The URL can be used to link to this page

2012-05-15 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA May 15, 2012 — 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Acknowledgement of April 24, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes b. Acknowledgement of April 10, 2012 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes c. Approval of Sign Permit for 1200 Centre Pointe Drive d. Approval of Joint Powers Agreement for Road Names and Address Database e. Award of Professional Services Contract for Geotechnical Services on 2012 Public Improvement Projects f. Recognition of National Public Works Week g. Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Advertise for Bids for Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood Improvements h. Revised Public Purpose Expenditure Policy i. Authorize Appointment of City Clerk j. Approve Hiring of Seasonal Public Works Employee k. Dakota County Capital Improvements Program Request I. Authorization to Complete the Wagon Wheel Trail Pedestrian Facility m. Approval of Critical Area Permit, Planning Case 2012-13; 1145 Kingsley Court n. April Par 3 Report o. Approval of Contractors List p. Approval of Claims List q. Acknowledgement of May 1, 2012 City Council Minutes 6. Public Comments 7. Presentations a. St. Thomas Academy Rogers Lake Water Quality Report 8. Public Hearings 9. Unfinished and New Business a. Rogers Lake Homeowners Association Weed Control Request b. Planning Case 2012-03, Zoning Amendment, Accessory Structures 10.Council Comments -11.Adjourn Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 2012 ITEM 5A P1 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Cominission was held on Tuesday, April 24, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent: Chair Norton. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director /City Engineer Mazzitello, City Attorney Tami Dielun and NAC Planner Stephen Gritiwan. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval ofAeenda The agenda was approved moving Item 6A after Item 6C. Approval of Februarp 28, 2012, Minutes Commissioner Magnuson requested a change on. Page 3, third paragraph, it should state the sign was "not" resized by the city. Commissioner Viksnins requested a change on Page 6, in first paragraph stating the second line needs revision. Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek read this sentence aloud for the record stating it should read, "Mr. Bader purchased Lot 3 of Foxwood and brought a subdivision application to the City." Commissioner Viksnins stated his comment at the bottom of Page 9 should read, "The applicant was requesting an advisory opinion." COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 2012, AS AMENDED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Roston) Approval of March 27, 2012, Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 2012, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearin es PLANNING CASE #2012 -10 Joe Igo 862 Wagon Wheel Trail Variance to the Side Yard Setback for a Driveway Expansion Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Joe Tgo for approval of a variance to the side yard setback for a driveway expansion at 862 Wagon Wheel Trail. 1 Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 P2 Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant currently has a two -car garage with a setback from the side property line consistent with the minimum requirement of 10 feet. The current driveway edge lies approximately 11 feet from the side property line. The setback regulation for driveway surfaces is five feet from side property lines. The applicant wishes to expand the width of the driveway toward the side property line to create an additional parking space on the paved surface. Mr. Grittman presented staff' s analysis of the request, noting staff did not recommend approval of the variance as the available six feet was adequate to park a typical passenger vehicle. Staff understands that a wider surface would be more desirable; however, the requirements for a variance do not appear to be present, including a unique condition of the property, in that the five -foot setback standard has been routinely applied to new driveways throughout the community. Joe Igo, 862 Wagon Wheel Trail, presented the Commission with a sketch of his property stating the additional driving space would assist with storing vehicles in his driveway. For this reason, he was requesting an eight -foot driveway expansion, to the right side of the existing driveway, to assist in keeping his cars off the street and on his property. He explained the eight -foot expansion would better serve his needs than the six -foot expansion, while allowing for snow storage and doors of vehicles to be opened. Commissioner Hennes questioned if the applicant would be pleased with a one -foot variance. Mr. Igo stated he would be pleased with the one -foot variance. Vice -Chair Field opened the public Bearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice -Chair Field asked for a notion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A ONE -FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY SETBACK. The motion failed for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR A DRIVEWAY EXPANSION BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Roston requested an additional Findings of Fact be added to this case stating: "THIS PROPERTY HAD NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND THE PROPERTY WAS NOT UNIQUE." The Commission agreed with Commissioner Roston's requested addition. AYES 5 NAYS 1 (Hennes) Vice -Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 1, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012 -11 Dick Davern on behalf of the Convent of the Visitation School 2455 Visitation Drive Conditional Use Permit and Variances to Construct Softball Dugouts 2 Planning Commission. Minutes April 24, 2012 Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Visitation School and Convent for approval of a variance for accessory building size and number to allow for two dugouts for the softball field in the northwest corner of their property. Mr. Grittman explained the Visitation property is zoned R -1 and guided as an institutional use. City Code was quite restrictive with regard to accessory structure size and number in the R -1 zoning district. Staff noted a proposed ordinance amendment that would allow non - residential uses in the R -1 district to exceed the normal residential limits have not yet been adopted by the city. He commented that Visitation would be well within the limits of this ordinance with the addition of the dugouts. Mr. Grittman indicated the proposed dugouts would complement an existing use on the property. With an enclosed with a roof, the dugouts qualify as accessory buildings, requiring a conditional use permit. The current ordinance retains the accessory building requirements for such uses under the residential regulations. Under current code, additional accessory building space will require a variance. Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and recommended approval of the variances. Staff found the structures to be consistent with the current use of the site, will have little or no visual impact on adjacent properties, and would be consistent with the terms of the proposed code amendment for accessory building construction. With these conditions, the request meets the required tests for variance approval, including reasonableness and practical difficulties. Commissioner Viksnins questioned why the dugout was considered an accessory structure. Mr. Grittman explained that structures with roofs meet the zoning codes definition for an accessory structure. Commissioner Viksnins asked for the practical difficulty in this case. Mr. Grittman noted the limitations within the R -1 zoning district given the fact this was an institutional use. Commissioner Roston requested further information on the ordinance amendment. Mr. Sedlacek explained the City Council was reviewing the amendment and had concerns with the ultimate size of an individual accessory structure within the larger square footage requirement for institutional uses within the R -1 zoning district. He stated setbacks were also being discussed. After reviewing a follow up report from staff, the City Council will take action on the amendment. Dr. Dawn Nichols, 2455 Visitation Drive, thanked staff for their presentation this evening and for the commission's time in considering her request. She noted the dugouts would be a great addition to the softball field and would be painted in the schools colors of red and white. The dugouts would also provide safety to the players and hospitality to visiting teams. Vice -Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice -Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING SIZE AND NUMBER AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WITH THE ADDITIONAL FINDING THE APPLICANT FACES PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN COMPLYING WITH THE CURRENT CITY CODE. AYES 6 3 P3 Planning Commission Minutes April24, 2012 NAYS 0 P4 Vice -Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 1, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012 -07 Michael and Michelle Bader Variance to the Right -of -way Width for Foxwood Lane Planner Stephen Grittman explained this Public Hearing was continued from the February 28, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. He indicated the item was tabled due to the fact a number of questions were raised by the planning commission and those in attendance at the February meeting. Staff provided a summarized response to these issues. Mr. Grittman noted the first concern was the impact of approving a variance without the benefit of a subdivision plan from the applicant. Staff agreed the lack of a subdivision complicated the decision on the variance; however, the approval of the variance does not confer any guarantee of subdivision approval. The applicant's subdivision would need to stand on its own. Mr. Grittman stated it was suggested that a better approach to this application might have been through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rather than a variance. Staff again agreed with this suggestion, however, the applicant has chosen to request the variance to test the acceptability of using Foxwood prior to investing significant sums in engineering a plat that might be acceptable but for the access issue. Mr. Grittman commented a neighbor raised concern with the Comprehensive Plan, and that approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the Somerset Area of the Comprehensive Plan noting parts of the area have the potential to be further subdivided and the possibility exists to either extend cul -de- sacs or provide a connection between Ridgewood Drive and the cul -de -sac located in the northeast quarter of this section. From this description, the Comprehensive Plan appears to contemplate the possibility of both future subdivision and the extension of the existing roadways in the neighborhood. It would appear that the Comprehensive Plan can be read as allowing the use of Foxwood. Mr. Grittman indicated there were other issues with construction of Foxwood and the ability to make required improvements within the existing right -of -way. Staff found it was not uncommon that street and utility construction occurs outside of the existing right -of -way limits through temporary construction easements. The applicant would need to demonstrate that the street and utilities can be constructed within the right -of -way and that any necessary easements are obtained. He noted the acquisition of such easements would be a private party requirement and not a municipal responsibility. Mr. Gritluran explained the applicant has provided staff with additional material related to the impact of the construction of Foxwood Lane, along with a more detailed subdivision layout. He discussed the new 30 -foot roadway alignment. Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and found that the requirements for variance consideration were present with this case. Staff indicated it appears that the applicant could develop the property to the extent of four new lots with a number of configurations. While the proposed subdivision results in an overly long cul -de -sac, it also appears to have the least impact on the land, in relation to grading and tree loss. Because the conditions resulting in the narrower right -of -way for the existing Foxwood Lane are not the result of any actions by the applicant, staff believes that the variance request can be found to be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the four conditions for approval had been revised by staff since the February meeting. Mr. Grittman noted the conditions were the same. 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 P5 Commissioner Viksnins asked if there were any other conditions that could be added to minimize the impact on the surrounding landowners. Mr. Grittman stated the variance only addresses the construction of a 30 -foot street and perhaps additional conditions should be added to the plat request. Conunissioner Magnuson inquired how the applicant would proceed if the 30 -foot roadway would be impossible to complete once the plat information was complete. Mr. Grittman opined that the 30 -foot roadway could fit; however, the expense and need for construction easements were another issue. Commissioner Magnuson indicated Ms. Gray noted an expansion of Foxwood Lane would violate City Code 12 -1D- 4, which relates to the size of an open yard or other space. She requested further information from staff on this issue. Mr. Grittman stated this code relates to the side yard setbacks and depending on the location of the roadway, the Gray Home may not meet the City's current requirements. The setback requirements would be addressed with the subdivision approval and not with the variance request before the commission this evening. Commissioner Hennes questioned if the subdivision would allow for four or five new buildable lots. Mr. Grittman commented Lot 1 was an existing lot and the new buildable lots would be Lots 2 -5. Commissioner Roston asked if the proposed traveling surface of the road for Foxwood Lane would be 30 feet. Public Works Director Mazzitello stated current city policy has normal city streets 33 feet from face of curb to face of curb. However, based on each individual project this can be adjusted within reason to meet the engineering needs of the project. He stated the additional right -of -way, beyond the 30 feet, allowed for snow storage and utility line storage. Commissioner Roston inquired if the fire department or police department expressed concern with the roadway width. Mr. Mazzitello was not aware of any concerns. Vice -Chair Field explained this evening was a continued public hearing from the February 28, 2012 meeting. Paul McGinley, Loucks & Associates, addressed the commission speaking to the concerns raised by the commission and public at the February meeting. He noted a meeting was held with the Dakota County Transportation staff. Dakota County was not corrunittal on this issue but provided preferences stating a through street from Delaware was preferred. Mr. McGinley reported that a second preference would be to extend Foxwood. Vice -Chair Field stated these comments were based on Mr. McGinley's interpretation of the meeting and that no facts were before the commission this evening. Mr. McGinley stated he was advised in February to provide context on the subdivision. He stated the Bader's have considered reducing the proposed subdivision to four total Lots, the one existing lot with three new lots. He them reviewed the proposed location of Foxwood stating the Gray property sideyard setback would be met through the proposed alignment and a landscape buffer would be created in this space. Mr. McGinley reviewed the survey data regarding the Lutz property noting all setbacks would be met through the proposed roadway location. Mr. McGinley noted Foxwood Lane was a public dedicated right -of -way dedicated to the public for use. A private drive surface was allowed to service the homeowners. A 10 -foot drainage and utility easement ran along the west side of the roadway, which was dedicated to the public. Mr. McGinley discussed the feasibility of reconstructing the street within the available 50 -foot right -of -way. He reviewed several housing developments that were created within a 50 -foot right -of -way in Plymouth and Stillwater. He noted all city utilities would be located under the pavement with other utilities located adjacent to the pavement in a 30 -inch trench. The impact of the reconstruction on the 50 -foot right -of -way was discussed. He noted a water main was the only utility that would be brought down this roadway, along with small utilities. Storm sewer would not be extended to the new roadway. Sanitary sewer, if needed, would be brought to the new subdivision from Ridgewood. Vice -Chair Field stated the relocation of the sanitary sewer lines was the opinion of Mr. McGinley and not fact. 5 Planning Commission Alinutes April 24, 2012 Mr. McGinley commented that the proposed roadway expansion would not harm the character of the neighborhood. He reviewed the comprehensive plan stating the location was guided for .R -1A zoning with 1.1 units per acre. The proposed plan by the Bader's was .6 units per acre, which was half the density required within the comprehensive plan. Mr. McGinley then discussed the zoning code stating the proposed plan met all parcel size requirements. Mr. McGinley read the conclusions from Planner Grittman indicating the possibility exists to extend Foxwood or Ridgewood to service the Bader's property. He added that it would not appear that the comprehensive plan can be read as precluding the use of Foxwood. Demand exists for these properties and he asserted that if the variance were not approved it would be difficult to find a reasonable way to accommodate the needs of the landlocked 35 acres. Mr. McGinley provided comment on the five findings of fact for denial. He discussed the grading of the lot stating there would be a continuous 6.5% grade if access was made from Delaware, which was a difficult grade. In addition, he noted there would be heavy tree loss if access was provided from Delaware. Another alternative would be a roadway to Ridgewood and would require two or three other homeowners to agree to this 1,200 -foot long roadway. It was his opinion that this alternative was impractical and unlikely. He discussed the setbacks on Lot 1, the Lutz property, stating that protecting the wetland forced the home closer to the roadway. It was his opinion that because a variance was not required with the original Foxwood Lane road width, a variance was not required at this time. This was only further stalling the development of the superblock area. Mr. McGinley indicated the extension of Foxwood would increase the length of the cul -de -sac, but was staff's preferred location given the grading and tree loss that would be required if access were required along Delaware. Mr. McGinley thanked the commission for its time this evening and for hearing his connnents based on the concerns raised at the February meeting. He requested the commission recommend approval of the variance request. Mr. Sedlacek provided clarification that examples cited by Mr. McGinley, such as the Somerset Area plat predates city code by 20 years. In addition, staff was unable to locate roadways within Friendly Hills with less than 60 feet in right -of -way. Mr. McGinley stated the roadways near the fire department had 50 -foot rights -of- way. Mr. Mazzitello noted that this plat also predated the city. Vice -Chair Field thanked staff for the clarification. Mr. Sedlacek verified for the commission that contrary to the applicant's assertion, the city would require full utilities be built at this time and not delayed until a future date. Mr. McGinley felt that this could be addressed in the subdivision plans. Commissioner Roston reiterated that the request before the commission this evening was for a variance and not the subdivision. Mr. Mazzitello provided continents to the commission based on the meeting held with the County on March 23`d with the Baders. He stated roadway alternatives were discussed and the County found it unlikely they would approve a cul -de -sac off a County Road. There was no second preferred option rioted at that time. At no time did county staff state that a through street was preferred. Vice -Chair Field thanked staff for this clarification. Bill Griffith, 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza, representing the neighbors, provided comments to the commission. He directed his comments to the 1993 plat conditions, the applicant's inability to meet the variance requirements, and that what is being proposed may not be buildable. Mr. Griffith expressed on behalf of his clients a fair amount of frustration that a plat was not presented for this proposal. This fact was leaving the .neighbors from understanding the full impact of the potential plat. 6 Planning Commission Nlhnules April 2,1, 2012 P7 Mr. Griffith explained he read all city minutes addressing the 1993 plat conditions. The concern of the residents was the protection of open spaces and natural areas. This subdivision had specific conditions to address these areas of concern. He read the conditions aloud stating a scenic easement was required for the Gray property. This scenic easement was established in lieu of a utility easement. Vice -Chair Field questioned if the concerns being raised by the neighbors were private matters. City Attorney Diehm stated these issues were flowing into the future subdivision request. However, because this was a public hearing, she recommended the testimony be taken. Mr. Griffith continued stating the next condition of the Foxwood Plat addresses the 20 -foot surface area and private drive. While a public right-of-way was provided to the city, a private drive was installed by the homeowners. This would protect the Lutz family, in particular. He stated there was a reference to the 35 -foot right -of -way easement, which also protects his clients' interests. Mr. Griffith noted the difficulty in assessing the impact on the neighbors would be impossible. This burden was to be placed on the applicant, and the applicant needed to prove there would not be a negative impact on the neighboring properties. He stated the original subdivision was approved in 1993 with three Lots, several conditions and a 20 -foot private roadway. The extension of the roadway was not contemplated, nor was the development of the property to the south. It was his opinion that the Baders had reasonable use of their property as a home site. Mr. Griffith indicated the roadway expansion has two major conflict points, as it will require construction easements from his clients. These easements will not be granted under any circumstances. This means the roadway cannot be built as proposed by the applicant. He requested the commission acknowledge the existence of the covenants for this neighborhood and how these covenants would affect potential building pads. Mr. Griffith recommended other alternatives be sought by the applicant, as there were no practical difficulties with this request. Commissioner Viksnins questioned how the plat conditions were tied to the variance requests. Mr. Griffith stated the essential character of the neighborhood was established through these conditions. The setbacks, wetland protection and narrow roadway created a different look and feel to this development. These essential facts create the character of the neighborhood and the intention of the City Council in 1993. The private covenants match these conditions. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the character of a neighborhood could change over 15 -20 years. Mr. Griffith indicated this could happen; however, the restrictions within the original plat created the character of the neighborhood and these covenants were still be held to by the neighbors. Commissioner Noonan explained the commission could not make the determination if the subdivision was buildable at this time because a final plan was not before the city. Mr. Griffith did not agree with this statement. He indicated the limitations and protective conditions within the original plat will not allow for a roadway to be built, as it would be running over scenic easements. The city would have to vacate these easements in order to allow for the roadway to be expanded. Mr. Grittman provided comment on the separation of the variance from the potential subdivision. Mr. Griffith indicated the plat conditions were designed to protect the character of the subdivision. There was a private drive over a public roadway. He reiterated the fact that several construction easements were needed to complete the roadway expansion and the neighbors were not interested in approving these easements. Mr. Mazzitello clarified that the city would not take responsibility for acquiring the necessary easements to complete the roadway expansion. With all private developments, this was the responsibility of the developer. In this case, that would be Mr. Bader. Michael Bader, 1673 Delaware Avenue, noted he had a written response to Ms. Gray's letter and submitted those comments to staff. He discussed the restrictive covenants of the neighborhood understanding this was a private matter. 7 Planning C0111171iSSi017 Minutes April 24, 2012 P8 City Attorney Diehm reconunended the commission close the public hearing and allow for comments between staff and the commission. Vice-Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 City Attorney Diehm stated this issue has many layers and encouraged the commission to focus their comments on the variance to the street right-of-way width. She then reviewed the criteria for a variance approval in detail with the commission. She asked the commission to limit the discussion to these criteria and avoid comments on the restrictive covenants or potential subdivision. The item being considered this evening is the variance of the standard street width from 60 feet to 50 feet. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH VARIANCE FROM 60 FEET TO 50 FEET FOR THE EXISTING PORTION OF FOXWOOD LANE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Viksnins requested the second finding of fact remove the word "concerns" and replace it with "practical difficulties." Commissioner Noonan stated the variance approval would allow for further in-depth review of the case when a plat comes before the city. Commissioner Roston commented the fifth finding of fact refers to a "proposed subdivision." He suggested this finding of fact be removed or amended. City Attorney Diehm supported this reconunendation, as the city does not have a potential subdivision to consider. She recommended the fifth finding of fact read as follows: "USE OF FOXWOOD LANE AS PROPOSED IN THE VARIANCE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE USE OF THE SUBJECT LAND CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN." Commissioner Roston offered a friendly amendment to the motion REVISING THE FIFTH FINDING OF FACT AS NOTED BY STAFF. THIS AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY COMMISSIONERS NOONAN AND VIKSNINS. Commissioner Viksnins reviewed the proposed conditions within the staff report. He recommended there be no more than three new buildable lots. Commissioner Roston suggested the commission not address this issue this evening. Commissioner Noonan agreed stating these conditions deal with the future consideration of a subdivision. City Attorney Diehm indicated the city has the right to place conditions on the variance approval. Then, when the subdivision then comes before the city, these factors can be considered. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Vice-Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 1, 2012, meeting. 8 Planning Connnission Minutes April 24, 2012 Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2012 -08 Tim Aune Subdivision Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Cul -De -Sac Length O After direction from the Planning Commission, this case was withdrawn by the applicant. PLANNING CASE #2012 -09 Barry Sonunervold Wetlands Pennit for Pool Construction O Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:51 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary 9 P9 ITEM 5B P10 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING April 10, 2011 The April meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, April 10, 2012 at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. Chair Levine called to order the parks and recreation commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. The following commissioners were present: Chair Stephanie Levine, Conunissioners Mary McGrory- Ussett, Ira Kipp, Mike Toth, David Miller and Pat Hinderscheid. Staff present: Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek and Recreation Progranuner Teresa Gangelhoff. Approval of Minutes Commissioner McGrory-Ussett made a motion to approve the February minutes, Commissioner Hinderscheid seconded the motion. AYES 6: NAYS 0 Park Bench Donation Elizabeth Moran would like donate a bench to be placed in Ivy Falls Park, between the paved trail and the softball field. The proposed location has been reviewed by our public works crew, who approve of the location. The donation covers the cost for the bench, the city would then cover the cost of the concrete pad and installation of the park bench. Commissioner Miller made a motion to accept the donation of a park bench. Commissioner McGrory-Ussett seconded the motion AYES 6: NAYS 0 Rogers Lake Skate Park Mr. Sedlacek introduced the topic of the Skate Park — the commission had previously identified the park as a priority for repair and improvement, and set the April commission meeting as the date for an open house to get feedback on potential improvements. Commissioner Toth shared that he had visited the skate park on four or five different occasions, speaking with skaters and encouraging their feedback. The most common feedback was to repair cracks in the asphalt. In the feedback collected by Commissioner Toth and Mr. Sedlacek, it seems that the skate park has a fairly wide draw for ages; the park is centrally located in the twin cities and unique in the type of features it has. Skaters expressed an interest in street-skating features, but no clearly defined feedback has been received. MH Parks and Recreation Commission 4-10-2012 Page - 1 P11 Mr. Sedlacek reported that a vendor has been authorized to complete asphalt repairs and will move ahead as soon as weather permits. Public works staff will move skate features as necessary to complete crack repair Grant Deroches with Flagship Recreation had attended the meeting to discuss the Rogers Lalce Playground recall, but was prepared to speak on stand -alone skate features. Mr. Deroches reported that concrete skate parks are becoming very popular. It is important when considering stand along features to have the spacing between features designed correctly. Mr. Deroches provided a background on the development of skate parks. He reported that skating is a vibrant market, with the majority of parks going to more expensive concrete structures. Mr. Sedlacek reported that staff will move ahead with repairs to the existing park, and will wait for feedback from park users before making improvements. Bringing new features can happen at any time in the summer. Staff hopes to be able to bring the commission three comparable bids when features have been identified Rogers Lake Play Equipment Grant DesRoches represents Landscape Structures Inc (LSI). Mr. DesRoches explained that the most recent playground installed at Rogers Lake Park included a Slalom Glider slide. Since our playground was installed, the classification for this feature changed from a Banister Slide to a Standard Slide. This change made the Slalom Glider non - conforming with insurance standards. LSI issued a voluntary recall of the play feature. Mr. DesRoches provided detail on options for replacing the recalled feature. Most alternatives offered by LSI include a credit which could be spent on other features for this park, or others in Mendota Heights. Mr. DesRoches showed some options available for a $2,000 credit. The commission asked if the credit could be used towards skate park features. Mr. DesRoches expressed his opinion that the credit could be applied towards Mendakota Park. Recently, the commission had approved improvements to the tot -lot portion of the Mendakota Park Playground. At the tune, a shade structure over the sand -table was excluded for budgetary purposes. Chair Levine asked about what other corrections might be needed at Mendakota Park. Mr. DesRoches informed the commission that there are several safety issues which ought to be addressed. The playground was installed in 1990; accessibility standards have been updated, resulting in several non - conforming features on the current play structure. The structure itself is sound, and could be retrofit with new paint and new features at considerably lower cost than replacement. Mr. DesRoches was asked to research the possibility of a retrofit and report back to the cornrnission at the May 2012 meeting. Mr. DesRoches mentioned that his company is capable of conducting a complete safety survey of existing play structures. The cornrnission expressed interest in discussion the survey at a later date. MH Parks and Recreation Commission 4 -10 -2012 Page - 2 P12 Parks and Recreation Report Mr. Sedlacek presented the Recreation P rograrnmer's Report. Youth trips are planned on Thursdays this summer — there is limited availability for most trips. Simple Steps is a program put on by Dakota County Public Health to track your physical activity. Citizens are encouraged to sign up through the Dakota County website with friends and family as an incentive to stay active this summer. The annual safety camp will be held in the first week of August — if by chance our slots fill up, staff will work with our partner cities of West St Paul and South St Paul to try and get more kids into the program. Surruner playground programs are very popular again this year — all morning sessions are full, check the city website for availability in afternoon sessions. Tennis programs have been modified slightly which has been well received. The Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby will be Wednesday, June 27, 2012, and the Eagan Puppet Wagon will be returning to Market Square Park for a second year. Thompson Park Activity Center offers programs for seniors in the area, and have a variety of offerings. The Spring Clean -Up will be held on Saturday, April 28, 2012. The clean-up will be at Mendakota Park from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Each year, Mendota Heights residents divert literally tons of materials from going into the landfill. Parks Celebration Planning Letters have gone out to businesses to solicit donations and volunteers. All contracted services for the event have been coordinated and approved by city council. This year will feature night- golf at the Mendota Heights Par 3, which is a unique experience. Friday will include live music at the village, and the night golf event at Mendota Heights Par 3. Saturday morning will be the Mendota Heights 5K walk/run to benefit Special Olympics at the Village at Mendota Heights. The parks celebration itself occurs at Mendakota Park from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. MHAA is hosting an invitational baseball tournament all weekend long. Corrunissioners are asked to volunteer at the parks celebration to help meet and greet families. Staff will find a way to help commissioners be more readily identified at the event. Par 3 Update The city council authorized the hiring of clubhouse staff on March 20, 2012. The clubhouse opened on March 24, 2012. This is only the second time that the Par 3 has opened in March. MH Parks and Recreation Commission 4 -10 -2012 Page - 3 P13 New staff coming on board brings new energy and ideas, which should lead to more creative programming. Mr. Sedlacek reported that staffing calls for one clerk on hand at all times, with additional staff as needed. Mr. Sedlacek also reported on his meeting with maintenance staff to discuss the need to reduce maintenance costs from past years. The course is in the best condition in recent memory, and should require less time to maintain, whereas previous years involved more special projects. The turf on the course carne through the winter very well, and the course is healthy for the spring. The start of the 2012 season has required more administrative time than had been anticipated, but the city council has placed a strong emphasis on overseeing the golf course. The result has been a closer understanding of clubhouse operations which will be helpful in finding new efficiencies. Mr. Sedlacek reviewed the March Revenue and Expenditure report. While these numbers are incomplete, the recreation program revenue is higher this year through the end of March than through the same period for 2011. The Mendota Heights Athletic Association is hosting a fundraising tournament on Saturday, May 4, 2012 — citizens are encouraged to sign up through the MHAA website. On June 9, 2012, there will be a free Swing Into Summer event at the Par Three for all ages. Free lessons, hot dogs and prizes will be featured. The city council did approve a $1 increase to golf course fees for the 2012 season. Mr. Sedlacek reported that customers he has worked with were accepting of the fee increase. Commissioner McGrory-Ussett asked staff to provide data compared month by month for recent years. Lexington Avenue Trail Connection Commissioner Kipp asked that staff provide an update on the gap in our trail system on Lexington Avenue from Tom Thumb Road to Wagon Wheel Trail. Mr. Sedlacek provided an update on 2012 work occurring on Lexington Avenue. Dakota County is resurfacing Lexington, which will not include any work outside of the current paved area. Commissioner Toth expressed concerns that the new pedestrian trail on Wagon Wheel Trail was not completed, and currently terminates just west of the overpass to Interstate 35E. Mr. Sedlacek reported that the missing trail segment on Wagon Wheel Trail was originally planned for the reconstruction of the right of way, but was removed due to public opposition by the residents on that section of Wagon Wheel Trail. The Lexington Avenue gap has been considered in the past, on the east side of the right of way. This orientation would require property acquisition, the adjacent land owners were not interested MH Parks and Recreation Commission 4-10-2012 Page - 4 P 1 4 in giving up land previously. The west side of the right of way is a viable option, but would require trail users to cross Lexington Avenue twice. After further discussion, the conunission asked staff to Commissioner McGrory-Ussett made a motion to direct staff to request that Dakota County evaluate all alternatives to trail gaps on Lexington Avenue in the near future. Commissioner Kipp seconded the motion. AYES 6: NAYS 0 Commissioner Miller made a motion requesting that the city council consider completing the gap in the trail system between 135E and Lexington Avenue. Corrunissioner Toth seconded the motion. AYES 6: NAYS 0 Commission Comments Commissioner McGrory-Ussett encouraged all skate park users to provide input on what they would like to see at their park. The Par 3 is open for business, and the spring clean-up is Saturday April 28, 2012. Commissioner Toth asked if there has been any update on weed treatments for Rogers Lake. Mr. Sedlacek will ask Engineering Update. Chair Levine reminded residents to sign. their kids up for the Safety Camp, and asked staff to add a review of play equipment to the parks and recreation work plan. Chair Levine also mentioned finding questionable filler used in the open area of the Valley Park Trail, and again requested that the trail be re-paved as soon as possible. Residen.ts are encouraged to call with any concerns they have regarding the park system. Adjourn Chair Levine called for a vote to adjourn the meeting, AYES 6: NAYS 0 The meeting at 8:39 p.m. Respectfully Submitted by Jake Sedlacek ME Parks and Recreation Commission 4-10-2012 Page - 5 Ciry OF MEN.DD T A HEIGHTS DATE: May 1S, 2012 TO: FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PM Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator Public Works Director /City '' gineer SUBJECT: Sign Permit for 1200 Center Pointe Curve ITEM 5C P15 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55113 651.4523850 phone 651.452.5940 fax wwwinendota-heights.coril BACKGROUND Fastsigns has submitted an application for a Sign Permit for Council review and approval. The proposed application contains 6 business name and location signs, each of which will be 8.75 square feet in area. The signs are for new tenants at the facility. The proposed signs are consistent with the facility's Master Sign Plan that is on file with the City. BUDGET IMPACT The applicant will be paying fees for 6 permits for 6 signs under this single application. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of 6, 8.75 square foot signs as proposed in the permit application. If Council agrees with the staff recommendation., pass a motion by a simple majority vote approving the permit and authorizing staff to issue the permits for these signs. APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMIT City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 (651) 452 -1850 (651) 452 -8940 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Mendota Heights to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Mendota Heights, the State of Minnesota, and rulings of the Building Department. Digitally signed by Henry Vote! Henry Vot e l DN: ciln =e;, , ou, ema gudiHenrym20o5 Vot@isod.net, c =US SIGNA t.lt' Date: 2011.10.141130:35 - 05'00' Sampson Development P APPROVED PERMIT FEE $ SITE ADDRESS 1200 Centre Pointe Curve DATE OFAPPLICATION OWNER (Name) (Address) (Tel. No., Including Area Code) Sampson Dev. LP, 6015 190th St N, Forest Lake, MN( 55025 651- 426 -1610 CONTRACTOR (Name) (Address) (Tel. No., Including Area Code) FastSigns ( ) Type of Building Office Used As Prof.Offices Building Estimated Cost $2,500.00 Contractor's City License No. Building Permit No. TYPE OF SIGN ® WALL ❑ ROOF 0 PROJECTING ❑ GROUND ❑ MARQUEE ❑ TEMPORARY ❑ OTHER MAX. DIMENSION VERTICAL FT. HORIZONTAL FT. SIGN AREA SQ. FT. NO. OF SIDES DISTANCE FROM GROUND TO SIGN BASE FT. HEIGHT OF SIGN FT. FT. SETBACK OF SIGN FROM PROPERTY ILLUMINATED ❑ YES ❑ LINE NO ALLOWABLE SIGN ARE ON PROMISES FT. SKETCH OF SIGN The City has previously approved our Master Sign Permit and plans. This is an application for signs on 6 of the 12 designated business name locations at our building. We have consolidated those 6 signs into this single sign permit application. We expect to pay the sign fee for 6 sign permits. See attached graphic for signs on 6 of our 12 master planned locations. The business sign square footage is 2 -1/2 by 3 -1/2 or just under 9 sf per sign spot. Some businesses at our building have two units so they get 2 sign spots. Also attached is the Master Sign graphic that was previously approved and we have that permit. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Mendota Heights to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Mendota Heights, the State of Minnesota, and rulings of the Building Department. Digitally signed by Henry Vote! Henry Vot e l DN: ciln =e;, , ou, ema gudiHenrym20o5 Vot@isod.net, c =US SIGNA t.lt' Date: 2011.10.141130:35 - 05'00' Sampson Development P APPROVED Tl ; » 4 > 2 I :z • / . » / t \ f ! \lt / /. \. J m \/ /\ , < » S \ \. \ »© ).\ .,«. `"-> -. 2(\ \ ] ^.`. \. ] \\ \1 ~^ \ § / | ' y \t.3 1 Id: r• . - ' - r ic=,,:,1 — r., .. ..!;... ',,-..'..,.1 i.... _ ,:; , • . il t-'. • -: ---- : I .r , — - l• . i-,:,, . I i : .. i, • • 1 ,. i''..'-.-•' ' . • [ ',.• c a) E a) 0 0 E z D -a co c cn c a) ITEM 5D P16 1101 Victoria Curve ( Mendota Heights, MN 55113 651452.11350 phGfle ( 651,452.8940 fax w tw.rliendCta-heighfS.00m CITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: May 15, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, PE, Assistant City Engineer ° , SUBJECT: JPA for Road Names & Address Database BACKGROUND Dakota County is requiring all cities within its limits to designate a representative to serve as the primary contact responsible for naming streets and assigning addresses within Mendota Heights. Maintenance and storage of Mendota Heights Geographical Information System (GIS) database and addressing is currently performed by Mendota Heights engineering staff. The attached JPA will give the city greater flexibility to update the database at the county level. Currently, when the city receives an address change, we must send a letter to the county identifying the request and have to wait for them to perform the work. The attached JPA will allow city staff to directly update the database at the county level. Ryan Ruzek will be identified as the primary city representative for the proposed Road Naming and Addressing Committee. BUDGET IMPACT None — Staff currently maintains the city GIS database. Additional time with the new program is anticipated to be minimal. RECOMMENDATION If Council agrees with the Staff's recommendation, pass a motion by simple majority vote authorizing the city administrator to execute the attached agreement. P1 7 JO!NT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR MAINTENANCE OF GJS DATABASE CONTA(NING ROAD NAMES AND ADDRESSES This Joint Powers Agreement (the Agreement) is entered into on 2012. by and between the County of Dakota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, Dakota County Administration Cenher, 1690 Highway 55, Hasbnga, Minnesota, 55033. hereinafter referred to as COUNTY, and the City of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation, 1101 Victoria Curve, MN, 55118, hereinafter referred to as the CITY, pursuant to the authority contained in Minn. Stat. § 471.59. WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 471.59 authorizes local governmental units to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power cornrnon to tbe contracting parties; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 163.02 authorizes the COUNTY to name COUNTY roads ocated in the COUNTY; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 412.221 authorizes the CITY to name CITY roads and assign addresses located in the CITY; and WHEREAS, the CITY and COUNTY wish to maintain a common GIS database of addresses and road names for their mutual benefit for emergency dispatch and other purposes and wish to set forth their respective roles and responsibilities and the terms and conditions of their understanding. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and benefits that they will derive from this Agreement, the COUNTY and the CITY do hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to define the terms and conditions pursuant to which the COUNTY and the CITY will establish and maintain a common GIS database containing all addresses and road names within the city and Dakota County. ARTICLE 2 TERM 2.1 Effective Date. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the last signature that this Agreement was executed by either party. 2.2 Expiration Date. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until terminated pursuant to Artice 10 of this Agreement. ARTICLE 3 COOPERATION The COUNTY and the CITY agree to cooperate and use their reasonable efforts to ensure prompt implementation of the various provisions of this Agreement and ho, in good haith, undertake resolution of any dispute in an equitable and timely manner. P18 ARTICLE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY 4.1 DESIGNATE ROAD NAMING AND ADDRESSING AUTHORITY The CITY will designate an individual staff with primary responsibility for naming roads and assigning addresses on roads over which the CITY has jurisdiction. This individual will be the primary contact for any questions or issues regarding road names and addresses on city roads. 4.2 ASSIGN NEW ROAD NAMES AND ADDRESS. All requests for new addresses and road names over which the CITY has jurisdiction will be directed to the Road Naming and Addressing Authority in that city. The Road Naming and Addressing Authority will assign road names and addresses that conform to the appropriate road naming and addressing system and identify and engage any other CITY staff to obtain formal approval, if necessary. 4.3 UPDATE ROAD NAME AND ADDRESS DATABASE. The CITY Road Naming and Addressing Authority will update the road name and address database using toots or procedures approved by the COUNTY prior to actually releasing the new road names and addresses to the property owner or developer. 4.4 PARTICJPATE IN ROAD NAMING AND ADDRESSING COMMITTEE. The GITY Road Naming and Addressing Authority will represent CITY on the Road Naming and Addressing Committee. 4.5 NOTIFICATIONS. After updating the county road name and address database, the CITY will be responsible for notifying any CITY deperbnents, the property owner or developer, the U.S. Postal Semiue, and alt other appropriate contacts except those notified by the COUNTY as stated in NOTIFICATIONS in Article 5 of this Agreement, of new road names and addresses. ARTICLE 5 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COUNTY 51 DESIGNATE ROAD NAMING AUTHORITY. The COUNTY will designate an individual staff with primary responsibility for naming roads over which the COUNTY has jurisdiction. This individual will be the primary contact for any questions or issues regarding road names on county roads. 5.2 DESIGNATE ROAD NAME AND ADDRESS DATABASE ADMIN!STRATOR. The COUNTY witt designate an individual with primary responsibitity for administering the road name and address database. The database administrator will be responsible for managing all access to the database and related applications. 5.3 ASSIGN NEW ROAD NAMES. All requests for new road names for roads over which the COUNTY has jurisdiction will be directed to the COUNTY Road Naming Authority. The COUNTY Road Naming Authority is responsible for assigning road names that conform to the COUNTY road naming system and identifying and engaging any other COUNTY staff to obtain formal approval, if necessary. 5.4 UPDATE ROAD NAME AND ADDRESS DATABASE. The COUNTY Road Naming Authority witi update the road name and address database using COUNTY supplied tools for COUNTY roads. The COUNTY Road Naming Authority will also perform updates for township roads prior to providing new road names and addresses to a township, which subsequently releases the new road names and addresses to the property owner or devetoper. 5.5 COORDINATE ROAD NAMING AND ADDRESSING COMMITTEE. The COUNTY Road Naming Authority will represent COUNTY on the Road Naming and Addressing Committee and will act as the Chair of the Committee. Committee will meet as needed to discuss issues related to maintaining and distributing the database. 2 P1 5.6 DEVELOP, HOST, AND MAINTAIN DATABASE EDITING APPLICATIONS. The COUNTY is responsible for developing and hosting applications providing direct editing capabilities to the county-wide road and address GIS database. 5.7 PERFORM QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING. The COUNTY will create and perform systematic testing and validation procedures to identify any issues and potential issues related to assigned addresses and road names. These issues will be documented and provided to the appropriate CITY Road Naming and Addressing Authority for resolution. 5.8 DLSTRIBUTE ROAD NAME AND ADDRESS DATABASE. The COUNTY wiU be responsible for distributing road name and address database for use in other organizations and systems, including; LOGIS (Computer Aided Dispatch system), CJ/|N (Records Management System), MetroGIS (for further distribution), CITY Information Technology staff (for integration into city app|/catinno), and others as needed. Distribution will be accomplished through standardized formats and procedures with an emphasis on automation to make the distribution as streamlined as reasonably possible. 5.9 NOTIFICATIONS. After confirming updates to the county road name and address database, the COUNTY will be responsible for notifying other COUNTY departments and the Dakota Communications Center or its successor of new road names and addresses. ARTICLE 6 THE ROAD NAMING AND ADDRESSJNG COMMITTEE There is hereby created a Road Naming and Addressing Committee. CITY and COUNTY will participate in the proceedings of this committee through their respective Road Naming and Addressing Authorities who shall sit as members of the committee. The committee will be chaired and organized by the COUNTY to discuss any issues related to assigning road names and addresses and related applications and databases. The Chair will call for a meeting of the committee members upon a request by two or more committee members. ARTICLE 7 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND HOLD HARMLESS 7.1 Neither the COUNTY nor CITY is responsible for the independent acts and/or omissions of the other party, or their of oeco. empioyeeu, or agents nor, is either responsible for the independent acts and/or omissions of other cities that enter into the same or similar Agreements with the COUNTY for street naming and address assignment. 7.2 It is the intent of the parties that each party including their respective public safety agencies shall be responsible for any claims or liabilities arising from the neg|igenL, viUfu|, or intentional acts or omissions of their respective public safety personnel without contribution from the other party to this Agreement. 7.3 Each party agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other pahy, its agenhs, oMicem, and employees from all claims whatsoever that may arise against the other party (inr|uding, their public safety agencies) as a result of the neg|igent, willful or intentional acts or omissions of the party or their respective public safety personnel; 7.4 Each party shall process and defend, at its own expense and without contribution from the other party, any and all claims of whatsoever kind or neture, with respect to the party's acts or omissions of services or otherwise in response to E911 or emergency or non-emergency requests for oen/ioeo, including any claims that allege information in the county road name and address database is not accurate. 3 P20 7.5 It is understood and agreed that the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Shat Ch. 460. and other applicable laws govern liability arising from a party's acts or omissions. Each party warrants that they have an insurance or self-insurance program and that each has minimum coverage consistent with the liability limits contained in Minn. Stat. Ch. 466 ARTICLE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND LIAISONS 8.1 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. The following named persons are designated the authorized representatives of the parties for purposes of this Agreement. These persons have authority to bind the party they represent and to consent to modifications and aubcontnacta, except that the authorized representative shall have only the authority specifically or generally granted by their respective governing board or council. Notice required to be provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided to the following named persons and addresses unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, or in a modification of this Agreement: TO THE COUNTY: TO THE CITY: Dakota County Lynn Thompson Physical Development Division Director 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124 City of Mendota Heights Justin Miller City Administrator 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 In addition, notification to the COUNTY regarding termination of this Agreement by the other party shaU be provided to the Office of the Dakota County Attorney, 1560 Highway 55, Hastings, Minnesota 55033. 8.2 LIAISONS. To assist the parties in the day-to-day performance of this Agreement and to ensure compliance and provide ongoing consultation, a liaison shall be designated by the COUNTY and the CITY. The COUNTY and the CITY shall keep each other continually informed, in writing, of any change in the designated liaison. At the time of execution of this Agreemeni, the following persons are the designated liaisons: COUNTY Liaison: CITY Liaison: Randy Knippel Telephone: (952) 891-7080 Randy.knippe|©co.dakotamn.us Name: f^x•3 N^/pk Telephone': '661\lSS '\\bt_ Email: �� / r��^«�°Jvf�__\~��a .c�� u--�` ^~^'~ � ARTICLE MODIFICATIONS Any a|banadone, usriabons, modifioadons, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shaU only be valid when they have been reduced to writing, approved by the parties respective governing bodies and signed by the authorized representatives of the COUNTY and the CITY. 4 P21 ARTICLE 10 TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause by giving seven days' written notice or without cause by giving thirty (30) days' written notice of its intent to terminate to the other party. If the terminafion is for cuuso, the notice shall specify the circumstances warranting termination of the Agreement. Cause shall mean a material breach of this Agreement and any supplemental agreements or amendments thereto. Notice of Termination shall be made by certified mail or personal delivery to the authorized representative of the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not discharge any liability, responsibility or right of any pohy, which arises from the performance of or failure to adequately perform the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. ARTICLE 11 MINNESOTA LAW TO GOVERN This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive and procedural laws of the State of Minneyota, without giving effect to the principles of conflict of laws. All proceedings related to this Agreement shall be venued in the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota. ARTICLE 12 MERGER This Agreement is the final expression of the agreement of the parties and the complete and exclusive statement of the terms agreed upon and shall supersede all prior negoUahons, undemtandings, or agreements. ARTICLE 13 SEVERABILITY The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable. If any part of this Agreement is rendered vnN, invu|id, or unenforceab|e, such rendering shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement unless the part or parts that are void, invalid or otherwise unenforceable shall substantially impair the vatue of the entire Agreement with respect to either party. ARTICLE 14 DATA PRACTICES AND CONFIDENTIALITY The parties agree to comply with the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and its implementing rules and any other privacy laws that apply to any data ooUech+d, created, received kept or shared by either party under this Agreement. ARTICLE 15 DSPOSJTION OF PROPERTY When this Agreement is henninnted, each party may retain any address and street name data or records that were cneabzd, shared or distributed to it pursuant to this Agreement. 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date(s) indicated below. APPROVED AS TO FORM: . COUNTY OF DAKOTA t ounty Attorney / Dakota County #C0023723 County Board Res. No. 12-150 K-11-412.008 Date K11-412.008 JPA with City of Mendota Heights (JRS) 6 By Date of Signature: CITY OFK8ENOOTAHEIGHTS By Date of Signature: P22 CITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: May 15, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118. 651.152.1850 phone. ( 651 452.8940 fax www.meertcota•h?i jhta.corn ITEM 5E P23 FROM: Ryan Ruzek, PE, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Award of Professional Services Contract for Geotechnical Services on 2012 Public Improvement Projects BACKGROUND The City Council ordered the improvements on the Diane Neighborhood Rehabilitation, Mendota Heights Road Rehabilitation and the Marie Avenue Rehabilitation. In addition to the listed projects; staff is also anticipating having the Lemay Lake Reconstruction Project presented to the city council for approval on May 15, 2012. Mendota Heights Road, Marie Avenue and Lemay Lake Road are all designated as Municipal State Aid (M.SA) streets within Mendota Heights. Funding sources for this project include using MSA funds through the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). For the city to be able to use MSA funds, stringent inspections must be followed which include sampling and testing of materials used for the street construction. The attached proposal from Northern Technologies, Inc. will provide staff with the necessary data to complete the reporting requirements for MNDOT. The cost of the proposed contract is not to exceed $18,075.00 which is based on estimated hours and number of tests required. These funds can be paid out of our Municipal State Aid (MSA) for roads account. Staff also received a quote from American Engineering Testing, Inc.; their quote for the proposed work was $44,178.60. Geotechnical services include gradation of granular materials, testing of bituminous and concrete pavement as well as inspecting the quarry source. Compaction density tests will also be included in this contract. Mendota Heights has worked with. Northern Technologies, Inc. on several projects in the past with excellent results. BUDGET IMPACT Mendota Heights is anticipating approximately $4,000,000 in Public Improvements in 2012. The geotechnical analysis of the materials used in the projects will assist in verifying that the projects meets all the required specifications. RECOMMENDATION If Council agrees with the Staff's recommendation, pass a motion by simple majority vote authorizing staff to execute the attached agreement. April 25, 2012 ORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, !NC 6588 lost Ave. NW, Ramsey, MN 55303 1408 Northland Dr. Suite 305, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 7403 19th Street South, St. Cloud, MN 56301 763-433-9175 763-323-4739 Fax Ryan R. Ruzek, P.E. City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Proposal for Materials Testing and Special Inspection Services 2012 Street Reconstruction Projects Mendota Heights, Minnesota NTI Proposal P2122 Northern Technologies, Inc. (NTI) is pleased to submit this Materials Testing and Special ) Inspection Services Proposal for the above referenced project. We have reviewed the project plans and specifications for the above project. Our estimate is based on the project documents and previous experience with similar projects. Project Information The proposed project consists of the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Lamey Lake, Marie Avenue, and Mendota Heights Road in Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Scope of Work-Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspections The following presents a general description of our proposed testing and inspections to be performed by our firm based on our experience with similar projects. We propose staffing this project on an intermittent to full time basis as project progress dictates with individuals qualified to perform the required test or inspection.Our service schedule will be coordinated with your on- site representative. P 2 4 Materials Testing and Special Inspection Proposal 2012 Street Reconstruction Projects Mendota Heights, Minnesota NTI will provide qualified staff to: ® Observe the project excavations as they are performed to verify suitability of soils prior to placement of fill and approve soils to be used for backfill for the project. ® Perform moisture /density testing of engineered fill placed beneath pavements and walks as well as bacldill above utilities to document compliance with project compaction specifications. • Observe a roll tests on the parking lot subgrade and aggregate base. ® Retrieve bituminous mix and core samples to perform bituminous testing such as maximum specific gravity, core sample bulk density, gyratory density tests. • Provide recommendations for moisture content and lift thickness of engineered fill placement to optimize compaction effort. ® Obtain samples of the concrete and test for slump, air content, temperature, and cast cylinders for compression strength testing. Discrepancies with construction documents will be presented to the construction manager and/or contractor for corrective action. Our activities will be coordinated with the construction manager and /or your designated representative. Daily reports will be left with the site manager and sent to you along with our test results on a weekly basis. Project Team NTI proposes to provide an engineering staff consisting of: • Steve Johnston, P.E., Regional Manager, will monitor progress on the proposed project and will be your point of contact for anything contract related. • Kyler Bender, E.I.T., will act as our project manager and will coordinate our efforts with the construction manager and your representative, supervise our field personnel, assign field staff to the project, and supervise and approve all laboratory testing. Kyler will be your main point of contact. Anticipated Schedule and Fees We propose performing the above referenced construction services during the 2012 construction season for the unit rates outlined in the attached fee schedule. Based on experience with similar projects and the Project Plans, we estimate the total fees for all projects combined to be approximately $18,075. Our final fee, which may be higher or lower, is dependent upon contractor scheduling, weather, actual requested services and any unforeseen circumstances beyond our control. We will advise you as early in the process as possible if we anticipate our fee will exceed this estimate. P25 Materials Testing and Special Inspection Proposal 2012 Street Reconstruction Projects Mendota Heights, Minnesota An invoice for our services will be submitted to you monthly and is due within 30 days of receipt. The attached GENERAL CONDITIONS are an integral part of this proposal for services. This proposal is valid through June 25, 2012. Acceptance Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by signing one copy and returning it to us. We look forward to working with you and being part of your team. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Kyler at 763-433-9175. NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Kyler Bender, E.I.T. Project Engineer Stephen Johnston, P.E. Regional Manager/Vice President Attachments: Fee Schedule General Conditions 3 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By: Printed Name: Title: Date P 2 6 GENERAL CONDITIONS SECTION 1: PROJECT INFORMATION 1.1 Client will make available to NTI all known information regarding existing and proposed requirements which affects the work, including but not limited to: specifications, contracts, recommendations, plans and change orders. 1.2 Client will immediately transmit to NTI any new information that becomes available to it or its subcontractors, so that recommended actions can be reviewed. 1.3 Client will provide a representative to answer questions about the project when required by NTI upon 24 -hour notice. 1.4 NTI will not be liable for any incorrect advice, judgment, or decision based on any inaccurate information furnished by Client, and Client will indemnify NTI against liability arising out of or contributed to by such information. SECTION 2: SAMPLES 2.1 NTI will retain representative samples for 30 days after submission of NTI report. Upon request by Client, samples can be shipped, charges collect, to destination selected by Client; or NTI can store then for an agreed upon storage charge. SECTION 3: FEE PAYMENT 3.1. NTI will submit invoices to client monthly, and a final invoice upon completion of services. Invoices will show charges based on current NTI Fee Schedule or other agreed upon basis. A detailed separation of charges and backup data will be at Client's request. 3.2 The Client will pay the balance stated on the invoices unless Client notifies NTI in writing of the particular item that is alleged to be incorrect within fifteen (15) days from the invoice date. 3.3 Payment is due upon receipt of invoice and is past due thirty (30) days from invoice date. On past due accounts, Client will pay a late charge of 1.5( %) per month, or the maximum allowed by law. In the event of litigation, resulting from Client's refusal to make payment, without just cause, then all warranties and representations, expressed or implied, by NTI shall be void. 3.4 In the event Client fails to pay NTI within sixty (60) days following invoice date, NTI may consider the default a total breach of this agreement and all duties of NTI under this agreement will be terminated. SECTION 4: OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 4.1 All documents prepared by NTI as instruments of service will remain the property of NTI. 4.2 Client agrees that all reports and other work furnished to the Client or his agents, which are not paid for, will be returned upon demand and will not be used by the Client for any purpose. 4.3 NTI will retain all pertinent records concerning services performed for a period of two (2) years after the report is sent; during that time the records will be made available to the Client during NTI's normal business hours. 4 P27 SECTION 5: DISPUTES 5.1 If NTI institutes suit against the Client to enforce any part of this agreement, then all litigation expenses or collection expenses, including attorney's fees, will be paid to the prevailing party. 5.2 If the Client institutes a suit against NTI, which is dismissed, or a verdict rendered for NTI, client agrees to pay NTI for all cost of defense, including attorney's fees, expert witness fees and court costs. SECTION 6: STANDARD OF CARE 6.1 NTI will perform consistent with the level of care and slcill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical and materials testing profession currently practicing under similar conditions. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 6.2 NTI will be responsible for it's data, interpretation and recommendations, but will not be responsible for interpretation by others. SECTION 7: LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 7.1 NTI's liability to the Client and all contractors and subcontractors on the project, for damages due to professional negligence, negligence or breach of any other obligation to Client or others, will be limited to an amount not to exceed $20,000 or the NTI fee, whichever is less. 7.2 Client will notify any contractor or subcontractor who performs work in connection with any work done by NTI of the limitation of liability for design defects, errors, omissions, or professional negligence, and to require as a condition precedent to their performing their work, a like indemnity and limitations of liability on their part as against NTI. In the event the Client fails to obtain a like limitation and indemnity, Client agrees to indemnify NTI for any liability to any third party. SECTION 8: INSURANCE 8.1 NTI will carry worlcer's compensation insurance and public liability, property damage, and errors and omissions insurance policies, which NTI considers adequate. NTI will not be responsible for liability beyond the limits and conditions of the insurance. NTI will not be responsible for any loss or liability arising from negligence by Client or by other consultants employed by Client. SECTION 9: TERMINATION 9.1 This agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven (7) days written notice if there is substantial failure by the other part to perform. Termination will not be effective if substantial failure is remedied before expiration of the seven days. Upon termination, NTl will be paid for services rendered plus reasonable termination expenses. 9.2 If the contract is terminated prior to completion of all reports contemplated by the agreement, or suspended for more than three (3) months, NTI may complete analysis and records as are necessary to complete it's files and may complete a report on the services performed. Termination or suspension expenses will include direct costs of completing analysis, records and report. SECTION 10: ASSIGNS 10.1 Neither party may assign duties or interest in the agreement without the written consent of the other party. ITEM 5F P28 Hi Victoria Cury Mendota Heights, MN 55113 551. 4152.1250 phone 651.452.8940 fax ., wmtriendota •heights.com DATE: TO: crry of MENDOTAHEIGHTS May 15, 2012 Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMPt!; fl Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: Recognition of National Public Works Week BACKGROUND Public Works staff provides vital and essential services to the City of Mendota Heights on a daily basis, often with little or no recognition. Whether it is snow plowing, street repair, sanitary sewer cleaning, water main and /or fire hydrant maintenance, parks maintenance, City owned landscape management, or inspecting the inlets and outlets to our stormwater ponds, Public Works does their best to make the City safer, healthier, and a great place to work and live. Each year the American Public Works Association (APWA) sponsors "National Public Works Week" to help make and keep communities across the country aware of the important role public works play in their daily life. This public support is critical to the sustained efficient operation of Public Works Facilities throughout the City. This year, APWA has set the week of May 2lst through May 25t1i as "National Public Works Week." Throughout the country, cities and counties are recognizing this week in honor of all their public works employees. BUDGET IMPACT There is no budgetary impact to recognizing "National Public Works Week" RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council formally recognize `National Public Works Week," by adopting the attached RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK AS THE WEEK OF MAY 21, 2012 THROUGH MAY 25, 2012. This action requires a simple majority vote. P29 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RF,SOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK AS THE WEEK OF MAY 21, 2012 THROUGH MAY 25, 2012 WHEREAS, public works services provided in Mendota Heights are an integral part of our residents' everyday lives; and WHEREAS, the support of an understanding and informed constituency is vital to the efficient operation of public works facilities and services such as water service, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, street maintenance, trails, park maintenance, and snow plowing; and WHEREAS, the health, safety, comfort, and quality of life of Mendota Heights residents greatly depends on these facilities and services; and WHEREAS, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities and services, as well as their planning, design, construction, and maintenance is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skill of public works officials and staff; and WHEREAS, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who staff the public works department is materially influenced by the residents' attitude and understanding of the importance of the work they perfouu; and WHEREAS, city streets, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, trails, and parks are considered the backbone of the city ranked the 2 "d best place to live in the entire Twin Cities Metropolitan Area; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Mendota Heights to recognize the superior performance and dedication of its public works staff and honor the vital service they perform for the City on a daily basis. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the week of May 21st through May 25'1' is to be recognized as "National Public Works Week" in the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that residents and civic organizations are called upon to acquaint themselves with the efforts necessary to provide Mendota Heights with the public works facilities and services we all enjoy, and to recognize the contributions made by public works staff every day toward out health, safety, comfort, and quality of life. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 15t1i day of May 2012. ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor rlln fj CITY of i MEI`.ILOTA HEIGHTS DATE: May 15, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, PE, Assistant City EngineerL Michael Albers, PE, Civil Engineer. Mk ITEM 5G P30 i O1 Victoria Curve t'ierdol 1-feigiis,14 1 5511& 651,4 52:1 &5O phone 1 65I.452.�s94O fax n minendcrta - ileighEs.com �vt SUBJECT: Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Advertise for Bids for Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood improvements BACKGROUND Staff identified the Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood improvements as a 2012 street reconstruction project in. the 2011 -2015 Street Improvement Plan (SIP). Council ordered the Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood. Improvements at their December 6, 2011 meeting, and directed staff to prepare plans and specifications for this street reconstruction project. Plans and specifications are available in the Engineering Department. Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood Improvements Project Summary The proposed project includes reconstructing Lemay Lake Road from Mendota Heights Road to Highway 13, Lakeview Avenue, Kendon Lane, Furlong Avenue, and Victory Avenue. Street reconstruction includes construction of storm sewer, concrete curb and gutter, aggregate base, bituminous surfacing, a bituminous trail along Mendota Heights Road from highway 55 to Lemay Lake Road, and hydrant replacement. Street Reconstruction: Lemay Lake Road Lemay Lake Road was constructed in 1994 as a frontage road adjacent to Highway 55. The roadway width currently varies from 36 feet to 40 feet measured from edge of roadway to edge of. roadway. Lemay Lake Road has failing bituminous surfaces and is in need of reconstruction. The proposed street width is 34 feet wide face of curb to face of curb, which is generally 2 feet less wide than the existing street. The 34 feet wide street section will. allow for parking only on the east side of Lemay Lake Road. The area to be posted as "No Parking" is described as: Lemay Lake Road on the west side from Mendota Heights Road to Highway 13- The formal adoption of the no parking resolution will be required for the city to maintain. Municipal State Aid (MSA) street designation. Storm sewer improvements will consist of adding catch basins and storm sewer pipe which will be connected to a proposed detention pond. Fire hydrants will be upgraded to meet SPRWS standards. Street Reconstruction: Lakeview Avenue, Kendon Avenue, Furlong Avenue, and Victory Avenue Lakeview Avenue, Kendon Avenue, Furlong Avenue and Victory Avenue were reconstructed in 1991. The roadway width is currently 22 feet measured from edge of road to edge of road. The pavement conditions vary along Lakeview Avenue, Kendon Avenue, Furlong Avenue, and Victory Avenue. These streets appear to be near the end of their useful life and are in need of. reconstruction. At the public hearing, it was suggested that the residents desired a street width smaller than 28 feet that staff recommended for the street width. After the public hearing, staff sent the neighborhood a questionnaire to identify potential traffic /pedestrian issues, private underground utilities, tree issues and drainage /erosion issues. Based on feedback from the questionnaire, the proposed street width has been revised from 28 feet to 24 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb, which is generally 2 feet wider than the existing streets due to the addition of concrete curb and gutter. Lakeview Avenue, Kendon Avenue, Furlong Avenue will have cul -de -sacs constructed with a 30 foot radius to the face of curb. Stone sewer improvements will consist of adding catch basins and storm sewer pipe which will be connected to proposed dry basins. Fire hydrants will be upgraded to meet SPRWS standards. Project Schedule The Engineering staff has substantially completed the plans and specifications for this project. The next step is to advertise for bids. A proposed schedule for the remainder of this project is shown below: Item: Date: Approve Plans and Specifications May 15, 2012 Open Bids June 13, 2012 Award Contract June 19, 2012 Begin Construction July 2012 Complete Construction Fall 201.2 Assessment Hearing October 2012 Final Wear Course of Bituminous Pavement Summer 2013 BUDGET IMPACT The total estimated construction cost from the feasibility report for the Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood Improvements is approximately $1,865,000, not including indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance. The Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood hnprovements project is proposed to be financed by special assessments, municipal bond sales, and utility funds. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council approve the final plans and specifications, authorize staff to advertise for bids and amend the ordinance making official the no parking zone on Lemay Lake Road on the west side from Mendota Heights Road to Highway 13. If city council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE LEMAY LAKE ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201105) and pass a motion adopting AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3 OF THE CITY CODE. These actions require a simple majority vote. P31 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE LEMAY LAKE ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201105) WHEREAS, the City Engineer reported that the proposed improvements and construction thereof were feasible, desirable, necessary, and cost effective, and further reported on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction thereof; and WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore directed the City Engineer to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications thereof; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for said improvements and have presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows: 1. That the plans and specifications for said improvements be and they are hereby in all respects approved by the City. 2. That the Clerk with the aid and assistance of the City Engineer be and is hereby, authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said improvements all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, such as bids to be received at the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights by 10:00 A.M., Wednesday, June 13, 2012, and at which time they will be publicly opened in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will then be considered by the City Council at its next regular Council meeting. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota heights this fifteenth day of May 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains as follows: The following streets are hereby added to Title 6, Chapter 3, Section 3, Paragraph C of the City Code: Parking prohibited on Certain Streets: No person shall park or leave standing any motor vehicle on the following streets or portions thereof in the City: Street Lemay Lake Road Side Location West From Mendota Heights Road to Highway 13 Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this fifteenth day of. May 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach,,Mayor ATTEST Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk P33 ITEM 5H P34 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55113 551.452.1850 phone 1 651452.8940 fax www,mendota- heights.com ® ca7Y O� MENDD T A HEIGHTS DATE: May 15, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator SUBJECT: Revised Public Purpose Expenditure Policy BACKGROUND Minnesota cities are only allowed to spend public money on authorized expenditures. In response to state statutes and state auditor opinions, cities are encouraged to adopt public purpose expenditure policies to address when public money may be used. The City of Mendota Heights adopted a public expenditure policy by Resolution 06 -128 on December 19, 2006. While in the process of reviewing city policies, staff has determined that this specific resolution needs to be updated to reflect the city's current practice. Attached to this report is a red -lined version of the revised public expenditure policy. Also attached is a clean version incorporating the proposed revisions. Substantive changes include: • Acknowledging that the annual all - employee event held with city council, staff, and city commission members is for recognition purposes, not a purely social event. • Establishing in writing that guests and spouses of attendees to this event are expected to pay for the event out of their own pocket. This is the current practice, but it needs to be reflected in the policy. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the attached resolution amending the current public purpose expenditure policy. This action requires a majority vote of the city council. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS P 35 DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 12-xx A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CURRENT PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURE POLICY WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has-a-need-t-e-established a public purpose expenditure policy by approving Resolution 06-128 on December 19, 2006; and WHEREAS, modifications and clarifications are needed to update the policy to reflect current city practices; NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the following revised policy of the City of Mendota Heights, as set forth below, shall be adopted: PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURE POLICY Consistent with Minnesota State laws that permit and require the expenditure of public funds for public purposes, the Mendota Heights City Council hereby adopts the following policy and guidelines to provide assistance and clarification to officials and employees for determinations of when public funds may be spent. The over-riding principle is that public funds must be spent for a public purpose. The City Council recognizes that the determination of a valid public purpose is an evolving concept that is somewhat subjective. The City Council therefore feels thoughtful discussion and debate leading to the for-nation of policy and guidelines is appropriate. The City Council authorizes the City Administrator and department heads to establish additional administrative policies and procedures and to interpret appropriate use of public funds consistent with this policy and guidelines. Definitions: Public Purpose Expenditure — An expenditure of funds related to the purpose for which the City of Mendota Heights exists, including the mission, goals, functions and responsibilities of elected and appointed officials, employees and other City representatives. Employee — For purposes of this policy, the word "employee" shall include all employees, elected officials, and appointed officials. PUBLIC PURPOSE GUIDELINES 1 Training and development programs for Mendota Heights elected and appointed officials and employees serve a public purpose when those training and development programs are related to the employee's job performance and to the programs and services provided by the City to its residents. 2. Payment of employee work-related expenses, including travel, lodging, telephone, and meal expenses serve a public purpose when those expenses are necessarily incurred by Mendota Heights employees in connection with their official duties and/or work assignments and those expenses are directly related to the performance of the governrnental function for which Mendota Heights has responsibility. P36 3. Public expenditures for food and refreshments associated with official Mendota Heights functions, employee training, and meetings to discuss City business serve a public purpose when the provision of food or refreshments helps to ensure meaningful participation by those attending. These functions serve a public purpose to receive or provide information of concern to the City, recognize individuals for their service to the City, or provide a forum to discuss City business. These meetings should be limited to official City business sanctioned by the City Council orf City Administrator. 4. Expenditures for membership in professional and community organizations and attendance at meetings and professional conferences serve a public purpose by keeping employees informed of state and federal laws and proposed legislation, rules, regulations, court and arbitration decisions, risk management, effective employee and labor relations strategies and issues, availability of grants and other funding sources, community concerns, and public - private partnership opportunities that are directly related to the performance of city - related governmental functions and to the service provided to the residents. 5. Expenditures for educational reimbursement serve a public purpose when the coursework is directly related to the job duties or performance needs of the employee and therefore improve the luiowledge, skills, and abilities needed to provide effective and efficient services to the residents. 6. The City may sponsor an annual all - employee recognition soei -al event. The City recognizes that giving employees, appointed officials and the city council /commissioners the opportunity to gather casually and informally helps build working relationships and camaraderie. All employees and spouses will be invited to attend,, but expenses associated with the event will only be paid for by the city for employees, appointed officials, and city council members All others will be expected to pay for the event out of their own pocket, 7_The City may recognize employees with length of service awards with a monetary award to acknowledge individuals for their years of service to the City. 8. This policy updates and supersedes Resolution 06 -128, which was passed on December 19, 2006. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Funding for any expenditure must be approved by the appropriate supervisory staff or City Administrator in accordance with established procedures, and must be included in the approved City budget. CONCLUSION The City of Mendota Heights has determined that the above expenditure policy serves a public purpose. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 159` —day of Deeenbef 22- 0-06May 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST: By: -Sandra Krebsbach. Mayor Kathleen M. Swanson Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk P37 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS P 3 8 DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 12-xx A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CURRENT PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURE POLICY WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights established a public purpose expenditure policy by approving Resolution 06-128 on December 19, 2006; and WHEREAS, modifications and clarifications are needed to update the policy to reflect current city practices; NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the following revised policy of the City of Mendota Heights, as set forth below, shall be adopted: PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURE POLICY Consistent with Minnesota State laws that permit and require the expenditure of public funds for public purposes, the Mendota Heights City Council hereby adopts the following policy and guidelines to provide assistance and clarification to officials and employees for determinations of when public funds may be spent. The over-riding principle is that public funds must be spent for a public purpose. The City Council recognizes that the determination of a valid public purpose is an evolving concept that is somewhat subjective. The City Council therefore feels thoughtful discussion and debate leading to the formation of policy and guidelines is appropriate. The City Council authorizes the City Administrator and department heads to establish additional administrative policies and procedures and to interpret appropriate use of public funds consistent with this policy and guidelines. Definitions: Public Purpose Expenditure — An expenditure of funds related to the purpose for which the City of Mendota Heights exists, including the mission, goals, functions and responsibilities of elected and appointed officials, employees and other City representatives. Employee — For purposes of this policy, the word "employee" shall include all employees, elected officials, and appointed officials. PUBLIC PURPOSE GUIDELINES 1. Training and development programs for Mendota Heights elected and appointed officials and employees serve a public purpose when those training and development programs are related to the employee's job performance and to the programs and services provided by the City to its residents. 2. Payment of employee work-related expenses, including travel, lodging, telephone, and meal expenses serve a public purpose when those expenses are necessarily incurred by Mendota Heights employees in connection with their official duties and/or work assignments and those expenses are directly related to the performance of the governmental function for which Mendota Heights has P 3 9 responsibility. 3. Public expenditures for food and refreshments associated with official Mendota Heights functions, employee training, and meetings to discuss City business serve a public purpose when the provision of food or refreslunents helps to ensure meaningful participation by those attending. These functions serve a public purpose to receive or provide information of concern to the City, recognize individuals for their service to the City, or provide a forum to discuss City business. These meetings should be limited to official City business sanctioned by the City Council or City Administrator. 4. Expenditures for membership in professional and community organizations and attendance at meetings and professional conferences serve a public purpose by keeping employees informed of state and federal laws and proposed legislation, rules, regulations, court and arbitration decisions, risk management, effective employee and labor relations strategies and issues, availability of grants and other funding sources, community concerns, and public - private partnership opportunities that are directly related to the performance of city- related governmental functions and to the service provided to the residents. 5. Expenditures for educational reimbursement serve a public purpose when the coursework is directly related to the job duties or performance needs of the employee and therefore improve the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to provide effective and efficient services to the residents. 6. The City may sponsor an annual all - employee recognition event. The City recognizes that giving employees, appointed officials and the city council the opportunity to gather casually and informally helps build working relationships and camaraderie. All employees and spouses will be invited to attend, but expenses associated with the event will only be paid for by the city for employees, appointed officials, and city council members All others will be expected to pay for the event out of their own pocket 7. The City may recognize employees with length of service awards with a monetary award to acknowledge individuals for their years of service to the City. 8. This policy updates and supersedes Resolution 06 -128, which was passed on December 19, 2006. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Funding for any expenditure must be approved by the appropriate supervisory staff or City Administrator in accordance with established procedures, and must be included in the approved City budget. CONCLUSION The City of Mendota Heights has determined that the above expenditure policy serves a public purpose. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 15` l day of May 2012. P 4 0 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST: By: Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk ITEM 51 P41 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651,452.1850 phone J 651,452.8940 fElx www.mendota-heights.com •t, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: May 15, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Tamara Schutta, HR Coordinator SUBJECT: Authorize Appointment of City Clerk BACKGROUND With the resignation this year of the former City Clerk, Sandie Thone, the City Council authorized staff to begin the recruitment process to fill the position. A total of 19 applications were received for the City Clerk position. City Administrator Justin Miller, Police Chief Mike Aschenbrener and I interviewed six ca.ndidates initially and narrowed the number down to one candidate that was brought back for more in-depth interview. City Administrator Miller and I conducted the final interview and have made a conditional job offer. This conditional job offer is contingent upon receipt of results of a satisfactory background check, pre-employment drug test and City Council approval. It is our pleasure to recommend to you that the City appoint Lorri Smith as the Mendota Heights City Clerk. Ms. Smith has been the Deputy City Clerk for the City of Faribault since 1997. She has over fifteen years of experience with records management, elections, issuing city licenses and other related City Clerk functions. Ms. Smith earned her bachelor's degree in Public Administration from St. Cloud University and is certified as a Minnesota Municipal Clerk and an International Municipal Clerk. BUDGET IMPACT The City Clerk position is assigned to pay grade 18 on the 2012 Employee Position Placement/Pay Classification Plan. The 2012 pay grade 18 range is $47,594 - $57,851. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends that city council approve the appointment of Lorri Smith as City Clerk effective Monday, June 11, 2012 with wages set at Grade 18, Step D of the 2012 Employee Position/Pay Classification Plan and credited with one (1) week of paid vacation. The 2012 annual salary for Grade 18, Step D is $55,096. If council concurs with the recommendation, a motion should be made to appoint Lorri Smith as City Clerk effective Monday, June 11, 2012 with wages set at Grade 18, step D, $55,096 and credited with one (1) week of paid vacation. A simple majority vote is all that is needed on this issue. ITEM 5J P42 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, IN 55113 55t452.1850 phone 651,452.8940 fax www,mendota-heights.com CITY or MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: May 15, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Tamara Schutta, HR Coordinator SUBJECT: Approval of employment — public works seasonal hire BACKGROUND At a recent meeting, City Council gave approval for staff to begin the hiring and recruitment process for the Public Works Department. Rink Flooder Chad Hanson has applied for the vacant Public Works- Park Division. Mr. Hanson was offered the position contingent upon council approval. A criminal background check was conducted for the rink flooder position and is current. The pay for this position is $10.00 per hour. BUDGET IMPACT As noted above. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends that city council approve the hiring of Chad Hanson for employment as a • seasonal Public Works — Parks Division worker for the spring/summer 2012 season at the authorized wage of $10.00 per hour. If council concurs in the recommendation, a motion should be made to approve the hiring of Chad Hanson as a seasonal Public Works — Parks Division worker for the spring/summer 2012 season. A simple majority vote is all that is needed on this issue. . • CITY OF MENDOTA HEGHTS DATE: May 15, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP Public Works Director/City ineer SUBJECT: Dakota County Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Request ITEM 5K P43 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55115 651.452.1550 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.nandota.heights.corn BACKGROUND Each year Dakota County solicits input from cities for projects to be included in the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP is prepared each year and covers forecasting, planning, and budgeting for the next 5 years. The CIP Dakota County is currently putting together is for funding years 2013-2017. After discussing with Council at the May 1st meeting, the following project is recommend. as the City of Mend.ota Heights request for fiscal. year 2015 funding under the Dakota County CIP: The City of Mendota Heights has been identified as a financial contributor to the stonnwater drainage portion of Mn.DOT's Highway 13 reconstruction project scheduled for 2015_ The Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) regulates stormwater drainage that crosses municipal boundaries, and has identified a portion of the stormwater drainage being addressed with this project as corning from Mendota Heights. The attached table is from a 2010 LMRWMO report that breaks out the stormwater cost allocation based on contributing stormwater flow. A portion of the Mendota Heights stormwater contribution is within the Lexington Avenue right-of-way, which is owned by Dakota County. The Dakota County CIP has a set-aside fund' for stormwater management projects. This project may be eligible for funds based on the percent of the drainage area owned by the County as•right-of-way. This could potentially be up to 50% of the amount owed by Mendota Heights. BUDGET IMPACT There is no budgetary impact to request this project be included in the Dakota County OR If the stollnwater project is requested and accepted by Dakota County it could result in a net savings to the City of up to 50% of the City contribution to the stormwater improvements. The 2010 LMRWMO report identifies up to $39,500 as Mendota Heights' responsibility. Actual. costs will be determined for the 2015 construction season and allocated according to the proportions in the attached table. MnDOT is planning in conjunction with the Highway 13 reconstruction project in 2015. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council formally request the Highway 13 stormwater drainage project be included in the Dakota County CIP stormwater set-aside fund by adopting the attached RESOLUTION FORMALLY REQUESTING PROJECT INCLUSION IN THE DAKOTA COUNTY 2013-2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. This action requires a simple majority vote. 4. Install erosion control measures on the hillside on the south side of T.H. 13. (Estimated Cost = $36,000) Based 011 the LMRWMO's allowable flow methodology, tlie upstream community of Mendota Heights' portion of the project costs ranges from nine to eleven percent of the estimated totals ($3l000-$4O,0O0), depending oo the improvement alternative (see Table 3). The remainder of the project costs falls upon the City of Lilydale and the other stakeholders. Table Preliminary Cost Allocation Based on the LMRWMO's Allowable Flow Cost Sharing Formula . Project Component Mendota Heights Cost Share (%) Lik/du|e Cost Share (%) ' Total Estimated Cost Mendota Heights Cost Allocation ' Lilydale Cost Allocation 1.1 Nevvpondout/etand � storm sewer 7.3 92J $305.000 $22,330 $282'670 � 1.2 Ditch andcu|ve�on south side ofT.H. 13 100 0 S10,000 $10.000 $0 1.3 Hillside � measures 0 100 $36.000 $0 $36.000 Subtotal 9.2 90.8 S861'000 $32.330 $318,670 2.1 Storm � side ofTH 13 11 ' 5 88.5 $234.000 $27.000 $207.000 2� Ditch and ' south aide of TH 13 100 0 $10.000 $10.000 $0 2.3 New pipe on bluff 3 97 $80.000 $2'500 $77,500 2.4 Hillside erosion � measures 0 100 $36.000 $0 $36.000 Subtotal 11.0 89.0 $360,000 $39.500 $320,500 6.2 Cost Sharing Among Other Stakeholders Distribution of p ject costs among stakeholders can be a challenge, es i considering the unique perspectives, motivations, and responsibilities that each stakeholder brings to the issue. In order to acknowledge each individual stakeholder's contributions and related responsibilities the following observations were made: 1) All properties within the study area drain towards the bluff and all stakeholders present at the stakeholder meetings have agreed that protecting the bluffs is a primary concern. P:\Mnls\23mNN/9\23191035ukdale Feas Stdy-Drainage Lex&Riversid\WorkFilesTinal Report\ Finaleport_0707mdoc 29 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- RESOLUTION FORMALLY REQUESTING PROJECT INCLUSION IN THE DAKOTA COUNTY 2013 -2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, Dakota County has a Capital Improvement Plan that forecasts projects for five years in to the future; and WHEREAS, annually Dakota County seeks requests from cities for desired projects within their respective municipal boundaries; and WHEREAS, part of the Dakota County Capital Improvement Plan is a set -aside fund for stormwater drainage improvements; and WHEREAS, the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization has identified a project in conjunction with the fiscal year 2015 reconstruction of Highway 13 from second street in Mendota to I -35E in Lilydale; and WHEREAS, the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization has utilized its allowable flow calculation to determine the portion of the stormwater drainage improvement to be paid by the City of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, the Dakota County stormwater set -aside fund can be utilized for stormwater drainage improvement projects that incorporate County owned property; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Mendota Heights to complete the 2015 stormwater drainage improvement project in the most effective and efficient manner possible for the benefit of tis residents. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that a formal request is made for the Highway 13 stormwater drainage improvement project to be included in the Dakota County Capital Improvement Plan, fiscal year 2015 program, in the stoiniwater set -aside fund. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 15`x' day of May 2012. ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor P46 tg CITY OF rzzA MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: TO: May 15, 2012 Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP Public Works Director /City Engineer ITEM 5L P47 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN !i511;s 551.4 52.18 C p<hon, j 651.45213940 fax w airreidotn'heightscorrt ``r1i"i'.Fa�''+- SUBJECT: Authorization to Complete the Wagon Wheel Trail Pedestrian Facility BACKGROUND A Public Hearing was held November 16, continued to December 7, 2010 on the Wagon Wheel Trail Reconstruction Project. At that Public Hearing, some residents testified they did not want the pedestrian trail in front of their properties between Interstate 35E and Lexington Avenue. Projects plans and specifications, without this section of trail, were approved in March., 201 1, and the project was awarded to McNamara Contracting on May 17, 2011. After substantial completion of the project, staff began receiving calls form area residents that the section of pedestrian trail from I -35E to Lexington was needed since people were walking in the street between the .Lexington Avenue Trail an.d the Curley's Addition Trail next to I -35E. At their April 2012 meeting, the Parks & Recreation Commission passed a motion that City Council request of. Dakota County to include a north -south trail connection along Lexington Avenue from Wagon Wheel Trail north to Tom Thumb Boulevard. Connecting the existing Lexington Avenue trail to the Curley's Addition trail effectively negates the need for the Lexington Avenue trail. This item was discussed at the May 1st, 2012 City Council meeting, and it was decided to move ahead with the Wagon Wheel Trail connection provided immediately impacted residents were accepting of it. Staff has spoken to the property owners at 1057 Wagon Wheel Trail and at 1065 Wagon Wheel Trail (the original residents that opposed the trail). Each of these property owners has signed an acknowledgement from stating their acceptance of having the trail constructed in front of their respective properties. The owners of 1053 Wagon Wheel Trail have not yet responded, but it appears they no longer reside on the property. BUDGET IMPACT McNamara Contracting can complete the pedestrian facility in conjunction with the placement of the wear course of asphalt on Wagon Wheel Trail. McNamara has provided an estimate of $35,000.00 to complete the pedestrian facility. Although final invoices have not yet been tallied, there should be sufficient funds within the project budget to cover this cost. P48 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council authorize the construction of the remaining portion of the Wagon Wheel Trail pedestrian facility, and authorize staff to execute the necessary contract modifications by adopting the attached RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMPLETION OF A PAVED PEDESTRIAN FACILITY ALONG WAGON WHEEL TRAIL FROM I-35E TO LEXINGTON AVENUE. This action requires a simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA xESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMPLETION OF A PAVED PEDESTRIAN FACILITY ALONG WAGON WHEEL TRAIL FROM I -35E TO LEXINGTON AVENUE WHEREAS, The City of Mendota Heights began the reconstruction of Wagon Wheel Trail, which included a separated pedestrian facility along the north side of the street, in 2010; and WHEREAS, a specific portion of the pedestrian facility was removed from the design at the request of area residents; and WHEREAS, there has been a demonstrated need for the construction of the specific portion of the pedestrian facility originally removed from the project; and WHEREAS, the safety of area residents is of the upmost concern to the City; and WHEREAS, the residents originally opposed to the construction of the specific portion of the pedestrian facility are now accepting of its installation; and WHEREAS, The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended the completion of a north - south pedestrian connection from Wagon Wheel Trail to Tom Thumb Boulevard; and WHEREAS, construction of the pedestrian facility segment along the north side of Wagon Wheel Trail will provide a north -south pedestrian connection consistent with the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council. of the City of Mendota Heights that a paved pedestrian facility is to be constructed on the north side of Wagon Wheel Trail from I -35E to Lexington Avenue; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that city staff is hereby authorized to execute contract modifications not to exceed $35,000.00 in order to complete the construction stated above. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 15`x' day of May 2012. ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor P49 P50 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AKNOWLEDMENT OF SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN TRAIL ON WAGON WHEEL TRAIL FROM 35E TO LEXINGTON AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has recently improved Wagon Wheel Trail which included a pedestrian trail from 35E to Dodd Road, and; WHEREAS, the portion of the pedestrian trail was not constructed between 35E and Lexington Avenue due to setback distance concerns from the properties of 1065 Wagon Wheel Trail, 1057 Wagon Wheel Trail, 1053 Wagon Wheel Trail, and; WHEREAS, the street section of Wagon Wheel Trail was realigned eight feet south to accommodate for this pedestrian trail, and; WHEREAS, the properties owners of 1065 Wagon Wheel Trail, 1057 Wagon Wheel Trail, 1053 Wagon Wheel Trail, have resolved their concerns with the setback of their home due to Wagon Wheel Trail being located south. eight feet from its original alignment; NOW THEREFORE IT IS HERBY AKNOWLEDGED; by the agreeing parties as follows: 1. That the City of Mendota Heights will construct an eight foot wide pedestrian trail along the north curb of Wagon. Wheel Trail from 35E to Lexington Avenue entirely within public owned right -of -way. Dean Hobbs 1057 Wagon Wheel Trail P51 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AKNOWLEDMENT OF SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN TRAIL ON WAGON WHEEL TRAIL FROM 35E TO LEXINGTON AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has recently improved Wagon Wheel Trail which included a pedestrian trail from 35E to Dodd Road, and; WHEREAS, the portion of the pedestrian trail was not constructed between 35E and Lexington Avenue due to setback distance concerns from the properties of 1065 Wagon Wheel Trail, 1057 Wagon Wheel Trail, 1053 Wagon Wheel Trail, and; WHEREAS, the street section of Wagon Wheel Trail was realigned eight feet south to accommodate for this pedestrian trail, and; WHEREAS, the properties owners of 1065 Wagon Wheel Trail, 1057 Wagon Wheel Trail, 1053 Wagon Wheel. Trail, have resolved their concerns with the setback of their home due to Wagon Wheel Trail being located south eight feet from its original alignment; NOW THEREFORE 11 16 HERBY AKNOWLEDGED; by the agreeing parties as follows: 1. That the City of Mendota Heights will construct an eight foot wide pedestrian trail along the north curb of Wagon Wheel Trail. from 35E to Lexington Avenue entirely within public owned right-of-way. Jerold & Lois Hobbs 1065 Wagon Wheel Trail I T EM 5M P52 CITY OF MENDD T A HEIGHTS 1101 Victoria Curve j i+iendola Heights, MN 55113 551.452.1350 phone 1 651.452.5940 fax www.mendota-heights.com DATE: May 15, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrato S SUBJECT: Planning Case 2012 -13, Critical Area Permit BACKGROUND Nancy Punch has hired Bruce Nelson Repairs to replace the existing deck at 1145 Kingsley Court. Mr. Nelson has confirmed to staff that the project is a simple replacement, due to the poor condition of the existing deck. The deck will not be expanded in any way. City Code allows for an expedited process for minor projects. A recent amendment to code, Ordinance 442, provided further detail to which cases can be brought directly to city council- This request has no discernible impact upon the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area. BUD GET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request. This matter requires a simple majority vote by the council. If the city council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT TO REPLACE A DECK AT 1145 KINGSLEY COURT, making any revisions the council deems necessary. If council feels that the application requires full public hearing, pass a motion directing staff to add this item to the May 2012 planning commission meeting. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT TO REPLACE A DECK AT 1145 ICINGSLEY COURT. WHEREAS, Bruce Nelson, on behalf of Howard and Nancy Punch has applied for a critical area permit to replace the existing deck at 1145 Kingsley Court (PID 27- 41900 -01 -250, LOT 25 BLK 1 & INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON AREA BEING LOT 1 BLK 1 SUBJ TO CIC #602) as proposed in planning case 2012 -13; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights City Code Title 12, Chapter 3 allows minor developments for single - family dwellings to be forwarded to city council without planning commission review; and WHEREAS, the city staff recognizes the planning application to be a minor development and/or change to a single family dwelling; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of the critical area permit as outlined in the planning application. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a critical area permit as proposed in planning case 2012 -13 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed project creates no new no visual impact on the river. 2. The project includes no changes site grading and erosion control. 3. The property is not in proximity to any bluff line. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fifteenth day of May 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk P53 ) 1101 Victoria C,rve J Mendota HoightG, 1414 55115 651,452.1850 phont4 651.452.6940 fax www.rriendota.heights...com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGF-ITS APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. Loa.- t'S Date of Application Fee Paid Staff Initials Initials Applicant Name: .3Z„.rt o f<k • E-Mail Address: \nt4 irk"C,1 Address: Li 5 E.; r-,e• r9,--1,:‘ • Owner Name: 0 j 3 Address: Street Location of Property in Question: PH: US - LID`2_ - 1111--5 1"C. \ (14:51.-t. J Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) L -(-A'r's A.QC2.-1 - tcl c0 - CA Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. Date Received (Signature of Applicant) (Signature of Owner) 5 1 CbOr P55 oiq 61,,.k_c CkkjaCiq 502efli o& e)(4ir 0.5 2, a y- vo 1 • csiet 5T-5 11 0 4:(0 A, A 011.v t. .11 Mt/ sickoc,,,,f\.10\ r W4 5 Cacc-- '01'2 , rkAi a_v 1\041 QV -C..41 RI A _Of - ar Poa, U45 lel Coe 4/ 0 P56 TO F FEUT City of Ivffe7,.' data. Heights 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 (651) 452-1850 ° Fax (651) 452-8940 .__ . .. . . DIRECTIONS: APPLICANT MUST COMPLETE SPACES 1 THROUGH 13. (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE) RETURN ALL COPIES FOR PROCESSING 1. SITE ADDRESS Hkirs..--, ..., ', 5-1 I PLAN CHECK FEE , • 2. DATE OF AP "LIG TION 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1-0i- 2 17DLL-It 1 ) j - ) ,...‘ BL.1 I el .I ‘ PLAT NUMER (P.D.) 1 ?A i-9.).D CAtidt-11•Att..-t - (-C.J.71 4. OWNER (Name) k 4- (Address) (Tel. No., Including Area Code) (10(1S\ 686, - 101 6 5. ARCHITECT (Name (Address) (Tel. No., Including Area Code) 6. CONTRAc-T9R U4rUCe. ()' . ar, P9-14/(3 I pp„,.- • IA (II (9501; 1 ) Firm Name Tel. No. Including Area Code 090 \ Me7 1-.no . . Firm Address * Sta e License Number 4 t we,okev 551 Contact Person (Please Print) i ( ) ,t„ Tel. No. Including Area Code ) eA150 -try SUBCONTRACTORS PLEASE COMPLETE AND ATTACH SUBCONTRACTORS LIST 7. TYPE OF WORK NEW CONSTRUCTION BASEMENT FINISH FIREPLACE REROOF ADDITION GARAGE RESIDE .DECK ALTERATIONS FENCE PORCH SWIMMING POOL ATTIC FINISH MISC, MISC. 3. STIMATED COST ,..... "it 9. PROPERTY DIMENSIONS (Width) (Deplh) 10. NUMBER OF FAMILIES ( Applicable) 1. NU BER OF STORIES 2 . SIZE OF STRUCTURE (Height) (Width) (Depth) 2. COMPLETE DAT — Nit k''2—_ P57 CITY OFFICE USE ONLY PERMIT FEE I PLAN CHECK FEE PENALTY FEE SAC s . WAC STATE SURCHARGE TOTAL FEE ZONING DISTRICT E.- CONSTRUCTION TYPE VALUATION I I PROPERTY AREA SO. FT. FRONT YARD FT. l . REAR YARD FT. SIDE YARDS FT. FT. CERTIF. OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED ON:(DATE) i CERTIF. OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED BY: NOTICE: THIS PERMIT EXPJRES ONE YEAR FROM DATE ,OF ISSUANCE IN ACCORIANCE WITH CITY ORDINANCE NO. 502, SECTION 3.5(2) AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 328 1. All Contractors and Sub-Contractors shall be licensed in accordance with City and/or State Requirements. 2. This permit may be revoked at any time upon violation of any of the provisions of the City building and Zoning Codes. 3. This permit does not authorize construction of sewage treatment systems, plumbing, HVAC or electrical work. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND SIGNATURE The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Mendota Heights to take the action herein requested, tha p I statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Mendota il Heights, the S ': •of i , e. sita, anp Rulings of the Building Department. • fr- ) APPLICANT SIGNATURE DATE PERMIT EXPIRES BUILDING OFFICIAL APPROVAL PERMIT NUMBER ITEM 5N P58 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452,1850 phone 1 651,452,8940 fax Www,rnendota-heights.corn --zvger CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: May 15, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, assistant to the city administratot06 SUBJECT: Par 3. Update — April 2012 BACKGROUND The Mendota Heights Par 3 opened for the 2012 season on March 24, 2012. Temperatures have varied widely, posing a challenge to estimate when the best start time is. The clubhouse currently opens at 9:00 a.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. on weekends. The course closes at sunset. The hiring process was started on March 21, 2012; new staff has been brought on in the roles of clubhouse manager, clubhouse worker and instructor. Our new staff have been getting up to speed quickly, our new clubhouse manager, Jen Zweber has shared new ideas for programing, concessions, and special events which may increase use of the Par 3. Staffing plan: since purchasing the course, we have scheduled one clubhouse worker to staff the clubhouse during open hours. Ms. Zweber has proposed a 15 minute overlap between shifts, to allow the early shift to complete their shift-end report. A starter is scheduled on adult league nights and a Jr golf ranger is on hand for Jr golf leagues three mornings a week. Instructors are scheduled as needed to maintain a maximum 10:1 student to instructor ratio. A starter will be scheduled on days which are historically busy, such as Father's Day and the Fourth of July. All privately-organized adult leagues are returning for the 2012 season — several of which have already started. A new golf league for seniors is starting on Friday mornings with the intent to re-establish the Par 3 as a great place for seniors to be active. Program flyers are posted at local businesses, they will also be distributed at senior housing and at the Thompson Park Activity Center. MAINTENANCE UPDATE o Elm-Bark Beetles have been found starting to emerge on the course. Maintenance staff feels that spot treatment will suffice, and will keep an eye on the situation. • Cool and wet April weather supported the health of the greens and helped us avoid an early start of the irrigation system. o Maintenance staff purchased a small stockpile of seeding soil for tee boxes and other rough spots on the course. Page 1 of 2 P59 • Tee boxes were aerated and seeded (iaintenance which had been deferred several years) this will become a more regular activity with the purchase of solid tines for our aerator last fall. G It has been a busy spring for our mechanic with several equipment breakdowns on top of regular spring maintenance o Oil has been changed on all machines, with air filters on those which needed it. Oil changes are an annual activity, air filters may be more often, depending upon their condition. o Two trees were damaged in stonns this spring and will need to be removed. The city utility crew cleaned out the inlet to the storm water pond just off of the #4 tee box. This pond has been very full this spring. The city crew was unable to clear the culvert passing under the maintenance drive. Future storm water pond work is being planned to take place after Labor Day 2012. • Maintenance staff has requested one load of class -five gravel to repair the maintenance building entrance and to complete a parking area for rental carts by the clubhouse. o Public works staff may have this available for the Par 3. • Maintenance staff has requested one load of sand to fill bunkers which have settled over the winter. o The upper edges of most bunkers have eroded in recent rainstorms, and will need to be re -edged and filled with sand. BUDGET IMPACT The attached monthly expenditure report shows revenues and expenditures through the end of April. The course has taken in $23,552 in revenues; expenditures for this period total $23,252. This results in net revenue over expenditure of $270 year to date. In the month of April alone, the course had net revenue over expenditure of $4,513. Page 2of2 P60 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3 BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT April 2011 and 2012 REVENUES APRIL APRIL YTD YTD 2011 2012 2011 2012 GREENS, LEAGUE & TOURN FEES $4,013 $8,061 $4,013 $9,962 RECREATION PROGRAMS $13,443 $3,975 $18,915 $12,304 CONCESSIONS $700 $1,024 $700 $1,237 SUNDRY REVENUE $0 $17 $0 $19 INTEREST $0 $0 $0 $0 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS $0 $0 $0 $0 PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $18,157 $13,076 $23,628 $23,522 EXPENDITURES APRIL APRIL YTD YTD 2011 2012 2011 2012 CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $3,230 $2,175 $3,230 $2,175 ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $2,356 $1,666 $4,947 $7,407 FICA /PERA $773 $479 $1,154 $1,296 MEDICAL INSURANCE $387 $406 $1,045 $1,624 U/E & W/C INSURANCE $0 -$171 $2,273 $2,022 RENTALS $0 $0 $0 $0 UTILITIES $343 $245 $1,132 $866 PROFESSIONAL FEES - AUDIT $0 $0 $0 $0 PROF FEES - CONSULTING FEES $0 $250 $0 $250 PROF FEES - GROUNDS MGMT $0 $0 $0 $0 PROF FEES - GROUNDS WAGES $0 $1,450 $0 $1,450 PROF FEES - TREE MAINTENANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 ADVERTISING /NEWSLE I I ER $0 $0 $211 $199 LIABILITY /AUTO INSURANCE $0 $0 $2,840 $2,359 OPERATING COSTS /SUPPLIES $1,947 $4 $1,947 $116 FUEL $0 $0 $0 $0 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $665 $1,850 $872 $2,707 SUNDRY /DUES /MILEAGE /CLOTHING $0 $210 $558 $772 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $447 $0 $447 $10 PAR 3 EXPENDITURES TOTAL $10,147 $8,563 $20,657 $23,252 Revenue over Expenditure: $8,009 $4,513 $2,972 $270 ITEM 50 P61 u[4: Licensing List 1cor City Council Type Excavating Gas Piping General HVAC Contractor Name DTB Management dba D & T & Son Excavating Commercial Plumbing & Heating Perfection Heating & Air Conditioning Earth Wizards, Inc Parsons Exteriors, Inc RTL Construction Valley Pools & Spas G.V. Heating & Air Perfection Heating & Air Stern Heating & Cooling, Inc Wednesday, May 09, 2012 Page 1 of 1 1101 Victoria Curye 1 Mendota Heights, 11t4 S511 551.452.1850 phone 651,452.8940 fax wwmniandota-heights.com -rs7-err. -a CM OF IVIENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: TO: FROM: Kristen Schabacicer, Finance Director SUBJECT: Claims List Summary May 15, 2012 Mayor and City Council BACKGROUND Significant Claims American Pavement Solutions — Cracksealing Streets GM Management — Par 3 Consulting & Maintenance Contract Grannis & Hauge — Prosecutions & Miller Appeal IWorq Systems — Sign & Sewer Management Software Kennedy & Graven — 2011 Street Project Costs LMCIT — Workers Compensation Insurance Premium Les Jones Roofing — Public Works Garage Roof Project Ratwik & Roszak — Legal Xcel Energy — Utilities $ 8,480.94 $ 3,476.96 $ 9,432.50 $ 3,600.00 $ 4,500.00 $103,835.00 $140,431.85 $ 3,940.20 $ 10,578.94 Manual Checks Total $ 19,370.02 System Checks Total $ 320,498.53 Total for the list of claims for the May 15, 2012 city council meeting $ 339,868.55 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the list of claims for May 15, 2012. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List Manual Checks 04/30/12MAN Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name ICMA RE i iREMENT 457 G 01 -2072 04/27/2012 PAYROLL $463.29 Search Name ICMA RE IIREMENT 457 $463.29 Search Name MENDOTA HEIGHTS GENERAL ACCT. G 01 -1021 REPLENISH PETTY CASH $461.20 Search Name MENDOTA HEIGHTS GENERAL ACCT. $461.20 Search Name NATIONWIDE RE I IREMENT SOLUTION G 01 -2072 04/27/2012 PAYROLL $650.00 Search Name NATIONWIDE REIIREMENT SOLUTION $650.00 Search Name SPRWS E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 BACKFLOW PREVENTOR TEST Spec Fds $40.00 Search Name SPRWS $40.00 Search Name UNITED WAY OF ST. PAUL G 01 -2070 04/27/2012 PAYROLL $53.00 Search Name UNITED WAY OF ST. PAUL $53.00 Search Name US BANK E 01- 4223 - 020 -20 Search Name US BANK MAY 2012 DCC PAYMENT Police $1,816.67 $1,816.67 $3,484.16 05/10/12 12:19p6 3 Page 1 ) Account CT'( OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List Manual Checks Comments DEPT Descr Amount 0/101212:18pi6 4 Page 1 Search Name AFFINITY PLUS G 01-207 Search Name AFFIN1TY PLUS Search Name LEE, JAMES E 01-4268-150-30 Search Name LEE, JAMES Search Name SPRINT E 05-4210-105-15 E 01-4210-110-10 E 01-4210-030-30 E 45-4210-045-45 E 01-4210-020-20 E 01-4223-020-20 E 01-4210-050-50 E 15-4210-060-60 Search Name SPRINT Search Name XCEL ENERGY E 08-4212-000-00 E 15-4211-310-60 E 01-4211-310-70 E 01-4211-315-30 E 01-4211-320-70 E 01-4211-420-50 E 08-4211-000-00 E 01-4211-310-50 E 15-4211-400-60 E 28-4211-000-00 E 01-4212-310-50 E 01-4212-310-70 E 01-4211-300-50 E 01-4212-320-70 E 15-4212-310-60 E 15-4212-400-60 E 01-4212-315-30 Search Name XCEL ENERGY 05/11/2012 PAYROLL APRIL 2012 SERVICES MAR-APR 2012 CELL SERVICE MAR-APR 2012 CELL SERVICE MAR-APR 2012 CELL SERVICE MAR-APR 2012 CELL SERVICE MAR-APR 2012 CELL SERVICE MAR-APR 2012 CELL SERVICE MAR-APR 2012 CELL SERVICE MAR-APR 2012 CELL SERVICE Fire Engineering Enterprise Administration Fire Golf Course Police Police Road & Bridges Utility Enterprise $1,040.00 $1,040.00 $1,701.00 $1,701.00 $160.96 $364.70 $79.98 $35.22 $1,587.37 $279.93 $17.61 $40.15 $2,565.92 MAR 2012 GAS UTILITIES Spec Fds $710.82 MAR 2012 EL. UTILITIES Utility Enterprise $3092 MAR 2012 EL. UTILITIES Parks & Recreation $307.91 MAR ZD1Z EL. UTILITIES Fire ¢632.12 MAR 2012 EL. UTILITIES Parks & Recreation $175.62 MAR 2012 EL. UTILITIES Road & Bridges ¢204.64 MAR 2012 EL. UTILITIES Spec Fds $1,675S5 MAR 2012 EL. UTILITIES Road & Bridges $307.91 MAR 2O12 EL. UTILITIES Utility Enterprise $645.69 MAR 2O13 EL. UTILITIES Spec Fds $1,552.75 MAR 2012 GAS UTIL1TIES Road & Bridges $435.07 MAR 2O1Z GAS UTIL///ES Parks & Recreation $135.07 MAR 2012 EL. UTILITIES Road & Bridges $1,937.92 MAR 2012 GAS UTILITIES Parks & Recreation $54.76 MAR 2012 GAS UTILITJES Utility Enterprise $435.08 MAR 2O12 GAS UTILITIES Utility Enterprise $112.93 MAR 2012 GAS UTILITIES Fire $617.18 $10,578.94 $15,885.86 Account CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List System Checks 05115112PAY Comments DEPT Descr Amount 05/10/12 12:20 pf f 5 Page 1 Search Name 4 PAWS ANIMAL CONTROL E 01- 4225 - 800 -90 APRIL 2012 ANIMAL CONTROL Animal Control $632.63 E 01- 4225 - 800 -90 MARCH 2012 ANIMAL CONTRO Animal Control $454.63 Search Name 4 PAWS ANIMAL CONTROL $1,087.26 Search Name AAA CREDIT SCREENING SERVICE E 45- 4490 - 045 -45 EMP. SCREENING Golf Course $25.00 $25.00 Search Name AAA CREDIT SCREENING SERVICE Search Name AIR QUALITY LABORATORIES, INC E 01- 4305 - 030 -30 SEMI - ANNUAL COMPRESSOR T Fire $153.00 Search Name AIR QUALITY LABORATORIES, INC $153.00 Search Name ALL SAFE INC E 08- 4335-000 -00 FIRE EXTINGUISHER CERTIFIC Spec Fds $24.47 $24.47 Search Name ALL SAFE INC Search Name ALLEGRA PRINT & IMAGING E 01- 4300 - 020 -20 BUSINESS CARDS - PD Police $633.16 Search Name ALLEGRA PRINT & IMAGING $633.16 Search Name AMERICAN PAVEMENT SOLUTIONS E 01- 4423 - 050 -50 CRACK -SEAL - STREETS Road & Bridges $8,480.94 Search Name AMERICAN PAVEMENT SOLUTIONS $8,480.94 Search Name AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL INCENTIVE E 05- 4410 - 105 -15 CLOTHING - ENGINEERING Engineering Enterprise $150.00 Search Name AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL INCENTIVE $150.00 Search Name APACHE GROUP E 01- 4305 - 070 -70 SUPPLIES - PW Parks & Recreation $122.93 E 15- 4305 - 060 -60 SUPPLIES - PW Utility Enterprise $122.92 E 01- 4305 - 050 -50 SUPPLIES - PW Road & Bridges $122.93 E 01- 4305 - 030 -30 SUPPLIES - FIRE HALL Fire $83.51 Search Name APACHE GROUP $452.29 Search Name ARROW MOWER INC. E 01- 4330 - 490 -70 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE PA Parks & Recreation $39.40 Search Name ARROW MOWER INC. $39.40 Search Name B S N SPORTS E 01- 4330 - 215 -70 BASEBALL EQUIPMENT - PARKS Parks & Recreation $1,220.22 Search Name B S N SPORTS $1,220.22 Search Name BERTELSON TOTAL OFFICE SOLUTNS E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 CHAIR MATS - CITY HALL Spec Fds $684.00 E 01- 4300 - 110 -10 OFFICE SUPPLIES Administration $87.19 Search Name BERTELSON TOTAL OFFICE SOLUTNS $771.19 Search Name BLUE CHIP TREE CO. E 01- 4500 - 050 -50 TREE REMOVAL Road & Bridges $839.00 G 01 -1145 TREE REMOVAL $700.00 Search Name BLUE CHIP TREE CO. $1,539.00 Search Name BOLAND, JOHN Account E 01- 4400 - 030 -30 Search Name BOLAND, JOHN CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List System Checks 05115/12PAY Comments DEPT Descr Search Name BOLTON & MENK INC TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMBURSE Fire E 27- 4220 - 785 -00 MH ROAD, DODD RD WORK Spec Fds Search Name BOLTON & MENK INC Search Name BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC E 01- 4305 - 020 -20 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PD Police Search Name BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC Search Name BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS E 01- 4330 - 215 -70 PARK MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES Parks & Recreation Search Name BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS Search Name BUSINESS FORMS & ACCTG E 15- 4300 - 060 -60 UTILITY BILLS Utility Enterprise Search Name BUSINESS FORMS & ACCTG Search Name CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES E 45- 4310 - 205 -45 BEVERAGES - PAR3 Golf Course Search Name CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES Search Name CLAREY S SAFETY EQUIPMENT E 01- 4305 - 156 -30 1-11 I INGS - FIRE DEPT Fire Search Name CLAREY S SAFETY EQUIPMENT Search Name COCA -COLA REFRESHMENTS E 45- 4310 - 210 -45 BEVERAGES - PAR3 Golf Course Search Name COCA -COLA REFRESHMENTS Search Name CONTRACTORS & SURVEYORS SUPPLY E 01- 4305 - 040 -40 ENG. SUPPLIES E 05- 4305 - 105 -15 ENG. SUPPLIES Search Name CONTRACTORS & SURVEYORS SUPPLY Search Name CROWN TROPHY Code Enforcement /Inspe Engineering Enterprise E 01- 4305 - 024 -20 PLAQUES - RESERVES Police Search Name CROWN TROPHY Search Name CUTTERS EDGE E 01- 4330 - 460 -30 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE & Fire Search Name CUTTERS EDGE Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY FINANCIAL SERVIC E 01- 4275 - 020 -20 E 05- 4200 - 610 -15 E 15- 4200 - 610 -60 E 01- 4200 - 610 -70 E 01- 4268 - 030 -30 E 05- 4200 - 610 -15 E 15- 4200- 610 -60 E 01- 4200 - 610 -70 E 01- 4200- 610 -50 E 01- 4268 - 030 -30 MAR 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER MAR 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER MAR 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER MAR 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER MAR 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER FEB 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER FEB 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER FEB 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER FEB 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER FEB 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER Police Engineering Enterprise Utility Enterprise Parks & Recreation Fire Engineering Enterprise Utility Enterprise Parks & Recreation Road & Bridges Fire Amount $126.31 $126.31 $57.50 $57.50 $231.50 $231.50 $2,314.73 $2,314.73 $910.27 $910.27 $106.10 $106.10 $480.69 $480.69 $552.24 $552.24 $234.06 $269.19 $503.25 $72.25 $72.25 $112.38 $112.38 $860.62 $23.26 $69.78 $93.04 $651.28 $23.26 $69.78 $93.04 $162.82 $651.28 05/10/12 12:20p 6 Page 2 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List System Checks 05/15/12PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amoun 05/10/12 12:20® 7 Page 3 E 01- 4275 - 020 -20 FEB 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER E 01- 4200- 610 -50 MAR 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY FINANCIAL SERVIC Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSN Police $860.62 Road & Bridges $162.82 $3,721.60 E 01 -4403- 030 -30 SAFETY CLASS - FIRE DEPT Fire Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSN $270.00 $270.00 Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY RECORDER E 01- 4220 - 080 -80 APR 2012 ABSTRACT FEES Planning $92.00 $92.00 Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY RECORDER Search Name DAKOTA MECHANICAL E 01- 4335 - 315 -30 FIRE SPRINKLERS REPAIR Fire $289.25 $289.25 Search Name DAKOTA MECHANICAL Search Name EAGAN HARDWARE HANK E 01- 4305 - 050 -50 OPERATING SUPPLIES Road & Bridges $13.35 Search Name EAGAN HARDWARE HANK $13.35 Search Name ELROY S ELECTRIC SERVICE E 08- 4335- 000 -00 EL. REPAIRS - CITY HALL Spec Fds $308.45 Search Name ELROY S ELECTRIC SERVICE $308.45 Search Name EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG E 01- 4330 - 440 -20 SQUAD CAMERA INSTALL Police $148.00 Search Name EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG $148.00 Search Name FASTENAL INDUSTRIAL & CONSTR E 01 -4305- 050 -50 OPERATING SUPPLIES Road & Bridges $331.09 Search Name FASTENAL INDUSTRIAL & CONSTR $331.09 Search Name FIRECOM E 01- 4330 - 460 -30 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Fire $120.00 Search Name FIRECOM $120.00 Search Name G &K SERVICES E 01- 4335 - 310 -50 MAT SERVICE - PW Road & Bridges $34.69 E 01- 4335 - 310 -70 MAT SERVICE - PW Parks & Recreation $34.69 E 15- 4335 - 310 -60 MAT SERVICE - PW Utility Enterprise $34.68 Search Name G &K SERVICES $104.06 Search Name GERLACH SERVICE INC. E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Road & Bridges $62.12 Search Name GERLACH SERVICE INC. $62.12 Search Name GERTENS GREENHOUSE E 01- 4500 - 050 -50 STREET MAINTENANCE MATER Road & Bridges $319.21 Search Name GERTENS GREENHOUSE $319.21 Search Name GM MANAGEMENT E 45- 4268 - 045 -45 E 45- 4268 - 045 -45 Search Name GM MANAGEMENT APRIL 2012 CONSULTING Golf Course $2,000.00 4/25- 5/6/12 MAINT. LABOR Golf Course $1,476.96 $3,476.96 Search Name GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Account CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List System Checks 05115/12PAY Comments DEPT Descr E 01- 4210 - 040-40 APRIL 2012 SERVICE Search Name GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Search Name GRAFIX SHOPPE E 01 -4305- 020 -20 Search Name GRAFIX SHOPPE Search Name GRAINGER E 08 -4335- 000 -00 E 01- 4305 - 030 -30 E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 Search Name GRAINGER Search Name GRANNIS & HAUGE, P.A. E 01- 4481 - 110 -10 E 01 -4222- 120 -20 Search Name GRANNIS & HAUGE, P.A. Code Enforcement /Inspe DECALS - PD Police EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS OPERATING SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS MILLER ASSESSMENT APPEAL APR 2012 - GENERAL PROSECU Search Name HARDWOOD CREEK LUMBER INC E 27 -4460- 782 -00 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Search Name HARDWOOD CREEK LUMBER INC Search Name HELENA CHEMICAL CO E 01 -4330- 215 -70 E 01- 4330 - 215 -70 Search Name HELENA CHEMICAL CO Search Name HOSE INC CHEMICALS - PARKS CHEMICALS - PARKS E 01- 4330 - 490 -70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Search Name HOSE INC Search Name ICMA E 01 -4404- 110 -10 2012 MEMBERSHIP Search Name ICMA Search Name IRON MOUNTAIN RECORDS MGMT E 01- 4490 - 110 -10 APR 2012 SHREDDING E 01- 4490 - 020 -20 APR 2012 SHREDDING Search Name IRON MOUNTAIN RECORDS MGMT Search Name IWORQ SYSTEMS E 15- 4330 - 490 -60 E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 Search Name IWORQ SYSTEMS SEWER MANAGEMENT SIGN MANAGEMENT Search Name JANI -KING OF MINNESOTA, INC. E 01- 4335 - 310 -70 MAY 2012 SERVICE E 15- 4335 - 310 -60 MAY 2012 SERVICE E 01- 4335 - 315 -30 MAY 2012 SERVICE E 01- 4335 - 310 -50 MAY 2012 SERVICE Search Name JANI -KING OF MINNESOTA, INC. Search Name JJ TAYLOR DIST OF MINN E 45 -4310- 205 -45 BEVERAGES - PAR3 Search Name JJ TAYLOR DIST OF MINN Spec Fds Fire Spec Fds Administration Police Spec Fds Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Administration Administration Police Utility Enterprise Road & Bridges Parks & Recreation Utility Enterprise Fire Road & Bridges Golf Course Amount $339.40 $339A0 $374.06 $374.06 $26.27 $149.63 $18.40 $194.30 $4,232.50 $5,200.00 $9,432.50 $373.69 $373.69 $441.71 $115.86 $557.57 $3.52 $3.52 $840.00 $840.00 $10.90 $32.70 $43.60 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $3,600.00 $71.25 $71.25 $213.75 $71.25 $427.50 $107.80 $107.80 Account CITY OF MEN©OTA HEIGHTS Claims List System Checks 05115112PAY Comments DEPT Descr Search Name KAISER, STACY E 01- 4415 - 114 -14 E 01- 4490 - 114 -14 Search Name KAISER, STACY Search Name KENNEDY & GRAVEN G 72 -2010 Search Name KENNEDY & GRAVEN Search Name KUSTOM SIGNALS INC MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT SET -UP COSTS BOND ISSUE COSTS - COUNSE E 01- 4330 - 440 -20 EXTENDED WARRANTY - PD E Search Name KUSTOM SIGNALS INC Search Name L M C I T2 E 08- 4133 - 000 -00 E 45- 4133 - 045 -45 E 01- 4133 - 020 -20 G 01 -1215 E 15- 4133 - 060 -60 E 01 -4133- 109 -09 E 05- 4133 - 105 -15 E 01- 4133 - 070 -70 E 01- 4133 - 050 -50 E 01- 4133 - 031 -30 E 01- 4133- 110 -10 E 01- 4133 - 040 -40 G 08 -1215 G 45 -1215 G 05 -1215 G 15 -1215 Search Name L M C I T2 Search Name LAKEVILLE, CITY OF E 01- 4400 - 020 -20 Search Name LAKEVILLE, CITY OF WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM TRAINING - PD Search Name LES JONES ROOFING, INC. E 24- 4620 - 000 -00 PW ROOF Search Name LES JONES ROOFING, INC. Search Name LEXISNEXIS E 01- 4223 - 020 -20 Search Name LEXISNEXIS Search Name LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWS APR 2012 SERVICE G 01 -1145 PROJECT NOTICE - STA E 27- 4240 - 784 -00 BIDS - MARIE AVE REHAB E 01- 4240 - 080 -80 4/8/12 PLANNING NOTICES E 01- 4240 - 110 -10 NOTICE - ADMIN Search Name LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWS Search Name LOGIS E 01- 4223 - 020 -20 E 01 -4301- 030 -30 Info Tech Info Tech Police Spec Fds Golf Course Police Utility Enterprise City Council Engineering Enterprise Parks & Recreation Road & Bridges Fire Administration Code Enforcement /Inspe Police Spec Fds Police Spec Fds Planning Administration APPLICATION SUPPORT - PD Police APPLICATION SUPPORT - FIRE Fire Amount $41.71 $15.00 $56.71 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $450.00 $450.00 $896.05 $558.89 $34,323.11 $31,727.63 $3,007.07 $33.41 $1,306.10 $4,708.04 $12,210.52 $8,838.96 $3,037.44 $303.74 $448.02 $279.44 $653.05 $1,503.53 $103,835.00 $150.00 $150.00 $140,431.85 $140,431.85 $119.25 $119.25 $50.00 $65.63 $50.01 $31.25 $196.89 $1,989.00 $53.00 05/10/12 12:2013 9 Page 5 Account Search Name LOGIS CITY OF MENDOTA. HEIGHTS Claims List System Checks 05 /15 /12PAY Comments DEPT Descr Search Name M T I DISTRIBUTING COMPANY E 45- 4330 - 490 -45 E 45- 4330 - 490 -45 E 45- 4330 - 490 -45 E 45- 4330 - 490 -45 E 45- 4330 - 490 -45 E 45- 4330 - 490 -45 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Golf Course EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Golf Course EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Golf Course EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Golf Course EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Golf Course EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Golf Course Search Name M T I DISTRIBUTING COMPANY Search Name MENARDS E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 E 15- 4305 - 060 -60 Search Name MENARDS Search Name METRO FIRE SUPPLIES - CITY HALL Spec Fds OPERATING SUPPLIES - SEWE Utility Enterprise Amount $2,042.00 - $134.71 $147.22 $81.02 $33.27 $387.98 $15.29 $530.07 $5.09 $17.31 $22.40 E 01- 4305 - 030 -30 GAS DETECTORS - FIRE DEPT Fire $369.07 E 01- 4305 - 030 -30 GAS DETECTORS - FIRE DEPT Fire $1,602.16 E 01- 4305 - 030 -30 GAS DETECTORS - FIRE DEPT Fire $1,301.13 Search Name METRO FIRE $3,272.36 Search Name MEYER, STEVEN E 01- 4400 - 020 -20 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT - S. Police $1,185.00 Search Name MEYER, STEVEN $1,185.00 Search Name MID NORTHERN ELECTRIC E 08 -4335- 000 -00 BLDG MAINTENANCE AND REP Spec Fds $495.00 E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 BLDG MAINTENANCE AND REP Spec Fds $197.41 Search Name MID NORTHERN ELECTRIC $692.41 Search Name MID NORTHERN SERVICES E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 EQUIPMENT REPAIR Road & Bridges $135.00 Search Name MID NORTHERN SERVICES $135.00 Search Name MITCHELL1 E 01- 4300 - 070 -70 MAY 2012 SERVICE Parks & Recreation $155.03 Search Name MITCHELL1 $155.03 Search Name MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY E 15- 4490 - 060 -60 WASTEWATER CERT. RENEWA Utility Enterprise $23.00 Search Name MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY $23.00 Search Name MN ST ADMIN ITG TELECOM SRVCE E 01- 4223- 020 -20 APR 2012 WAN SERVICE Police $125.81 E 01- 4220 - 133 -10 APR 2012 WAN SERVICE Administration $148.00 Search Name MN ST ADMIN ITG TELECOM SRVCE $273.81 Search Name MN TEAMSTERS LOCAL 320 G 01 -2075 MAY 2012 UNION DUES $606.00 Search Name MN TEAMSTERS LOCAL 320 $606.00 Search Name NATURE CALLS, INC E 01- 4200- 610 -70 MAY 2012 RENTALS Parks & Recreation $760.31 E 45- 4200 - 610 -45 MAY 2012 RENTALS Golf Course $50.69 05/10/12 12:20p17 0 Page 6 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List System Checks 05115/12PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name NATURE CALLS, INC $811.00 Search Name NELCOM CORP E 07- 4330 - 000 -00 MAY 2012 SIREN MAINTENANC Spec Fds $93.49 Search Name NELCOM CORP $93.49 Search Name NIEBUR TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT INC E 01- 4330 - 490 -70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Parks & Recreation $214.79 E 01 -4330- 490 -70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Parks & Recreation $35.60 Search Name NIEBUR TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT INC $250.39 Search Name NI I I I SANITATION INC E 45 -4280- 045 -45 RECYCLING - PAR3 Golf Course $18.00 Search Name NI l I I SANITATION INC $18.00 Search Name NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTAN E 01- 4221 - 135 -80 APRIL 2012 RETAINER Planning $2,400.00 Search Name NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTAN $2,400.00 Search Name NORTHWEST LASER AND INSTRUMENT E 05- 4330 - 490 -15 ENG. EQUIPMENT REPAIR & SU Engineering Enterprise $246.43 Search Name NORTHWEST LASER AND INSTRUMENT $246.43 Search Name OFFICE DEPOT E 01 -4300- 020 -20 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police $83.53 E 01- 4300 - 020 -20 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police $5.33 E 01- 4300 - 020 -20 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police $50.43 E 01- 4331- 020 -20 OFFICE EQUIPMENT Police $53.43 Search Name OFFICE DEPOT $192.72 Search Name OPTUMHEALTH FINANCIAL SERVICES E 01 -4490- 110 -10 APR 2012 COBRA ADMIN. FEE Administration $45.00 $45.00 Search Name OPTUMHEALTH FINANCIAL SERVICES Search Name OREILLY AUTO /FIRST CALL E 45- 4334 - 045 -45 PAR3 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES Golf Course $3.83 E 45- 4334 - 045 -45 PAR3 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES Golf Course $7.65 E 45- 4334 - 045 -45 PAR3 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES Golf Course $21.80 E 45- 4334 - 045 -45 PAR3 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES Golf Course $29.90 E 45- 4334 - 045 -45 PAR3 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES Golf Course $13.85 E 45- 4334 - 045 -45 PAR3 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES Golf Course $49.15 Search Name OREILLY AUTO /FIRST CALL $126.18 Search Name OSLAND JANITORIAL SUPPLY E 08 -4335- 000 -00 SUPPLIES - CITY HALL Spec Fds $284.29 Search Name OSLAND JANITORIAL SUPPLY $284.29 Search Name OXYGEN SERVICE CO E 01- 4200 - 610 -50 CYLINDER RENT Road & Bridges $76.95 Search Name OXYGEN SERVICE CO $76.95 Search Name PENTEL, REBECCA E 01- 4130 - 110 -10 TEMP HELP - ADMIN Administration $28.50 E 01- 4130 - 021 -20 TEMP HELP - PD Police $456.00 E 01- 4260 - 640 -12 ELECIIONS WORK Elections $152.00 05/10/12 12:2491711 1 Page 7 Account Search Name PENTEL, REBECCA CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List System Checks 05/15/12PAY DEPT Descr Amount 05/10/12 12:20p171 2 Page 8 Search Name RATWIK,ROSZAK & MALONEY, P.A. E 01- 4481 - 110 -10 MAR 2012 LEGAL SERVICES Administration Search Name RATWIK,ROSZAK & MALONEY, P.A. Search Name RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED E 01- 4330 - 440 -20 EQUIPMENT PARTS Search Name RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED Search Name SPRWS E 01- 4425 - 315 -30 MAR 2012 WATER SERVICE - F Fire Search Name SPRWS Search Name ST. PAUL, CITY OF E 01 -4422- 050 -50 STREET MAINTENANCE MATER Road & Bridges Search Name ST. PAUL, CITY OF TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMBURSE Fire Police Search Name STEIN, DALE E 01- 4400 - 030 -30 Search Name STEIN, DALE Search Name STREICHERS $636.50 $3,940.20 $3,940.20 $34.27 $34.27 $44.32 $44.32 $1,873.99 $1,873.99 $462.28 $462.28 E 01- 4410 - 020 -20 EQUIPMENT - PD Police $5.00 E 01- 4410 - 020 -20 EQUIPMENT - PD Police $8.54 E 01- 4410- 020 -20 EQUIPMENT - PD Police $90.83 Search Name STREICHERS $104.37 Search Name TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEC. SVC. E 01- 4220 - 070 -70 4/24/12 PLANNING COMM. MT Parks & Recreation Search Name TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEC. SVC. Search Name TRIANGLE RUBBISH & RECYCLING E 01- 4280 - 315 -30 MAR 2012 SERVICE - FIRE HAL Fire Search Name TRIANGLE RUBBISH & RECYCLING Search Name TURFWERKS E 45- 4330 - 490 -45 E 45- 4330 - 490 -45 Search Name TURFWERKS EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Golf Course EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Golf Course Search Name TWIN CITY REFUSE & RECYCLING E 01- 4220 - 085 -85 CLEAN UP DAY SERVICE Search Name TWIN CITY REFUSE & RECYCLING Search Name TWIN CITY TELEPHONE E 01- 4330 - 490 -10 TELEPHONE REPAIRS Search Name TWIN CITY TELEPHONE Search Name VALSPAR PAINT E 01- 4330 - 215 -70 PAINT - PARKS Search Name VALSPAR PAINT Recycling Administration Parks & Recreation Search Name VERIZON WIRELESS E 01- 4210- 030 -30 APR -MAY 2012 CELL SERVICE Fire Search Name VERIZON WIRELESS $168.75 $168.75 $53.10 $53.10 $74.11 $67.65 $141.76 $1,086.00 $1,086.00 $87.00 $87.00 $91.57 $91.57 $138.57 $138.57 CITY OF MENDO T A HEIGHTS Claims List System Checks 05/15112PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Search Name VIKING INDUSTRIAL CNTR E 01- 4420 - 050 -50 SIGN MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES Road & Bridges Search Name VIKING INDUSTRIAL CNTR Search Name WACONIA FARM SUPPLY E 01- 4330 - 490 -70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR SUPPLIES Search Name WACONIA FARM SUPPLY Search Name WASTE MANAGEMENT E 01- 4280 - 310 -70 E 15- 4280 - 310 -60 E 01- 4280 - 310 -50 E 08- 4280 - 000 -00 Search Name WASTE MANAGEMENT APRIL 2012 SERVICE - PW APRIL 2012 SERVICE - PW APRIL 2012 SERVICE - PW APRIL 2012 SERVICE - CITY HA Search Name WINTHROP & WEINSTINE E 01- 4481 - 110 -10 E 01- 4220 - 120 -30 E 01- 4220 - 120 -10 E 01- 4220- 120 -50 E 01- 4220 - 120 -80 E 01- 4220 - 120 -20 E 01 -4221- 120 -10 G 27 -1145 MAR 2012 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 2012 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 2012 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 2012 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 2012 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 2012 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 2012 LEGAL - RETAINER MAR 2012 LEGAL - MENDOTA M Search Name WINTHROP & WEINSTINE 05/10/12 12:20 'nit 3 Page 9 Amount Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Utility Enterprise Road & Bridges Spec Fds Administration Fire Administration Road & Bridges Planning Police Administration Search Name ZEE MEDICAL SVC E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 FIRST AID SUPPLIES - CITY HA Spec Fds Search Name ZEE MEDICAL SVC $59.32 $59.32 $72.42 $72.42 $177.43 $177.43 $177.44 $142.84 $675.14 $119.25 $92.75 $198.75 $384.25 $255.54 $53.00 $500.00 $238.50 $1,842.04 $172.52 $172.52 $320,498.53 Mendota Heights City Council CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, May 1, 2012 ITEM 5Q May 1, 20170 7 4 Page Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Councilmembers Duggan, Povolny, Petschel and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Krebsbach presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the agenda. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Krebsbach presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilmember Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein; pulling items C) Acknowledgement of April 11, 2012 Airport Relations Commission Minutes and E) Amendment to the ICMA-RC 457 Deferred Compensation Plan to Add Roth Provisions a. Acknowledgement of April 17, 2012 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledgement of February 28, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes c. Acknowledgement of April 11, 2012 Airport Relations Commission Minutes d. Approval of Sign Permit at 2060 Centre Pointe Drive — People Incorporated Mental Health Services e. Amendment to the ICMA-RC 457 Deferred Compensation Plan to Add Roth Provisions f. Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy g. Approval of Temporary Seasonal Hires h. Ordering of Feasibility Report for Crown Point and Overlook Neighborhood Rehabilitation i. Ordering of Feasibility Report for Hunter and Orchard Neighborhood Improvements j. Approve the Contractors List Mendota Heights City Council May 1, 2012 P75 Page 2 k. Approve the Claims List 11. Approval of March 2012 Treasurer's Report Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA TOPIC C ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF APRIL 11, 2012 AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES Councilmember Duggan stated that the minutes did not note that he did attend the meeting. He also noted that the city, near the proposed expansions of the airport in the next twenty -five years, needs to be more vigilant than ever and reestablish better relations with all of the cities around the airport so all can work together with the airport in the development and expansion. Mayor Krebsbach commended Jeff Hammel for attending the ARC meeting, which speaks to the stature of that group. Councilmember Petschel noted that on Tuesday, May 8 at Eagan City Hall at 7:00 p.m. the ARCS of the cities of Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, and Eagan would be meeting together as one group. Councilmember Duggan moved to Approve the Acknowledgement of April 11, 2012 Airport Relations Commission Minutes Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA TOPIC E AMENDMENT TO THE ICMA -RC 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN TO ADD ROTH PROVISIONS Councilmember Duggan asked who has access and who controls these funds. Finance Director Kristen Schabacker replied that the ICMA Deferred Compensation Plan is an employee's account. Their amounts are deducted from their payroll and remitted to ICMA. Councilmember Duggan moved to approve Amendment to the ICMA -RC 457 Deferred Compensation Plan to Add Roth Provisions Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. PRESENTATIONS A) POLICE RESERVE OFFICER RECOGNITION Mendota Heig]its City Council May 1, 2012P 7 6 Page 3 Chief of Police Michael Aschenbrener introduced Sergeant Brian Convery who runs the Police Reserve Program. Sergeant Convery reviewed the accomplishments of the reserve officers over the past year and gave an explanation of the President's Volunteer Service Award, the highest volunteer service award that he knows of The President's Volunteer Service Award is the award presented through President Obama's office and recognizes individuals and groups that achieved a certain standard of volunteer service measured by the volunteer hours they provide. The hours are certified by the city, are reported to the President's office, which then sends the awards out with letters, suitable - for - framing certificates, and a lapel pin. The Bronze award is presented to a volunteer who donates between 100 and 249 hours in the calendar year. The Silver award is presented to volunteers who donate between 250 and 499 hours and the Gold award is given to those who donate 500 or more hours in a calendar year. All of the recipients are also named on a plaque, which is kept in the lobby area of the Police Department. Following are the awards that were presented: Jerrod Spicer — Presidential Bronze (139 hours) George Castillo — Presidential Bronze (171 hours) Jesse Mettner — Presidential Bronze (192 hours) Jerry Murphy — Presidential Bronze (219 hours) Jeff Parker — Presidential Silver (287 hours) Becky Pentel — Presidential Silver (332 hours) Jim Knox — Presidential Silver (431 hours) Randy Pentel — Presidential Gold (1537 hours) Sergeant Convery was also presented with an award for his dedication in leading this volunteer program. Councilmembers gave expressions of honor and appreciation. B) ROGERS LAKE ASSOCIATION REQUEST FOR WEED CONTROL Mr. Tim Carlson of the Rogers Lake Property Owners Association gave an update on the forming and establishing of the association. Mr. Carlson also mentioned that the St. Thomas study on the lake is coming up at the next council meeting and wanted to let the council and city staff know that if the recommendation is made to have weed control efforts take place at the lake, the association would be in favor. He also stated his belief that the association has the funds to match whatever the city is willing to put forth in that effort. Mayor Krebsbach asked Public Works Director John Mazzitello to give his staff report on this. Mr. Mazzitello replied that in 2009 the city entered into a weed control program at Rogers Lake at the request of several residents who own shoreland property. The first year of the weed control there were two treatments by a hired contractor. The two treatments in 2009 cost $4,755. In 2010 the residents requested the city repeat the treatment; however, they only did one treatment at a cost of approximately $3,000. In 2011 the council approved half of the $3,000 expenditure and asked that the residents fonn an association and contribute to the weed control program. In 2011 the contractor applied the chemical later in the season because the weed growth was not as extensive as it had been in the past years. This Mendota Heights City Council May 1, 2012P77 Page 4 year, the residents of Rogers Lake are making their request for weed control again, they have formed an association, and they are willing to match whatever the city is willing to contribute to the program. Because the St. Thomas data analysis of Rogers Lake is due at the next council meeting and because phosphorus levels and a few other water quality indicators have been in slight decline over the past couple of years, staff is recommending that council wait until after hearing the St. Thomas presentation before deciding on whether to enter into a weed control program for 2012. Mayor Krrebsbach noted that the city made the contribution over these past years and the Rogers Lake neighborhood was to form an association. Last year, the contribution was really in jeopardy and so the association was fowled. In her view, the most the city would contribute is half of the overall cost if the total cost is $3,000 or less, with the maximum contribution not to exceed $1,500. Mr. Mazzitello commented that if council were to go forward with weed control after hearing St. Thomas' report, staff's recommendation would likely be for a single treatment. Staff already has a quote from the contractor; the single treatment plus the permit fee would total $3,035. Councihneinber Duggan expressed his agreement of going forward with the cost to the city not to exceed $1,518 this year in conjunction with the support from the Rogers Lake Property Owners Association. Council and staff agreed that the weed control effort at Rogers Lakes does not necessarily need to be tied to the St. Thomas report. Mr. Tom Miranda, a resident in the Copperfield neighborhood, strongly urged the council to avoid prematurely spending any more money on what conceivably might be a beautification project at Rogers Lake. Instead, the city should be preparing for the federal and state mandated water quality standards that will take affect within the next couple of years. Mr. Miranda cited studies from last year where ponds, like Copperfield, barely eked out a passing grade of fifty -two percent when the minimum standard was fifty -one percent. He also mentioned. the lessening water volumes in the lakes due to vegetation dying and falling to the bottom; decreasing their ability to filter water to meet these standards. If the lakes fall below the minimum standard the city would have major problems and taxpayer money would have to be found to dredge the lakes or to pay for other drastic measures. To his knowledge, the city has no detailed plan to address these one hundred bodies of water in the city and should not be throwing money at individual local initiatives. Instead, the city should be facing what will happen within just a couple of years. In response, Mayor Krebsbach stated that the city does have a plan and that Mr. Mazzitello presented a very complete five -year plan to the council on the stoimwater management. She asked Mr. Mazzitello to outline that plan and explain what the city decided to do. Mr. Mazzitello gave a quick outline of the activities taken to date to get ahead of what is coming from MPCA and EPA, to get a plan in place, to survey and develop a maintenance plan for the stormwater ponds. He also shared the results of testing completed on Copperfield Pond and a couple of other ponds, which all received a grade above C and all considered as passing in their condition. Passing means they are adequately treating the stormwater for removal of sediments, nutrients, chemicals, etc. Mendota Heights City Council May 1, 2012P 7 8 Page 5 After continued discussion and comments, Councilmember Duggan suggested that staff examine whether or not the city can ban the use of phosphates by lawn service agencies in the City of Mendota Heights and report back to the council. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS City Administrator Justin Miller explained that this is a renewal for several liquor licenses within the city that are set to expire. Appropriate applications have been received from each establishment and all have passed their background checks. The establishments seeking their 3.2 percent malt liquor license renewals are as follows: On -sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses Mendota Heights, Par 3, 1695 Dodd Road Mendo Restaurant Group, Inc. dba Mendoberri, 730 Main Street Windy City Pizza LLC dba Tommy Chicago's Pizzeria, 730 Main Street CEC Food and Beverage LLC dba LeCordon Bleu of Culinary Arts, 1315 Mendota Heights Road Off -sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses Northern Tier Retail LLC dba SuperAmerica, 1080 Highway 110 Northern Tier Retail LLC dba SuperAmerica, 1200 Mendota Heights Road There were no comments from the public. Councilmember Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Duggan moved to renew the 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses to the establishments named. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A) ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR MARIE AVENUE REHABILITATION Chief Engineer John Mazzitello stated that on April 25, staff held a bid opening at 10:00 a.m. for the Marie Avenue Rehabilitation project and received four bids. Two of the four bidders errored in their biddings as there is a provision in the bid instructions that require that mobilization be limited to three percent of the total bid price. Two of the contractors had mobilization costs in excess of three percent. Staff recommends dismissing these bids and going with the lowest responsible bid, which is Hardrives Inc., for the contract amount of $1,039,735.18. Hardrives has not done work in Mendota Heights in the past but their references were checked and they come highly recommended from both the references they listed as well as the City of Eagan. Mendota Heights City Council May 1, 2012 p 7 9 Page 6 Councilmember Vitelli moved Approval of a "Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for the Marie Avenue Rehabilitation (Project #201107)" Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) PLANNING CASE 2012 -11, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST — CONVENT OF THE VISITATION, 2455 VISITATION DRIVE Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek stated that this is a request for a conditional use pennit and a variance for additional accessory structures at the Convent of the Visitation School. The school is proposing to put dugouts on one of their softball fields. They are proposing two structures, one is one hundred twenty square feet and the other is eighty -five square feet, the larger being for the home team. Under city code, because they have more than one accessory structure they need to have a variance and any accessory structure requires a conditional use permit. The planning commission held a hearing on this at their last meeting on April 24, 2012 and there were no public comments. The concerns the commission raised were about the color and the school reported that those would be red and white, in the school colors. The cornrnission agreed with the planner's recornunendation to recornrnend approval of the conditional use permit and variance as requested. Councilmember Duggan asked which parts would be red and which parts would be white. Mr. Sedlacek could not speak to that but the applicant was available to answer that question. Dr. Nichols stated her appreciation for the council's consideration of their request and replied that the body of the dugouts would be red, the trim would be white, and the roofs would be black. Councilrnernber Duggan moved Approval of a "Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structures and a Variance for Total Area of Accessory Structure at 2455 Visitation Drive" Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 C) PLANNING CASE 2012 -10, VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK — 862 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek stated that this is a request for the property located at 862 Wagon Wheel Trail, located on the south side of Wagon Wheel just where Rogers Court comes out onto Wagon Wheel Trail. The applicant has a two -car garage with a driveway and is seeking permission to construct an additional parking pad on the west side of their lot. The home itself is very close to the side yard setback line and city code would allow for them to have a six foot parking pad but the applicant would like to extend that to seven feet or potentially eight feet into the side yard setback, or up to a two foot variance to the side yard setback in order to accommodate a vehicle and to be able to get in and out of that vehicle without stepping on turf. The applicant provided a scale drawing, which shows their preferred dimensions into the side yard setback. At the planning commission meeting the commission asked the applicant to describe why this could not be done on the east side of the existing driveway. The applicant pointed out that there is a gas service line, which would need to be paved over and a tree on the site. The proposed driveway would not go the length of the parcel, back out to the Mendota Heights City Council May 1, 2012p 8 0 Page 7 right -of -way, but would be just large enough for a vehicle to park and an access area in and out. The planning commission did hold a public hearing on this matter on April 24, 2012 and there were no comments. Mr. Igo has provided documentation in his planning application that the immediate neighbors are all right with his proposal. After discussion, the planning commission did recommend denial of the request along with the planners recommendations with findings that the property owner had a reasonable use of the property and that there were alternatives for parking. Councilmember Duggan expressed his disagreement with the recommendation of denial. He viewed the site, spoke with the owner, and after recalling the city frequently granting variances to applicants very similar to this and he would support the granting of a one -foot variance to permit a seven foot parking pad on the west side of the property. Councilmember Petschel commented that she also went and viewed the property and spoke with the owner. She believes the hardship in terms of putting a parking pad on the other side of the driveway is that the only mature trees they have in the yard are on that side. The problem is there is plenty of room on the other side of the house but it is not where the garage is. She expressed her support of granting the variance for a seven -foot wide parking pad. Councilmember Povolny also expressed his support of granting the variance. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he does not follow all of the logic but he does not have a great opposition. However, it seems like six feet is wide enough. Councilmember Duggan moved Approval to Grant a One Foot Variance to the Side Yard Setback for the Purpose of Installing a Parking Pad on the West Side of the Property Located at 862 Wagon Wheel Trail" Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 D) PLANNING CASE 2012 -07, VARIANCE TO RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH, FOXWOOD LANE Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek explained that this is a request for a variance to the right of way width at Foxwood Lane. This is a request that anticipates a further planning application to extend Foxwood to serve a new subdivision. This is a request for a variance on a right of way width, which right now would not be approved. The applicant is seeking a decision on this variance so that they may then start the planning process for a future subdivision. Mayor Krebsbach asked City Attorney Tami Diehm to explain the issues before the council. City Attorney Diehm pointed out that there are two resolutions before the council. There has been a lot of correspondence, a lot of testimony provided at various public hearings, and a lot of different issues that have been raised with respect to not only the roadway width, but also the inevitable future subdivision. Throughout this process, staff has tried to provide reminders to the planning commissioners and now to the council, that staff would like council to focus on the application that is before them this evening and that is the request to improve a road within an existing right of way. Standards require that the right of Mendota Heights City Council May 1, 2012P 81 Page 8 way be sixty feet, this right of way is fifty feet, and the applicant has asked for a variance from the standards so that the road could be improved. That being said, the only reason that the road would be improved would be in connection with a proposed subdivision. For that reason, staff prepared findings which would support a resolution of approval and has also prepared findings which support a resolution of denial. City Attorney Diehm reminded the council that there have been public hearings and there are people in the audience who would like to speak and it is up to the council to determine if they would like for this to be open for discussion. She anticipated that if there were discussion there would be issues raised related to the future subdivision. Staff has tried to address what they believe are the most applicable arguments both in favor of approval and supporting denial in the resolutions. Councilmember Vitelli asked why this is before the council. The key to a variance is a hardship and the applicant currently has access to their property. He believes that the word `subdivision' should be taboo in this next discussion. There is no application for a subdivision so how could the council even discuss a subdivision. He then cited a phrase found in the memo from William Griffith that says `if there is no proposal to develop a new subdivision to the south of Foxwood Lane there is no need for a variance'. Councilmember Vitelli stated his readiness to vote for denial. Councilmember Vitelli moved Denial of Planning Case 2012 -07, Variance to Right of Way Width, Foxwood Lane. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. City Attorney Tami Diehm read the findings of fact for denial of the application. Mr. Paul McGinley of Loucks and Associates, on behalf of the applicant, clarified the reason for their request for the variance at this point. In 2003, the Baders spent a large amount of money on subdivision plans under the direction that they needed a variance to the length of the cul -de -sac. They were denied based on that variance, which subsequently was deemed to be unnecessary because it was determined that the cul -de -sac length variance was only an ordinance that was recommending in nature and not applicatory to cul -de -sac length. They were told this time that they needed to apply for a variance at some point to utilize Foxwood Lane as a public street. Even though it is dedicated as a public street it could not be upgraded under any circumstance to a full width thirty -foot curb -to -curb street with utilities without a variance. On that basis, in the hopes of avoiding going through the dollars in preparing plans for a subdivision and addressing all of these other issues that have been discussed, the Baders decided that they would apply for the variance to see if Foxwood Lane could even be considered to be upgraded as a public street. The goal was to see if that variance could be granted so that planning could be begun. The applicants wanted to show that it is a reasonable use of a public street to construct a city street within that right of way. None of the other questions regarding the subdivision and other implications of the subdivision are contained in that request. Those would all be pursued, vetted, discussed, examined, and engineered through a subdivision application. Councilmember Petschel stated that she watched the planning commission meeting, heard Mr. McGinley's presentation, and heard something that disturbed her. In the event that the city would grant a variance in this case, she heard Mr. McGinley use the word `condemnation' as regards obtaining the land necessary for a construction easement. She asked City Attorney Diehm to clarify that this has never been done in the city. City Attorney Dielun replied that she could not answer the question of whether or not the council has ever done that. However, to frame the discussion, even if the variance is granted and the city authorizes construction of the road in that right of way, that variance is a necessary Mendota Heights City Council May 1, 20121382 Page 9 part of the road reconstruction but it is not sufficient. In order to construct that road, it is staff's belief that the applicant would also need to obtain temporary construction easements in order to move their equipment, move the earth, and do different things that are required when a road is constructed. The discussion at the planning commission meeting was intended to make sure the applicant understood that the city does not intend to participate in obtaining temporary construction easements. That would be up to the applicant to go and negotiate those agreements with the neighbors. Mayor Krebsbach stated that she would support the motion of denial based on the first fact of finding in that the council does not have a subdivision plan before them and to grant a variance would be to move in the wrong order. Councilmember Duggan asked if an additional phrase could be added to the facts of finding number three. City Attorney Dielun stated that there is certainly nothing wrong with the additional language suggested, but the point of the resolution is to evaluate all of the variance standards and so each of the facts of finding failed to demonstrate that there are no viable alternatives. She did not believe that the additional language was necessary. Councilmember Duggan also suggested that the language pertaining to the subdivision be taken out of the resolution because they are not discussing the subdivision, but purely and simply a request for a variance in relation to a right of way. Councilmember Vitelli agreed. City Attorney Dielun explained that the language sets the stage and since the actual right of way width is found within the city's subdivision regulations she believes it is appropriate that they reference that fact. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he is all right with that. Councilmember Povolny commented that he understands the Baders request for the variance. He believes they were just trying to find out if it is worth spending the money to do the project. He would have preferred that they had submitted the request as a Planned Unit Development and did it all at one time. Mayor Krebsbach called for the vote to deny the variance request. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 E) DAKOTA COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM — CITY SOLICITED PROJECTS City Engineer John Mazzitello explained that each year Dakota County transportation division updates their capital improvements program and they go out to all of the cities in Dakota County and ask if there are any projects on county facilities that the cities would like to have completed. After reviewing comments received from the public, one from the Parks and Recreation Commission, and a third that he learned about in discussions with Dakota County, staff came up with three potential projects that council may consider requesting inclusion in the capital improvement program. Mr. Mazzitello listed the three potential projects and the merits of each one: Mendota Heights City Council May 1, 2012P83 Page 10 1. Parks and Recreation's request to construct a trail on the east side of Lexington Avenue, north from Wagon Wheel Trail to Toin Thumb Boulevard (staff recommends inclusion) 2. Copperfield Neighborhood Subdivision's request for a pedestrian access north/south connecting Mendota Heights Road to Henry Sibley High School (staff does not recommend inclusion) 3. Funds towards the City of Mendota Heights financial contribution to its stormwater drainage portion of MnDOT's Highway 13 reconstruction project (staff recommends inclusion) No action was necessary from the council during this meeting because Dakota County does not need cornrnents from the city until June 25. Staff requested direction on what projects the council would like to include so they can draft a resolution for an upcoming council meeting for council approval. Mayor Krebsbach asked if this is something the city is competing for to have access to these funds. Mr. Mazzitello replied that submitting a request for inclusion does not guarantee it would be included, but it identifies projects to the county that the city desires to have happen. Councilmember Duggan stated that he agrees with staff recommendation on the first identified project. His concern is that, with the traffic on Lexington, the safety on the trail — he would not walk that trail. He asked if there would be appropriate trail markings letting people know in the Curley Addition subdivision that it is a trail. Mr. Mazzitello replied that currently there are not any directional indicators routing pedestrian traffic out to the Tom Thumb Boulevard trailhead. That is something staff could consider if they went forward with the Wagon Wheel trail extension. Councilmember Povolny expressed his support of the trails; however, there is one missing — Huber Drive to Mendota Road. Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the city - funded construction of a trail on the east side of Lexington Avenue, north from Wagon Wheel Trail to Tom Thumb Boulevard to include marking of the trail through the Curley Addition subdivision. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. City Administrator Justin Miller noted that this section of trail, which was part of the original Wagon Wheel Trail project, would not be a part of the Dakota County capital improvement project. Also, this was removed from the original project scope by the council at the request of a resident whose home is on the same side of the street as the proposed trail. Mr. Mazzitello stated that the son of the homeowner spoke at the public hearing and asked to have that section of the trail removed. In a very strange coincidence, members of the engineering staff met up with him on Wagon Wheel last week and due to the number of people walking in the street on Wagon Wheel he will now support constructing that length of trail. Mr. Miller also noted that since this was not on the council agenda for this meeting, that the resolution authorizing the trail be brought back to the council at a later meeting so staff can provide notice to the residents. All of the Councilrnembers agreed to this. Mendota Heights City Council May 1, 2012P84 Page 11 It was agreed by Council to not include options one and two in the request to Dakota County and agreed to request Dakota County include option three in their capital improvements plans. Staff will draft the resolutions and bring them back to council at a future meeting. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Vitelli commented that he was very pleased to have another council meeting where they did not nitpick the minutes. He also commented that the golf course looks great and they are well on their way to break even or better this year. Councilmember Petschel made the observation that two students; one from Henry Sibley and one from St. Thomas Academy; had perfect scores on their ACT. Councilmember Duggan was happy to relate that he had no comments. Councilmember Povolny expressed his appreciation to everyone — staff and the mayor — who helped on Saturday Annual Spring Cleanup. It was a tough, hard, cold, and wet day and he appreciated everyone's participation. He also stated that Jake Sedlacek did a great job coordinating the event. Mr. Sedlacek commented that the city's previous record high for cars at the Annual Spring Cleanup was two hundred and fifty. This year they processed over five hundred cars. Preliminary estimates from the electronic collector were just over thirty thousand pounds of electronics — fifteen tons. They nearly hit five tons of scrap metal collected, filled a thirty yard dumpster full of mattresses, and this is without a doubt the largest collection Mendota Heights has ever done. Simultaneously it was also the least amount of material they have ever sent to the dump out of a dump day. Mr. Sedlacek will have a more formal report with total numbers at a future meeting. Mayor Krebsbach made note of two chess players, one from Sibley and one from St. Thomas, who won awards and championships. Mayor Krebsbach also commended the Mendota Heights Police Force, Fire Department, HealthEast Ambulance, State Patrol, and Twin Cities Cremation Society for their presentation of a realistic mock DUI crash at Sibley High School and consequences that follow. Councilmember Petschel thanked the Public Works department for the great tree trimming they did in Copperfield. ADJOURN Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Mendota Heights City Council Sandra Krebsbach Mayor ATTEST: Justin Miller Acting City Clerk May 1, 2012p 8 5 Page 12 Ctri OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: May 15, 2012 TO: FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP Public Works Director/City Engineer Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator ITEM 9A P86 Victoria a Curve I Mendota Heights: I-IN 5511B. 651.452.1850 phone G51.452.8940 fax www,trielulota-heiglits coin _ SUBJECT: Rogers Lake Homeowners Association Weed Control Request BACKGROUND In March of 2009, Council heard from a group of Rogers Lake residents concerned about weed growth in Rogers Lake, and they asked the City to look into removing some of the weeds from the Lake to better facilitate recreational opportunities. Council approved up to $15,000 of Storm Water Utility Funds for expenditure on Rogers Lake Weed control, and the City made application for vegetation removal to the DNR asking for 15 acres of removal with an additional acre reserved for residents to clear access channel from their shoreline. Along with the funding approval, Council asked the residents to work together and, as a group, come up with an alternative funding program that would provide a sense of "ownership" for the benefiting property owners. In May of 2009, the city received the permit for removal which included 8.25 acres of vegetative removal. The City's contractor, Midwest AquaCare, applied a chemical treatment to the permitted area (a 50-foot wide loop around South Rogers Lake, a 50-foot wide single swath down the middle of North Rogers Lake, and the area immediately in front of the City's fishing pier) in June 2009. A second application was completed in August 2009 per the agreement with the contractor. Total city expenditure for 2009 was $4,755.32 not including staff time. In April of 2010, Rogers Lake residents carne to Council for a second consecutive year to ask for City funding for weed removal at Rogers Lake. Council approved funding up to $5,000 of Storm Water Utility Funds for treatment in 2010 and, once again, asked the residents to come up with an alternative fun.ding program for future year treatments. Several suggestions were even provided; for example, the City could pay a fixed percentage (say 50%) and the remaining cost could be divided amongst benefiting property owners based on per unit or per linear feet of shore-land frontage on the lake. In June of 2010, chemical treatment was applied to Rogers Lake in the same pattern as the previous year. The City contractor, Midwest AquaCare, reported that the weed growth was not as prolific as in 2009. It was determined that a second treatment later in the summer was not necessary due to relatively low weed growth. Total City expenditure for 2010 was $3,000 not including staff/administrative time. P87 In April of 2011, Rogers Lake residents requested full city funding for weed removal at Rogers Lake. Council approved an expenditure of up to $3,000 of contingency funds for a single weed control treatment at Rogers Lake and instructed residents that 2011 would be the last year the city fully funds the weed control program. Since the 2011 approval and weed control treatment, some residents around Rogers Lake have formed a homeowners association and are willing to contribute financially to the weed control program. The attached letter is the formal request from the association for continuation of the weed control activities at Rogers Lake. In 2011, staff surveyed several other municipalities that conduct weed control programs, including the Cities of Sunfish Lake, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Oakdale, and Maplewood. All of these municipalities have lakes where they chemically treat for weeds, but rarely do they do apply chemicals in consecutive years to the same water body. This is mostly due to budgetary reasons, with the cities having more water bodies to treat than they have funds to cover, but it also has to do with minimizing impact to water quality. Vegetative growth in a lake helps to clean the water, and continued removal of vegetation can have an adverse impact on the overall water quality of a lake. Water quality monitoring at Rogers Lake has been ongoing since 2001. The attached graphs show the data collected since Saint Thomas Academy began taking water samples at the lake. A brief analysis of each graph as it pertains to weed removal follows: pH — a measure of the acidity of the water. pI-I of 7 is considered neutral.. Rogers Lake was considered slightly basic until 2009. In 2009, the lake went slightly acidic for 2009 and 2010. The pH level appears to have recovered in 2011. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) — the amount of oxygen needed to decompose organic material. The higher the number, the more oxygen is taken by bacteria and the less is available for other aquatic life. BOD should not exceed 5 ppm. BOD has been increasing since 2009 and is currently at 4.5 ppm. Phosphates — a measure of the total phosphorus present. Limits determined by receiving water body downstream. Phosphate levels have been relatively constant since 2009. Nitrates — a measure of the total nitrogen present. Limits determined by downstream receiving water body. Nitrate levels have been relatively constant and trending slightly downward since 2009. Turbidity — a measure of the clarity (or lack thereof) of the water. Ideally a turbidity level under 10 JTU is desired, but a turbidity of 20 can be considered acceptable. Turbidity in Rogers Lake went up between 2009 and 2010, but dropped in 2011. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) — the amount of solid matter dissolved, or otherwise suspended in the water. Similar to turbidity, a higher number indicates poorer conditions. TSS usually goes hand -in -hand with turbidity, but TSS has remained constant since 2009. Overall Grade — STA assigns an overall grade to Rogers Lake based on all the parameters the lake is tested for. Although the overall grade declined in 2010, which. raised some concern among staff, the overall grade of Rogers Lake appears to have recovered and remains good. P88 In conclusion, the weed removal does not appear to be helping the overall water quality of Rogers Lake, but it does not appear to be hurting it either. With the exception of increased turbidity and BUD, all the lake conditions appear to be consistent with pre weed removal levels. BUDGET IMPACT The city's contractor, Midwest Acquacare, has provided a single treatment quote of $3,035.00. The Rogers Lake Homeowners Association has pledges to match the City's contribution. If the city and the association were to split the Midwest Acquacare proposal, the city would need to authorize an expenditure of $1,517.50, and identify the funding source for this expense. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council provide direction on if and how to proceed with weed control activities at Rogers Lake. Should Council decide to continue the program, staff recommends a single weed removal treatment, as proposed by Midwest Acquacare, for the total cost of $3,035; with the city paying $1,517.50 and the association paying $1,517.50. Authorization of this action would require a simple majority vote. April 24, 2012 John R. MazziteUo, PE, PMP Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Letter of Request Dear John, On behalf of the Rogers Lake Property Owners Association, please let this letter serve as our official request to the City to confirm how much money the City is willing to contribute toward weed control on Rogers Lake in 2012. We have collected money and spoken to many of the Rogers Lake property owners, and are confident we have the funds necessary to match the amount the City is willing to contribute toward weed control in 2012. Mysef and some others on behalf of the association will plan on attending the council meeting next Tuesday, May 1, to address any concerns, questions, or comments the mayor, council or staif may have at that time. Thanks for your assistance throughout this process and I look forward to working with you and the City to keep Rogers Lake healthy. < ; Si Tim W. Carlson President P89 P90 . . . . �--- . ! __.Dissolved Oxygen reca|cu|Uonn i pH . BOD5 Temperature! Phosphate • Nitrate 1 Turbidity Total Solids O»ernU ) ' . . |Fa�OOI 6g ! U 'm^/ �_ . � 7.8! 4.6L� 1.8 1.3� 0.7| 40.0 � ) <- i tr >� cr) (-•1 ( N I c•J ....... c-1 , - - - 1 .. .. 1---, ,--i . . . .._... rri cO . _ cn (...6 ( ( r■I ( o ( o rNi _ . (U -t- ( FaU2003 ' 48/ � ; | 1.4; --- - ' °"'^ 1.01 0.31 27.21 4nq Q ,:zt- )�C ) oi ) ti) • . .- - _ ._ . ... ._ _ .. 0 N — .i...-. To -I_ Li) <- 1---- .- ... . ___ .... in o 0 i (NI ( b.0 ( c (' r. 0- L bail 2006 7.9. 49' 5 76� ! '~~| i �� 'G� 1.5; 1.1, I.O| 10 1| � �x c| i 5 6 r.1 cI- oi C O 6 (.0 6 .._ ..... r \i (.0 r*-- tzn (-,1 oo 1--: r-, o (N D 7\1 _ •— CO -1- 1f) 4 r \I (-0 (Ni c-1 • i - 6 (..r) 6 ...... ...... d..- in r--: 0 6 o 00- co o 0 OD C(-'J ___ L.. 0- (NI (-0 N: c-1 st 6 ..,--1 .___. _____ co' CD 1--: 4 cn ct t_C> co cp 0 -- rcs LL (f) N: (1) cc) r \I T-1 , d - 6 0 v--I" .._. ...____ esi 0 r--: rri 0 cd cn o a rNi b.0 c (NI L.. CI LL. tn* In 6 rs1 cci 6 0 ___ Ni rs4 tc5 (.13 ,--i ,--i r•J 1--, cr) c) 0 = as LL. 6 (-4 cri cNI oti c-1 c " - 6 CT ._.... __ r•1 rs1 ui 01 c:ri 6 o .,-( <--1 <-1 0 r■I c-NI RI t_r5 I-, cO r,I t.f5 1-I 6 0 ...._. _.._ d: (f) h: 0 4 co CO C. (13 LL . ..._ ..... 'Average . 6.4! 19.9| 7.5i S�O| 1.3; | -'-----1.r 0.51 17.51 345.2; -�- 70.9 P90 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 ■ 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ) 2011 Ni u1 Cr) CO P91 r--- If/ / , 1 1 P91 Cr1 N) U-1 w 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 -1 2009 2010 ) 2011 J (Ludd) puewa® ua Ax® 0e o P92 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 ) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ) 2011 0 (3") DO Ni Cr) (wdd) awgdsogd P93 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ) 2011 CD 1 CD CY) CD 00 Ni 2 rD 7:1 P 9 4 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ) 2011 CD Cn (_n UJ 01 01 (nil) A :Ap qpnj P95 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 J ) 2011 O.) Ui CD CD CD CD CD cD CD CD (1 /Pw) spijos papuadsns llei.o , 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ) 2011 1\-) UJ CD Cr) 0 (00T So Zno) aPeviD MEAD!® 1 ■A ,:. Ai. \‚I . 1i. t1 if (00T So Zno) aPeviD MEAD!® ITEM 9B P98 1101 Victoria. Curve I Mendota Heights, Mti 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax v ;r .mendote- heights.com DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: GTy OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS May 15, 2012 Mayor, City Council and City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator Planning Case 2012 -03, Zoning Amendment, Accessory Structures BACKGROUND A planning application was presented to the planning commission on January 24, 2012 to amend the zoning ordinance pertaining to accessory structures in the residential zoning district. The zoning amendment would allow for parcels larger than 4 acres in size to .request a conditional use pen-nit for accessory structures with a floor area up to one half of one percent (0.5 %) of the parcel size. The planning application was deemed complete January 3, 2012. The 60 day review period was extended an. additional 60 days, before the item was heard at the April 3, 2012 City Council meeting. The council directed staff to extend the review period an additional 120 days. The review period will now expire and will expire on August 30, 2012. Public notice was published in the City's legal newspaper. City council considered this request at their regular meeting April 3, 2012. The council expressed concern that accessory structures might be allowed closer to property lines than principle structures. The council also felt that it might be appropriate to put a maximum size on individual structures. In response to these concerns, staff will bring site plans for several parcels which would qualify for the updated accessory structure language. In reviewing the site plans, staff is comfortable modifying the proposed language to require at least a 30 foot setback from any lot lines as suggested at the April 3, 2012 meeting. This condition has been added to the draft ordinance. In terns of maximum size, staff reviewed the 2011 application by Convent of the Visitation for a variance and conditional use permit for an outdoor classroom/storage building. The school request for an accessory structure with 1,825 square feet in area was approved. This request started the conversation on whether or not a variance should be necessary for accessory structures on non-residential uses. While the current draft of the ordinance does not set a maximuan area for any single accessory structure, city council may add that condition. BUDGET IMPACT Adopting an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance will have costs for recording and codification. RECOMMENDATION At their January 24, 2012 meeting, the planning conunission voted 7:0 to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment as presented. If city council wishes to implement this recommendation, pass a motion adopting the attached ordinance, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, making any changes the city council deems necessary. This action requires a simple majority vote. ) P99 P100 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 443 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains as follows: SECTION 1: City Code Title 12 Chapter 1 is hereby amended as follows: SECTION 2 AMENDMENT: 12- 1D- 3.C.2: Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) shall not exceed in all residential districts: a. Number and Size: (1) Property is four (1I) acres or less *: One accessory structure with the arca not to exceed one hundred forty four (141) square feet. Parcels of four (4) acres or less occupied by a residential structure may be allowed one accessory building of up to one hundred forty four (144) square feet. (2) Property is more than four (4) acres *: Total area cannot exceed four hundred twenty five (125) square feet, provided: Parcels of more than four (4) acres occupied by a residential structure may be allowed accessory building space of up to four hundred twenty five (425) square feet, provided that: (A) No single structure shall exceed two hundred twenty five (225) square feet. (B) No more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected. *In computing the area of the property on which an accessory structure is to be located, any part which is a lake or a wetland, as defined in any city ordinance or by state or federal law, any part which is subject to an easement for a street, alley or private roadway, and any part which is in the critical area and below the "bluff line ", as defined in chapter 3, "Critical Area Overlay District ", of this title shall be excluded. (3) Parcels in residential zoning districts occupied by non - residential uses may be allowed one accessory building (other than detached garages) up to 1,000 square feet in foundation or first floor area. Parcels of more than four (4) acres in size, occupied by non - residential uses may be allowed, upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit, accessory building space equal to one half of one percent (0.5 %) of the parcel size, measured as the foundation or first floor area, under the following conditions: (A) The accessory building shall be constructed of materials similar to, or complementary with, the exterior building materials of the principal building. (B) The accessory building(s) must be located at least thirty (30) feet from lot lines. (C) The land around accessory buildings built according to this section shall be landscaped to buffer the view of such buildings from exposure to abutting residential uses. SECTION 3 EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its publication according to law. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this fifteenth day of May, 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Attest: By Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk P101 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, 1NCR102 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplannino,corn MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: CASE NO: APPLICANT(S): LOCATION: ZONING: GUIDE PLAN: Mendota Heights Planning Commission Stephen Grittman January 19, 2012 January 24, 2012 Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Institutional Accessory Building Regulations in Residential Districts NAC Case 254.04 — 11.29 City of Mendota Heights NA NA NA Background: At a Planning Commission meeting this past summer, a request for accessory building construction was considered for the Visitation Convent and School. The process to accommodate this request, as it has been for other institutional uses, required Conditional Use Permit approval, coupled with consideration of Variances related to number, size, and total square footage of accessory buildings in a residential district. The City's zoning ordinance allows institutional uses, such as schools, places of worship, golf courses, nature centers, and governmental buildings, in residential districts. The Accessory Building regulations for the residential districts, however, are structured to address accessory buildings that are typical of residential uses rather than institutional activities. While the City's practice has been to address this discrepancy through the variance process, it was suggested that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance be considered that would establish specific accessory use regulations for institutional and uses. P103 The currant regulatbns in th e Residential Districts provde for the following: Detached garages of between 440 square feet and 750 square feet. • Detached non-garage buildings 0f144 square feet for single family property. • Detached non-garage buildings totaling 425 sq. ft. for property over 4 acres. • Detached non-garage buildings up to 1,000 sq. ft. by Conditional Use Permit. • Maximum of 3 accessory buildings for any principal use. For the uses identified above as "institutional»7 most of the properties in the City occupied by such uses have need for accessory buildings exceeding these regulationS. To increase the allowance for such buildings, the Planning Commission recommended a proportional standard, allowing more accessory building space as the size of property increases. The draft t�Xthe}OvVestablishes G proportional standard for accessory building size, with a minimum lot size and additional standards for larger buildin gs to ensure that surrounding F85iUeD fiG � areas are not negatively affected. Finally, a Conditional Use Permit is required to ensure that th ` larger accessory building construction VvillCOOOplerOeDtthe -neighborhood, and that site and building design is consistent with the City's standards in these areas. 2. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: a. Number and Size: - - ' less 000uouu/:uu`z"^=''/ parcels of four (4) bnUdbz�o[nphmoo�buodr�d ocoop�lhYureoidoobuldzuohzz: ou�'one accessory forty four (144) square feet may be allowed. (2) ty For parcels an four (4) acr by v a residential structure accesso buUd� z~ nou000f o' four hundred twen five (425) square feet may be allowed provided that: (A) No single structure shail exceed two hundred twenty five (225) square feet. (B) No more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected. *In cornputing the area of the property on which an accessory structure is to be located, any part which icu lake nru wetland, uadefiondio any city ordinance orbv state or federal law, any part which is subject to an easement for a street, alley or private roadway, and any part which is in the critical area and b l nv the "bluff line" , as defined in chapter 3, "Critical Area Overlay Diotri�� , o f this title shall be exc]uded. ~` For <�)�ozycnpu�9'»u/"^�""~^^~^~�---— --------� non-residential 1,000 feet building (other than detached garages) shall be allowed up to , square foundation 2 or first floor area. For parcels of more than four (4) acres in size, property owners may, upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit, construct accessory building space equal to one half of one ercent (0.5% of the .arcei size measured as the foundation or first floor area under the following conditions: (A) The accessory building shall be constructed of materials similar to, or complementary with, the exterior building materials of the principal building. (B) The accessory building(s) shall meet all setbacks applicable to the principal building. (C) The land around accessory buildings built according to this section shall be landscaped to buffer the view of such buildings from exposure to abutting residential uses. With this change, the allowable accessory building size will be clarified for both residential and non - residential properties. Non - residential property would be allowed an accessory building of up to 1,000 square feet, with more accessory space allowed by CUP, based on the size of the property. Under this ratio, a ten acre property would be allowed 2,178 square feet of accessory building space. A forty acre property would be allowed up to 8,712 square feet. (For reference, 1,000 square feet would be equal to a four -car garage.) For the larger building allowed by CUP, the language has been further clarified to specify that the square footage limitation applies to the first floor (or foundation) size of the building. Thus, an accessory building could be constructed that includes an upper area of usable space which would not count against the limitation in this section. It should be noted that accessory buildings must still meet the maximum height restriction of 15 feet, so the allowance should be self- limiting. Action Requested: After the public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the amendment, based on findings that the revised code better reflects the nature of the institutional land uses, and that the revisions continue to protect surrounding residential areas. 2. Denial of the amendment, retaining current code language. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the amendment. The change better anticipates the actual use of the institutional properties and their accessory building needs, without requiring a resort to variance. The proposed code should establish a realistic baseline for non - residential land uses in the residential areas. Supplementary Materials: None 3 P104