Loading...
2014-05-29 Council WorkshopCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS rnCITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA May 29, 2014 - 1:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Cable Franchise Renewal Update 4. Gas and Electric Utility Franchise Fee Discussion 5. Dog Park Site Review 6. Water System Update 7. Industrial Park Status Update 8. Residential Redevelopment Standards 9. Institutional Uses in Residential Zones 10. Prayer at Public Meetings 11. Adjourn t voio"""1" CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: May 29, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator SUBJECT: Cable Franchise Renewal Update 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, M 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8440 rd, www.nendota-heights.con 3. BACKGROUND The city's cable franchise agreement with Comcast expires on March 21, 2015. The Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission (NDC4) has been working on our behalf for the past year or so on this renewal and Jodie Miller, their executive director, will be at this workshop to provide a status update to the city council. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION No action required — information only. omcast. Emmett Coleman Vice President, Government Affairs Comcast - Twin Cities Region (651) 493-5774 10 River Park Plaza St. Paul, MN 55107 August 30, 2012 Sent Certified Mail Mr. Justin Miller City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Subject: FRANCHISE RENEWAL Dear Justin: This is a copy of the same letter that was sent to you on July 27, 2012 concerning franchise renewal, but corrected to cite Mendota Heights in the first sentence. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. We at Comcast appreciate the opportunity to serve the citizens of the Mendota Heights franchise area. It is our Credo that we will deliver a superior experience to our customers every day. Our products will be the best and we will offer the most customer friendly and reliable service in the market. In living our Credo, we look forward to providing broadband services to our customers in the Mendota Heights area for many years to come. Therefore, we are taking this step to ensure the renewal of our franchise with you. The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ("the 1984 Cable Act") encourages franchisors and cable operators to reach renewal agreements at any time through an informal process of discussion. However, Section 626 of the 1984 Cable Act also provides for commencement of a formal renewal procedure. To preserve our statutory rights to this formal procedure, this letter is our official notice to you invoking that provision. This letter is not intended to introduce a new formality into our discussions, nor is that the intention of the 1984 Cable Act. In fact, we prefer to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement through informal negotiations, thus making many of the 1984 Cable Act's formal procedures unnecessary. I will be happy to discuss this matter with you or provide any additional information that you may require. I look forward to meeting with you in the near future and to continuing a relationship that, we believe, benefits both the community and the residents of your community. Sincerely, -1s2� Emmett Colman Vice President, Government Affairs Comcast - Twin Cities Region NDC4 NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 5845 Blaine Avenue Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota 55076-1401 651/450-9891 Fax 651/450-9429 e-mail: NDC4@townsquare,ty August 7, 2012 Mr. Emmett Coleman Vice President Government Affairs Comcast Twin Cities 10 River Park Plaza St. Paul, MN 55107 Re: Informal Cable Television Franchise Renewal - NDC4 Dear Emmett: This letter responds on behalf of Inver Grove Heights, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, South St. Paul, Sunfish Lake, and West St. Paul, Minnesota (the "Member Cities") of the Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission ("NDC4"). The Member Cities have each received a letter from Comcast Communications ("Comcast") dated July 27, 2012, wherein Comcast provides notice of its desire to renew its cable television franchise and requests commencement of renewal proceedings ("Renewal Letter"). Per the Renewal Letter and pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 546, the NDC4 has initiated proceedings on behalf of the Member Cities to: 1) assess Comcast's past performance under the existing franchise, and 2) assess the future cable -related community needs and interests of the Member Cities and NDC4. In the Renewal Letter Comcast indicates its desire to conduct renewal proceedings informally. The NDC4 is open to informal renewal negotiations with Comcast and looks forward to working with the company during this process. If Comcast objects to proceeding in an informal manner and would rather pursue a formal renewal process, please respond in writing within thirty (30) days of the date of receipt of this letter. If the NDC4 does not receive a written objection, we will conclude Comcast's silence indicates agreement to proceed in an informal manner at this time. Based upon our review of federal law, if at any time in the process either the NDC4 or Comcast believes that renewal cannot be achieved through informal negotiations either party has the right to move forward in the formal renewal process pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 546. In the future please direct correspondence regarding franchise renewal directly to my attention at NDC4, and 1 will keep the Member Cities informed regarding the franchise renewal process. If you have any questions please feel free to contact ine. Sincerely, Miller 4 Executive Director Y14.l1n,4031, cc: Brian T; Grogan NDC4 Commissioners NDC4 Member Cities Managers/Administrators/Clerks NDC4 Member Cities Mayors • c D 0 u ra 0 1 fD 0 c L aJ i 0 z c O 0 .0 E E O u 0 c O fD .V c D E E O u a) fD u 1 a) f -4--' vl y_. O '0 U >, co +' ra s- Q. ra ra ci^ -� T — . 1) $3) &... L.L. c E > c ......., iQ ;O >• i 4 • > $3) rU $3)U �fl 1 jLU Q $3) 0 • •Lco Q a , aJ ru — O Q, a) +, > Q a--' a--' 0 _C . aJ U tiU L a) V1 _c > 0 U + V_� • N LC VI "C)aJ v +� U CU CU -0 - ra vl U aJ 0 °; a ra 4.-, L. U L • O 10 0 a) c c 0_ L +., aJ > aJ00_ MI.' — aJ ra aJ toV-- • aJ E U V U — — L. V L.L. 0 J ra J a_ CC • • • • N ra cu c cu L... ra 4-- O E L CU CU 0 0. c tO .i_, O L.- CU CU -I-J VI VI � .V V V Fil LLf: . E cu +a u\ ^u1 W^ o (Ts V cu 4- 0 CT) C u1 .4-Jc E E O V (Ts V 0 in VI lfr cu y-- l/1 V — 4u C fC3 1 V fD-� p O c 4J O>.N 0 °in 6 rz s' 73 0 ocu 0 ..+75 C3 r-- L.) S. Lc cu S. > ..0 E o -c " E fD 0 'on 0a) = .0 CU Li_ cu V O r fC3 '— � V u 4-) c c (2 W CU L., 0- c > :0 fC3 O _ O 4U &--cu O (13 ..0 imE o E til 11- u 11- ., V C V O +-) Op (Z) p Ln DuZZ-71- ii t+- fC3 V1 C V C 0 C 1 I L.r\ —' vs to 0 0 Oca '0.0 N ra (©' • m N �I E RI E ' szu o X 4J .0- ru (‘Il to _c 0., cu cro +-J c E 'on ro cu CU V) C go D 0 -CI V '2 Q p .c v°J ca. cu IA E 1313 -J 73 o cu x Eu.flf:' � cu�� -� O- %CO :I -▪ j n -1-J 0 -0 to ..0 E • CU (1.)Q) V I - 0 0 L- C v) al ..0 Irl\ in) " Cijo CII (I) to 0 , szu c 0 cu linlc+'cs E > o0auro VA c (1) a •—• u O 12 vszu -0 i ra in 7) 0 E ,i- (13 ' L. + _J V u V L_E 9 V >N•� �' �' mi>EO o Q c 5 > O V CU 00-0_ u_ CXI i O . cu to5 CC V I- . co co a) V .2 o a 0co iv m E L O u_ No deadlines u +-, Oc v -c Q, E 1 .}; To cu (Iii u u �' o O v N X LI - O N O. c v c _c E TD O v O u v1 u i ▪ (Ts N c O u � +� N +, v 0_ c a- O c v • s c O u ro c° - 'ooaEE ro c c ▪ 0 0 0 u ro • ,C_C O 0 • v O u -o N c N u> O rB + N O N- N bp 0 +-+ O v V v w Z Z L c 0 d v 0 L a ca I U O E O Q l d E N o a)Q u) CD uE N = �w ) Q Q.> LL U) N co — 13 fY II O U) 'ii),_ .0 G) a“..9 ? Z Z w = = c2 a CL CO a I- N N Q N N 1E U c 124- N U N N E c Ca co -0 7 0 0 w O • N O N • , L N 0_ 0 c O O 1 U) > O U 4 Final Denial same criteria rc 5 III -0 -I--J r0 O p.. a) in vi VI a) N L V N v d - 4J LLI -O r6 • c L ro ./ rHL- t3 J N V C OVI N vis .O 0 M 0 E ,_ to ..c -t7-- . N VI O c CON:_ in CU 0 L- �; -0 x N = in c • w Li, �n V ra ra v ra 6 0 ( a) �, U _ oV4> oo�- /1O L.. ▪ L CU E 0 Q _c c N 0 - rr1 > 70 - 0 - 2 U ,t- 1 ra c La; 0 i, = 11rsI CU rt ›% +11 0c °J4-) c ja -a ra 1 1 =AI ra V ) > a) + , O 0 t1 c-0 ra >, O 1 .' 3 0 O .�, CI) aJ 73 0 'N I11-1 W V v cu CU Li] 2 V C ▪ _ a. • LLI X ▪ - a. V o Z I�i 1 I a I I I a I • • cil ro V E V O V 0 z 0 0 • . 0 0 N V .N .10 N •C Q) .Q C .0 cilto Q) w 0_ . O •47i ca (1) C d Q EO 0 u)t 0 coL u. 0 00 Lr, cu N ,V -t11- L 0 5- a) .� fft)-0 - u 11 L N O > v O V WV) � E +' > O� VO � i1 -o L ,> .Fa O a) a. to aa) O 0 0 a) II 0 ,� aJ Ln 1E a) mu LL o ru a) 14 II `E- V O 0 I- N N LL 1 1 1 Franchise Fees • 1/1 uro ra 0 L.0 c 0a) a) -0 • O Ln 0 0 tn C to L V > o ;e' ,O to E V I� V W • ump payments ife of franchise - 6 • PEG Fees 0 0 0 rrN -vi- 1I rrN 0 2 O I- L to Q) LA CU .VI s u c to 4 X Q) c 4- 0 O d) m to > • N E 1/1 ra 0 ro 4- 0 I 0 - Over $2o mi e revenues to V N to V E O V 4—,0 to vi cu cu ry L cuN i oV • CU 0 VI D ..i (D i) 1 .O sem.. $3) C 'L a) O O `r' O -c E 0 aJ V i aJ O aJ a)" V 0 a� o -) E O ra C O CU cu q) u L 00 O 00 cu CU ii s- Oo V ...c V1 4J i aJ O i • V � > • - o y- L .O N- V _ ) L.L. D X�, CUr s o C �O 4- O = 0 E -- Ne% E ° 73 m 4-•• m > • O 0 [..n O 0 O c. c. Q 0 C .O VI VIE E 0 u a) 4-10 CU CU > vl .— •— lc U c O LL a L. E � V a) D CU (6 -o0 D l/1 a) > • z j V N .0 in C N n &._ a) v; S-- CE -Z 'GO ikil .CU .un/ 0 '=c E 4- (0 0 O - E N r, X .u_2 ajci) , E vi CU 4- = L. CU VI tlj .., E sob '4 • r�LLI o N E -0 o o to a� u- N (&‘'_ CU ig 4 - CU vim- O ca"VCi-Q ro :_ � > a) -a O -0 �n a.— D CU r� 2 c a) I- > '> E O u u u ,- EL) V O °JE c.EV'Eu o n 0 ow_C c uZw� o a.i CU CU L - p_ I U F- I I H u_ vl vl CU 0 Q. (6 CUc CU L 0 • • • 0.. . t -10 o CU jz CU Z 0 O cv c r6 CU w ' as eL I4- cu- E O —1 — CL • E O r6 •— 4-1 VI a) a --J c O a) E t r• • aJ CU O (1, • a) ° a--, a 'io E V 0 p i a) .cu a V V p V k...7 IT 1- •� •C ^+-'� S1. aJc r1 W CU I.L. xE 13 -� 10 (1) O cu aJ 4+- c -SO S • aJ C :6' V cu O r6 tii a. f 3 ' +-' r6 f1. in X 0 u y-. r6 aJ V u E = r6 c aJL cu O y-. •M +, ry aJ S. VI V r6 cu V 2 aJ c r6 O O rn tf Wu O rp O O - M ca. ra � Z cuv, >+ — u c L O -�+ vv a-+ � V V E Q v) z Z 4.• al rt, V al .Ic • .Ic • • • O . • ru • .I. = a. COI ALI ami' Q. a)0 rav eL a/ Du a)0x L- c L vi VI E• F i fo a. D li 0 O (I)L+" 0 r6 to U $3) -- U 0 i. C E `-8 r4 u " i • g) a) W 0 W V1 VV1 c c O bD C" 2> > E 1 D c aJ O u O L- aJ `.OV +J.„ O d D C :-J ticl .n71 .L1 o '� 0= -0 aJ Q, c '5 c L u aJ — aJ .0 ._ W MI a) • L D fu a, U bA C +� c ro"0 ro a'J 0 •� > O ›, O c V U O U alV i— O:��;� "r° 0° 1.6 el-- 4010 IP (1.) c c bA +J 0 ra V c i-ra L L •- O� wDa) aJ D V•C r- > r6 VI -I Zu. Q-iO> u•-00> p. 1 1 1 1 I p. 1 1 I J 1. I I I • • -WP - 1... -0 CU Z O N ‘I-, O ) Q. O a a au O c o cu u L.��- �"IA i.._ CU p -N N N � u �+ +' CU C -C ro> E ro "0 O O O �, a c L.A u L O �„ O L, 1- 4- +P -..a (Ts #- O O O in ro C) >, a) o c V ^ •- E s u VI C. L c N 0 'O L" N O •v .� RI (Ts 0 1oA �. +� O E mi > ._ °L171 u &-. o E 0 gcu L. cu 0 0 :to 0 1- 0 0 E "3 c u .� IA In M VD O -.+ I— O .c rtN 1 'd' (x)-0-1 1 Z W 1 ru a) a L. ru a .O 41L a i 4-0Z .O ru m a 0 V • ,--1 +' a) d' O 0 O �" z d- E N Q O D a. v >, o o +, ^ = ra 0 �, +� V >, 73 LZ. V a) L..v) E g9 (1`3 ru a) rz, -c) -0 t lc > o $3) a) k..) (1) .0 (i)E v,v) ,..9., g q-- 0 -0 O V v C . 4- U O V V .0 D O .O O 0 4(e +-) :' 12 2 0 ,r. (.0 co ..W) a) vl 10 ✓ 0 .-'OZ0GJ0�O' c V ^ V z Li- O •�, �+ . Q. P •— L.. ▪ -0 ro.' E 0 IL1' 78 E E IP c +j 4 OLi- bA b° El- 2 aJ YJ2 2-0 c c +P c i. E aJ aJ aJ V O O >, •• L- E +.' - V V 5... � •- t+i� � i a) , ro rt •� iJ — � aJ E • > — V D cu > >� aJ f� E f� bo +� - > '� aJ E O a) a) a) ^ ^ >, cc 0 t/1 V cC o 0 r- N coo • • • . . . . G) C L. G) Z ms 1 . CD �0 f O4-1 � I_VI• dJ DCL. � I 64-)-' b�.A MI CU -CD\ CU -CDCU Q. O 0 E0O CU c tz i 0 fDu ru > 0 .c v 4J Oc Q, -0 D .- > .010 CU Q a j E E° 2 . 4.ra • V 0 �, .� V CI) .14•_ V b:A V D CU E . . ro bio s u V ra ra ▪ V E Lo u..7 (Ara roC 2 _,,N v' u V TJ I ,.s] • rn ,� > aJ 4) — •- ▪ n1 .4_J aJ 4-' O mi V ra .ra LIS . (1)E_ 2 (19 u0 ..0 E C U 0w cc Q c v) sa • ▪ . z • • . Pre -Merger Cable Markets January 201E 0 U 1-;) L— .� 4J i W U U tan H . O co E 0 E m o U ime Warner Ca • e & Comcast Foot • rin 0 U + 0 ca -0 73 _CD U � Q 2 O � N • • z • z ■•■• •■••h•..■M•�• • • • 60•04. • • • a" • so•so f 61:1(141Z:• +k •. ■ T, a C. ' } i • • r • ..• f u 14 •• 4.0� • J r• c+■ • • • • • •ST' ▪ •1*. •• ■• •■ • • • •r •� • ••• •r •;••+ ../ • • . •• •• • ■ • • •• • • • . • • •••• • • ■ • • • • •• • ■ 0 4•) .y W N W 1 0. LL' a— tiy 1 w r3 J 2 V •— d f Z2 cu > O E 0 cL, vi 0 ca. Li - (0 ... ra ▪ y--- V1 -1- 0. -0 C O V1 O c .O 1 -1--j -1--' vI V VI > -1-' X • — -0 O VI CU 0 L- FS, C CU P_ v) cu u s_. • ,....•— tO c E O O -1 -J (Z)4- LI- v, — c E > cu u (0 E LI- (1) cu vi I_1_ O "0 ., "_c. ra O V c g%n. O V •> N ,vira vi 0U _C L- cu > O. V _ Ec vi .�, •C O Cr _c um ra s vi au = . V V v1 4a rO LV2 L.. • CU VI o •- d — •vi .4.J p ra ▪ p tx°la col cu m s Z L"' 0 Z rr\ _J :.• . • V S. (13 6 O V (13 � 0 4u 4u 0 > S. 4) O S. fo V 4U O V (13 ro 11- E c ca- V O O a) 0 V V a. z > a) 0 VI fD -TO a) cu u cu 0_ m V cu Q 4J rz vi -1-J >. 0' C > +-) (13 4J O :4_J V Ecc V fp cu 4-J ro V fo W VI V eulm.J = 4) cu > E V L., O. • cu ..-60 ...,,,,0 .4-Ju1 .4-Ju1 au L... cu .4-Jc • L._ 0 0 0 u1 L 0 >' L.- 0 0 4- D 0 >— Z Q u1 cu :V CU 6 L co m co 0 jmiller@townsquare.ty t voio"""1" CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: May 29, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator SUBJECT: Franchise Fees 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, M 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 www.mendota-heights.com 4. BACKGROUND As we begin to prepare for the 2015 budget season, staff has been researching the use of franchise fees being used in other communities to help offset the pressure on operating budgets. Just as a reference, the 2015 budget is already impacted by the following two commitments: 1) 2% COLA/maximum 5% health insurance increases as negotiated in union contracts totals $135,801 (2.06% levy impact) 2) Incremental increase in debt service due to bonds issued for street projects totals $117,189 (1.77% levy impact) These two commitments alone will increase the budget by $252,990 (3.83%). A significant number of communities have implemented franchise fees on gas and/or electric utilities, much like we already do for our cable franchise with Comcast. Some cities specifically dedicate these funds to specific needs, such as parks, streets, or other uses. Other cities use them for property tax relief in the form of a transfer to the general fund. The format of such fees varies widely. Some cities charge a percentage of the total utility bill, while others charge a flat fee. Likewise, some cities charge different amounts for residential and commercial accounts. It should also be noted that these fees are charged to any property that has a utility account, unlike property taxes which are only collected from taxable properties. The exact number of Xcel Energy utility accounts is unknown, but using our sewer accounts as am estimate, the following is just one example of how a franchise fee could be structured: # of Accounts Monthly Fee Annual Amount Generated Electric (residential) 3,724 $2.00 $89,376 Electric (commercial) 208 $10.00 $24,960 Natural Gas (residential) 3,724 $2.00 $89,376 Natural Gas (commercial) 208 $10.00 $24,960 TOTAL $228,672 Our franchise agreements with Xcel Energy expired several years ago, and they are very interested in renewing them. Staff has indicated that we would like to wait until the franchise fee topic has been discussed so that it can be included if the council wishes to proceed. BUDGET IMPACT Dependent on fee structure (see example above). RECOMMENDATION No formal action is required, but if council is interested in exploring this further, staff will begin a more detailed analysis and start to discuss process with Xcel Energy. Franchise Fee: Electric Less than 2,500 Carver N/A 6/26/2013 Excelsior 7.50 per QU 7/9/2013 Gem Lake N/A 7/2/2013 Greenwood N/F 4/11/2011 Hampton N/F 3/28/2007 Hanover N/A 2/5/2009 Lake St Croix Beach N/A 2/24/2009 Lauderdale N/A 6/17/2013 Lexington not to exceed 5% gross revenue per month 6/18/2013 Lilydale N/A 3/8/2007 Loretto N/A 4/18/2011 Maple Plain N/A 4/25/2011 Mayer N/A 6/20/2013 Minnetonka Beach N/A New Germany N/A 6/25/2013 Osseo 2% MO 6/20/2013 Spring Park N/A 4/12/2011 Sunfish Lake N/A 4/26/2011 Tonka Bay N/A 2/10/2009 Vermillion N/A 6/19/2013 Woodland N/A 3/7/2007 2,500 - 10,000 Arden Hills N/A 7/12/2013 Bayport 18 6/19/2013 Centerville 4/9/2007 Circle Pines II 4/5/2007 Corcoran N/F 5/22/2007 Dayton \I' 7/22/2011 Deephaven $2.50 per meter per month 6/18/2013 Falcon Heights N/F 7/17/2013 Hugo N/A 4/21/2011 Independence N/A 7/22/2011 Jordan N/A 8/14/2007 Lake Elmo N/A 7/10/2013 Little Canada N/F 6/19/2013 Mahtomedi $1.30 per month -residential 3/26/2007 Medina N/A 5/3/2011 Mound $3.00 per month per household 5/17/2007 Newport N/A 6/18/2013 Norwood Young America N/A 5/9/2011 Oak Grove N/A 6/21/2013 Oak Park Heights N/A 7/9/2013 Orono N/A 7/9/2013 Rockford N/A 5/5/2011 Shorewood N/A 5/9/2011 Spring Lake Park N/A 3/23/2007 St Anthony Village "r 4/26/2011 St Francis N/F 6/25/2013 Victoria N/A 7/9/2013 Waco n is N/A 7/5/2013 Watertown $3.00 per month 6/21/2013 Wayzata $2.06 6/25/2013 Zimmerman N/F 6/18/2013 10,000 - 20,000 Columbia Heights N/F 6/18/2013 Farmington N/F 6/26/2013 Forest Lake varies - residential vs. commercial 6/14/2013 -lam Lake 5/6/2011 Hopkins 1.00/Resi 1.00 - 63.00/0 & I 6/25/2013 N/A Mendota Heights N/A 7/10/2013 Mounds View N/A 7/2/2013 Northfield N/A 5/13/2011 Robbinsdale 4% of billed charges 7/11/2013 Rosemount N/A 3/15/2007 Stillwater 1-5/mo 7/3/2013 Vadnais Heights N/A 4/11/2011 West St Paul $75,000 6/25/2013 Greater than 20,000 Andover N/A 6/14/2013 Apple Valley 2% of gross revenue, 25.00 max 7/3/2013 Blaine N/A 7/1/2013 Bloomington N/A 6/19/2013 Brooklyn Center $1.48 MO 6/14/2013 K Burnsville N/A 7/5/2013 Champlin 2.50 Month 7/12/2013 Chanhassen N/A 7/8/2013 Chaska N/A 6/25/2013 Coon Rapids 5% 1/18/2011 Cottage Grove 1.50/service/month 8/17/2011 Crystal N/A 7/1/2013 Eagan N/A 6/28/2013 Eden Prairie N/F 6/27/2013 All fees are monthly: Residential $1.45; Sm C & I Non -Dem $2.90; Sm C&I, Demand $9.00; Large Edina C&I $40.00 7/3/2013 Elk River N/A 3/24/2009 Fridley N/A 4/4/2007 Golden Valley multiple 7/22/2013 Hastings N/A 3/22/2013 Inver Grove Heights N/A 6/14/2013 Lakeville N/A 3/4/2009 Maple Grove N/A 5/11/2007 Minneapolis unknown - other dept 6/27/2011 Minnetonka $2 per meter 7/8/2013 New Brighton N/A 6/13/2013 New Hope $1.50 residential 7/3/2013 Oakdale v 4/6/2007 Plymouth N/A 4/25/2011 Prior Lake $1.50 7/8/2013 Richfield R 2.05/meter 7/10/2013 Savage N/A 6/17/2013 Shakopee 5/4/2011 Shoreview N/A 6/26/2013 St Paul 7/10/2007 Woodbury N/A 7/3/2013 Franchise Fee: Gas Less than 2,500 Carver N/A 6/26/2013 Excelsior 7.50 per QU 7/9/2013 Gem Lake N/A 7/2/2013 Greenwood N/F 4/11/2011 Hampton N/F 3/28/2007 Hanover N/A 2/5/2009 Lake St Croix Beach N/A 2/24/2009 Lauderdale N/A 6/17/2013 Lexington not to exceed 5% gross revenue per month 6/18/2013 Lilydale N/A 3/8/2007 Loretto N/A 4/18/2011 Maple Plain N/A 4/25/2011 Mayer N/A 6/20/2013 Minnetonka Beach N/A 4/19/2011 New Germany N/A 6/25/2013 Osseo 2% MO 6/20/2013 Spring Park N/A 4/12/2011 Sunfish Lake N/A 4/26/2011 Tonka Bay N/A 2/10/2009 Vermillion N/A 6/19/2013 Woodland N/A 3/7/2007 2,500 -10,000 Arden Hills N/A 7/12/2013 Bayport 15 6/19/2013 Centerville N/F 4/9/2007 Circle Pines N/A 4/5/2007 Corcoran N/F 5/22/2007 Dayton N/A 7/22/2011 Deephaven $2.50 per meter per month 6/18/2013 Falcon Heights N/F 7/17/2013 Hugo N/A 4/21/2011 Independence N/A 7/22/2011 Jordan N/A 8/14/2007 Lake Elmo N/A 7/10/2013 Little Canada N/F 6/19/2013 Mahtomedi N/A 3/26/2007 Medina N/A 5/3/2011 Mound $2.00 per month per household 5/17/2007 Newport N/A 6/18/2013 Norwood Young America N/A 5/9/2011 Oak Grove N/A 6/21/2013 Oak Park Heights N/A 7/9/2013 Orono N/A 7/9/2013 Rockford N/A 5/5/2011 Shorewood N/A 5/9/2011 Spring Lake Park N/A 3/23/2007 St Anthony Village NI/A 4/26/2011 St Francis N/F 6/25/2013 Victoria N/A 7/9/2013 Waco n is N/A 7/5/2013 Watertown N/F 6/21/2013 Wayzata N/F 6/25/2013 Zimmerman N/F 6/18/2013 10,000 - 20,000 Columbia Heights N/F 6/18/2013 Farmington N/F 6/26/2013 Forest Lake varies - residential vs. commercial 6/14/2013 Ham Lake Hopkins 1.00/Resi 2.00 - 63.00/0 &I 6/25/2013 Lino Lakes N/A 4/14/2011 Mendota Heights N/A 7/10/2013 Mounds View N/A 7/2/2013 Northfield N/A 5/13/2011 Robbinsdale 4% of billed charges 7/11/2013 Rosemount N/A 3/15/2007 Stillwater 1-5/mo 7/3/2013 Vadnais Heights N/A 4/11/2011 West St Paul N/A 6/25/2013 Greater than 20,000 Andover N/A 6/14/2013 Apple Valley N/F 7/3/2013 Blaine N/A 7/1/2013 Bloomington N/A 6/19/2013 Brooklyn Center $1.48 MO 6/14/2013 Brooklyn Park 5/5/2011 Burnsville N/A 7/5/2013 Champlin 2.50 Month 7/12/2013 Chanhassen N/A 7/8/2013 Chaska N/A 6/25/2013 Coon Rapids 5% 1/18/2011 Cottage Grove 1.50/service/month 8/17/2011 Crystal N/A 7/1/2013 Eagan N/A 6/28/2013 Eden Prairie N/F 6/27/2013 All fees are monthly: Residential $1.45; Firm A $2.90; Firm B $9.00; Firm C $40.00; Sm Vol, Dual Fuel A, Sm Vol, Dual Fuel B &Lg Vol Dual Fuel Edina $40.00 7/3/2013 3/24/2009 4/4/2007 Golden Valley multibple 7/22/2013 Hastings N/A 3/22/2013 Inver Grove Heights N/A 6/14/2013 Lakeville N/A 3/4/2009 Maple Grove N/A 5/11/2007 nn nno�n r� unknown - other dept 6/27/'n11 Minnetonka N/A 7/8/2013 New Brighton N/A 6/13/2013 New Hope $1.50 residential 7/3/2013 Oakdale 4/6/200 Plymouth 4/25/2011 Prior Lake $1.50 7/8/2013 Richfield R 2.05/meter 7/10/2013 Savage N/A 6/17/2013 Shakopee N/A 5/4/2011 Shoreview N/A 6/26/2013 St Paul N/A 7/10/2007 Woodbury N/F 7/3/2013 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, M 651.452.1850 phone I 651.452.8940 www.mendota-hei ghts.com 5. InCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: May 29, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sloan Wallgren, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Future Dog Park BACKGROUND At the November 19, 2013 City Council meeting the council agreed that there should be a Dog Park in the city of Mendota Heights. The council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to select a site for a potential Dog Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission wanted to get input from residents on where a Dog Park should be built, so they decided to wait and advertise this item in the April 2014 issue of the Heights Highlights. The commission discussed this issue with residents at their May 13, 2014 meeting. The following is a list of criteria that the commission has followed while looking into possible sites for the Dog Park: (1) avoid interference with other established uses or department sponsored activities; (2) avoid locations directly abutting residences; (3) assure availability of close -by parking; (4) choose spots where there are minimal impacts on the visual character of a park; (5) site so as to avoid spillover into non -dog areas, and (6) avoid sensitive environmental habitats. Staff had identified the following as some of the possible sites: 1. Sibley Memorial Highway Site 2. Pilot Knob South Site 3. Public Works Site 4. Friendly Marsh/ Archery Range Site 5. Kensington Park South Site Staff has attached a city map which highlights the five locations that staff identified for the commission to consider as potential sites. Staff has also included an aerial photo of each of the five locations. During the meeting on May 13, 2014 the commission passed a motion stating "at this time we do not feel there is a suitable site in the city of Mendota Heights to construct a Dog Park." A few of the reasons the commission gave supporting their decision were: cost, size, location and feasibility. Hockey Boards At the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting on May 13, 2014 the suggestion of using the area within the hockey boards at Marie Park and Wentworth Park as an off -leash area for dogs was mentioned. The commission passed a motion which asked the council to reconsider allowing dogs off -leash within the hockey boards on a three month trail period. Neighboring Dog Parks There are several Dog Parks that are located very close to the city of Mendota Heights. The following is a list of such parks including location and distance from Mendota Heights City Hall: Minnehaha Dog Park- 5399 South Minnehaha Drive, Minneapolis (3 '/2 miles or 5 minutes) 7 acres High Bridge Dog Park- 59 Randolph Ave, St. Paul (4 1/2 miles or 6 minutes) 7 acres Airport Dog Park- 6096 28th Ave, Minneapolis (5 miles or 6 minutes) 80 acres Thresher Fields Dog Park- 3200 Borchert Lane, Eagan (5 1/2 miles or 8 minutes) 6 acres Kaposia Landing Dog Park- 800 Bryant Ave, South St. Paul (7 1/2 miles or 10 minutes) 6 acres Lilydale Dog Park- 950 Lilydale Road, St. Paul (3 miles or 5 minutes) 8 acres **Future** Future Action The commission has directed staff to gather information about the future dog park that is part of the master plan for Lilydale Regional Park. co o �. cn J -C 0 c 0) Z' a) .0 U� 2 CI Z 0 1- A 0 w cc 0 w J LL LL 0 FOr • ocumen •a ,.minis ra ion •ar s an. 'ecrea ion •"- eas Do. rea Ya.s •"-eas Do. •ar 1 es.mx. w w J co d 0 t 3:1=07111:11MirEll ' rososes rai Sibley Memorial Highway Total Site Area: 3 Acres Date: 5/29/2014 0 80 SCALE IN FEET City of Mendota Heights GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Pilot Knob South Total Site Area: 10.87 Acres Date: 5/29/2014 0 110 SCALE IN FEET City of Mendota Heights ACACIA BLVD ___.}8 : x•90 ilr 441 °34 '4 of r Ir. io1 011111.MINIIMISIm" 45 ' 100 135 1-77- '- ------ .-- f --r_._____---_______________----______�___ i i. N , 1 2250 ., i 0 AS a 1 1 ml GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Public Works Total Site Area: 1.6 Acres Date: 5/29/2014 0 80 SCALE IN FEET City of Mendota Heights 1 .u1r •1 (Di 2370 17 ! 330 1 MEDALLION DR T fr Orr i 17 — — — — 235 � ?50��� GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Friendly Marsh Total Site Area: 7.4 Acres Date: 5/29/2014 0 210 SCALE IN FEET City of Mendota Heights 218 /4 t186 '202 Avid - - 7i10 7, -759. ••• 1 7tf31,-11;ft 765 ci3gwAvE 21 12 ! '661:1211) ,r , , . PL,5'46,1 21 t / sr- iffp 21 A- . ' 21-401.- ° f 314v ,14 PLY / /1 1- 4 fiff ' '4i • • V1: '1‘14 i— -- ' 21 ' -1, 21543 -4; lyw#21-co 7---ik, / , • , / ;2163/ • ,/216 •••vir ' 2 4 1 3 2'17. • w rfr GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Kensington South Total Site Area: 1.56 Acres Date: 5/29/2014 0 100 SCALE IN FEET City of Mendota Heights GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Options: Site Lot Size Advantages Disadvantages • Trail access #1 -Sibley Memorial Hwy. • On -street parking • Size 850 feet of fence 1 Acre • Parking lot access • Location • Not near City parks • Near homes #2 -Pilot Knob South • Large area 6 Acres • Zoned I -Industrial 2100 feet of fence • On -street parking • Guided for industrial use • No parking #3 -Public Works • Location 1.25 Acres • Size 1200 feet of fence • Unused land • Zoned B -1A Business Park • Access from north & south • • Parking Traffic concerns #4 -Friendly Marsh 1100 feet of fence 1.25 Acres • Central location • Near homes • • Trail access Guided for park use • Adjacent to land guided for residential use • Existing parking lot • Near soccer fields #5- Kensington South • Restrooms 1.25 Acres • Near homes 1300 feet of fence • Existing trails • Size • Unused land vriwiw1" CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: May 29, 2014 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP Public Works Director/City Engineer 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, M 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.rnendota-heights.com 6. SUBJECT: Renewal of Water Service Agreement with Saint Paul Regional Water Service BACKGROUND The City of Mendota Heights has been in its existing contractual agreement with Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) since 1995. The agreement expires in November of 2015, and SPRWS has initiated the process of renewing the agreement. Under the current agreement, the City of Mendota Heights owns the distribution system and is responsible for all routine maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of system components. SPRWS supplies the water and is responsible for all emergency repairs, inspection or completion of new or replacement projects, and conducts all billing for the utility. Because of this arrangement, SPRWS charges a rate 20% higher than their base rate for other municipal customers to all customers in the City of Mendota Heights. Additionally, the City charges a 10% surcharge to all water utility customers to gain revenue for the Water Utility Fund, which is used to fund maintenance activity as well as rehabilitation and replacement projects. This issue was originally presented at the City Council's January 2013 goal setting workshop. Additional information was provided at the May 2013 workshop, and this item was discussed again at the January 2014 goal setting workshop. Based on the comments received at these meetings there are two options for moving forward with a renewed agreement. Advantages, disadvantages, and costs of each option are listed below. 1. Status Quo Agreement: Under this agreement, ownership and responsibilities would remain the same, all surcharges to customers would remain in place, and the City of Mendota Heights would retain control and responsibility for maintenance and replacement projects. SPRWS would remain responsible for all emergency repairs. 2. Turn Back System Ownership to SPRWS: Under this agreement, ownership of the system would be transferred to SPRWS as negotiated within the new agreement. Once ownership is transferred, SPRWS would be responsible for all maintenance, repair, replacement, and emergency responses for the water utility. Advantages of Status Quo Agreement • City retains control over what replacement projects are completed and when • City continues to collect revenues from surcharges and cell tower rental Disadvantages of Status Quo Agreement • City retains liability and responsibility for water utility including replacement costs o 31.75 miles out of 88.5 miles of water main pipes (37%) are cast iron and will need replacement in the future • Responsibility for water utility remains confusing to residents and contractors • Customers continue to pay 30% in surcharges on water bills ($15 for every $50 used) • City is not allowed to have a seat on the SPRWS Board • Continue to pay insurance on water tower Costs of Status Quo Agreement • City (expense): Eventual replacement of —32.5 miles of cast iron water main at $300,000 per mile = $9,500,000 in water utility projects • City (expense): $230,000 in annual expenses for routine maintenance of the system • City (expense): 8,750 per year in insurance premium for water tower • City (revenue): $245,000 in surcharge fees collected per year • City (revenue): $110,000 from cell tower rentals on the water tower • Customers: 30% in surcharges Advantages of Turn Back Agreement • City would no longer be liable for maintenance and replacement of the system • Ownership of/responsibility for the system would be clear to residents and contractors • Customers would no longer pay surcharges (surcharges would decrease over time) • City would have a seat on the SPRWS Board • City could negotiate retention of cell tower revenues in the new agreement • City would have reduced expenditures for the water system • City would no longer have to insure the water tower Disadvantages of Turn Back Agreement • City would no longer control what replacement projects happens and when • City would no longer collect revenue from water utility surcharges Costs of Turn Back Agreement • City (expense): $245,000 reduction in designated revenue to the Water Utility Fund • City (expense): $110,000 reduction in cell tower rent if not negotiated in new agreement • City (revenue): $8,750 is saved insurance premiums due to not insuring water tower • City (revenue): $9,500,000 saved in not funding water main replacement projects • City (revenue): $110,000 retention of cell tower rent if negotiated in new agreement • Customers: 30% reduction in water bills ($15 off of every $50 billed) BUDGET IMPACT The impacts to the annual budget will depend on the structure of the new agreement with SPRWS. The Status Quo Agreement would keep budgets relatively the same with increased revenues to the Water Utility Fund needed for future replacement projects. The Turn Back Agreement would reduce revenues to the Water Utility Fund, but would also reduce expenses from that fund. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each option for the new agreement with SPRWS and provide staff with direction on which option to pursue for establishing a new agreement with SPRWS Staff prefers and recommends the Turn Back Agreement. t voio"""1" CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: May 29, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator SUBJECT: Future of Industrial Park 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, M 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 www.mendota-heights.com 7 BACKGROUND Over the past year, the city has seen significant interest in our industrial/business park. Key projects that have been approved include: • Scannell Properties — 72,030 sf office/industrial building • United Properties — 96,248 sf office/industrial building • Southview Design Corporate Headquarters Projects in the pipeline/potential developments include: • Candlewood Suites/Super America (494 and Pilot Knob) • Larson Nursery • City owned land o Bourn Lane o Pilot Knob South (Acacia and Pilot Knob Road) As the amount of available land becomes scarce, it may be time for the city to begin to think about the next phase of redevelopment in the industrial park. Many of the buildings are starting to show their age, and according to representatives from building owners, they are having a more difficult time in leasing their vacant spaces. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION No formal action is required, but staff will be looking for any direction the council wishes to provide. 0 ".E. 2 >, a) .6 — • c 1— 0 ci) 0 o3 fi a Z Z o 2 ("1 N ° 7 w • 0 a C/) Z (I) .rlsoximm DATE: TO: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 5 8. 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com May 29, 2014 Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Infill Residential Development BACKGROUND The City has approved approximately 11 building permits for new single-family residential homes since 2013. In addition, a number of lot split applications have been recently approved that will contain single-family residential homes in the near future. While this is a positive sign that the housing market is rebounding and that Mendota Heights remains an attractive place to live, the design and construction of new homes within established neighborhoods has raised concerns regarding traffic, noise, and size. New homes are required to comply with the size, setback, and height requirements. As a result, the scale of the home is controlled by the lot size. The R-1 District requirements are as follows: Floor Area All single-family dwellings, with the exception of earth sheltered homes, shall have a minimum of one thousand (1,000) square feet of usable floor area above grade. Dimensions Shortest dimension shall be 22 ft., exclusive of porches and other appurtenances. The longest dimension shall not exceed 3 times the shortest dimension. Basement Required All single-family dwellings shall have a basement or an exposed basement under at least fifty percent (50%) of the first floor level. Pitch of Roofs Pitch Of Roofs: With the exception of earth sheltered homes or two-story homes, all residential structures shall have a pitched roof of at least three to twelve (3:12). Structure Height No structure or building shall exceed two (2) stories or twenty five feet (25') in height, whichever is the lesser in height, Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. Lot Width 100 ft. Front Yard/Side Yard abutting ROW 30 ft. Side Yard 10' on each side or '/2 of the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, whichever is greater, to a maximum of 15' Rear Yard 30' or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater Other cities have established regulations regarding "tear -downs" in order to protect the character of older neighborhoods. The challenge is developing regulations that are equitable and still encourage new housing investments in the City. BUDGET IMPACT If directed by the Council, Staff can proceed to research and propose Code amendment options. Depending on the result of any amendments, increased Staff time may be required to review and issue subsequent building permits. RECOMMENDATION After discussion of potential options, the City Council can consider directing Staff to begin an amendment process for the Planning Commission to review and recommend action. .rlsoximm DATE: TO: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com 9 May 29, 2014 Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Nonresidential Uses within Residential Zoning Districts BACKGROUND The City contains a number of large "institutional" uses within residential zoning districts (see the attached map) and the Code was recently amended to include the following definition: "INSTITUTIONAL USE: Uses operated as schools, places of worship, cemeteries, or government facilities." The Planning Commission and City Council have recently considered a number of seemingly reasonable requests for certain institutional uses that required variances to approve. Now that the variance standards have been revised, the practical difficulty threshold presents less of a barrier than previous requirements. However, as long as institutional uses remain zoned residential under the existing standards, variances will most likely have to be considered for approval of many potential future property investments (accessory structures, signage, etc.). This may put those uses at risk if the variance threshold is revised to be more restrictive again in the future. Golf courses are not included in the above definition, but are also located within residential zoning districts and should be considered for inclusion in any proposed amendments. In addition, the City will be updating the 2030 Comprehensive Plan starting in 2016. It is recommended that any proposed amendment process take place before or coincide with the update. The Planning Commission discussed this issue at the April meeting and made the following motion: COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AS AN ADVISORY BODY, RECOMMENDS THAT STAFF SEEK DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT CREATING AN INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT TO APPLY TO THE INSTITUTIONAL TYPE PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. While the motion was made to consider creating a new zoning district, the Commission also discussed amending the existing residential districts to address specific institutional use standards. The Planning Commission ultimately deferred to the City Council to consider an appropriate process and direct Staff to bring forward the item for continued discussion and action. BUDGET IMPACT An amendment process to address institutional use standards would most likely demand a significant amount of Staff time to research and bring forward information for consideration and action. It would likely take a number of Planning Commission meetings before a recommendation. Whether handled internally or by the Planning Consultant, a portion of the budget would have to be spent on planning case review or the amendments. RECOMMENDATION After discussion of potential options, the City Council can consider directing Staff to begin an amendment process for the Planning Commission to review and recommend action. "".1. 1041, O O LO O SCALE IN FEET c .v M L W �+ o o J < a) z•c� • N U a_ ,C3) ~ C z Date: 2/17/2014 Uses (w/in R-1 & R -1A) nstitutiona Zoning Districts .412 , I,:I, sr •Nol•F � .����:��:f � i I. �® .I I 1 -44 11.11% ii, •1 AIIIII %'•WA:"__.1 Institutional Uses 1 o- O U O (/) • 0 _C c (1) E a) w .E N D E o 0) N co 1 03 03 03 7ri Et N M J— c a) c EO (% a) o O) a)0� U - o U 0- O U CO (13 a) ▪ _0 U m w 0 d 2 >, a) a) 0 a) E E U a) U c 0 O U — 0_ $ (6 .co LE • w co I C L_ o 0 d 2 0 d 0 O \ d a) 7 m Document Path: I:\Planning\2014\2014-03 Code Amendment - Electronic Display Signs\Maps\Institutional Uses_Case 2014-03.mxd !2J CITY OF Or-MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, M 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 www.menclota-heights.com 10. DATE: May 29, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator SUBJECT: Prayer at City Council Meetings BACKGROUND At a recent city council meeting, Councilmember Duggan asked that the City of Mendota Heights consider adopting a practice of beginning each city council meeting with a prayer. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that such prayers are not unconstitutional under certain circumstances. Beginning meetings with a prayer is a practice that some cities around the state use in varying ways. Many rotate the prayer among different religions and beliefs so as to not appear as favoring a single denomination. As you are aware, the city currently opens each meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. If the city council wishes to consider this practice, staff would recommend that council direct staff to work with the city attorney on researching best practices used by other communities that can stand any judicial review. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION No action is required, but staff is looking for direction on this topic.