2015-05-12 Council Workshop Goals1.4.1j CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
May 12 2015 1.00
y — pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Works
a. Discussion of Water Contract, including Steve Schneider, SPRWA Rep
b. Sump Pump Update
c. Discussion of Combining Warrior Drive and Mendota Road Reconstruction -2016
d. Trash Hauler Zones
4. Parks
a. Dog Park Discussion (2:00 PM)
5. Development Issues
a. Discussion of Sale of The Village City -Owned Lots
b. Infill Residential Development
c. Rental Licensing
6. Miscellaneous Issues
a. Emergency Action Plan — City Buildings and Council Meetings
b. Workers Comp Information
c. Discussion of 2016 Budget Parameters
d. Set June Workshop Date to discuss the following topics:
• Broadband,
• Village Lots follow-up,
• C/I Building Vacancies
• Legislative Agenda
7. Adjourn
page 2
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone r 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
L1CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DATE: May 12, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: New Water Service Agreement
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 (Article VI)
2. City retention of ability to store material inside the water tower (Article VI)
3. Reduction/elimination of surcharge on water bills (over time) as quickly as possible
(Article III)
4. Ability to alter (or request altering) priorities to include water main work in conjunction
with City street projects (and vice versa). (Article II)
page 3
SPRWS has analyzed these requests and incorporated responses as part of the attached draft
agreement. The City has ample opportunity to comment or counter -propose before the existing
agreement expires in November of 2015. A summary of the proposed contract is as follows:
Article I — Establishes an effective date of the agreement, supersedes previous agreement(s), and
provides Mendota Heights with a seat on the Board of Water Commissioners as part of the
suburban client agreement. Mendota Heights would need to contract with the other suburbs
separate from this agreement in order to rotate into one of the two seats on the Board.
Article II — Gives authorization to the Board of Water Commissioners to extend their service into
Mendota Heights, That SPRWS will abide by City Code, and that the City will waive permit fees
through the phase-in period. Authorized extension of system should neighboring communities
wish to tie into SPRWS' system, and conveys title of assets from the City to SPRWS. The City
will grant an easement at the water tower site that allows SPRWS to access water tower.
Article III — Establishes the water rates and phase-in schedule (6 -years), defines existing
deficient mains (Friendly Hills & Brompton) and deficient easements for utility, calls out
historical frozen services, and establishes the ability to lease antenna space on the water tower.
Option for a flat fee system.
Article IV — Speaks to the course of action should SPRWS ever be privatized or otherwise sold.
Mendota Heights would have the option of contracting with the new provider, or regaining
ownership of the system.
Article V — Describes installation of new mains; whether covered by SPRWS, the City, or a
developer. Establishes minimum warranty, standards, on installed mains, service connection
installations, and right to inspect utilities.
Article VI — Establishes lease rates and shares for water tower antenna leases, provides the City
with the ability to use water tower for storage. Cell tower revenue — City retains 100% of all cell
tower revenue during the phase-in period (6 years). In year 7, SPRWS is proposing a 50/50 split
of revenues.
Article VII — Work done to streets that are not part of the SPRWS work plan (casing ring
adjustments, hydrant relocations, etc.) will be the responsibility of the City unless incorporated
into a larger SPRWS project, the City will grant perpetual access to infrastructure including
establishing easements where necessary.
Article VIII — SPRWS will supply all meters and do all billing for water services, and has the
ability to incorporate other billing services for an additional fee. Establishes Mendota Heights'
right to surcharge (currently 10%). It is up to the City to set surcharge rates.
Article IX— No supplemental water supply may be connected to the system without prior written
approval form the Board.
Article X— Title XI of the Saint Paul City Code establishes the rules, regulations, and standards
for the system. The Board would have jurisdiction in Mendota Heights if a drought driven
consumption ban were ever to be put in place. The last consumption ban initiated by SPRWS
was in 1988.
Article XI — Sets the standard for new fire hydrants, SPRWS responsibility for inspecting
hydrants, and the City's responsibility for painting hydrants. The City will not be charged for
water consumption for fire -fighting and training purposes. The City will be charged for all other
page 4
water consumption, including ice rink flooding and street sweeping. The City will place hydrant
markers for snow removal, and will coordinate hydrant spacing between SPRWS and the Fire
Department.
Article XII — Establishes procedure for amendments to the agreement.
Article XIII — Notices, corrective actions, notice of termination, mediation, re -conveyance
compensation.
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. While
not related to the City budget, the ownership conveyance would reduce the rates paid by Mendota
Heights water users.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council review the contract provided by SPRWS, and offer any comments,
suggestions, or questions to the Executive Director while he is here.
page 5
OMNIBUS AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND
THE BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL
This Agreement, dated this day of , 2015, is by and between
the BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL
("Board"), and the CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ("Mendota Heights").
WHEREAS, the Board has provided water services to properties located within the City
of Mendota Heights continuously since 1962 pursuant to the terms of retail water service
agreements between the Board and Mendota Heights, with the current agreement dated
December 27, 1995 being scheduled to expire on December 26, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Board and Mendota Heights have reached a mutual understanding by
which the Board will continue to provide water services to properties within the City of Mendota
Heights at water rates that will become equal to the rates charged to properties within the City of
Saint Paul; Mendota Heights will have representation on the Board of Water Commissioners
through suburban representation; and Mendota Heights will convey title to its water facilities to
the Board.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the respective covenants contained herein,
Board and Mendota Heights do hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
Section 1. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Agreement is effective on December 27, 2015, or after execution by the designated
officials as authorized by resolution of the Board and Mendota Heights, whichever occurs last.
page 6
Section 2. EXISTING CONTRACTS SUPERSEDED
As of the effective date of this Agreement, all previous water service agreements and
contracts existing between the Board and Mendota Heights shall be and are hereby superseded.
Section 3. BOARD REPRESENTATION BY MENDOTA HEIGHTS
An ordinance, approved on December 11, 1996 by the Saint Paul City Council, amended
the Saint Paul Home Rule Charter to increase the membership of the Board of Water
Commissioners and allowed the appointment of suburban representatives to said Board. In
accordance with the terms of that amendment, the Board has increased its membership to seven
(7) members. Of those seven (7) members, two (2) Non -Saint Paul resident members represent
all suburban cities served by agreements similar to this Agreement, and this provision would
apply to Mendota Heights. Mendota Heights will contract separately with the other suburbs with
regard to representation.
In the event that the total number of residential water accounts plus commercial and
industrial accounts (excluding auto -fire accounts) of communities located outside the City of
Saint Paul and served by agreements similar to this Agreement exceeds forty-three percent
(43%) of the total number of the Board's water accounts, the Board will seek to change the
number of Saint Paul appointees to four (4) and the number of suburban representatives to three
(3).
ARTICLE II
Section 1. BOARD TO EXTEND SERVICE TO MENDOTA HEIGHTS
The Board will extend its water service to properties located within the City of Mendota
Heights subject to the rules and regulations enacted by the Board of Water Commissioners and in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
Mendota Heights does hereby concur in the Board's extension of its water service and
does hereby grant permission to the Board to construct, operate, maintain, repair, and replace
water mains and other necessary appurtenances within the streets and rights-of-way of the City
of Mendota Heights. The Board is responsible to provide an adequate quantity of water to
page 7
properties located within the City of Mendota Heights, and to provide normal maintenance and
repair to all of the facilities operated by Board in the supply of water, pursuant to the same terms,
conditions, and policies that it follows for the provision of similar properties located within the
City of Saint Paul.
Section 2. MENDOTA HEIGHTS MUNICIPAL CODE
The Board shall abide by the city of Mendota Heights Municipal Code when performing
work in Mendota Heights' rights-of-way.
Mendota Heights agrees to waive permit fees required for utility work and excavation in
Mendota Heights' rights-of-way for the duration of the phase-in schedule described in Article III,
Section 1 of this agreement.
Section 3. CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION
In order to provide the greatest efficiency and to minimize traffic disruptions and
replacement costs, Board shall perform water main replacement and/or other water system repair
work in conjunction with Mendota Heights street paving projects whenever possible.
Section 4. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND SYSTEM
Mendota Heights does hereby agree that the Board has full and exclusive right to
construct and maintain water piping in Mendota Heights' property and rights of way, including
public easements, for extending the Board's water system to municipalities located beyond the
corporate limits of Mendota Heights. Routing of mains and appurtenances shall be coordinated
with Mendota Heights' City Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or
delayed. The Board shall be solely responsible for all costs associated with the construction of
such water system extensions, including the design, construction, and street restoration.
Section 5. EXISTING MAINS AND APPURTENANCES OWNED BY
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Upon the effective date of this Agreement, the Board will assume the maintenance and
repair of all the existing water mains, hydrants, service connections, tanks, and appurtenances.
page 8
Section 6. MENDOTA HEIGHTS TO CONVEY TITLE TO FACILITIES
Mendota Heights shall, by resolution of its City Council, and by appropriate deed of
conveyance acceptable to the Board, convey to the Board all of its rights, title, and interest to all
water mains, hydrants, service connections, tanks, and appurtenances owned by Mendota
Heights including all easement rights held by Mendota Heights for the purpose of installing,
repairing, maintaining, or replacing public water mains and appurtenances. It is intended by the
parties hereto that the said conveyances shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances
whatsoever, and thereafter title shall remain with the Board except as may be otherwise provided
by the terms of this Agreement.
Section 7. EASEMENT AT TANK SITE
Mendota Heights agrees to provide a perpetual easement, in a separate recordable
document, to the Board for purposes of access and maintenance at the water tower tank site
located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Medallion Drive and Lexington Ave S in
the City of Mendota Heights to be in effect by the date of execution of this Agreement.
ARTICLE III
Section 1. WATER RATES
Commencing December 27, 2015, water rates, surcharges, and fees charged by the Board
to properties located within the City of Mendota Heights shall be adjusted to the following
Phase -In Schedule:
PHASE-IN SCHEDULE
December 27, 2015 through December 26, 2016 — 120 percent of Saint Paul rate
December 27, 2016 through December 26, 2017 — 120 percent of Saint Paul rate
December 27, 2017 through December 26, 2018 — 120 percent of Saint Paul rate
December 27, 2018 through December 26, 2019 — 118 percent of Saint Paul rate
December 27, 2019 through December 26, 2020 — 118 percent of Saint Paul rate
page 9
December 27, 2020 through December 26, 2021 — 114 percent of Saint Paul rate
December 27, 2021 and thereafter — 100 percent of Saint Paul rate
Funds generated from water rates greater than 100 percent of the Saint Paul Rate shall be
used to compensate the Board for certain additional costs it agrees to assume pursuant to this
Agreement, which costs are more fully described in Article III Sections 2 through 4 of this
Agreement. The board shall have full authority in the scheduling and performance of the
corrective work.
Section 2. DEFICIENT MAINS
Deficient water mains based on break history, a pipe failure predictability model, and
SPRWS standards identified in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall be
replaced at Board expense.
Mendota Heights shall pay the costs to adjust the depth on segments of main with non-
conforming earth cover as listed in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Mendota Heights is responsible to manage and maintain water main easements such that
the Board has ready access to conduct water facility maintenance, repair, and replacement or
relocation activities. However, extraordinary costs due to the existing placements of water
mains or services in non -conforming public water main easements as listed in Exhibit "C" shall
be the responsibility of the Board.
Section 3. WATER SERVICES WITH HISTORY OF FREEZING
The Board shall be responsible for the costs of replacing, lowering, and/or insulating the
water services to those services listed in Exhibit "D", attached hereto and incorporated herein,
which have a history of freezing.
Section 4. ANTENNAE
Extraordinary costs incurred in the maintenance of existing or future tanks serving
Mendota Heights due to the placement of antennae facilities on or near such tanks shall be the
responsibility of the Board, excepting those costs previously made the responsibility of any
page 10
lessees as a course of existing and/or future leases entered into between Mendota Heights and a
third party.
ARTICLE IV
Section 1. CONSOLIDATION OR ACQUISITION; MENDOTA HEIGHTS'
OPTIONS
In the event that the Board ceases to operate in its present form due either to
consolidation with a local or regional authority or to an acquisition of its assets by another entity
(together referred to as "Alternate Authority"), it is the intent of the Board and Mendota Heights
to protect the rights of Mendota Heights properties to the continued supply of an adequate water
service as well as to adequately compensate Mendota Heights for its previous investments in the
water facilities located within its boundaries. The rights and liabilities of this Agreement are not
transferable or assignable by either party without the written consent of the other.
Therefore, to the extent legally permissible the Board shall insure that in the event of any
such consolidation or acquisition, Mendota Heights may terminate this Agreement or negotiate a
new water service agreement with the Alternate Authority.
In the event Mendota Heights should elect to terminate this Agreement, then and in that
event, it is hereby agreed that:
a) The Board shall for the sum of one dollar ($1.00), reconvey title to the facilities and real
estate previously conveyed by Mendota Heights, pursuant to Article II, Sections 4 and 5
of this Agreement; and
b) The Board shall request, to the extent legally permissible, that the Alternate Authority
execute a water service contract with Mendota Heights so as to continue to provide an
adequate water service to properties located within Mendota Heights; and
c) The Board shall be compensated for the depreciated value of all water mains and other
water service facilities, including water meters, hydrants, and other appurtenances,
constructed or caused to be constructed by the Board to serve the Mendota Heights water
system from and after the effective date of this Agreement. The Board shall receive such
compensation from the Alternate Authority and not from Mendota Heights.
page 11
In the event that Mendota Heights elects not to terminate this Agreement, the Board shall
require that the Alternate Authority assume the Board's contractual obligations as set forth in this
Agreement, and shall require that Mendota Heights be compensated for the amortized value of
the facilities and real estate previously conveyed to the Board pursuant to Article II, Sections 4
and 5, of this Agreement.
Section 2. FACILITIES INVESTMENT
The Board shall monitor and track all water system infrastructure investments within
Mendota Heights to identify to what degree those investments benefit Mendota Heights.
The Board shall monitor and track its investments in the water system, treatment plant,
and transmission mains outside of Mendota Heights to identify to what degree those investments
benefit Mendota Heights. The Board shall determine the asset value of Mendota Heights'
existing water system.
ARTICLE V
Section 1. MAINS CONSTRUCTED BY MENDOTA HEIGHTS
When Mendota Heights installs new water mains, service connections, and/or
appurtenances for the distribution of water within the corporate limits of Mendota Heights, all
construction shall be in accordance with Board standards. Plans of all extensions to the water
system by Mendota Heights shall be submitted for approval to the Board before advertising for
bids, awarding contracts, or beginning of actual construction. This initial construction for water
system expansion shall be considered development costs and shall be provided at no expense to
the Board. Costs for engineering plan review, inspection and other miscellaneous activity by
Board forces required by the water system expansion shall be reimbursed to the Board.
Mendota Heights agrees to provide the Board with "as -built plans" of all such extensions of the
water system.
Section 2. NEW FACILITIES; FURNISHED BY THE BOARD
page 12
The Board may construct and maintain new water service facilities and appurtenances,
including all extensions of such facilities and appurtenances. Title to all such facilities shall be
held by the Board.
Section 3. WARRANTY
The Board and Mendota Heights further agree that as Mendota Heights constructs and
contracts for the construction of new mains, services, and/or appurtenances to be connected to
the system and supplied with water by the Board, that the Board shall not be responsible for the
maintenance or repairs to such newly constructed additions to the water supply system until one
(1) year from the date the same have been placed in operation, or until the Board has notified
Mendota Heights in writing of the acceptance of such installation, whichever date is earlier. At
such time that the Board assumes responsibility for the maintenance and repair of said new water
system facilities, Mendota Heights will convey said facilities to the Board according to the
conditions of Article II, Sections 4 and 5.
Section 4. STANDARDS
Water mains, services, and appurtenances shall be in conformity with the established
standards, rules, and regulations as are in effect at the execution of this Agreement or as may
thereafter be established by the Board.
Mendota Heights and Board staff shall meet upon the request of either party to discuss
standards relating to water system construction. Where differences in standards are not resolved
at the staff level, the Board shall have the ultimate authority for determining such standards.
Section 5. SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATIONS
New applications for water service connections shall be made to and through the Board,
and each applicant shall furnish the Board a certified street address established by Mendota
Heights. No new service connection work shall be performed by Mendota Heights or its agent
until the Board's application process has been completed and inspection of the installation work
scheduled by the Board.
Section 6. SERVICE CONNECTIONS — INSTALLED BY BOARD
page 13
It is agreed that, except in those projects which may be mutually designated by the
parties, all service connections from the main to the property line shall be installed by Board
forces under rules identical with those in effect in the City of Saint Paul, or as may hereafter be
modified by the Board. The charges for such service connections shall be in accordance with
charges established from time to time by the Board.
Section 7. SERVICE CONNECTION GUARANTEE BY BOARD
The Board shall make all necessary repairs and maintenance to that part of the service
connection located within the public right-of-way, under rules identical with those in effect in the
City of Saint Paul. This requirement shall apply to all existing and future service connections
constructed to Board standards. Service connections from private mains or a system not served
by the Board's water supply shall not be so guaranteed.
Section 8. PIPING, FIXTURES, ETC.
Mendota Heights shall, by the enactment of suitable rules, regulations, or ordinances,
require that all piping, fixtures, accessories, or on premises piping in any manner connected to
the public water system supplied by the Board, shall be of the same materials, installed in the
same manner, and meet the same standards as are required for the same or similar work in the
City of Saint Paul.
Section 9. RIGHT TO INSPECT
The Board, through its officers, agents, and employees, shall have the right at all times to
examine, inspect, and test any materials or workmanship used, or to be used, in connection with
the water system within Mendota Heights and supplied with water by the Board, or connections
thereto, for the purpose of determining whether or not they comply with the foregoing
provisions. For the same purpose, the Board shall have the right to examine and inspect the
materials, workmanship, and method of installation of house plumbing connection to said water
system.
ARTICLE VI
Section 1. ANTENNAE
page 14
Mendota Heights shall transfer to the Board all ownership rights to Mendota Heights'
water service facilities, including easements and access rights for the transmission and reception
of radio communication signals in and on its water tower, located at 2431 Lexington Avenue
South ("Tank"). However, because Mendota Heights desires to retain control over the placement
of antennae on the Tank after such ownership has been transferred to the Board, the Board agrees
to enter into a site lease agreement with Mendota Heights, which grants back to Mendota Heights
the right and authority for placement of existing and future antennae on the Tanks ("Site Lease").
The parties shall execute said Site Lease, identified as Exhibit "E," attached hereto and
incorporated herein, as part of this Agreement. In said Site Lease, the parties agree that, prior to
approval by Mendota Heights of third -party sub -lease agreements for the placement of antennae
or any other facilities on the Tank, Mendota Heights shall first submit proposed plans and said
third -party sub -lease agreements to the Board for prior review and approval, which approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld.
The parties further agree in said Site Lease that, due to the increased administrative,
impact review, maintenance, liability, staff, and other costs associated with such placements,
Mendota Heights shall compensate the Board by paying to it fifty percent (50%) of the gross
revenues received from any and all such activities. The Board shall initially collect payment as
part of Article II, Section 1, Phase -In Schedule in the amounts shown in Exhibit "F". Pursuant to
said Site Lease, beginning December 26, 2020, Mendota Heights shall pay directly to the Board
fifty percent (50%) of said gross revenues within thirty (30) days of receipt of same.
Section 2. STORAGE IN TANK COLUMN/TANK GROUNDS ACCESS
Mendota Heights presently uses the column base of the Tank for storage. Mendota
Heights and the Board shall execute a separate agreement that shall establish a lease for one
dollar ($1.00) allowing Mendota Heights to continue storage of equipment in the column of the
Tank. Said lease shall identify the responsibilities and obligations of both Mendota Heights and
the Board concerning equipment storage.
As part of said lease, Mendota Heights will be responsible for maintenance of the
grounds including turf and roadway access to the tank within the easement conveyed to the
Board.
ARTICLE VII
Section 1. RIGHT-OF-WAY
page 15
All expenses or costs accruing to the water system in Mendota Heights, which result from
the maintenance, reconstruction, grinding, overlaying, or paving of public streets, alleys, or
rights-of-way resulting from the action of Mendota Heights, County of Dakota, or State of
Minnesota, shall be the responsibility of Mendota Heights.
Changes proposed by Mendota Heights, County of Dakota, or State of Minnesota to the
elevation of public streets, alleys, or rights-of-way where water system facilities are situated
shall be reviewed and approved in advance by the Board. The Board and Mendota Heights agree
that the Board's standards pertaining to elevation changes, grades, and earth cover over water
system facilities shall apply to all said elevation change proposals. Where elevation changes are
greater than the parameters outlined in the Board's standards, all expenses or costs accruing to
the water system in Mendota Heights shall be the responsibility of Mendota Heights.
Section 2. ACCESS TO INFRASTRUCTURE
Mendota Heights shall allow the Board uninterrupted access to all water mains, hydrants,
service connections, tanks, and appurtenances within the public streets, alleys, or rights-of-way
under the jurisdiction of the City of Mendota Heights.
Section 3. PUBLIC WATER MAIN EASEMENTS
Mendota Heights warrants that all public water mains and appurtenances outside public
street rights-of-way are situated within perpetual easements guaranteeing access rights for the
purpose of maintenance, repair, or replacement of such mains and appurtenances.
ARTICLE VIII
Section 1. BOARD TO FURNISH METERS
The Board shall furnish, install, retain title to, and maintain all water meters required by
the Board for its domestic and commercial water service accounts to properties located within
the City of Mendota Heights.
page 16
Section 2. BILLING AND COLLECTION
The Board shall have full responsibility for reading water meters and billing and
collection of accounts, pursuant to the rules, regulations, statutes, and policies of the Board.
Mendota Heights shall immediately adopt an ordinance giving the Board authority to
certify past due billed charges to Dakota County for collection with property taxes. Any unpaid
bills shall become a continuing lien on the property. Mendota Heights shall indemnify, defend,
and hold harmless the Board against any claim, action or lawsuit brought to dispute any such
certification or unpaid bill. Upon receipt by Mendota Heights or the Board of such claim, action,
or lawsuit, Mendota Heights shall reimburse the Board the full amount of the disputed
certification to the extent Mendota Heights has received those funds.
Section 3. OPTIONAL BILLING AND COLLECTION SERVICES
Mendota Heights may choose to have the Board perform additional billing services (for
example; sanitary sewer or storm water billing). If Mendota Heights makes this selection, the
parties shall execute a written addendum to this Agreement, which shall specify the
responsibilities of each party with regards to such additional billing services.
Section 4. WATER SURCHARGE
Mendota Heights has established a water surcharge equal to ten percent (10%) of the
charge imposed for water supplied to properties within the City of Mendota Heights ("Mendota
Heights Water Surcharge"). Mendota Heights will pay the Board a monthly payment equal to
two percent (2%) of the total monthly Mendota Heights Water Surcharge collections.
The Board will send a monthly payment to Mendota Heights equal to the amount of
collections received during the month (less the two percent (2%) for billing and collection) on or
before the 15th day of the following month.
Section 5. BILLING INSERTS
Mendota Heights may provide materials to be inserted with the water bills of customers
located within Mendota Heights, with the prior approval of the Board, at a reasonable charge to
page 17
Mendota Heights for the cost of such bill -stuffing process. Said material shall not cause the
mailing to exceed the postal weight limit.
ARTICLE IX
Section 1. SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SUPPLY
No supplemental supply of water shall be connected to the water system being served by
the Board without the prior written approval of the Board.
This Agreement shall not preclude Mendota Heights from obtaining a portion of its water
from any source approved by the Minnesota Department of Health in areas where water supply
from the Board is impractical or unworkable, or in case a central water supply system is
constructed and installed for a housing development prior to the extension of water mains
supplying the area with water provided by the Board. However, in no case shall there be direct
connections between the Board's supply system and other supply systems, and when the Board's
supply system is practical and workable, the other supply shall be discontinued and
disconnected, at no cost to the Board. Existing private wells are exempted from this
requirement, but no direct connection to the Board's supply shall be permitted.
ARTICLE X
Section 1. RULES AND REGULATIONS.
The use and distribution of water in Mendota Heights derived from the supply furnished
from the Board shall at all times be governed by rules, regulations, policies, and conditions
which the Board has heretofore adopted for the City of Saint Paul, or which it may hereafter
adopt concerning the preservation, regulation, and protection of its water supply, including water
waste, water conservation, sprinkling restrictions and water use for air conditioning equipment;
and as more fully detailed in the most recent version of "Title XI — Water Utility, Legislative
Code of the City of Saint Paul" and "Saint Paul Regional Water Services Standards for the
Installation of Water Mains".
Mendota Heights shall enact such rules, regulations, policies, and conditions into
ordinances, make them legally effective and binding, and shall provide the Board with copies
page 18
thereof. Within sixty (60) days after the effective date of this Agreement Mendota Heights shall
also enact any amendments thereto adopted by the Board within sixty (60) days after being
notified of such adoption, and shall adopt suitable penalties for the violation of rules, regulations,
policies, and conditions, and shall strictly enforce such rules, regulations, and requirements.
Section 2. BOARD'S JURISDICTION IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS
It is further agreed that the Board, through its officers, agents, and employees, shall have
the same authority and jurisdiction in the enforcement of such rules and regulations in Mendota
Heights that the Board has in the City of Saint Paul.
Section 3. MENDOTA HEIGHTS' PERMITTING AUTHORITY
Mendota Heights does issue permits to other governmental and private agencies for the
installation of natural gas, telephone, cable, and other facilities. Mendota Heights shall
cooperate with the Board to assure no location conflicts occur. Mendota Heights shall cooperate
to the fullest extent possible in protecting the water system by ensuring facility installation,
replacement or repair is permitted in strict accordance with the Board's standards and performing
the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
ARTICLE XI
Section 1. HYDRANTS
Hydrant use for purposes other than firefighting by Mendota Heights shall be subject to
the same rules and regulations applied by the Board in the City of Saint Paul. Mendota Heights
Fire Department requires hydrants with one (1) large and two (2) small nozzles, and the Board
shall maintain the water system with this type of hydrant.
Section 2. INSPECTION OF HYDRANTS
Board forces shall perform an annual inspection of all standard public hydrants in
Mendota Heights. Repair and maintenance work, except for painting, required on all standard
public hydrants in Mendota Heights shall be performed by Board forces in the same manner as
that same work is performed in the City of Saint Paul.
page 19
Section 3. PAINTING OF HYDRANTS
Mendota Heights shall paint all public hydrants in Mendota Heights, and shall do so in
accordance with the Board's established standards for such work. Mendota Heights shall notify
Board staff of its schedule to perform such painting prior to commencement. Mendota Heights
may designate a hydrant cap color code to distinguish dead end mains, circulating mains, and
other selected criteria.
Section 4. HYDRANT NOZZLE THREADS
The Board recognizes the Saint Paul Standard for hydrant nozzle threads as selected by
Mendota Heights for hydrants within the city of Mendota Heights. All new and replacement
hydrants shall include one Storz connection.
Section 5. RELOCATIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS
Where relocations or adjustments of hydrants are necessary due to public works projects,
or for other reasons, Board forces shall perform the required work and Mendota Heights shall
reimburse the Board for all costs and expense thereof.
Section 6. FIRE USE
In consideration for Mendota Heights' agreement to paint all standard and non-standard
hydrants, the Board shall not charge Mendota Heights for water used for municipal firefighting
and fire equipment testing.
Section 7. STREET CLEANING
Mendota Heights agrees to keep a record of all water used for street sprinkling, street
flushing, sewer maintenance, and/or any related uses and to pay for the same annually to the
Board.
Section 8. LOCATION MARKERS
Where it is necessary for the location of hydrants to be marked with flags, signage, etc.
for firefighting or other purposes, Mendota Heights shall pay for said markers and assume the
costs thereof, including installation, maintenance, and liability.
page 20
Section 9. SNOW REMOVAL
Any snow removal from and around fire hydrants for any purpose shall be performed by
Mendota Heights at its sole expense.
Section 10. HYDRANT SPACING
Mendota Heights has reviewed the hydrant spacing throughout the water system and has
determined that the current hydrant spacing is adequate. Hydrants with a spacing of greater than
700 feet are listed in Exhibit "G", attached hereto and incorporated herein. The cost of future
changes to hydrant spacing requested by Mendota Heights shall be borne in total by Mendota
Heights. When requested by the Board, the cost to provide hydrant spacing reduction shall be
borne in total by the Board.
ARTICLE XII
Section 1. AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS
Mendota Heights and the Board agree that from time to time changes to this Agreement
may be necessary. Mendota Heights and the Board agree that said changes shall be in the form
of written addendums to this Agreement and shall be valid only when duly approved by and
executed on behalf of the respective parties.
ARTICLE XIII
Section 1. NOTICES
In the event that Mendota Heights should deem that the Board has failed in its obligations
to supply an adequate water supply and normal maintenance of the facilities, or should find cause
that the Board is failing in its provision of services, Mendota Heights shall notify the Board in
writing, setting forth the specific details of any such claim of failure(s). Notices shall be sent by
certified mail to the parties at the following addresses:
Mendota Heights City Administrator
1101 Victoria Curve
page 21
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
General Manager
Board of Water Commissioners
1900 Rice Street
Saint Paul, MN 55113
Section 2. CORRECTIVE ACTION
Board shall undertake to correct the claimed failure(s) within sixty (60) days from the
date it receives said written notification. The Board shall notify Mendota Heights in writing
within the specified sixty (60) day period what necessary corrective actions have been taken, if
any, and any explanation if the Board disagrees with Mendota Heights' claim of failure(s).
Section 3. MEDIATION
Following the specified sixty (60) day period, if Mendota Heights deems that sufficient
corrective actions have not been taken, it may require that its claim of failure(s) be submitted to
mediation by a panel of three (3) persons. Mendota Heights and the Board may each appoint a
representative to the panel, and those two appointed representatives shall select the third
member. The panel shall provide a reasonable opportunity to both Mendota Heights and the
Board to express its opinions and facts regarding whether the Board is adequately and reasonably
performing its obligations under this Agreement. By agreeing to this provision, neither party
forfeits any rights it may have to fully pursue any claim to the fullest extent provided by law.
Section 4. OPTION TO TERMINATE; FIVE-YEAR NOTICE
The mediation panel shall submit its written findings, conclusions, and recommendations
to Mendota Heights and the Board within sixty (60) days after the parties' presentation of facts.
In the event the mediation panel should confirm Mendota Heights' claim of failure, Mendota
Heights may elect to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to that effect to the
Board. Notice of termination shall specify the effective date of termination, which in any event
shall not occur until at least five (5) years following the date of election to terminate.
Section 5. RECONVEYANCE; COMPENSATION
page 22
Upon the effective date of termination of this Agreement, Board will reconvey title to the
facilities previously conveyed by Mendota Heights pursuant to Article II, Sections 4 and 5 of this
Agreement for the sum of $1.00, and Mendota Heights will compensate the Board for
depreciated value of all water mains and other water service facilities, including water mains,
hydrants, and other appurtenances, constructed by the Board to serve the Mendota Heights
system from and after the date of the execution of this Agreement.
— The remainder of this page left intentionally blank —
Exhibit A
Deficient Mains
ON STREET LOCATION
BROMPTON PL SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY TO 220' S
APACHE ST 300' N OF CHEYENNE TO KEOKUK
APACHE ST KEOKUK TO PUEBLO
AZTEC LN 100' N OF CREEK TO HOKAH
AZTEC LN HOKAH TO CUL-DE-SAC
CHEYENNE LN 200' E OF PONTIAC PL TO APACHE ST
CREEK AVE AZTEC TO DODD
DECORAH LN PUEBLO TO PONTIAC
EASEMENT 629 FOX TO DODD
FOX PL CREEK TO AZTEC
HOKAH AVE AZTEC TO DODD
KEOKUK LN PUEBLO LN TO APACHE
KEOKUK LN W OF PUEBLO DR
KEOKUK LN APACHE TO PUEBLO DR
MOHICAN CT PUEBLO LN TO 450' S
MOHICAN LN PUEBLO LN TO PUEBLO DR
NAVAJO LN PONTIAC TO PUEBLO
OCALA LN PONTIAC TO 200' E
PONTIAC PL CHEYENNE TO APACHE ST
PUEBLO DR KEOKUK TO MOHICAN
PUEBLO DR S OF MOHICAN
PUEBLO LN DECORAH TO MOHICAN
PUEBLO LN S OF MOHICAN
DECORAH LN INTERSECTION OF APACHE ST
EASEMENT 649 AZTEC TO APACHE
EASEMENT 450 INTERMEDIATE EASEMENT
TOTAL LENGTH
LENGTH COST/FT
238 $ 150.00
1755 $ 150.00
770 $ 150.00
1140 $ 150.00
310 $ 150.00
1250 $ 150.00
750 $ 150.00
760 $ 150.00
325 $ 150.00
800 $ 150.00
325 $ 150.00
850 $ 150.00
100 $ 150.00
450 $ 150.00
450 $ 150.00
900 $ 150.00
650 $ 150.00
350 $ 150.00
1200 $ 150.00
275 $ 150.00
150 $ 150.00
1100 $ 150.00
150 $ 150.00
40 $ 150.00
600 $ 150.00
400 $ 150.00
16088
page 23
TOTAL COST
$ 35,700.00
$ 263,250.00
$ 115,500.00
$ 171,000.00
$ 46,500.00
$ 187,500.00
$ 112,500.00
$ 114,000.00
$ 48,750.00
$ 120,000.00
$ 48,750.00
$ 127,500.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 67,500.00
$ 67,500.00
$ 135,000.00
$ 97,500.00
$ 52,500.00
$ 180,000.00
$ 41,250.00
$ 22,500.00
$ 165,000.00
$ 22,500.00
$ 6,000.00
$ 90,000.00
$ 60,000.00
$ 2,413,200.00
page 24
Exhibit B
Excessive Depth
ON STREET LOCATION LENGTH COST
EASEMENT 568 EASEMENT 568-3 TO EAGLE RIDGE 580 $ 7280.00
DELAWARE AVE DODGE TO HUBER 2250 $ 93,275.00
TOTAL LENGTH 2335 $ 100,555.00
page 25
Exhibit C
Non -conforming Easements
1. North of Diane Rd from Wachtler Rd to Victoria Rd
East/west section through trees and brush, with a creek and difficult slopes
$97,500.00
2. Between Deer Trail Ct and Deer Trail Pt cul-de-sacs
Through private property of 825 Deer Trail PT., with trees and difficult access
$25,000.00
3. Eagle Ridge Townhomes
Through private yards and driveways, difficult access between buildings and retaining walls
$104,400.00
4. Southerly portion of 1500 Commerce Dr
Under storm water pond
$41,600.00
5. Between Field Stone Ct and Pond Circle cul-de-sacs
Through private yards and driveways with difficult access to middle section
$14,150.00
6. North of Highway 110 between Crown Point Dr and Wachtler Ave
Through a wetland
$369,000.00
7. North from Glenhill Rd cul-de-sac to 1889 Hunter Ln
Through private properties with large trees and landscaping
$49,500.00
TOTAL $701,150.00
page 26
Exhibit D
Services with a history of freezing
ADDRESS COST COUNT YEAR
1016 WINDWOOD CT $2,500.00 1 2014
1046 LONDON RD $2,500.00 2 2014
1070 CHIPPEWA AVE $2,500.00 1 1977
1105 DODD RD $2,500.00 2 2014
1415 DODD RD $2,500.00 1 1977
1483 DODD RD $2,500.00 1 2014
1516 VANDALL ST $2,500.00 1 1991
1665 S LEXINGTON AVE $2,500.00 1 1994
1818 FARO LN $2,500.00 1 1977
1818 TWIN CIRCLE DR $2,500.00 1 2014
1821 TWIN CIRCLE DR $2,500.00 2 1979
2330 APACHE ST $2,500.00 1 2014
2330 ROGERS AVE $2,500.00 3 1978
2331 APACHE ST $2,500.00 1 2014
2350 PUEBLO DR $2,500.00 1 2014
552 MIRIAM ST $2,500.00 2 1979
596 MAPLE PARK DR $2,500.00 1 2014
6 BEEBE AVE $2,500.00 3 2014
601 W EMERSON AVE $2,500.00 1 2014
614 W BUTLER AVE $2,500.00 2 1979
654 1ST AVE $2,500.00 1 1977
668 1ST AVE $2,500.00 1 2014
678 3RD AVE $2,500.00 1 1977
685 CALLAHAN PL $2,500.00 1 1971
720 W WENTWORTH AVE $2,500.00 1 2014
731 KEOKUK LN $2,500.00 1 2014
743 KEOKUK LN $2,500.00 1 2014
TOTAL $80,000.00
page 27
Exhibit E
Site Lease
Exhibit F
Antennae Revenue
$346,110.67
page 28
LOCATION
HWY 13 / EUGENIA
HIAWATHA / GARDEN
SIMARO
KIRCHNER / BUTLER
CHIPPEWA / JOHN
JUNCTION LN
CHIPPEWA / JOHN
DELAWARE / DODD
SYLVANDALE / ARCADE
SYLVANDALE / ARCADIA
BEEBE
SOMERSET / EMERSON
FIRST / CLEMENT
EMERSON / DODD
WENTWORTH / DODD
BACHELOR / DODD
DODD / EVERGREEN
JAMES RD
LILAC
HIGHVIEW CIR/VICTORIA
MARIA / CALLAHAN
MARIE AVE / WARRIOR DR
MARIE AVE / WARRIOR DR
LEXINGTON/ORCHARD PL
WILLOW LN/VALLEY CURVE
GLENHILL /VICTORIA CURVE
VAIL DR
KAY / WALSH
VICTORIA RD
FRONTAGE RD
OAK ST / MARKET ST
WARRIOR / SIBLEY CT
LEXINGTON/CENTRE POINTE CURVE
PILOT KNOB / ACACIA
CREEK / DODD
DEL CT
LEXINGTON / WAGON
DODD RD
PONTIAC / NAVAJO
LEXINGTON
LAKE DR
APACHE / PUEBLO
Exhibit G
Hydrant Spacing
LOCATION
HWY 13 / GARDEN
CHIPPEWA/ HIAWATHA
CHIPPEWA/ MIRIAM
ESTHER LN / BUTLER
ESTHER LN / BUTLER
CHIPPEWA/JUNCTION
CHIPPEWA/ DODD
CHIPPEWA / DODD
SYLVANDALE
CASCADE LN / ARCADIA
CHIPPEWA/ DODD
HINGHAM / EMERSON
CLEMENT / THIRD
FIRST / DODD
FOURTH / DODD
DODD / EVERGREEN
WENTWORTH / DODD
JAMES RD / DOUGLAS
VICKI LN
DOUGLAS / VICTORIA
MARIE
MARIE AVE / NATURE WAY
MARIE AVE WEST OF WARRIOR
LEXINGTON/ORCHARD HILL
VALLEY CURVE /WACHTLER
HUNTER /VICTORIA CURVE
LEXINGTON / VICTORIA
VICTORIA / SUMMIT
LEXINGTON / VICTORIA
SOUTH FREEWAY/FRONTAGE
MENDOTA RD W / SOUTH LN
FRONTAGE RD
TOM THUMB / LEXINGTON
PILOT KNOB / ACACIA
AZTEC / CREEK
DELAWARE / DEL CT
LEXINGTON
WAGON WHEEL/ DODD
APACHE / DECORAH
LEXINGTON
SWAN / LAKE DR
APACHE / KEOKUK
SPACING
700'
750'
800'
750'
800'
800'
900'
1000'
730'
740'
800'
950'
750'
800'
850'
750'
750'
700'
800'
750'
730'
740'
720'
730'
900'
800'
750'
750'
1000'
1000'
700'
800'
740'
800'
800'
800'
800'
800'
900'
850'
730'
800'
page 29
page 30
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone r 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
L1CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DATE: May 12th, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Sump Pump Discharge to the Sanitary Sewer System
BACKGROUND
At the February 3, 2015 workshop, Council discussed sump pumps, their impact on sanitary
sewer flow, and the potential for a City-wide program/protocol to ensure code compliance.
Council directed staff to conduct an information campaign about sump pumps, types of illegal
connections, and how they should be properly discharged to avoid contributions to the sanitary
sewer flow. Attached is the staff memo from the February 3, 2015 workshop.
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%. The City also narrowly avoided a $99,600 per year penalty
surcharge 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.
After discussing the issue at the February 3, 2015 workshop, Council directed staff to begin in
informational campaign about sump pumps and their influence on the sanitary sewer system if
improperly connected. This campaign began with the April 2015 edition of the Heights
Highlights. The cover story in that issue was about the sump pump issue. Feedback on the
article thus far has been positive, and residents who have contacted City staff with questions
were appreciative of the information.
In addition to running similar articles in future editions of the Heights Highlights, staff is
developing a flyer for the Building Official to hand out to residents as he completes his building
permit inspections around the city. Staff is also considering a story in the Southwest Review,
and utilizing our social media sites to further spread this information. The information campaign
is planned to continue throughout 2015, with a City-wide inspection program potentially
implemented in 2016. Scope of this program can be discussed at a later date.
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.
page 31
BUDGET IMPACT
UI contributions to the sanitary sewer system have a direct impact on the amount charged to the City
by MCES. Consequently, UI 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. This information campaign is not anticipated to incur significant expense.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council hear the update from staff and provide any additional guidance deemed
necessary.
page 32
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone r 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
nLii
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
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 (I/I). 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 33
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 34
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone r 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
nLii
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DATE: May 5, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Advancement of Mendota Road in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
BACKGROUND
The current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies two projects for the 2016 construction
season. These projects are the rehabilitation of the Warrior Drive neighborhood (consisting of
Warrior Drive, High Ridge Circle, and Sibley Court) and Mendota Heights Road from Visitation
Drive to Lexington Avenue (excludes the I -35E Bridge). The CIP identifies Mendota Road
(Highway 110 frontage road) for reconstruction in 2017. Construction impacts dictate that the
Warrior Drive subdivision project be completed before or with Mendota Road due to the
subdivision having only one way in or out, accessing Mendota Road. If the CIP remains as is,
the Warrior Drive subdivision and surrounding neighborhood will be inconvenienced by
construction for two consecutive years. If Mendota Road is advanced the construction impact
felt by these residents would be limited to one year.
BUDGET IMPACT
The current 2016 CIP (Warrior Drive Neighborhood & Mendota Heights Road) is estimated to
need 4503,000 is City obligated bond sales. The payment on these bonds would result in a
—0.56% increase to the general levy for new debt. If Mendota Road were advanced, and
Mendota Height Road delayed, the revised 2016 CIP would be estimated to need 4694,000 in
City obligated bond sales; resulting in a —0.77% increase to the general levy for new debt. If all
three projects were to remain in the 2016 CIP, the City obligated bond sales is estimated at
$1,015,000; generating a —$1.13% increase to the general levy due to new debt.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends Council approve the one-year advancement of Mendota Road in the CIP for
construction in 2016.
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Trash Hauler Zones
Date: May 12, 2015
Introduction:
page 35
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.4521850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
Comment:
Following discussion at the February 3rd workshop meeting, the City Council expressed interest
in receiving more information regarding what it would take to go from the City's current "open"
system for residential garbage and recycling pickup, to one with designated zones.
Background:
This memo will discuss two alternatives; the method of collection, and the potential of going to
a single coordinated day of collection either City-wide, or in areas of the community:
Method of Collection
Trash and recycling collections have traditionally been provided by one of three methods:
• Open, or non -organized system. This is the most common throughout most of the Twin
Cities suburban areas, and is what Mendota Heights has done.
• Closed, or organized system, where a single hauler is designated to collect City-wide,
and trash and refuse are collected by either one private firm, or by municipal workers.
• Consortium, where the city is divided into routes, which are served by two or more
haulers.
Each of the above systems has its advantages and disadvantages. The major advantage of the
current system of the City of Mendota Heights is that there is competition between the haulers,
as people are free to choose the provider that best meets their needs and preferences. On the
page 36
other hand, large garbage trucks cause much wear and tear on streets, and the open system
means that 18 or more trucks are driving in Mendota Heights' residential neighborhoods (with
even more during yard -waste season), where a closed or consortium system would reduce that
to two or three. The open system also means that, invariably, haulers' trucks and garbage carts
are in neighborhoods each day of the work week.
Through its efficiencies, rates charged by a closed or consortium system are often less, at least
in theory.
However, moving from an open system to either of the other two has been challenging in the
past. In an effort to facilitate study and discussion, in 2013 the Minnesota Legislature passed a
law (MSA 115A.94) which streamlines the process for a more collaborative discussion of one of
the organized systems.
The law provides that all of the currently licensed residential haulers meet with representatives
of the City during an exclusive 60 day negotiation period, for the purpose of discussing a sharing
of the market. The intent is that each hauler would maintain its existing market share as a
percent of the total residences in the community—however, they would be more closely
grouped in a single neighborhood or section of town, compared with being potentially
scattered throughout the community. Contracts typically last between 3 and 7 years. The City
would be able to identify priorities for the services rendered. Finally, a Public Hearing is
required to be held prior to the adoption of the contract.
Analysis:
Staff met with the City of St. Anthony Village, which on April 1, 2015 went through the
changeover from an open system, to a consortium system. The City reported that the change
went relatively well. It noted that the major surprise of the chance was the number of
"unserved" homes which were discovered—the City found that many residents either shared
garbage services with a neighbor, took trash to their place of employment, or may have been
disposing of it improperly. Minnesota law requires each home to have curbside recycling
options for each Twin Cities metropolitan -area single family home.
Mendota Heights and St. Anthony Village are relatively similar in size; the biggest difference
between the two communities is that St. Anthony Village has three haulers, whereas Mendota
Heights has nine licensed haulers—and there may be others operating which are not licensed
by the City. That would mean continued small shares of the market for the smaller haulers, and
there would be no opportunity for them to grow. That might reduce interest from the smaller
haulers' viewpoints; other established haulers might like it because they would no longer have
to spend money on advertising.
Staff also has copies of a consortium contract for the City of Forest Lake, should any of the City
Council wish to examine it.
page 37
It is important to note that the majority of homeowners would likely need to switch haulers,
depending on how the City is divided into zones.
Coordination of Collection Day
A less impactful alternative to provide some order to the garbage and recycling collection
process would be to have the City mandate a single collection day in the City (or portion of the
City). For example, the City could say that in order for haulers to be licensed in Mendota
Heights, garbage and recycling pickup could only be done on Monday or a Thursday.
This system would address only the perceived esthetics issue of having garbage and recycling
carts out in neighborhoods on every workday. The disadvantage of a single mandated day is
that most haulers have established routes which cut across boundaries with neighboring
communities. If the City of Mendota Heights were to mandate collection on a single day, it will
likely create problems for some of the haulers, which may impact prices. It also doesn't reduce
the number of trucks on the streets; instead, it just concentrates them all to be driving on a
single day.
Action Required:
Council should discuss, and give direction as to whether it wants more information as to
whether it would like to pursue trash hauler zones.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 38
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: May 12, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sloan Wallgren, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Future Dog Park
BACKGROUND
At the February Workshop council directed staff to come up with cost estimates for building a dog park
at the Sibley Memorial Highway site, talk with the Minnesota DNR about a partnership/land exchange,
and approach the City of St. Paul about a partnership at the future dog park that they will be building at
Lilydale Regional Park.
A partnership/land exchange with the Minnesota DNR does not appear possible. The City of St. Paul was
very open to the idea of working together on building a dog park, but would like to talk later this summer
after they know how much progress will have been made at the park this year. Staff has attached an
estimate of what it would cost to install a foot tall chainlink fencing, benches, trash/recycling and
signage at the Pilot Knob South Site and the Sibley Memorial Highway Site. Staff has also included the
cost for installing a Class 5 gravel parking lot at the Sibley Memorial Highway Site.
1. Pilot Knob South
2. Sibley Memorial Highway
3. Lilydale Regional Park Site
Staff has attached a map of the locations of the sites, as well an aerial photo of each site in Mendota
Heights.
Staff is seeking direction from council if they desire to move forward.
page 39
Costs for the Dog Park
Pilot Knob South Site
Fencing=$24,000
3 acres
Signage=$3,000
Benches, Trash & Recycling=$3,000
Total=$30,000
Sibley Memorial Highway Site
Fencing=$15,000
1 acre
Parking Lot= $15,000
Signage=$3,000
Benches, Trash & Recycling=$3,000
Clearing of area=$5,000
Total=$41,000
Lilydale Regional Park Site
Estimated that the total costs will be between $300,000
8 acres
and $400,000
iai •oso•oa.
Iran YY ISIM
N
r
o_ (IT
�cTcD
(D3
cc:). o
o
-
SD 9-
n)
pno •ou)I T•Iid
PI
0) 0 0
CD 0)
v o,
0
0
(13
r
rn
rn
z
v
I'_ rIIm malt . At■1llkii►i1 I..M -6-II 1 BIM'
ift:41::::.,
Wile I
i a gm Ma Irani BIIIIIR mo
:=.IIp%I.S a11r
ce.... Pr 59_...ri
..in --'
PfZE
ril
I. •
P
aqe 40
•xwdo s aonng • eAsaki Je. •og see -• sdeA ea!, soil sea -,• uoi}eaaoe_ sue ae.: : }e. Tuewnoou
0
-n-n1
r
rn
cn0
0
rn
0
0
cnz
N
O
L.�
Q
0
r+
Piot Knob South
Total Site Area: 3.5 Acres
Date: 5/12/2015
0
130
SCALE IN FEET
Kaye 4 I
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.
Sibley Memorial Highway
Total Site Area: 1 Acre
Date: 5/12/2015
0
80
SCALE IN FEET
Ndye 42
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.
au
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 43
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone d 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: May 12, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: City -owned Properties at the Village at Mendota Heights
BACKGROUND
Following discussion regarding several vacant city -owned properties at the February Council workshop,
staff was directed to bring forward options to actively market the Village properties for development.
According to the approved PUD, the parcels are planned as "Row Homes" and were most likely to be
constructed in a similar fashion to the existing residential buildings along Oak Street. The city -owned
parcels shown on the attached map include:
Parcel ID
Size (acres)
Estimated Value
27-48335-03-020
0.79
$183,500.00
27-48335-03-010
0.48
$178,300.00
27-48335-02-010
0.45
$314,700.00
TOTAL
1.72
$676,500.00
Source: Dakota County Assessor (2014)
Staff met with Ross Fefercorn to get an update on his efforts and thoughts on an overall vision to complete
the development. Mr. Fefercorn indicated an interest in pursuing a high-end medical office use (Class A)
for the properties. In regards to residential use on the properties, he felt condominiums would be a better
fit than townhomes, but that would also likely require vacation of Maple Street to ensure a large enough
footprint.
The vacation of Maple Street in order to increase the developable area and make the properties more
marketable to developers would require relocation of utilities and preservation of driveway access to the
veterinary clinic, and any new development on the city land from Dodd Road. According to the Engineering
Department, this would also require removing the road bed and storm sewer and relocating the water main
and sanitary sewer main. The water main would be relatively straight forward, but the sanitary sewer is the
principal outflow for the entire Village Development. In addition to the relatively large flow (-36 GPM
average), the sanitary sewer main is at the low point of the development, and relocation would like require
the installation of a lift station, or re-routing the sanitary sewer for a majority of The Village
development. Based on a rough estimate, ROW vacation and utility relocation would likely exceed
$500,000.
Staff also met recently with a residential home developer who is interested in building 3 -story, stand-alone
townhouse units on all three city -owned properties. The density would be similar to the PUD Plan and
would utilize above -ground parking. According to the developer, the market is lacking this type of housing
option in desirable suburban locations. The synergy of the Village development is attractive for additional
residential uses.
The idea of a sit-down, stand-alone restaurant in the City has also been discussed. A preliminary analysis
of comparable building sites with a restaurant and off-street parking indicates that there may be enough
page 44
square -footage to accommodate the use on the two easterly vacant properties, but it would depend on the
type of restaurant. Additional parking is also available in the surrounding surface lots and parking ramps.
If the Council would like to further explore this vision, staff can gather more information for continued
discussion.
Based on these initial discussions, potential development options could include:
Use
Pros
Cons
Office
•
Surrounding retail/office uses
•
Limited market for new, multi -tenant
•
•
Access/visibility from Dodd Road
developer to analyze the city's
vision and propose various
office buildings
specific
developers
•
Access to existing parking structures
•
Buildings constructed for a specific
user can be difficult to re -use if
vacated in the future
•
Less formal
process
•
May require vacation of Maple St.
Restaurant
•
Access/visibility from Dodd Road
•
Limited visibility from Highway 110
Proposals (RFP)
•
Increased notoriety for the entire
•
High failure -rate
numerous
responses — some
development
•
Distance from overflow parking
•
Surrounding retail/office uses
•
Potential negative impact on existing
Access to a
•
Available overflow parking
restaurants
Townhouses
•
Fits approved PUD Plan
•
"Safe" option (housing will most
•
Additional density
likely always be an option)
•
Market appetite
•
Multi-level living spaces may be
unattractive to some buyers
Condominiums
•
Additional density
•
Small footprint
•
Success of existing condos
•
Requires underground parking
Mixed Use
•
Consistent w/ existing development
•
Financing is difficult to secure
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 conveyed to interested developers. If
the Council isn't in favor of a certain development scenario, then other options can be explored to arrive at
the vision. The following options can be considered for marketing the properties:
Option
Description
Pros
Cons
Letter of Interest
Establish partnership with a
•
Ability to target
•
Limits the scope
(LOI)
developer to analyze the city's
vision and propose various
specific
developers
of the discussion
to the established
development scenarios based on
the current market conditions
•
Less formal
process
vision
Request for
Solicit potential developers to
•
Can include a
•
Can include
Proposals (RFP)
propose various development
scenarios based on their vision for
range of
projects/visions
numerous
responses — some
the properties
•
More formal
process
of which may not
viable
Broker Contract
Contract directly with a real estate
•
Access to a
•
Potential cost
broker to list and market the
property in accordance with the
development vision
•
network of
developers
interested in the
property
Active marketing
of the property
for sale
•
Lack of
competitive
process to select
potential
developer
BUDGET IMPACT
page 45
The budget impacts are dependent on Council direction on this issue. A LOI or RFP can be administered
by staff. The potential cost to contract with a broker is unknown at this time and is likely dependent on
how a formal contract is written. The sale of the lots could be used to invest in infrastructure improvements
to support the development vision.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends discussion on the vision for the development of city -owned properties in the Village at
Mendota Heights and direction on a marketing plan.
Village at Mendota Heights
Vacant City -Owned Properties
1.72 Acres - Zoned MU -PUD
Date: 4/21/2015
0
160
SCALE IN FEET
Kaye 46
City of
1111In Mendota
Heights
1= +t• ,
96
HILLTOP RD
11
FREEW
0.48 Acres
-`1941,erisi
A / \1f1
Irk,4*
Mgh/rcT N-
%'/c,'C
r / �
•
..) 1-
,.
/, i
'
' '
.�
��•a rte,, 4 . - FR AY RD S
\. \w /
.L...wit 1
1960 . .###/#„rAeremtr es
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.
3/31/2015
;--- —7 — .
vi 1 1 age-at-mendota- heights-sitemaPjpg (1300x 965)
• <7\ _
Ce,
RS/ .
No*
--4,1 C-•,., -,. t - .., i - - ..
- — — —
2
----
--r '0'. s ' 621 :II -..-',t.1.4-7.:1T-
1 ' '
___ ---
httplAvvvw.villagem h.com/i m ag es/vi II ag e -at- m endota- heights-si tem ap.jpg
—
. -
page 47
111
page 48
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE:
TO:
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
May 12, 2015
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
Infill Residential Development
The Council discussed several issues surrounding infill development and teardowns at the February
workshop. Staff was directed to bring forward potential code amendments for additional discussion.
Mendota Heights is nearly fully -developed and remains an attractive place to live. As a result, lot splits
and teardowns will continue to be prevalent in areas containing large lots and aging housing stock. While
the subdivision process and the construction impacts are separate issues, they often combine to create
multiple issues within certain neighborhoods in the City.
The City adopted a moratorium on residential subdivisions and conducted an Infill Study in 2006. The
study identified land that could potentially be split and developed at greater densities from the existing
condition. It also included recommended code and comprehensive plan amendments for consideration to
address the potential issues this type of development may cause. Several options were considered, including
increased lot size, separate zoning district regulations, and requiring neighborhood lot sizes to have an
impact on subsequent subdivisions. No changes to the existing R-1 Zoning District standards were adopted.
Infill Development
Infill development can be described as the conversion of large -lot residential properties into a more densely -
platted subdivision pattern. Recently, lot splits creating just one additional parcel have been the most
common type of subdivision. The Bunker Hills, Somerset, and Avenues neighborhoods have been impacted
most by this recent trend since they contain larger lots and older housing stock. In addition, there are several
properties throughout the City with significant acreage that may subdivide into multiple lots in the future.
The R-1 Zoning District is predominate among residential land uses in the City. Barring unusual site
conditions, a lot zoned R-1 with more than 30,000 square feet and 200 feet of frontage on a developed right-
of-way can be split into two conforming lots. Surrounding property owners have voiced concerns about
how these subdivisions relate to consistency and character of the existing neighborhood. However, it's
difficult to deny a subdivision request that complies with the applicable zoning regulations. In addition,
discussion on the design and location of a new dwelling is most often not relevant to the subdivision request.
This situation has left the City facing approval of subdivision requests that raise issues of neighborhood
compatibly and opposition. As a result, balancing concerns regarding change and reinvestment in the
housing stock is challenging.
New single-family dwellings are required to comply with the size, setback, and height requirements. As a
result, the scale of development is controlled by the lot size. Regulations regarding the physical
page 49
characteristics of new housing in relation to the surrounding neighborhood may be a potential source of
conflict. While some residents may prefer increased regulations on the scale and height of new homes or
additions, architects and builders want to maintain flexibility to design what their client desires in
compliance with the Code.
The current R-1 Zoning District standards are as follows:
R-1 Zoning District Standards
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 square feet
Lot Width*
100 feet
Front Yard**
30 feet
Side Yard
10' on each side or 1/2 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
*Measured at the 30 foot setback line
**Can vary dependent on the setback of the abutting dwellings
As discussed at the February workshop, several metro cities have undergone extensive discussion regarding
potential code amendments to address new residential construction design. It is important to note that most
of these cities have much smaller minimum lot size requirements for the densest single-family residential
zoning districts, ranging from 6,000-10,000 square feet in some cases. Therefore, the issues regarding
building height, scale/massing, and lot coverage may be more objectionable than in the neighborhoods that
are experiencing lot split/teardown issues in Mendota Heights. However, while it hasn't happened yet, the
North End and Friendly Hills neighborhoods have numerous nonconforming lots and may be susceptible
to teardowns in the future.
The following is a summary of potential amendments to further regulate new residential construction design
and may require additional analysis of existing conditions in order to determine the impact.
Lot Size/Area
The 2006 Infill Study recommended amendments for the R-1 District. The proposed language was an
attempt to quantify the character of the neighborhood in terms of lot sizes. According to the minutes from
4/4/2006, the proposed amendment was discussed at a workshop and determined it was too complicated
and directed staff to review the sizes of lots for past subdivisions in an effort to establish a finite lot size.
The Council conducted a public hearing and continued to discuss the implications of increasing the
minimum lot size, however no action was taken to amend the Code.
Although not as thorough of a historical analysis as in the 2006 study, the following lot splits for purposes
of single-family residential construction have been approved since 2013:
Parent Parcel Address
Average Lot Size (SF)
688 First Avenue
16,189
1134 Dodd Road
19,960
1010 Sibley Memorial Highway
109,771
Oak Street (unaddressed)
21,114
677 4th Avenue
25,911
641 Callahan Place
21,700
747 Willow Lane
26,218
page 50
If the Council desires to revisit the R-1 District's minimum lot size standard, further analysis could be
undertaken to determine an appropriate size and potential impact to subdividable properties in the future.
In addition, a comprehensive plan amendment may also be required in order to revise the density standards.
Lot Coverage
Maximum lot coverage is regulated in several communities to limit the footprint of residential structures.
Footprint refers to the structure's site coverage and is related to mass. The standards are meant to reduce
the structure's visual impact in relation to surrounding properties, but can also be utilized to limit
impervious surface coverage to address potential stormwater runoff impacts.
According to the attached survey compiled by the City of Edina in 2008, few suburban communities had
such standards. For those that did, maximum coverage standards ranged from 20-35% on lots over 10,000
square feet. Based on the current R-1 District minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet and a potential
maximum structure footprint of 20%, the maximum lot coverage could be up to 3,000 square feet. Since
the majority of recently -split lots exceeded the existing R-1 minimum lot size standard, a maximum lot
coverage standard is most likely not going to address concerns related to the character of the neighborhood
and the massing of new homes.
Based on the existing Code, business and industrial districts have maximum lot coverage standards ranging
from 25-50% and are in place to limit stormwater runoff, encourage additional landscaping and open space,
and for aesthetic and drainage purposes.
Floor Area Ratio
An alternative method of regulating footprint is Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which is defined in the Code as:
FLOOR AREA RATIO: The numerical value obtained through dividing the floor area
of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located.
Based on the existing Code, business and industrial districts have FAR standards ranging from 0.5-1.0. For
example, a FAR of 0.5 on a 15,000 square -foot lot is 7,500 square feet. FAR includes the entire square
footage of the structure, not just the footprint, which can be a more effective way to address massing. The
City of Minneapolis has FAR standards for residential zones, but none of the other communities in the
survey have such regulations. Establishing FAR standards may be difficult due to the varying lot sizes
within the R-1 District. Also, accommodating additions and accessory buildings would need to be
considered.
Building Height
Many of the complaints staff receives regarding new residential construction are in regards to the overall
height. Most of the complaints concern 2 -story homes constructed next to or near 1/1'/2 -story homes and
the impact they have on the character of the neighborhood. Building height also contributes to massing and
is currently defined in the Code as:
BUILDING HEIGHT: The vertical distance from the average grade of the front building
line, as established in the approved grading plan for the lot, to the top of the cornice of a
flat roof to a point of the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof to the uppermost
point on a round or other arch type roof to the average distance of the highest gable on a
pitched or hip roof
Based on the definition, prevalence of pitched/hip roofs and varying front building line elevations on new
homes, the ridge line can be well -above 25 feet high. Several communities define building height to the
highest point of the roof, which is meant to establish a maximum horizontal plane that cannot be exceeded.
page 51
The building height can vary depending on the roof pitch and a maximum height standard measured to the
highest point can encourage shallow pitches. As included in the attached proposed code amendment, the
existing definition could be revised to also include a maximum height.
Of those cities surveyed that regulated building height to the highest point, the maximum height ranged
from 35-40 feet. Based on the same 2008 survey, the existing R-1 District's 25 -foot maximum building
height standard was the lowest among similar residential districts that defined building height to the
midpoint of the highest gable. Some cities have considered allowing for taller structures based on the lot
width; the wider the lot, the taller the structure.
Another method to regulate building height for consideration could include limiting the height based on
surrounding structures. While it may address residents' concerns about a new 2 -story home towering over
an older 1 -story home next door, it raises equality issues and may inhibit housing stock turnover and creative
design. In addition, administration of such a standard would be time-consuming for staff and applicants.
Sidewall Height
A building sidewall is the exterior wall that is parallel to the side lot line. A building's sidewall height is
measured from the ground to the bottom of the eave and directly impacts the abutting property owners'
view of the structure. Several communities have explored potential standards to the limit sidewall heights,
mostly on narrow lots where structures will be constructed right up to the side yard setbacks. In an effort
to mitigate the visual impacts and encourage creative design, some communities have proposed required
sidewall articulation on building faces that exceed a certain linear distance. For example, the City of St.
Paul is considering the following code amendments:
Within twelve (12) feet of side lot line, building sidewall height shall be limited to
Twenty-two (22) feet. For structures with flat or shed roofs, the vertical height of
parapet walls is included in this definition.
Sidewall articulation is required for building faces that exceed thirty-five feet (35)
feet in length. Articulation shall be in the form of a structural projection of at least
one (1) foot in depth and six (6) feet in length, and must extend from grade to the eave.
First Floor Elevation
Specific to teardowns, another way to ensure new homes are not intentionally constructed to tower over
neighboring homes is to limit the height of the new first floor elevation. Attached is a proposed code
amendment for review and discussion on this issue.
Setback Encroachments
The existing Code allows for front porch expansions into the required front yard setback, in compliance
with several conditons, by conditional use permit. In addition, the following encroachments are permitted
in the side and rear yard:
Side or rear yards only: Bays or building extensions are not to exceed a depth of two
feet (2) nor to contain an area of more than twenty (20) square feet and walls are not
to exceed a height of six feet (6) above grade, and off street parking...
If this language was removed, these building design features would not be allowed to encroach and could
reduce the visual impact of a new home between properties. This standard could apply to all new single-
family residential construction, but should exempt repair/replacement of existing encroachments.
page 52
Style
Several communities with older housing that have a unique style and historical value have explored ways
to maintain the character of neighborhoods as the housing stock turns over. Exterior materials and
architectural features are design attributes that could be regulated, but would require a design review process
and increased administration. In the absence of a historical overlay district or a distinct housing style
evidently worth preserving, it may be difficult to implement such regulations in Mendota Heights.
Summary Matrix
The following issues regarding infill development/teardowns may be addressed by further analyzing the
following standards:
Issue
Potential Standard(s)
•
Min. lot size as a percentage of the size of lots w/in a certain distance
Lot Size/Area
•
Increased R-1 District minimum lot size
Lot Coverage
•
Max. lot and/or impervious surface coverage percentage
Floor Area Ratio
•
Max. FAR depending on lot size
•
Max. height measured to the highest roof point
Building Height
•
Max. height based on abutting dwellings
•
Max. sidewall height based on distance from required SY setback
Sidewall Height
•
Articulation required based on linear measurements
First Floor Elevation
•
Max. FFE based on pre-existing FFE
Setback Encroachments
•
Remove allowed encroachments into side yard for new homes
Style
•
•
Exterior materials standards
Overlay zoning district w/ design standards
•
Increased standards and enforcement
Construction Activity
•
Increased demolition permit fee to fund increased inspections
Construction Impacts
In most recent cases, lot splits have included demolition of the existing structures on the parent parcel and
the inevitable construction of two new single-family dwellings on the newly -created lots. Demolition is
often required in order to eliminate setback non -conformities with the existing structures as a result of the
proposed lot split. In addition, the age and condition of the existing structures and desires of new
homeowners also influence whether they are demolished or not. Most new homebuilders want 3 -car
garages, mudrooms, and open floor plans. Unfortunately, most of the homes recently demolished don't
meet those needs, or would require significant renovations if retained by a new owner.
Many of the complaints staff receives regarding the new homes are related to the nuisances surrounding the
construction activity, including noise, traffic, debris, and parking. Attached is a proposed code amendment
for review and discussion on this issue.
City of Edina Discussion
Staff met with representatives with the City of Edina to discuss the teardown issues their community is
experiencing and how they've attempted to address the concerns. In 2014, the City processed 134
demolition petiitits.
The City has studied the issue over the last 10 years and adopted and amended several ordinances over that
time. The main issues they've attempted to address are character, drainage, and construction. In order to
support the increased administrative duties that were created by the additional regulations, they increased
the demolition fee and used the revenue to hire a redevelopment coordinator. The position coordinates the
page 53
review of new building permit applications amongst the planning, engineering, and building departments
and is responsible for handling public inquiries and complaints.
While the scale of the issue in Edina is much greater than in Mendota Heights, we gained valuable lessons -
learned and got context behind their regulatory framework. As the City explores regulatory options to
address teardowns and infill development, they can continue to be a source of information on the subject.
BUDGET IMPACT
Depending on the result of any proposed code amendments, increased staff -time may be required to review
and issue subsequent building permits and enforce new regulations. Increased fees for demolition permits
could be utilized to support additional site inspections during construction by the Engineering Department.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting the City Council discuss infill development and teardowns and determine what issues
the City is attempting to address. Based on previous discussions, staff has prepared a DRAFT ordinance
amendment addressing several issues. The Council can direct staff to conduct additional analysis and bring
forward proposed code amendments for the Planning Commission to review and recommend action.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 478
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLES B AND E OF THE
CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY,
CONCERNING DEFINITIONS AND MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Title 12-1E-1(A)(2) is hereby amended as follows:
Dimensions: The shortest dimension of any sSingle-family dwellings shall be no less than twenty two feet
(22') in width, exclusive of porches and other projectionsappurtenances. The maximum length longest
dimension shall not exceed three (3) times the shortest width dimension.
Section 2.
Title 12-1E-1(A)(5) is hereby added as follows:
First Floor Elevation:
a. Teardown and construction of new single-family dwellings and additions, modifications, and
alterations to existing dwellings shall not raise the first floor elevation more than one (1) foot
above the existing condition.
b. In the case of a split-level dwelling, the existing first floor elevation is the lowest elevation of an
entrance to the dwelling, excluding entrances to the garage and those that do not face the street.
c. By conditional use permit, the first floor elevation may be increased by more than one (1) foot
from the existing condition in order to meet one or more of the following conditions:
1. Elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two (2) feet above the 100-year
flood elevation, as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);
or
2. Protect the dwelling from groundwater intrusion. Existing groundwater elevation shall be
determined by a professional registered engineer in the State of Minnesota or by a
certified hydrologist and provided for review and consideration.
3. Meet state building code, City Code or other statutory requirements.
Section 3.
Title 12-1E-1(D) is hereby added as follows:
Construction Standards: All new construction activities, including additions to existing structures, are
required to comply with the requirements below. Failure to comply with any of the requirements may
result in issuance of stop-work orders, fines, revocation of contractor licenses, and enforcement of the
penalty provisions in Title 12-1L-11 of the City Code.
1. Hours of operation for exterior construction activities are limited to 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM
Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM on Weekends.
DRAFT – 05.12.15 City Council Review page 1 of 1
2. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must be approved by the Engineering Department and
be implemented and properly maintained at all times, in accordance with Title 11-6 of the City
Code the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
3. Streets and surrounding properties shall be free of debris and mud at the end of each workday.
4. Dumpsters placed on-site during construction activities must have lids that close and secure to
contain debris.
5. Storage of construction and landscaping materials, dumpsters, portable restroom facilities, and
other equipment within the right-of-way is prohibited.
6. The permit holder must repair any damage to public or private property within three (3)
working days from a notice being issued by the City.
7. When possible, contractor vehicle parking should be limited to one side of the street to allow
adequate space for two-way traffic, emergency service vehicles, and city maintenance vehicles.
Section 4.
Title 12-1E-3(D)(1) is hereby amended as follows:
Structure Height: No structure or building shall exceed two (2) stories or twenty five feet (25') in height,
whichever is the lesser in height, except as provided in article D of this chapter. The maximum roof peak
for a pitched or hip roof shall not exceed ## feet in height.
Section 5.
BUILDING HEIGHT: The vertical distance from the average grade of the front building line, as
established in the approved grading plan for the lot, to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to a point of the
roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type
roof, to the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof., or as otherwise specified to a
maximum peak in certain zoning districts.
Section 6.
This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ### day of Month, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
DRAFT – 05.12.15 City Council Review page 2 of 2
page 54
Survey of Cities
Single-family residential home & lot standards
page 55
Annie Valley
Zoning
R-5
R-2
Min. lot area
15,000
R-3
18,000 11,000
Min. side setback
10' (5' detached
garage)
10 (20' detached
garage)
Min. rear setback
Max. building
hei+ ht*
FAR
30' (10' detached
garage)
35'
30' (10' detached
garage)
None
35'
None
10' (10' detached
garage)
30' (10' detached
garage)
35'
None
Max. building
coverage
None
None
None
Max. impervious
surface
* Measured from the first above -grade, habitable floor to the highest point of a flat root, or the
highest gable of a pitched roof. (Top of pitched roof)
None
None
None
Blaine
Zoning
R-1
R-1 A
R -'IAA
Min. lot area
10,000
Min. side setback
10' (5' detached
garage)
12,150
10,800
10' (5' detached 10' (5' detached
gara a ara e
Min. rear setback
Max. building
height*
FAR
30' (5' detached
garage)
30'
35' (5' detached
garage)
35'
30' (5' detached
arage)
30'
None
None
None
Max. building
coverage
Max. impervious
surface
* Measured from the grade of the building to the cornice of a flat roof and the mean distance of
the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. (Mid point of pitched roof)
None
None
None
None
None
None
Bloomington
Zonis
g
Min. lot area
Min. side setback
Min. rear setback
Max. building
height*
FAR
Max. building
coverage
Max. impervious
surface
* Measured from the lowest existing ground elevation prior to construction that is immediately
adjacent to the structure to the highest point on any part of the structure, including rooftop
equipment. (Top of pitched roof)
R-1
11,000
10' (5' detached garage)
30' (10' detached garage)
19-40 feet depending on setback
(2 -story limit)
None
None
35%
RS -1
33,000
10' (5' detached garage)
30' (10' detached garage)
19-40 feet depending on
setback (2 -story limit)
None
None
35%
2
svilie
Zoning
R-1
Min. lot area
10,000
Min. side setback
10'
(5' detached
garage)
Min. rear setback
30'
(8' detached
garage)
30'
Max. building
height*
FAR
None
Max. building
coverage
None
Max. impervious
surface
None
* Measured from the average elevation of the adjoining ground 1eve1 to ine top �� a
the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof)
Eagan
Zoning
Min. lot area
Min. side setback
Min. rear setback
R-1
12,000
10' (5' detached
garage)
15' (5' detached
garage)
Max. height1e 35'
FAR
Max. building
coverage
Max. impervious
surface
* Measured from the average elevation of the highest and lowest points within a five foot
horizontal distance from the exterior building foundation to the highest point of a flat roof, or the
average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof, from
average elevation.)
None
20%
None
R-15
8,000
6' (5' detached
garage)
15' (5' detached
garage)
35'
None
25%
None
page 56
Eden Prairie
Zoning R1-22 R1-13.5 R1-9.5
Min. lot area, 22,000 13,500
Min. side setback 10' (10' detached
garage)
Max. building
height*
FAR
Max. building
coverage
Max. Impervious
surface
* Measured to the mid point of the highest pitch of the roof. Measui-ement is from the highest
grade. If grade drops more than 10 feet, the measurement is taken from the lowest grade, and 10
feet is added to the 40 -foot requirement. (Mid -point of pitched roof)
15' (10' detached
garage)
40' (10' detached
garage)
None
None
None
40' (10' detached
garage)
None
None
None
9,500
5' (5' detached
garage)
40' (5' detached
garage)
None
None
None
A3 3
page 57
Zoning
R-1
Min. lot area
9,000
Min. side setback
10' (3' detached garage)
5' if lot is less than 75' wide
Min. rear setback
25' (3' detached garage
Max. building height*
- - 30'
FAR
None
Max. building
coverage
25%
30% if lot is less than 9,000
square feet
None
Max. Impervious
surface
* Measured to the mid point of the highest pitch of the roof. Measurement rs from ttre front or
street elevation.
Hopkins
Zoning
R-1 A
R-1 B R-1 c
Min. lot area
6,000
Min. side
setback
1 story = 8 feet
2 story = 8 feet
3 story = 10 feet
8,000 12,000
1 story = 8 feet
2 story = 8 feet
3 story = 10 feet
1 story = 10 feet
2 story = 12 feet
3 story = 14 feet
Min. rear 25' 30'
setback
35'
Max. building
height*
35'
35'
35'
FAR None
None
None
Max. building
coverage
Max.
Impervious
surface
35%
35%
35%
None
None
None
* Measured to the mid point of the highest pitch of the roof. Measurement is from the average
front or street elevation.
Zoning
RS -1
RS -2
RS -3
RS -4
Min. lot area
20,000
15,000
11,000
9,375
Min. side setback
15'
15'
10'
7'
Min. rear setback
30'
30'
30'
30'
Max. building
height*
35'
35'
35'
25'
FAR
None
None
None
None
Max. building
coverage
None
None
None
_
None
Max. impervious
surface
None
None
None
None
* Measured from the mean ground level to the top of a at roof; to the mean distance of the
highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof)
4
page 58
Maple Grove
Zoning
R-1
R-2
R -2B
Min. lot area
20,000
10,000
10,800
Min. side setback
5' (30' aggregate)
5
(
15' aggregate)
5' (15' aggregate)
Min. rear setback 3D'
Max. building
height*
FAR
0
35'
None
35'
30'
Non
35'
None
Max. building
coverage
None
None
Max. impervious.
surface
None
None
None
None
* Measured from the mean ground level to the top of a flat roof, to the mean distance of the
highest gable of a pitched or hip roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the uppermost
point on all other roof types. (Mid -point of pitched roof, from average elevation.)
etonka
r Zoning_
R-1
R-1
Min. lot area
Min. side setback
22,000
Min. side setback
15'
(15' detached
garage)
Min. rear setback
40'
(15' detached
garage)
Max. building
height*
30%
35'
FAR
None
Max. building
coverage
None
Max. Impervious
surface
None
* Measured to the mid point of the highest pitch of the root. Measurement is 7rom the iugnest
grade. If grade drops more than 10 feet, the measurement is taken from the lowest grade, and 10
feet is added to the 35 -foot requirement. (Mid -point of pitched roof.)
w Brighton
Zoning
R-1
Min. lot area
10,000
Min. side setback
5'
Min. rear setback
5'
Max. building
height*
30'
FAR
None
Max. building
coverage
30%
Max. Impervious
surface
50%
* Measured from grade to the highest point of a at root: or to the average neyght or the ntgi�e
gable of a pitched or hipped roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof.)
5
page 59
Plymouth
Zoning
Min. lot area
Min. side setback
Min. rear setback
RSF-1
18,500
15' (6' detached
_garage)
25' (6' detached
garage)
Max. building
height*
FAR
Max. building
coverage
Max. impervious
surface
35'
None
RSF-2
12,500
10' (6' detached
garage)
25' (6' detached
garage)
35'
RSF-3
7,000
8' (6' detached
garage)
25' (6' detached
garage)
None
35'
None
30%
None
30%
35%
None None
Measured from the average of the highest and lowest point of grade for that portion of the lot
covered by the building to the highest point of a flat roof and the mean height between eaves and
ridge for a gable, hip and gambrel roof. (Mid -point ofpitched roof, from average elevation.)
Zoning
R-1
R-2
Min. lot area
9,500
7,200
Min. side setback
9' one side and 6'
on the other (2'
detached garage)
7' one side and 5'
on the other (2'
detached garage)
Min. rear setback
25° (2' detached
garage)
25' (6' detached
garage)
Max. building
height*
30'
30'
FAR
None
None
Max. building
coverage
35%
35%
Max. impervious
surface
None
None
* Measured fromthe highest elevation between t Ze building and the curb to nuc po1nt or a
pitched roof.
R i M�iM1sa
Zoning
R -3A
R -2A
R-2
Min. lot area
9,000
25,000
15,000
Min. side setback
10' (5' detached
garage)
15' (15' detached
garage)
10' (5' detached
garage)
Min. rear setback
20' (5' detached
garage)
20' (5' detached
garage)
20' (5' detached
garage)
Max. building height*
30'
40'
30'
FAR
None
None
None
Max. building
coverage
30%
20%
20%
Max. impervious
surface
None
None
None
* Measured from the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface v,thin a five foot distance
from the exterior wall to the highest point of a flat roof or the average height of the highest gable
of a pitched or hipped roof. (Mid -point ofpitched roof.)
AC.
6
page 60
Woodbu
Zoning
.• R-4
Min. lot area
10,000
Min. side setback
10' (5' detached
garage)
Min. rear setback
25' (5' detached
garage)
Max. height
40' (3-stcriesj
FAR
None
Max. building
coverage
35%
Max. impervious
surface
None
* Measured to the niid point of the highest pitch of the rooMeasurement is from the mgnest grace. tr
grade drops more than 10 feet, the measurement is taken from the lowest grade, and I0 feet is added to the
40 -foot requirement. (Mid -point of pitched roof.)
7
au
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DATE: May 12, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Rental Housing Licensing Program
BACKGROUND
page 61
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone d 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
Title 3, Chapter 5 of the City Code contains rental housing regulations. The Code requires a license for all
single-family detached 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.
Staff is proposing to expand the existing requirements to detached and attached units in the R -1A, R-2,
R-3, MR -PUD, and HR -PUD districts. The expansion is intended to include only single-family and
townhouse units; condominium and apartment buildings would be exempted. As shown on the attached
map, there are several developments that are not zoned R-1 that may contain single-family and townhome
units being rented. Therefore, it may be beneficial to monitor rental properties to ensure the same
protections are afforded to other residential areas in the City. 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.
Attached is a DRAFT ordinance to expand the rental housing licensing program for review and discussion.
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 expand the rental housing license program, staff can be directed to bring
forward an amendment for review and discussion at a future Council meeting.
Ndye 62
nLid
City of Mendota Heights
Official Zoning Map
This map cannot be fully understood without reference to the
Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Guide Plan.
In addition, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations are subject
to revision. You are advised to consult with the City Planner in the
interpretation of this Information.
City of Mendota Heights
Planning Department - City Hall
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Ph: (651) 452-1850
Fax: (651) 452-8940
iJfl iIIIIII►. 2. _..=
% i rin111I? -3At Apgar- 11 LI'i 0 ,In t7ov 41
*44 0i. .
gii:3v*#4V.��in����■i
page 63
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 5 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING RENTAL
HOUSING
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Title 3-5-1 is hereby amended as follows:
3-5-1: PURPOSE AND SCOPE:
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to assure that rental housing in the city's R 1 one family
residential zoning districts 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 residential R-4—zoning
districts 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 The operation of rental housing entails certain responsibilities. Owners of
rental housing are responsible to take the reasonable necessary steps to ensure that those individuals who
occupy rental housing units may pursue the quiet enjoyment of the normal activities of life in the
surrounding area that are: safe, secure, and sanitary; free from crimes and criminal activity, noise,
nuisances or annoyances; free from unreasonable fears about safety of persons and security of property;
and suitable for raising children.
B. Scope. This chapter applies to all single-family detached and attached dwellings in the following
residential zoning districts: R-1, R-1 A, R-2, R-3, MR -PUD, and HR -PUD.
Title 3-5-2 is hereby amended as follows:
3-5-2: DEFINITIONS:
r
Section 2.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms shall be defined as set forth below:
DWELLING: A building or one or more portions thereof occupied or intended to be occupied for
residential purposes; but not including rooms in motels, hotels, nursing homes, boarding houses, tents and
recreational vehicles, or attached multiple -family and condominium dwellings.
DWELLING UNIT: A residential accommodation located within a dwelling that includes permanently
installed cooking, sleeping, and sanitation facilities, designed or intended for use as living quarters for a
single family. Dwelling units subject to this chapter are defined as being detached dwelling units in the R
1 one family zoning district.
page 64
Section 3.
Title 3-5-2 is hereby amended as follows:
3-5-3: GENERAL LICENSING PROVISIONS:
A. License Required: No person shall rent a single-family detached or attached dwelling unit in a
residential the R 1 zoning district to another for occupancy unless the city has issued a rental license for
the dwelling unit.
Section 4.
This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ### day of Month, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
Lnj
CITY OF
MENIDOTA HEIGHTS
page 65
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: May 12, 2015
TO: Mayor, Council, City Administrator and Chief of Police
FROM: Mike Aschenbrener, Chief of Police / Emergency Manager
SUBJECT: Security Assessment
INTRODUCTION:
At the first goal setting workshop of 2015 the police department was asked to complete a review
of Mendota Heights City Hall security and City Hall operational responses.
Recommendations will be provided two separate areas the first of which is the under operational
/ training and the second area will address physical changes.
BACKGROUND:
Building security, operational security and risk management was not a consideration when the
Mendota Heights City Hall was constructed. In 2000 the first steps toward improving building
security were taken when the police department installed security cameras and began regular
generator testing. Over the past few years additional emphasis was placed on security; panic
alarms, a new camera system, security films, training of staff, emergency operations plan (EOP)
updates, annual testing of EOP components.
RECOMMENDATION:
This overview is provided for informational purposes and to seek direction.
m CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
page 66
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone A 651.452.9940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
DATE: May 12, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director
SUBJECT: 2015 Workers compensation insurance
INTRODUCTION
The Council asked for a discussion of workers compensation premiums at the May 12th
workshop.
BACKGROUND
On May 1, 2015 our workers compensation insurance was renewed. The base premium for this
year is $203,685. This represents a 36.4% increase over last year's premium of $149,285. This
increase is based on the high claim history that the City has been experiencing. Below are the
amounts and number of claims for the last 5 renewal periods.
Period Total Expenses # of Claims Reserve Amounts
10/11 $ 32,441 7 claims
11/12 $520,243 4 claims $235,192
12/13 $374,480 10 claims $273,800
13/14 $123,412 14 claims $ 19,284
14/15 $972,967 10 claims $890,059
These reserve amounts are included in the total expenses for each claim period. These reserve
amounts have not yet been paid out by workers compensation but are anticipated to be in the
future. These reserve amounts will not be paid out by the city but instead will be by workers
compensation. Our future premiums will be affected by these amounts.
page 67
As a follow-up to this issue being discussed at the April 21st City Council meeting, staff met with
the City's insurance broker from Bearence Management to discuss our workers compensation
costs. We were informed that workers comp premiums are based on three factors:
• Amount of payroll for the City. This number is adjusted annually and as our payroll
increases, so does our premium.
• Classification rates for workers. The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
determines the rates for each class, as these rates increase our premium does as well.
• Experience modification rate. This is determined by our claims history.
The experience number is based on a rolling 3 year average of the City's history of claims.
Mendota Heights had a modification rate of 1.17 for the previous renewal. Our most recent
renewal had a modification rate of 1.50 which played a significant role in our increased
premium. This modification rate used the claims history for the 2011/2012 period, 2012/2013
period and the 2013/2014 period. The City's next renewal (May 2016) will drop the 2011/2012
period which had a claims total of $520,243. However, it will gain the 2014/2015 period which
had bigger claims of $972,967.
We had Bearence Management run estimates of what the City's modification rate might be for
the next renewal period. At this time, the rate is estimated to be between 1.57 and 1.64. This is
only an estimate, but it gives us an idea of what to expect — in other words, workers comp
premiums will rise again for next year.
Mendota Heights has not had a high number of claims, but it has had a couple of significant
claims that are currently driving up the workers compensation expense for the city. In an attempt
to reduce the number of claims incidents, the City does have a safety committee which meets
quarterly to review any incidents which have occurred, and which makes recommendations to try
to avoid recurrences. The City is also a member of the regional safety group in partnership with
West St Paul and South St Paul.
In response to an anticipated question, going out for proposals for other quotes for workers
compensation insurance will not be easy, and likely will not produce rates any lower. The
LMCIT is one of the only providers of workers comp for police and fire in Minnesota. Any
other prospective carrier will also look at the claims history, and will price their quote
accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION;
In summary, safety training, waiting out the 3 year average, and working to avoid future
additional significant claims are probably the best remedies in store for the City.
We will discuss this in more detail at the May 12th workshop meeting.
page 68
1101 Vittoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
To: Mayor and Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Parameters for FY 2016 Budget
Date: May 12, 2015
Comment:
At the May 12th workshop, the Council will be asked to give direction regarding the preparation
of the budget for next year.
One of the major decision points will be the amount of levy increase for 2016. Staff will be
looking for a preliminary number from you. At this point, we do not know what the requests
will be, but we should have at least some ideas as to what you as the Council will want as a levy
increase target.
Information regarding levy increases, and also wage increases are attached.
I look forward to the discussion.
Budget Comparisons
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Council 25,400 24,260 31,820 42,320 32,820 32,820 33,320 33,320 34,221 34,776 34,076 34,096 33,796
Administration 790,360 733,400 741,380 824,820 867,000 914,250 968,050 970,260 904,969 883,673 898,772 890,452 956,626
Elections 29,160 43,830 40,730 47,690 47,170 58,070 38,030 59,870 42,453 62,249 31,967 56,007 41,088
IT 72,290 93,460 106,110 142,775 136,649 163,533 154,165 138,437
Police 1,661,770 1,760,520 2,010,285 2,148,910 2,348,090 2,398,410 2,556,000 2,655,380 2,808,006 2,943,889 2,977,793 3,128,910 3,337,183
Fire 252,220 251,290 288,660 301,730 346,950 354,240 386,540 391,570 407,106 419,342 433,511 442,048 474,615
Code 165,480 182,860 181,930 193,280 210,190 229,130 229,620 228,320 205,384 167,557 166,604 168,250 133,050
Streets 588,430 509,790 581,380 711,390 780,160 801,390 820,340 790,540 863,786 871,070 994,174 944,644 981,232
Parks 547,060 535,280 610,080 645,570 718,580 736,990 827,490 763,520 751,354 758,315 739,845 755822 808,095
Planning 97,060 104,450 107,060 104,990 142,830 134,430 125,750 118,040 109,461 110,195 107,787 111,115 122,231
Recycling 21,800 22,120 22,560 23,340 24,270 27,470 28,100 28,050 31,841 33,313 33,641 23,316 24,370
Animal Control 7,470 7,470 7,710 7,150 7,660 5,160 5,160 5,160 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,760 8,000
$4,186,210 $4,175,270 $4,623,595 $5,051,190 $5,525,720 $5,764,650 $6,111,860 $6,150,140 $6,309,016 $6,428,688 $6,589,363 6,716,585 7,058,723
-0.26% 10.74% 9.25% 9.39% 4.32% 6.02% 6.26% 2.58% 1.90% 2.50% 1.93% 5.09%
Amount of Final Levy $3,630,900 $3,779,719 $4,230,977 $4,893,625 $5,073,275 $5,695,037 $6,139,263 $6,255,533 $6,201,620 $6,170,072 $6,416,559 $6,603,749 $6,999,974
Wage increase
4.10% 11.94% 15.66% 3.67% 12.26% 7.80% 1.89% -0.87% -0.51% 3.99% 2.92% 6.00%
3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Public Works 2%/2% 2%/2%
Police 2%12% 2%12%
Unions did a 2% increase for Jan 1st - June 30th and an additional 2% for July 1st - December 31st
page 69
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
In CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: June Workshop Date
Date: May 12, 2015
Comment:
At its May 12th workshop, the Council will be asked to establish a date in June to hold a
workshop to discuss the following:
A. Follow-up from direction anticipated for the disposition of the Village Properties lots.
B. Follow-up from the April 21st Broadband discussion, which would involve a more in-
depth discussion on that subject.
C. Discussion of a possible legislative agenda for the City of Mendota Heights. One
possible subject would be efforts to make changes to the Fiscal Disparities law, for
which Mendota Heights has long been a net contributor.
Attached is a calendar for June. The Council is asked to give feedback on a possible date.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
SUN
page 70
- • • � June2ol5
MON TUES WED THURS FRI SAT
7
14
21
28
1 2
7:0o pm City Council
8
9
6:3o pm Park & Rec
15 16
7:0o pm City Council
3 4 5 6
10
7:0o pm Airport Rel
11
12 13
17 18 19 20
22 23 24 25 26 27
7:0o pm Ping Comm
29 30