2020-12-15 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
December 15, 2020
6:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
MN Stat. 13D.021 - Meeting by telephone or other electronic means: Conditions - MN stat. 13D.021 provides that a meeting of a public body
may be conducted via telephone or other electronic means if meeting in a public location is not practical or prudent because of a health
pandemic or declared emergency.
At its meeting on March 17, 2020, the Mendota Heights City Council declared a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a part of
this action, until further notice all City Council and committee meetings will be held by telephone or through other electronic means, with
social distancing measures in place. All public meetings will continue to follow the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
Note that while all or most of the members of the City Council will be participating remotely, the Council Chambers will be open to the public
during this meeting, assuming that social distancing protocols are followed. Interested individuals may access the meeting by using the
meeting connection information below.
With both the log-in or dial-in options, the line will be muted. Observers wishing to make comments on any of the agenda items will need to
contact the City Clerk no later than noon on Tuesday, December 8th, and provide their contact information and the agenda item which they
want to address. Note that any applicable long-distance telephone charges may apply.
Public Attendance is available via telephone at: 1-312-535-8110
Access Code: 177 470 5411 ##
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Adopt Agenda
5. Appointment to Open Council Seat
6. Swearing in of New Council Member
7. Consent Agenda
a. Approve December 1, 2020 City Council Minutes
b. Approve December 8, 2020 City Council Work Session Minutes
c. Acknowledge November 10, 2020 Parks and Rec Minutes
d. Approve Tobacco License Renewals
e. Approve Resolution 2020-74 Designating Polling Locations for 2021
f. Acknowledge October 2020 Par 3 Financial Report
g. Approval of the 2021 Seasonal Pay Matrix
h. Approve Resolution 2020-84 Adopt 2021 Pay Classification Plan for Non-Union Employees
i. Approve Purchase Order for Demolition of Property at 2085 Valencour Circle
j. Approve Resolution 2020-87 Adopt a Federal Grants and Awards Compliance Policy
k. Approve Banking Authorization Signatory Change
l. Approve Resolution 2020-85 Final Payment-Acceptance of Fire Station Addition/Remodel
m. Approve Building Activity Report
n. Approve Fire Synopsis Report
o. Approval of Claims List
8. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
*See guidelines below
9. Presentations
a. Recognition of Retiring Elected Officials
1. Elizabeth Petschel
2. Neil Garlock
10. Public Hearings
a. Ordinance No. 560 Amendments to the Fee Schedule for 2021 and Approve the Summary
Publication of the Ordinance
11. New and Unfinished Business
a. Resolution 2020-82 Denying / Approving the Preliminary Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd
Addition with a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for Property Located at the
NW Quadrant of Victoria Curve and Glenhill Road
b. Resolution 2020-88 Council Meetings Start Time
12. Community Announcements
13. Council Comments
14. Adjourn
Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the
public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak.
Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations
which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda.
Comments should not be repetitious.
Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or
for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any dec isions be
made at that presentation.
Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or
reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may
assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.”
DATE: December 15, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Appointment/Swearing in of New Councilor
Comment:
Introduction:
The City Council is asked to take action to appoint a candidate to fill the unexpired term of Elizabeth
Petschel. Councilmember Petschel announced her resignation on November 4, 2020. The City Council
declared that a vacancy existed on November 12, 2020.
Background:
The term that Ms. Petschel held is set to expire December 31, 2020. The Council previously chose not to
have a special election, but instead to appoint an individual who would serve until the next regularly
scheduled election on November 8, 2022.
The City advertised the vacancy, and received twenty applicants. On December 8th, the Council narrowed
that number to four finalists.
The applicants to be interviewed are:
•Patrick Corbett
•Sally Lorberbaum
•John Maczko
•John Mazzitello
These individuals will be interviewed at a work session to be held on Monday, December 14th.
Recommendation:
Assuming the Council makes a decision following the interviews, the successful candidate will need to be
officially chosen at the beginning of the December 15th regular meeting. They would be immediately
sworn in. In this way, that individual will be able to participate in discussions and decisions of the
December 15th meeting.
Action Required:
If the Council is ready to make an appointment to fill the vacant City Council position, it should makethat
appointment by adopting the following resolution:
RESOLUTION 2020-89
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING
A CANDIDATE TO FILL A CITY COUNCIL VACANCY
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
page 3
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020-89
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING
A CANDIDATE TO FILL A CITY COUNCIL VACANCY
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2020, Councilmember Elizabeth Petschel announced that
she was resigning her position on the City Council which was to expire December 31, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights City Council declared that a vacancy existed on City
Council following the acceptance of the resignation of former Councilmember Liz Petschel, on
November 12, 2020; and
WHEREAS, this vacancy occurred “on or after the first day to file affidavits of
candidacy for the regular city election”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required to fill the vacancy by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Stat. § 412.02, subd. 2a; and
WHEREAS, the City publicly sought applicants for the vacancy; and
WHEREAS the City Council held duly noticed meeting on December 8, 2020, to review
the twenty (20) applications it received, and selected four (4) applicants to interview; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2020, the City Council held a duly noticed meeting to
interview the four (4) candidates, and made a selection to fill the vacant position; and
WHEREAS, after careful deliberation, the City Council desires to act in the best
interests of members of the public and the City of Mendota Heights; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS:
1) The Mendota Heights City Council hereby appoints
____________________________ to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of
former Councilmember Liz Petschel effective immediately upon passage of this
resolution.
2) ___________________________________ shall be sworn in and commence serving
as a Councilmember at the City Council meeting on _____________.
page 4
3) Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.02, ____________________________ will serve as
Councilmember for the City of Mendota Heights for the remainder of the unexpired
term, until December 31, 2022.
Adopted by the City Council of Mendota Heights this 15TH day of December, 2020.
Mendota Heights City Council
______________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 5
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, December 1, 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 Duggan (arrived at 6:03 p.m.), Paper,
and Miller were also present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Paper moved adoption of the agenda.
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 Paper moved approval of the consent calendar as presented.
a. Approval of November 17, 2020 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of November 12, 2020 Council Work Session Minutes
c. Acknowledged October 27, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes
d. Approval of Canoe Rack Rental Policy
e. Acknowledge August 2020 to October 2020 Fire Synopsis
f. Approval of Claims List
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Councilor Duggan arrived.
page 6
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the public wished to be heard.
PUBLIC HEARING
A) RESOLUTION 2020-81 APPROVE LOT SPLIT AND CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
– 1680 LEXINGTON AVENUE S
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Council was being asked to consider a
resolution approving a Lot Split and Critical Area Permit for property at 1680 Lexington Avenue South.
Councilor Paper acknowledged that the new owners of the second lot would need to apply for their own
Critical Area Permit. He asked how much area would be disturbed. Community Development Director
Tim Benetti replied that the bluff line setback would not be impacted. He stated that invasive species can
be removed, noting that the DNR encourages that.
Councilor Paper asked how much closer to the road the new home site would be. Mr. Benetti replied that
the potential house pad would move 40 to 50 feet closer to Lexington. He stated that the goal was to create
minimal disruption by construction. The new homes would need to provide for the necessary setbacks.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided dimensions for the driveway and parking pad.
Councilor Duggan thanked the property owner for presenting a development more suitable for this area.
He asked if the property owner would be willing to complete a tree inventory to determine invasive and
good species. Mr. Benetti advised of the tree report that was included in the Council packet. He stated
that the intent is to stay out of the bluff area.
Mayor Garlock moved to open the public hearing.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
There being no one coming forward to speak, Mayor Garlock moved to close the public hearing.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Councilor Duggan referenced the proposed resolution and provided grammatical suggestions for change.
Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2020-81 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AND
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR 1680 LEXINGTON AVENUE.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
page 7
B) RESOLUTION 2020-82 DENY PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD
ADDITION WITH A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NW QUADRANT OF VICTORIA CURVE AND
GLENHILL ROAD
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Council was being asked to conduct a
public hearing and consider a resolution denying the proposed Preliminary Plat of “Valley View Oak 3rd
Addition”, which includes a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit. The subject property is
generally located at the northwest quadrant of Victoria Curve and Glenhill Road.
Councilor Duggan stated that if the applicant is willing to widen the road later, why not require that now.
Mr. Benetti replied that could be requested now.
Councilor Duggan asked if it would be appropriate to have signage within the bluff protection area to
make people aware that area is protected. He commented that he believed that roads were not allowed to
be above an eight percent grade.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the Code has a maximum street grade of six percent but
noted that he does allow up to eight percent. He stated that ten percent is the maximum slope for
driveways. He noted that this is being called a private access drive and could have a grade up to eight
percent. He provided examples of previous developments in which eight percent has been allowed.
Councilor Miller asked if the proposed grade would be above the grade allowed by City Code of six
percent. Mr. Ruzek replied that this would be a private drive and therefore would not have to meet the
maximum six percent grade. He confirmed that there are driveways and streets which exceed the grade
allowed by Code.
Councilor Paper asked why the sixth lot is being added into the development, rather than keeping the
existing home site separate. Mr. Benetti noted that the existing home would remain the same and the lot
would be extended to connect to the private drive but the property rights on Glenhill would remain.
Michelle Culligan, applicant, stated that this development has been anticipated for over 20 years and they
have worked with staff for the past year to get to this point and find a development that would be
appropriate for the site. She explained that the existing property is included in the proposed plat in order
to shift the property line to protect three existing spruce trees. She referenced the language from the City
Code related to buildable area and clarified that she believes the language means that the developer must
show that each lot is capable in the future of meeting the 18 percent slope requirement for structures. She
stated that this development proposal has a lesser impact on the natural resources on the site. She stated
that she would be fine constructing the road to 24 feet in width, if requested.
Mike St. Martin, representing Loucks Engineering, stated that the proposed development would reduce
the impact from 4.3 acres to three acres when compared to the previously proposed eight lot development.
He stated they feel that this proposal meets all requirements and that they can support a buildable area on
grades of 18 percent or less for all lots. He displayed the slope analysis, identifying the proposed private
drive and home pads. He stated that following the Planning Commission meeting the previous week, they
completed additional overlays to identify where homes could be placed on less than an 18 percent slope
along with a driveway connection to the private drive. He displayed that information for the Council.
page 8
Councilor Duggan asked for details on the retaining walls.
Mr. St. Martin provided details on the retaining wall height, distance, and landscaping. He reviewed the
details of the overall grading plan and stormwater management. He provided a section view for a double
walk out home. He identified the area highlighted in green which matches the area proposed to be
protected by the DNR. He stated that the proposed conditions would attempt to capture as much runoff
as possible and would provide a 36 percent rate of improvement for the residents in the city of Mendota.
Councilor Paper referenced lot one which would have two five foot retaining walls terraced. He
commented that when terraced the heights would be added together which would equate to a ten-foot wall.
Mr. St. Martin replied that the Code does allow for the terracing as shown.
Councilor Paper commented that when terracing, that load is no longer a five-foot wall load as the upper
load would transfer to the lower section. He referenced the six- or eight-foot walk out shown for lot four
and asked for details. Mr. St. Martin provided additional explanation.
Councilor Paper asked the proposed ceiling height for the levels of the double walk out homes. Mr. St.
Martin replied that they looked at generalities of what could be built, not specific home plans.
Councilor Paper asked if there would be curb along the private drive. Mr. St. Martin confirmed that they
would have curb and gutter to direct water to the catch basins.
Councilor Paper stated that a pond is proposed to be constructed on the bluff which is above the city of
Mendota. He stated that his concern has always been for the people that live down below.
Mr. St. Martin replied that a combination of cut and fill would be used to create the pond. He stated that
clay would be imported to create the liner in the pond and a filtration bench. Vegetation would be
established on the banks of the pond and the emergency overflow area would be reinforced as well. He
described the path where water would flow in an overflow event.
Councilor Paper commented that 100-year storms now come more frequently and asked why things are
not designed for a 500-year storm. He asked what would happen if there were two 100-year storm events
in one summer and how the redundancy could be improved.
Mr. St. Martin replied that they are meeting the City requirements for the 100-year storm event. He stated
that anything under the 100-year storm event would be going into the City storm sewer and MnDOT
system. He stated that in the event of an overflow they would enact additional protections to protect
against erosion. He stated that if they looked at additional capacity that would be beyond what is required.
Councilor Paper commented that there are people that live below the hill and he wants to know how those
homes are being protected. He stated that there is already a pond on the site where pile was driven into
the ground and asked why that is not proposed for this pond. Mr. St. Martin replied that there is an existing
pond on the north side that has a sheet pile wall, noting that did not have grading or fill and the sheet pile
wall was easiest way to create that pond. He stated that ponds are built to a standard throughout the City
and State. He stated that if there is a 100-year storm event, every pond in Mendota Heights would face
the same issues.
page 9
Councilor Duggan commented that, in most instances, a drainage pond is built lower with water drainage
into it whereas this pond would be constructed higher up, similar to a reservoir with homes below. Mr.
St. Martin replied that they were shown different ponding options but noted that placing the ponds at the
bottom of the hill would create problems with access needed for maintenance. He stated that this
placement meets the goals of the City to create a stormwater pond in that area that captures as much water
as they can.
Councilor Miller asked the number of gallons that this pond would hold. He asked who would be
responsible for maintenance of the pond. Mr. St. Martin replied that the entire utility system and the pond
would be under an easement and would be the responsibility of the City. He noted that this proposed pond
would be about one third the size of the pond in front of City Hall.
Mayor Garlock stated that a comment was made that 36 percent of the runoff would be captured through
this development. He stated that would be an improvement over zero.
Councilor Duggan asked the impact that the impervious surface created through this development could
have on runoff. Mr. St. Martin replied that the pond treats the rate, provides volume reduction, and
improves water quality prior to discharge into the storm sewer in order to compensate for the impervious
surface that would be added.
Councilor Duggan asked what would happen if the rain event were heavier and was more than a one-inch
event. Mr. St. Martin replied that if there were back to back 100-year storms, the pond would be at capacity
and the remaining water would follow the overflow route.
Councilor Paper asked the typical depth of a pond. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that six
feet is the standard depth for a NERP pond. He stated that staff has not dug into the pond design at this
time. There is possibly more capacity in the discharge pipes that are in place. He stated that if this is
approved, the outlet could possibly be the primary overflow rather than having that go down the hill.
Brian Ripp, Braun Intertec, stated that he walked the site and did not see evidence of slope instability. He
stated that four borings were drilled, initially to 25 feet. The initial analysis determined that the borings
were not deep enough and therefore two borings were drilled to a depth of 60 feet which they felt provided
the adequate information. He stated that they modeled in the northwest area in order to predict the worst-
case scenario, using a double walk out home and conservative assumption of groundwater levels. He
noted that even under that modeling scenario they were able to design to a factor of safety of 1.7, which
exceeds the minimum factor of 1.5. He stated that they are comfortable with the slope information and
layout of the lots. He stated that if this moves forward, they would do additional borings and analysis on
each home site to ensure that any necessary modifications are made.
Councilor Paper commented that groundwater was found to be located at 25 feet in the area where the
proposed road would be constructed. He asked how the depth of 60 feet was chosen. Mr. Ripp replied
that decision was based on experience and the analysis that was done from the 25-foot borings. He stated
that the deeper borings provided them with the information necessary to complete the slope analysis.
page 10
Councilor Paper asked why borings were not closer to the west, where the backside of the structures would
be located. Mr. Ripp replied that accessibility was a factor as they wanted to keep disturbance to a
minimum. He stated that at this level of design they are comfortable with the level of the borings.
Councilor Paper stated that more work will be done behind the boring locations and therefore he worries
for the safety of the people below the hill because more disturbance was done than perhaps should have
been done. He asked for input on the retaining wall question he asked earlier related to lot one.
Mr. Ripp stated that there is a load redistribution in a stair step manner. He stated that a boring would be
done in that specific wall area and analysis would be done in the retaining wall to address the stability of
the wall itself and also global stability. He explained that the fill placed behind the walls would be denser
and stronger along with grid reinforcement that provides strength to the soil.
Councilor Miller asked for input on the different findings between the Braun report and the Kelton Barr
report. Mr. Ripp replied that he is a geotechnical engineer that specializes in slope stability while Mr.
Barr specializes in groundwater. He stated that he provided a letter in response to the comments of Mr.
Barr. He stated that the biggest issue was whether the development would serve as a barrier for
groundwater seepage and this proposal would not. He stated that the groundwater levels found in the
borings were much deeper. He stated that Mr. Barr’s report mentioned that the borings should be deeper
and noted that they had already arrived at that decision and did deeper borings.
Councilor Miller referenced the letter from the Department of Interior from November which asked for
more analysis and fear of instability because of the steep slopes. Mr. Ripp stated that they will continue
to explore the site further as this process moves forward building upon the information they have gathered.
Councilor Miller stated that the current City Code states that the parcels need to be able to support a
buildable area on grades less than 18 percent. He asked how much of the land inside of the green area on
the map is less than 18 percent slopes. Mr. St. Martin provided additional information on the slopes and
noted that many of the areas in yellow are slightly above 18 percent, therefore acting as a transitional area.
Councilor Miller stated that the Code states less than 18 percent whereas he believes the green area
includes slopes of 18 percent. Ms. Culligan stated that the requirement is for them to prove/demonstrate
that this can be built and will be able to support under 18 percent. She stated that the next stage will
include that additional review and if a CUP would be required it would be no longer than any other single
lot in the City which has slopes of 18 to 40 percent. She stated that none of the other requests, including
the first case heard tonight, included this level of review for slopes. She believed that there should be
consistency as to how the rules are applied to them and all other applications.
Mayor Garlock asked for input from staff.
City Attorney Knetsch stated that the question is whether the Code refers to existing conditions or
proposed conditions and it has been the position of staff that it refers to proposed conditions. He stated
that if this is approved, each lot would need to come back and demonstrate that it meets that standard.
Councilor Duggan stated that this development has the right to develop and has reduced the number of
homes from eight to five. He stated that there have been geotechnical reports and analysis completed. The
page 11
applicant has listened to the comments and he likes the direction this is moving in and will support this
application.
Mayor Garlock moved to open the public hearing.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Julie Hunt, 1224 Culligan Lane, stated that this proposal has weighed heavily on many of the neighbors,
noting that the neighbors of Mendota have been at every meeting speaking of their concerns and against
this proposal. She stated that there have been concerns that sufficient geology of the slopes was not
conducted and further review would be needed to determine what is happening underground and what
the impacts could be from the disruption that would occur during construction. She stated that the
neighbors pooled their resources and hired Mr. Kelton Barr to complete a report. She stated that she
also spoke with several other experts that recommended geotechnical analysis using new technologies.
She stated that soil movement is not covered by homeowners insurance. She affirmed the unanimous
vote of the Planning Commission to deny this request as it is not consistent with the general code and
Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the DNR has established a bluff protection area in its updated 2017
regulations. She stated that the data from the 2017 update is much more accurate and includes
underground spring mapping. The bluff impact zones (BIZ) are subject to erosion and failure and
therefore clearcutting and building of structures are prohibited. She stated that experts expressed
concern with the fragile area above the bluff line, noting that the DNR is concerned with significant
grading and tree removal in this sensitive bluff area. She stated that the BIZ designation places building
and tree removal restrictions not just on this parcel but on her property as well. She referenced section
nine of the Comprehensive Plan which identifies the City’s plan for these the BIZ areas and a goal of
protecting these areas from private development. She noted that only one lot of the five does not touch
the BIZ overlay on the property. She asked the Council to consider the actions taken by the DNR in
2017, advice of the experts, information from the Comprehensive Plan, and the unanimous vote of the
Planning Commission and deny this request.
Alan Olstein noted that the Braun report is identified as preliminary and stated that final geotechnical
reports would be provided after further borings and analysis are completed. He stated that the point is
that the geotechnical report is incomplete, and the applicant is requesting a CUP, which should be
denied until a complete and thorough geotechnical analysis is completed. He stated that the safety of the
community is not just Mendota Heights residents but also Mendota.
Sandra Krebsbach, 1230 Culligan Lane, stated that she owns property on the shelf and below is the city
of Mendota. She stated that her home was built on bedrock with additional fill added. Nothing was
removed from the land and they kept the significant trees. She stated that they have not had a structural
failure as their home was built to fit into the property. She stated that this development would put
everyone at risk. There is not a problem on the land because it has full tree coverage and has not been
disturbed. She stated that in 1985 this was designated as a not buildable outlot. She asked the Council
not to approve this as this could jar all of the homes on the shelf and could cause a slide. She stated that
silt fences were discussed for protection during the construction phase to prevent erosion. She stated
that if this goes forward, the project would need to be managed and monitored every step of the way
because of its complexities. She stated that the language related to a buildable pad is meant to relate to
the existing situation and not the proposed situation, as the Planning Commission determined it to be.
page 12
She stated that pads three, four and five are different than what was reviewed by the Planning
Commission one week ago.
Mark Culligan, stakeholder in the Culligan property, stated they completed a boring near Ms.
Kresbach’s property and did not hit bedrock. He stated that there are some limestone shales on the
property, so perhaps that is what she referenced. He stated that he is confident that the proposal
presented tonight has not been amended since the review of the Planning Commission. He stated that
these are not steep slopes and are instead gentle slopes. He thanked those members of the Council that
have walked the property to see how gently sloping the home pads are. He stated that his family farm
has gone back almost 100 years and they care about the development. They have hired a team of experts
to assist in the preparation of these plans.
There being no one further coming forward to speak, Councilor Miller moved to close the public
hearing.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Councilor Paper stated that he is concerned that they do not have all of the information. He stated that
the City hired its own engineer to interpret both reports and the conclusion was that there was not
enough information to move forward. He stated that his concern is with safety. He stated that the
property owners have a right to develop their land and asked if there is a way to lessen the impact and be
a better steward as to what will go down the hill. He stated that he cannot control the development that
has occurred prior to this time but is concerned with lots four and five and what could happen when the
land is disturbed. He stated that he likes the idea that one third of the water would be captured but he is
concerned with the large rain events.
Councilor Miller echoed the comments of Councilor Paper, noting that he is recommending more study
and exploration of this area. He stated that he is inclined to affirm the recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
Councilor Duggan stated that no one has said that this plan will not work. He stated that there are
solutions that could address the concerns addressed tonight. He stated that the applicant has indicated
that they believe this would work and it is the decision of the Council as to what they believe. He stated
that City staff reviews the information received and ensures compliance with the rules of the City. He
was unsure what the hesitation on this is, as engineering will continue to be split on this case. He stated
that the engineer has stated that based on their understanding and knowledge this design will work. He
commented that the applicant has listened to the community and believes that this product will work,
noting that the applicant is amenable to changes that may be necessary as the process moves forward.
He stated that he supports what the applicant is doing and would support this moving forward.
Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-82 APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD ADDITION WITH A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF GLENHILL ROAD AND VICTORIA CURVE.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
page 13
Further discussion: Mayor Garlock commented that through the years he has been to a lot of emergency
calls within the Critical Area, some of those areas have been unstable for some time. He stated that he
walked the site today and it appears to be much more stable than other locations. He believes that the
applicants have completed their due diligence and will continue to drill borings and make adjustments.
He commented that there will continue to be hurdles to jump over as the project moves forward and
adjustments would be made as they are in other projects as well.
Councilor Paper stated that his concern is for the safety below once this land is disturbed. He stated that
he is not antidevelopment, but it is unique when working in the Critical Area. He commented that if more
information and data can be gathered to ensure him that it would not go down the hill, he would perhaps
reconsider. He stated that he wants evidence that disturbing this land would not create an issue.
Councilor Duggan stated that the City is a steward of the bluff and recognized that some regulations have
been changed with the 2017 update. He stated that the opportunity is there for the City to allow
development of this property in the safest manner.
Mayor Garlock commented on the discussion at the Planning Commission related to the borings and the
applicable expertise of the engineer, along with the comment that he does not have the crystal ball. He
stated that there are no guarantees, but 35 years of experience is an important factor.
Councilor Duggan commented that the Culligans are responsible residents and stewards of the property
and are bringing forward a proposal that they will be proud of. He recognized that the proposal will be
tweaked as this moves forward and more information is known.
Councilor Miller stated that after looking at the reports and expert opinions, there is not an overall
consensus of approval and support and therefore he falls to the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to deny the request based on the findings listed in their motion.
Councilor Duggan commented that he trusts the opinions of the engineers and others that presented on
behalf of the applicant.
Councilor Paper commented that he would like to see that additional information related to the pond and
the overflow and possible failures before issuing an approval. He stated that until he has some assurance
that those homes will be protected, he cannot support the request.
Ayes: 2 (Duggan and Garlock)
Nays: 2 (Miller and Paper)
Mr. St. Martin stated that they appreciate the input and commented that they have put a lot of work into
this process and agree that everyone wants to have a safe project. He asked if the matter could be tabled
so that they could come back with additional information that hopefully everyone could support.
City Attorney Knetsch commented that if the Council wants to deny the project, he would propose a
motion to deny rather relying on a motion to approve that has failed. He confirmed that the Council could
table the matter if desired. He stated that the motion that failed does not preclude resubmission of the
application. He stated that the current review deadline was January 25th, with the consent of the applicant
and noted that could be extended again if the applicant consented.
page 14
Ms. Culligan stated that she understands the concern of the Council but asks at what point will they have
done enough. She asked why the Council would not consider approving the request with conditions that
must be met in order to receive that full approval. She commented that they are willing to continue to
work on things but from her perspective she would feel more secure having that conditional approval
before spending additional funds on engineering. She explained that they have already invested funds in
the engineering thus far and her concern is that the target seems to continue to move and therefore it would
be difficult to spend the additional funds without knowing where the target is.
Councilor Paper stated that if this continues the applicant would incur additional costs from additional
studies and engineering and asked what would happen if information is discovered that the Council could
not support. Ms. Culligan replied that she would be looking for standards that would be comparable to
what the City does with every other development. She stated that it would be helpful to have clear
definition of the conditions that must be met.
Ms. Culligan stated that there are examples of homes closer to slopes that have existed for 30 years. At
some point they have to rely on engineering, noting that City staff would be involved in the reviewal
process.
Councilor Duggan asked if Councilors Paper and Miller could work out a motion that would address the
issues, they have that would provide that specificity. Councilor Miller stated that he would need time to
think about what those conditions might be.
Mayor Garlock asked if additional borings further down the hill would be acceptable to providing that
additional information. He asked if Councilor Paper could support the request if the borings were favorable
to support the building. Councilor Paper stated that he would want to know that the disturbance that will
be done during construction will not have a detriment to the slope.
Mr. St. Martin commented that in terms of the stormwater management and construction management,
they would follow the rules of the MPCA and the regulations of that separate permit.
Councilor Miller stated that he would need more time to digest this information and the ideas being
discussed.
City Attorney Knetsch stated that if the desire is to provide the applicant with additional time to make
further submittals to address the concerns raised by the Council, the item could be tabled to allow the
applicant to prepare that information and resubmit to the Council.
Ms. Culligan stated that it would be helpful to have an objective idea as to what the additional information
would be. She stated that they are attempting not to disturb the area further down the slope and suggested
that perhaps additional borings be done in the ponding area.
Councilor Paper stated that he would also be interested in the backside of the homes.
Ms. Culligan commented that the backside of the homes would be up on the flat area and above the barn
road.
page 15
Councilor Paper recognized that the applicant has put a lot of time and energy into this process. He stated
that he does not know what he does not know, and he cannot put his finger on what that additional
information would be. He stated that he needs to understand that once the area is disturbed there would
not be additional runoff or unintended consequences.
Ms. Culligan asked if Councilor Paper would be comfortable having the City’s engineer work with their
consulting team. She stated that residents have pulled information that is not relevant to this specific
property without the 30 plus years of experience that their engineer and the City engineer have.
Councilor Paper stated that he is unsure how to articulate and get to where he would need to be as no one
can conclusively say that failure will not happen. He stated that he is only focused on this property that
happens to be above the village below.
Ms. Culligan stated that you can always chase the “what ifs” but at some point, a decision needs to be.
She stated that there needs to be fair and similar expectations applied to their application consistent with
the other applications that have been approved. Ms. Culligan commented that they are not suggesting that
they are not factoring in all sides and neighbors of the property and have spent more time and engineering
on it than the neighbors did in hiring their own engineer. She stated that she finds it difficult to be held to
an unattainable standard, especially when compared to other developments that have been built closer to
that bowl.
City Administrator Mark McNeill asked if it would be acceptable to the applicant to have the request
tabled and direct staff to work with the applicant and Councilors that voted against the motion in attempt
to come to consensus.
Mayor Garlock moved to table the request and direct City staff to work with the applicant and members
of the Council in attempt to resolve the issue.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Councilor Duggan left the meeting.
Mayor Garlock briefly recessed the meeting.
Mayor Garlock reconvened the meeting.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) RESOLUTION 2020-83 APPROVE LOT SPLIT, WETLANDS PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR
1826 VALLEY CURVE ROAD
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Council was being asked to approve a
resolution approving a Lot Split, Wetlands Permit and Variance to the property located at 1826 Valley
Curve Road.
page 16
Councilor Miller commented that he appreciates the thought that went into establishing the wetland
setback.
Councilor Miller moved to approve RESOLUTION 2020-83 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT, WETLANDS
PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 1826 VALLEY CURVE ROAD.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
B) RESOLUTION 2020-80 APPROVE FINAL 2020 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2021 AND
ADOPT PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2021
Finance Director Kristen Schabacker provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being
asked to adopt a final budget and levy for FY 2021.
The Council expressed appreciation to staff for their work throughout the budget process.
Mayor Garlock moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2020-80 APPROVING FINAL 2020 TAX LEVY
COLLECTIBLE IN 2021 AND ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2021.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
C) ORDINANCE NO. 561 AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 2 SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided background information and stated that the Council is asked
to approve Ordinance 561 amending City Code; Title 4, Chapter 2, updating the existing rubbish ordinance
for compliance with Dakota County solid waste abatement.
Mayor Garlock moved to adopt ORDINANCE 561 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4,
CHAPTER 2, OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,
DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
D) FUTURE MEETING FORMAT DISCUSSION
City Administrator McNeill provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to
give direction on remote versus in-person meetings. This is requested in view of City Council discussions
at the November 17th meeting, and more recent directives from Governor Walz regarding COVID-19
gathering safety.
page 17
Mayor Garlock commented that he believes the candidates could be ranked by the members individually
and that information could be sent into City staff.
Councilor Miller agreed.
City Administrator McNeill confirmed that process would be followed. He continued to discuss how the
interviews could be conducted virtually and confirmed the consensus of the Council with that format. He
also reviewed how additional meetings of the Council could be conducted virtually. He believed that
there would be benefit to conducting the December 15th meeting in person, noting that the City does not
yet have the ability to conduct a hybrid format.
Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that she has been working on the technology
solutions for conducting remote meetings. She stated that the easiest option would be to hold a completely
remote meeting, rather than hybrid. She stated that the emergency declaration does allow for remote
meetings and this would comply with open meeting law. She stated that it may make it easier to have the
Councilors on a City provided laptop or iPad for access in order to have consistent technology and
platform.
Assistant City Administrator Jacobson commented that a laptop would allow participation in the meeting
and access to the packet and email.
Councilor Miller asked and received confirmation that the equipment could be repurposed for staff post-
pandemic. He stated that he would support a laptop and believes that would be the better option.
Assistant City Administrator Jacobson confirmed the consensus to provide laptops.
Councilor Miller asked if the Council would be expected to vote on the Culligan proposal on the 15th or
whether the discussion would be regarding the parameters, as the Council will be down to three at that
time.
City Administrator McNeill commented that he could not say what would be available by the 15th. He
stated that if additional study needs to be done, that would not be done by the 15th. He stated that if the
Council is agreeable to a plan, that could be presented at the 15th but the results of that would not come
forward until January. He asked if the Council would be open to making the decision with three members
or whether it should be tabled until more members of the Council are present.
Councilor Miller commented that he would prefer to move the discussion to January when more members
of the Council are available, otherwise he would prefer the meeting on the 15th to be virtual in order to
have participation by all four members.
It was determined that additional review of the Culligan proposal would be done on the 15th.
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Park and Recreation Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that in conjunction with the City of West Saint
Paul, they are offering the Quarantine Cup, which will be a friendly competition between residents of the
page 18
communities encouraging residents to participate in activities that can be done at their homes or with
members of their household at local parks. She stated that the winning community will receive a trophy
to display. She asked for the support of the Council.
The Council expressed support for the creative opportunity.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Miller commented that he appreciated the robust discussion tonight and the ability to have a
deep and thorough discussion.
Councilor Paper thanked everyone that came out tonight to participate in the meeting and discussion.
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 19
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the City Council Work Session Meeting
December 8, 2020
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Work Session of the City Council Meeting was held at
3:15 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayo r Garlock called the meeting to order at 3:17 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Miller and Paper
were also present via teleconference. Mayor Elect Stephanie Levine was also in attendance via
teleconference. Staff in attendance included City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant City
Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Community Development
Director Tim Benetti, and City Clerk Lorri Smith.
REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR OPEN COUNCIL SEAT
The Council discussed the open position on the City Council and when the new Council
member would take their seat at table. City Administrator McNeill stated the Council could
make the appointment effective at the beginning of the December 15th regular Council meeting,
or the new member’s appointment could begin on January 1, 2021. The Council members
discussed the current issues before the Council and whether the new member would have the
necessary background information to make an informed decision at the meeting on December
15, 2020.
The Council members were in agreement to send a complete Council packet to all candidates
who are selected for an interview, and the new member would be appointed and sworn in after
being appointed on December 15, 2020.
It was noted that the interviews have been set for Monday, December 14th, starting at 5:00 pm.
The Council members discussed the interview process. City Administrator Mark McNeill
informed the members that one candidate, if selected for an interview, has requested to be
interviewed remotely, due to concerns about the COVID-19 virus. The Council members were
in agreement that one candidate could be interviewed remotely, but all others should be present
at City Hall.
City Administrator McNeill asked the Council members to forward any interview questions to
him by 9:00 am Monday morning, and he will compile the questions for the interviews.
City Administrator McNeill showed the Council the compiled results of the candidate rankings.
After discussion, the Council members agreed that the top four candidates would be
interviewed. The candidates to be interviewed include John Mazzitello, Sally Lorberbaum,
Patrick Corbett, and John Maczko. City Administrator McNeill will contact the applicants and
schedule the interviews for December 14, starting at 5:00 pm.
page 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Jennifer Haskamp, representing Swanson Haskamp Consulting, was present to discuss the
revisions made to Land Use chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. On January 17, 2020, the
City received word from the Metropolitan Council that the 2040 Comp Plan as submitted to
them was incomplete. The Met Council identified several inconsistencies within the Plan.
Swanson Haskamp Consulting was hired by the City to review the Plan and revise it so a draft
can be resubmitted for Met Council review and eventual approval.
The inconsistencies within the Plan were related to the city’s forecasted household and
employment projections for the Planning Period and the Future Land Use Plan. After analyzing
the Future Land Use for the city’s Focus Areas, the consultant determined that the forecasted
Households should be increased by approximately 100 households, and that the projected
employment should be reduced by approximately 50% based on the identified land use and
market trends. The reason for the increase in households is due to the available acres identified
in the Focus Areas, as well as the needed density to meet the Met Council’s requirement that all
new development in Mendota Heights achieve a minimum of five dwelling units per acre.
The consultant also recommends other minor changes to the Land Use and Growth chapter, to
update the chapter and make it easier to read. Ms. Haskamp stated that the Met Council has
reviewed these proposed amendments, and it is in agreement that the Plan would now meet the
Met Council’s guidelines.
Councilor Duggan questioned how the 50% reduction in projected employment was arrived at.
Ms. Haskamp stated that Table 2-5 explains how this projection was arrived at. She reminded
the Council that the City will not be held to this projection.
Councilor Duggan questioned the density range being adequate to meet the affordable housing
allocation as required by the Met Council. Ms. Haskamp reminded the Council that the Met
Council cannot mandate affordable housing development.
Ms. Haskamp stated that the zoning in the City must be consistent with the future Land Use
Plan, and that the five dwelling units per acre is an average across all development in the city.
Council member Miller questioned the designation of the property located at 340 D Street as
Industrial. He questioned if this is accurate. Mr. Benetti reminded the Council that the
Planning Commission recommended this property remain designated as Industrial, and that the
Council can change that designation.
The Council members were in agreement that the revised forecasts and all revisions be
incorporated into Chapter 2. Land Use and Growth, as proposed, and also incorporated into the
remaining Chapters of the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Draft will be brought before
the Council for final approval on December 30, 2020, at the Council’s Special Council Meeting.
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn the meeting. Council member Duggan seconded the motion.
page 21
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
___________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 22
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2020
The November meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on
Tuesday, November 10, 2020, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve.
1.Call to Order – Chair Steve Goldade called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Steve Goldade,
Commissioners: Patrick Cotter, Pat Hinderscheid, Bob Klepperich, Stephanie Meyer, Dan
Sherer and Amy Smith; absent: None. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith
Lawrence and City Administrator, Mark McNeill.
3.Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
4.Approval of Agenda
Motion Klepperich/second Cotter, to approve the agenda AYES 7: NAYS 0
5.a Approval of Minutes from October 13, 2020 Regular Meeting
Motion Klepperich/second Sherer, to approve the minutes of the October 13, 2020 Parks and
Recreation Commission Regular Meeting. AYES 7: NAYS 0
6.Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
None.
7.Acknowledgement of Reports
Chair Goldade read the titles of the three updates (Par 3, Recreation, and Park Improvement
Updates) and polled the Commissioners for questions.
7.a Par 3 Update
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence briefly reviewed the 2020 September
Financial Report. She reported that the course was closed on October 19th.
Commissioner Hinderscheid asked if there are any large equipment purchases planned.
Ms. Lawrence commented that there are funds included in the preliminary budget for work on
the well which has an estimated cost of $20,000 to $30,000.
Chair Goldade asked if the number of rounds for the year exceeded expectations.
Ms. Lawrence reported in 2019 there were 8,000, compared to 14,000 this year. She
commented that the largest success they had was their ability to keep everyone safe.
Chair Goldade recognized that the virus attributed to an increase in activity for golf courses but
asked if there are other things staff believes assisted in the increase in play.
page 23
Ms. Lawrence commented that COVID-19 impacted golf nationwide with increases in rounds.
She commented that the course was well maintained, and the safety measures put in place
brought people back for repeat business.
Commissioner Hinderscheid asked for the numbers related to foot golf.
Ms. Lawrence replied that in 2020, foot golf totals were at 595 rounds, which compares to 250
rounds in 2019.
Chair Goldade stated that with COVID-19 people continue to look for outdoor activities. He
asked if Nordic skiing has been considered for the Par 3 course and stated that perhaps the
Commission could discuss that at the next meeting.
7.b Recreation Update
Ms. Lawrence commented that staff is looking to host various recreational activities throughout
the winter and highlighted some of the activities being considered. She stated that they
continue to watch COVID-19 updates very closely to ensure that all safety measures can be
met.
Commissioner Smith asked if the warming house staff and skating instructor positions have
been filled.
Ms. Lawrence commented that they have received some applications for warming house staff,
but still need more and encouraged people to apply. She stated that staff has not received any
applications for the skating instructor position.
Chair Goldade asked if the number of people in the warming house would be limited.
Ms. Lawrence noted that the Council will be discussing those procedures at an upcoming
workshop. She confirmed that they would need to comply with any COVID-19 regulations. She
reviewed the different methods staff would use to communicate the restrictions to residents.
7.c Parks Improvement Update
Ms. Lawrence provided an update including a tulip planting at Wentworth Park along with
authorization from the Council to solicit quotes for pickleball court striping and the Marie Park
playground RFP.
Chair Goldade stated that Dakota County is holding an online public house for an upcoming
trailhead project. He also commented about the new trees at Hagstrom King.
Commissioner Klepperich asked if the Council authorized the additional courts at Marie Park.
Ms. Lawrence confirmed that the Council authorized striping for one additional court at Marie
and directed staff to determine the maximum number of courts for Friendly Hills.
Commissioner Meyer referenced the Council discussion related to the swing set at Marie Park
and asked if that would need to remain or whether that was simply an option.
Ms. Lawrence replied that a Council member was interested in the possibility of saving funds by
keeping the swing set and therefore that option was included in the RFP. She stated that in
page 24
speaking with some of the contractors that have been interested in the project, the swing set is
one of the cheapest pieces of equipment and therefore will most likely recommend replacement.
Commissioner Meyer asked for input on the possibility of the use of the special parks fund for
capital improvement projects.
Ms. Lawrence noted that City Administrator Mark McNeill is present tonight to provide an update
which will occur until the Wentworth Tennis Court item.
Chair Goldade recommended that this item be closed, and the Wentworth item appear next on
the agenda in order to continue the discussion.
Motion Meyer/second Klepperich to acknowledge the staff reports. AYES 7: NAYS 0
8. New Business
8.a Wentworth Tennis Court Remodel Discussion
City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the City has a new City Attorney who has provided
input on the use of the special parks fund. He explained that the City Attorney has stated that
the funds should not be used for repair and maintenance. He stated that if it is an expansion of
which allows more users to participate, special park funds could be used. He commented that
to replace the warming house, $154,000 in special parks funds could be used which would
cover the new area that would be created. He stated that there is another source of funding
available to cover the portions of projects which cannot be funded through special parks funds.
He stated that the resurfacing of the hockey rink for pickleball would open up the area for use by
additional users and therefore special parks funds could be used. He noted that in terms of the
parking lot, no expansion is proposed and therefore special parks funds could not be used. He
stated that the goal is to complete the improvements at Wentworth in 2021 to ensure that the
grant funds are used. He noted that the Council will discuss funding possibilities at its workshop
later this week.
Commissioner Cotter commented that laws are open to interpretation and recognized the fine
line between repair and replace. He stated that the issue of funding at Wentworth will be
important as it will apply to other park projects moving forward. He asked the difference
between repair and replacement in terms of a parking lot or playground and believed that those
should be considered carefully to allow use of funds.
Mr. McNeill commented that the interpretation of the new City Attorney is pretty conservative.
He stated that the special parks funds account will not see an infusion from large projects and
therefore there will be continued discussion as to how park improvements will be funded in the
future.
Commissioner Sherer commented that for a parking lot maintenance is often considered filling
potholes while replacement occurs when it has reached the end of its usable life.
Commissioner Meyer asked what would count as expansion for a warming house, whether that
is related to square feet or additional capacity.
Mr. McNeill commented that the decision will be made based on what the City is comfortable
with moving ahead. He stated that there needs to be justification on what is considered
expansion versus replacement.
page 25
Commissioner Meyer asked if the cost that cannot be covered by special parks funds could be
funded through the grant funds.
Mr. McNeill commented that there are a certain number of dollars the City must pay in order to
qualify for the $180,000 in grant funds.
Ms. Lawrence stated that the Wentworth tennis court project is considered as a replacement
and would not qualify for special park fund dollars. She stated that the project can still be
discussed but asked if the Commission would like to postpone that discussion for a future
meeting.
Chair Goldade stated that he would like to have some discussion tonight.
Ms. Lawrence stated that when she thinks of enhancement, if the facility were changed above
two tennis courts it could enhance the facility for additional use but would still not qualify for 100
percent funding through special parks funds.
Chair Goldade commented that it would seem then that the cost for the tennis court portion
would have to come from another source and the expansion to add pickleball could be funded
through special parks funds. He suggested that this discussion be postponed to the next
meeting.
Ms. Lawrence stated that additional guidance will be provided by the Council later this week
which will provide the Commission with the approach to use moving forward.
Commissioner Hinderscheid commented that the interpretation seems to place additional
restrictions on the use of funds and asked how that would impact the budget planning that has
already occurred.
Ms. Lawrence replied that it is a conservative interpretation from legal counsel but will not put
the City in a place where it cannot complete projects. She stated that the Commission will need
to work with the Council on a CIP plan in order to discuss funding needs outside of special
parks funds.
Commissioner Cotter stated that the Par 3 is almost paid off and hoped that would continue to
be a part of the discussion.
Ms. Lawrence confirmed that those funds could be available starting in 2023, but the Council
will need to determine if those funds would continue to be levied and if so, how those would be
used. She confirmed that would be a part of the discussion with the Council later this week.
She confirmed that there would not be restrictions on those funds.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the interpretation of how the funds could be used is related to City
Ordinance or State law.
Mr. McNeill commented that he would forward that information to the Commission for review.
Commissioner Hinderscheid commented that the tennis courts at Henry Sibley are not included
in the City discussions. He noted that perhaps a schedule could be provided as to when those
courts are available for public use.
page 26
Ms. Lawrence commented that those are owned by the School District, therefore that request
would need to go through the district.
8.b Canoe Rack Rental Policy Review
Ms. Lawrence stated that there is a canoe rack at Rogers Lake which allows residents to
receive a permit from the City to store their canoe there for recreational use. She stated that
there are six spaces, and the number of requests continue to exceed that number. She stated
that a new rack was installed which will increase the number of spaces to 12. She stated that
she would like a formal policy in place which provides residents first priority for those rental
spaces. She noted that the draft policy was provided in the packet and asked for input.
Chair Goldade asked if there would be unintended consequences to having 12 canoes rather
than six.
Ms. Lawrence replied that Rogers Lake has been busier this year due to COVID-19. She stated
that the canoes have not caused an issue as they seem to be used at different times on
different days. She noted that if issues arise, staff does not need to rent out all 12 spaces.
Commissioner Hinderscheid asked if there would be a set date on when permits would be
awarded.
Ms. Lawrence replied that permits would be valid April 1st through November, and applications
can be submitted March 1st. She noted that if there are additional spaces available after that
application period, non-residents or additional residents can apply April 1st. She commented
that permit applications are typically processed within two business days.
Commissioner Sherer asked if the policy is clear that a watercraft registration is required per
Minnesota regulations.
Ms. Lawrence stated that she can ensure that the language is up to date and accurate.
Commissioner Cotter commented that this is great as Rogers Lake is a unique amenity in the
community. He asked if there have been other groups, other than residents, that have asked for
permits.
Ms. Lawrence replied that about half of the requests this year were residents and the other half
were not residents, therefore staff felt that a policy should be in place to give priority to
residents.
Commissioner Cotter asked if the fee is included in the fee schedule adopted by the Council.
Ms. Lawrence commented that typically at the end of the year, each department submits its
proposed fees, and the Council adopts that fee schedule.
Commissioner Cotter asked if staff would submit this to the City Attorney for review and asked if
a liability waiver would be included as well.
Ms. Lawrence commented that she will work with Mr. McNeill and the City attorney.
page 27
Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that there is a stipulation that applicants would assume all
risk.
Commissioner Cotter commented that is written in the policy but not signed by the applicant.
Ms. Lawrence noted that a registration form signed by the applicant includes that language but
stated that perhaps that needs to be more formal.
Commissioner Meyer stated that when reading the policy, it was not clear to her as to the order
of application deadlines. She asked if it is first come first serve or whether the priority is given to
residents related to the waiting list.
Ms. Lawrence commented that input is helpful and noted that staff will work to clarify that
language.
Commissioner Hinderscheid asked about subleasing.
Ms. Lawrence stated subleasing is not allowed.
Commissioner Sherer asked if the City has considered providing some public use canoes.
Ms. Lawrence replied that the City has not considered that option because additional measures
would be needed related to storage and security. She noted that if desired, the Commission
could discuss that in the future.
Commissioner Smith asked if anyone has ever taken someone else’s canoe out on the lake.
Commissioner Hinderscheid noted that the website could be clearer as to finding permits for
canoe rentals and picnic shelter rentals.
Ms. Lawrence stated that she is not aware of that a problem. She noted that people are
required to lock their canoe. She commented that she can make the changes suggested by the
Commission and bring it back for review in December or the Commission could approve the
policy subject to the proposed changes.
Motion Klepperich/second Sherer, to recommend that the City Council approve of the Canoe
Rack Rental Policy with the additional suggestions discussed tonight. AYES 7: NAYS 0
9. Unfinished Business
9.a Skate Park Work Group Update
Ms. Lawrence stated that a proposed sign developed by the work group was included in the
packet to gain input from the Commission.
Commissioner Smith commented that the work group has been meeting for the past few months
and propose a sign six feet in size to make it more readable for users.
Commissioner Klepperich stated that the sign was the product of a work group member that had
a friend that completed the design work at no charge. He stated that there was input received
related to the number of words included but noted that there is language that must be included
in terms of liability. He stated that because of the issues that have occurred at the park, it was
page 28
important to include the expectations of users. He stated that the youth members are very
knowledgeable about design and have been very helpful. He stated that they will have multiple
design choices and present those for input and choice. He stated that they continue discussion
on whether the skate park should remain in its current location or be relocated, and the
materials used for the features. He stated that once additional discussion occurs, they will
solicit input from contractors.
Commissioner Hinderscheid asked if the skate park is used in the winter.
Commissioner Klepperich confirmed that users bring shovels and use the park during the winter
months.
Chair Goldade thanked the work group and stated that he likes the tone and bright colors of the
sign which he finds welcoming and informational. He agreed that there are a lot of words and is
unsure whether users would take the time to read everything.
Commissioner Sherer commented that the sign is great and clever. He stated that a six-foot
sign would increase the size of the words as well.
Commissioner Cotter stated that he agrees that the sign is great and commented that seeing
the sign in scale would not make it appear as wordy. He stated that perhaps a separate sign is
used for the warning aspect required by the League of Minnesota Cities.
Ms. Lawrence thanked Commissioners Klepperich and Smith for their contribution to the work
group, which has been meeting weekly. She noted that if time permits this will also be
discussed by the Council at its workshop later this week.
9.b Continuation of Field and Facility Use Policy Discussion
Chair Goldade noted that this is a continuation of the discussion from the previous month and
asked that discussion be focused into four categories: use of online calendar feasibility,
information on the differences between user groups, communication process and procedure
with frequent user groups, and how fees were determined.
Ms. Lawrence stated that the use of an online calendar has been brought up and she did some
research as to how that could be done. She noted that staff currently uses an online calendar
for picnic shelter rentals. She stated that the field and facility use is a bit different and staff does
not have the capability to have an online calendar open to the public with its system. She
estimated a cost of about $20,000 for that type of system. She stated that she would also be
concerned with providing an online calendar as she does not feel it would provide accurate
information because of blanket permitting.
Chair Goldade asked if that system cost would be annually.
Ms. Lawrence replied that there would be a start up cost and then an annual fee as well.
Commissioner Sherer asked how the system would track reservations now, whether that is
done in a spreadsheet or document that could be posted to the website.
Ms. Lawrence replied that she has a master calendar with a permit scheduler. She stated that
each user group is then provided with their schedule for the season. She stated that she could
look into making a PDF document each week for the public’s view.
page 29
Commissioner Sherer recognized that blanket permitting provides user groups with flexibility for
practices and field changes. He asked if something could be added to the policy which would
provide public access if the user group does not occupy the field five minutes after the
reservation time begins.
Ms. Lawrence replied that the hope would be that if a group is not going to use the facility, they
would provide as much notice as possible as staff could then open up that recreational activity
to another group. She stated that if a field is not being used by a permitted group, anyone can
use the field. She stated that she would prefer not to include that language in the policy as she
does not have time to patrol parks. She stated that she is not opposed to providing calendars to
the residents, but her main concern would be that inaccurate data would be shared. She stated
that if blanket permitting could get under control, that would help to provide accurate
information. She noted that the policy will be discussed with the Council at its workshop later
this week. She welcomed input from the Commission to help improve the policy.
Commissioner Smith commented that perhaps the blanket permitting occurs because the
application deadlines occur prior to the teams being formed. She asked if the application
timeline should be better aligned.
Ms. Lawrence stated that was discussed with user groups in the past noting that their input was
used to create this policy and deadline. She stated that if there is a better deadline, she would
love to hear from the user groups.
Chair Goldade asked what could be put in the policy which would encourage users to adjust
their schedule if they began with blanket permitting but then adjusted their schedule based on
known registration.
Commissioner Smith commented that perhaps the fee should be based on per hour rather than
per child, as that would encourage users not to reserve fields they will not be using.
Ms. Lawrence stated in 2018 and 2019 the City invited the frequent user groups to meet with
the Council to ensure their voices were heard. She stated that the users preferred the per
player fee at that time. She believed that the per hour fee could reduce the blanket permitting.
Commissioner Cotter commented that he agrees with that comment. He stated that perhaps
provisional permitted is submitted by a certain deadline and final permitting is then provided
after registration needs are known by the user group.
Ms. Lawrence commented that is what the hope would be but the hard piece of that is that
different teams have different requirements and some groups need to know if they have fields
before they can open registration for their program.
Commissioner Klepperich asked if there is a distinction between permitting for a user group and
actual schedules, recognizing that it requires staff time to compare permits to the schedules
from the user groups.
Ms. Lawrence commented that one challenge is that the City also works with regional groups
that need to schedule. She reviewed the process staff follows for permitting and application
review. She stated that some of the users need the information early and some do not,
therefore it can be difficult to balance those needs.
page 30
Commissioner Cotter stated that some of the larger groups have more dedicated staff while
some of the local groups use parent volunteers.
Commissioner Sherer stated that it is important to distinguish between for profit clubs that have
staff and non-profit local sports associations. He stated that there are ideas to perhaps
restructuring the priority usage, as the local athletic association provides a service that the City
does not provide through its park and recreation department. He stated that it is difficult to
provide a schedule for spring sports by February 1st when they are still in the winter sports
season. He noted that it is challenging to estimate enrollment that early in the season and leads
to blanket permitting. He stated that perhaps there could be an annual meeting with the
different user groups to continue to improve the process.
Commissioner Cotter asked if it has been five years since there has been a formal meeting with
the user groups, noting that perhaps it would be time to hold a meeting of that nature again. He
stated that the concept of a per hour charge could be discussed as well, as that would be one
way to prevent blanket permitting and provide more efficient use of the fields. He commented
that it would be almost impossible for the local groups to anticipate their use that early in the
season.
Chair Goldade stated that from his experience with the City of Saint Paul he had to know the
first day in January which day in September he would like to hold his event. He stated that
perhaps there is an important date document that could communicate those deadlines. He
would not imagine that the number of teams change each year by much. He asked how the
City could incentivize groups not to blanket permit. He stated that perhaps user groups could
come back to the City by a certain date with an amended schedule to receive some funds back
for field times they do not need. He recognized that this problem is not unique to the City as the
School District struggles with that issue as well.
Ms. Lawrence stated that one of the issues is that the different sports function on their own in
some user groups, therefore each group within the association may have a deadline that works
best for them. She stated that they attempted to develop deadlines that work best for the most
user groups. She stated that she would welcome input on a better timeline.
Chair Goldade stated that his recommendation would be to have an important dates document
and an annual permit training for the frequent user groups to ensure they are educated on the
process.
Ms. Lawrence explained the differences between user groups and priority ranking. She stated
that the City provides time for the association itself and the association then decides which of its
groups receive different allotments within that time. She also provided information on the
communication process and procedure with frequent user groups. She recognized the changes
that occur within the user groups and noted that in 2021 staff intends to meet with
representatives from each sport to ensure everyone is aware of the process and procedure.
Commissioner Sherer recognized that there is turnover each year in the user groups and there
can be issues with only allowing one contact person.
Ms. Lawrence explained that one contact person has been requested per group in the past is
because there have been issues where misinformation was provided from different
representatives within the same group that resulted in changes that should not have been
page 31
made. She stated that it is also helpful to have one contact per group as they understand the
policies and procedures. She stated that she is open to communication, but it needs to be a
two-way street.
Commissioner Cotter stated that staff asked for suggestions, but the Commission has mainly
had a broad discussion. He stated that overall, the policy is very good and detailed. He
recognized that there will always be issues when working with different organizations. He
stated that there should be an annual or twice a year meeting where user groups are invited to
attend a PRC meeting and review the policies and procedures and provide input.
Commissioner Meyer stated that she realizes all the downfalls of posting a calendar but noted
that it is hard to figure out what events or sports are taking place that day. She stated that it
would be valuable to know if a ballfield is available prior to driving around the City to find an
available space to play ball with your child.
Chair Goldade stated that similar comments have been made for hockey rinks.
Commissioner Sherer commented that many of the sports chose not to use City fields this year
and hoped that it does not get to the point where it is easier for those organizations to go
elsewhere. He stated that he has heard the comment that parking near Kensington for soccer
games caused complaints by neighbors and resulted in those fields not being used for that
purpose. He asked for input from staff.
Ms. Lawrence replied that one of the underlying issues is communication. She stated that there
has been no restriction of use based on parking at Kensington. She stated that the comment
has been made that perhaps tournaments with 500 people should not be held in that location as
parking then blocks driveways. She stated that she struggles with that challenge in her role as
she hears the rumors but does not receive communication from the user groups with those
questions. She stated that rumors spread that are not always accurate. She stated that the
City wants Mendota Heights kids and organizations on their fields. She recognizes that there
were restrictions this year because of COVID-19 and there were discussions that should have
occurred that did not.
Commissioner Cotter stated that part of the job of the Commission is to assist staff in that
process. He again commented that it would be helpful for the Commission to host the user
group meeting once or twice a year to ensure there is communication.
Commissioner Smith stated that it would be helpful to communicate the items necessary for the
user groups, such as insurance and a COVID-19 policy, if that is still required next year.
Ms. Lawrence stated that if there is communication from the user groups, it would make her job
easier and hopefully provide more opportunity for people to use the fields.
Chair Goldade commented that everyone is trying their best and he has optimism that many
members of the Commission have children involved in youth sports in the community and
therefore can be part of the solution if everyone works together.
10. Staff Announcements
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence shared the following announcements:
page 32
• Council Workshop on November 12th. The first portion of the meeting will focus on the
appointment for filling the vacant Council position and the remainder will be focused on
recreational topics.
• Staff is still working with COVID-19 restrictions for programming. Registration is open
for the current program offerings.
• Other events can be found on the City’s website
11. Commission Comments and Park Updates
Commissioner Smith
• Friendly Hills was in heavy use this fall
• Market Square still has heavy use by people eating at the tables
Commissioner Meyer
• Marie and Valley Heights Park are both great
• Appreciation was expressed for Commissioners Klepperich and Smith for their work on
the skate park
Commissioner Hinderscheid
• Appreciation was expressed to Ms. Lawrence and her staff for their efforts at the Par 3,
along with all the customers that used the facility
• Dog Park has a picnic bench on the small dog site
• The volleyball net has been well used at Ivy Hills
Commissioner Cotter
• Thanks was given to both working groups as that requires additional effort from
members
• Rogers Lake is a phenomenal park, noting that brush clearing was done along the trails
which improves the experience
Commissioner Klepperich
• Thanks was expressed to public works for completing the street sweeping between
snow events.
Commissioner Sherer
• Echoed thanks to skate park working group
• Hagstrom King is in great shape and there is a lot of use in the past ten days
• Kensington could use additional woodchips in 2021
• Anticipation of the difficult winter ahead and with the limited indoor activities perhaps
additional outdoor activities could be offered
Chair Goldade
• The new tunnel painting and lighting at Valley Park is great
• The new warming house at Wentworth will be a great addition
13. Adjourn
Motion Klepperich/Second Cotter, to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 PM
AYES 7: NAYS 0
page 33
Minutes drafted by:
Amanda Staple
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
page 34
DATE: December 15, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Renewal of Tobacco Licenses
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve the renewal of tobacco licenses for 2021.
BACKGROUND
The following is a list of the current tobacco licensees in Mendota Heights. All of them have
applied for renewal of their license. The renewal period would be from January 1 to December
31, 2021.
1) Mendota Heights Amoco, 2030 Dodd Road
2) Mendakota Country Club, 2075 Mendakota Drive
3)Mendota Liquor Barrel, 766 North Plaza Drive
4)Northern Tier Retail, LLCd/b/a Speedway #4516, 1200 Mendota Heights Road
5)Northern Tier Retail, LLCd/b/a Speedway #4521, 1080 Highway 62
6) Walgreens #11764, 790 North Plaza Drive
The establishments listed above have each submitted a complete application packet and paid the
$300 license/investigation fee. The Police Department has completed a background
investigation on all of the applicants, with the exception of both Speedway stores. These two
backgrounds are still being processed.
It should be noted that all of the licensees passed the compliance checks conducted by the Police
Department that occurred earlier this fall.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the tobacco license renewals for the
establishments listed above for the period of January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021,
contingent upon a successful background investigation of their establishment or store.
RECOMMENDATION
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the above listed tobacco license renewals
for 2021, contingent upon a successful background investigation of their establishment or store.
page 35
DATE: December 15, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Resolution 2020-74 Designating Polling Locations for 2021
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to designate polling locations for 2021.
BACKGROUND
MN State Statutes 204B.16, Subd. 1, states that by December 31st of each year, the governing body of
each municipality must designate by resolution a polling location for each election precinct.
The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution designating polling places for election precincts for the
upcoming year.
DISCUSSION
There are no recommended changes to the current polling places. We are recommending the following
polling places be designated for 2021:
Precinct 1 St. Paul’s United Methodist Church 700 Wesley Lane
Precinct 2 Henry Sibley High School 1897 Delaware Avenue
Precinct 3 Holy Family Catholic Church 1960 Lexington Avenue S
Precinct 4 St. Thomas Academy 949 Mendota Heights Road
Precinct 5 Friendly Hills Middle School 701 Mendota Heights Road
It should be noted that there are no scheduled elections for the coming year.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution 2020-74 Designating Polling Locations for
2021.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION 2020-74 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING LOCATIONS FOR 2021
page 36
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020-74 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING LOCATIONS FOR 2021
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statutes 204B.16, Subd. 1 requires the City Council to designate
polling locations for the upcoming year; and
WHEREAS, changes to the polling locations may be made at least 90 days before the next election;
and
WHEREAS, changes to the polling locations may be made in the case of an emergency when it is
necessary to ensure a safe and secure location for voting; and
WHEREAS, no changes are being recommended to the currently designated polling places.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the polling
locations for voting precincts be designated as follows for 2021:
Precinct 1 St. Paul’s United Methodist Church 700 Wesley Lane
Precinct 2 Henry Sibley High School 1897 Delaware Avenue
Precinct 3 Holy Family Maronite Church 1960 Lexington Avenue South
Precinct 4 St. Thomas Academy 949 Mendota Heights Road
Precinct 5 Friendly Hills Middle School 701 Mendota Heights Road
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to designate a replacement
polling location meeting the requirements for any polling location designated in this Resolution that becomes
unavailable for use by the City.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to send a copy of this
resolution and any subsequent polling place designations to the Dakota County Elections Office.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 15th day of December, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 37
DATE: December 15, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: October Par 3 Financial Report
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to acknowledge the October Par 3 Financial Report.
BACKGROUND
Attached is the October Par 3 Financial Report. During the month of October, the course had a
total of 937 rounds of golf played.
For the month of October, the Par 3 had a total revenue of $7,661. Including the month of October,
the Par 3 had a year-to-date revenue total of $173,509.
The course’s October expenditures totaled $15,343. The year-to-date expenditure total is
$129,788. The course currently has a positive operating revenue of $43,721 for the 2020 season.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council acknowledge the October Par 3
Financial Report.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion acknowledge the October Par 3 Financial Report.
page 38
MONTHLY EXPENDITURE REPORT
OCTOBER 2020
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3
BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT
October 2020 (83.33% OF YEAR)
October
REVENUES October YTD YTD YTD
BUDGET 2020 2020 %2019
GREENS, LEAGUE & TOURN FEES $100,000 $7,650 $150,063 150.06%$92,405
RECREATION PROGRAMS $40,000 $0 $23,251 58.13%$33,454
CONCESSIONS $19,000 $0 $0 0.00%$19,418
SUNDRY REVENUE $0 $11 $195 0.00%$280
INTEREST $450 $0 $0 0.00%$0
CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS $0 $0 $0 0.00%$0
PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $159,450 $7,661 $173,509 108.82%$145,557
EXPENDITURES October YTD YTD YTD
BUDGET 2020 2020 %2019
CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $34,300 $4,536 $20,528 59.85%$27,146
ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $23,601 $2,628 $19,424 82.30%$15,357
FICA/PERA $10,433 $1,125 $6,421 61.55%$6,239
MEDICAL INSURANCE $6,653 $554 $5,544 83.33%$5,544
U/E & W/C INSURANCE $2,500 $0 $3,302 132.09%$2,816
RENTALS $4,750 $257 $1,787 37.62%$3,786
UTILITIES $15,130 $790 $8,231 54.40%$9,716
PROFESSIONAL FEES - AUDIT $2,850 $0 $2,866 100.56%$2,776
PROF FEES - CONSULTING FEES $1,100 $0 $0 0.00%$531
PROF FEES - GROUNDS MGMT $3,000 $0 $0 0.00%$0
PROF FEES - GROUNDS WAGES $22,000 $3,053 $17,331 78.78%$15,820
PROF FEES - TREE MAINTENANCE $1,500 $0 $0 0.00%$0
ADVERTISING/NEWSLETTER $400 $0 $0 0.00%$235
LIABILITY/AUTO INSURANCE $4,200 $0 $3,893 92.70%$3,807
OPERATING COSTS/SUPPLIES $7,650 $33 $3,095 40.45%$4,973
FUEL $1,750 $110 $964 55.10%$1,450
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $35,350 $1,377 $28,722 81.25%$26,605
SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $4,150 $62 $838 20.19%$3,303
CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $0 0.00%$0
ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $4,275 $817 $6,841 160.03%$3,624
PAR 3 EXPENDITURES TOTAL $185,592 $15,343 $129,788 69.93%$133,728
12/7/2020
page 39
Request for City Council Action
DATE: December 15, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Approval of 2021 Seasonal Pay Matrix
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve the 2021 Seasonal Pay Matrix.
BACKGROUND
Each year the City hires a number of seasonal workers within Public Works, Recreation and at
the Par 3. Hourly rates for seasonal workers are set annually and are separate from the City’s
pay m atrix for regular, non-union employees.
Staff has evaluated and adjusted seasonal wage rates to comply with the upcoming Minnesota
minimum wage increase and to provide competitive wage rates to attract qualified applicants.
Minnesota minimum wage rate will increase on January 1, 2021, from $10.00 to $10.08 an hour
(for large employers). The seasonal pay matrix was last adjusted in January, 2019.
Attachment: 2021 Proposed Seasonal Staff Pay Matrix
BUDGET IMPACT
The increase in minimum wage and the need to make changes to seasonal wages were anticipated
and included in the 2021 budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approving the 2021 Seasonal Pay Matrix, as attached.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the 2021 Seasonal Pay Matrix.
page 40
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2021 SEASONAL STAFF PAY MATRIX (PROPOSED)
Recreation Position Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Warming House/Rink Attendant $10.25 $10.50 $10.75 $11.00
Recreation Playground Assistant
Golf Course Clubhouse Worker
Golf Course Maintenance Worker
$10.75 $11.00 $11.25 $11.50
Tennis Assistant
Golf Assistant $12.25 $12.50 $12.75 $13.00
Recreation Playground Lead
Golf Course Maintenance Worker Lead $13.25 $13.50 $13.75 $14.00
Golf Instructor
Tennis Instructor
Skating Instructor
$15.75 $16.00 $16.25 $16.50
Public Works Position Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Rink Flooder $10.25 $10.50 $10.75 $11.00
Parks Maintenance Worker $10.75 $11.00 $11.25 $11.50
*Minnesota minimum wage $10.08 (effective 01/01/2021)
page 41
DATE: December 15, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director
SUBJECT: 2021 Employee Position Placement/Pay Classification Plan
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve a salary adjustment for all non-contract City employees for
2021.
BACKGROUND
Included with this memo is the 2021 Employee Position Placement/Pay Classification Plan for
non-union employees for 2021. The 2021 plan reflects a 3.00% increase. This reflects what the
City’s four unions have in place for the second year of their existing contracts in 2021.
BUDGET IMPACT
This wage increase is budgeted in the 2021 budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the increase for non-contract
employees.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION 2020 - 84
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2021 PAY CLASSIFICATION PLAN
FOR NON-UNION EMPLOYEES
This action requires a simple majority vote of the city council.
page 42
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020 - 84
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2021 PAY CLASSIFICATION PLAN
FOR NON-UNION EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, the City Council must adopt a grade and step pay system for non-union
employees; and
WHEREAS, based upon recommendations of the City Administrator, the City Council
has determined the appropriate placement of each position in a grade and the incumbent
employee in a step, which includes a three per cent salary adjustment for 2021; and
WHEREAS, it is also necessary to set salaries for part-time employees.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the following 2021 compensation items
are approved as of January 1, 2021:
1. The 2021 Employee Position Placement/Pay Classification Plan for non-union
employees.
2. The following salaries shall be implemented for part-time employees:
Fire Chief $20,388*
Assistant Fire Chief $11,949*
Fire Marshall $34.28an hour
*Annual compensation for administrative and other department responsibilities
excluding fire calls.
3. The following stipends are implemented for:
Captains $1,921/annually
Training Officer $4,219/annually
Assistant Training Officer $1,687/annually
4. The following hourly rates of pay for volunteer firefighters for fire calls and
training:
0-1 Years $10.61
FF I, First Responder, Hazmat Operational $14.08
FF II, First Responder, Hazmat Operational $16.17
Lieutenant $16.87
page 43
Captain $18.28
Assistant Training Officer $18.28
Training Officer $21.09
Assistant Fire Chief $25.32**
Fire Chief $25.32**
Special Operations Team Member Call Out Same as Mendota Hts Police
Officer on SOT
**Hourly compensation for fire calls and training.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 15th day of December 2020.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
___________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 44
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PROPOSED SALARY MATRIX (2021)
3%
Grade Position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 $40,409 $41,823 $43,287 $44,802 $46,370 $47,993 $49,673
2 Community Service Officer $42,834 $44,333 $45,884 $47,490 $49,153 $50,873 $52,654
3 $45,403 $46,993 $48,637 $50,340 $52,102 $53,926 $55,813
4 Office Support Specialist $48,128 $49,813 $51,556 $53,360 $55,228 $57,160 $59,161
5
Accounting Clerk
Utility Billing Clerk
Police Support Specialist
$51,016 $52,801 $54,649 $56,561 $58,541 $60,590 $62,711
6 Secretary/Deputy City Clerk $54,076 $55,969 $57,928 $59,955 $62,054 $64,226 $66,474
7 Natural Resources Technician $57,321 $59,327 $61,403 $63,552 $65,777 $68,079 $70,462
8 Recreation Program Coordinator
Communications Coordinator $60,760 $62,887 $65,088 $67,366 $69,724 $72,164 $74,689
9 $64,406 $66,660 $68,992 $71,408 $73,907 $76,494 $79,171
10 Senior Engineering Technician $68,270 $70,659 $73,132 $75,692 $78,341 $81,084 $83,921
11 City Clerk $72,366 $74,899 $77,520 $80,234 $83,042 $85,948 $88,957
12 $76,708 $79,392 $82,172 $85,048 $88,024 $91,105 $94,293
13 $81,310 $84,157 $87,102 $90,151 $93,307 $96,572 $99,951
14 Public Works Superintendent $86,189 $89,206 $92,328 $95,559 $98,905 $102,367 $105,949
15 $91,360 $94,558 $97,869 $101,293 $104,839 $108,507 $112,306
16 Police Captain
Community Development Director $96,842 $100,231 $103,741 $107,370 $111,130 $115,018 $119,043
17 Finance Director
Assistant City Administrator $102,653 $106,246 $109,965 $113,813 $117,796 $121,920 $126,186
18 Public Works Director
Police Chief $108,812 $112,621 $116,562 $120,641 $124,865 $129,234 $133,757
19 $115,341 $119,378 $123,556 $127,880 $132,356 $136,989 $141,783
20 City Administrator $122,261 $126,540 $130,970 $135,553 $140,297 $145,207 $150,290
21 $129,597 $134,133 $138,828 $143,686 $148,714 $153,921 $159,308
22 $137,373 $142,181 $147,157 $152,307 $157,638 $163,156 $168,865
Step 4 = Midpoint
Step
page 45
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: December 15, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Approving a Purchase Order for Demolition of 2085 Valencour Circle
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve a purchase order for demolition of structures at 2085 Valencour
Circle.
BACKGROUND
Mendota Heights and Dakota County worked jointly with the property owner of 2085 Valencour
Circle to purchase this property for inclusion into the Oheyawahe/Historic Pilot Knob Park.
With the assistance of Dakota County, Mendota Heights submitted an application to the State of
Minnesota for a Natural and Scenic Area grant which was selected for funding. The city entered
in to a Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County on shared costs at the September 1, 2020
meeting.
Mendota Heights closed on this property on October 15, 2020 and has been readying the
property for demolition.
DISCUSSION
The Joint Powers estimated that the demolition costs would be around $40,000 which would be
split with Dakota County.
The costs on the project are currently:
Archeological Study $2,400
Hazardous Materials Survey $2,355
Hazardous Materials Abatement $2,075
Demolition $18,500
Miscellaneous TBD
Well Sealing $2,010
Total (to date) ~$27,500
Miscellaneous costs will include the septic pumping, dumpsters, utility disconnects, etc. The
Archeological Study may require additional fees to support a Tribal Historical watchdog during
demolition. The city also conducted a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment which is not split with
the County for $2,200.
page 46
Upon completion of the demolition, The City and County will invest an additional $8,000
towards a Native restoration project which the County will fund at 80 percent resulting in a city
share of the cost of $1,600.
BUDGET IMPACT
Two quotes were sought and received for the demolition work. The higher quote had a base bid
of $28,701.00; the lower bid was submitted by PAC Company in the amount of $18,500.
The costs for the Valencour property acquisition is being funded by a State Grant, Dakota
County and proceeds from the sale of the Village Lots.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Council authorize the purchase order for the demolition of the property at
2085 Valencour Circle.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize staff to execute a purchase order for
the demolition of property at 2085 Valencour Circle to PAC for $18,500. This action requires a
simple majority vote.
page 47
HORSE BARN
APPROXIMATE
SITE BOUNDARY
LP TANK
DOG KENNEL
DOG KENNEL SHOP
GARAGE
WELL (UNDER DECK)
SEPTIC TANKS HOUSE
STORAGE SHED
PILOT KNOB
PRESERVATION
SITE
RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
H
I
G
HW
A
Y
5
5
VALENCOUR C
IRCLE
FORMER
HORSE
PASTURE
HOLDING TANK
Project No:
B2000820
Drawn By:
Date Drawn:
Checked By:
Last Modified: 1/31/20
Drawing No:
F:\2020\B2000820\CAD\B2000820.dwg,Phase I,2/4/2020 6:05:44 AM
B2000820
LAO
1/31/20
KJH
Valencour Property
2085 Valencour Circle
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
Site Sketch
braunintertec.com
952.995.2000
Minneapolis, MN 55438
11001 Hampshire Avenue S
N
0
SCALE: 1" = 60'
60'30'
page 48
DATE: December 15, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Federal Grants and Awards Compliance Policy
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to adopt a policy regarding Federal Grants and Awards Compliance.
BACKGROUND
This Federal Grants and Awards Compliance Policy establishes guidelines and general procedures
for Federal grants and awards in compliance with the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB)
Circular, 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principals, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards (commonly called Uniform Guidance). The attached policy and
procedures details the City’s responsibility to ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations
and terms and conditions of the award. Adherence to the Federal Grants and Awards Compliance
Policy provides reasonable that federal funds will be managed and expended as intended. The
City’s auditor, Bergan KDV, has recommended that the City adopt a policy relating to the receipt
and compliance of federal funds.
BUDGET IMPACT
There is no budget impact from the proposed policy.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution adopting the Federal Grants and
Awards Compliance Policy.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should adopt the following RESOLUTION 2020 – 87:
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FEDERAL GRANTS AND AWARDS COMPLIANCE POLICY
page 49
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020 - 87
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FEDERAL GRANTS AND AWARDS
COMPLIANCE POLICY
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to establish a Federal Grants and
Awards Compliance Policy that is in compliance with the Office of Management and
Budget’s (OMB) Circular, 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards; and
WHEREAS, it is also the recommendation of the City of Mendota Heights’ audit
firm, Bergan KDV, to establish a Federal Grants and Awards Compliance Policy.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights adopts the Federal Grants and Awards Compliance Policy as the City’s
official federal grants and awards compliance policy.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 15th day of December 2020.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
___________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 50
Federal Grants and Awards Compliance Policy
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines and general procedures for Federal grants and
awards in compliance with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular, 2 CFR Part 200
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards
(commonly called "Uniform Guidance"). The Uniform Guidance is an authoritative set of rules and
requirements for Federal awards that synthesizes and supersedes guidance from earlier OMB
circulars. Adherence to this policy will also help the City fully plan and prepare for the event of a
single audit.
POLICY
It is the policy of the City of Mendota Heights to manage Federal grants and awards effectively within
the requirements set forth by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular, 2 CFR Part 200
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards,
program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award
and to adhere to strong internal controls to protect against waste, fraud or abuse.
PROCEDURES
City Policies
The following City of Mendota Heights policies have been separately reviewed and approved by the
City Administrator or City Council. The policies below may be applicable to Federal grants and
awards, and may be incorporated into this document by reference. It is the responsibility of the Grant
Manager, who is designated at the time of the grant application, to review and adhere to these policies
as they pertain to federal awards.
Capital Assets Policy
Purchasing Policy
Travel Policy
Compliance Requirements
The OMB 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI, Compliance Supplement identifies twelve types of
compliance requirements. Part 2 - Matrix of Compliance Requirements identifies federal programs by
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number and indicates which of the twelve compliance
requirements are applicable to each federal program. It is the responsibility of the Grant Manager to
refer to Part 2 to identify which compliance requirements are applicable to the specific award. The
following structure is consistent with the OMB structure for the compliance requirements:
AB. Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Source of Governing Requirements - The requirements for activities allowed or unallowed are
contained in program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of
page 51
the award. The requirements for allowable costs/cost principles are contained in the Uniform Guidance,
program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award.
To ensure compliance with these requirements, the City of Mendota Heights has implemented the
following procedures:
1. Allowability of all Federal grant activities and costs will be in compliance with the Uniform
Guidance, State law, City policy, and the provisions of the grant award agreement. Grant funds
will only be used for expenditures that are considered reasonable and necessary for the
administration of the program.
2. Federal grant expenditures will be approved by the Grant Manager and/or the department head
when the invoice is received. The terms and conditions of the Federal Award will be considered
when approving. Accounts payable disbursement will not be processed for payment until
necessary approvals have been obtained. A copy of the approved bill or invoice will be
maintained in the grant file by the Grant Manager.
3. Payroll costs will be documented in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Specifically,
compensation - personal services will be handled as set out in 200.430 and compensation -
fringe benefits will follow 200.431 of the Uniform Guidance.
4. An indirect cost rate will only be charged to the grant to the extent that it was specifically
approved through the grant agreement.
5. Travel and training costs will be handled in a manner consistent with the Uniform Guidance,
Subpart E, specifically sections 200.432 (Conferences), 200.438 (Entertainment Costs), 200.454
(Memberships, subscriptions, and professional activity costs), 200.456 (Participant support
costs), 200.472 (training and education costs), and 200.474 (Travel costs) and are also subject to
the City's Travel policy.
C. Cash Management
Source of Governing Requirements - The requirements for cash management are contained in the
Uniform Guidance, 31 CFR part 205, 48 CFR sections 52.216-7(b) and 52.232-12, program legislation,
Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award.
To ensure compliance with these requirements, the City of Mendota Heights has implemented the
following procedures:
1. Most of the City's grant funds are received following a reimbursement payment method. As
such, program costs will be expended and disbursed prior to requesting reimbursement from the
grantor agency.
2. The advance payment method must be limited to the minimum amounts needed and be timed to
be in accordance with the actual, immediate cash requirements in carrying out the purpose of the
approved program or project. If Federal grant funds are received first, care will be taken in order
to minimize the time elapsing between receipt of Federal funds and disbursement to
contractors/vendors/subrecipients according to sections 200.302 and 200.305 of the Uniform
Guidance and the terms and conditions of the award.
3. Advance payments must be initiated by the Grant Manager who will determine the appropriate
draw amount. Documentation of how this amount was determined will be retained by the Grant
Manager.
4. Supporting documentation for all reimbursement requests and advance payment requests will be
maintained in the grant file by the Grant Manager.
page 52
D. Reserved (by the Office of Management and Budget for future compliance requirement).
E. Eligibility
Source of Governing Requirements - The requirements for eligibility are contained in program
legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award.
To ensure compliance with these requirements, the City of Mendota Heights has implemented the
following procedures:
1. Programs or activities that are funded by Federal grants or awards will only benefit those
individuals and/or groups of participants that are deemed to be eligible in accordance with
program requirements.
2. Initial eligibility determinations will be made by the Grant Manager based on the grant
award/contract. Sufficient documentation to support these determinations will be made available
to administration, auditors, and pass-through or grantor agencies, upon request. It is the Grant
Manager's responsibility to maintain and provide complete, accurate, and organized records to
support eligibility determinations.
F. Equipment and Real Property Management
Source of Governing Requirements - The requirements for equipment and real property management
are contained in the Uniform Guidance, 48 CFR section 52.245-1 (equipment and real property),
program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award.
To ensure compliance with these requirements, the City of Mendota Heights has implemented the
following procedures, to the extent that they do not conflict with or contradict the existing policies
listed above:
1. All equipment will be used in the program for which it was acquired or, when appropriate, other
Federal programs.
2. When required, purchases of equipment will be pre-approved by the grantor or pass-through
agency. The Grant Manager will be responsible for ensuring that equipment purchases have
been previously approved, if required, and will retain evidence of this approval.
3. Property/Equipment records will be maintained, a physical inventory shall be taken every two
years, and an appropriate system shall be used to safeguard assets.
4. When assets with a current per unit fair market value of $5,000 or more are no longer needed for
a Federal program, except as otherwise provided in Federal statutes, regulations, or Federal
awarding agency disposition instructions, the City of Mendota Heights must obtain written
disposition instructions from the Federal grantor agency or pass-through entity prior to sale or
relocation of the property/equipment. The City shall abide with the requirements set out in
sections 200.311 and 200.313 of the Uniform Guidance in this regard. If a sale will take place,
proper procedures shall be used to provide for competition to the extent practical and result in
the highest possible return.
page 53
G. Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking
Source of Governing Requirements - The requirements for matching are contained in the Uniform
Guidance, program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of
the award. The requirement for level of effort and earmarking are contained in program legislation,
Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award.
The City of Mendota Heights hereby defines "matching", "level of effort", and "earmarking" consistent
with the definitions in the Uniform Guidance Compliance Supplement.
Matching or cost sharing includes requirement to provide contributions (usually non-Federal) or a
specified amount or percentage of match Federal awards. Matching may be in the form of allowable
costs incurred or in-kind contributions (including third-party in-kind contributions).
Level of effort includes requirements for (a) a specified level of service to be provided from period to
period, (b) a specified level of expenditures from non-Federal or Federal sources for specified activities
to be maintained from period to period, and (c) Federal funds to supplement and not supplant non-
Federal funding of services.
Earmarking includes requirements that specify the minimum and/or maximum amount of percentage of
the program's funding that must/may be used for specified activities, including funds provided to
subrecipients. Earmarking may also be specified in relation to the types of participants covered.
To ensure compliance with these requirements, the City of Mendota Heights has implemented the
following procedures:
1. Compliance with matching, level of effort, and earmarking requirements, as outlined by the
Federal program, will be the responsibility of the Grant Manager.
2. Adequate documentation will be prepared and maintained to support compliance with matching,
level of effort, and earmarking requirements. Such information will be made available to
administration, auditors, and pass-through or grantor agencies, upon request. It is the Grant
Manager's responsibility to maintain and provide this documentation.
H. Period of Performance
Source of Governing Requirements - The requirements for period of performance are contained in the
Uniform Guidance, program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and
conditions of the award.
To ensure compliance with these requirements, the City of Mendota Heights has implemented the
following procedures:
1. Costs will be charged to an award only if the obligation was incurred during the funding period
(unless pre-approved by the Federal awarding agency or pass-through grantor agency).
2. Compliance with period of performance requirements is assigned to the Grant Manager. All
accounts payable disbursements are subject to the review and approval as required as part of the
payment process.
3. It is the responsibility of the Grant Manager to comply with all closeout requirements and post-
closeout responsibilities as defined in sections 200.343 and 200.344 and the terms and
page 54
conditions of the award.
I. Procurement, Suspension and Debarment
Source of Governing Requirements - The requirements for procurement are contained in the Uniform
Guidance, program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of
the award. The requirements for nonprocurement suspension and debarment are contained in OMB
guidance in 2 CFR part 180, which implements Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, "Debarment and
Suspension"; Federal awarding agency regulations in Title 2 of CFR adopting/implementing the OMB
guidance in 2 CFR part 180; program legislation; and the terms and conditions of the award.
To ensure compliance with these requirements, the City of Mendota Heights has implemented the
following procedures:
1. Purchasing and procurement related to Federal grants and awards will be subject to the general
policies of the City (see Purchasing Policy) and Minnesota State Statute.
2. Grant files will document the significant history of the procurement, including the rationale for
the method of procurement, selection of the contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and
the basis of contract price. It is the responsibility of the Grant Manager to maintain this
documentation.
3. Procurement will provide for full and open competition, in accordance with 200.319 of the
Uniform Guidance.
4. No employee, officer, or agent may participate in the selection, award, or administration of a
contract supported by a Federal award if he or she has a real or apparent conflict of interest.
Such a conflict of interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his
or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to
employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible
personal benefit from a firm considered for a contract. The officers, employees, and agents can
neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from contractors or
parties to subcontracts. Adherence to City policies addressing conflicts of interest is required.
5. The City will avoid acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items. Consideration will be given
to consolidating or breaking out procurements to obtain a more economical purchase. Where
appropriate, an analysis will be made of lease versus purchase alternatives, and any other
appropriate analysis to determine the most economical approach. The City will also analyze
other means, as described in 200.318 of the Uniform Guidance, in order to ensure appropriate
and economic acquisitions.
6. The City is prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to
parties that are suspended or debarred or whose principals are suspended or debarred.
"Covered transactions" include those procurement contracts for goods and services awarded
under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant or cooperative agreement) that are expected
to equal or exceed $20,000 or meet certain other specified criteria. All nonprocurement
transactions (i.e. subawards to subrecipients), irrespective of award amount, are considered
covered transactions.
7. The City of Mendota Heights will include a suspension/debarment clause in all written contracts
in which the vendor/contractor will certify that it is not suspended or debarred. The contract will
also contain language requiring the vendor/contractor to notify the City immediately upon
becoming suspended or debarred. This will serve as adequate documentation as long as the
page 55
contract remains in effect.
8. Any vendor with accumulated transactions equaling or exceeding $20,000 that is not subject to a
written contract including a suspension/debarment clause or for which a signed statement of
suspension or debarment is not on file will be subject to additional procedures. The Grant
Manager or designee will complete an Advanced Search - Exclusion on the System for Awards
Management (SAM) website. A potential match will be followed-up on immediately. A record
of the vendor searched will be retained as evidence of the control.
9. If a vendor is found to be suspended or debarred, the City will immediately cease to do business
with this vendor.
J. Program Income
Source of Governing Requirements - The requirements for program income are contained in the
Uniform Guidance, program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and
conditions of the award.
To ensure compliance with these requirements, the City of Mendota Heights has implemented the
following procedures:
1. Program income is gross income earned that is directly generated by a supported activity or
earned as a result of a Federal award during the period of performance. Program income, as
described in 2 CFR 200.80, includes, but is not limited to income from fees for services
performed, the use or rental of real or personal property acquired under Federal awards, the sale
of commodities or items fabricated under a grant agreement, and payments of principal and
interest on grant funds. It will not include interest on grant funds unless otherwise provided in
the Federal awarding agency regulations or terms and conditions of the award.
2. The City will allow program income to be used in one of three methods:
a. Deducted from total allowable costs to determine the net allowable costs
b. Added to the project budget
c. Used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements
Absent specific guidance in the Federal awarding agency regulations or the terms and
conditions of the award, program income shall be deducted from total allowable costs to
determine the net allowable costs.
3. Program income, when applicable, will be accounted for as a revenue source in the same fund as
the Federal grant.
K. Reserved (by the Office of Management and Budget for future compliance requirement)
L. Reporting
Source of Governing Requirements - The requirements for reporting are contained in the Uniform
Guidance, program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of
the award.
To ensure compliance with these requirements, the City of Mendota Heights has implemented the
following procedures:
1. Preparation of reports will be the responsibility of the Grant Manager. All reports (whether
page 56
financial, performance or special) must be reviewed and approved by the Grant Manager and/or
department head (as applicable) prior to submission. This will be evidenced by either physical
signatures or electronic approval.
2. Financial reports will be reviewed based on the general ledger by a member of the Finance
department in accordance with specific grant guidelines.
3. Reports will be submitted in the required frequency and within the required deadlines.
4. Reports will be completed using the standard forms (as applicable) and method of delivery (i.e.,
email, grantor website, postal service, etc.).
5. Copies of submitted reports with preparer and reviewer approval and data will be filed with
supporting documentation and any follow-up correspondence from the grantor or pass-through
agency. Copies of all such reports will be made available to administration, auditors, and pass-
through or grantor agencies, as requested. It is the Grant Manager's responsibility to maintain
and provide this documentation.
6. Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity
records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period as specified in 200.333 of the
Uniform Guidance.
M. Subrecipient Monitoring
Source of Governing Requirements - The requirements for subrecipient monitoring for the subaward
are contained in 31 USC 7502(t)(2)(8) (Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-156)),
Uniform Guidance, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award.
To ensure compliance with these requirements, the City of Mendota Heights has implemented the
following procedures:
1. In the event that the City of Mendota Heights is a pass-through entity, it will be the
responsibility of the Grant Manager to clearly identify to the subrecipient the award as a
subaward, identify all requirements imposed on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is
used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the award,
evaluate the subrecipient's risk of noncompliance, and monitor activities of the subrecipient. The
City will obtain a copy of the subrecipient's single audit (if applicable).
2. Oversight procedures will be established by the Grant Manager, dependent on grant
requirements and the level of activity of the subrecipient.
3. In the event that the City of Mendota Heights is a subrecipient, it will be the responsibility of the
Grant Manager to obtain from the pass-through entity all requirements imposed so that the
Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and
conditions of the award.
N. Special Tests and Provisions
Source of Governing Requirements - The specific requirements for special tests and provisions are
unique to each Federal program and are found in the laws, regulations, and the provisions of contract or
grant agreements pertaining to the program.
To ensure compliance with these requirements, the City of Mendota Heights has implemented the
following procedures:
1. It is the responsibility of the Grant Manager to understand any special tests and provisions of the
page 57
Federal program to ensure compliance.
Internal Controls
Internal controls means a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement
of objectives in the following categories.
1. Effectiveness and efficiency of operations;
2. Reliability of reporting for internal and external use; and
3. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations
The objectives of internal control over the compliance requirements for Federal awards as found in 2
CFR section 200.62, are as follows:
1. Transactions are properly recorded and accounted for in order to:
a. Permit the preparation of reliable financial statements and Federal reports
b. Maintain accountability over assets
c. Demonstrate compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of
the Federal Award
2. Transactions are executed in compliance with:
a. Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award that could
have a direct and material effect on a Federal Program
b. Any other Federal statutes and regulations that are identified in the Compliance Supplement
3. Funds, property, and other assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or
disposition.
To ensure compliance with internal controls, the City of Mendota Heights has implemented the
following procedures:
1. The Grant Manager is responsible for coordinating processes consistent with the structure of the
Federal Grant Administration Checklist, which is organized according to the twelve Compliance
Requirements identified above and is in accordance with the five components of internal control
(Control Environment, Risk Assessment, Control Activities, Information & Communication,
and Monitoring) and to identify where risks exist and where and how controls can be established
to mitigate them.
2. The City will comply with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
Federal awards.
3. The City will evaluate and monitor compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and
conditions of the Federal awards.
4. The City will take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified.
5. The City will take responsible measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable
information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity
designates as sensitive or the City considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, state
and local laws regarding privacy and obligations of confidentiality.
page 58
DATE: December 15, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Banking Authorization Signatory Change
INTRODUCTION
The council is asked to approve changes to approved bank signatory card, necessitated by the
change in Mayors.
BACKGROUND
This memo is to update the Banking Authorization Resolution for American Bank and Gateway
Bank. We will need to add Stephanie Levine as Mayor, and remove Neil Garlock from the list of
authorized signatures. The banks will provide staff with the paperwork to make this change to
the city bank accounts effective January 1, 2021.
There is a CD at BankCherokee that has signors for the CD which still has the authorized names
of previous employees and a past mayor. We will be updating the signors on this CD to the city
administrator, city clerk and finance director.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
Remove Neil Garlock and add Stephanie Levine to the Banking Authorization Resolutions for
both American and Gateway Banks effective January 1, 2021, and update the signors on the Bank
Cherokee CD.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, remove Neil Garlock, and add Stephanie Levine to
the Banking Authorization Resolutions for both American and Gateway Banks effective January
1, 2021 and direct staff to update the signors for the CD at Bank Cherokee.
page 59
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: December 15, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Final Payment and Acceptance of Fire Station Addition/Remodel
COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2020-85, to accept work and approve four final
payments for the fire station addition/remodel.
Background
The City Council awarded 20 contracts on March 5, 2019, for the remodel/addition of the fire
station. There are four contracts that are being closed out, and seek final payments
.
The contract work for four components of the project have been completed, inspected, and
approved. These four contracts are ready for final payments. This will start the one-year guarantee
period. All required paperwork needed before the final payments have been submitted.
Discussion
The four contracts for final payment are:
Name Pay Request Original Contract Contract
Amount
John Foley Masonry, Inc. $59,993.88 $1,170.470.00 CP-04 Masonry work
RTL Construction $33,685.61 $ 269,000.00 CP-10 Metal Stud & drywall
Multiple Concept Interiors (MCI) $ 3,870.18 $ 45,857.00 CP-14 Flooring
Wenzel Plymouth Plumbing $23,425.36 $ 445,000.00 CP-16 Plumbing
Budget Impact
There are sufficient funds to cover these four final payments.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council accept the work, and approve the final
payments described herein.
Action Required
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion adopting
Resolution No. No. 2020-85 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL
PAYMENT FOR FOUR MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE STATION REMODEL AND
EXPANSION FINAL PAYMENTS”, by simple majority vote.
page 60
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020-85
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT
FOR FOUR MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE STATION REMODEL & EXPANSION
FINAL PAYMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to written contracts signed on March 5, 2019, with the City
of Mendota Heights, and John Foley Masonry, Inc., RTL Construction, Multiple
Concepts Interiors, and Wenzel Plymouth Plumbing, have satisfactorily completed the
four component improvements for the fire station expansion/remodel in accordance with
such contract.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mendota Heights that the work completed under said contracts are hereby
accepted and approved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby
directed to issue proper orders for the four final payments on such contracts in the
amount of:
1. John Foley Masonry, Inc. $59,993.88
2. RTL Construction $33,685.61
3. Multiple Concept Interiors (MCI) $ 3,870.18
4. Wenzel Plymouth Plumbing $23,425.36
taking the four contractor’s receipts in full.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 15th day of December,
2020.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
___________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 61
12/6/2020 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official
November 1, 2020 thru November 30, 2020 January 1, 2020 thru November 30, 2020 January 1, 2019 thru November 30, 2019 January 1, 2018 thru November 30, 2018
Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected
SFD 0 -$ $0.00 SFD 7 3,790,715.00$ $42,078.13 SFD 8 5,921,742.00$ $59,946.17 SFD 7 3,717,052.00$ 41,628.28$
Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 1 14,000,000.00$ $95,628.64 Apartment 1 9,135,000.00$ $63,519.64 Apartment 1 9,466,820.00$ 65,710.84$
Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 20 4,938,993.89$ 54,408.16$
Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$
Misc 58 973,300.00$ 13,614.58$ Misc 708 9,992,040.04$ 131,933.98$ Misc 643 9,587,510.92$ 157,944.12$ Misc 569 8,331,939.57$ 113,576.95$
Commercial 3 99,786.00$ $1,413.50 Commercial 15 1,528,876.00$ $14,915.19 Commercial 22 11,886,972.00$ $51,258.78 Commercial 16 8,791,959.00$ 63,172.89$
Sub Total 61 1,073,086.00$ 15,028.08$ Sub Total 731 29,311,631.04$ 284,555.94$ Sub Total 674 36,531,224.92$ 332,668.71$ Sub Total 613 35,246,764.46$ 338,497.12$
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 17 $1,325.00 Plumbing 170 $17,891.88 Plumbing 210 $30,785.35 Plumbing 206 31,889.59$
Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 -$
Sewer 0 $0.00 Sewer 18 $1,350.00 Sewer 15 $1,125.00 Sewer 37 2,775.00$
Mechanical 33 $2,506.51 Mechanical 317 397.00$ $33,385.52 Mechanical 297 $38,434.85 Mechanical 446 56,875.89$
Sub Total 50 3,831.51$ Sub Total 505 52,627.40$ Sub Total 522 $70,345.20 Sub Total 689 91,540.48$
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 304 $15,200.00 Contractor 282 14,100.00$
Total 111 1,073,086.00$ 18,859.59$ Total 1236 29,311,631.04$ 337,183.34$ Total 1500 36,531,224.92$ 418,213.91$ Total 1584 35,246,764.46$ 444,137.60$
NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals
page 62
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: December 15, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief
SUBJECT: November 2020 Fire Synopsis
Fire Calls:
November registered 18 times that the fire department was paged for service. Those 18 calls
broke down regionally as follows:
Mendota Heights 16 call(s)
Lilydale 1 call(s)
Mendota 0 call(s)
Sunfish Lake 0 call(s)
Other 1 call(s)
The estimated fire losses for November were $0 in structure value and $0 in content value.
Types of calls:
Medical/Extrication: 4 November had the Mendota Heights Fire Department responding to
four calls that were medical in nature.
Hazardous Situations: 4 November had the Fire Department responding to a severed gas
line outside a residence where a contractor had inadvertently cut the line. Another call had the
department responding to a home with a smell of gas in the residence, and yet another was a CO
detector activation possibly due to a garage heater. Finally, the station responded to
sparking/arcing powerlines at Dodd and Highway 62.
Service Calls: 0
Good Intent: 0 November had one outdoor fire that was called in, but was actually properly
permitted. A second good intent call involved a home with a fire in a fireplace that was not
drafting but instead causing the home to fill with smoke.
False Alarms: 5 Five calls were coded as false alarms. One was due to a sprinkler system
water flow alarm. One was a sprinkler system activation due to having broken a sprinkler head,
two smoke alarms activated with no fire, and one was CO detector activation.
Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 5 The Fire Department was requested four times and
then cancelled before our arrival in our coverage areas. Below you will see that there was a
mutual aid request that was also cancelled before arrival.
page 63
Mutual/Auto Aid Requests: 1 The Mendota Heights Fire Department responded to a single
call for assistance to West Saint Paul for what came in as a structure fire, but in fact, was burnt
food and we were cancelled en route.
November Training:
November 11 18:30 Radio Communications Mandatory 3 Opt 1. This drill went over
proper radio communications including proper verbage and standardized terminology between
departments in the county.
November 12 07:00 Radio Communications Mandatory 3 Opt 2. This drill went over
proper radio communications including proper verbage and standardized terminology between
departments in the county.
November 18 18:30 SCBA (RIT) Mandatory 4 Opt 1. This was a two station drill going
over medical assessment and packaging of a patient for a rescue on a challenging incline and a
mayday/firefighter down rescue scenario.
November 23 18:30 Firefighter Skills. This drill featured 3 stations consisting of: Ropes
and Knots, Hose Deployment, and Trauma.
November 24 07:00 Firefighter Skills. This drill featured 3 stations consisting of: Ropes
and Knots, Hose Deployment and Trauma.
page 64
Number of Calls 18 Total Calls for Year 313
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial $0
Structure - MH Residential $265,500
Structure - Contract Areas $40,000
Cooking Fire - confined $0
Vehicle - MH $34,800
Vehicle - Contract Areas $0
Grass/Brush/No Value MH
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
Other Fire
OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $0 $0
Excessive heat, scorch burns
MEDICAL
Emergency Medical/Assist 4
Vehicle accident w/injuries
Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$3,000
Medical, other
HAZARDOUS SITUATION MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $265,500
Spills/Leaks 2
Carbon Monoxide Incident 1 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $34,800
Power line down
Arcing, shorting 1 MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $340,300
Hazardous, Other
SERVICE CALL
Smoke or odor removal CONTRACT AREAS LOSS TO DATE $40,000
Assist Police or other agency
Service Call, other
GOOD INTENT
Good Intent
Dispatched & Cancelled 5 Current To Date Last Year
Smoke Scare 16 234 268
HazMat release investigation 1 14 28
Good Intent, Other 0 13 8
FALSE ALARMS 0 17 13
False Alarm 1 35 26
Malfunction 2 Total:18 313 343
Unintentional 3
False Alarm, other FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
MUTUAL AID INSPECTIONS 30
Total Calls 18 INVESTIGATIONS
RE-INSPECTION
WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year
MEETINGS
FIRE CALLS 250 4867.8 5098.5
MEETINGS 14 690 896.5 ADMINISTRATION 10
TRAINING 205 2449 3257.5
SPECIAL ACTIVITY 18.5 717.75 597.75 PLAN REVIEW/TRAINING 4
FIRE MARSHAL 47 182
TOTAL:44
TOTALS 487.5 8771.5 10032.25 REMARKS:
Lilydale
Mendota
Sunfish Lake
Other
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
NOVEMBER 2020 MONTHLY REPORT
FIRE LOSS TOTALS
LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS
Mendota Heights
page 65
page 66
page 67
page 68
page 69
page 70
page 71
page 72
page 73
page 74
page 75
page 76
page 77
DATE: December 15, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Retiring Elected Official Recognition
Comment:
At the City Council meeting of December 15th, there will be a brief presentation recognizing the civic
contributions of Liz Petschel, who left her position on the City Council effective November 4th, and for
Mayor Neil Garlock, who chose not to run for re-election and will therefore leave his position as of the
end of the year.
Because of the current restrictions on most public gatherings due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some of the
things which are normally done to recognize people such as Ms .Petschel and Mr. Garlock are not
possible at this time. It is our hope to more fittingly recognize them later in 2021.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 78
DATE: December 15, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Ordinance 560 Establishing Fees and Charges for 2021
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to hold a public hearing and then adopt a fee schedule for 2021.
BACKGROUND
Per MN State Statutes 462.353, the adoption of a fee schedule, that includes planning and zoning fees,
requires a public hearing to allow for citizen input. The public hearing notice was published on
December 1, 2020.
Fees are reviewed annually by staff to ensure that rate structures accurately reflect the cost of services
provided. Any fee schedule changes are proposed by the department charging the fee.
DISCUSSION
The proposed changes include the following:
Department Fee Deleted Reason
Police Dept Car Seat Rental Not Providing this service
Police Dept Dog Impound Fee Fee paid directly to Pound
Police Dept Vehicle Storage Not Providing this service
Police Dept Vehicle Impound Fee paid directly to tow service
Police Dept. Basic Property Storage Not Providing this service
Note that the proposed fees for alcohol licenses in 2021 remain unchanged. By staff’s application of
the Council’s decision made in June, alcohol license holders in Mendota Heights will receive a
reduction for an additional month for the “shut-down” of November-December, per the most recent
directive of Governor Walz. That is set to expire on December 18th. If that restriction is extended or in
any other way modified to reduce the amount of time during which the sale of alcoholic beverages may
be made, the Council may choose to revisit the topic of alcohol license fees in January.
A copy of the proposed fee schedule is attached which shows the changes to be made for 2021. The
changes are highlighted.
ACTION REQUIRED
Following the holding of the Public Hearing, the Council should adopt Ordinance 560 Establishing Fees
and Charges for 2021, and approve the summary publication of the ordinance.
Approval of the Ordinance requires a simple majority vote of the Council.
Approval of the Summary Publication of the Ordinance requires a 4/5th vote of the Council.
page 79
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 560
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES
FOR SERVICES FOR 2021
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Policy and Purpose. By the enactment of this Ordinance, the City Council intends to establish
fees and charges required by the City Code for the year 2021 and to comply with Minnesota
Statutes 462.353, subd. 4.
Fees and Charges. The fees and charges for the City for the year 2021 are set forth in ‘Exhibit A’
hereto attached.
Application. Where a direct conflict exists between the amount of a fee or charge set by any
provision of the City Code and a fee or charge set by this Ordinance, the fee or charge set by this
Ordinance applies.
Section 2.
This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 15th day of December, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 80
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 560
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES
FOR SERVICES FOR 2021
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby establish fees and
charges required by the City Code for the year 2021 and to comply with Minnesota Statutes
462.353, subd. 4.
The complete text of this Ordinance may be obtained at the Mendota Heights City Hall or
from the City’s website at www.mendota-heights.com.
Adopted this 15th day of December, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
/s/Neil Garlock, Mayor
Attest:
/s/ Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 81
2021
City of
Mendota Heights
Fee Schedule
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 560
page 82
Proposed 2021 Fees
ADMINISTRATION
FEE SCHEDULE
Assessment Search $ 15 / search
Certification of Delinquent Sewer Accounts Per City Code 10-3-7, B.2.$ 50 / per certification
Plus 7% Interest
City Ordinance Book $ 75 / book
Comprehensive Plan $ 50 / Complete; $ 30 / One Volume
Election Filing Fee Per MN Statutes 205.13 (3)
$40 Max $ 5
Mailing Costs Actual or $1 / minimum
Notary Public Residents, businesses, license applicants only No charge
Returned Checks $ 30 /check
TIF / Abatement Application Fee $ 1,200
Photo Copies 1 to 100 pages $ .25 / single sided page
Photo Copies over 100 pages $ .25 / single sided page plus staff time
Request for Public Data MN Statutes, Chapter 13
$ .00 to review info at city hall; $.25 per
single sided copy; staff time charged when
over 100 copies
DVD or CD with
Photos/Audio/Video $ 10
DATA REQUESTS: the City adheres to MN Data Practices Act, MN Statutes Chap 13
page 83
Proposed 2021 Fees
ADMINISTRATION
FEE SCHEDULE
Intoxicating Liquor Licenses
Intoxicating Liquor Off Sale limited by SS 340A.408 Subd. 3. a.(3)$ 150
Intoxicating Liquor On-Sale Tier 1 Tier 1 license defined in Code 3-1-12. B.$ 10,000
Intoxicating Liquor On-Sale Tier 2 Tier 2 license defined in Code 3-1-12. B.$ 7,500
Intoxicating Liquor On-Sale Hotel Limited Service Hotel $ 3,000
Club Liquor On-Sale limited by SS 340A.408 Subd. 2.b.$ 350 (for 201-500 club members)
$ 300 (under 200 members)
Sunday Liquor limited by SS 340A.504 $ 200
Wine On-Sale limited by SS 340A.408 Subd. 2.c.$ 2,000
Wine On-Sale Institutional limited by SS 340A.408 Subd. 2.c.$ 250
Malt Liquor Licenses
Malt Liquor Off Sale (3.2%)$ 50
Malt Liquor On Sale (3.2%)$ 250
Temporary On Sale Liquor
Licenses
Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor, Malt
Liquor, Wine
Issued only to clubs, non-profits, religious
organizations $ 50 / one to four day license
Application Investigation Fee
Intoxicating Liquor, Wine, 3.2 Malt Liq
Application Investigation Renewal $ 100 / per establishment
Intoxicating Liquor, Wine, 3.2 Malt Liq
Application Investigation New Licensees
Limited by SS 340A.412 Subd. 2
$ 500 / per establishment
(additional charges if investigation needs
to go out of state,then actual costs charged,
up to $10,000)
Liquor License Violation
First Violation within a 3 year rolling time period $ 500 fine
Second Violation within a 3 year rolling time period $ 750 fine + 3 day suspension of license
Third Violation within a 3 year rolling time period $ 1,500 fine + 10 day suspension of license
Fourth Violation within a 3 year rolling time period Revocation: minimum of 1 year from
revocation date
page 84
Proposed 2021 Fees
ADMINISTRATION
FEE SCHEDULE
License and Permit Fees
Domestic Chicken Coop Permit New or Renewal $ 15 per coop
Massage Therapist License New licensee or renewal $ 50
Massage Therapist License Investigation New licensee or renewal $ 50
Massage Therapy Enterprise License New licensee or renewal $ 100
Massage Therapy Enterprise License
Investigation New licensee or renewal $ 100
Rubbish/Garbage Hauler License City Code 4-2-3. Fee not prorated $ 75 plus $10 per truck tag
Tobacco License City Code 3-2-4. Fee not prorated. $ 200 / annual
Tobacco Investigation Fee New or Renewal $ 100 per establishment
page 85
Proposed 2021 Fees
BUILDING PERMIT
FEE SCHEDULE
Building Moving Permit $ 75
Building Permit Fee Residential/Commercial Per Attachment A
Demolition Permit Per Attachment A
Mechanical Alteration or
Replacement (including gas piping and gas
fire place installation)
Residential or Commercial 1% of value/$ 75 minimum
Plan Review Fee Residential or Commercial
Per Attachment A
Exceptions ($50 fee): Decks, Basement
Finishes, Kitchen Remodel, Bathroom
Remodel, and similar projects.
Plumbing Permit Fee Residential or Commercial 1% of value /$ 75 minimum
Roof Permit Commercial 1% of value / $100 minimum / $1,000
maximum
Roofing and Siding Permit Residential 1% of value / $100 minimum
Sewer Permit Residential/Commercial $ 75
Window Replacement Residential 1% of value / $75 minimum
page 86
Proposed 2021 Fees
ENGINEERING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FEE
SCHEDULE
Driveway Permit Replacement $ 50
Driveway Permit New or Expanded $ 100
Engineering and Drafting Services Actual costs plus staff time
Feasibility Report
Credit shall be given for information which
can be used in plan and specification
preparation
Actual costs plus staff time
Field Inspection and Staking Actual costs plus staff time
Grading Permit $ 200 + $ 500 escrow
Stormwater Management Permit - Escrow
Only
$ 1,500 or amount equal to 125% of
estimated cost to accomplish compliance
with approved storm-water management
permit, whichever is greater
Litigation Actual costs plus staff time
Miscellaneous Charges Actual costs plus staff time
Plans and Specifications Project Construction under $100,000 Actual costs plus staff time
Plans and Specifications Project Construction over $100,000 7% of final contract amount
Preliminary Studies Actual costs plus staff time
Professional Services on Planning Cases 1st hour per case included / thereafter
actual costs plus staff time
Public Right of Way General Excavation
Permit $ 200 / flat fee
Public Right of Way Utility Permit Commercial
$ 200 / first 1000 feet
$ 25 / each additional 100 feet
$ 75 / winter surcharge fee (11/1 - 3/31)
Public Right of Way Permit Residential $ 50 / flat fee
Right-Of-Way Usage license $ 350
Vacation - ROW or Easement $ 250
Note: Staff time is computed on the basis of 250% of the employee’s hourly rate
for the above services
page 87
Proposed 2021 Fees
ENGINEERING - MAPS, PLANS
AND DRAWINGS FEE
SCHEDULE
CD of Data or Maps $ 10 plus map fee
Maps/Plans/Drawings:
Comprehensive Plan
Critical Area
GIS
Land Use
Plats
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Sewer Street Asbuilts Wetlands
Zoning
Up to 11 x 17
Black and White $ 3
Maps/Plans/Drawings:
Comprehensive Plan
Critical Area
GIS
Land Use
Plats
Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer Street Asbuilts
Wetlands Zoning
Up to 11 x 17
Color $ 10
Maps/Plans/Drawings:
Comprehensive Plan
Critical Area
GIS
Land Use
Plats
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Sewer
Street Asbuilts
Wetlands
Zoning
Greater than 11 x 17
Black and White $ 6
Maps/Plans/Drawings:
Comprehensive Plan
Critical Area
GIS
Land Use
Plats
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Sewer
Street Asbuilts
Wetlands
Zoning
Greater than 11 x 17
Color $ 20
page 88
Proposed 2021 Fees
PARKS AND RECREATION FEE
SCHEDULE
Application Fee Charged per permit request due at the time the
application is submitted. Non-refundable.$ 25
Concessions Building Reservation Must provide proof of Food/Beverage License $ 25 per event per day
Field Reservation
Baseball/Softball/Soccer/Football/Lacrosse Priority Level 3 $ 7 per player per season
Priority Level 4 $ 10 per player per season
Priority Level 5 $ 10 per hour per field
Priority Level 6 & 7 $ 15 per hour per field
Field Reservation for Tournaments
Baseball/Softball/Soccer/Football/Lacrosse Priority Level 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 $50 per day per field
Field Preparation Non-Tournament Use $ 35 per field per day
Field Preparation Tournament Use - Required for Priority
Levels 3 and 4 $ 35 per field per day
Tournament Use - Optional for Priority
Levels 5, 6, and 7 $ 35 per field per day
Field Drying Agent No Charge, included in Field Prep Fees
Ice Rink Reservation Priority Level 3 $ 4 per hour per rink
Priority Level 4 $ 6 per hour per rink
Priority Level 5 $ 4 per hour per rink
Priority Level 6 and 7 $ 8 per hour per rink
Par 3 Footgolf Fees $ 8 per round
Par 3 Greens Fees Juniors/Seniors-Weekday $ 11 per round
Juniors/Seniors-Weekend $ 13 per round
Weekday $ 12 per round
Weekend or Holiday $ 14 per round
Par 3 10-Round Pass $ 100
Par 3 Pull Cart Rental $ 3 per round
Par 3 Power Cart Rental $ 10 per round
Tennis Court Reservations $ 25 application fee
page 89
Proposed 2021 Fees
PARKS AND RECREATION FEE
SCHEDULE
Picnic Area/Shelter Resident - Private $ 25
Picnic Area/Shelter Non-Resident - Private $ 50
Picnic Area/Shelter Resident - Business $ 50
Picnic Area/Shelter Non-Resident - Business $ 100
Picnic Table Additional On-site $15/day
Canoe Rack Rental Canoe Storage @Rogers Lake Park during
summer months $ 50 per summer
Park Bench Donation $ 1,000 per bench
NOTE: Mendota Heights schools, city events, and non-profit civic organizations
are fee exempt for Picnic Area/Shelter rental fees.
page 90
Proposed 2021 Fees
PLANNING
FEE SCHEDULE
Accessory Structure Permit For structures not requiring building permit $ 25
After-the-Fact Permit For actions without appropriate zoning
permits Double fee, or $ 250, whichever is greater
Appeal to Board of Zoning Appeals $ 250 + $ 500 escrow
Comprehensive Plan Amendment $ 750 + $ 500 escrow
Concept Plan Review for PUD/Plat $ 250 + $ 500 escrow
Conditional Use Permit / Interim Use Permit Residential $ 350 + $ 500 escrow
Conditional Use Permit / Interim Use Permit Commercial/Industrial $ 500 + $ 500 escrow
Critical Area Permit $ 500 + $ 500 escrow +
Security deposit determined by staff
Critical Area Permit-Administrative Per City Code 12-3-5. D.$ 200 + Security deposit determined by
staff
CUP for PUD $ 500 + $ 500 escrow
Fence Permit $ 25
Lot Split / Lot Line Adjustment $ 500 + $ 500 escrow
Mining Permit $ 350 + $ 500 escrow
Park Dedication Fee Single & Multi-Family Residential $ 4,000/ dwelling unit
Park Dedication Fee New Commercial / Industrial Lot 10% assessed value of unimproved land
determined by County Assessor
Rezoning $ 500 + $ 500 escrow
Preliminary/Final Plat $ 750 + escrow amount
Escrow Table
Residential districts - 0 to 10 units $ 100/unit, $ 250 minimum
Res Districts, MR-PUD, HR-PUD districts-
over 10 units $ 50/unit
Commerical/Industrial Districts, MU-PUD $ 1,500
Sign Permit Triple fee charged if sign erected w/o permit;
per Code 12-1D-15 B2 Per Attachment A
Temporary Sign Permit $ 25
Variance Residential $ 300 + $ 500 escrow
Variance Commercial or Industrial $ 500 + $ 500 escrow
Wetlands Permit Residential $ 150 + $ 500 escrow and/or
Security deposit determined by staff
Wetlands Permit Commercial or Industrial $ 200 + $ 500 escrow and/or
Security deposit determined by staff
Wetlands Permit-Administrative Per City Code 12-2-6. C.$ 100 + Security deposit determined by
staff
Zoning Letter $ 50
Zoning Ordinance Amendment $ 250 + $ 500 escrow
Expenses billed to city charged against escrow.
Remaining escrow returned to applicant. Applicants
billed for city incurred expenses exceeding escrow.
page 91
Proposed 2021 Fees
PUBLIC SAFETY
FEE SCHEDULE
Fingerprints $ 15.00 per card
Car Seat Rental Residents Only
$ 50 Deposit; check held for one month;
upon return, $25 refund. If seat not
returned within one month, deposit is non-
refundable.
Local Record Check w/Clearance Letter $ 5
Copy of Incident Report $ .25/page up to 100 pages
Copy of Accident Report In person, involved party request $ .25/page up to 100 pages
Copy of Accident Report Request from insurance or attorney Self-addressed, stamped envelope with
signed release. If over 4 pgs, contact
requestor for alt. payment.
Request for Public Data $ .00 if information is reviewed at city hall.
CD/DVD/Electronic Storage Device Per 8.5 GB $ 15 (Add'l Costs may apply per data size
required)
Dangerous Dog Registration City Code 5-3-4. D.;
Limited by SS 347.51 subd. 2(3)$500
Dog Impound Fee $ 67.00 for 1st Day
$ 16.00 each day thereafter
Vehicle Impound Current Tow Rate + Tax
Vehicle Storage MHPD Indoor storage $ 35 per day
Basic Property Storage Stored at or by MHPD
Small(2ftX4ft): $1/day
Medium(5ftX7ft): $3/day
Large(8ftX10ft): $5/day
Off-Site: Actual costs
False Alarm, Police Per calendar year
First three no charge,
4th-$50;
5th-$75;
6th and ea. add'l - $ 100;
False Alarm, Fire Per calendar year 1st and 2nd = no charge,
3rd and ea. add'l - $ 150/ea
Fire Alarm Permit Commercial Per Attachment A
Removal of Underground Fuel Tanks Residential/Commercial $ 50 minimum
Plan Review Fee Per Attachment A
Fire Sprinkler Alteration Per Attachment A
Day Care Fire Inspection Per MN Statutes 299F.011 $ 50
DATA REQUESTS: City adheres to IPAD guidelines and MN Statutes Chapter 13.
Per IPAD/MSS 13.82: Must prove involvement in/relationship to accident and either present
ID or a signed release
page 92
Proposed 2021 Fees
Valuation$1.00 to $500
$501 to $2,000
$2,001 to $25,000
$25,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $100,000
$100,001 to $500,000
$500,001 to $1,000,000
$1,000,001 and greater
Plan Review Fee = 65% of the building permit fee when determined by valuation
State Surcharge = .0005 x Valuation
ATTACHMENT A
To Fee Schedule
City of Mendota Heights - Building Permit Fees
$5,956.75 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$25.00 for the first $500 plus $3.25 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2000
$1,056.75 for the first $100,000 plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000
$3,456.75 for the first $500,000 plus $5.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000
Permit Fees$25.00
$73.75 for the first $2,000 plus $14.75 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000
$413.00 for the first $25,000 plus $10.75 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000
$681.75 for the first $50,000 plus $7.50 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000
page 93
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: December 15, 2020
TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Resolution No. 2020-82 Denying / Approving the Preliminary
Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition, a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use
Permit for Lands at NW Quadrant of Victoria Curve and Glenhill Road
[Planning Case No. 2020-15]
Introduction
City Council is asked to give final consideration of a resolution either approving or denying the proposed
Preliminary Plat of “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition”, which includes a Critical Area Permit and Conditional
Use Permit. Subject property is generally located at the NW quadrant of Victoria Curve and Glenhill Rd.
Background
This plat appeared before the Planning Commission on July 28th (public hearing); followed by Parks and
Rec Commission on August 12th; then back to Planning Commission on October 8th and November 24th
(both with public hearings). At the November 24th meeting, the Planning Commission recommended
unanimously (6-0) to deny the proposed Preliminary Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition, along with its
related Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit, based on findings-of-fact supporting their
recommendation.
At the December 1st City Council meeting, this recommendation was forwarded to the council, and this
matter was also presented under a public hearing process. Upon conclusion of the presentations and public
comments, a motion was made to approve the plat, which motion failed on a 2-2 vote. Upon further
discussion with staff and the Applicant, a follow-up motion was made and approved (by 4-0 vote) to table
this application item, with direction for city staff to work with the Applicant and Councilmembers in attempt
to resolve some outstanding site issues; and
The Applicant indicated they are preparing a “Work Plan” that provides for additional soil borings along
the back of the homes, the bluff line/edge, modifications to the proposed storm pond; and assurances that
each new dwelling pad site will meet or exceed safety factor as prescribed by industry/regulatory standards
and the Developer’s own soil/geotechnical consultants. However, the proposed plan was not ready at the
time of completing this council agenda packet, but will be delivered later. The Applicant will be available
at the council meeting to present this additional work plan and explain how it will be implemented in the
development of this property.
Discussion
The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning
decisions, such as this proposed subdivision plat, critical area permit and conditional use permit, and has
broad discretion in its approvals. A determination regarding whether or not these respective or combined
land use requests meet the applicable code standards is required.
page 94
Action Requested
The City Council may affirm this recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission by adopting
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-82, DENYING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD
ADDITION WITH A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF GLENHILL ROAD
AND VICTORIA CURVE;
or -
reverse this recommendation of denial by adopting RESOLUTION NO. 2020-82, APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD ADDITION WITH A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF GLENHILL ROAD AND VICTORIA CURVE.
Both versions contain findings-of-facts supporting each determination; and the resolution of approval
contains specific conditions of approval within. These findings and/or conditions may be modified as per
the wishes of the council.
Action on either resolution requires a simple majority vote.
page 95
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020-82
RESOLUTION DENYING A PRELIMINARY PLAT (SUBDIVISION)
OF VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD ADDITION
WITH A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOCATED AT NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF
VICTORIA CURVE AND GLENHILL ROAD
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-15)
WHEREAS, Michelle Culligan (the “Applicant” / “Developer” / “Subdivider”) acting on
behalf of Larry and Mary Culligan (the “Owners”) applied for a new preliminary plat (subdivision)
of lands to be titled “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition,” which include consideration and approval of
a critical area permit and a conditional use permit, all for the property generally located at the
northwest quadrant of Victoria Curve and Glenhill Road (the “Subject Property”), and which is
legally described in attached Exhibit A: and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the current
2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, Title 11-1-1 of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations) allows the
subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the
applicable zoning district, and the Applicant requests to subdivide the Subject Property into six (6)
new parcels as proposed under a new subdivision plat titled “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition”; 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 any
new subdivision approval; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-3-14, the Applicant requests approval of Conditional
Use Permit to develop and disturb areas on slopes between 18% - 40% throughout the site; and
page 96
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2020, a planning report was presented to the Mendota
Heights Planning Commission, a duly noticed public hearing on this planning matter was held,
and upon hearing all presentations from staff, the Applicant, professional consultants and the
general public, the commission ended the hearing, and thereafter recommended unanimously (6-0
vote) to deny the Preliminary Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition,” along with the related Critical
Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the property generally located NW Quadrant of
Victoria Curve & Glenhill Road, based on the findings-of-facts noted in the November 24, 2020
Planning Report, including the Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof and standards required
in granting such approval of this plat application, including finding the following::
The proposed plat does not demonstrate that it meets Title 12-3-14:E. as noted below:
New Subdivision: For new subdivisions approved after September 1, 2006, the subdivider
shall be required to demonstrate that any newly created parcel will be able to support a
buildable area consistent with the underlying zoning regulations, on grades less than
eighteen percent (18%).
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2020, the Mendota Heights City Council conducted a
separate public hearing on this matter, receiving additional comment and testimony from the
Applicant and general public, whereupon a motion was made to approve the proposed Preliminary
Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition, the Critical Area Permit, and the Conditional Use Permit
for the property generally located NW Quadrant of Victoria Curve & Glenhill Road, as proposed
under Planning Case No. 2020-15, but upon the roll-call of the council, said motion to approve
resulted in a split vote (2-2), thereby rendering the action on the resolution as a denial of the
request; and
WHEREAS, upon further discussion with staff and the Applicant, a follow-up motion was
made and approved (by 4-0 vote) to table this application item, with direction for city staff to work
with the Applicant and Councilmembers in attempt to resolve some outstanding site issues; and
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Mendota Heights City Council at the regular
meeting of December 15, 2020, whereby additional comments from the Applicant and general
public were allowed, and additional information was provided to the City Council for further
consideration.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that despite the additional information
provided by the Applicant, the Mendota Heights City Council declares the original
recommendation of denial by the Mendota Heights Planning Commission is hereby upheld and
affirmed, and the proposed Preliminary Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition”, along with the
related Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the property generally located NW
Quadrant of Victoria Curve & Glenhill Road, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-15 is
hereby denied, based on the modified findings-of-facts:
A. The grading and heavy construction activity necessary to achieve buildable areas
on grades less than eighteen (18) percent on the proposed lots endangers the safety
and welfare of adjoining properties as well as those below the proposed
page 97
development. There is an unjustifiable risk that erosion, landslides, or other
hydrological instability may occur.
B. The proposed subdivision plat is not consistent with rules and standards set by the
Critical Area Overlay District, and is not in compliance with the general goals and
policies of the city’s current and proposed comprehensive plan.
C. The proposed plat does not meet the overall purpose and intent of the Critical Area
Overlay District.
D. Per City Code Section 11-3-3, the City Council has the right to choose to approve
any proposed private common access for developments, and the Council hereby
declares the proposed private common access roadway is not consistent with the
general rules and standards of the city’s Subdivision Regulation Ordinance, and
therefore is not supported for approval under this plat application.
E. The proposed work and disturbance to construct the improvements related to this
new single-family plat development are deemed too significant, unreasonable, and
not within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District.
F. The proposed plat and the proposed work to install the necessary improvements,
including (but not limited to) the new private common access road, utilities,
stormwater pond, and new dwelling units is found to be a threat to the general
health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties due to unresolved soil
instability issues and impacts to the groundwater and increased stormwater runoff
created by this development.
G. This plat development is found to pose a threat and could cause potential
irreversible damage to this heavily wooded, natural and unique local area.
H. This plat and its related improvements are hereby found to be in an area susceptible
to soil erosion with restrictive soils, and is therefore unsuitable due to potential risk
of landslides, and damaging effects caused by flooding, inadequate drainage,
challenging soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development,
severe erosion potential due to loss of established trees and vegetation, unfavorable
topography that have been deemed to be likely harmful to the health, safety or
welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision, the neighboring
properties and/or the community in general.
I. The stubbed storm sewer can only accommodate a maximum discharge (Q) of 1.44
cubic feet per second (CFS). This plat and its related improvements show a
maximum discharge around 8.6 CFS, in excess of the amount that can be
accommodated. The proposed drainage for this plat is not suitable for the property
without a proper Minnesota Dept. of Transportation drainage permit.
J. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning
Case No. 2020-15, dated and presented on November 24, 2020 (on file with the
page 98
City of Mendota Heights), and the Planning Commission’s report recommending
denial of this preliminary plat are hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution.
K. The factual findings and analysis found in the Staff Reports and all other materials
submitted to the City Council with respect to this plat (on file with the City of
Mendota Heights), are hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 15th day of December, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 99
EXHIBIT-A
PID No. 27-81251-01-010 and
27-81251-00-010
Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot A, VALLEY VIEW OAK 2ND ADDITION, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
page 100
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020-82
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT (SUBDIVISION)
OF VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD ADDITION
WITH A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOCATED AT NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF
VICTORIA CURVE AND GLENHILL ROAD
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-15)
WHEREAS, Michelle Culligan (the “Applicant” / “Developer” / “Subdivider”) acting on
behalf of Larry and Mary Culligan (the “Owners”) applied for a new preliminary plat (subdivision)
of lands to be titled “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition,” which include consideration and approval
of a critical area permit and a conditional use permit, all for the property generally located at the
northwest quadrant of Victoria Curve and Glenhill Road (the “Subject Property”), and which is
legally described in attached Exhibit A: and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR -Low Density Residential in the current
2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, Title 11-1-1 of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations) allows the
subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the
applicable zoning district, and the Applicant requests to subdivide the Subject Property into six (6)
new parcels as proposed under a new subdivision plat titled “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition”; 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 any
new subdivision approval; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-3-14, the Applicant requests approval of Conditional
Use Permit to develop and disturb areas on slopes between 18% - 40% throughout the site; and
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this planning case matter, and whereupon concluding
the hearing, recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to deny the Preliminary Plat of Valley View
Oak 3rd Addition”, along with the related Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the
property generally located NW Quadrant of Victoria Curve & Glenhill Road, based on the
following finding-of-fact:
page 101
The proposed plat does not demonstrate that it meets Title 12-3-14:E. as noted below:
New Subdivision: For new subdivisions approved after September 1, 2006, the subdivider
shall be required to demonstrate that any newly created parcel will be able to support a
buildable area consistent with the underlying zoning regulations, on grades less than
eighteen percent (18%).
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2020, the Mendota Heights City Council conducted a
separate public hearing on this matter, receiving additional comment and testimony from the
Applicant and general public, all noted in the official public record, and based on such determined
that the Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed Preliminary Plat does meet the requirements
of Section 12-3-14:E.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
recommendation of denial by the Mendota Heights Planning Commission is hereby reversed, and
the proposed Preliminary Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition, along with the related Critical
Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the property generally located NW Quadrant of
Victoria Curve & Glenhill Road, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-15 is hereby
approved, based on the following findings of facts:
A. The proposed subdivision meets the general purpose and intent of Zoning Code and
Subdivision Codes of the City.
B. The proposed subdivision plat is consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan.
C. The proposed lots to be platted under the subdivision all meet or exceed the
minimum design standards required under the R-1 One Family Residential District.
D. The proposed private common access drive is an approved alternative to the
previously proposed public roadway design in the previous plat/plan submittals;
and the 100-ft. minimum lot width standard required for all new R-1 Zoned lots can
be made along this private common access, due to the dedication of this roadway
by easement and in favor of the City of Mendota Heights.
E. The City hereby approves the requested Conditional Use Permit and Critical Area
Permit for the subdivision plat and allowance for certain construction activities in
the Critical Area Overlay District based on the following added findings:
i.) The proposed subdivision plat and related improvements are consistent with
the intent of the critical area district and the comprehensive plan;
ii.) The proposed subdivision plat is compatible with uses in the immediate
vicinity;
iii.) The proposed subdivision plat is allowed under the applicable ordinances
of the city of Mendota Heights;
page 102
iv.) The proposed subdivision plat will not be detrimental to the health, safety
or general welfare of the community;
v.) The proposed subdivision plat will not cause serious traffic congestion nor
hazards, since there will only be three (3) homes served by the new
proposed private common access drive;
vi.) The proposed subdivision plat will not seriously depreciate surrounding
property value, as the proposed development will offer five (5) new homes
which will be high end custom homes, increasing property values and the
respective property taxes payable to the City; and
vii.) The proposed subdivision plat is in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan, and the proposed
single-family uses meet the R-1 zoning standards for the property.
F. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning
Case No. 2020-15, dated and presented on November 24, 2020 (on file with the
City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2020-
82.
G. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject
to this Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit, Critical Area Permit, as long as
those conditions are directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact
created by the development of this plat, Conditions related to this planning
application are as follows:
1) The Applicant/Developer shall pay a park dedication fee of $4,000 per unit
(5 lots x $4,000/unit = $20,000) to be collected prior to Final Plat being
recorded with Dakota County.
2) Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to
issuance of any building permits.
3) The final grading plan must be submitted to the City Public Works Director
prior to issuance of any grading or land disturbance permit.
4) Full erosion control plans and measures, including silt fence, bales and/or
bio-filtration rolls must be in place prior to any construction and maintained
throughout the duration of project.
5) The Private common access roadway and all public utilities shall have
approved profiles showing final street grades, horizontal curves, pipe
lengths, pipe slopes, pipe materials, and elevations to the satisfaction and
approval of the Public Works Director.
6) The final roadway improvement plans must be reviewed and approved by
the Public Works Director prior to start of any construction.
page 103
7) A SWPPP shall be developed for the project. Protected bluffs shall have a
double silt fence installed for added protection in these areas.
8) An NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit and
a Minnesota Dept. of Transportation drainage permit is required.
9) No structures, hard-surfaced improvements, or tree and vegetation removals
will be allowed within the 40-foot bluff impact zone buffer from the
delineated bluff edge.
10) The Developer shall deed the steep slopes to an established homeowners
association; or provide a permanent easement, conservation easement or
similar conveyance over and across the bluff area as recommended by the
Minnesota DNR Review Memo, dated Nov. 17, 2020. Small and discreet
“NOTICE - Bluff Protection Area” or similar signs will be installed along
the bluff edge to the rear yard areas of Lots 3, 4, and 5 of the plat. Any final
easement document must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
11) All new water service plans and related utility line installation shall be
reviewed and inspected by St. Paul Regional Water Service.
12) The proposed monument sign, if any, near the front entry must be reviewed
and approved under separate sign permit application to the city.
13) The contractor or builder of each new lot shall be required to submit a
separate critical area permit for each new (future) dwelling unit on each lot,
with survey/site plan showing final grading elevations, utility connections,
dimensioned site plan, and a landscape plan of any existing significant trees
of 6” or more, including the removals and replanting of new trees.
14) Each new home residential site must submit an “as-built” survey upon
completion of each individual dwelling construction to ensure all structures,
grades, driveways and other improvements were built according to
approved plans.
15) All grading and construction activity as part of the proposed development
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.
16) Future construction on the newly-created parcels will be compliant with all
applicable City Code and Building Code provisions
17) Construction hours for all construction activities are 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM
on weekdays, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekends. These work hours
shall be strictly enforced and adhered to by the Developer and all
contractors working on the subject property.
page 104
18) A Developer’s Agreement will be prepared by the City Attorney and
executed between the Applicant (Developer) and the City of Mendota
Heights.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of December, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_____________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 105
EXHIBIT-A
PID No. 27-81251-01-010 and
27-81251-00-010
LEGAL: Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot A, VALLEY VIEW OAK 2ND ADDITION, Dakota
County, Minnesota.
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
page 106
VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD ADDITION
City Council Meeting
December 15th, 2020
page 107
PREVIOUS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
page 108
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
page 109
KEY AREAS OF FOCUS
The proposed site plan has been modified as follows:
•Reduced density by 3 lots from originally proposed 8 lots to current 5 lots
•Removed all requested variances
•Narrower shared private driveway vs. public street to minimize disruption to trees and vegetation
•Drainage, utility and access easement provided for the private driveway
•Stormwater managed and routed to pond, away from Mendota, 36% reduction
•Geotechnical analysis supports stability of proposed project
•Conservative setback from bluff line achieves objectives of DNR recommended protection zone
•CUP request is consistent with neighboring properties
•New lots are able to support a buildable area on grades less than 18%
•Stormwater pond emergency overflow to south, away from Mendota
page 110
EXISTING CONDITIONS
page 111
LESS THAN 18% SLOPE
page 112
LESS THAN 18% SLOPE
page 113
<18% SLOPE –LOT 1
page 114
<18% SLOPE –LOT 2
page 115
<18% SLOPE –LOT 3
page 116
<18% SLOPE –LOT 4
page 117
<18% SLOPE –LOT 5
page 118
NEARBY DOUBLE WALKOUT
1242 CULLIGAN LANE
STREET VIEW
page 119
NEARBY DOUBLE WALKOUT
EXISTING HOME DESIGNED
ON 25% GRADE
page 120
NEARBY DOUBLE WALKOUT
1242 CULLIGAN LANE
page 121
EXAMPLE DOUBLE WALKOUT
GARAGE/1ST FLOOR
LOWER LEVEL 1
LOWER LEVEL 2
PHOTO COURTESTY OF EDWARDS
SMITH CONSTRUCTION
NOT TO REPRESENT FINAL HOUSE SIZE
page 122
EXAMPLE DOUBLE WALKOUT
2 STORY SPORT COURT
ON LOWER LEVEL 2
page 123
DNR LETTER OVERLAY
page 124
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
AND DRAINAGE
36% REDUCTION IN DRAINAGE AREA
page 125
UPDATED GRADING PLAN -POND
•New development reduces drainage to
Mendota by over 36%.
•New pond emergency overflow (EOF)
location ensures that stormwater
runoff from 100+ year storm events
will be routed onto Victoria Curve and
eventually to the nearby MnDOT pond
and will not flow down slope to
Mendota.
•In the early 1980’s, the existing
City/MnDOT storm sewer system was
specifically designed for Victoria
Curve and future development of the
Culligan parcel, anticipating up to 9
new homes.
page 126
GRADING PLAN -POND
page 127
SOIL BORING LOCATION MAP
page 128
SOILS AND SLOPE STABILITY
EXISTING BORINGS –STAGE 1 (INITIAL BORINGS FOR SLOPE STABILITY STUDY RESULTING IN
DETERMINATION OF 1.5 MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY )
ST-1A 61 feet deep, in Lot 1 house area
ST-2 25 feet deep, in Lot 1 house area
ST-3 26 feet deep, in private drive area
ST-4 61 feet deep, in private drive area
PROPOSED BORINGS –STAGE 2 (SUPPLEMENTAL BORINGS ON PADS, SLOPES AND POND)
ST-5 in Lot 5 house area to 50 feet to get to the 40+ BPF sand, 2.5 footers to 30 feet, 5-footers to 50 feet
ST-6 in Lot 4 house area to 130 feet or bedrock based on auger refusal, SPT 50 blows/6’’ or less, 2.5 footers
to 30 feet, 5-foooters to 60 feet, 10-footers to bottom of boring.
ST-7 in Lot 3 house area to 60 feet to get to 40+ BPF sand, 2.5 footers to 30 feet, 5 footers thereafter
ST-8 in Lot 2 house area to 40 feet, 2.5 footers to bottom
ST-9 at bottom of slope near property line to 50 feet, 2.5 footers to 40 feet, 5-footers to 50 feet
ST-10 at bottom of slope near property line to 40 feet, 2.5 footers to bottom
ST-11 at detention pond area dike to 40 feet, 2.5 footers to bottom
AFTER APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT, PRIOR TO THE SITE GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION, THE
STAGE 2 BORINGS WILL BE COMPLETED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE INITIAL FINDINGS OF MINIMUM
1.5 FACTOR OF SAFTEY FOR SLOPE STABILITY
page 129
SOILS AND SLOPE STABILITY
METHODOLOGY OF STAGE 2 BORING CRITERIA
•The borings in the house areas are for bearing capacity (design of foundations) and slope stability.
•The depths of the borings are intended to get to the higher blow count material found at depth.
•The deeper, 130-foot, boring is intended to extend from the top of the slope to the toe of the slope plus 20 feet, which
will provide confirmation of slope stability.
•The depth of the boring at the pond is intended to get to the higher blow count material for slope stability and
settlement from the embankment.
•The depths of the borings near the toe of the slope are intended to get to the higher blow count material and extend 10
to 20 feet below the toe of the slope.
•If auger or split spoon refusal is encountered at shallow depths, probably indicating bedrock, the borings will be
terminated at these depths because slope failures should not extend into bedrock because of the significantly higher
strengths.Failure planes could glance on the soil/bedrock interface, of which we will have sufficient information to
work with, based on auger or split spoon refusal.
page 130
SOILS AND SLOPE STABILITY
page 131
CONFORMING LOT FRONTAGE
page 132
BRYAN J. RIPP, PE, PG, CFM
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
EDUCATION
B.S., Geological Engineering
South Dakota School of Mines & Technology
M.S., Geological Engineering
University of Missouri – Rolla
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
Certified Floodplain Manager
No. US‐16‐09491
American Institute of Professional Geologists
No. CPG‐07800
AK Professional Geologist
No. 646
AR Professional Geologist
No. 995
IA Professional Engineer
No. 20959
ID Professional Engineer
No. P‐15524
IL Professional Engineer
No. 062045123
IL Professional Geologist
No. 196000873
IN Professional Engineer
No. PE10000145
MN Professional Engineer
No. 40232
MO Professional Engineer
No. 22771
MO Professional Geologist
No. 802
NC Professional Engineer
No. 40193
ND Professional Engineer
No. PE‐9910
NE Professional Engineer
No. E10132
OR Professional Engineer
No. 88130PE
PA Professional Engineer
No. PE081704
WI Professional Engineer
No. 33938‐6
Mr. Ripp has 35 years of nationwide and international experience in the engineering
properties of earth materials and geomorphic processes. His strong background in
earth sciences, engineering and construction provides a comprehensive approach
to the assessment and stabilization of soil and water resources.
RELAVANT LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION EXPERIENCE
Trout Run Trail Repair, Decorah IA – Lead Geotechnical Engineer for the repair
and restoration of Trout Run Trail, which is a major asset for the City of
Decorah. The repair consisted of excavating the trail down to the failure surface
and placing grid reinforced crushed stone with a drain along the rock face and
at the base of the fill. The repair was completed by the summer of 2018.
Upper D Street Failures, Mendota, MN The heavy rains of June, 2014 caused
the slope failure of Upper D Street at one location and a mudslide from upslope
to flow onto Upper D Street at another location. The mitigation for the failed
street was removal of the failed and slide susceptible soil and replacing it with
geogrid reinforced crushed stone and sand. For the mudslide area, a
cantilevered sheet pile wall with drained sand backfill was constructed.
Scott County CSAH 6 Landslide, Blakeley, MN The slide, which was about 800
feet along CSAH 6 and up to 90 feet high has been an ongoing maintenance
issue with the County. The primary mitigation iincluded directionally‐drilled
drains at the base of and behind the interpreted slide mass. Secondary
mitigation elements include French drains to collect near‐surface groundwater.
Double Ditch Indian Village Slide, Bismarck, ND – Several slides have occurred
along the Missouri River and have exposed at least 14 Indian grave sites since
2012. Final mitigation included installation of pipe piles and regrading.
Henderson Slope Instability Reconnaissance, Henderson, MN The heavy
rains of May‐June of 2014 caused numerous mudslides along several creeks and
slopes in and around Henderson. Mr. Ripp conducted a reconnaissance of those
areas and constructed maps of the instabilities. In a report, he presented a
summary of the instabilities as well as the interpreted causes and a triage of
mitigation options. The City will use this work and determine a capital
improvement plan of mitigating these instabilities.
Canyon Road Mudslide, Chaska, MN The apparently naturally‐steep slope
behind a residence along Canyon Road failed after the heavy rains of June,
2014. Mr. Ripp oversaw the exploration, laboratory testing and stability
analyses of the slope. The mitigation proposed was drilled and launched soil
nailing with a reinforced vegetative cover. The City is currently pursuing
funding options for the mitigation.
.
1
page 135
3
CONTENTS
Introduction
Our Services
Market Sectors
About Us
Contact
4
6
12
18
20
page 136
5
WE'RE THE SCIENCE
BEHIND YOUR SUCCESS.
“Braun Intertec provided creative,
timely, and cost-effective solutions.”
Lois Eberhart, Water Resources Regulatory Administrator,
City of Minneapolis
We’re here to provide the science
you need, at the intersection
where your problems meet our
solutions.
WHAT KIND OF SCIENCE DO YOU NEED?
Our science happens because of our people. Our employee-
owners approach every project with an entrepreneurial spirit and
rich expertise in their field. At Braun Intertec, we offer more than
100 different services, and experience across a wide range of
industries. We match that expertise and commitment to quality
with a collaborative mindset to deliver the science you need to be
successful.
We’re collaborators with the passion to build innovations that
solve your problems. We show it by providing quality solutions and
recommendations to your engineering, environmental, design and
testing challenges. We’ve built a trusted reputation by delivering
results that have made us the consultant of choice across industry
and state lines.
Our labs are full of devices and tests we’ve custom built because
a client had a problem no one encountered before. Braun Intertec
delivers innovative thinking on scope, on schedule, and on budget
so you can have the science you need and know that the job is
being done right.
page 137
76
We specialize in the following
service areas:
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
A strong foundation starts with a thorough understanding of soils and site characteristics. The
geotechnical engineering team at Braun Intertec offers a wide range of resources including extensive
professional experience to discover the mechanics of soil and rock for any project. Our highly trained
team of engineers and field technicians provide site exploration and testing services, anticipate potential
project problems and provide strategic recommendations. Plus, we have a full service, in-house
geotechnical and materials testing laboratory to give your team greater control over testing schedules
and project reports. Additionally, we are adding new technical service areas and expanding our existing
service areas.
• Deep Foundations
• Geostructural
Engineering
• In-Situ Testing
• Instrumentation
• Pavement
• Slope Stability
CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS TESTING
With our long history and extensive
staff expertise, Braun Intertec provides
construction materials testing services to
a broad range of developers, contractors,
consultants, municipalities, agencies and
corporations. You’ll find our expertise on
many monumental structures, including
the Mall of America, Target Field, Cedar
Rapids Library, Waste Water Treatment
Plant in the City of Galveston, TX, the
Hess Gas Plant in Tioga, ND, and the
METRO Green Line in Minneapolis, MN.
We work closely with your team early in
the process to anticipate and minimize
potential problems that could result in
costly project delays, and help you work
toward targeted solutions.
OUR
SERVICES
DRILLING
Drilling has been at the core of our services from the
beginning. Using a large, diversified fleet of drill rigs,
we provide a wide range of soil, rock, environmental
and contract drilling services on nearly any terrain,
including over water. Because we have an in-house
fleet of rigs, we offer advanced cost estimating
abilities, greater scheduling control and dedicated
time to the job. Our drilling staff puts safety first and
regularly trains to advance their knowledge of safety,
soils classification and drilling techniques.
page 138
98
From site selection and planning, to design
and construction, to operations and property
management, Braun Intertec is a trusted
adviser to dozens of public entities and private
clients across the nation for environmental
concerns. At Braun Intertec, we take
pride in our multi-faceted and practical
approach to environmental consulting. Our
geologists, hydrologists, engineers and
scientists maintain a clear understanding
of your business objectives as we develop
solutions and help you navigate complicated
environmental issues.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING
Our environmental
consulting services
include:
• Due Diligence
• Remediation Design
and Implementation
• Environmental Management
• Natural Resources Management
“Braun Intertec is the
most trusted, responsive
and professional
environmental firm that
we use. They deliver
quality services on-time
and under budget.”
Don Theisen, Director
Washington County, Minnesota Public Works
BUILDING SCIENCES
The Braun Intertec Building Sciences team supports
contractors, owners, architects, engineers and
attorneys in evaluating the performance of buildings
and structures as an independent third party firm.
Our ultimate goal is to attain a building that performs
in the way it was designed. To do this, our team
works to listen, evaluate and focus on your specific
project needs. We offer testing, inspection and
consulting services related to building materials,
structures and operation of buildings. Through our
experience in conducting forensic services, we have
deep knowledge in the areas of material performance,
service life, constructability and causes for building
and material failures.
STRUCTURES EVALUATION
Our staff of professional engineers, scientists
and technicians has the knowledge and depth of
experience to support your needs as it relates to
concrete consulting, nondestructive testing and
structural consulting. With expertise ranging from
understanding concrete material interactions to
assessing and evaluating structures to performing
nondestructive testing for more targeted results,
we can help you meet the scope and specifications
required for your project. Our customized solutions
allow us to help you make informed decisions about
the future of your structure.
page 139
1110
NONDESTRUCTIVE
EXAMINATION
The Braun Intertec Nondestructive Examination (NDE) group has earned a reputation for
providing high-quality services on a wide range of projects. We have of helping clients
meet project expectations in the petrochemical, mining, power generation, pipeline,
aerospace, automotive, manufacturing, fabrication and construction industries. We
maintain the largest NDE staff in the upper Midwest and continue to expand our NDE
services throughout the United States through our qualified technicians.
“Braun Intertec provides seasoned experts
who work hard to earn the respect of others
in the design studio and on the job site. I have
found that they recommend the right level of
inspections and services to complete the project.”
Dan Mehls, Vice President, Mortenson Construction GEOSPATIAL
Our geospatial operations team, trained in specialized software and hardware, provides clients Computer
Aided Drafting (CAD), Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and
Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) services. Our specialists deliver creative and dynamic solutions, leveraging
our vast array of data resources (both spatial and non-spatial) into intelligent, searchable, centralized and
distributable applications for our clients. We select technologies that best capture, integrate and deliver
accurate geospatial data.
MATERIALS LABORATORY
Braun Intertec has several materials laboratories in our office locations throughout the United States as
well as mobile labs that we can place directly on site to support your projects. Our laboratories are AMRL-
accredited with several validated by the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), and our laboratory
located in Minneapolis, Minnesota is ISO 17025 accredited. We have the capabilities to tackle small projects,
large multi-year projects, and research projects for national companies and governmental agencies.
UNMANNED AERIAL
SYSTEMS SERVICES
The Braun Intertec Geospatial Operations
group offers Unmanned Aerial Systems
services. Utilizing advancements in Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles (UAV, or “drone”), onboard
sensors, and data processing software, our
team can deploy, collect, and deliver advanced
forms of imagery and geospatial data. To
conform to current regulations and maintain
the highest level of safety standards, our
services are authorized by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), insured, and operated by
licensed pilots.
page 140
1312
MARKET
SECTORS
RETAIL
Whether performing pre-construction surveys prior to
construction of a new mall, conducting pavement analysis
on parking lots for big-box retailers or evaluating roofing
systems for potential leaks, Braun Intertec works with some
of the world’s largest retailers. We’ll bring our first-class
reputation and expertise to your retail construction needs
including: geotechnical engineering, environmental consulting
and construction materials testing. Additionally, we can
provide integrated pavement design and management plans
for your parking lot and ramp construction.
UTILITIES
Braun Intertec has consulted on a myriad of energy-related projects including transmission lines, natural
gas plants, coal plants and renewable energy facilities such as wind, solar and hydro power. With our
extensive experience in the energy sector, we’ll work closely with your team to provide solid geotechnical
engineering, environmental consulting and material testing services. Our team is well-versed in current
and proposed government regulatory policies, including the Clean Power Plan (CPP) and the Combustible
Coal Residue (CCR) regulations. We can help you evaluate the impact of these regulations on your existing
facilities and effectively develop cost-efficient compliance strategies to meet these regulations.
COMMERCIAL
Whether you are building a large
distribution center on the outskirts of
town or a high-rise office building in
the heart of downtown, Braun Intertec
understands the challenges associated
with commercial construction. From
providing geotechnical to environmental
to testing solutions, our ability to both
identify issues and offer solutions has
made us a trusted partner on commercial
construction projects.
page 141
1514
Braun Intertec partners with clients across the United
States to build and maintain the infrastructure needed for
obtaining, collecting and processing oil and gas-related
products. Whether we are performing a geotechnical
evaluation on a new well pad, construction materials
testing on a rail load-out facility, weld inspections on miles
of pipeline or API services on an existing refinery, our
dedicated staff rise to meet the needs and challenges of
the oil and gas industry.
OUR OIL & GAS SERVICES
INCLUDE:
• Support for the growing Liquid
Natural Gas (LNG) industry
• Spill prevention control, spill response,
environmental support and regulatory
compliance services
• Geotechnical evaluations and
construction material testing services
for well pads, pipelines, railways and a
variety of oil and gas facilities
• Radiography, ultrasonic, magnetic
particle, liquid penetrant testing,
phased array and API inspections for
pipelines and fixed facilities
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
At Braun Intertec, our geotechnical engineers and flood protection specialists can work with
you to perform compliance determinations on existing flood control or water containment
structures or assist with the design of new structures. We are ready to support you in creating
a pre-flood plan, deploying and working by your side during a flood event and reassessing your
site in a post-flood after-action study.
From a construction perspective, our engineers and technicians can provide on-site
observation and material testing. We are also able to provide value engineering services and
can assist you with the design and implementation of temporary excavation retention systems.
RESIDENTIAL
Braun Intertec has extensive experience working with developers of single-family, multi-
family, and senior housing. From performing environmental due diligence during site selection,
to geotechnical site evaluations and materials testing during construction, to forensic
investigations in existing housing units, we’ll work with you throughout each phase of your
residential project. Delivering added value to each of your projects is a top priority for
Braun Intertec.
MINING
We have worked on mining projects across the upper Midwest and western states to become
a trusted industry partner, helping our clients get their products to market. We offer a breadth
of mining services that include: geotechnical engineering, drilling, construction materials
testing, environmental consulting, building sciences and structures evaluation.
OIL & GAS
“We pride ourselves on service
and experience when it
comes to oil and gas projects,
with safety as our number
one priority.”
Ken Haag, Vice President of Oil & Gas, Braun Intertec
page 142
1716
Whether you are constructing a new stretch
of railroad tracks, resurfacing a heavily used
county road, just starting out on a design-
build bridge project or planning a new highway
alignment, Braun Intertec can help you with
your project from start to finish. Throughout
the U.S., our services on transportation
projects range from geotechnical evaluations,
materials testing and pavement analysis
engineering, to environmental assessments
and right-of-way due diligence.
“Our experience
extends beyond
roads and bridges.
You’ll also see our
consultation work
on numerous air,
rail and port projects.”
Jeff Gebhard, Vice President, Braun Intertec
Our transportation project
experience includes:
• Heavy rail
• Design-Build
• Transit
• State Department of Transportation
• Local, County and State Aid Highway
• Aviation
• Ports
INSTITUTIONAL
Schools, libraries, museums and
stadiums are important parts of our
communities – these institutions are
where we learn, read, and cheer on our
favorite teams. Braun Intertec works with
facility managers, architects, general
contractors and property owners to
provide innovative solutions for new
and existing structures. We provide a
range of services to institutional clients,
including environmental site assessments,
geotechnical engineering, building
envelope testing, and special inspections.
INDUSTRIAL &
AGRICULTURE
We provide services to help agribusiness
and industrial companies assess and
maintain a variety of facilities, such as
chemical manufacturing plants, grain
elevators and food production facilities.
Our team of concrete and structural
steel experts and construction testing
technicians deliver value to property
owners, architects, engineering firms
and general contractors by improving
agribusiness facilities or building
industrial plants.
TRANSPORTATION
HEALTHCARE
Healthcare facilities are evolving. As
communities grow and clinics and
hospitals require more space, there
is a need for additional buildings,
expansions and new parking structures
to accommodate the demands of
healthcare delivery and patient care.
Braun Intertec understands the
changing infrastructure needs of
your healthcare facilities. We provide
drilling, environmental and geotechnical
engineering, materials testing for new
state-of-the-art facilities, as well as
building evaluations and industrial
hygiene services for existing structures.
page 143
1918
Our employee-owner culture
is a driver of our success.
100% EMPLOYEE-OWNED
At Braun Intertec, our employees own the company through an Employee
Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). Our employee-owner culture is a driver
of our success. We have a financial stake in the company and have an
interest in delivering quality services to our clients. The ESOP model is
supported by developing programs that compensate, communicate to
and inspire others to “think and act like owners.” We work to build a
community of employee-owners through project collaboration, team-
building events and charitable event participation.
SAFETY
Braun Intertec places its top priority on protecting the health and safety
of its employee-owners. We lead continuous improvement initiatives
related to our safety processes, procedures and culture. Braun Intertec
invests in safety by providing extensive employee safety training and
development, enforcing safe operating procedures, using quality safety
equipment and engaging our employee-owners in actively focusing on
safety first, every day.
QUALITY
Quality is key to client satisfaction at Braun Intertec. Our goal is to
deliver the highest quality to our clients on every project. We strive
to continuously improve our processes and deliver quality services to
our clients by utilizing an active quality team that includes employee-
owners from around the company. We value employee input and support
involvement in our continual improvement efforts. From our quality
management system to routine quality audits, quality is an important
priority at Braun Intertec.
BRAUN INTERTEC
FOUNDATION
Giving back to our communities is
important to our employee-owners. We
are proud to support STEM Education
through programs such as J.S. Braun/
Braun Intertec Professorship of Science
and Technology at the University of
Minnesota, Math Counts, and Gateway
to Science Museum; Environmental
Advocacy by supporting Great River
Greening, Adopt-A-Highway, and The
Trust for Public Land; and Local Human
Services such as Aeon affordable
housing, Brain Tumor 5k Run/Walk, and
an Annual Food Drive. We believe these
charitable giving priorities are a vital
part of giving back to our professions
as well as our communities.
HISTORY
In 1957, Jack Braun founded the
company that is now known as
Braun Intertec out of his home in a
Minneapolis suburb. His entrepreneurial
spirit and dedicated leadership helped
the company to grow and expand its
service offerings to numerous clients
in the public and private sector. Today,
Braun Intertec is a leading engineering,
environmental, design and testing firm.
As we continue to build relationships
in emerging markets and recruit new
talent, we never lose sight of our
humble beginnings and the many strong
and supportive relationships we’ve
formed along the journey. We aspire
to be the consultant of choice. Each
employee-owner is dedicated to making
this a reality every day through our
client and business partnerships.
page 144
Montana
1 Helena
North Dakota
2 Williston
3 Minot
4 Dickinson
5 Bismarck
6 West Fargo
Minnesota
7 Hibbing
8 Duluth
9 Saint Cloud
10 Saint Paul
11 Minneapolis
12 Mankato
13 Rochester
Wisconsin
14 La Crosse
Wyoming
15 Big Horn
Iowa
16 Des Moines
17 Cedar Rapids
Kansas/Missouri
18 Topeka
19 Kansas City
20 St. Louis
Texas
21 Amarillo
22 Lubbock
23 Wichita Falls
24 Texarkana
25 Plano
26 Fort Worth
27 Arlington
28 Dallas
29 Tyler
30 Austin
31 Houston
32 Beaumont
33 San Antonio
34 Texas City
35 La Porte
36 Corpus Christi
Arkansas
37 Hot Springs
Louisiana
38 Lake Charles
39 Lafayette
OFFICE LOCATIONS
Braun Intertec Offices
Affiliate Offices
WE'RE READY
TO HELP YOU.
3938
37
36
35
3433
3231
30
29
282726
25
24
2322
21
201918
1716
15
141312
11 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
32
1
OFFICE LOCATIONS
Montana
1 Helena
North Dakota
2 Willisto n
3 Minot
4 Dickinson
5 Bismarck
6 We st Fa rg o
Minnesota
7 Hibbing
8 Duluth
9 Saint Cloud
10 Saint Paul
11 Minneapolis
12 Mankato
13 Roches ter
Wisconsin
14 La Crosse
Wyoming
15 Big Horn
Iowa
16 Des Moines
17 Ce dar Rapids
Kansas/Missouri
18 To peka
19 Kansas City
St. Louis
Te xas
Amarillo
Lubbock
Wichita Fa lls
Te xarkana
Allen
Fort Wo rth
Arlingto n
Dallas
Ty ler
Austin
Housto n
Beaumont
San Anto nio
Te xas City
La Po rte
Co rpus Christi
Arkansas
Hot Springs
Louisiana
Lake Charles
Lafayette
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
39
38
37
36
35
Where Braun Intertec is Licensed Plus Oce Locations
3938
37
36
35
3433
3231
30
29
282726
25
24
2322
21
201918
1716
15
141312
11 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
32
1
Montana
1 Helena
Nor th Dakota
2 Willisto n
3 Minot
4 Dickinson
5 Bismarck
6 We st Fa rgo
Minnesota
7 Hibbing
8 Duluth
9 Saint Cloud
10 Saint Paul
11 Minneapolis
12 Mankato
13 Rocheste r
Wisconsin
14 La Crosse
Wyoming
15 Big Horn
Iowa
16 Des Moines
17 Ce dar Rapids
Kansas/Missouri
18 To peka
19 Kansas City
St. Louis
Te xas
Amarillo
Lubbock
Wichita Fa lls
Te xarkana
Plano
Fort Wo rth
Arlington
Dallas
Ty ler
Austin
Housto n
Beaumont
San Anto nio
Te xas City
La Porte
Co rpus Christi
Arkansas
Hot Springs
Louisiana
Lake Charles
Lafayette
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
39
38
37
36
35
page 145
WE’RE GROWING IN THE SOUTH.
Braun Intertec is pleased to announce it has acquired
W&M Environmental Group, LLC (W&M), a Texas-
based environmental consulting firm. W&M brings
a team of experienced environmental consultants,
known for successfully managing projects, in fact,
their motto is, “We Get Projects Done.”
The deal, effective September 30, 2018, added more
than 50 team members skilled in environmental
consulting to Braun Intertec. Founded in 1995, W&M
has extensive experience at project sites across the
Lone Star State. W&M has offices in: Austin, Corpus
Christi, Fort Worth, Houston, Lubbock, Plano and San
Antonio.
Braun Intertec clients will benefit from W&M’s
strong environmental management, compliance and
permitting capabilities and experience. The addition
of W&M will enhance the firm’s environmental
management and remediation service offerings
to energy, industrial and development clients
nationwide.
As we expand our ability to support clients in new
geographic areas, we have sought opportunities to
add talent that enhances our services. We continue
to strive to be the consultant of choice for our clients
and employer of choice for our employee owners.
For more information about W&M, visit
www.wh-m.com.
“We’re pleased to
be joining a highly
respected employee-
owned company that
values building long-
term client relationships.
Together, we can offer
a variety of services to
meet the needs of our
clients, many of whom
we share, in Texas and
beyond.”
Gene Murray, Managing Partner
page 146
855.995.4669
braunintertec.com
info@braunintertec.com
page 147
VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD ADDITION
City Council Meeting
December 15th, 2020
PREVIOUS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
KEY AREAS OF FOCUS
The proposed site plan has been modified as follows:
•Reduced density by 3 lots from originally proposed 8 lots to current 5 lots
•Removed all requested variances
•Narrower shared private driveway vs. public street to minimize disruption to trees and vegetation
•Drainage, utility and access easement provided for the private driveway
•Stormwater managed and routed to pond, away from Mendota, 36% reduction
•Geotechnical analysis supports stability of proposed project
•Conservative setback from bluff line achieves objectives of DNR recommended protection zone
•CUP request is consistent with neighboring properties
•New lots are able to support a buildable area on grades less than 18%
•Stormwater pond emergency overflow to south, away from Mendota
EXISTING CONDITIONS
LESS THAN 18% SLOPE
LESS THAN 18% SLOPE
<18% SLOPE –LOT 1
<18% SLOPE –LOT 2
<18% SLOPE –LOT 3
<18% SLOPE –LOT 4
<18% SLOPE –LOT 5
NEARBY DOUBLE WALKOUT
1242 CULLIGAN LANE
STREET VIEW
NEARBY DOUBLE WALKOUT
EXISTING HOME DESIGNED
ON 25% GRADE
NEARBY DOUBLE WALKOUT
1242 CULLIGAN LANE
EXAMPLE DOUBLE WALKOUT
GARAGE/1ST FLOOR
LOWER LEVEL 1
LOWER LEVEL 2
PHOTO COURTESTY OF EDWARDS
SMITH CONSTRUCTION
NOT TO REPRESENT FINAL HOUSE SIZE
EXAMPLE DOUBLE WALKOUT
2 STORY SPORT COURT
ON LOWER LEVEL 2
DNR LETTER OVERLAY
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
AND DRAINAGE
36% REDUCTION IN DRAINAGE AREA
UPDATED GRADING PLAN -POND
•New development reduces drainage to
Mendota by over 36%.
•New pond emergency overflow (EOF)
location ensures that stormwater
runoff from 100+ year storm events
will be routed onto Victoria Curve and
eventually to the nearby MnDOT pond
and will not flow down slope to
Mendota.
•In the early 1980’s, the existing
City/MnDOT storm sewer system was
specifically designed for Victoria
Curve and future development of the
Culligan parcel, anticipating up to 9
new homes.
GRADING PLAN -POND
SOIL BORING LOCATION MAP
SOILS AND SLOPE STABILITY
EXISTING BORINGS –STAGE 1 (INITIAL BORINGS FOR SLOPE STABILITY STUDY RESULTING IN
DETERMINATION OF 1.5 MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY )
ST-1A 61 feet deep, in Lot 1 house area
ST-2 25 feet deep, in Lot 1 house area
ST-3 26 feet deep, in private drive area
ST-4 61 feet deep, in private drive area
PROPOSED BORINGS –STAGE 2 (SUPPLEMENTAL BORINGS ON PADS, SLOPES AND POND)
ST-5 in Lot 5 house area to 50 feet to get to the 40+ BPF sand, 2.5 footers to 30 feet, 5-footers to 50 feet
ST-6 in Lot 4 house area to 130 feet or bedrock based on auger refusal, SPT 50 blows/6’’ or less, 2.5 footers
to 30 feet, 5-foooters to 60 feet, 10-footers to bottom of boring.
ST-7 in Lot 3 house area to 60 feet to get to 40+ BPF sand, 2.5 footers to 30 feet, 5 footers thereafter
ST-8 in Lot 2 house area to 40 feet, 2.5 footers to bottom
ST-9 at bottom of slope near property line to 50 feet, 2.5 footers to 40 feet, 5-footers to 50 feet
ST-10 at bottom of slope near property line to 40 feet, 2.5 footers to bottom
ST-11 at detention pond area dike to 40 feet, 2.5 footers to bottom
AFTER APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT, PRIOR TO THE SITE GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION, THE
STAGE 2 BORINGS WILL BE COMPLETED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE INITIAL FINDINGS OF MINIMUM
1.5 FACTOR OF SAFTEY FOR SLOPE STABILITY
SOILS AND SLOPE STABILITY
METHODOLOGY OF STAGE 2 BORING CRITERIA
•The borings in the house areas are for bearing capacity (design of foundations) and slope stability.
•The depths of the borings are intended to get to the higher blow count material found at depth.
•The deeper, 130-foot, boring is intended to extend from the top of the slope to the toe of the slope plus 20 feet, which
will provide confirmation of slope stability.
•The depth of the boring at the pond is intended to get to the higher blow count material for slope stability and
settlement from the embankment.
•The depths of the borings near the toe of the slope are intended to get to the higher blow count material and extend 10
to 20 feet below the toe of the slope.
•If auger or split spoon refusal is encountered at shallow depths, probably indicating bedrock, the borings will be
terminated at these depths because slope failures should not extend into bedrock because of the significantly higher
strengths.Failure planes could glance on the soil/bedrock interface, of which we will have sufficient information to
work with, based on auger or split spoon refusal.
SOILS AND SLOPE STABILITY
CONFORMING LOT FRONTAGE
DATE: December 15, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Start Time
Comment:
Introduction:
The Council is asked to discuss and determine the starting time for its regular meetings.
Background:
In August, 2020, the City Council made a decision that, as of January 1, 2021, its regular meetings would
begin at 5:00 PM. Recently, starting times have been 6:00 PM.
Since that time, a new Mayor has been elected, and the makeup of the City Council itself has changed, with
a new member of the City Council is set to be appointed on December 15th. Once that decision is made,
the Council will need to determine if a change in the approved starting time is warranted—it will be one
which will need to work for the new member. This assumes, of course, that the new member will be
determined following the interviews which are to be held on December 14th.
One other consideration of a starting time is that most of the NDC 4 camera operators have daytime jobs,
and City staff has been advised that a 5 PM start will create problems for the operators being able to arrive
in time for set up. While NDC 4 may be able to occasionally accommodate an earlier time, their preference
is to keep at minimum a 6 PM start.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that it the new Council appointee should be consulted, and then report to Council
possible time considerations. The Council should then determine when the starting time should be,
effective with the first regular meeting on January 12th.
According to City Code 1-5-3 A, a change in meeting start time should be made by resolution. If a
change is desired, the resolution should be adopted.
Action Required:
If the City Council wants to change from the planned 5:00 PM starting time on the first and third
Tuesdays of the month beginning in January, it should adopt the following resolution:
Resolution 2020-88
A Resolution Establishing the Starting Time
of Regular Meetings of the City Council
page 148
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020 - 88
A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE STARTING TIME FOR REGULAR
MEETINGS OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, on August 4th, 2020, the City Council approved resolution 2020-45, which changed
the starting time for the regular meetings of the City Council from 6:00 PM, to 5:00 PM, to become
effective January 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, since adoption of Resolution 2020-45, there have been changes in the make-up of
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City has also become aware of potential staffing difficulties that would be seen
by the individuals who cablecast the meetings, if a time earlier than 6:00 PM is adopted; and
WHEREAS, a change to 6:00 PM would better accommodate the schedules of the members of
the City Council and technical staff; and
WHEREAS, Section 1-5-3(A)(1) of the Mendota Heights City Code requires that any changes to
the City Council’s regular meeting time shall be established by a resolution of the Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter,
and desires to change the starting time of regular City Council meetings to 6:00 P.M.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights that the starting time of regular City Council meetings held on the first and third
Tuesdays of the month shall be changed to 6:00 P.M. and shall remain so until future action is taken by
the City Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this change shall be January 1, 2021.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 15th day of December, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 149