2012-02-09 Council Worksession Goal Settting
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
NOTICE OF A SPECIAL MEETING
Mendota Heights City Council
February 9, 2012
The City of Mendota Heights will hold a special meeting on February 9, 2012
at 9:00 a.m. in the large conference room. The meeting will take place at City Hall
located at 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118.
The purpose of the special meeting is to conduct the annual goal setting work session.
The mayor and the full city council will be present at the work session.
CITY OF-MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
GOAL SETTING WORKSHOP
February 9, 2012 — 9:00 a.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. 2012 City Council Goal Setting
a. Public Works/Engineering
i. Surface Water Management Plan — pg. 2
ii. Street Assessment Policy and Project Process — pg. 4
iii. Review of Infrastructure Management Plans — pg. 15
iv. Emerald Ash Borer Management pg. 16
b. Public Safety
i. Pedestrian Safety at Dodd Road and Highway 110 — pg. 17
ii. Social Host Ordinance — pg. 20
iii. Deer Control — pg. 21
c. Planning
i. Commercial Property Maintenance Requirements — pg. 23
ii. Code Enforcement of Residential Property Standards — pg. 24
iii. Special Events Permits — pg. 34
d. Parks and Recreation
L Halloween Bonfire Site — pg. 35
ii. 25th Anniversary — Parks Celebration — pg. 36
iii. MHAA Partnerships — pg. 37
e. Economic Development
L Development/Redevelopment Opportunities — pg. 39
ii. Future of Old Fire Hall Site/Fischerville — pg. 41
f. Financial
i. 2013 Budget Direction — pg. 42
ii. Tuition Reimbursement Policy — pg. 44
g. Miscellaneous
1 Mayor Mertensotto Landmark Designation — pg. 48
11 City Council Workshops — pg. 49
h. Other City Council Initiated Items
3. Adjourn
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
_- - 651452.1850:phone 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota•heights.com
CITY OF
MENDDTA HEIGHTS
DATE: February 9, 2012
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator
SUBJECT: 2012 City Council Goal Setting Workshop
1
BACKGROUND
Over the past several months staff has been collecting items identified as possible 2012 city
council goals. Attached to this report you will find brief reports on each item which hopefully
provide the council with background on the current status of the issue as well as any other
pertinent information that staff believes will assist the city council.
The items are grouped into the following areas:
® Public Works/Engineering
® Public Safety
® Planning
® Parks and Recreation
® Economic Development
• Financial
® Miscellaneous
It is staff's intent to not necessarily try to solve or come to conclusion on each of these issues
during this workshop, but rather to help the city council identify which ones the council sees as
important enough to identify as key initiatives for this year. Once those issues have been
determined, staff will compile a final 2012 City Council Goals document so that the city council,
staff, and the general public can monitor our progress.
RECOMMENDATION
No faunal action is being recommended during this workshop, but staff will be seeking direction
on the various items identified throughout this report.
2
CITY-OF MENDOTA.REIGIITS ..
MEMO
DATE: February 9, 2012
TO: Mayor, City Council -and City - Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP — Public Works Director /City Enginee
SUBJECT: Rogers Lake & Surface Water Management
Background
Rogers Lake is one of three water bodies in Mendota Heights classified as a lake by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Along with Augusta Lake and LeMay Lake,
Rogers lake makes up a significant portion of the surface water in the City. Residents around
Rogers Lake have been concerned for many years about weed and algae growth in the lake,
particularly in the late sumrner months. Residents have asked the City to remove the weeds (or at
least a portion of them) each of the past three years. A group of Rogers Lake residents is
currently attempting to form an association that would collect dues and contribute a portion of
the wed control fees in future years.
In addition to the three lakes in the City, there are also 96 stormwater treatment ponds. In 2011
the City hired a consultant to assess the condition of three ponds: Copperfield, Burrows, and
Park Place. These ponds were selected to provide data on a cross section of pond location and
size to assist staff in developing a future plan for stormwater pond maintenance. The consultant
found that all three ponds had sufficient volume capacity to adequately treat the stormwater
runoff from their respective watersheds. Park Place Pond was the closest pond to borderline
status, and the consultant identified that there was sediment that needed to be removed around
the pond inlet to increase the pond's volume.
Pond condition has been an issue with residents for several years. The principle concern of
residents is the vegetative growth in the ponds (weeds, algae, etc.). The City's efforts in
developing a maintenance plan do not include the aesthetics of the ponds. The City's
responsibility for maintaining a stormwater treatment system is based solely on water quality and
quantity of runoff.
Discussion
The past three years of weed control efforts in Rogers Lake may be having an impact on water
quality in the lake. Through the Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program (CAMP), and water
quality test results from Saint Thomas Academy, the total phosphorous levels in the lake are
increasing slightly after several years of decline or no change. The data received this spring from
the Saint Thomas Academy Environmental Studies class will provide further information, and
whether or not this is a trend to be concerned about. Plant growth consumes phosphorus, so by
removing weeds, either mechanically or chemically, the consumption of the nutrient goes down.
,I cweed-temQ..va1 continues, the amount of chemical nutrients going into Rogers Lake should be
reduced.
In 2010, the proposed Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permit for municipal
stormwater was going to be modified to include a stormwater pond maintenance plan as a
prerequisite to obtaining the new permit. The State Legislature delayed implementation of the
new permit, specifically due to the pond maintenance plan requirement. The new permit is still
anticipated within the next year -or two, but the pond maintenance plan component may. .or. may _
not be included. Pond condition (aesthetics, vegetative growth, etc.) continues to be an issue for
residents, particularly in the late summer months.
Recommendation
Provide staff with Council's thoughts on any actions desired pertaining to Rogers Lake, surface
water issues, or stormwater pond maintenance.
%41';-,,NAAV :WSW
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
DATE: February 9, 2012
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP — Public Works Director/City Engineu,...,
SUBJECT: Street Assessment Policy & Project Process
Policy Background
The city originally adopted its street reconstruction/rehabilitation policy in June of 1992. This
policy established the standards by which streets in the City of Mendota Heights are to be built
and funded. General policy statements in the approved policy include:
1. Project costs shall include the cost of construction plus engineering, legal, financing,
easement acquisition and contingency costs.
2. Assessable costs are project costs minus the City and County share and other credits.
MSA funds will not be credited to offset assessments.
3. Special assessments will be levied as soon as practical. Normally this will be within one
year after completion of the project.
4. Publicly owned properties, including municipal building sites, schools, parks, County,
State and Federal sites, but not including public streets and alleys, are assessable on the
same basis as privately owned property.
5. Revenue sources for these types of improvements may include assessments, MSA Funds,
infrastructure replacement funds and general tax levies.
6. The Engineering Department shall rate the condition of streets. This rating will be used to
determine priority of street improvements in the City's 5 Year Street Improvement Plan.
The City will generally improve streets that have the highest priority first.
Definitions:
The adopted policy also established definitions of standard te iiis to be used when discussing
street reconstruction and rehabilitation projects:
1. Reconstruction — A project where many or all meaningful elements of an existing street
are being removed and replaced
2. Rehabilitation — A project where one or more element of an existing street is modified or
improved in place.
3. Preventative Maintenance — Work on an existing street that involves less than a
reconstruction or rehabilitation project
4. Rural Section Street — A street without curb, gutter, and storm sewer or otherwise does
not meet City standards for width or thickness.
5. Urban Section Street — A street with curb, gutter, and storm sewer that meets City
standards for width and thickness.
4
Construction Standards:
The adopted City policy established parameters for street construction, reconstruction, and
rehabilitation. Policy statements on these standards include:
1. As rural street sections are not considered desirable, no City funding assistance shall be
available for reconstruction or rehabilitation of Waal section streets.
2. It is the City desire to upgrade rural street sections to urban street sections where possible.
3. For streets that are rehabilitated and already an urban design, the City shall finance 50 %
of rehabilitation costs.
4. When an urban street is reconstructed all of the reconstruction costs shall be assessed to
the abutting property owners. The City will finance 50 % of that portion of the project
that could be classified as rehabilitation (the final lift of blacktop).
5. The City shall perform routine and regular preventative maintenance on all streets in the
City, until the street has deteriorated to the extent that such maintenance is no longer cost
effective. When a street has reached its expected life, no additional preventative
maintenance shall be performed. The only work perfouned will be the minimum amount
necessary to keep the street reasonably safe. Preventative maintenance shall be funded by
the City for streets where preventative maintenance is cost effective. On deteriorated
streets, preventative maintenance may be performed at the sole expense and request of the
adjoining property owners
Assessment:
The adopted policy addresses special assessments as part of the construction standards
discussion, and established the payback period for such assessments. Assessment policies are
summarized as follows:
1. Rural section rehabilitation as rural —100% of cost assessed, 10 year payment period
2. Rural section reconstruction as rural — 100% of cost assessed, 10 year payment period
3. Rural section reconstruction as urban — up to 50% of cost assessed, 20 year payment period
4. Urban section reconstruction — up to 50% of rehab cost assessed, 20 year payment period
5. Urban section rehabilitation — up to 50% of rehab cost assessed, 10 year payment period
The following table outlines what other Dakota County Cities have adopted as their street
assessment policy.
City
% Assessed
rehabilitation
% Assessed
reconstruction
Apple Valley
N/A
30%
Burnsville
40%
40%
Eagan
50 -100%
75 -100%
Mendota Heights
50%
50%
South St. Paul
100%
50 -60%
West St. Paul
25%
25%
Although the City may assess up to 50% of project costs to the adjoining, benefitting property
owners for urban section projects, it has been past practice of the City to try to keep the actual
assessment amount relatively consistent from project to project. As a result, the City rarely
assesses the full 50% it is authorized to under this policy.
6
Assessment Deferral:
The adopted policy allows for assessed property owners to apply for a deferral of their
assessment. A deferral postpones payment on the assessment for a specified period. Interest on
the assessed amount continues to accumulate during the deferral period. City policy allows for
deferrals to be granted if the applying property owner is at or over the age of 65 or otherwise
retired due to disability. Deferral is also peimitted if the assessed property is unimproved.
Assessment deferrals are governed by rules established in. Statutes.
Project Development Process
The project process outlined by Minnesota Statute 429 prescribes a specific process for
developing a project that uses special assessments for financing. These steps are incorporated
into the process the City of Mendota Heights now uses. The process is as follows (approximate
month of action in a given year):
1. Project identified in the Street Improvement Plan (Oct/Nov)
2. Council authorizes production of a Feasibility Report (April /May)
3. Council accepts Feasibility Report and calls for a public Hearing (June /July)
4. Staff conducts an informal neighborhood meeting (Aug /Sept)
5. Council conducts the Public Hearing and orders production of Plans and Specifications
(Sept/Oct)
6. Council accepts final plans and specifications and authorizes advertisement for bids
(Jan/Feb)
7. Council accepts bids and awards project to successful bidder and provides notice to
proceed (Mar /Apr)
8. Council approves pay requests to contractor as needed
9. Council conducts Assessment Hearing and adopts assessment roll (Oct)
10. Council accepts works and approves final payment to contractor (June)
Discussion
The adopted policy has been in place for nearly 20 years, and most of the City streets have been
reconstructed or rehabilitated under this policy. Staff believes the policy serves the City well,
and by relative comparison to other Dakota County Cities, it is one of the more basic and easily
understood assessment policies currently in use.
Preventative Maintenance:
Staff believes the preventative maintenance portion of our streets policy needs to be addressed.
As we transition from a reconstruction mode to a rehabilitation and maintenance mode with our
street program, the preventative maintenance (cracksealing and sealcoating) of our streets is
becoming more important. Cracksealing and sealcoating is necessary to extend the life of a street
and is particularly important to accomplish within 5 -6 years, and again within 13 -14 years of
reconstruction or rehabilitation (pavement replacement). Currently this program is funded 100%
out of the General Fund Levy as part of the Street Department Budget.
As the need for preventative maintenance increases due to the general maintenance requirements
of our reconstructed and rehabilitated streets, the funding needed for this program is anticipated
to increase. The 2012 arurual City budget identifies $50,000 for cracksealing and sealcoating,
which is consistent with past years' budgets. Anticipated costs for upcoming preventative
maintenance needs are outlined in the Street Improvement Plan and are adjustable within limits,
but the current budgeted amount will be insufficient to meet future needs. Staff asks Council to
consider several different options for addressing this need.
1. Include preventative maintenance as an assessable street repair activity, and assign a
. percentage of project cost that would be assessable (a 100% project cost assessment
would amount to approximately.$400.00 per parcelusing unit assessment).*
2. Allow the City to incorporate preventative maintenance into rehabilitation projects to be
funded through designated fund balances or City bond share of the project.*
3. Authorize invoicing adjoining, benefitting property owners a share of the project costs.*
4. Approve funding from one or more of the City's fund balances.
5. Approve additional funding utilizing the General Levy (increase the budget line item).
6. Keep the program as is and defer preventative street maintenance into the future.
*Option would require an amendment to cun-ent policy
Option 6 is the only option that City staff does not recommend.
Recommendation
. Discuss the existing policy and any issues or concerns with staff.
Discuss the preventative maintenance issue, potential funding sources, and provide direction to
staff on how to proceed.
8
CITY
F M:ENDOTA
ft
TS
STREET REHABILITATION AND RECONS1 _RUCTION POLICY
PITRPOSE
The City of Mendota Heights Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction policy is intended
to provide a plan for maintaining the City's existing streets, and encourage the upgrade of rural
streets to urban design.
This document sets forth the methods and policies relating to local street improvements
and special assessments practiced in the City of Mendota Heights. It is emphasized that the
following summary is general in nature and that certain circumstances may justify deviations
from stated policy as determined by the Mendota Heights City Council in its discretion. This
policy may also be amended from time to time by vote of City Council.
SECTION I
DEFINITIONS
RECONS IRUCTION - will be defmed as a project whereby many or all meaningful
elements of an existing street are being removed and replaced. This would include curb
and gutter, sidewalks, bituminous or concrete pavement, granular base and items
appurtenant to these elements.
2. REHABILITATION - will be defined as a project in which one or more of the
aforementioned elements is modified or supplemented in-place, to restore the
serviceability of the existing street (i.e. bituminous overlays).
3. PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE - will be defined as work that involves a level of
effort less than that involved in reconstruction or rehabilitation, the extent of which is to
extend the life of the existing improvement. Preventive maintenance will include but not
be limited to crack filling, patching, and seal coating.
4. RURAL STREET - any street that has no curb and gutter or storm sewer, or does not
otherwise meet City design standards for thickness and width.
5. *URBAN STREET - a street that has curb and gutter, storm sewer, and is designed to
City standards for thickness and width.
9
SECTION la
GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The following are general principles, policies and procedures applicable to all types of
improvement:
1. Project costs shall include the cost of all necessary construction work required to
accomplish the improvement, plus engineering, legal, financing, easement acquisition and
contingency costs.
2. Assessable costs are project costs minus the City and County share and other credits.
MSA funds will not be credited to offset assessments as they will be utilized in a revenue
pool fund to offset total reconstruction program costs.
3. Special assessments will be levied as soon as practical. Nouns lly this will be within one
year after completion of the project.
4. Publicly owned properties, including but not limited to municipal building sites, schools,
parks, County, State and Federal building sites, but not including public streets and
alleys, are regarded as being assessable on the same basis as if such property were
privately owned.
5. Revenue sources for these types of improvements will be many, including, but not limited
to assessments, MSA Funds, infrastructure replacement funds and general tax levies.
SECTION DI
SPECIP IC POLIC 111,S
Project Initiation and Hearing Process
This section describes the initiation of improvement projects and the administration
required to receive final City Council action, pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 429.
A. Project Initiation
1. By Petition: Citizen petitions for initiating improvement will be prepared
by City staff upon request. Such petitions circulated by the affected
property owners should bear the signatures of the property owners of 51 %
or more, of the benefitted property(ies).
2
B.
10
When projects are initiated through this process the costs of doing
engineering feasibility studies and associated project consideration costs
will be borne by the property owner(s) so petitioning.
If the project proceeds through construction and assessment those costs will
be considered project coStiider Section-11.1 above.
If the project does not proceed through construction these costs will be
billed back to the property owners petitioning or will be recorded for
future project costs consideration at which time the project is concluded.
Determination of the method of cost recovery will be made by the City
Council.
2, By Council Action: If the Council determines that an improvement is in
the best interest of the City, it can, without petition, initiate the
improvement with a four/fifths vote of the Council.
The Engineering Department shall inventory and rate the condition of
streets in the City. This rating shall then be used to determine the priority
of street improvements in the City's 5 Year Street Improvement Plan. The
City will generally improve streets that have the highest priority first.
earing Process
I. Improvement Hearing: After a petition is filed and its adequacy
determined, or the Council initiates the project, the City Engineer is
directed to study and report as to the feasibility of the improvement. If
after reviewing the feasibility report, the Council feels the project has
merit, a public hearing is scheduled, notice published twice, and persons
benefit-Led by the project notified in writing in accordance with applicable
State Statutes and City Standards.
If after . the improvement hearing, at which all persons are heard, the
Council feels that the project still has merit, then the Council will
authorize the preparation of necessary plans and specifications, and upon
receipt and acceptance of those plans, will authorize the advertisement for
bids, by resolution, for the construction of the project.
C.. Determining Assessment Method to Use
1. Front Footage Assessment - The front footage assessment method will
generally be used on all multiple land use projects as per the City' s
adopted assessment policy. That is, if an improvement project affects
parcels that are not zoned similarly the front footage method will generally
be used.
3
•1 1
2. Unit Assessment - Where a project affects parcels which are all zoned
similarly or part of a multi-unit development, the Unit Assessment method
may be applied.
3. Area Assessment - Area assessment may be used for storm sewer
improvements. This may be necessary for projects where the storm sewer
is installed for reasons other than just elimination of ditches.
If necessary or desirable to achieve equitable distribution of assessments, the City
Council may adopt alternative methods for calculating assessments consistent with
the City's adopted assessment policy.
D . Amount of Assessments
Rehabilitated Rural Streets - Rural streets that are rehabilitated or are
reconstructed as a rural section shall be financed 100 % through
assessments to the abutting properties. As rural street sections are not
considered desirable, no City funding assistance shall be available.
2. Upgraded Rural Streets - It is the City desire to upgrade rural street
sections to urban street sections where possible. Therefore when a rural
street is scheduled for an improvement, upgrading to urban design will be
the objective unless otherwise determined by the City Council. In making
such a determination the City Council may consider a petition from
property owners to perpetuate a rural street.
The City will finance up to 50% of the total project cost through the
Tnfrastructure Replacement Fund for an upgrade project. The affected
property owners will be assessed the cost of the stow' sewer pipe, the new
curb, and a portion of the street reconstruction cost.
3. Rehabilitated Urban Streets - For streets that are urban design, the City
shall finance 50 % of rehabilitation costs.
4. Reconstructed Urban Streets - When an urban street is reconstructed all
of the reconstruction costs shall be assessed to the abutting property
owners. The City will finance 50% of that portion of the project that
could be classified as rehabilitation (the final lift of blacktop).
5. Preventive Maintenance - The City shall perform routine and regular
preventative maintenance to the extent practical on all streets in the City,
until such time as the street has aged or deteriorated to the extent that such
maintenance is no longer cost effective.
4
12
When a street has reached its expected life, in accordance with the City's
infrastructure rating system, no additional preventative maintenance shall
be perfointed. The only work performed will be the minimum amount
necessary to keep the street reasonably safe for vehicular traffic.
All preventative maintenance shall be funded by the City for streets where
preventative maintenance is cost effective. On deteriorated streets, 110
preventative maintenance shall be performed except at the sole expense and
request of the adjoining property owners
E. Period of Assessments
Assessments shall be spread over the life of the project. The expected life of
various projects to be used in levying assessments is presented here:
Proj ect Type Life
Rural Rehabilitation
Rural Reconstruction as Rural
Rural Reconstruction as Urban
Urban Rehabilitation
Urban Reconstruction
SECTION iv
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
Minimum Desi' Standards
10 years
10 years
20 years
10 years
20 years
The following are minimum design standards applied to the design and construction of
improvements in the City of Mendota Heights and are for reference to this policy.
A. Storm Sewer System
Lateral pipe and catch basin size shall be generally be designed to handle a 10
year event and trunk facilities shall generally be designed to handle a 100 year
event as determined by the City Engineer.
B. Sidewalks, Trails and Bikeways
Concrete - 5' wide with 6" sand base - 4" thick
Bituminous - 8' wide (2341) Bit. with 6" Class 5, 100 percent crushed rock and
2" Bituminous
5
13
All trails and sidewalks will be located 1' off property line if at all possible,
pedestrian ramps and curb drops will be installed according to MN/DOT
Standards.
C. Streets
Urban streets shall be classified as either local or collector streets. Urban local
streets shall noiivally be 33 feet wide, face to face, and 7 ton design, curb and
gutter on local streets shall be B618. Collector streets shall be 9 ton design and
shall normally be constructed to Municipal State Aid (MSA) standards
Rural streets are not desirable. Therefore for any rural street reconstruction
project the City shall proceed as if the rural street is to be upgraded to urban
design. Unless a neighborhood opposes this upgrade, it shall occur. Rural streets
that are not upgraded will generally be rehabilitated via an overlay of 1.5 " -2" of
blacktop.
SECTION V
ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL POLICY
Deferral of Special Assessments
A. Purpose - To indicate in certain instances the City may allow deferral of special
assessments levied under this policy.
E. Conditions of Deferral:
Application for deferral of special assessments under these provisions must be
filed within thirty (30) days from the date the assessment roll is adopted.
Applications granted shall continue in effect for subsequent years until the
property no longer qualifies. Applications shall be filed with the assessor of the
taxing district in which the real property is located.
C. Situations of Discretionary :t eferral:
1. Senior citizen/low income deferral. At its discretion the City may defer
assessments against any homestead property owned by a person 65 years
of age or older or retired by virtue of a peiuianent and total disability and
for whom it would be a hardship to make the assessment payments. The
standards and guidelines governing what constitutes hardship are
established by City ordinance or resolution.
6
Additionally, the City may grant a deferral in situations where its
hardships standards and guidelines have not been met if exceptional and
unusual circumstances exist and no preference or discriminatory treatment
will occur.
This deferral is subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 435.193.
2. Unimpro-ved property deferral. The City may also defer the assessments
of improvements with respect to property which is not directly and
immediately affected by the improvement for which the assessment is
levied. If applicable, at such times as extensions or connections regarding
the improvement directly benefit such unimproved property, the City may
require payment of the deferred assessments as well as those relating to
the connection or extension.
This deferral is subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 429.051.
Any such deferral shall be subject to such other terms and conditions including
accrual of interest, and shall be subject to termination, all as determined by City
Council.
Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 16th day of June 1992.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF IVEENDOTA HEIGHTS
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
IPlath leen M. Swanson, City Clerk
KBE- dfw
14
MY_ OF_MENPOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
DATE: February 9, 2012
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP — Public Works Director/City Enginee
SUBJECT: Review of Infrastructure Management Plans
Background
On October 5th, 2010, City Council approved the 2011-2015 Street Improvement Plan (SIP). The
SIP outlined the anticipated street reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preventative maintenance
projects for the next five years and included project maps, preliminary cost estimates, and
potential funding sources. The SIP was renewed by Council (2012-2016 planning years) on
December 6th, 2011.
On January 3rd, 201-2, City Council acknowledged the 2012-2016 Sanitary Sewer Improvement..
and Maintenance Plan (SSIMP). The SSIMP outlined anticipated sanitary sewer cleaning,
televising, and rehabilitation (lining) projects for the next five years and included project maps,
preliminary cost estimates, potential funding sources, estimated fees from Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES), and estimated revenues from sanitary sewer billings. The
SSIMP also included anticipated reconstruction projects with preliminary cost estimates.
Discussion
During the discussion of the SSIMP, Council requested that a review of the City's infrastructure
plans be included at the upcoming goal setting session. As part of each of the two infrastructure
plans, an annual review by Council is required. Staff is anticipating bringing these plans forward
for review again in the September — November 2012 timeframe.
Recommendation
Provide staff with feedback on what information Council would like to see included in the
infrastructure plans, or if there are any desired changes to fonnat or presentation.
15
16
CITY -OF M INDOTA HFMMfTS
NIEM"
DATE: February 9, 2012
TO: Mayor; City Council-and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek — Assistant City Engineer Q'
SUBJECT: Ash Borer Management
Discussion
Minnesota has the third largest population of ash trees in the country. In urban areas, the ash tree
became the predominant "replacement" tree when trees were lost to Dutch elm disease. Emerald
ash borer (EAB) was discovered in St. Paul, near the border of Minneapolis, in the Spring of
2009. Since our native ash trees do not have any inherent defenses against EAB, all species of
ash trees in Minnesota, whether healthy or not, are susceptible to destructive attacks. EAB has
killed millions of ash trees in an already affected area of 14 mid - eastern states and portions of
lower Canada. An outbreak could greatly affect the City's tree population.
Current EAB literature indicates that areas within 15 miles of documented EAB infestations
should consider implementing some type of EAB management activities. Management activities
could include pesticide treatment of high priority ash trees, removal of at -risk ash trees, and
reforestation with appropriate trees other than ash species.
What can be done?
The first step in the development of an EAB management plan should be to have an accurate
count of the ash trees within the city. The most valuable ash trees based on size, health, location
and landscape importance can then be identified. Chemical treatments are available to help
protect healthy ash trees or those minimally affected. While research has shown rates of
effectiveness vary from chemical to chemical, no chemical protection method can be 100 percent
effective.
Another management option, also widely suggested for Dutch elm disease, is to consider planting
another tree or trees in the event important ash trees are lost. Training of staff to learn how to
inspect and verify the presence of EAB and to chemically treat select, valuable ash trees within
City parks could be considered. If the City does choose to use chemical treatments, it is important
we are able to correctly diagnose the disease.
Recommendation
Provide staff with Council's thoughts on any actions desired pertaining to the management of a
potential EAB outbreak.
j
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
DATE: February 9, 2012
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP — Public Works Director/City Engineei
SUBJECT: Pedestrian Safety at Highway 149 (Dodd Road) & Highway 110
Background
In June of 2009, City staff produced a Feasibility Study on alternatives for increasing pedestrian
safety at the intersection of Highway 149 (Dodd Road) and Highway 110. The report was
completed, in large part, by a retained consulting firm (SRF Incorporated). The consultant was
selected by a committee that consisted of Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello,
along with City Council Members Jack Vitelli and Sandra Krebsbach.
The Feasibility Report analyzed four alternatives for improving safety for pedestrians crossing at
this intersection, and was focused on pedestrian traffic crossing Highway 110 more so than those
crossing Dodd Road. These alternatives were:
1. Take no action (do nothing alternative)
2. A pedestrian overpass (bridge)
3. A pedestrian underpass (tunnel)
4. At-Grade crossing improvements at the intersection
The consultant did not make a recommendation as to a preferred alternative, but did make
deteuiiinations as to the level of feasibility each alternative represented. In selecting a preferred
alternative:
1. City Council dismissed the take-no-action alternative because it did nothing to improve
pedestrian safety at the intersection.
2. The pedestrian overpass alternative was dismissed due the cost of 'construction and the
opinion of the consultant that it would not attain worthwhile usage due to the MnDOT
requirement that it be set at least 450-feet east of the intersection.
3. The pedestrian underpass alternative was dismissed also because of the cost and
complexity of construction, as well as public safety concerns addressed by both the City
Police Chief and Fire Chief. In addition the pedestrian underpass created challenges for
stormwater drainage that presented no easy engineering solution.
4. The alternative to improve the at-grade intersection was selected as the preferred
alternative and Council directed staff to identify potential funding sources to execute the
project.
The City made application to the Metropolitan Council for grant money to complete the
pedestrian safety project and was awarded $484,000 of construction funds in Federal fiscal year
2013 to complete the project.
17
18
Discussion
In order to take advantage of the grant award, the City will need to produce a design for the
intersection that addresses the safety concerns for pedestrians. This will need to be closely
coordinated through MnDOT, so consultant services will be required.
The project development process will have a number of steps, concluding with the construction
of the improvements during the summer of 2013. The project development process will be
similar to the following (dates are approximate):
1. City Council authorizes staff to seek professional services for project design (2/21/12)
2. City staff issues RFP to prospective bidders (2/28/12)
3. Proposals due to City (3/19/12)
4. Selection committee reviews proposals ad selects the consultant (3/26/12)
5. City Council approves award of professional services contract with consultant (4/3/12)
6. Consultant begins research and design (4/9/12)
7. Consultant completes design (10/15/12)
8. City Council accepts design and authorizes advertisement for construction bid (11/20/12)
9. City staff solicits /opens bids and selects a preferred contractor (2/13/13)
10. City Council awards bid and give notice to proceed to the contractor (2/20/13)
11. Contractor builds improvements (summer 2013)
12. City Council accepts work and authorizes final payment (11/19/13)
There is a 20% construction fund match that goes along with the Met Council grant, which the
City is obligated to pay. In addition all design fees and consultant costs, along with staff time for
the project are the responsibility of the City. If the full amount of the grant is utilized, the City
would be obligated to pay $121,000 for the construction portion of the project. Staff estimates
the total design and consultant cost will be approximately $90,000. All City related expenses can
be paid for out of Municipal State Aid funds.
Recommendation
If City Council wishes to proceed with the project, staff will bring forward a request to authorize
professional services at an upcoming City Council meeting, and the process can begin.
Similarly, if there are any specific components to the project City Council desires, inform staff so
they can be incorporated into the RFP.
19
B. SIGNAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
TH 110 is considered a principal arterial roadway, and is given priority in terms of
minimizing vehicle delay and maximizing mobility. Any signal modification
implemented would not be allowed to increase the delay to TH 110 traffic.
Th8rGfoFe, the base option discussed as a signal modification would be to instaU
pedestrian countdown timers at the intersection. The countdown timers offer the
pedestrian the total time remaining to complete their crossing (see Figure 3).
Mn/DOT indicates countdown timers are a low cost solution that increases the
confidence of pedestrians crossing large intersections. No additional delay to
the traffic would be anticipated as there is no impact to signal timing due to the
countdown timer installation.
With the installation of the countdown timers, there may be an opportunity to
upgrade the pedestrian refuge within the median area. The existing median
provides for a small bituminous pad near the pedestrian push-button; however,
there is not a clear distinction between this standing area and the roadway.
An improved median treatment consisting of raised concrete walk with curb
and gutter would help channelize the roadway and provide the pedestrian a- more
comfortable refuge. The costs provided for this median treatment have been
included for this option.
In addition to the median treatment, additional raised concrete walk with curb and
gutter should be installed along the outside of the intersection in each quadrant.
These improvements, in addition to addressing the same concerns of the median
refuge, would allow the City to potentially incorporate an improved aesthetic
revision to the intersection.
To address concerns that pavement quality of the intersection be improved for
pedestrians and bicyclists, milling the existing pavement and overlay new
pavement would also be warranted. Coordination with Mn/DOT would be
required before any p ject affecting the pavement would proceed.
The City could also proceed with providing various amenities to the public to
improve the visual aesthetics of the intersection. While it has been stated
Mn/DOT will not support any project that would be construed to be "traffic-
calming" at this location, the City could provide amenities to visually improve
the intersection and make the intersection more pedestrian friendly without
affecting vehicular traffic. Such amenities include improved concrete walks,
plantings such as trees and shrubs, p)8Dte[s, benches, shelters, and monument
signing. This list is by no means comprehensive, but illustrates the range of
options to consider. A cost anaysis for aesthetic cost comparison is presented
in Table 4. The costs developed for Table 4 represent costs for similar
intersection improvements, and should not be construed to be costs for a final
design at this intersection.
)
�����������~����������������
��^,~�n Setting Workshop
"~���
CITY []F09ENOOTAHEIGHTS
MEMO
DATE: January 31, 2012
TO: Mayor and City Couricil
FROM: Mike Aschenbrener, Chief of PoIice
SUBJECT: SociaI Host Ordinance
BACKGROUND:
In September of 2007, an underage young man froze to death on a sidewalk after
consuming too much alcohol at a private home. Since that time it has become common
place for cities and counties to enact ordinances, commonly named "social host"
ordinances, which govern behavior of the residents as it relates to alcohol and underage
persons on private property.
Minnesota State Statutes (MSS) heavily regulate alcohol sales and consumption; however,
these regulations generally do not apply to what occurs in the privacy of the home.
MHPD has not had significant issues regarding social host offenses in private residences, and
those that do occur are typically resolved after a single offense. However, during the
summer of 2011, we did experience problems with a residence where underage parties
were a weekly occurrence until officers were invited into the home, witnessed the incident
and found the parents were sleeping upstairs.
The officers sought to provide relief to the neighbors who had to deal with the noise and
other issues related to the frequent parties. We consulted with our city prosecutor and
found there were no applicable laws to stop the probtem. Uftimately, one of the parties got
out of control and multiple citations were issued, which ultimately resolved the problem.
For incidents like this, a social host ordinance would have allowed the city to apply pressure
to the ho eowner before the neighbors had to suffer all summer long.
It is likely this would be a rarely used enforcement option; however, a social ordinance
would encompass the foflowing:
• Social host ordinances in general govern underage possession and consumption of
aicoho on private property.
• They hold the property owner responsible for the actions that occur on their
property, whether present or not, whether knowing or unknowing of the activity.
• Violations are a misdemeanor offense up to 90 days in jail and/or up to a $1000 fine.
There are two options for adopting a social host ordinance:
1. The city adopts and prosecutes its own ordinance, or
Z. The city adopts the county ordinance agreeing to have the county attorney
prosecute violations.
1
2O
)
Goal Setting Workshop
CITY, OF[ME0OOTAHBr-BTc
MEMO
February 1,2OI3
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mike Aschenbrenor, Chief ofPolice
SUBJECT: Deer Control
BACKGROUND:
The Cfty of Mendota Heights began aliowing controiled hunts starting in the late 1990's
and was doing them based upon citizen complaints. The problem with this was the
citizen's expectations did not match the time commitment that was required of staff to
set up a hunt. This continued through 2008 when the council authorized the Metro Bow
Hunters Resource Base to hunt on an annual basis using the same guidelines they set
forth previously.
The purpose of the hunts are to control the deer population to a number of deer that
can be sustained by the avaflable green space. In 2012 the city has signed up with the
Three Rivers Park District to have an aerial deer count completed for the City to help
deflne the population.
We regularly receive complaints of deer problems, similar to issues brought to council
last fall. Annually we receive multiple requests from individuals to hunt on private or
public property.
We have in the past directed those wishing to hunt to make application to the Council
for permission or to join the Metro Bow Hunters Resource Base (MBHRB).
A survey was sent out to neighboring communities to determine the extent of the
hunting they altow.
If the council wishes to take up the issue of hunting within the city, there are many
considerations and multiple options as to how to allow hunting to include but not
limited to: No hunting, keep the same rules, allow hunting guided by Minnesota State
Statute (MSS), and allow hunting only by the MBHRB. Each option is outlined below for
the work required to complete the pr 'ect.
* No hunting — no work required by staff or council see attached code
O Keep same rules — minimal amount 5. 20 hours of staff time and mailings
1
21
2 2
Goal Setting ������������
����~" ~~~~"""�� "°~~""^^'""~�u_
• Allow hunting foliowing MSS — Change code 5-4, staff time to research and
present changes 20+ hours
• Allow hunting by MBHRB — Develop new agreement with MBHRB, define areas
the council is comfortable with aliowing hunting in, meet with public (citizens
and organizations) gather input present plan/resolution to council 40+ hours of
staff time initially and �20 hours annually
The issues around hunting can be quite controversial. Any plan should be weli thought
out, ensuring the city is not exposed to unnecessary bad publicity, and is considerate of
the issues around over population ofthe deer herd.
2
23
AAA
C-I-TY-OFZIENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
DATE: February 9, 2012
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: - Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrat¢i
SUBJECT: Commercial Property Maintenance Requirements
5
Discussion
The city council directed staff to look into the cost for developing a commercial property
maintenance code at their 2011 goals work session. At a regular meeting in June 2011, the city
council authorized staff to work with the city planner to develop draft language for this new
code. A draft of that language was presented to the planning commission in November 2011
who recommended to staff that the draft language be presented to city council to determine if a
faunal application for a zoning amendment should be submitted.
The city council will be presented with a draft of property maintenance code language at the
February 8, 2012-meeting. The presentation at the council meeting will provide city council an
opportunity to discuss the potential scope of an ordinance and what tools are available.
Budget Impact
If city council chooses to adopt an ordinance for commercial property maintenance, there would
be codification costs, and ultimately costs for code enforcement.
Action Required
Discuss the topic and provide staff with direction regarding commercial property maintenance
standards.
24
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF MENDOTA EIG [TS.
MEMO
February 9, 2012
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator -
John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP — Public Works Director /City Engine
Code Enforcement of Residential Property Standards
Background
The City of Mendota Heights adopted an ordinance instituting residential property maintenance
standards in 2005 as Title 12, Chapter 5 of City Code. The ordinance covers seven basic areas (a
copy of the Residential Property Maintenance Code is attached for your review):
1. Building and Structure Appearance and Maintenance Requirements
2. Exterior Property Public Health and Safety Requirements
3. Firewood Storage
4. Other Outdoor Storage
5. Accumulations and Hazardous Materials
6. Rubbish and Garbage
7. Storm Drainage
The City enforces this code on a complaint basis. If there is an issue with a residential property,
any resident may call the City Code Enforcement Officer with the complaint. After verifying the
complainant is a Mendota Heights resident (all complaint calls remain anonymous to everyone
but the Code Enforcement Officer and Public Works Director), the Code Enforcement Officer
inspects the identified property to verify the complaint. Once verified, the Code Enforcement
Officer sends a letter to the property owner informing them of the City Code violation, and
giving them two weeks to comply and schedule a follow -up inspection. If, after two weeks, the
property remains non - compliant, the property owner is sent a second letter, giving them 10 days
to comply, or face possible misdemeanor charges. If, after the 10 days have elapsed, the property
is still non- compliant, the complaint file is turned over to the City Prosecutor for prosecution.
Some of the most common City Code complaints received are:
1. Visible Trash Containers
2. Pet (dog) Complaints
3. Lawn/Weed Growth
4. Items Left in Front Yard
5. Parking on Lawns
6. Non - Shoveled Sidewalks (winter only)
7. Grass Clippings /Leaves in Street
Approximately 80 % -90% of all City Code complaints are resolved as a result of the first letter
sent. Almost all of the remaining 10 % -20% are resolved due to the second letter. It is a rare
occurrence that a City Code complaint makes it all the way to prosecution.
25
'Discussion
In 2011, the City published an article on the most common City Code complaints in the Heights
Highlights (attached). Since the publication of that article, City Code complaints on these items
have dropped off substantially.
Recommendation
Advise staff as to any changes desired in the Residential Property Maintenance Code, or any
changes to how the City Code is enforced.
Sterling Codifiers, Inc.
Page 1 of 7
26
Chapter 5
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
12-5-1: FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. STATEIVIENT:
The city council finds that it is in the best interest of the city to protect the public health,
safety, and general welfare of its citizens. To this end, the city believes that by adoption of
these residential property maintenance regulations, it will further the following objectives:
A. To preserve the value of residential property within the city;
B. To protect the character and stability of neighborhoods within the city;
C. To provide for minimum standards of maintenance for residential property within the city
and ensure compliance;
D. To cause correction to conditions on residential property that do not comply with the
standards of maintenance established herein.
E. Assist in identification and correction of dangerous or life threatening conditions that may
be identified within the city.
F. Provide a mechanism to mitigate potential public health issues identified within the city.
(Ord. 401, 7-19-2005)
12-5-2: DEFINITIONS:
All terms not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to them in section 12-1B-2 of
this title. If a conflict arises as to the definition of any term between this chapter and section
12-1B-2 of this title, the definition in section 12-1B-2 of this title shall control. As used herein,
the following words shall have the following meanings:
etprlin ar.ndifietrs.com/codebook/nrintnow.php 1/25/2012
2 terling Codifiers, Inc.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURET-Shall- have-the-meaning stated in this title. Accessory buildings
or structures shall include, but are not limited to: decks, porches, detached garages, ad
sheds.
BUILDING: Shall have the meaning stated in this title. Buildings shall include, but are not
limited to: dwellings, offices, warehouses, and stores.
GARAGE, ATTACHED: A garage attached to the principal structure.
GARAGE, DETACHED: A garage detached from the principal structure.
NATURAL AREA: Any property managed for the development of indigenous prairie and/or
forest plants, intended to exist in a wild or natural condition, according to a written plan.
PROPERTY: Developed or undeveloped land, parcel or platted lot, including any buildings,
structures, and accessory structures thereon.
STRUCTURE: Shall have the meaning stated in this title.
VEHICLES: Shall have the meaning stated in this title and shall include trailers, boats,
watercraft, "ski-doos", snowmobiles, four (4) wheelers, and ATVs. (Ord. 401, 7-19-2005)
Page 2 of 7
12-5-3: BUILDING AND STRUCTURE APPEARANCE AND MAINTENANCE
REQUIREMENTS:
A. Any building or structure, including an accessory structure, is a public nuisance if its
exterior does not comply with the following requirements:
1. All exterior property shall be maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. The
occupant shall keep that part of the exterior property, which such occupant occupies,
or controls in a dean and sanitary condition.
2. All dwellings, garages and other residential accessory buildings shall have complete
siding. No part of any exterior surface shall have significant deterioration including, but
not limited to, holes, breaks, gaps, or loose or rotting siding. All exterior surfaces of the
structure including, but not limited to, doors, door and window frames, cornices,
porches and trim, shall be maintained in a good and safe condition. Exterior wood
surfaces on the structures, other than decay resistant woods, stucco or other materials
that do not normally require protection from the elements shall be protected from the
elements and decay by staining, painting or other protective covering or treatment or
other appropriate method acceptable to the city. (Ord. 401, 7-19-2005)
ci 4.1-c PrrmIr.nriehook/nrintnow.php
1/25/2012
Sterling Codifiers, Inc.
12-5-4: EXTERIOR PROPERTY-PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
REQUIREMENTS:
Page 3 of 7
A. Any building or structure in the city that is found by an authorized employee or agent of
the city to be dangerous to public safety or health by reason of the following is hereby
declared to be a public nuisance- and'a hazardous structure or condition:
1. Damaged by fire, storm, or vandalism;
2. Defective chimneys or stovepipes;
3. Dilapidated condition or decay; or
4. Any other defect endangering the public safety or health.
B. Any structure which is damaged, decayed, dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe, vermin or
rodent infested, presents environmental health risks or which lacks provisions for safe
illumination, ventilation, or sanitary facilities to the extent that the defects create a hazard
to the health, safety, or welfare of the occupants or of the public, may be declared unfit
for human habitation or unsafe to the public by the city.
C. Whenever any building has been declared unfit for human habitation or unsafe to the
public, the city may proceed to declare the building a hazardous building or hazardous
property and may seek to correct or remove the hazardous condition as authorized by
Minnesota law. (Ord. 401, 7-19-2005)
12-5-5: FIREWOOD STORAGE:
A. The term "firewood" shall mean split wood or unsplit wood logs cut into lengths not
exceeding three feet (3') for the purpose of burning in a fireplace or as a recreational fire
on the property.
B. Firewood shall be kept or stored outdoors in accordance with the following requirements:
1. Firewood shall be stored or kept in a neat and secure stack (maximum of 2 cords,
defined as 128 cubic feet per cord), which shall be no higher than five feet (5').
2. Unless screened by a fence or wall, stacks shall be no closer than five feet (5') to the
property line.
28
c tprl in CY (' n ri i fiers.corn/codebook/printnow.php 1/25/2012
Sterling Codifiers, Inc.
2 9
Page 4 of 7
• Th-e firewood stacks-shall not -be- allowed to become infested with rats, rodents, or
vermin.
4. Fallen, uncut trees shall be removed or cut up into firewood as soon as it is
practicable, not to exceed ninety (90) days. The city council may extend this period,
upon written request by the property owner, for an additional ninety (90) days. This
requirement may be waived by the code enforcement officer where it is determined
that due to natural environmental conditions, the trees do not present a hazard or
nuisance. (Ord. 401, 7-19-2005)
12-5-6: OTHER OUTDOOR STORAGE:
Except provided for herein or as specifically allowed within the specific zoning districts
established by this title, all materials and equipment shall be stored within a structure.
A. Exceptions:
1. Clothesline poles and lines, play equipment, garden equipment, patio furniture, and
trampolines.
2. Not more than four (4) currently licensed and operable vehicles, including trailers, may
be parked or stored on property outside a structure on single-family residential lots. All
such parking and/or storage shall be allowed as follows:
a. In the front yard, provided they are kept on an established driveway, entirely on the
vehicle owner's property. Except as provided herein, recreational vehicles may not
be parked or stored on public property or street right of way.
b. In the rear yard not closer than ten feet (10') from the rear lot line, five feet (5') from
the side lot lines, and not within drainage and utility easements.
c. On a corner lot or through lot, not closer than twenty feet (20') from the property line
abutting the street side of the lot and not within drainage and utility easements.
Where such parking and/or storage is to be located within side or rear yards of
corner or through lots, such side or rear yard shall be screened with landscaping
and/or fencing from the public street.
d. All vehicles must be parked on concrete or bituminous pavement.
3. Construction and landscaping material, which shall be consumed or used on the
property within the next thirty (30) days and kept in a neat, workmanlike fashion.
4. Off street parking of motor vehicles as specified in the respective zoning districts.
/R17117117 Ctedinacodifiers.corn/codebooldprintnow.php 1/25/2012
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. Page 5 of 7
30
5:Temporary storage pods-usedAro,:tempQrarily storeltems during house remodeling
shall be kept on the driveway for a period not to exceed ninety (90) dais except
CUP application for major remodeling.
6. No pallets shall be stored on the property seven (7) days after they are no longer
used. (Ord. 401, 7-19-2005)
12-5-7: ACCUMULATIONS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL:
A. Accumulations: Rubbish, garbage, or other hazardous and dangerous materials shall not
be stored or allowed to accumulate in stairways, passageways, doors, windows, fire
escapes or other means of egress.
B. Hazardous Material: Hazardous substances, refuse, pollutants and contaminants, as
those terms are defined by federal, state, and local laws, shall not be accumulated or
stored unless storage complies with the applicable requirements of all laws, rules and
ordinances pertaining to the activity, including, but not limited to, the city's building code
and the city's fire prevention code. (Ord. 401, 7-19-2005)
12-5-8: RUBBISH AND GARBAGE:
A. Accumulation Of Rubbish And Garbage: All exterior property, and the interior of every
structure, shall be free from any unreasonable accumulation of rubbish and garbage
causing a nuisance.
B. Disposal Of Rubbish: Every occupant of a structure shall reasonably store and dispose of
all rubbish and garbage in a clean and sanitary manner in accordance with all laws.
1. Screening: Garbage and recycling containers shall be either: a) stored inside a
dwelling or other residential accessory structures not visible from the public street or
adjoining neighbors; or b) stored outside fully screened by landscaping or fencing
materials keeping the garbage and recycling containers from being visible from the
public street or adjoining neighbors.
httn-/Awww.sterlingcodifiers.corn/codebook/printnow.php 1/25/2012
31
Sterling Codifiers, Page 6 of 7
---'-'-a.'eurbside-Collection: Appliances, furniture and similar jtems:sha[l no112eAeft_outside Jar_
collection and disposal for more than seventy two (72) hours. Appliances not awaiting
collection and disposal shall not be placed outside.
D. Garbage Cans: Garbage cans may be put out for collection the night before and must be
•retrieved the next evening. (Ord-. 401, 7-19-2005)
12-5-9: STORM DRAINAGE:
A. General: Storm water runoff and drainage of roofs and other hard surfaced areas, yards,
courts, and other open areas on the property shall not be allowed to occur in a manner
that creates a public nuisance. (Ord. 401, 7-19-2005)
12-5-10: ABATEMENT PROCEDURES:
A. Enforcement Officials: The city council shall enforce the provisions of this chapter and
may by resolution delegate to various officers or agencies power to enforce particular
provisions of this chapter, including the power to inspect private property.
B. Notice To Abate: Whenever, in the judgment of city council or the officer charged with
enforcement of this chapter, it is determined that a violation hereof is being maintained or
exists within the city, such officer shall notify in writing the person committing or
maintaining such violation and the owner of the property and require them to remedy
such violation and to remove such conditions or remedy such defects. Such written
notice shall be delivered to the person committing or maintaining violation and the owner
of the property or may be delivered by mail. If the property is not occupied and the
address of the owner is unknown, service on the owner may be accomplished in the
manner specified for service in rule 4 in the Minnesota rules of civil procedure, except in
the case of an emergency and then in such case, service shall be accomplished after
posting such notice for twenty four (24) hours. Such notice shall require the owner or
occupant of the property, or both, to take corrective steps within a time as defined by the
officer charged with enforcement to remedy such violations, such steps and time to be
designated in the notice, but the maximum time to remedy a violation after service of
such notice shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. In the case of severe
financial or physical hardship, the council may grant an extension to the time limit. Said
violation shall be corrected "immediately" in the case of imminent danger to the public
health, safety, or welfare. Service of notice may be proven by filing an affidavit of service
in the office of the city clerk setting forth the manner and time thereof.
tith-r //www si erl in gcodifiers.com/codebook/printriow.php 1/25/2012
Sterling Codifiers, Inc.
Page 7 of 7
32'
C. Report Of Failure To Abate: When notice so given is not complied with, such
noncompliance shall be reported forthwith to the city for such action as may be
necessary and deemed advisable to abate and enjoin further continuation of such
nuisance, including referring the matter to the city's prosecuting aftorney to pursue a
judicial remedy on behalf of the city. A violation of this chapter shall be subject to a
penalty as provided in section 1-4-1 of this code.
D. Abatement By City: In the event the city chooses to abate said violation, the city shall
adopt a resolution setting forth the specific details of the corrective matters to be taken. A
copy of the resolution shall be sent to the property owner by certified mail and if the
violation is not abated within ten (10) days of the mailing of said resolution, the city shall
take all actions necessary to abate said violation, keeping accurate records of the cost of
the same.
E. Costs To Owner: The finance director shall prepare a bill and mail it to the owner of the
property for the costs incurred by the city, indluding, but not limited to, administrative
costs, attorney fees and costs and the costs of any outside contractor engaged by the
city to correct such violation, and thereupon the amount shall be immediately due and
payable to the city (the "bill").
F. Costs A Special Tax: If the bill is not paid to the city within twenty (20) days after the
mailing of the bill, the city clerk shall extend the costs of abating the violation as a special
tax against the property upon which the violation was located, and such special tax shall,
at the time of certifying taxes to the county auditor, be certified for collection as other
special taxes are certified and collected. The city council may specify an additional
penalty for such special tax collections. (Ord. 401, 7-19-2005)
//lAnAnxi Oen in pcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php
1/25/2012
33
Mendota Heights is a wonderful place to live, work and play. This may be partially attributed to
residents doing a wonderful job of keeping their homes in good repair. By and large our community is
very well maintained, but there are some common code violations which can be found across the
community:
Poorly screened trash containers: wherever you choose to store your trash
containers, they need to be screened from public view. Screening may include
fencing, landscaping, or storage in a garage. The important thing is making sure that
passing cars cannot see your trash containers from the street. Trash containers may
be brought to the curb the night before your trash pick -up and must be stored out of
site again that evening.
Pet peeves: Like your parents always told you, owning a pet is a big responsibility. All
dogs must be licensed and must be kept on a leash when outside of your property. Even the most
gentle of dogs may be threatening to others — please respect everyone's use of public space. Please
dean up pet waste in a timely manner.
Lawn /weed growth: If you are looking for that natural feel to your lawn, make sure it is contained to a
defined area. Lawns must be kept less than twelve inches in height. Please be sure to dispose of yard
waste properly — either with your trash hauler or at a local compost site.
Items left in front yard: Reusing may be the second R in the recycling chain, but sometimes no one
wants your old stuff. If you place an item in your front yard with a free sign, make sure it gets brought
back in the same day and disposed of in a timely fashion.
Parking on lawns: All licensed vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, etc. must be parked on a hard
surface. These surfaces may consist of graded and compacted gravel, asphalt, concrete, pavers or other
hard surface specifically designed for parking a vehicle. Each residential property is allowed to park up
to four licensed and operable vehicles on their driveway.
Please help us keep Mendota Heights a beautiful place to live, work and play. The city enforces code
violations on a complaint basis, but encourages all residents to lead by example.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS -
MEMO
February 9, 2012
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator t�
Special Events Permits
34
Discussion
Over the summer of 2011 city staff and Mayor Krebsbach were made aware of ongoing planning
for an event called World Peace and Prayer Day. This event included a weekend full of
activities, some of which were to take place within the City of Mendota Heights. The organizers
of the event worked with St. Peter's Church for use of their property; other events included a
horse ride through Dakota County and a "group hug" on the Highway 55 Bridge. Use of Historic
Pilot Knob was also requested for large groups as a part of the event. Staff and the mayor worked
with event organizers on traffic, parking and public safety concerns. In regards to Pilot Knob,
Great River Greening worked with the organizers to ensure that the event would have minimal
impact on restoration efforts.
The 2011 experience with World Peace and Prayer Day emphasized the fact that the City of
Mendota Heights has few tools available to permit or deny a wide range of gatherings. Police
Chief Aschenbrener has expressed interest in having a special events pei.uiit which would apply
to gatherings, events and activities anywhere in the city. Events which would be subject to a
special event permit include (but are not limited to): gatherings, parades, athletic contests,
concerts and block parties. Chief Aschenbrener has compiled information on special events
permits from a number of communities which could be used to draft a permit for Mendota
Heights.
Given the unique nature of Historic Pilot Knob, it may be advisable to have a permit specific to
use of the site. As a public open space, use of the site is intended to be passive in nature. To this
end, groups and events at Historic Pilot Knob should be more restricted than gatherings at parks.
Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek has outlined a number of considerations specific to
the use of the site which could be used to draft an event permit for Historic Pilot Knob.
Budget Impact
Special events pennits are not anticipated to add city cost, as staff is likely to participate
planning either way. Establishing permit fees may be a way to recoup some of the costs for
ensuring that an event is properly planned.
Action Required
If directed, staff would develop a city -wide special events permit, as well as a permit specific to
use of the Historic Pilot Knob site.
35
CITY .Q -ME A. I€ TS
MEMO
DATE: February 9, 2012
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator2D‘S_
SUBJECT: Halloween Bonfire
Discussion
The annual Halloween Bonfire is a long standing community tradition. The event is hosted by
Paster Enterprises on the undeveloped parcel of land between Mendota Plaza shopping center
and South Plaza Drive. With the redevelopment of the shopping center, there has been concern
the site may no longer be available.
Staff has discussed the topic with Paster Enterprises, who own and manage the property. Paster
would like to continue to host the bonfire as long as it is feasible, but development of the
Mendota Plaza may impact the space available.
In a conversation with Dodge Nature Center (Dodge) in the fall of 2011, Mayor Krebsbach and
Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek learned that Dodge may be interested in hosting the
event if Paster Enterprises is no longer able to do so.
This is good news, as staff has been seeking alternative sites for the bonfire, knowing that the
Mendota Plaza property will eventually be developed. Dodge has enough space to host the
event, without encroaching on power lines, rights of way or residential properties. The location
is central for residents to bring in materials and to attend the bonfire.
This memo is provided for information only — in the event that Paster Enterprises are no longer
able to host the Halloween Bonfire, staff will contact Dodge to discuss event logistics if the
bonfire must be moved to their property.
Budget Impact
The city incurs costs for the Halloween Bonfire, including public works time to fence the site
and to push the pile together during the week of collections. The fire department provides treats
at the event at no cost to the city.
Action Required
No action required.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
„ 'ITY:,.DE_MENDOTh HEIGHTS
MEMO
February 9, 2012
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator\5
Parks Celebration — 25 Years
36
Discussion
This summer marks the 25th year of the Mendota Heights Parks Celebration. The parks and
recreation commission has discussed how we might expand the event to make it bigger in honor
of this milestone. The key difference that the commission has focused in on is to broaden the
scope of the event to appeal to all residents, not just families with young children.
To this end, the commission has discussed adding a display /expo tent to the event — with
invitations going out to the Dakota County Historical Society, Thompson Park Activity Center,
fitness groups, and other organizations focused on healthy living. The commission wants also to
promote the variety of recreation facilities available across the community.
The parks celebration will be Saturday, June 2, 2012. The event will start at 11:00 a.m. and run
through 2:00 p.m. Activities at Mendakota Park will include live music and entertainment, the
petting zoo, fire truck rides, inflatable bouncers and games. MHAA will be hosting an
invitational baseball tournament over the weekend, and the Village at Mendota Heights will host
live music Friday night and the 5K walk/run Saturday morning. New this year, there will be
guided tours of Pilot Knob, and an event (yet to be determined) at Mendota Plaza.
The commission has also been very clear that the event will be well publicized, to ensure that
residents know about the expanded activities. This will include information on the web, on
flyers throughout town and stories on Patch.com and in the Southwest Review.
Budget Impact
The 2012 city budget included $5,000 for the event, which will be more than enough to cover all
costs for the event.
Action Required
No action required.
37
DATE:
TO:
FROM: -
SUBJECT:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS_ .
MEMO
February 9, 2012
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator
City Relationship with MHAA
Discussion
At the 2012 Budget Work Session staff was asked for further detail on a $10,000 payment made
annually to the Mendota Heights Youth Athletic Association (MHAA). This is a payment which
the city makes to help offset the costs for administering youth athletic programs. MHAA offers
baseball, basketball, football, lacrosse, softball and early soccer programs. MHAA is also
reimbursed on a per- capita basis for participation in their t -ball program.
As a follow up, Council Member Povolny and Parks and Recreation Commissioner Mike Toth
requested a meeting with staff to discuss the relationship between the City and MHAA. As is
common in communities in the region, the city relies on MHAA to provide youth athletic
programs. MHAA relies on the city for financial support and for facilities for programs. To
date, the city has not received regular reports from MHAA on the expenditure of public funds, or
the use of public facilities. Council Member Povolny and Commissioner Toth have asked if the
city could start a discussion with MHAA about receiving regular reports, and how the city might
be able to provide greater support to MHAA.
Staff has completed some background work on the issue. Included in this packet is a simple
survey of other communities and their relationship to youth athletic associations.
Budget Impact
The City of Mendota Heights contributes annually to the Mendota Heights Youth Athletic
Association. This discussion item has no recommended change to the financial support of
MHAA.
Action Required
Staff recommends that the city council discuss MHAA, and provide staff with direction on how
to proceed.
38
• • 5,
0
Youth Athletic Associations in Other Communities
) )7>
73
77
CD
: <
- CD
CD
^.<
0
74:
`..<
N
City contribution
to YAA
YAA provides regular
reports to City
Facility fees for invitational tournaments only
YAA pays fee to city
Facility fees for invitational tournaments only
Notes
• • 5,
0
Youth Athletic Associations in Other Communities
39
CITY_ ®F_1VIENDOTA HEIGHTS
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Discussion
February 9, 2012
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City AdrninistratoS
Economic Development in Mendota Heights
This memo is intended to serve as a primer for council discussion on economic development.
Below you will find a quick summary of our history with economic development and what
activities staff currently participates in.
The City of Mendota Heights has historically had little involvement in economic development
activities. Activities have included the formation of a Tax Increment Finance District to help
finance the development of the industrial park. The city also created of a special levy district to
fund streetlights in the industrial park.
The City utilized assessment authority to help Mendota Plaza improve a parking lot, and to
finance a fire sprinkler system for the Fischerville building redevelopment. In the development
of Town Center, the city utilized TIF for site acquisition and participated in a Livable
Communities Grant through the Metropolitan Council to help offset the cost of structured
parking for the first phase of development.
Staff has had a limited role in economic development. In the last five years, the city has been
represented by the Assistant to the City Administrator at regular meetings coordinated by the
Dakota County Community Development Agency. Topics of discussion have included local
development activities, regional development opportunities and initiatives such as Metro MSP
(available commercial property database), county -wide broadband internet access, Dakota
Futures initiatives, services for small businesses and most recently, Greater MSP.
The Assistant to the City Administrator has also served as a liaison to the Dakota County
Regional Chamber of Commerce and has served as a first point of contact for businesses in
community. The City Administrator and Assistant to the City Administrator have fielded phone
calls and inquiries from real estate brokers and represented the community at state and regional
economic development events.
Staff has represented the community as a great place to do business underscoring that our strong
business climate has developed without offering financial incentives. The list of recent business
developments is impressive and includes:
• Bituminous Roadways:
• Wells Fargo Call Center:
® Bearance Management Group:
® Northwestern Mutual Life:
• Materials Processing Corporation:
• Restaurant Technologies Incorporated:
® Lloyd's Barbecue:
® Tempco Manufacturing:
new construction
occupy vacant space
occupy vacant space
occupy vacant space
occupy vacant space
occupy vacant space
reinvest in current location
reinvest in current location
Page 1 of 2
40
ARRT: expansion of current location
• Brown College: relocation within the city
This list does not touch upon the new retail, personal services and small office uses which fill the
developments on either side of Highway 110 at Dodd Road.
In contrast to the passive role the city has played regarding economic development, the county
and region are developing a new framework and branding intended to emphasize the value in
location or growing a business in our region. Specifically, Greater MSP is coordinating efforts .
and advocating for the twin cities area as a great place to do business.
This is an optimal time to sell Mendota Heights as a great place to do business. As regional
efforts to ramp up to bring business to the area, the city may consider being more active in
articulating the benefits of doing business here. Mendota Heights is known for low tax rates, a
diverse business economy, unparalleled location in the metropolitan area, a well- educated and
diverse work force and a reputation for requiring quality development while not creating overly
burdensome government oversight.
There are many economic development activities which the city could undertake. A range of
activities, from passive to proactive is provided below. This is not a comprehensive list; staff
does not make any recommendation on this policy matter.
Passive:
• Maintain the status quo, fielding inquiries as they are received.
Minimally Active:
• Develop a web presence - articulate the benefits of doing business in the community.
• Maintain presence in regional groups to monitor opportunities and trends.
Active:
• Business inventory: utilized available data to verify the types of industry, number of
employees, annual sales, etc.
• Create promotional materials.
• Business visits: The city can establish lines of communication between local businesses
and the government without placing additional burdens upon the community.
Proactive:
• Consider incentives for businesses, and develop criteria for applications.
• Contact real estate brokers about available spaces.
• Participate in tradeshows and expos where prospective businesses may be present.
Budget Impact
Passive and minimal activities as mentioned in this memo can be maintained at current staffing
levels. Moving into active or proactive roles may require additional staff time.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that city council receive the report, have a policy -level discussion of economic
development, and provide staff with direction on how to proceed.
Page 2of2
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
`CIS" O"VMENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
February 9, 2012
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administratoc966
Old Fire Hall Site
41
Discussion
The Old Fire Hall Site is comprised of three parcels totaling .52 acres. These parcels are located
just north of 2156 Dodd Road, better known as the Fischerville building. Staff has entertained a
handful of calls about the Old Fire Hall Site and the Fischerville parcel since with withdrawal of
the purchase agreement for the city property by Compete Beverage Service.
There have been no recent inquiries about the Old Fire Hall Site as a stand -alone site. It has been
looked at as an alternative to expand parking for the Fischerville building.
There are two common themes voiced by potential buyers for the Fischerville property. The first
concern is that the parcel lacks adequate parking. The second concern is the cost to clean up
environmental impacts in the old service building.
Each inquiry has been provided with zoning details for the Fischerville building and has been
informed that the city owned property is not officially on the market. Staff has outlined the
process for planning review, and for consideration of any offer to purchase the city owned
property.
Budget Impact
Maintenance of the Old Fire Hall site includes weekly mowing, irrigation when needed,
maintenance of the fence and storm drain inlet. Staff time spent with potential purchasers is
generally considered a part of standard planning duties.
Action Required
No action required.
42
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
February 1, 2012
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director vo
SUBJECT: Budget and Levy History
The attached spreadsheet shows the general fund budget numbers and the levy
numbers for the city for the past ten years. During these ten years, we have faced levy
limits in 2003-2004 and 2009-2011. We also lost our Market Value Homestead Credit
(MVHC) in all of these years, but 2007. The MVHC program is no longer in existence
beginning in 2012.
In looking at the general fund budget numbers, here are a few items of note.
2005 - $50,000 was included for street seal coating.
2005 - $25,000 additional funding included for trail maintenance in parks.
2005 - $96,000 in police capital expenditures.
2006 - $31,500 IT wages were added in administration budget.
2006 - $40,000 administration contingency was increased by this amount.
2006 - $110,000 dump truck purchase in the street department budget.
2007 - $121,000 dump truck purchase in the street department budget.
The following items were significant in our levy history.
2005 — 2007 radio escrows in the amounts of $135,000, $125,000 and $175,000.
In 2005 we lost our MVHC and used the $135,000 to cover that loss and delayed
the escrow for the radios.
2008 — This was the first year that we levied an amount for the Par 3 bonds.
2009 — This was the first year that we levied for the fire truck purchase.
2010/2011 — The city levied $66,000 and $112,750 respectively for lost aid in
these years.
In planning for 2013 budget, both contracts for the bargaining units contain a 2%
increase in wages. We also could be faced with levy limits in 2013. These factors will
influence the preparation of the 2013 budget.
43
Budget Comparisons
W0)MMMNT-00000 CO
r•-• r-- 'I' '7' CO '7' in 1,-. ,-- 0) r
N. CO N CO CO CO in o, co -,-- VI CO CO 2
c5
Nfcric4c6c6c6N:,.c6c6,--- CO cc
7
- i s-',. 0
N 00007—,00..1.0r.0) N r T-
(0 r 0) 'Cr v- CO
0
69
rM0000,1-07-rr0 CO
NWCON000000.7-0 (7)
NM•1-0.0rCONM.1•00
r '77'47N-0406T-.7160) r04.rN 04.
00'7—cT0000000 0
cc-)
0) %— CO Nr 04 CO
. 04 -• .. • •
69.
(7)
000000000000 0 ° 0
010Nr0T-N7sNsTLOW 7' M
MN0r00.001.000r r 0 W
N
vi0dc456',...-0560)ccioti1Li d
6 CO
o co N (0 0 LO 0) ("1 0) CO 1-- N (0 CO
v.- 0) v- (i) CO 01 f..... N. .,-- ,-- 01
0 C1 C6
N 69 69-
000000000000 0 M
NOMWO'CN,TMOOM W i
CO
CO 0 0 cr 0 0 0 CO 'ty. 1*.- ,— ,—
0
0) rocTo5moaiddr---Lccctd .,-, d
0 OWM0)00NNNNN 6
M
0 M 1 MN1O0r r r
N 04 (0 (0
69 69
000000000000 0
NC4) N-0) r7-00)0) MNW CO
0N001,7NrCO.Or M
01'77C6N-06'7706r7516 '77
0 Mr(ONMCONOCOCON W
0 M MCONCONr N
N oi
EF).
10
(0
69.
000 00000000 0 iiks 0
NON 0)00)00MNW N N
000r 00)rrtO0NW N M N
M
N. 01NT-7 ccidc5doc tri
oi (0
0 CO CD "4' Nr ,/' s— CO .— Nt N N
0 0 MMNN.Nr 0 0
N 01 16 0-
fa Ea
000 00000000 0
N('40) rM00) T-0),T1.0 M
000 0)NNO1CO0)0) r r
CD N "cr N. cci s- cO" ,-- CO ..4 4") N
0 NI- c\I vr st o 0) ',- .,:t 0 N LO
0 CO v- CO v- N CO v. 0
N
0 L.6
Ea
000 00000000
NOOM COWMCOMMWr M
000.N 0)400(14 N- o
Lc-) cT o's N. 01 N. 05
(0t v.- CO 00 OD v- N
0Nr0Wr
77
000 00000000 0
WOM NMWMCOLONN N
C7<1.0 0NCONN'crr'cr N
N47006 60)t tri
0 NCO 't 0000MON N
0 N NNrCOLOr r
N
0).
000 00000000 0
OWCO NNCOMWWON r
';TCOr N.N*7-7'000.
M 166d .,--c\itrica CO
0 ("40) ('3 WLOOMN 0
0 N (04') 14)14) r
N
2
t73 '42
tn
—Inc
0) CO 0
Z-Eo
• E 4) CD C E
0_
o tio
ci<wto_u_Oomo-Wd
Cf .
c\I
0)
N
C6
0)
0
69
$3,779,719 $4,230,977
0
0
0
co
E
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
-CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
February 9, 2012
Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
Tamara Schutta, HR: Coordinator
Personnel Policy Section 23. Educational Incentive — Tuition Refund
BACKGROUND
During the 2012 budget discussions in August 2011, the City Council asked staff to review the
Educational Incentive — Tuition Refund policy.
In 1985, the City Council passed Resolution 85 -107 adopting the personnel code. The purpose of
the code is to establish a uniform and equitable system of municipal personnel administration for
all employees of the city of Mendota Heights. Included in the personnel code is Section 23,
Education Incentive — Tuition Refund. The objective of this policy is to encourage employees to
continue to improve their skills and knowledge as an investment in quality performance for the
mutual benefit of the employee and the city.
The Education Incentive — Tuition Refund policy reads:
All peiuianent, full -time city employees are encouraged to further their education by
enrolling in work - related courses. The city shall provide an Education Incentive Plan for
all permanent full -time employees of the city. If funds are not provided by any other
governmental agency, the city shall pay the cost of tuition equal to that charged by State
institutions after the employee has successfully completed a work - related course with a
grade of "C" or better. The City Administrator will determine if a course is work- related
and eligible for reimbursement. Upon completion of the course, the city shall pay the
employee a one -time payment of ten dollars ($10.00) for each credit hour the employee
has earned.
A certificate or some other proof of achievement in an approved course shall be placed in
the personnel file of the employee.
To be eligible for tuition reimbursement, employees must have completed their probationary
period and the college course or degree program must be work related. The degree program or
college course must be approved by the supervisor /department head and City Administrator.
The employee must receive a `C' or higher to receive tuition reimbursement from the city. The
city reimburses the cost of tuition equal to that charged by the University of Minnesota. The
University of Minnesota's current undergraduate rate is $448.08 per credit and the graduate part-
time rate is $1,167.67 per credit.
A tuition reimbursement survey was sent to metro cities and several responded. Attached is a
summary of their responses. A number of cities have set limits ranging from $750 to $5,250.
There are also a number of cities that have not set a limit
Recommendation
City staff is seeking Council direction.
48
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
February 9, 2012
Mayor and City Council
Justin Miller, City Administratotw-
Mayor Mertensotto Landmark Designation
BACKGROUND
With the recent passing for former Mayor Mertensotto, there has been discussion of how to best
honor his achievements to the City of Mendota Heights. In other cities, practices have ranged
from renaming streets or parks, naming buildings in a person's honor, establishing scholarships,
or displaying plaques denoting their accomplishments, just to name a few.
Ideas that have been suggested in Mendota Heights include renaming Lake Drive, the Mendakota
Park ball fields, or the industrial park after Mayor Mertensotto.
At the direction of the city council, staff will provide further guidance on the process and
budgetary impacts of the favored designation.
49
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: City Council Workshops
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
February 9, 2012
Mayor and City Council
Justin Miller, City Administrator
BACKGROUND
Currently the city council is scheduled to meet the first and third Tuesday of each month. Staff
believes discussing the merits of holding city council workshops for specific topics throughout
the year is worthwhile during this city council goal setting session.
Workshops provide an atmosphere for the city council and staff to discuss items more in depth
and without time constraints from other agenda items. Specifically, items potentially suitable for
workshops this year include:
• 2013 budget
® City code amendments
• Infrastructure management plans
• Personnel policy issues
® Assessment policy revisons
The frequency of such workshops would be at the discretion of the city council.