2015-02-03 Council Workshop Goal Setting1. Call to order
2. Goal setting discussion
3. Adjourn
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL GOAL SETTING
WORKSHOP AGENDA
February 3, 2015 — 12:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tamara Schutta, Interim City Administrator
SUBJECT: 2015 City Council Goals Workshop
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.4521850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.menclota-heights.com
BACKGROUND
Each year the City Council reviews a set of goals for the upcoming year and provides direction
to staff on areas to focus on. Below is a list of items that were identified by council and staff to
be discussed for the 2015 goal setting workshop.
How the list is prioritized is up to the city council. Once staff receives direction, we will put
together a master list as well as a timeline for future actions.
I have also asked staff to provide a brief memo on several key items to provide additional
background information for the goal setting session.
A. Long Term Goals
Staff memos are provided for additional information for each of these items listed below.
1) City Owned Properties
2) Dedicated special park funding source
3) Infill Residential Development
4) Mendota Heights Infrastructure Water System
5) Redevelopment Planning Grant
6) Trash hauler zones
Additional long term goals include:
7) Emergency Action Plan/Security
Due to the recent events in a local community, it is recommended the emergency action
plan and security be reviewed and updated accordingly to address safety concerns.
8) Facilities Study
Recently the city council authorized a facilities study for the Mendota Heights Fire
Department. The city hall and public works facilities are also in need of attention.
9) Franchise Fees
In 2014 the city council had a discussion on franchise fees. A significant number of
communities have implement franchise fees on gas and/or electric utilities. These funds can
specifically be dedicated to specific needs, such as parks, streets, or other uses. In 2014 an
estimate of $228,672 based on our sewer accounts was provided to the city council as an
example.
10) Scott Patrick memorial
Officers Lambert, Larrive, and Shepard are working on several ideas for a memorial for
Officer Scott Patrick.
B. Short Term Goals
Staff memos are provided for additional information for each of these items listed below.
1) Cell tower ordinance changes
2) Chickens
3) Dog Park
4) Double Fees for after the fact CUP
5) Job Classification/Compensation study
6) Kensington Park parking concerns
7) Mendota Heights Website Redesign
8) Rental License clarification
9) Recycling in parks
10) Sump Pump inspections
C. Informational Items
Below are two additional memos for your information.
1) 2015 Budget Update
2) Public Works Change Order History
If there are other items the council wishes to consider, staff will add them to the list as direct by
council.
BUDGET IMPACT
Dependent on the direction of the city council.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the council discuss the above topics.
au
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 4
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and Interim City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: City -owned Properties
BACKGROUND
Based on discussions with real estate brokers over the past year, there is heightened interest in development
opportunities on several city -owned properties (see attached maps). After discussing the zoning and land
use regulations, the discussion usually leads to what the process would be to acquire and develop the
property. There are numerous options for conveyance and development of these properties, but a starting
point to evaluate their value would be to get updated appraisals.
As shown in the attached table, the estimated market values were determined by the County Assessor.
Market value for property tax purposes is the likely price a property would sell for on the open
market. Market value is defined in Minnesota Statute 272.03, subd 8. Assessors must estimate the market
value of each property in the county as of every Jan. 2. State law requires that the value and classification
of real estate be established as of Jan. 2 each year. The County's Assessing Services Depth Intent estimates
the market value of each property for the following January 2. The market value is determined as follows:
1. View property: Any property that had a building pennit issued is viewed and its new value
estimated for January 2 following the construction. In addition, every property in the County is
visited in person at least once every five years.
2. Gather data: List all items that have an impact on market value, such as size, age, quality, basement
finish and extra features, such as fireplaces, walkout basements, etc.
3. Compute value: Data is entered into a mass appraisal system. Actual sales are entered to reflect
market trends, and the computer calculates the property's value.
4. Analyze sales: Each year, the assessor studies actual sales of property in each community Sales in
a 12 -month time period before the Jan. 2 assessment date (from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30) are reviewed to
find out what properties have sold for on the open market. These sales are used as a guide to help
determine what similar properties would likely sell for if they were placed on the market.
Regardless of whether or not the City gets updated appraisals, the City Council can consider planning for
future development of these parcels. This could include additional workshops, which could include
consultation with real estate brokers and development professionals that may have interest in the properties
and insight into the current and future market demands. As the real estate market rebounds, it may be in
the City's best interest to capitalize on the momentum by establishing a vision for development of these
properties that can be incorporated into the updated Comprehensive Plan.
page 5
BUDGET IMPACT
The estimated cost to complete appraisals of the properties included in the attached table is approximately
$2,000 — $3,000. The estimate is based on a cost of $500/property; the cost of an individual appraisal on a
single property would likely be much higher. The entire cost, or any property -specific appraisal as needed,
can be allocated this year from an existing non -general fund balance or it could be budgeted for in 2016.
RECOMMENDATION
If the Council would like to conduct the appraisals this year, Staff can be directed to bring forward a request
for qualifications for appraisal services for further consideration. Regardless of the direction on the
appraisals, additional consideration for future workshops or further discussion on the vision for the
development of city -owned properties is recommended.
City -Owned Properties for Potential Development
page 6
Property Description
Parcel ID
Size (acres)
Zoned
Guided
Estimated Value*
Village at Mendota Heights
27-48335-03-020
0.79
MU -PUD
MU -PUD
$183,500.00
27-48335-03-010
0.48
MU -PUD
MU -PUD
$178,300.00
Old Fire Hall
27-02500-52-021
0.15
R-1
LR
$10,000.00
27-02500-52-020
0.16
R-1
LR
$13,300.00
27-02500-52-030
0.2
B -1A
LR
$17,000.00
Bourn Lane
27-04100-42-010
11.65
B -1A
B
$1,522,300.00
27-66500-00-068
0.12
B -1A
B
$7,400.00
27-66500-00-063
0.24
B -1A
B
$43,000.00
27-66500-00-067
0.25
B -1A
B
$43,300.00
27-66500-00-060
0.91
B -1A
B
$157,800.00
27-66500-00-030
0.42
B -1A
B
$72,400.00
27-66500-00-020
0.4
B -1A
B
$69,700.00
27-66500-00-010
0.38
B -1A
B
$46,100.00
Pilot Knob South
27-57000-02-020
0.61
1
I
$79,400.00
27-57000-02-030
0.61
1
I
$79,200.00
27-57000-02-031
1.01
1
I
$132,000.00
27-57000-02-040
1.34
1
I
$175,700.00
27-57000-02-050
0.7
1
I
$90,900.00
27-57000-02-071
1.61
1
I
$210,700.00
27-57000-02-051
0.33
1
1
$43,400.00
27-57000-02-071
1.61
1
I
$210,700.00
27-57000-02-131
4.66
1
I
$179,900.00
27-57000-02-081
0.44
1
I
$100.00
*Source: Dakota County Assessor (2014)
Village at Mendota Heights
Vacant City -Owned Properties
Date: 1/28/2015
0
80
SCALE IN FEET
Ndye 7
City of
1u111IM 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.
Old Fire Hall
Vacant City -Owned Properties
Date: 1/28/2015
0 50
SCALE IN FEET
page 3
City of
1u111IM Mendota
Heights
2150
2150
2129
I
2135
i
1 —_
1 2159
i
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.
Bourn Lane
Vacant City -Owned Properties
Date: 1/28/2015
0
180
SCALE IN FEET
Ndye 9
City of
1u111IM 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.
18.
Pilot Knob South
Vacant City -Owned Properties
Date: 1/28/2015
0 175
SCALE IN FEET
City of
1u111IM Mendota
Heights
2100
2170
2161
/1
J
2250
Irt
160
1216
L
21
aI
0
2200
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.
page 11
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-herghts.com
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF
MEE`.ODOTA HEIGHTS
February 3, 2015
Mayor and City Council
Sloan Wallgren, Recreation Program Coordinator
Special Parks Fund
Background
Currently, the Special Parks Fund has a balance of $158,000. There are three projects in the Capital
Improvement Plan for 2015: repair and update the warming house at Marie Park, replace hockey boards
at Wentworth Park and fix and replace tennis courts at Ivy Hills Park. The total cost of the three projects
is estimated at $117,000; which would leave a balance of $41,000 in the Special Parks Fund.
The Special Parks Fund is funded with $2,700 for each new residential lot or 10% of the assessed value
for a commercial/industrial lot. The city should receive roughly $140,000 for the Special Parks Fund from
the Lemay Lake Shores development. After the Lemay Lake Shores development, staff does not foresee
any substantial projects in the near future that would contribute to the Special Parks Fund.
The parks and recreation commission has requested that the city council address this issue and begin to
work on finding a funding source for the Special Parks Fund. Some projects that the parks and recreation
commission would like to see happen in the next five years include:
1. Paving hockey rink at Wentworth Park
2. Resurfacing tennis courts at Marie Park, Wentworth Park and Friendly Hills Park
3. Resurface basketball court at Mendakota Park
4. Build a Splash Pad
5. Repair and update warming houses at Friendly Hills Park and Wentworth Park
6. New park shelters with multiuse buildings and restrooms
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends forming a committee made up of council members, parks commissioners and city staff
to address the issue of funding the Special Parks Fund for the future.
Staff is seeking direction from council on how they would like to proceed.
au
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 12
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and Interim City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Infill Residential Development
BACKGROUND
The City issued 18 building permits for new single-family residential homes in 2014 (see attached map).
While this remains 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
page 13
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.
VILLAGER
City gets to work on new teardown policy
WEDNESDAY, DECD E410, 2014
The question is, how do
you legislate standards
for new home design?
BY JANE MCCLURE
t will be January before the St. Paul
Planning Commission receives city
staff recommendations on new resi-
dential design standards for new hous-
ing in Highland Park and Macalester-
Groveland. In the meantime, Ward 3
City Council member Chris Tolbert
is bringing forward other measures to
address the growing 'controversy over
home feardowns in those neighbor-
hoods.
The razing of older homes and the
I ,'construction of new and larger homes
in their place has been anissue for Ward
3 residents for more than a year. The St.
Paul City Council on December 3 ad-
opted a city code amendment that re-
quires that notices be sent to neighbors
within two business days of a request
for a permit to demolish a building. The
newrequirement was welcomed by local
residents.
"I needed a city permit and my neigh-
bors' permission before I could put a
beehive in my yard, yet somebody can
build a McMansion next door and we
I don't get any notice;' said Macalester-
Groveland resident Clarence Chaplin
prior to the City Council vote.
At Tolbert's request, the City Council
sent a related measure to the Planning
Commission for further study. The City
Council wants to enact a notification
requirement for lot splits and other lot
boundary changes. However, a Planning
Commission study and recommenda-
tion are needed before that -can happen.
Macalester-Groveland ' neighbors
were outraged this fall to learn by fliers
left on'their doorsteps that a century -old
home at 1721 Princeton Ave. wasgoing
to be :demolished and, following a lot
split, replaced two new homes. They
protested, and as of press time Macales-
ter College's High Winds Fund was ne-
gotiating with` the new owners to try to
buy the old house and save it.
Another prospective lot split is pend-
ing at the northeast corner of Jefferson
Avenue and Mississippi. River Bou-
levard. -There, too,:_the -original house
Whether a major home addition or a complete teardown and replacement
with new home construction, housing projects throughout Highland Park and
Macalester-Groveland are altering the character of the neighborhoods.
PHOTO BY BRAD STAUFFER
would be demolished to make way for at the Macalester-Groveland committee
two new houses. meeting was how to prevent new homes
According to city planner Mike Rich- and new home additions from changing
ardson, the proposed notification' re- the character of a neighborhood. Legis-
quirements for lot splits and other lot lating that character can be a challenge
boundary changes will be reviewed by when housing sizes and styles vary so
the Planning Commission's Neighbor- much from block to block.
hood Committee in January. A public Another obstacle to adopting new
hearing before the Planning Commis- home design standards may be the ar-
sion could be held as early as late Febru- chitectural profession. Five years, ago the
ary, and the City Council could act on its Planning Commission began a study of
recommendations this spring. residential design standards. However,
More than two dozen people attended the study was shelved when several ar-
a meeting of the Macalester-Groveland chitects objected to the subjectivity in -
Community Council's Housing and herent in such requirements. Richard -
Land Use Committee meeting on No- son has been discussing the issue with
vember 25 to hear an update from Rich- architects to get their advice before a
new study is recommended to the Plan-
ning Commission.
Richardson has been tracking home
construction trends citywide, and he
has noticed many more permits for
new home construction in Ward 3 than
elsewhere in the city. He said he has vis-
ited many of the construction sites and
found that "some of the homes fit very
well into the neighborhoods and oth-
ers do not.." One trend he has noticed in
new homes is a raising of the level of the'"
ardson on the teardown issue. Commit-
tee members are interested in learning
how the city would regulate the design
of new homes or major additions.
Committee member" Marc 'Man
derscheid said the blocks around his
Macalester-Groveland house have had
two single-family homes torn down in
the past year. The two new homes that
replaced them were built by the same
general contractor. According to Man.
derscheid, one home fits in well with the
neighborhood but the other does not.
One issue that continued to crop up
HOMETEARDOWNS ®7
64 HOME TEARDOWNS
basement so that even two-story structures
are towering over neighboring homes.
The Planning Commission study will not
only examine building height and setback
llinits, Richardson said, but such issues as
stormwater runoff, flooding and ice problem's
related to new home design.
Another issue that was raised at the Macal-
ester-Groveland meeting' was finding ways
to help homeowners keep their old homes in
good condition so that they are less likely to
become candidates for teardowns.
Some Macalester-Groveland residents said
they would like the city to address the lengthy
delays at construction sites. Local resident Jim
Brewer referred to a construction site on the
corner of Lincoln Avenue and Howell Street
where an old home was torn down last spring
and the new home is still largely unfinished.
The new property owner had told neighbors
and the district council that the new home
was being built for his family, but they have
since learned that the lot is being sold on
speculation to a new owner.
'Are we just going to have to sit here and
look at a basen-ient and an orange construc-
tion fence?" Brewer asked.
page 15
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS
2014 Construction Season
Document Path: I:\Planning\MAPS\New SF Dwellings_2014.mxd
Date: 1/2/2015
0 0.5
Miles
Paye 16
City of
inMendota
Heights
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PERMITS: 2014
Address
Permit #
Issued
Type
792 Hilltop Road
21964
1/7/2014
Infill
1925 South Lane
22041
4/9/2014
Demolition
636 Marie Avenue West
22099
5/15/2014
Demolition
12 Beebe Avenue
22106
5/16/2014
Demolition
678 1st Avenue
22169
6/17/2014
Demolition
825 Bluebill Avenue
22202
6/30/2014
Demolition
1900 Oak Street
22208
7/1/2014
Infill
723 Sylvandale Court
22219
7/2/2014
Infill
14 Beebe Avenue
22242
7/16/2014
Demolition
2536 Arbor Court
22255
7/22/2014
Infill
1930 Oak Street
22341
8/25/2014
Infill
897 Douglas Road
22344
8/26/2014
Infill
748 Willow Lane
22408
9/17/2014
Demolition
738 Willow Lane
22409
9/17/2014
Demolition
820 Cheri Lane
22451
10/1/2014
Infill
750 Hilltop Road
22579
11/21/2014
Infill
953 Wagon Wheel Trail
22608
12/9/2014
Demolition
622 Ivy Falls Avenue
22619
12/12/2014
Demolition
LEGEND
New Construction Permits
Type
Q Demolition
Q Infill
Neighborhood Inset
2240
• - . IV
-2-5_7 6
7012.4. W...MMINI
204
)91 cE 2-2-2
-R17--E1-)-4)
MARKET ST
HWY 110
HWY 110
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 17
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.4521850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.menclota-heights.com
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP
Public Works Director/City Engineer
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, and again at the May 29, 2014 workshop.
Council was presented with the advantages and disadvantages of both a status quo agreement and
an agreement that would convey ownership of the system to SPRWS. Based on the comments
received at these meetings, and upon the direction of the City Administrator, staff has proceeded
with the cautious direction from the Council of negotiating the ownership conveyance of the
water system to SPRWS.
There were a number of issues brought up by the City Council in the workshop settings that have
been communicated to SPRWS for inclusion in the draft agreement, which should be prepared
and submitted to the City sometime in February. These items include:
1. City retention of cellular phone tower rental fees
2. City retention of ability to store material inside the water tower
3. Reduction/elimination of surcharge on water bills (over time) as quickly as possible
4. Ability to alter (or request altering) priorities to include water main work in conjunction
with City street projects (and vice versa).
SPRWS will analyze these requests and propose solutions to them as part of the draft agreement.
The City will have ample opportunity to comment or counter -propose before the existing agreement
expires in November of 2015.
page 18
BUDGET IMPACT
The impacts to the annual budget will depend on the structure of the new agreement with SPRWS.
The proposed ownership conveyance agreement would reduce revenues to the Water Utility Fund,
but would also reduce expenses from that fund, dependent on the structure of the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
None — for informational purposes only.
au
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 19
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and Interim City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Redevelopment Planning Grant
BACKGROUND
The City Council approved submission of a Redevelopment Planning Grant for the Industrial District to the
Dakota County CDA in January. The application will be considered for approval at the CDA Board meeting
in March.
In anticipation of being awarded the funding, Staff would like to discuss the project scope development
process. As noted at the January meeting, the plan would be completed by Stantec. In order to ensure an
efficient planning process, it may be beneficial to form a committee made up of City Council and Planning
Commission members to work with Staff and the Consulting Planner to develop a project scope for further
discussion and consideration by the Council prior to contracting for services.
In the absence of a temporary ordinance establishing a moratorium on issuance of conditional use permits
in the Industrial District, the City does not have to immediately begin the planning process. However, it is
Staffs understanding that eligible reimbursements must be requested from the CDA by the end of 2015.
BUDGET IMPACT
The City has requested $10,000 in grant funds from the CDA. If awarded, the City's required $10,000
match would be paid out of the Industrial Development Fund. The cost of developing the plan would not
exceed $20,000.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council discuss an appropriate project scope development process to be
implemented and brought back for further discussion and action if grant funds are awarded.
f
n CITY OF
ENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 20
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Trash Collection Zoning
BACKGROUND
A number of inquiries have been made over the past several years about the frequency at which
trash collection vehicles travel through Mendota Heights' neighborhoods. While these vehicles
do not damage City streets, provided they are under weight for the design capacity of the street,
having multiple trash collection trucks going through a neighborhood per day can be an
annoyance to area residents. In addition the sight of trash receptacles at the end of driveways on
multiple days of the week can also be a neighborhood annoyance.
There are a number of different options that City could take if the City Council feels a regulation
of trash collection is necessary:
1. Designate daily collection zones — Under this concept, and Ordinance would be adopted
that would create waste collection overlay zones and each zone would have a specific day
designated for pick-up. Residents would be free to contract with any collector willing to
collect on that day in that zone. Zones should be divided by collector and/or arterial
streets to avoid zone overlap within neighborhoods. Still possible to have multiple
collectors on the same day, but collection would be limited to one day per week per zone.
2. Designate daily collection zones and a contractor for each zone — Under this concept, the
City would follow the actions of Option 1, but would bid contracts for each zone and
award a contract to one collector per zone. Residents would be billed directly by the
contractor. There would be one collector in a neighborhood, on day per week.
3. Designate a day for City-wide trash collection — Under this proposal, daily zones would
not be established; instead the City would adopt an Ordinance declaring the single day of
the week when trash can be collected City-wide. There would be no restriction 011
number of contractors, but the entire City would be collected on the same day, leaving
the other 6 -days of the week virtually free of collector trucks.
4. Pass no Ordinance — Under this proposal, the City could actively encourage
neighborhood cooperation on selecting an agreeable day and contractor for block,
neighborhood, or even subdivision trash collection.
An item to consider with any of these options is that many commercial, institutional, and
industrial properties require trash pick-up more than once per week. If a type of overlay zoning
page 21
is adopted or daily restrictions are enacted, Council should consider exceptions for commercial,
industrial properties, either by request or by codified exemption.
BUDGET IMPACT
The impacts to the annual budget will depend on the course of action determined by Council. The
majority of City expense under these options is anticipated to be staff time to develop any potential
Ordinances, and coordinate any potential contracts.
RECOMMENDATION
None — for informational purposes only.
au
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 23
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone d 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and Interim City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Wireless Antenna Upgrade Approval Process
BACKGROUND
According to Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, Wireless telecommunication towers, antennas, and accessory
structures, including, but not limited to, cellular, PCS technology, and wireless internet, are a conditional
use in all zones within the city. For 2013-2014, the City approved four conditional use permits for minor
upgrades to existing wireless antenna structures.
A conditional use permit application requires a public hearing and significant staff time to process. In
addition, the minimum 5 -week application approval process can be burdensome to applicants. It is Staff's
opinion that applications for minor equipment upgrades to existing antenna structures can be reviewed and
administratively -approved by the planning and engineering departments and still accomplish the intent of
the ordinance, while making the approval process more efficient and equitable.
The Council has created a similar process for applicable wetlands and fence permits.
BUDGET IMPACT
The same application fee would be required, but the applicant would not have to go through the conditional
use pennit approval process. Once approved by the planning and engineering departments, the Building
Official would review the plans to determine if a building permit is required.
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.
au
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 24
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and Interim City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts
BACKGROUND
In December 2014, the City Council passed Resolution 2014-83 denying a proposed code amendment to
allow chickens in residential zoning districts. As noted in the staff report concerning the case (attached),
the application raised two issues:
1. Should the City consider amending the Code to allow chickens in residential zoning districts?
2. If so, under what conditions should chickens be allowed?
While the proposed code amendment was denied, the City Council directed Staff to include the discussion
at the goal setting workshop.
BUDGET IMPACT
If chickens were to be permitted in residential zoning districts, it is assumed a licensing/permitting
procedure would be implemented which would require additional staff time to review, process, and enforce.
RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council desires to further consider allowing chickens in residential zoning districts, Staff can be
directed to begin an amendment process for the Planning Commission to review and recommend action.
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 32
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Sloan Wallgren, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Possible Future Dog Park Locations
BACKGROUND
In late 2013 the council asked the parks and recreation commission to find a site to build a dog park in the
city. The following is a list of criteria that the commission 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. Below is a list of five sites identified as
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 map of the locations of the sites, as well an aerial photo of each site. Staff has
included a list of pros and cons for each site.
In early 2014 the parks and recreation commission passed a motion stating that at the present time there
is not a suitable site to construct a dog park in the city of Mendota Heights. The city council accepted the
commission's recommendation at their workshop in May of 2014.
BUDGET IMPACT
A majority of the costs associated with this project will come from the cost of fencing and new parking
spaces. A 20 stall parking lot would cost roughly $25,000. Fencing would cost $15 to $30 per foot
depending on the style and height of the fence chosen. Additional costs would include signage, benches
and trash cans.
Staff is seeking direction from council if they desire to move forward.
OFF -LEASH DOG AREA OPTIONS
Document Path: I:\1Administration\Parks and Recreation\Off-Leash Dog Area\Maps\Off-leash Dog Park Sites.mxd
LEGEND
City Park
State Park
Off -Leash Dog Area
1. Sibley Memorial Highway
2. Pilot Knob South
3. Public Works
4. Friendly Marsh
5. Kensington South
Off -Street Trail
On -Street Trail
Proposed Trail
Date: 2/3/2015
0 2,100
SCALE IN FEET
Paye 33
City of
nalMendota
Heights
1lr1;
r,...•......._
lll111111
nm„„.......z
c!P ° . ■ .. — A
Nom ti1..11111_ .1I2_ rs.
a.kam e: =11111= :IM
81MEMO' .;,iN�
C��
_G
•:N`? 1.:=:ice . r::!!J;.
:um Iv.��L . hIuIilNada ' �I _
.,� • ■■■■ --IIa•
meM =11111= :WM
:111jj __1. d'�i h���■
Sibley Memorial Highway
Total Site Area: 3 Acres
Date: 2/3/2015
0
80
SCALE IN FEET
Ndye 34
City of
fll 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: 2/3/2015
0 110
SCALE IN FEET
Kaye 35
City of
fll 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.
Public Works
Total Site Area: 1.6 Acres
Date: 2/3/2015
0
80
SCALE IN FEET
Kaye 36
City of
fll Mendota
Heights
MEDALLION DR
I-17
oj------------- 235i�
co: 2500
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: 2/3/2015
0
210
SCALE IN FEET
Ndye 37
City of
fll 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.
Kensington South
Total Site Area: 1.56 Acres
Date: 2/3/2015
0
100
SCALE IN FEET
Ndye 38
City of
fll 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.
page 39
Options:
Site
Lot Size
Advantages
Disadvantages
#1 -Sibley Memorial Hwy.
850 feet of fence
1 Acre
•
•
•
•
Trail access
On -street parking
Parking lot access
Not near City parks
•
•
Size
Location
#2 -Pilot Knob South
2100 feet of fence
6 Acres
•
•
Large area
On -street parking
•
•
•
Near homes
Zoned I -Industrial
Guided for industrial use
#3 -Public Works
1200 feet of fence
1.25 Acres
•
•
Location
Unused land
•
•
•
No parking
Size
Zoned B -1A Business Park
#4 Friendly Marsh
1100 feet of fence
1.25 Acres
•
•
•
•
Access from north &
south
Central location
Trail access
Guided for park use
•
•
•
•
Parking
Traffic concerns
Near homes
Adjacent to land guided for
residential use
#5- Kensington South
1300 feet of fence
1.25 Acres
•
•
•
•
Existing parking lot
Restrooms
Existing trails
Unused land
•
•
•
Near soccer fields
Near homes
Size
au
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 22
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone d 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and Interim City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: After -the -Fact Planning Application Fees
BACKGROUND
In 2014, the City approved two after -the -fact planning applications involving unpermitted vegetation
removal activities. Currently, the City only has the authority to charge additional fees for after -the -fact
building and sign permits, as in Title 9-1-1(A) and Title 12 -1D -15(B)(2) of the City Code.
In order to charge additional fees for after -the -fact planning applications (critical area permit, conditional
use permit, variance, wetlands permit, etc.), the City Code must be amended to grant the authority. If
approved, it would also be included in the Fee Schedule.
Actions requiring an after -the -fact permit are also subject to the General Penalty provision, as in Title 1-4-
1(A), which provides a penalty for violations of the City Code.
BUDGET IMPACT
Additional fees would be collected when the after -the -fact application is submitted.
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.
ow "
nCITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
ZONED/GUIDED:
ACTION DEADLINE:
page 25
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.4521850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
November 25, 2014
Planning Commission
Nolan Wall, MCP
Planner
Planning Case 2014-35
Code Amendment Application
Matthew and Mary Paquette
N/A
N/A
January 11, 2014
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants are requesting an amendment to Title 12, Chapter 1 of the City Code (Zoning) to allow
chickens in residential zoning districts.
BACKGROUND
Staff was made aware of the presence of chickens, including a chicken coop/run, at the applicants' residence
located at 1119 Dodd Road and informed them of the applicable regulations. The applicants responded by
appealing the City's interpretation of the Code and requested a variance to allow the chickens and the
associated structures to remain in their present location on the property. Staff responded by providing
additional information on the City's policies and informed them of the inability to grant a variance for such
a request. Furthermore, it was suggested that a code amendment could be pursued and considered by the
Planning Commission and City Council.
As part of Planning Case 2012-34, the City Council ultimately denied a similar request to allow pigeons in
residential zoning districts. Staff receives regular inquiries regarding the keeping of chickens, and other
non-domestic animals, in residential areas. This request presents an opportunity for the Planning
Commission and City Council to consider addressing the current prohibition.
ANALYSIS
Existing Code Regulations
The Code contains the following definitions of animals:
12-1B-2: DEFINITIONS:
ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Dogs, cats, birds and other common domestic household pets.
page 26
ANIMALS, FOOD: Fish, fowl, cattle, swine, sheep and others typically raised for purposes of food
consumption, with the exception of bees where specifically allowed by the zoning districts.
In addition, domestic animals are permitted in all residential zoning districts as follows:
12-1E-3: R-1 ONE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT::
C. Permitted Accessory Uses: Within the R-1 one family residential district, the following uses shall be
permitted accessory uses:
Domestic animals, as defined herein, keeping for noncommercial purposes, including horses for the use of
the occupants of the premises; provided, that any accessory building used for housing such animals shall
be located not less than one hundred feet (100) from the nearest residence.
Based on staff's interpretation of the existing regulations, chickens are not considered a "domestic animal"
and are therefore not permitted as an accessory use in the residential zoning districts. While the "domestic"
animal definition does include "birds," it has been interpreted that chickens are more appropriately defined
as a "food" animal since they are not a common household pet in urban residential areas and are typically
raised for purposes of food consumption.
Proposed Code Amendment
According to the applicants, the proposed code amendment is intended to permit chickens on residential
properties and would be subject to the following standards, similar to those found in example ordinances
(as included in the attached application materials):
1. Chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) may be allowed on residential properties.
2. Only hens (no roosters) are allowed.
3. A maximum offour hens per lot are allowed.
4. The chicken coop and run shall be setback at least 10 feet from the rear lot line and at least 5
feet from the side lot lines. They must be at least 25 feet from the nearest habitable structure.
5. Ifthe chickens are not contained at all times to the coop and run and allowed to freely roam
within the yard, the property shall be enclosed by a fence.
Poultry and Fowl Ordinance Survey
As part of a code amendment process in consideration of poultry and fowl regulations, the City of Cottage
Grove conducted an extensive survey of ordinances in Minnesota. The survey was completed in 2012 and
is attached for your review. In summary:
• 52 communities surveyed
• 17 communities (33%) allowed poultry/fowl on urban residential lots
• 35 communities (67%) prohibited poultry/fowl on urban residential lots
Numerous communities are still in the process of evaluating ordinances on the issue. Of those, staff is
aware that the cities of Farmington, Shakopee, and Savage now allow chickens on residential lots.
page 27
Additional Issues for Consideration
The application materials include the applicants' rationale and potential benefits of keeping chickens on
residential properties in the City. As shown in the ordinance survey, regulations regarding chickens vary
for each city. Prior to consideration of the request, staff raises the following issues for additional discussion:
1. Use Category and Definition
As part of Planning Case 2012-34, the Planning Commission considered amendments creating an
interim use permit and to the domestic animal definition to allow pigeons; neither of which were
approved. As in Title 12 -1E -3(C) of the Code, bees are allowed as an accessory use in residential
zoning districts, subject to conditions.
The proposed amendment does not contain a definition nor any reference to a specific Code section
regarding the use category.
2. Licensing and Inspection Requirements
Many cities that allow chickens in residential zones require a license to ensure the applicable standards
are met and maintained, subject to inspection. Licenses are either issued administratively or through a
conditional/interim use permit following a formal public hearing.
In some cases, licenses approved administratively require notice and approval from the contiguous
property owners. A formal conditional/interim use permit requires notice of a much larger area, but
would most likely be difficult to deny if the conditions were met and the surrounding properties were
in opposition to the request. It is assumed that cities without licensing requirements deal with any
issues on a complaint basis. Either option requires additional staff time to review, process, and enforce.
The proposed code amendment does not contain any licensing or inspection requirements.
3. Chicken Coop and Run Requirements
Most cities require an accessory chicken coop and run (see attached images) and do not allow any
chickens to be located in any part of the dwelling and/or garage nor in the front yard. In addition, the
structures are subject to size, setback, and screening standards. The table below compares the existing
accessory structure standards and those in the proposed code amendment:
Standard
Size
Existing
144 sq. ft. (4 acres or less)
425 sq. ft. (more than 4 acres)
Proposed
None
Side Yard Setback
5 ft. (under 144 sq. ft.)
10 ft. (over 144 sq. ft.)
5 ft.
Rear Yard Setback
5 ft. (under 144 sq. ft.)
10 ft. (over 144 sq. ft.)
10 ft.
Nearest Residence Setback
100 ft. (housing domestic animals)
25 ft.
Screening
None
None
The proposed code amendment does not contain size or screening standards for chicken coops/runs.
4. Minimum Lot Size
Based on the ordinance survey, 13 out of 52 cities had minimum lot size standards for the keeping of
chickens. However, none of those cities allowed chickens on urban residential lots, similar to the R-1
page 28
Zoning District. The existing regulations regarding beekeeping include a 50 -acre minimum lot size, in
addition to other conditions.
The proposed code amendment does not contain a minimum lot size requirement.
5. Other Issues
• Maximum number of chickens — is the proposed limit (4 hens) adequate?
• Other animals (goats, ducks, geese, pot -belly pigs, pigeons) — pet vs. means of food production?
• Waste management/disposal — are additional standards necessary?
• Disease/Pests — are avian influenza and salmonellosis a concern?
• Noise — are additional standards beyond prohibiting roosters necessary?
• Odor — are the proposed setbacks and best management practices adequate?
• Predators — are hawks, eagles, owls, raccoons, coyotes, fox, dogs, etc. an increased threat?
• Slaughtering and sale of eggs — should they be expressly prohibited?
• Neighborhood involvement — should approval from the neighbors be required?
• Maintenance/design of chicken coops — are additional standards necessary?
• Feed storage — are additional standards necessary?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed code amendment application raises two questions for consideration:
1. Should the City consider amending the Code to allow chickens in residential zoning districts?
2. If so, under what conditions should chickens be allowed?
Whether or not chickens should be allowed in residential zoning districts is a policy decision that should
be considered by the City Council, based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Staff does
not have a recommendation on this issue, but, if necessary, is willing to work with the applicants and/or
other stakeholders to provide any additional information to the Planning Commission or City Council on
the issue for discussion.
Regardless of the Planning Commission's recommendation on the use being requested, staff recommends
denial of the proposed code amendment provided by the applicants. As noted, there are many issues that
are not addressed in the proposed language that should be researched and discussed further if the City wants
to consider allowing chickens in residential zoning districts. If the City Council decides the use should be
considered, with specific conditions, then staff could be directed to draft potential code amendments for
further review and recommendation by the Planning Commission.
page 29
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends action be taken on the application before the Planning Commission, which is the specific
code amendment language included in the request.
A separate motion could be made and discussed regarding further direction to the City Council in
consideration of the proposed use.
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend denial of the proposed code amendment, based on the attached findings of fact.
OR
2. Recommend approval of the proposed code amendment, based on the attached findings of fact.
OR
3. Table the request.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Poultry and Fowl Ordinance Survey — completed by the City of Cottage Grove (2012)
2. Chicken Coop/Run images
3. Newspaper articles (01.14.14 Pioneer Press, 07.12.14 and 03.23.13 Star Tribune)
4. Planning Application, including supporting materials
page 30
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL
Proposed City Code Amendment
Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed request:
1. Keeping of chickens is not appropriate on residential properties in the City.
2. The proposed code amendment does not address all of the necessary regulations to prevent
nuisances and mitigate potential negative impacts to the surrounding properties.
page 31
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Proposed City Code Amendment
Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. Keeping of chickens on residential properties provides environmental, economic, and cultural
benefits to residents of the City.
2. The proposed conditions allow the use and enable the safe and successful pursuit of the benefits of
keeping chickens without negatively impacting surrounding properties.
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 40
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tamara Schutta, Interim City Administrator
SUBJECT: Personnel Action Item
SUBJECT: Job Description/Classification and Compensation Study
BACKGROUND
In 1984 the Minnesota Legislature passed a bill extending pay equity to local governments in the
State. The law requires each local government to analyze its pay structure for evidence of
inequities and to report this information to the Department of Employee Relations.
The city recently completed its pay equity report for 2014 and initial results indicate that we are
in compliance. The city's next pay equity report will be due January 31, 2018. The city is using
"Control Data" job evaluation system. Job classifications are assigned points based on
"Benchmark Job Values" under this system. However, this job evaluation system was retired in
the late 80's and the city never replaced it with another job evaluation system.
The State of Minnesota Local Government Pay Equity Act requires cities to maintain a
classification and compensation plan in order to maintain pay equity compliance.
There are a number of options for the city to consider. The city could consider using the
Minnesota's State Job Match job evaluation system. The job evaluation system is simple,
inexpensive way to assign points to jobs in our city. The State Job Match System job evaluation
system is using the Hay method job evaluation system. Other options include designing our own
system or purchasing a privately owned (consultant's) system. It's important to note that the city
must meet and confer with the three unions on the selection of a job evaluation system.
City staff is also recommending that a compensation study be completed. It is important to
analysis the city's compensation plan to evaluate for internal equity and external equity (are we
competitive with the market). To be effective, a compensation plan must be perceived by
employees as fair, competitive in the market, accurately based and easy to understand. This study
would also require a thorough review of all position descriptions.
One option for the city to consider for this study is to form a personnel committee. A number of
resources have been identified that would be available for the personnel committee to complete a
comprehensive compensation study. Option two is to consider hiring an outside consultant to
page 41
complete a compensation study. It is estimated to cost $10,000 - $15,000 for a consultant to
complete a compensation study.
Recommendation
City staff is seeking Council direction.
!!i
CITYa
MENDQTA HEIGHTS
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
page 42
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota•heights.com
February 3, 2015
Mayor and City Council
Sloan Wallgren, Recreation Program Coordinator
Kensington Park Activity
Update
This past summer and fall city staff received some complaints from residents in the Kensington
neighborhood in regards to the amount of additional traffic and parking in the area. The residents
are concerned with the increased noise, traffic and amount of cars parked on the streets associated
with the soccer groups using the fields at Kensington Park. Currently, there are 77 parking spaces
and 2 handicap parking spaces at Kensington Park.
During the spring and summer Sundays are very busy at the park. Groups of adults rent the fields
and play soccer from 8:OOam to 8:OOpm. One large group of adults uses the fields from 8:OOam to
5:OOpm then another adult group uses the fields from 5:30pm to 8:OOpm. During the weekdays
the Sibley Sting Youth Traveling Soccer and Mendota Heights Athletics Association Lacrosse use
the fields, but the amount of traffic during the week is considerably less.
During the fall the Mendota Heights Athletic Association uses the fields Monday through
Thursday from 5:30pm to 8:OOpm and Saturdays from 8:00 am to 5:OOpm. Over the past three
years the soccer association has grown from 250 participants to nearly 600 participants.
Some things that residents are asking for are no parking on the streets and reduced times for the
soccer groups.
Staff Recommendation
Staff will continue to work with all use groups encouraging people to car pool, reduce speeds in
the area and remind users to respect the neighbors around the Kensington Park area.
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tamara Schutta, Interim City Administrator
SUBJECT: Mendota Heights Website Redesign
page 43
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.4521850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.menclota-heights.com
Background
The current website was designed in 2009. To maintain a fresh look and provide useful information
to our residents, it is recommended that a website is updated and redesigned every five years.
The city's webmaster team is responsible for maintaining the content of the site. The team
members include Nancy Bauer, Bobby Crane, Sue Donovan, Trista Miller and Tammy Schutta.
Our current website doesn't work very well and it is very limiting to what we can do with it.
Over the past year, staff has had the opportunity to review other options for updating and maintain
our website. We have had the opportunity to see demonstrations by CivicPlus.
Staff would like to provide a ten minute overview of the city's website and provide a few examples
of other local government websites. If the city were to redesign the website, it would take
approximately 5 months from start to finish to have a new site up and running.
BUDGET IMPACT
There is $20,000 available in the 2015 budget for a full website redesign.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff would like to provide a ten minute overview of the city's current website and show a couple
of examples of other local government sites. Staff is also seeking direction from council if they
desire to move forward.
au
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 44
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and Interim City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Rental Housing Licensing Program
BACKGROUND
Title 3, Chapter 5 of the City Code contains rental housing regulations. The Code requires a license for all
single-family dwelling units in the R-1 district being rented. The permits are issued on a yearly basis since
2006; a $75 fee was added in 2010.
The City contains several developments that are zoned MR -PUD, HR -PUD, MU -PUD, R -1A, R-2, R-3 that
may contain single-family and townhome units being rented. Regardless of the zoning district or housing -
style, the intent of the rental licensing regulations would seem to apply to both, as in 3-5-1 of the Code:
It is the purpose of this chapter to assure that rental housing in the city's R-1 one family residential zoning
district is decent, safe and sanitary and is operated and maintained in accordance with the city's
regulations. The implementation of a rental licensing program in the R-1 zoning district is a mechanism to
ensure that rental single-family housing will not become a nuisance to the neighborhood; will not foster
blight and deterioration; and/or will not create a disincentive to reinvestment in the community.
In addition, it may be beneficial to monitor rental properties to ensure the same protections are afforded to
other residential areas in the City. If the City Council would like to consider expanding the rental licensing
regulations to all single-family and townhome units, regardless of zoning district, the City Code could be
amended and appropriate licensing procedures implemented. Certain condominium/apartment buildings
and CDA -controlled housing containing more than two units are not intended to be regulated under the
potential expanded licensing regulations.
BUDGET IMPACT
Rental licenses are collected by the Engineering/Public Works/Fire Department Secretary and issued by the
City after review by the planning, administration, and police departments. Additional staff time may be
required to issue additional licenses.
RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council desires to further consider expanding the rental housing license program, Staff can be
directed to begin an amendment process for the City Council to review and discuss.
au
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 45
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and Interim City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Recycling in Parks
BACKGROUND
As part of the 2014 Waste Abatement Community Funding Program Work Plan, Staff worked with a Dakota
County intern to inventory the existing recycling conditions at Mendakota, Kensington, Rogers Lake, and
Wentworth parks. In July 2014, the Parks and Recreation Commission was updated on the information and
provided comments.
In 2015, the County has allocated approximately $3,600 to order new recycling bins on behalf of Mendota
Heights. Based on the inventory, Staff is recommending a committee of public works, recreation, and
planning department employees to determine which containers to order and where they should be placed.
BUDGET IMPACT
Funding for the new recycling bins is being provided by Dakota County. However, increasing the number
of bins may require additional Public Works staff time to empty.
RECOMMENDATION
No action is necessary at this time. If the Council would like to have additional input, Staff can be directed
to bring back more information prior to ordering and placing the new containers.
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP
Public Works Director/City Engineer
page 46
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.4521850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.menclota-heights.com
SUBJECT: Sump Pump Discharge to the Sanitary Sewer System
BACKGROUND
The City of Mendota Heights pays Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) a fee
for sanitary sewer treatment that is bases on the total flow contribution to the MCES system. In
2014, the City's total annual flow increased by —60 million gallons (12.3%)*, resulting in an
increase in annual fee by 9.83%. In addition to the rate increase, MCES also initially proposed a
surcharge fee of $99,600 per year for the next 4 years for increasing flow over 10% in one year.
Staff was able to convince MCES to remove this fee due to our ongoing sanitary sewer cleaning,
televising, and lining program along with our manhole casting sealing program. By re -
prioritizing and delaying capital improvement projects, staff was able to propose a rate increase
to Mendota Heights' customers of only 5% for 2015 without harming the long-term health of the
sanitary sewer utility fund.
It is widely believed that the sudden and dramatic increase in flow was due to the extremely wet
spring experienced from March to July of 2014. A large quantity of snow from the preceding
winter melted followed by several large rain storms. The season culminated with 4.8 inches of
rain that fell between 12:30am and 1:OOpm on June 19, 2014. Wet weather impacts the sanitary
sewer system by means of Inflow and Infiltration (UI). I/I can come from cracks in sewer pipes,
broken pipe joints, tree root penetrations, or manholes; but the most prevalent possible sources
for sudden increases in flow are illegal discharges to the sanitary sewer system. The most
common of these discharges are basement sump pumps. Both MCES and the American Public
Works Association (APWA) have published figures stating 60%-70% of sudden increases in
flow volume are likely due to sump pumps connected to the sanitary sewer system.
Both State Plumbing Code and Mendota Heights Municipal Code prohibit the discharge of sump
pumps to the sanitary sewer system.
Minnesota Plumbing Code 4715.2700
Storm water shall not be drained into sewers intended for sanitary sewage only.
Mendota Heights City Code 10-3-5B
Surface Waters: It shall be unlawful to discharge or cause to be discharged into the
municipal sewer system, either directly or indirectly, any roof storm, surface or ground
page 47
water of any type or kind, or water discharged from any air conditioning unit or system.
(1981 Code 803 § 4)
Based on some logical assumptions about sump pump behavior from the past spring, staff has
calculated that —39 million gallons of the —60 million gallons* in increased flow (65%) is likely
due to sump pumps. In order to minimize or eliminate these discharges, a policy would need to
be developed and implemented, including public communications, and inspections.
In 2005, the City of Eagan experienced a similar phenomenon due to an extremely large rain
event. By 2009, they had adopted a policy and Ordinance to address sump pumps. The Eagan
plan was implemented in 2010. Copies of their policy and Ordinance are attached for reference.
Eliminating, or greatly reducing the contribution to the sanitary sewer system from sump pumps
would allow for a more predictable total sewer flow projection and make the budget process for
the sanitary sewer utility fund more stable. It would also greatly reduce the risk of future severe
flow increases and avoid future penalty surcharges.
BUDGET IMPACT
I/I contributions to the sanitary sewer system have a direct impact on the amount charged to the City
by MCES. Consequently, I/I contributions directly impact what the City needs to charge residents
and businesses for sanitary sewer service to keep the utility fund operable and stable. Eliminating
non -sewage contributions to the sanitary sewer system can provide a much more predictable cost of
utility operations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council consider implementing an Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Program/Policy
similar to that enacted by the City of Eagan in 2009. If Council wishes to implement the staff
recommendation, Council should establish this Program/Policy as a goal for 2015, and direct staff to
begin working on policy documents, Ordinance, costs, and public communications.
page 48
CITY OF EAGAN
Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Mitigation Program/Policy
Adopted December 15, 2009
Revised January 19, 2010
Background
The Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services (MCES) implemented an Infiltration &
Inflow (I&I) Mitigation and Surcharge Program on February 8, 2006. I&I relates to extraneous
clean water entering the sanitary sewer system through either ground water (Infiltration) or direct
flow (Inflow) such as sump pumps. This excess volume of clean water adds considerable cost to
the overall Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) for both conveyance and treatment.
As a result of a significant 5" rainfall event that occurred on Oct. 5, 2005, the City of Eagan was
determined to have had an excessive rate of flow to the Seneca Waste Water Treatment Plant
exceeding its peak flow allocation. As a result of this exceedance, the MCES determined that the
City of Eagan was required to spend $1,718,500 over 5 years ($$343,700/yr) to either mitigate
its excessive I&I, or pay that amount to the MCES for its equivalent expansion of the MDS.
MCES enforced this financial obligation through an annual surcharge program beginning in 2007
and scheduled to end in 2012. If excessive flows continue to occur after that date, the annual
surcharge will likely become a permanent Demand Charge (in an amount yet to be determined).
The City continuously evaluates the public sanitary sewer system (275 miles of pipe, 7,800
manholes and 18 pumping stations) and performs corrective measures as needed. However, to
adequately address the excessive I&I, there is also a need to inspect and mandate corrective work
in the private sanitary sewer system within the community (over 18,800 connections).
Program
The private property inspection program has been commonly referred to as a "Sump Pump and
Service Lateral Inspection Program" (SP&SLIP). Many communities have already implemented
this type of inspection with a related corrective enforcement program which can take up to
multiple years and millions of dollars to complete on a citywide basis. It requires the personal
inspection of a private property's internal sewer plumbing system and service lateral connection
to the City's sewer main (typically in the street or a backyard easement). On September 1, 2009,
the Eagan City Council adopted an amendment to City Code Section 3.40 to add Subdivision 10,
"Clear Water Discharge Prevention and Prohibition" (attached).
This amendment prohibits any type of clear water connections or faulty services that allow
ground water to enter the system. It also requires all notified property owners to schedule an
inspection with the city, or its designated agent(s). This inspection typically takes up to 2 hours
to perform and requires that an adult resident be present at all times. A copy of the inspection
report identifying any non-compliant issues will be left with the resident upon completion of the
inspection. Corrective Work Orders will be sent to the property owner/occupant informing them
page 49
of the required corrective work that must be completed within 60 days. Upon satisfactory
completion of the Corrective Work, a Certificate of Compliance will be issued by the City.
If either an inspection is not scheduled, or required corrective work is not completed, within the
required time frames, a monthly surcharge will be added to the property owner's utility bill until
such time as an inspection is performed and/or all corrective work is completed. (See attached
Work Flow Process diagrammatic)
Non-compliant Enforcement Surcharges
City Code 3.40 (Rules and regulations relating to sewer service), Subdivision 10 (Clear Water
Discharge Prevention and Prohibition), Paragraph E (Surcharges) provides for monthly
surcharges to be added to the property's utility bill resulting from any cause that results in a lack
of a Compliance Certification being issued. The amount of the I&I Surcharge for non-
compliance will be established by formal Council action and incorporated into the Annual Fee
Schedule. Per the Code, the I&I Surcharge becomes effective for the entire month when the final
notice of Non -Compliance was sent to the property owner/resident and every month thereafter
until such time that a Compliance Certificate has been issued. Nonpayment of delinquent fees
and/or surcharges will be certified to the property's taxes for collection.
City Cost Participation
Other communities' experiences have indicated that the majority of corrective work requirements
relate to a simple disconnection and rerouting of a sump pump discharge. However, there have
been situations where foundation drain disconnections and/or service lateral repairs become
more costly. In respect to the cost savings expected to the City's future sewer billings from the
Metropolitan Council, the City Council deemed it justifiable to offer financial participation for
corrective repairs to low and medium density residential properties (R-1,2 & 3). The City will
assume responsibility for 50% of costs incurred by the homeowner for required corrective work
(Permit Fees not included). If the corrective work is not performed under a City issued contract,
the property owner may perform the work personally. While all material costs will be eligible for
reimbursement, only work performed by a licensed plumber and/or pipe -layer contractor pre -
approved by the City will be eligible for City participation. If the property owner elects to
perform the work through a private contractor, the City will issue payment upon receipt of proper
documentation for the City's share, made payable to both the private contractor and property
owner.
City Financing of Property Owner costs
The Property Owner may elect to have all, or any part, of their actual costs incurred levied as a
special assessment against the benefitted property spread over 5 years and financed at 4% simple
interest. This will require the execution of the appropriate Waiver of Hearing and Special
Assessment agreement.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL ACTION: December 15, 2009
REVISED: January 19, 2010
page 50
ORDINANCE NO. 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY
CODE CHAPTER THREE ENTITLED "MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC UTILITIES — RULES
AND REGULATIONS, RATES, CHARGES AND COLLECTIONS" BY AMENDING
SECTION 3.40 REGARDING RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO SANITARY
SEWER SERVICE; AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER
1 AND SECTION 3.99.
The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain:
Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter Three is hereby amended by modifying Section 3.40 to
read as follows:
Sec. 3.40. Rules and regulations relating to sewer service.
Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this section, shall have the
meanings stated:
A. Sewage means water -carried waste products from residences, public buildings,
institutions or other buildings or premises, including the excrement or other
discharge from the bodies of human beings or animals, together with such
groundwater infiltration and surface water as may be present.
B. Industrial waste means any liquid, gaseous or solid waste substance resulting from
any process of industry, manufacturing, trade or business, or from development of
any natural resources.
C. Sewer system includes all street lateral, main and intersecting sewers and structures
by which sewage or industrial wastes are collected, transported, treated and disposed
of; provided that this shall not include plumbing inside or a part of a building or
premises served, or service sewers from a building to the street lateral.
D. Sewerage service means the use of and benefit from the sewer system, including the
collection, transportation, pumping, treatment and final disposal of sewage.
E. Clear water means storm water; natural precipitation; melting snow; ground water;
water flow from a roof, ground surface, subsurface drainage, down spout, eave
trough, rainspout, yard drain, sump pump, foundation drain, yard fountain, pond,
swimming pool, cistern overflow, or any other water that is not required to be treated
by state or federal law.
page 51
Subd. 2. Metered water not discharged. If a portion of the water furnished to any
premises is not directly or indirectly discharged into the sewer system, the quantity of such water
shall be deducted in computing the sewerage service charge or rental, provided a separate meter
shall be installed and operated to register the quantity not so discharged into the sewer system.
Provided also, that where it is not practicable to meter the portion of the water not discharged
into the sewer system, such adjustment may be made as shall be fair and equitable in order to
determine the amount of such service charge or rental; but until such adjustment shall be effected
that water consumption basis hereinbefore prescribed shall remain in full force and effect.
Subd. 3. Classification of industrial wastes. The city shall have the power to classify the
industrial wastes from any lot, parcel of land, building or premises discharged therefrom into the
sewer system of the city, taking into consideration the quantity of sewage produced and its
concentration, strength of river pollution qualities in general and of any other factors entering
into the cost of its disposal, for the purpose of fixing and prescribing a distinct rate of rental or
use charge, should it be found that as to such sewer uses the water basis consumption does not
provide a practicable method in the premises, but until so determined and such distinct rate fixed,
the water consumption basis hereinbefore prescribed shall remain in full force and effect as to
such commercial or industrial users.
Subd. 4. Deleterious substances. No sewage, including industrial wastes, shall contain
any substance which is deemed deleterious by the city to the operation of the sewer system or to
any plant or facilities used in the treatment or disposal of such sewage. If a user of the sewer
system discharges excessive loads or any deleterious substances therein which are likely to retard
or injuriously affect sewerage operations, he shall discontinue such practice, and such practice is
hereby declared to be a violation of this section. Each day of such violation continuing after the
violator having been notified in writing by the city administrator to discontinue such practice
shall be deemed a separate violation.
Subd. 5. Unlawful discharge. It is unlawful to discharge any of the following described
wastes into the sewer system:
A. Liquids having a temperature higher than 150 degrees Fahrenheit.
B. Water or waste which contains more than 100 ppm by weight of fat, oil or grease.
C. Gasoline, benzene, naphtha, fuel oil or other inflammable or explosive liquid, solid or
gas.
D. Garbage, except such as has been properly shredded.
E. Ashes, cinders, shavings, feathers, tar or other liquid or viscous substance capable of
causing obstruction to the flow in the sewer system or other interference with the
proper operation of the system.
F. Noxious or malodorous substances capable of creating a public nuisance.
G. Roof water, groundwater, or any other natural precipitation.Clear water.
page 52
Subd. 6. Unmetered water supply. If any premises discharges normal sewage or
industrial waste into the sanitary sewer system, either directly or indirectly, obtains part or all of
the water used thereon from sources other than the city, and the water so obtained is not
measured by a meter of equivalent specifications to the meters used by the city, then in such case
the city shall permit the discharge of normal sewage or industrial waste into its sanitary sewer
system only when the owner of such premises or some other interested person shall at his own
expense installs and maintains for the purpose of metering such water supply a water meter of
equivalent specifications to those installed by the city in connection with the city water system.
Each water meter shall be installed to measure all water received on such premises, and the
above charges and rates shall be applied to the quantity of water received as measured by such
meter. If, because of the nature of the source of the water supply, the city deems it impracticable
to thus meter the water on any premises, the council may by resolution establish a flat charge per
month in accordance with the estimated use of water on such premises.
Subd. 7. Size, kind and depth of pipe. The city may prescribe the size, kind and depth of
sewerage service pipe and connections. The minimum size, when placed underground, shall be
four inches in diameter.
Subd. 8. Additional rules and regulations. The council may, by resolution, adopt such
additional rules and regulations relating to placement, size and type of equipment as it, in its
discretion, deems necessary or desirable. Copies of such additional rules and regulations shall be
kept on file in the office of the city administrator, and uniformly enforced.
Subd. 9. Connections. It is unlawful for any person to uncover, make any connections
with or opening into, use, alter or disturb any public sewer or appurtenance thereof without first
obtaining a written permit from the city. All costs and expenses associated with the installation
and connection to a sewer system shall be the responsibility of the property owner benefiting
from the installation and connection. The property owner shall indemnify and hold harmless the
city from any loss, claim, damage and/or expense that may, directly or indirectly, be occasioned
by the installation and/or connection of a sewer service line. All connections to the city sewer
system shall be inspected by city authorized personnel. All excavations necessary for the
installation and/or inspection of sewer service shall be safely and adequately stabilized and
protected with necessary barriers so as to protect the public from any potential hazard. All
restoration associated with the installation of this sewer connection shall be the responsibility of
the benefited user and shall be performed to the specifications of the city.
Subd. 10. Clear Water Discharge Prevention and Prohibition.
A. Discharge Requirements.
1. No clear water, as the term is defined in this Section, shall be discharged,
directly or indirectly, into the City's sewer system.
page 53
2. All sump pump systems within the City shall meet the following
requirements:
a. No sump pump system shall discharge any water into the City's sewer
system;
b. The sump pump system design shall provide and operate year-round
discharge of water through a permanently installed discharge line from
the interior of the structure to the exterior of the structure from which
the clear water is discharged either onto the property which the sump
pump system serves or directly into the City's storm sewer system by
direct connection thereto or into the abutting city street for discharge
into the street drainage, provided approval was first obtained by the
Public Works Director;
c. The sump pump system's permanent discharge line shall be made of
solid, nonflexible material and shall not have any connection fittings as
to permit alterative flow path subsequent to installation; and
d. If the sump pump system discharge line is connected directly to the
City's storm sewer system upon approval by the City, then the
discharge line shall have a check valve which shall be located within
the property's boundaries and not within the public right-of-way.
B. Inspections.
1. Inspections Required. Any property within the City that is connected to the
City's sewer system shall be subject to a compliance inspection to determine
whether the property's discharge of its clear water is in compliance with this
Section and is not discharged into the City's sanitary sewer system. The
property owner or occupant shall permit the City's designated inspector on
the property and within any structure thereon to complete the inspection. The
compliance inspection shall occur within 30 days of written notice from the
City that a compliance inspection is required on the property. The compliance
inspection shall occur at a time and in the manner as reasonably determined
by the city inspector.
In lieu of a compliance inspection by the city inspector, the property owner or
occupant may have the property inspected, at the sole expense of the owner
or occupant, by a private licensed plumber who shall inspect the property and
file a Certificate of Compliance, on a form provided by the City, within 30
days of the City's notice of the required inspection. The private licensed
plumber who conducts the compliance inspection shall certify on the
page 54
Certificate of Compliance that the property's discharge of clear water is in
compliance or noncompliance with the provisions of this Section.
In the event that the inspector cannot complete the compliance inspection
because the sewer "cleanout" is not readily accessible as required by the state
building code, the owner or occupant shall take all necessary steps to make
the sewer cleanout readily accessible for the re -inspection to be completed
within 30 days of the date the inspector was at the property to conduct the
initial inspection. If the owner or occupant fails to make the sewer line
cleanout accessible for inspection, such failure shall constitute a failure to
comply with inspection requirements and subject to the monthly surcharge set
forth herein.
2. Failure to Comply with Inspection Requirements. If the property owner or
occupant fails to permit or have completed a compliance inspection, the City
may apply to the district court for an appropriate administrative search
warrant authorizing the City to enter the property to conduct the inspection.
3. Re -inspections. In the event that the discharge of clear water on the property
is not in compliance with this Section, a second compliance inspection shall
be completed within 60 days of the notice of noncompliance to determine if
the necessary corrections have been made and compliance with this Section
has been met. The second compliance inspection shall be subject to the
requirements set forth above. Thereafter, the property shall be subject to re -
inspections on an annual basis to confirm continued compliance. Properties
that are in compliance shall also be subject to re -inspections to confirm
continued compliance.
C. Corrections. Upon notice that the discharge of clear water on the property is not in
compliance with this Section, the owner or occupant of the property shall
immediately cease from discharging clear water in violation of this Section and shall
make the necessary repairs and corrections to discharge the clear water in accordance
with this Section. Discharge of clear water in compliance with this Section shall be
completed within 60 days of the date of notice of noncompliance.
D. Inspections with building permits. If a city inspector is on a property for the purpose
of a building permit inspection, the city inspector has the authority to inspect the
property for compliance with this Section without further notice to the property
owner or occupant.
E. Surcharges. A monthly surcharge in an amount duly adopted by City Council and set
forth in the City's Fee Schedule shall be assessed against the property on which clear
water is discharged in violation of this Section. The monthly surcharge will be
charged on the property's municipal utility billing statement. A monthly surcharge
page 55
will be assessed and charged as follows: (1) an inspection as required herein has not
been allowed by the property owner or occupant or a Certificate of Compliance has
not been filed with the City within 30 days after the City's notice of inspection; (2)
the property owner or occupant fails to make the sewer line cleanout readily
available for the inspection; (3) the necessary corrections have not been made within
the time specified; and (4) the property owner or occupant reconnects a clear water
discharge line to the City's sanitary sewer system after it has been previously
disconnected at the City's or a court's direction. A surcharge will be assessed for
every month during which the property is not in compliance or the property owner
has not made the sewer line cleanout readily available for the inspection, whether the
non-compliance has existed for the entire month or a portion thereof. The monthly
surcharge for a re -connection will be charged for each month beginning with the
month in which the inspection was completed or a Certificate of Compliance was
filed confirming the previous disconnection through the end of the month in which
the reconnection is subsequently disconnected.
F. Temporary waiver. The City may grant a temporary waiver from the provisions of
this Section where strict enforcement would cause a threat of damage or harm to
other property, the environment, or public safety because of circumstances unique to
the individual property or due to weather conditions. A written request for a
temporary waiver must be first submitted to the public works director specifying the
reasons for the temporary waiver. If a temporary waiver is granted, the property
owner shall pay an additional fee for sewerage service charges based on the number
of gallons discharged into the City's (sanitary) sewer system as estimated by the
public works director. The additional sewerage service charge fee shall be twice the
rate of the base sewage service charge multiplied by the number of estimated gallons
of clear water discharge.
The public works director may set conditions to the temporary waiver. The public
works director may terminate the temporary waiver upon a failure to comply with
any conditions imposed on the temporary waiver. The public works director must
give a 5 -day written notice of the termination to the property owner and occupant
setting forth the reasons for the termination. After expiration or termination of a
temporary waiver, the property owner shall comply with the provisions of this
Section.
Section 2. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Penalty for Violation' and Section 3.99, entitled
"Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated
verbatim.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication
according to law.
ATTEST: CITY OF EAGAN
City Council
page 56
By: Maria Petersen By: Mike Maguire
Its: City Clerk Its: Mayor
Date Ordinance Adopted:
Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper:
page 57
The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. as approved by the City Council
of the City of Eagan on September 1, 2009.
ORDINANCE NO. SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY
CODE CHAPTER THREE ENTITLED "MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC UTILITIES — RULES
AND REGULATIONS, RATES, CHARGES AND COLLECTIONS" BY AMENDING
SECTION 3.40 REGARDING RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO SANITARY
SEWER SERVICE; AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER
1 AND SECTION 3.99.
Section 3.40 of the Eagan City Code is amended to add provisions providing for the
prevention and prohibition of clear water discharge into the City's sanitary sewer system,
including compliance inspections, correction of prohibited discharge, and monthly
surcharges assessed and charged for non-compliance.
A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular
office hours at the office of the City Clerk at the Eagan Municipal Center, 3830 Pilot Knob Road,
Eagan, Minnesota 55122.
Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication.
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 58
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.4521850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.menclota-heights.com
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director
SUBJECT: 2015 Budget Update
BACKGROUND
In processing the payrolls for 2015 it has come to my attention that the PERA contribution
percentages included in the 2015 are incorrect. The PERA contribution rate for police is 16.2%.
The amount included in the 2015 budget is 15.3%. The difference in the rates is approximately
$16,000. The police budget will be able to cover this shortfall. The 2015 budget included $17,424
for insurance costs for the Patrick family. Per Minnesota State Statute 299A.465, the City is
responsible for the employer's contribution for continued health insurance coverage for
dependents up to the age of 65 (age 26 for dependent children). In order to qualify for the health
insurance benefit, Michelle Patrick would need to enroll in the City's health insurance. The 2015
contribution rate for city provided insurance benefits is up to $1,452.00 per month. This year
Michelle Patrick did not enroll in health insurance through the city. This option will be available
to the Patrick family until Michelle Patrick is eligible for Medicare. Since this amount will not be
needed in 2015 it will be available to cover the difference in PERA contribution rates.
The PERA rates for the Coordinated Plan were included in the 2015 budget at 7.75%. The correct
rate is 7.50% for 2015. The correct percentage results in overage of approximately $3,300 for the
employees in the general fund budget.
This was an oversight on my part. I updated the Coordinated Plan contribution rates, but
erroneously added an additional .25%. The police contribution rates were never updated for the
increase in the PERA contribution. These rates will be updated for the 2016 budget.
BUDGET IMPACT
The 2015 budget has sufficient funds to cover the shortfall for the incorrect PERA contributions.
RECOMMENDATION
This is for informational purposes only. There is no action required.
page 59
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax.
www.mendota-heights.com
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Construction Contract Change Order History
BACKGROUND
Over the course of the past 10 years there have been nine construction contract Change Orders
on City construction projects. They are as follows:
2005 — Town Center Utilities and Freeway Road Area Reconstruction (City Project 200202)
Additional work added to the contract at the request of the City for installation of water main at
the Town Center Development. Change Order was approved after work was completed because
the Change Order was given on a time and materials basis and costs were not identified prior to
work beginning Change Order Value = $92,470
2008 — The Avenues Street Reconstruction (City Project 200802)
Contractor encountered high groundwater that was not identified in soil borings used for project
design and needed to dewater specific areas of the project for utility installation. This was an
unforeseen site condition. Change Order value = $13,500
2010 — Water Tower Rehabilitation (City Project 200722)
Additional work added to the contract at the request of the City and Saint Paul Regional Water
Service. Items included replacing overhead and personnel doors, welding brackets and installing
a wiring conduit, and replacement of the reservoir splash pad. Change Order Value = $12,350
2010 — 2010 Reconstruction Project — North End (City Project 200910)
Additional work added to the contract at the request of the City to include additional street signs.
Change Order Value = $5,702.44
2012 — LeMay Lake Road Neighborhood Reconstruction (City Project 201105)
Original project plan had the contractor installing the water main and SPRWS relocating the
hydrants. Due to scheduling availability SPRWS was unable to perform the work. The Change
Order issued added the hydrant relocation work to the contractor's contract. Change Order
Value = $15,933 (net zero increase to project as the same amount was deleted from SPRWS)
2012 — Public Works Roof Replacement (City Project 201114)
Additional work added to the contract at the request of the City to install a vent pipe while roof
was under construction. By installing the vent pipe prior to finishing the new roof, the new roof
could be sealed to the pipe rather than installing the pipe after the roof was installed, which
would have necessitated penetrating the roof membrane. Change Order Value = $650
page 60
2013 — Highway 110 & Dodd Road Pedestrian Improvements (City Project 200819)
Additional work added to the contract at the request of the City to overlay pavement on the trail
from the realignment portion east to Dodd Road. Contractor's price quote was more economical
than the City completing the work as a separate project. Change Order Value = $12,280
2014 — Rolling Green Neighborhood Improvements (Victoria Road) (City Project 201308)
Additional work added to the contract at the request of the City to provide pavement for the
Marie Park hockey rink. Contractor's price quote was more economical than the City
completing the work as a separate project. Change Order Value = $21,000
2014 — Highway 13 Trail Connection Construction (City Project 200514)
In the process of lowering a water main, the contractor encountered bedrock. This was an
unforeseen site condition. Additional work was added to the contract to cover the rock cutting
necessary to sufficiently lower the water main. Change Order was approved after work was
completed due to an immediate necessity to get the businesses served by the main off temporary
water service before winter fully set in. Change Order Value = $93,598.75
The issue that arose during the Victoria Road reconstruction project due to an unidentified,
discovered utility was rectified in the field by reducing the curb radius from the designed 25 -feet
to the installed 18 -feet at the northeast corner of Victoria Road and Douglas Road. This action
did not require a change order. An 18 -foot curb radius is compliant with MnDOT standards for
Municipal State Aid (MSA) streets. Upon receiving a complaint from an area resident, staff
tested the intersection's right -turning movement from westbound Douglas to northbound
Victoria for maneuverability both using design software as well as by physically driving
different sized vehicles through the intersection. Staff found the intersection to be safely
maneuverable for vehicles ranging in size up to a 60 passenger school bus. Larger vehicles such
as moving vans and larger school buses would have to cross into the oncoming lane in order to
negotiate the turn. More common vehicles such as delivery vans and garbage trucks can
maneuver around the corner safely. The 18 -foot curb radius is not common in Mendota Heights,
and it presents a condition area drivers are not accustomed to. For this reason, staff intends on
including the utility relocation and realignment of the curb to a 25 -foot radius in the construction
plans for the second phase of Victoria Road in 2015. Preliminary estimates for this work are
between $25,000 and $30,000.
Change Order Process
When a Change Order is requested, staff receives estimates from the contractor to complete the
requested work. The estimate and work scope are presented to City Council for approval as an
amendment to the original construction contract, typically prior to the work being beginning If
approved, the change order is added to the bid schedule as a separate payable line item. Once
complete, the contractor includes the amount payable under the Change Order as part of their
regular pay request submittal to City staff. Construction contract payments are then listed on the
Claims List on City Council agendas.
BUDGET IMPACT
None
RECOMMENDATOIN
None — For informational purposes only