae Lovaas Jewell
page 181
From:Burow, Lynn
To:Ultan Duggan;Joel Paper;Liz Petschel;Jay Miller;Neil Garlock
Cc:Tim Benetti;Ryan Ruzek
Subject:1217 Victoria Curve home development
Date:Saturday, September 12, 2020 10:27:29 AM
Mayor Garlock and Council Members:
Thank you for the telephone chats regarding the above home addition. After talking with
most of you, the one thing I kept hearing from some of you is the open green space for my
neighbors. Edie and Greg Boilin have an acre of land which gives them three quarters of an
acre directly behind them (not including the neighbor's yard behind them too) and peripheral
green space on both sides. Alan and Phyllis have their lot and now the new neighbor's lot and
open greenery on both sides and I have my driveway and the new neighbor's proposed
house.
Just makes me wonder if any of you even took my lot into consideration on the open green
space concept.
I am requesting that the new house be situated as far back on the lot as my neighbors will
allow the city and the new property owner.
I would appreciate that I don't get all the headlight action either from the proposed new
driveway concept.
Thanks.
Lynn Burow
1219 Victoria Curve
PS: Keep me apprised of any new developments.
page 182
From:Jane McKay
To:Neil Garlock;Ultan Duggan;Jay Miller;Joel Paper
Cc:Tim Benetti;Ryan Ruzek
Subject:1217 Victoria Curve
Date:Saturday, August 15, 2020 6:05:57 PM
Dear Mendota Heights Mayor and the City Council of Mendota Heights,
I am Jane McKay, a 32 year resident at 1949 Glenhill Road. I am anxious to have the lot at 1217 Victoria Curve
developed. I am hoping the new residents maintain the right away and in so doing, improve on the visibility as we
turn left off of Glenhill Road.
However, I am concerned about the elevation of what appears to be their flat roof home and the drainage of home
and lot to an already problem area. The home at 1948 Glenhill has a large drainage grate in their yard to accept the
flow of water from the homes to the North. Grading and retaining walls have been added to the property to help the
flow of water. The flow from 1217 Victoria can easily be rerouted to Victoria Curve with better planning and
grading by the developer. Please take a closer look.
Thank you for the work you do to protect the distinct characteristics of our neighborhood.
Regards,
Jane McKay
Sent from my iPad
page 183
From:Neil Garlock
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Fwd: House at 1217 Victoria Curve
Date:Monday, August 17, 2020 4:08:01 AM
Attachments:overhead block view.pdf
ATT00001.htm
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joel Whitcomb <whitcombathome@comcast.net>
Date: August 16, 2020 at 11:20:02 PM CDT
To: Neil Garlock <neilg@mendota-heights.com>, Ultan Duggan
<duggan.ultan@gmail.com>, Jay Miller <jaym@mendota-heights.com>, Joel
Paper <joelp@mendota-heights.com>, Liz Petschel <lizpetschel@gmail.com>
Subject: House at 1217 Victoria Curve
We are writing to voice our concerns with the currently
submitted building plans at 1217 Victoria Curve. We live at
1200 Culligan Lane, behind the proposed building site and one
lot to the east.
Our concern stems from the proposed building site for the
house. The location is much further back than the other
houses in the neighborhood and on this block. All of the
houses on the block currently have very similar setbacks from
the street leading to a uniform and more appealing appearance
both from the street and from the backyards and more privacy
in the backyards. The proposed building site will place this
house significantly out of line with the other houses on the
street and thus push it further back leading to a much shorter
back yard. This will make the house much more visible and
cut down on privacy for the neighbors.
Currently the houses have deep back yards leading to a nice
open area with some level of privacy and a more natural
feeling setting.
These deep back yards are also a natural wildlife pathway for
several different animals that would be adversely affected by
the deeper setback. Wildlife currently travel through the back
yards as they travel between the swampy wooded area next to
city hall and the wooded area along the bluff over the city of
Mendota and down to the river bottoms.
We want to make it clear we are not against anyone building
page 184
on the lot or the house itself. Our opposition is the placement
of the house on the lot.
Thank you
Joel and Martha Whitcomb
page 185
July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 11
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 28, 2020
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 28,
2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners Patrick
Corbett, Litton Field, Michael Toth, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioners John
Mazzitello and Brian Petschel.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of June 23, 2020 Minutes
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2020
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE 2020-14
TEMPO HOMES AND VINH TRUONG, 1217 VICTORIA CURVE – CRITICAL
AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Calvin Tran with Tempo Homes,
as the applicant acting on behalf of Vinh Truong, is seeking a Critical Area Permit to construct a
new single-family dwelling on property situated in the Critical Area Overlay District. City Code
Section 12-305 requires a critical area permit (CAP) for all major development activities requiring
a building permit or special zoning approval in this overlay district. The applicants also seek a
conditional use permit (CUP) to construct an oversized attached garage up to 1,475 square feet in
size.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; comments
received were included in the packet.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation
on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s
website).
page 186
July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 11
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Corbett asked for details on ordinances dictating the position of the home on the
lot. He asked if the string method of determining setbacks was used, or whether it should be used.
He also asked if the adjacent homes are in compliance with the right-of-way setbacks.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff and legal counsel came to the
conclusion that the string yard rule applies to the minimum front yard setback rule and provided
background information on that rule.
Commissioner Corbett stated that it would then appear there is no intent in the string method to
align home placement and is strictly a minimum front yard setback.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that only establishes a minimum front
yard setback. He explained that a home could be placed further back on the lot, as long as the
other required setbacks are met.
Calvin Tran, Tempo Homes, representing the applicant, provided information on the owner of the
property, who works at the VA and chose this home selection because it was close to his work.
He also provided background information on himself and his past ten years of experience. He
stated that they have taken the issues of erosion and drainage, which he believes are addressed by
their plan. He stated that the design of the home is more modern, as he builds modern custom
homes. He stated that all the concerns of the neighbors have been taken into consideration. He
stated that they revised the drainage plan to address the issues of the neighbor, directing the water
away from adjacent lots and instead to Victoria Curve.
Commissioner Katz asked for details on the choice to place the home so far back on the lot.
Mr. Tran stated that they chose the back placement in order to minimize the impact of tree removal.
He noted that the driveway was also a concern, noting that the closer to Victoria Curve, the harder
it would be to meet the slope requirements because of the topography of the hill.
Commissioner Katz stated that it would appear that they are placing the home further back and at
the highest spot, therefore his concern would be for two of the neighbors who would have a house
sitting in an area that was their backyard or side yard. He stated that he would want to see a plan
in place to create a natural border to minimize that impacts to neighbors. He asked if any of the
grading would have to be changed on the property.
Mr. Tran stated that if they choose another location for the home, they will have to remove more
trees. He stated that he has a background in landscaping, and they have revised their erosion and
grading plan to drain the water out towards the street rather than to the adjacent neighbors.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Alan Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, stated that he andhis neighbors have concerns with the drainage
from this site. He stated that the applicant has stated that his plan has been modified to address
page 187
July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 11
some of the drainage concerns brought forward in previous conversations. He stated that if you
follow the arrows where water is going to flow, it goes into three of the adjacent neighboring lots.
He stated that they would like to know about the measures being contemplated to resolve this
drainage problem. He stated that a number of the neighbors have questions the choice of home
placement for the lot, considering the added distance between the roof and Victoria Curve, which
is where the water is supposed to go. He explained that additional front setback would only
increase the distance the water needs to travel.
Chair Magnuson asked if Mr. Olstein has had an opportunity to speak with the builder.
Mr. Olstein replied that they have not met with the builder and the first they heard of this request
was the notice from the City the previous week.
Greg Bolin, 1215 Victoria Curve, stated that he sent an email with photographs to staff last Friday.
He noted that his first concern is with the drainage for the site. He stated that the arrows on the
plan show water going right to his home/basement. He noted that he has been told that a swale is
included and wanted to ensure that would be provided to protect his home. He stated that in
reviewing the grading contours, many of the lines come close to mature trees on his property and
into some of his landscaping. He wanted to ensure that grading would be staked in order to prevent
damage to mature trees and landscaping. He stated that his final concern is with the home
placement. He noted that all of the homes were placed in a manner that each looks out into the
backyards of other, whereas the placement of this home would be in the middle of everyone’s line
of sight.
Chair Magnuson asked for details related to the elevation of the subject property compared to the
Bolin property.
Mr. Bolin replied that the subject property is about two feet higher than his property.
Lynn Burow, 1219 Victoria Curve, and property owner to the west, stated that her concern is with
the drainage. She stated that she does not want the water to go into her garage. She stated that she
does not mind the placement of the home as it is less impactful to her home and the trees would
remain.
Commissioner Katz asked if the resident has a problem with drainage currently.
Ms. Burow commented that sometimes the garage is wet after a large amount of snow melts. She
stated that she would not be concerned with the addition of the homes, as long as there is not
disturbance within 20 feet of her garage as she did not believe that would impact her home at that
point. She stated that if most of the drainage goes to the street, she believed there would not be an
additional issue.
Commissioner Katz asked if the resident has spoken with Tempo Homes.
Ms. Burow commented that she has not.
page 188
July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 11
Commissioner Katz asked if the retaining wall between the resident garage and the property line
is existing.
Ms. Burow stated that she has a hand-built boulder wall that is not technically a retaining wall.
Commissioner Toth asked the type of soil on the subject site.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that a soil survey has not been submitted. He
commented that staff would not be concerned about a wetland type soil, it would be a more stable
soil.
Commissioner Toth commented that if the type of soil were known, that would help to determine
the impact. He stated that it would also be helpful to know the elevation of the footings of the
homes to the east and west compared to what is being built. He reviewed some of those elevations
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided details on the elevations of the proposed home.
Mr. Tran commented that the elevation of the proposed home on its east side is very similar to the
elevation of the home to the east.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER CORBETT, MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1217 VICTORIA CURVE, WITH WOULD ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN OVERSIZED
ATTACHED GARAGE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE
WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK.
2. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENT MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO
AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES.
3. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE
WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND
CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.
4. A COMPLETE AND DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO
THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AS PART OF ANY NEW BUILDING
PERMIT PROCESS. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO REPLANT ONE NEW TREE
page 189
July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 11
(MINIMUM 2.5” CALIPER SIZE FOR DECIDUOUS AND 6’ FOR EVERGREENS)
FOR EACH SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVED FROM THE SITE FOR THIS HOME
PROJECT. AS PER THE CITY’S POLLINATOR FRIENDLY POLICY, ALL NEW
TREES AND LANDSCAPING SHALL MEET THE CITY’S NATIVE PLANT LIST.
5. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF
7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M.
WEEKENDS.
6. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE
RESTORED AND HAVE ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
Further discussion:
Commissioner Field noted that many of the concerns expressed will be addressed throughout the
City review process.
Chair Magnuson encouraged the builder to make themselves available to the neighbors to hear
their concerns related to drainage.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 4, 2020
meeting.
page 190
B) PLANNING CASE 2020-14
CALVIN TRAN W/TEMPO HOMES & VINH TRUONG, 1217 VICTORIA CURVE
– RECONSIDERATION OF CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
City Administrator Mark McNeill provided background information on the request and the path
that it has followed since the last review of the Planning Commission.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Calvin Tran and Vinh Truong are
requesting reconsideration of a previously considered Critical Area Permit (CAP) and Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) applications on the property located at 1217 Victoria Curve. The CAP is needed
for all major development activities in the critical area overlay district; and the CUP approves an
oversized attached garage up to 1,480 sf in size.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; letters
received prior to the meeting have been distributed to the Commission.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation
on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s
website).
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Corbett stated that he is confused with the timeline and the postponed review by
the Council. He stated that the Commission already reviewed and approved the previous plan. He
stated that the applicant’s builder explained that drainage would be improved from the current
conditions under the last application. He stated that he respects that no one wants to see a home
in their backyard but there is nothing to substantiate that request from the neighbors. He stated
that the report, paid for by the neighbors, was submitted the day before the Council review and
contains vague language that states there is a potential for drainage problems. He was unsure why
that was not talked about publicly at the last Council meeting. He stated that he is also curious as
to whether the applicants really want this plan or feel like they can only move forward with this
plan. He stated that in his opinion there was no reason to delay the review of the Council and there
is no reason the Commission should be reviewing this again.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that after the July Planning Commission
review, a number of neighbors approached and asked for Councilmembers to meet and/or discuss
with them as well as submitted a number of emails and letters expressing their concerns. He stated
that staff had approached the applicants to alert them that there are concerns being brought to the
attention of the Council and asked if the applicant would be willing to delay the review. He stated
that initially the applicant wanted to proceed to the Council meeting. He stated that the report then
showed up to the City the day before the Council meeting and staff provided the report to the
applicant and their consultant. He stated that staff and the applicant were not prepared to answer
the concerns within the report prior to the Council meeting and the applicant agreed to postpone
the review in order to have additional time to review the report. He stated that since that time staff
met with the applicant and some of the neighbors. He noted that the report from staff now reflects
page 191
the new plan, whereas the neighborhood report reflects the old plan. He noted that when staff
coordinated a meeting between the applicant and neighbors, the applicant agreed to move the home
to the south and staff has reviewed and approves of the new plan.
Chair Magnuson stated that at the August meeting the Commission was given the choice whether
it would like to review the plan again or whether it did not feel that necessary and the consensus
of the Commission was to review the plan again.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the CAP and CUP are only required because of the arbitrary lines
of the Critical Area as drawn and if it was not within the Critical Area is would not be receiving
the review. He asked for confirmation that this would not affect the bluff line.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that if this were not within the Critical
Area Overlay it would only require a CUP for the size of the garage. He confirmed that there are
no bluffs or water features in this area.
Commissioner Corbett asked if it would be possible for the Commission or applicant to consider
the original design, as that has already been approved.
Commissioner Toth stated that is not the issue in front of the Commission.
Chair Magnuson stated that this plan was resubmitted by the applicant and that is before the
Commission.
Commissioner Corbett stated that his question is whether there was a genuine desire to resubmit a
new plan.
Calvin Tran, applicant, stated that they would like to move forward.
Vinh Truong, applicant, stated that ideally his family would like to place the home in the back of
the lot. He stated that after speaking at the last meeting and with the neighbors, they just want to
move forward with building and therefore have submitted the redrafted plan. He stated that he is
frustrated because he feels like some people are playing this out for him versus his desires as the
property owner.
Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant felt pressured to put this plan together to get this to
pass, as he did not see a reason to change the plan. He stated that the original plan looked good
and addressed drainage. He noted that the third-party report came in and perhaps the applicant felt
that he needed to placate those concerns or voting members. He stated that he does not want to
slow down the process but does not want the applicant to feel that he must choose this second-
choice home as he feels the applicant has the right to build where he would like.
Mr. Truong stated that he does not want to ruffle feathers and wants to proceed with the build as
efficiently as they can. He stated that they felt that they met the City’s requirements and there
would not be a point to spend time and money to develop a new plan. He stated that this is his
second choice, but he wants to move forward with the build.
page 192
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Kay Jewel, 1948 Glenhill Road, thanked the City and the applicant for the healthy discussions that
have occurred to develop a compromise. She believed that everyone supports the proposed plan
and noted that they are pleased to welcome the Truongs to the neighborhood as the lot has been
overgrown for years. She stated that everything that she has seen presented in the new plan address
the concerns related to drainage and the rate of discharge. She stated that a qualified engineer
reviewed the engineering of the original plan and developed a new plan that presented a more
acceptable rate of drainage and rate of discharge.
Alan Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, agreed that they are at a good place following the useful
discussion with the applicant and his builder. He stated that the plan presented addresses all of the
issues that have been brought forward and encouraged the Commission to approve the proposal.
Lynn Burow, 1219 Victoria Curve, stated that she would have preferred the first plan as this plan
will more significantly impact her home. She stated that it appears the drainage that was going
northeast will now go south and west, which is towards her lot noting that her lot is the lowest lot
in the neighborhood. She noted that her driveway will now be 20 feet from the home. She stated
that Mr. Truong purchased the lot and should be allowed to build the home he wants as he will be
there longer than the existing neighbors in this area. She believed that Mr. Truong should be able
to place the home where he wants. She noted that the lot has been vacant for years and someone
finally purchased the lot. She stated that if the neighbors really wanted their privacy, they could
have purchased the lot. She stated that the neighbors have spent their time and money fighting
Mr. Truong’s dream and she is very bothered by that. She stated that she welcomes Mr. Truong
to the neighborhood, and she will welcome him no matter the home placement. She stated that
this is not fair to the property owner and she feels that Mr. Truong was bullied by the neighbors
and perhaps members of the Council. She stated that Mr. Truong does not want to fight, and it
makes her sad that this has occurred.
Edie Boland, 1215 Victoria Curve, stated that they welcome Mr. Truong and expected a home to
be there. She stated that they are not trying to bully anyone but always expected a home to be built
in alignment with the other homes on the street. She stated that the report they submitted was not
intended to get to everyone late and was completed as quickly as it could be. She stated that the
neighbors did not feel that the City was hearing their concerns about the water issues and house
placement and the report was the only way they felt they could be heard. She stated that they do
not want to ruin Mr. Truong’s dream home, but they also want to protect their homes and have
developed this as a compromise.
Greg Boland, 1215 Victoria Curve, echoed the comments of his wife. He stated that they were not
aware of the request until they received the notice for the Planning Commission meeting and
therefore hired an engineer to complete the report which they submitted to the City once
completed. He thanked the builder and owner for the opportunity to meet on September 3rd and
appreciate what they have done to take everyone’s concerns. He stated that the new home
placement has assisted with drainage concerns, continuation or orderly development of the
neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood.
page 193
Julie Hunt, 1224 Culligan Lane, stated that there is a higher level of care and concern within the
Critical Area and how variances are approved as water issues are a big deal. She believes that the
second plan has remedied the concerns.
John Faraci with Lake and Land Surveying, stated that he completed the drainage calculations for
the first plan. He stated that the grading plan was directing the drainage to the front of the house
towards Victoria. He stated that the models they use are designed for 250 acres or more. He stated
that the report submitted by the neighbors took a stab at the drainage but was not accurate as they
did not have the house plans and were not aware it was a flat roof and therefore did not put all the
facts together.
Commissioner Mazzitello agreed with the assessment of Mr. Faraci, noting that the report
submitted by the engineer for the neighbors did not have all the facts and therefore had to make
assumptions.
Commissioner Katz stated that he has concerns with the drainage towards the home at 1219
Victoria Curve, as that garage currently collects water. He asked if the new plan would alleviate
that issue or whether it would compound that issue.
Mr. Faraci replied that all of the drainage would be less than the current rates. He stated that there
would be an increase of stormwater because of the construction of a home and garage but that will
be drained towards Victoria Curve. He stated that the rates towards 1219 would be equal to or less
than the current volume of water that drains to the property and described the path drainage would
take.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he was not at the July meeting but reviewed those materials.
He stated that he reviewed the original drainage plan and the new grading plan and in every
scenario that he can see, the worst drainage scenario for 1219 is the existing condition; either
development proposal would reduce the rate towards 1219.
Commissioner Toth asked if there was any thought given to the placement of the home on the
original plan towards using drain tile around the home or within the property that would eliminate
water from flowing to other properties and instead directing that to a pond or settlement area on
the property.
Mr. Faraci stated that could have been done by pipe, but he has elected to do that by gravity towards
the road.
Chair Magnuson stated that the notice to the public was of reconsideration of a new plan and
therefore the Commission needs to take action on that. She stated that notice was not provided for
review of a previous plan and therefore cannot review that option, noting that perhaps the Council
could make that determination.
Mr. Tran stated that his client would want to know if this goes forward, could there be two options
to present the original and amended plans to the Council. He noted that the original plan received
page 194
approval from the Commission and therefore if this is also approved, would the property owner
have the option of presenting both options.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that technically there is a favorable
recommendation on the first plan, which was never officially presented to the Council. He stated
that the application was extended and therefore within the statutory review time which would allow
a review of the Council. He stated that by making a recommendation on the second option, both
options could be presented to the Council. He noted that he would review that with the City
Attorney as it would be unusual to present two options to a Council and have the Council make
the choice. He, however, believed that the Commission could make the choice to present both
options.
Chair Magnuson stated that it is her opinion that the Planning Commission can only take action
on the matter before it tonight and therefore would be uncomfortable making a recommendation
for the Council to review both options. She noted that the Council could notice both applications
and make the choice itself.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the report indicates that this is a redo
or reconsideration of another plan and that is why the notification was completed again. He
believed that it would be a good idea to present one option to the Council and the Council can
make the choice. He agreed that the recommendation tonight should only be on this plan presented
tonight.
Commissioner Field stated that the only thing to consider tonight would be the reconsideration,
you cannot have two outstanding plans proposed for the same location. He noted that the Council
can make the choice to review both options if it desires.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the case heard in July was 2020-14 and this is an amendment
to that case.
Chair Magnuson stated that the question can be deferred to the City Attorney and the Council can
make the determination on what it would like to do.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 1217 VICTORIA CURVE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW
page 195
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN OVERSIZED
ATTACHED GARAGE UP TO 1,480 SF IN SIZE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE
WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK.
2. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE
PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES.
3. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE
WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND
CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.
4. A COMPLETE AND DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO
THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AS PART OF ANY NEW BUILDING
PERMIT PROCESS. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO REPLANT ONE NEW TREE
(MINIMUM 2.5” CALIPER SIZE FOR DECIDUOUS AND 6’ FT FOR EVERGREENS)
FOR EACH SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVED FROM THE SITE FOR THIS HOME
PROJECT. AS PER THE CITY’S POLLINATOR FRIENDLY POLICY, ALL NEW
TREES AND LANDSCAPING SHALL MEET THE CITY’S NATIVE PLANT LIST.
5. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF
7:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON
WEEKENDS.
6. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE
RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 7, 2020
meeting.
page 196
DATE: October 7, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: City Meeting Facility Use
Comment:
Introduction:
The City Council is asked to suspend the public’s use of City facilities for meetings during COVID 19
restrictions.
Background:
On June 16, in preparation for the re-opening of City Hall to the public after its closure for COVID-19,
the City Council approved policy revisions which placed restrictions and established fees for the use of
public meeting rooms at City Hall and the Fire Station. Meeting rooms available for use at City Hall
include Council Chambers, the large conference room and small conference room. The Fire Station has
not yet reopened for public use but public space includes the training room and a conference room.
Under Minnesota StaySafe orders and guidance, city meeting rooms are restricted in capacity to allow for
social distancing. Under current restrictions, Council Chambers has a capacity of 23 and the large
conference room only allows for 3 attendees to be socially distanced. Other StaySafe requirements
include following additional cleaning and disinfecting protocols after each use.
Since the re-opening of City Hall and the implementation of the new policies which had been adopted, it
appears that most of the previously regular users have found alternative methods of meeting. Since the
reopening on July 6, City Council Chambers have been used by three groups.
What staff found was that, in addition to setting up and sanitizing needs, the City has also been asked on
occasion to accommodate remote meeting technologies (“Zoom” calls) for those who haven’t been able to
physically attend. The city does not provide technology services such as virtual meeting access, however,
users may access city WIFI to use their own technology and remote meeting services.
In a nutshell, the $100 fee being charged isn’t sufficient to cover all staff costs involved. Having use by
outside groups also expands the risk of spreading the virus, as staff is not there to monitor what areas have
been used, and therefore will need to be sanitized. In most cases, there should be other alternatives for
these outside group meetings.
For these reasons, we are recommending that the use of City facilities for meetings by non-City groups be
suspended until after coronavirus restrictions on public gatherings are lifted. If approved by Council, we
recommend that no new reservations be accepted. However, any reservation which has already been
made (two in November, and another in December) will be honored.
page 197
The exception to this would be the ISD 197 school board, should it desire to return to in-person meetings
(since March, it has been meeting elsewhere and in different formats).The method of holding its meetings
will be revisited after the first of the year. However, unlike the other user groups who may be able to
pursue alternative locations, the ISD 197 School Board does cablecast its meetings, and the Council
Chambers are best suited for that.
Recommendation:
We recommend that the use of city-meeting facilities by non-city groups be suspended until after
restrictions on meeting size and cleaning and disinfecting protocols due to the coronavirus pandemic are
lifted.
Action Required:
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, prohibit the use of City meeting facilities by non-City groups
until coronavirus restrictions are eliminated.
Dave Dreelan Mark McNeill
Fire Chief City Administrator
page 198
COMMUNITY USE OF CITY HALL and FIRE STATION FACILITIES
REQUIREMENTS
Mendota Heights City building facilities are intended to be used primarily for city staff and city
government functions. The privilege of their use will be extended to Mendota Heights
organizations and others consistent with these policy guidelines and subject to availability.
City Hall and the Fire Station are tobacco-free and alcohol-free buildings, and the use of
tobacco, electronic tobacco substitutes, or alcohol is not allowed in any area of either structure.
The following facilities are available as formal meeting space:
A. City Hall
a. Council Chambers – theater style seating for approximately 60. Public access
WIFI, laptop connection, ceiling mounted projector and projection screen are
available.
b. Large Conference Room - seating for 12 around a large conference table.
c. Small Conference Room - seating for up to 6.
B. Fire Station
a. Training Room – classroom style seating for approximately 50. Public access
WIFI available.
b. Fire Station Conference Room – seating for up to 8.
The number of participants that are able to use each facility shall be limited by any guidelines
from the State of Minnesota, City of Mendota Heights, or applicable health organizations,
which are in place at the time of use.
The following policies will guide community use of these facilities:
1. SCHEDULING OF SPACE will be on a first-come, first served basis to non-profit organizations
and resident groups that are based in Mendota Heights. Rental by others shall be on an “as
available” basis.
• City Hall facilities are available for rental on Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday
evenings between 4:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Weekend rentals are not permitted.
• Fire Station facilities are on an “as available” basis.
• Scheduling requests will be taken at City Hall. Requests will be reviewed and
approved by the City Administrator or his/her designee. The City reserves the right
to reschedule or cancel a reservation for any reason.
page 199
• Reservations should be made at least 30 days in advance, but may not be made
more than 90 days in advance.
2. USE BY FOR-PROFIT COMMERCIAL VENTURES or private use (i.e., family or social
gatherings) are not permitted.
3. FEES FOR USE OF CITY BUILDING SPACE are as follows and due at time of reservation:
a. Damage Deposit: A security/damage deposit must be submitted by all user groups.
A deposit of $100 will be required on January 1st of each year for regular users of the
facility; for one-time or occasional use, deposits of $100 will be required at the time
the reservation form is filed. Payments for damage deposits and room rentals shall
be made separately.
Charges will be made against the deposit for damages done to furnishings or for
costs incurred by the city for cleanup after a scheduled activity. The unused portion
of the deposit will be returned to regular users within five days after their last use of
the facilities in a year and to occasional or single time users within five days after the
use. Users of the facilities and/or equipment will fully reimburse the city upon
demand for the full cost of replacement or repair caused by damages to or
destruction of the building, furniture, fixtures, equipment or any other property.
There shall be one reservation per room each evening, so as to allow for
adequate sanitizing between uses.
b. Rental Rates:
i. Fire Station: Use of either or both of the training room or conference room
at the fire station shall be $100. An on-call firefighter shall be in the station
throughout the reservation time. If fire personnel are not available a
minimum of 72 hours in advance, the meeting is subject to cancellation.
ii. City Hall: $50 for small or large conference rooms per event; $100 for City
Council Chambers per event. The City Hall lobby is available at no extra
charge, if reserved in conjunction with one of the other listed rooms.
iii. Reservations and use by tax-funded organizations such as Independent
School District 197, the Dakota County Extension Service, MNDOT; or by
organizations which otherwise would charge the City for their services (i.e.,
classroom teaching benefitting Mendota Heights residents which would
otherwise charge the City a fee) shall be exempt from rental charges
4. CANCELLATIONS AND REFUNDS. For cancellations made more than two (2) weeks in
advance of the reservation date, a full refund of fees paid will be made. Cancellation
notices received with less than two weeks’ notice will not receive a refund.
page 200
5. PRIOR TO GROUP USE. A representative of the organization must complete and file a
reservation form. At least 24 hours prior to a City Hall event, a Mendota Heights resident
must stop by City Hall to sign for the space requested, pick up keys, and receive instructions
on how to use the building. Fire staffing will open and close the building.
6. CONDITION OF FACILITIES. The individual who signs and files the registration form will be
responsible for ensuring that the keys are returned and that the building is left in
appropriate condition, including but not limited to the following: furnishings and equipment
have been returned to their designated or original locations, paper and other waste has
been picked up and deposited in the designated containers, all doors have been locked and
lights have been turned off. For Fire Hall reservations, fire personnel may undertake some
of these activities, such as locking doors and turning off lights, but the applicable
organization is expected to leave the building in appropriate condition, as described in this
paragraph.
No banners, posters, signs or decorations of any kind may be taped or placed on the walls.
No confetti, glitter or candles with open flame are allowed.
7. FOOD AND BEVERAGES. Non-alcoholic beverages and light snacks requiring no preparation
on site may be served in the large conference room, if prior approval is granted on the
registration form. Users are responsible for bringing their own expendable supplies, coffee
makers, dishes, etc., and for seeing that clean-up is completed. Note: the City Hall
employee break room, and Fire Station lounge area are not available for use.
8. AUDIO-VISUAL EQUIPMENT, including overhead projector, screen, monitors or other
similar equipment are available for use. Users may access public WIFI for internet
connectivity and connect user laptop via HDMI or VGA connections to projection
equipment. User groups are prohibited from accessing the City’s network. The City will not
supply computer/laptop equipment.
If equipment is damaged the cost of repair or replacement of the damaged equipment will
be deducted from their facilities use damage deposit ($100.00) and any remaining balance
will be refunded to the applicant.
9. STAFF TIME. If it is determined by the city that city staff should be on the City Hall premises
during a scheduled use of the facilities, a charge equal to one and one-half of the
employee’s hourly rate plus overhead will be charged to the user group. Staffing will be at
the sole discretion of the city. Fire station usage shall be with a fire fighter on site at time of
usage, as described in Section 3.b (i) above.
10. VARIANCES from this policy may be granted at the discretion of the City Council or City
Administrator, as warranted. Requests for variances must be submitted in writing to the
City Administrator a minimum of four (4) weeks prior to the scheduled date of the event.
page 201
11. USER ACKNOWLDGEMENTS—The City of Mendota Heights is not responsible for lost or
stolen articles. The City of Mendota Heights is additionally not responsible for any injuries,
death, or damage to individual personal property during renting of City facilities, unless the
City intentionally creates such damage or is grossly negligent regarding the condition of its
facilities. Renters agree to abide by all applicable ordinances, laws and requirements.
Violations of policy may lead to expulsion, and the denial of future rental rights.
Adopted: October 19, 1993
Amended: December 17, 2002
June 16, 2020
page 202
DATE: June 16, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Meeting Room Use Guidelines
Comment:
Introduction:
The Council is asked to update or establish use policies for public meeting rooms in City Hall, and in the
new training room and related conference rooms at the Mendota Height Fire Station.
Background:
The COVID-19 quarantine has caused both the City Hall and Fire Station building to be closed to outside
users for several weeks. Many groups which have used City Hall have had to find alternative ways or
locations to meet. Whether or not this change results in a reduced demand for City facilities remains to be
seen. However, before both buildings reopen to the public, a use policy should be put in place.
A policy for the use of City Hall meeting spaces was first established in 1993; it was last updated in 2002.
Because the fire station addition has a training room and adjacent conference room, use criteria should be
established for those locations as well.
A major concern at both locations is the new need to sanitize the facilities after each meeting use, to make
certain that users are safe from COVID-19 threats. That is an extra time commitment by City staff.
City Hall--For many years, the large and small conference rooms, as well as the City Council Chambers
in City Hall, have been available for use by non-City users. Homeowners associations, political groups,
county extension seminars and other educational events, and a variety of other local clubs and groups
have been allowed to reserve room space for up to a year in advance, with no fees charged.
The practice at City Hall has been that a reservation has been made, and then a group representative has
been issued a key to the front door, with the understanding that the group is to turn off lights and secure
the building once they leave. City staff has been responsible for most room set-up, and IT help.
Most groups have followed the rules; however, others have created problems by not turning off lights, or
leaving the front doors unlocked. Some groups bring food; the resulting waste must be cleaned up, and
some staining of carpeting has been experienced. Especially with the City Council Chambers, staff time
is spent setting up the room in advance, and restoring it to the regular configuration the next day.
IT/audio visual responsibilities have also not been well defined since the policy was last updated. User
groups have been able to plug their lap top computers to access projection and screen equipment in
Council Chambers; often, a City employee must assist with setup of user presentation and computer
equipment. Without knowledgeable users, there has been some damage to the IT system and equipment.
page 203
A further difficulty has been encountered regarding room availability. Sometimes the rooms are needed
by the City Council or other City group for a meeting on short notice, but it is found that the desired room
is not available because another outside group has reserved it.
Fire Station--The new training room in the fire station, and an adjacent smaller conference room will be
seen as an attractive place to hold a meeting by public groups. Many of the same concerns that are
described above with use of the City Hall facilities will likely be applicable here. An additional
complication at the Fire Station will be the need to ensure that public meeting users do not park in the
limited spaces now available for fire fighters who need to respond to emergency calls at the station. For
this reason, if a non-fire organization is to use the station, a firefighter will be required to be on site
throughout the meeting to make certain that issues can be addressed.
The proposed meeting room use requirements are shown on the attached document.
Discussion:
We feel exemptions for charging should be made for entities which are tax supported, and for which no
membership fees are charged to belong. Examples:
• ISD 197 has used the City Council Chambers and the large conference room for School Board
monthly meetings, However, because of newly constructed space at Henry Sibley High School,
future workshop meetings will be held there. The City and ISD 197 partner on several ventures
which benefit the community.
• MNDOT will occasionally use the Council Chambers when it has public informational open
houses to take public input on projects which are of a local, or regional nature that they impact
Mendota Heights drivers.
• Dakota County Community Education and Master Gardeners periodically present educational
events for the benefit of all Mendota Heights residents—an inside seminar was last held in the
City Council Chambers two years ago. The County Extension service normally charges a speaker
fee (typically $75). If the Extension Service is willing to continue to forego the speaker fee, we
recommend that the room use fee also be exempted for this use
In addition, the City has had a long-standing arrangement with a local religious organization for its use of
the City Council Chambers and large conference room during certain religious holidays during the work
week; that is for daytime use. This the reservations are for four days annually, but the actual usage is only
a few hours. This daytime use falls outside of this proposed policy, and therefore would be exempted
from charges. We would require, however, that the organization do its own set up and sanitizing after
each use.
It should be noted that the City Hall building lobby is often used in conjunction with an event in one of
the other meeting rooms. If the lobby is used in this manner, we recommend no fee be charged for its use.
Payments and reservations would all be done by City Hall front desk personnel, and the fire secretary.
Recommendation:
We recommend that the attached use requirements be adopted as City policy.
Action Required:
If the Council concurs, it should adopt the attached public meeting room use criteria for space in City
Hall, and the Mendota Heights fire station.
Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief Mark McNeill, City Administrator
page 204
COMMUNITY USE OF CITY HALL and FIRE STATION FACILITIES
REQUIREMENTS
Mendota Heights City building facilities are intended to be used primarily for city staff and city
government functions. The privilege of their use will be extended to Mendota Heights
organizations and others consistent with these policy guidelines and subject to availability.
City Hall and the Fire Station are tobacco-free and alcohol-free buildings, and the use of
tobacco, electronic tobacco substitutes, or alcohol is not allowed in any area of either structure.
The following facilities are available as formal meeting space:
A. City Hall
a. Council Chambers – theater style seating for approximately 60. Public access
WIFI, laptop connection, ceiling mounted projector and projection screen are
available.
b. Large Conference Room - seating for 12 around a large conference table.
c. Small Conference Room - seating for up to 6.
B. Fire Station
a. Training Room – classroom style seating for approximately 50. Public access
WIFI available.
b. Fire Station Conference Room – seating for up to 8.
The number of participants that are able to use each facility shall be limited by any guidelines
from the State of Minnesota, City of Mendota Heights, or applicable health organizations,
which are in place at the time of use.
The following policies will guide community use of these facilities:
1. SCHEDULING OF SPACE will be on a first-come, first served basis to non-profit organizations
and resident groups that are based in Mendota Heights. Rental by others shall be on an “as
available” basis.
• City Hall facilities are available for rental on Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday
evenings between 4:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Weekend rentals are not permitted.
• Fire Station facilities are on an “as available” basis.
• Scheduling requests will be taken at City Hall. Requests will be reviewed and
approved by the City Administrator or his/her designee. The City reserves the right
to reschedule or cancel a reservation for any reason.
page 205
• Reservations should be made at least 30 days in advance, but may not be made
more than 90 days in advance.
2. USE BY FOR-PROFIT COMMERCIAL VENTURES or private use (i.e., family or social
gatherings) are not permitted.
3. FEES FOR USE OF CITY BUILDING SPACE are as follows and due at time of reservation:
a. Damage Deposit: A security/damage deposit must be submitted by all user groups.
A deposit of $100 will be required on January 1st of each year for regular users of the
facility; for one-time or occasional use, deposits of $100 will be required at the time
the reservation form is filed. Payments for damage deposits and room rentals shall
be made separately.
Charges will be made against the deposit for damages done to furnishings or for
costs incurred by the city for cleanup after a scheduled activity. The unused portion
of the deposit will be returned to regular users within five days after their last use of
the facilities in a year and to occasional or single time users within five days after the
use. Users of the facilities and/or equipment will fully reimburse the city upon
demand for the full cost of replacement or repair caused by damages to or
destruction of the building, furniture, fixtures, equipment or any other property.
There shall be one reservation per room each evening, so as to allow for
adequate sanitizing between uses.
b. Rental Rates:
i. Fire Station: Use of either or both of the training room or conference room
at the fire station shall be $100. An on-call firefighter shall be in the station
throughout the reservation time. If fire personnel are not available a
minimum of 72 hours in advance, the meeting is subject to cancellation.
ii. City Hall: $50 for small or large conference rooms per event; $100 for City
Council Chambers per event. The City Hall lobby is available at no extra
charge, if reserved in conjunction with one of the other listed rooms.
iii. Reservations and use by tax-funded organizations such as Independent
School District 197, the Dakota County Extension Service, MNDOT; or by
organizations which otherwise would charge the City for their services (i.e.,
classroom teaching benefitting Mendota Heights residents which would
otherwise charge the City a fee) shall be exempt from rental charges
4. CANCELLATIONS AND REFUNDS. For cancellations made more than two (2) weeks in
advance of the reservation date, a full refund of fees paid will be made. Cancellation
notices received with less than two weeks’ notice will not receive a refund.
page 206
5. PRIOR TO GROUP USE. A representative of the organization must complete and file a
reservation form. At least 24 hours prior to a City Hall event, a Mendota Heights resident
must stop by City Hall to sign for the space requested, pick up keys, and receive instructions
on how to use the building. Fire staffing will open and close the building.
6. CONDITION OF FACILITIES. The individual who signs and files the registration form will be
responsible for ensuring that the keys are returned and that the building is left in
appropriate condition, including but not limited to the following: furnishings and equipment
have been returned to their designated or original locations, paper and other waste has
been picked up and deposited in the designated containers, all doors have been locked and
lights have been turned off. For Fire Hall reservations, fire personnel may undertake some
of these activities, such as locking doors and turning off lights, but the applicable
organization is expected to leave the building in appropriate condition, as described in this
paragraph.
No banners, posters, signs or decorations of any kind may be taped or placed on the walls.
No confetti, glitter or candles with open flame are allowed.
7. FOOD AND BEVERAGES. Non-alcoholic beverages and light snacks requiring no preparation
on site may be served in the large conference room, if prior approval is granted on the
registration form. Users are responsible for bringing their own expendable supplies, coffee
makers, dishes, etc., and for seeing that clean-up is completed. Note: the City Hall
employee break room, and Fire Station lounge area are not available for use.
8. AUDIO-VISUAL EQUIPMENT, including overhead projector, screen, monitors or other
similar equipment are available for use. Users may access public WIFI for internet
connectivity and connect user laptop via HDMI or VGA connections to projection
equipment. User groups are prohibited from accessing the City’s network. The City will not
supply computer/laptop equipment.
If equipment is damaged the cost of repair or replacement of the damaged equipment will
be deducted from their facilities use damage deposit ($100.00) and any remaining balance
will be refunded to the applicant.
9. STAFF TIME. If it is determined by the city that city staff should be on the City Hall premises
during a scheduled use of the facilities, a charge equal to one and one-half of the
employee’s hourly rate plus overhead will be charged to the user group. Staffing will be at
the sole discretion of the city. Fire station usage shall be with a fire fighter on site at time of
usage, as described in Section 3.b (i) above.
10. VARIANCES from this policy may be granted at the discretion of the City Council or City
Administrator, as warranted. Requests for variances must be submitted in writing to the
City Administrator a minimum of four (4) weeks prior to the scheduled date of the event.
page 207
11. USER ACKNOWLDGEMENTS—The City of Mendota Heights is not responsible for lost or
stolen articles. The City of Mendota Heights is additionally not responsible for any injuries,
death, or damage to individual personal property during renting of City facilities, unless the
City intentionally creates such damage or is grossly negligent regarding the condition of its
facilities. Renters agree to abide by all applicable ordinances, laws and requirements.
Violations of policy may lead to expulsion, and the denial of future rental rights.
Adopted: October 19, 1993
Amended: December 17, 2002
June 16, 2020
page 208
DATE: September 15, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Beyond the Yellow Ribbon City
Comment:
Introduction:
The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution making Mendota Heights an official participant in the
Northern Dakota County chapter of “Beyond the Yellow Ribbon” (BTYR).
Background:
Before 2019, support to families of active members of the armed forces, and veterans who resided in
northern Dakota County were provided by a chapter of Beyond the Yellow Ribbon committee which was
located in South St. Paul. However, that BTYR chapter was often unable to respond to local needs in the
area, and so representatives from four cities—West St. Paul, Mendota, Lilydale, and Mendota Heights—
met to form a separate chapter. It was to be known as the Northern Dakota County chapter of the BTYR.
Working with the Minnesota Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Northern Dakota County group put
together an extensive list of plans and provisions in order to qualify as a recognized chapter. The
application material was submitted to the State, and in August, the Northern Dakota County chapter was
notified that it was successful in the completion of its application materials. As a result, it is now an
officially recognized chapter of BTYR.
Neil Garlock has been elected as the initial President of the Northern Dakota County chapter.
So as to make the designation official, and therefore make the Chapter eligible for grants and tax-exempt
donations, each city must adopt a resolution stating that it will be part of the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon
network, and will support the efforts of the BTYR.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the Council adopt the resolution of support.
Action Required:
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following resolution:
Resolution 2020-64
A Resolution Supporting the Designation
Of the Northern Dakota County Chapter of the
“Beyond the Yellow Ribbon” Veterans and Service Family Network
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 209
Resolution 2020-64
A Resolution Supporting the Designation
Of the Northern Dakota County Chapter of the
“Beyond the Yellow Ribbon” Veterans and Service Family Network
WHEREAS, Beyond the Yellow Ribbon (BTYR) is a nationally recognized organization whose
purpose is to provide support and advocacy for active duty service people and their dependents, and
disabled and retired veterans of the United States armed forces; and
WHEREAS, active and retired service people and their dependents in Northern Dakota County
have been in need of a local chapter of BTYR to provide the necessary programs for community
support, training, services and resources; and
WHEREAS, beginning in July, 2019, representatives of the cities of Lilydale, Mendota, West St.
Paul, and Mendota Heights have met to investigate the formation of a single BTYR group which could
provide veteran and active service member support throughout the four cities, and
WHEREAS, those representatives researched, compiled, and submitted a comprehensive Action
Plan describing available resources, plans, and goals for a BTYR group to serve locally, which included
plans to work with educational institutions; faith communities, health care facilities, and municipalities
and other governmental units, and
WHEREAS, while waiting for the application to be considered by the Minnesota Department of
Veterans Affairs, the formative Northern Dakota County BTYR group has provided fiscal and physical
support to individual veterans and their families, meals, and deployment and return from active duty
recognition ceremonies; and
WHEREAS, in September, 2020, the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs notified the
group that its Action Plan had been approved, and that henceforth it would be officially recognized as the
Northern Dakota County Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Network.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights that it hereby congratulates the Northern Dakota County Beyond the Yellow Ribbon
Network on its official recognition by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby designates Mendota Heights to be
a participating and active member of the Northern Dakota County BTYR Network, and that the City of
Mendota Heights will provide applicable support to this chapter.
____________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
______________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 210