2015-12-01 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
December 1, 2015 – 7:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Adopt Agenda
5. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of November 17, 2015 City Council Minutes
b. Acknowledgement of November 24, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
c. Acknowledgement of October 13 and November 10, 2015 Park & Recreation Minutes
d. Acknowledgement of September Par 3 Update
e. Approve Renewal of Tobacco Licenses
f. Approval of Cell Tower Lease Agreement with Saint Paul Regional Water Service for use
of the Water Tower
g. Approval of a Master Partnership Contract with the State Department of Transportation
h. Acknowledge October 2015 Fire Synopsis
i. Approve the Purchase of Turnout Gear
j. Personnel Action Item
k. Approval of October 2015 Treasurer’s Report
l. Approval of Claims List
m. Approval of Contractor List
6. Public Comments
7. Presentations
a. Resolution 2015-92, Approving Final 2016 Property Tax Levy and Budget
8. Public Hearing - None
9. New and Unfinished Business
a. Resolution 2015-93, Preliminary/Final Plat for Caroline’s Lake View Second Addition,
Planning Case 2015-39
b. Resolution 2015-94, Lot Line Adjustment and Variance at 754 and 750 Upper Colonial
Drive, Planning Case 2015-40
c. Resolution 2015-95, Lot Split and Variances for a portion of Wentworth Park, Planning
Case 2015-41
d. Purchase Agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and Brian and Jamie Nordin
(750 Upper Colonial Drive) for a portion of Wentworth Park
e. Resolution 2015-96, Lot Split and Variance at 789 Ridge Place, Planning Case 2015-42
f. Presentation by Brian Birch regarding lots at the Village of Mendota Heights
g. Resolution 2015-91, Authorize Sanitary Sewer Usage Rates Beginning First Quarter 2016
h. Resolution 2015-98 Approve Specs, Ad for Bids for Purchase of Dump Truck
i. Set Workshop Meeting Dates
j. Consideration of Amendment to PUD Agreement with Mendota Mall Associates, LLP
10. Community Announcements
11. Council Comments
12. Adjourn
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Pursuant to due call and notice, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present:
Councilmembers Duggan, Povolny, Petschel, and Norton. Councilmembers Duggan and Povolny were
absent.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Councilmember Petschel moved to approve the agenda with items 5d. Approval of Purchase Order for
Dump Truck and 9a. Presentation by Brian Birch deferred to a future Council meeting agenda.
Councilmember Norton seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Krebsbach presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and
approval. Councilmember Norton moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and
authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein.
a. Approval of November 3, 2015 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of October 29, 2015 Council / Planning Commission Workshop Minutes
Councilmember Petschel moved to approve the workshop minutes as amended.
Councilmember Norton seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Povolny)
c. Approval of Resolution 2015-88 Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for 2016 Waste
Abatement Community Funding
Councilmember Petschel moved for adoption with the amendment as noted.
Councilmember Norton seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Povolny)
page 3
d. Purchase Order for 2016 Dump Truck and Accessories-item deferred to future meeting
e. Approval of Resolution 2015-90, Senior Citizen Deferred Assessment
f. Appointment of Probationary Firefighters
g. Approval of Personnel Action Report
h. Approval of October 2015 Building Activity Report
i. Approval of Claims List
j. Approval of Contractor List
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Povolny)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
PRESENTATIONS
A) DAKOTA COUNTY – MENDOTA-LEBANON HILLS GREENWAY ALIGNMENT
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR HIGHWAY 110 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
Public Works Director John Mazzitello explained that city and county staff have been working on
developing the concept for a pedestrian-grade separated crossing at Highway 110 in support of the
Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway Master Plan. County Project Manager Jacob Rezac presented the
project as it stands to date and informed the Council that the recommendation would be going forward to
the Dakota County Physical Development Committee on December 1st.
Mr. Rezac explained the three alternative alignments that are being considered and shared images of the
three alignment options with the following highlights:
1. Western Option
• Located near the intersection of Dodd Road/Highway 110, provides a 90 degree crossing
• Only a box culvert is feasible for this location due to its proximity to Highways 149 and 110
2. Skewed Option
• Provides for an underpass crossing of Highway 110 that allows for box culverts or highway
bridges that would traverse over the proposed greenway
3. Eastern Option
• Located nearer to Oak Street
• Allows for three crossing types
o Box culvert crossing (underpass)
o Highway 110 bridge option (underpass)
o Overpass option
page 4
All of these options have been evaluated for cost, impacts to property, impacts to drainage, as well as
trail connectivity and structure flexibility type. The recommendation is to go with option 3 since it
graded out the best and provides a crossing near Oak Street. An open house was held on October 21st
and 17 comments were received with a slight preference for Option 3 as opposed to Option 2.
The plan is to recommend Option 3 (Eastern) to the county board in December 2015. Mr. Rezac then
presented the different structure types available for Option 3:
• Box Culvert Underpass – fairly straight-forward crossing type
• Three-sided Arch Underpass (used at Charlton)
• At-grade bridges on Highway 110 over the trail
• Pedestrian Overpass - It was pointed out that Highway 110 is designated as a potential house
moving route which requires additional clearance.
Councilmembers asked questions regarding the length of an underpass, the aesthetics of an overpass,
and the type of ramp needed for an overpass. Council members raised a concern that a crossing too far
to the east would not be used by pedestrians and they would still try to cross at the intersection (which is
dangerous). Additional concerns regarding an overpass included that the ramps may be too steep for
easy maneuverability, the width of an overpass, materials used to construct an overpass may be too
obtrusive, and the maintenance of the materials for an overpass structure.
Lengthy discussion occurred on the different options regarding construction, aesthetics, inspections, and
costs. The project schedule includes adopting a structure type by December 15 and in January 2016 the
design phase will begin. The structure is anticipated to be constructed in the summer of 2017.
County Commissioner Tom Egan was also in attendance and spoke on this topic.
It was the consensus of the Councilmembers that option 3 with an underpass using larger bridge decks
would be the preferred option because it would be less obtrusive while still providing a nice connection
between the two retail centers.
PUBLIC HEARING
A) 2016 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT –
MENDOTA ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek explained this public hearing was to consider the Mendota Road
Neighborhood Improvements. The project involves reconstruction of Mendota Road from Oak Street to
Delaware Avenue and rehabilitating High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court, and Warrior Drive.
Along Warrior Drive, staff proposed to construct a median down the center of the street, from just north
of High Ridge Circle to the south end of the street. Both sides of the road would be striped to allow for
parking on the north section of Warrior Drive. However, there may be restrictions on student parking
during the day. There would be on-street parking on the east side only of the proposed median section.
Mr. Ruzek provided a brief history on the construction of the roadways in this project.
page 5
The proposed improvements include reconstructing Mendota Road to a 10-ton street design. Staff is
proposing to install curb and gutter on both sides of the street. The majority of the street would be 28
feet wide; however, staff is proposing parking lanes on the north side of the road in two sections and
those sections would be 34 feet wide. No Parking signs would be installed in the areas of no parking.
Storm sewer improvements would consist of adding catch basins along Mendota Road and connecting to
the existing storm sewer system.
The trail in areas where the parking lane would be added would need to be re-built. The existing
roadway trail that would not be disturbed would be seal coated. ADA ramps would be installed at the
intersections.
Residents were sent a survey requesting their preference on a parking lane. The school district was also
questioned and they would like to have a parking lane on the north side of the road from Warrior Drive
to their existing parking lot near Delaware Avenue.
It is proposed to reclaim the existing bituminous surface on High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court and
Warrior Drive, and install four inches of new bituminous pavement; replace damaged curb and gutter,
repair damaged catch basins, and Warrior Drive would be changed to allow for the concrete median.
The anticipated costs of the project total $1,862,164.98 (includes indirect costs for legal, engineer,
administration, and finance). The funding sources include Special Assessments - $372,718; Bonds -
$852,859; MSA Account - $450,000; Stormwater Utility - $149,000.
The proposed unit assessments for the street reconstruction of Mendota Road is $7,593 (21% of the
assessable cost). The 13 properties that had been previously assessed during the reconstruction of South
Lane, Knob Road, Freeway Road, and The Village will have their assessments reduced by the amount
they were assessed in 2002.
The estimated project costs for the street rehabilitation of High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court and Warrior
Drive totaled $3,950 (27% of the assessable cost).
Councilmembers asked questions regarding the width of the proposed median along the middle of
Warrior Drive, the look of the median that would not cause maintenance headaches, and if the cost of
the raised median would be shared throughout the project or paid by the City.
Councilmember Norton moved to open the public hearing.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Povolny)
Mr. Tom Thieman, Sibley Court, suggested that ‘No U-turns’ signs be installed at the north end.
Technically the signs only appear on the southbound lane. Some students are taking that as a liberty to
make U-turns.
Mr. Joe Lawder, 1851 Warrior Drive, understands that there will be striping for parking but asked if the
parking situation would be changing. He also asked about the design of the cul-de-sac turnaround area.
page 6
He expressed his concern about all of the structure, signage, and striping being placed on Warrior Drive
and urged Council to keep in mind the aesthetics of the roadway and to reduce visual clutter.
Ms. Julie Shade, 649 Highway 110, stated that Highway 110 is higher than the frontage road. She
expressed concern about the additional traffic the frontage road will see in 2017 when Highway 110 is
rehabilitated. She is concerned about flooding if curbs are to be installed on both sides of the frontage
road. There is already flooding from South Lane and Knob Road. She expressed concern for the seniors
who live along the frontage road and cannot afford the assessments.
In response, City Engineer Mazzitello explained the option of a deferment that is available for residents
over 65 years of age or disabled veterans.
Ms. Shade raised other issues regarding truck parking and the speed of traffic on the frontage road.
Councilmember Petschel recommended that the Traffic Safety Committee review her concerns.
Councilmember Norton moved to close the public hearing.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Povolny)
Councilmember Norton moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2015-89 ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MENDOTA
ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201507).
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Povolny)
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
B) APPROVE BROADBAND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH DAKOTA COUNTY
BROADBAND BOARD
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that the Council has had two meetings with the Dakota
County CDA earlier this this year to discuss the plans for a broadband ring, which would connect all of
the cities in Dakota County. There are eleven city partners. The intent would be that this would also
serve Dakota County and school districts offices.
Initially, this would be for governmental functions (iNet). In the future, the City may be able to offer a
commercial network to businesses as an economic development tool (CNET).
Phase 1 of the broadband study has been completed. The Dakota County Broadband Board is
recommending a Joint Powers Agreement, which would allow cities to continue on with Phase 2 and
establish a Board of Directors, which would then provide for the governance, the policy, and the
budgetary research. By state law, the board members would need to be elected officials; a regular
member and an alternate. Mayor Krebsbach has indicated she would like to be the regular member and
Councilmember Duggan would be willing to serve as alternate.
page 7
The cost to the City for the initial membership fee is relatively modest at $1,661. There are funds in the
Cable TV fund for that.
Councilmember Petschel moved to authorize the City to enter into the Joint Powers Agreement for the
Dakota County Broadband Board; appoint Mayor Krebsbach to be the Mendota Heights Board member
and to appoint Councilmember Duggan as the Board alternate; and authorize payment of $1,661.23 for
Mendota Heights’ initial membership fee, payable out of the Cable TV Fund.
Councilmember Norton seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Povolny)
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Assistant to the City Administrator Tamara Schutta made the following announcements:
• The Fire Department is asking residents to Adopt-a-Hydrant to keep it clear of snow.
• There is no parking allowed between 2:00 am and 6:00 am starting November 1, 2015 through
March 31, 2016.
• City Hall will be closed on November 26 and November 27 for the Thanksgiving holiday.
• Tree lighting ceremonies will be held on December 4 at 6:00 p.m. at Mendota Plaza and
December 5 at 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at The Village.
• Recycling of holiday lights at City Hall now through the end of January 2016.
• Jerry Murphy’s family sent a thank-you card to the City and asked that their appreciation be
passed on to the residents.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Norton congratulated all of the sports teams that are wrapping up their fall seasons.
Good luck to everyone who is starting their winter sports. He expressed his personal congratulations to
St. Thomas Academy’s soccer and football teams for advancing well into the state finals.
Councilmember Petschel commented on the events in Paris and extended to them the City’s thoughts
and prayers.
She expressed her appreciation to the street sweepers and encouraged residents who have a storm sewer
grate near their home to keep it clear of leaves and debris.
She has received requests from residents that when the Council is reviewing Planning cases, the location
of the property under consideration be shown on a map.
She attended the Fire Department dance which was a wonderful event.
She wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.
page 8
Mayor Krebsbach encouraged residents to enjoy Mendota Heights; the Plaza, the Village, restaurants
where people can enjoy dinner – all are signs of strength in the current times.
She noted that Lois Herman, the Original Champagne Lady for the Lawrence Welk Show and a resident
of Mendota Heights, died recently. She expressed condolences to the family.
She also wished everyone a peaceful and joyful Thanksgiving holiday.
ADJOURN
Councilmember Norton moved to adjourn.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Povolny)
Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m.
____________________________________
Sandra Krebsbach
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 9
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2
3
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 4
November 24, 2015 5
6
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, 7
November 24, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. 8
9
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard 10
Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, and Mary Magnuson. Those absent: Christine Costello 11
and Ansis Viksnins. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City 12
Engineer John Mazzitello. 13
14
Approval of Agenda 15
16
The agenda was approved as submitted. 17
18
Approval of October 27, 2015 Minutes 19
20
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO 21
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2015, AS PRESENTED. 22
23
AYES: 5 24
NAYS: 0 25
ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 26
27
Hearings 28
29
PLANNING CASE #2015-39 30
Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light 31
Preliminary and Final Plat at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court 32
33
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicants requested Preliminary and Final Plat 34
approval to dissolve an outlot and create an additional lot at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court. 35
36
The applicants own approximately three acres of land adjacent to Rogers Lake. The property 37
includes parts of lots 16 and 17 of Caroline’s Lakeview Addition, as well as Outlot A of the Kipp 38
Addition. Wagon Wheel Court was constructed in 2007 and was facilitated by the approval of the 39
Kipp Addition Plat, which platted five single-family lots on the west side of Wagon Wheel Court 40
and Outlot A on the east side of the road. 41
42
The applicant’s property containing the existing dwelling was not included in the Kipp Addition 43
but Outlot A was. Since the properties are both now owned by the applicants, the properties had 44
to be replatted in order to dissolve Outlot A. 45
46
page 10
The proposed Preliminary Plat would dissolve Outlot A and then would create Lots 1 and 2. Lot 1 47
would contain the existing dwelling and then there would be an additional lot for construction of 48
a new single-family dwelling. The applicants recently received building permit approval to 49
remodel the existing dwelling and they plan to sell the newly-created parcel to another party to 50
build on in the future. 51
52
As proposed, Lot 1 would be 30,936 square feet and Lot 2, containing a future single-family 53
dwelling, would be 100,632 square feet of land. Based on the R-1 district standards both parcels, 54
the existing dwelling, and potential pad are compliant with the City Code and the Comprehensive 55
Plan. 56
57
The applicant also included a concept grading and utility plan. The building pad on Lot 2 could 58
contain a dwelling with driveway and utility access to either Wagon Wheel Court or Wagon Wheel 59
Trail. The proposed plan is only required to show that the potential new dwelling could be 60
constructed that meets the applicable code requirements and is not meant to bind the future 61
property owner into a specific location or design. Based on the location of that potential building 62
pad on Lot 2, additional permitting would be necessary due to the proximity to the wetlands. Since 63
no construction is being proposed at this time, the condition of approval is requiring that the future 64
property owner be subject to those requirements at a future date. 65
66
The code also requires that subdivisions be designed so that no construction or grading would be 67
constructed in slopes that are steeper than 25%, of which there are some on Lot 2. A condition of 68
approval prohibiting construction or grading on those slopes for Lot 2 is included as a condition 69
of approval. 70
71
Planner Wall shared images of the parcels involved in this application. 72
73
Staff recommended approval of this request based on the findings of fact and with conditions. 74
75
Commissioners asked questions regarding the location of the Kipp Addition in relation to this plat 76
request, if Lot 2 could be split in the future and still meet code requirements, and the requirement 77
of wetlands permit when and if a dwelling is built on Lot 2. 78
79
The applicants, Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light, were present and available for questions from the 80
Commission. Paul McGinley of Loucks Associates, representing the applicants, provided further 81
information concerning the request and future plans. 82
83
Chair Field opened the public hearing. 84
85
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 86
hearing. 87
88
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 89
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 90
91
92
AYES: 5 93
NAYS: 0 94
ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 95
96
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 97
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-39, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL 98
PLAT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 99
1. The proposed requests meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with 100
the Comprehensive Plan. 101
2. The requests are necessary to dissolve an existing outlot so that future access to Wagon 102
Wheel Court is available to Lot 2. 103
3. The newly created parcels do not create any non-conformities with the existing dwelling 104
on Lot 1 and would allow for construction of a new single-family dwelling on Lot 2 in 105
compliance with the applicable zoning standards. 106
4. A wetlands permit for future construction on Lot 2 will require compliance with applicable 107
land disturbance and drainage standards to ensure there are no negative impacts to the 108
surrounding water bodies and environment. 109
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 110
1. Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council 111
approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits 112
by the City. 113
2. Depending on future access from Wagon Wheel Court or Wagon Wheel Trail, a Public 114
Utility/Improved Public Right-of-Way Fee is paid to the City prior to issuance of a building 115
permit for construction on Lot 2. 116
3. In the event that future utility connections are made to Wagon Wheel Court, utility 117
connection fees are paid to the City prior to issuance of a building permit for construction 118
on Lot 2. 119
4. The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utility easements on both parcels 120
to be denoted on the Final Plat submitted to Dakota County: 10-foot wide along the front 121
property lines and 5-foot wide along the side and rear property lines. 122
5. No grading or construction activity on Lot 2 will occur on slopes over 25%. 123
6. All grading and construction activity on Lot 2 will be in compliance with applicable 124
federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s 125
Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 126
7. A wetlands permit is obtained prior to any applicable development activities on Lot 2. 127
128
AYES: 5 129
NAYS: 0 130
ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 131
132
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 1, 2015 133
meeting. 134
135
PLANNING CASE #2015-40 136
Alan and Gloria Weinblatt/Brian and Jamie Nordin 137
Lot Line Adjustment and Variance at 754 and 750 Upper Colonial Drive 138
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that applicants, the owners of 754 and 750 Upper Colonial 139
Drive, were seeking to adjust the interior property boundary line to resolve an encroachment issue. 140
The request requires City approval before being recorded and also requires a variance from the 141
minimum lot standard. 142
143
The properties were platted as Lots 9 and 10 of the Cherry Hill Addition in 1960 and the existing 144
dwelling on Lot 9 encroaches onto Lot 10. In order to resolve the issue and allow the sale of Lot 145
9, both property owners have agreed to adjust the interior property boundary line as proposed on 146
the survey. Lot 9 currently does not meet the R-1 district’s required side yard setbacks or lot width 147
standards and would be brought into conformance as a result of the proposed adjustment. Based 148
on the height of the existing dwellings contiguous to both side yards, the required minimum 149
setback would be 10 feet on both parcels. Lot 10 will still meet those side yard setback standards. 150
151
As part of a separate application to be considered on its own merits, the City is then requesting a 152
lot split and variance to convey a portion of adjacent land to Lot 10, which would ultimately, if 153
approved, bring Lot 10 into conformance. 154
155
Planner Wall then reviewed the three standards of review for variance requests and how this 156
application meets those standards. 157
158
Planner Wall shared images of the parcels involved in this application. 159
160
Staff recommended approval of the lot line adjustment and variance requests based on the findings 161
of fact and with conditions. 162
163
Commissioners asked questions regarding the possibility of future encroachments if the adjacent 164
properties not in the application were to sell or change ownership. 165
166
Alan and Gloria Weinblatt, 754 Upper Colonial Drive were available to comment and answer 167
questions of the Commission. 168
169
Chair Field opened the public hearing. 170
171
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 172
hearing. 173
174
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 175
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 176
177
AYES: 5 178
NAYS: 0 179
ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 180
181
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 182
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-40, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND 183
VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 184
1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the 185
City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 186
2. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the interior 187
property boundary line. 188
3. In order to comply with the required minimum side yard setback standards based on the 189
existing conditions, the non-conforming lot width will be transferred from Lot 9 to Lot 10. 190
4. The existing conditions were not created by the current property owners and create a 191
practical difficulty in adjusting the interior property boundary line in compliance with the 192
lot width standard in order to address the non-conformities created by the encroachment. 193
5. Other alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the 194
dwelling or acquisition of additional property not owned by the applicants are not practical. 195
6. Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not 196
negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. 197
AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS ARE RECORDED 198
WITH DAKOTA COUNTY. 199
200
AYES: 5 201
NAYS: 0 202
ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 203
204
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 1, 2015 205
meeting. 206
207
PLANNING CASE #2015-41 208
City of Mendota Heights 209
Lot Split and Variances for portion of Wentworth Park 210
211
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City was seeking a lot split for a portion of property 212
within Wentworth Park and requires several variances from the R-1 district standards. He noted 213
that this is the property alluded to in Planning Case 2015-40. 214
215
The property owners at 750 Upper Colonial Drive have requested to acquire a 4,400-square foot 216
portion of city-owned property, immediately adjacent to their eastern property boundary line that 217
is currently part of Wentworth Park. The area in-question does include existing driveway, 218
landscaping, and fencing encroachments onto City property and ultimately, if approved, would be 219
combined and dissolved into that existing parcel after being purchased and recorded. 220
221
The dwelling was constructed in 1967 and, to the best of staff’s knowledge, the existing conditions 222
have been there for several decades. That portion of Wentworth Park was platted as Outlots A and 223
B of the Cherry Hill Addition Plat in 1960. It is separated from the main area of the park off of 224
Wentworth Avenue, includes an off-street connection to Upper Colonial Court, tennis courts, and 225
wetlands. However, the area in-question does not contain any public improvements. 226
227
Specific to the variances, the proposed lot split would temporarily create non-conformities with 228
the R-1 district’s minimum lot area, lot width, and driveway setback standards. Planner Wall then 229
reviewed the three standards of review for variance requests and how this application meets those 230
standards. 231
232
Planner Wall shared images of the parcels involved in this application. 233
234
Staff recommended approval of the lot split and variance requests based on the findings of fact 235
and with conditions. 236
237
Commissioners asked questions regarding if there would still be sufficient access into Wentworth 238
Park. 239
240
The City of Mendota Heights is the applicant in this request; however, Brian Nordin, owner of 750 241
Upper Colonial Drive, was present and offered further background information on the property. 242
243
Chair Field opened the public hearing. 244
245
Ira Kipp, 2273 Wagon Wheel Court, asked for clarification that this is a reduction of a city-owned 246
park and the sale of that land by the City to a private party. Planner Wall replied in the affirmative. 247
Mr. Kipp then asked if that had ever happened before in this City, to which Planner Wall was 248
unable to answer, as he did not have that information. 249
250
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 251
252
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 253
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 254
255
AYES: 5 256
NAYS: 0 257
ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 258
259
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 260
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-41, LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCES 261
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 262
1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is 263
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 264
2. The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the non- 265
conformities created by the encroachments onto city-owned property. 266
3. The temporary non-conformities created as a result of the requests will be eliminated once 267
the property in-question is combined and dissolved by the private property owners. 268
4. The existing conditions were not created by the current private property owners and create 269
a practical difficulty in subdividing a reasonable amount of land in compliance with the 270
applicable Code requirements. 271
5. Approval of the requests will not negatively impact the park or the character of the 272
neighborhood. 273
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 274
1. A purchase agreement is entered into between the City and the private property owner to 275
be approved by the City Council prior to the lot split being recorded by Dakota County. 276
2. Upon closing on the sale of the property in-question, the private property owner is required 277
to combine and dissolve the property into 750 Upper Colonial Drive. 278
3. All costs related to the sale and recording of the required documents are paid for by the 279
private property owner. 280
281
Commissioner Roston shared that reason for this request is that it appears to be correcting a mistake 282
that was made some 50 years ago. It would not necessarily be something he would be in favor of 283
to start disposing of City parkland to private property owners on a general basis. That would be a 284
mistake for the City if that were a policy. The reason the Commission can recommend approval of 285
this is because it appears to be correcting a mistake from a surveying error and it makes sense to 286
correct it in this particular unique circumstance. 287
288
Commissioner Roston moved to add a Finding of Fact #6 that “The granting of the lot split and 289
variance is reasonably necessary to correct a surveying error and is not intended to establish a 290
policy of selling City parkland.” 291
292
Commissioners Hennes and Noonan agreed to add this to their motion. 293
294
Brian Nordin, 750 Upper Colonial Court, stated that it was his understanding that the builders of 295
his property and the other properties down the line to the west mistook a mark for a curve in the 296
road as the property corner and built all of the homes based on that mistake. This led to all of the 297
houses being built further east than they should have been. So the land in-question has essentially 298
always been a part of his yard and never used as parkland. His intention in purchasing that land is 299
to bring his property back into conformance and to place a fence in the appropriate place. 300
301
Commissioner Noonan commented that, based on his understanding of the survey included in the 302
packet, the parkland and the subdivision were platted at the same time. 303
304
AYES: 5 305
NAYS: 0 306
ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 307
308
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 1, 2015 309
meeting. 310
311
PLANNING CASE #2015-42 312
Mark Gergen 313
Lot Split and Variance at 789 Ridge Place 314
315
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant, on behalf of the property owners, is 316
requesting to subdivide the parcel at 789 Ridge Place into two lots and requires a variance to 317
disturb slopes over 25%. The parcel is located on the corner of Wachtler Avenue and Ridge Place. 318
319
The subject parcel is 34,841 square feet and contains an existing single-family dwelling with an 320
attached garage accessing Wachtler Avenue. If the request were approved, the existing dwelling 321
would be demolished and two new single-family dwellings would be constructed on the lots. The 322
newly-created parcels would be 19,823 square feet and 15,018 square feet. Both would have over 323
100 feet of frontage at the 30-foot setback line and both would be compliant with applicable R-1 324
district standards. 325
326
According to the Code, due to the size and orientation of the newly-created parcels, front yard 327
setbacks would be limited to no more than 1/3 of the average lot depth, which compensates for the 328
deep lots and existing setbacks that are present on the adjacent parcels. This does influence the 329
potential building pad that would be located on Parcel A, the corner lot. 330
331
Based on the expansive front yard setbacks, staff recommended that Ridge Place be considered 332
Parcel A’s front yard with driveway access to be from either Wachtler Avenue or Ridge Place; 333
which would provide the maximum separation from the parcel to the north at 1940 Wachtler 334
Avenue. 335
336
Planner Wall continued by explaining that the Code requires that subdivisions be designed so that 337
no construction or grading would be conducted on slopes steeper than 25%. The subject parcel 338
does contain slopes in excess of 25% and those slopes would be disturbed by construction and 339
grading activities for the proposed dwellings and; therefore, requires a variance. 340
341
Staff believes that the intent of that standard was most likely to protect and preserve natural slopes 342
in the community from large-scale subdivision activities. However, it is something that still needs 343
to be addressed as part of this request. Planner Wall then reviewed the three standards of review 344
for variance requests and how this application meets those standards. 345
346
Planner Wall shared images of the parcels involved in this application. 347
348
Staff recommended approval of the lot split and variance request based on the findings of fact and 349
with conditions. 350
351
Mark Gergen, 1900 Oak Street, was present and available to answer questions or make comments 352
to the Commission. 353
354
Chair Field opened the public hearing. 355
356
Dave Boyum, 1940 Wachtler Avenue, commented on the character of the neighborhood; it is 357
mostly single-family, single-story dwellings, ramblers, and large lots. He expressed his concerns 358
about privacy from his property as he has a pool in the back yard. If they were to build 2-story 359
homes then he would lose privacy. He would prefer that the new dwellings face Ridge Place. He 360
also asked questions regarding demolition, potential damage to his place or other properties, and 361
if the value of his house would be impacted as a result of this request. 362
363
Planner Wall noted that there are a series conditions concerning the proposed request and while 364
there is currently no information on what style of home would be built, there are considerable 365
construction standards in the Code they would be held to. There is also a condition that the 366
applicant must submit a landscape plan as part of construction for those homes, which is intended 367
to mitigate impacts to surrounding properties. 368
369
John Steenberg, 804 Ridge Place, expressed his concerns that the City reserves enough land in 370
case they want to go in and correct a sight distance deficiency. As someone is coming down 371
Wachtler and making the 90-degree curve there, there are quite a few pine trees on the property 372
line and it is very difficult to see around that curve for cars coming. Mr. Steenberg is very 373
comfortable with the 53-foot setback from the property line, as recommended by staff. He also 374
wished to make sure that the City was aware – be it folklore or not – that it is believed that the 375
original builders of the house buried two funeral urns in the back yard. He believes their daughters 376
should be contacted to confirm or deny. 377
378
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 379
380
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 381
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 382
383
AYES: 5 384
NAYS: 0 385
ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 386
387
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 388
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-42, LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCE 389
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 390
1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is 391
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 392
2. Front yards for both proposed parcels oriented towards Ridge Place will maintain 393
consistent frontage compared to the dwellings to the east and across the street. 394
3. The impacted slopes over 25% appear to be man-made as part of construction of the 395
existing dwelling and associated landscaping. 396
4. The impacted slopes over 25% are less than the current 33% maximum industry-standard 397
for constructed slopes and do not span a large linear area. 398
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 399
1. Parcel A shall front Ridge Place and be subject to the applicable setback standards. 400
2. A permit is obtained and the existing single family dwelling is demolished prior to the 401
subdivision being recorded by Dakota County. 402
3. Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council 403
approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits 404
by the City. 405
4. Street reconstruction assessment fee in the amount of $3,900, as part of Project 406
9514/Improvement 96-3, is collected after City Council approval and before being 407
recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. 408
5. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a 409
building permit. 410
6. The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utility easements on both parcels 411
to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-foot wide along 412
the front property lines and 5-foot wide along the side and rear property lines. 413
7. The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning 414
Department as part of any building permit application. 415
8. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with 416
associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department as 417
part of any building permit application. 418
9. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, 419
and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance 420
Guidance Document. 421
10. Future construction on the newly created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City 422
Code provisions. 423
424
AYES: 5 425
NAYS: 0 426
ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 427
428
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 1, 2015 429
meeting. 430
431
PLANNING CASE #2015-43 432
Michael Development 433
Comprehensive Plan Amendment at 2160 Sibley Memorial Highway 434
435
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is 436
requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide the property at 2160 Sibley Memorial 437
Highway from Business to Residential use, which would be a higher density than the existing high 438
density residential designation in the City’s current Comprehensive Plan. 439
440
The proposed site is the former Larson’s Garden Center property, which is now vacant. It borders 441
to the north and to the east on the Augusta Shores Development, the Mendota Motel is directly to 442
the south, further south is a series of cul-de-sac streets that border Lemay Lake that contain single-443
family residential dwellings. The property is zoned B-3 General Business, which is the same as 444
the motel property to the south, and is guided for business use in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 445
The surrounding properties are zoned and guided for single-family residential uses as well as 446
industrial uses to the west, across Highway 55. 447
448
The applicant is requesting the proposed amendment that would allow redevelopment of the site 449
to construct a 3-story, 64-unit multi-family residential apartment building at a density of 450
approximately 23 units per acre. At this point in time, the City is considering the change of land 451
use from a business use to a potential high-density residential use. 452
453
Redevelopment of the site as a commercial use is believed to be questionable due to the poor access 454
and visibility. A residential use would be in character with the surrounding uses, the motel, and 455
existing vegetation could then provide physical and visual buffer between those single-family 456
residential uses. 457
458
The applicant has indicated that the project would be privately-financed and construction would 459
proceed as soon as all approvals are in place in 2016. The building would have a mix of floor 460
plans and would include amenities such as underground parking, a community room, fitness area, 461
cedar business center, in-unit washer and dryer, and approximately 1.5 acres of green space. 462
463
The density proposed is higher than the City currently allows, which is 8.5 units/acre. If the City 464
desires designating land for a higher density residential use, staff presented two options for 465
discussion by the Planning Commission. 466
467
Option 1 – amend the existing high density residential maximum density amount for the land use 468
category already in place, which is High Density Residential at 8.5 units per acre, up to 25 units 469
per acre and then simply re-guide the current property. 470
471
Option 2 – create a new land-use designation tentatively being referred to as Urban Residential. 472
This would then allow for a designation of 25 units per acre and would, at this time, would just 473
include this property. 474
475
If the amendment were approved by the City Council, and ultimately by the Metropolitan Council, 476
the Code would need to be amended to accommodate the proposed development’s density. 477
Because of the lack of a detailed site plan, staff is unsure how it would fit in with the current R-3 478
zone – which allows for multi-family residential development. If the City moves forward with 479
approving the land use change, further review and consultation with the applicant is necessary to 480
determine the appropriate future approvals. At a minimum, the property would need to be rezoned, 481
which requires a public hearing and future public meetings where more information would be 482
available on how the site would be designed and how it relates to the Code requirements. 483
484
Planner Wall shared images of the parcels involved in this application. 485
486
Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request based on the 487
findings of fact and with conditions. 488
489
Commissioners asked questions regarding the creation of the higher density residential category 490
in other surrounding communities, why the City’s high-density figure is so low, the upcoming 491
review of the Comprehensive Plan and what that entails and what the next steps would be if the 492
City passes this amendment request. 493
494
Mike Swenson, owner of Michael Development, and Link Wilson, project architect, came forward 495
to answer questions and make comments to the Commission about their intentions for this 496
property. 497
498
Chair Field opened the public hearing. 499
500
Tom Hanschen, 2158 Lemay Lake Drive, heard many things but nothing that addressed high-501
density usage. Mendota Heights is a nice, small, quiet community and if it were to allow this type 502
of high-density residential it would lose its identity. 503
504
Kathryn Haight, 2090 Acacia Drive, commented that for fourteen years she has had to deal with 505
the eyesore of the Larson property. It has been brought to the attention of the City and some of 506
the Councilmembers the concerns of trees that block the view, vehicles that have been left on the 507
property, the deterioration of the property and was told that nothing could be done. They’ve also 508
brought the fighting that goes on at the motel forward. For her and her family this seems like a 509
golden opportunity to bring in something that would provide some real class to the area and would 510
be lovely to view. It would be very encouraging to see a nice development on that property. She 511
expressed her desire to see this request pass and continue on in the process. 512
513
Steve Treichel, 2174 Lemay Lake Drive, commented that rezoning the property is fine with him. 514
Something needs to be there rather than the old dilapidated Larson’s Garden Center. However, it 515
seems that this is linking a particular development to the rezoning of that property. There would 516
be 64 units in this high-density apartment and then there are 46 units in Augusta Shores. With the 517
way the apartment is to be constructed with the driveway coming out to Acacia Drive and with 518
very little leeway between Highway 13 would create a significant safety concern for people coming 519
into and leaving Augusta Shores and on Highway 13. 520
521
Gerry Reed, 2050 Acacia Drive, raised his concern about the lack of assurances that these high-522
density luxury apartments staying that way. 523
524
Susan Kopher, 2162 Lemay Lake Drive, asked how the rezoning of this property to 25 units per 525
acre would affect the size of the building and how many floors there may be. 526
527
In response to various comments and concerns raised, Planner Wall reiterated that in terms of the 528
impacts moving forward there could potentially be code amendments necessary to the R-3 zoning 529
code requirements; there could be an entirely new zoning district that might have to be developed 530
or considered, all of which would have impacts as to what the height of the structure could be, 531
there are also height requirements dealing with the airport in this area, all of which would have to 532
be considered. At this point there is not enough information. Based on what the applicant has 533
proposed, a density of up to a maximum of 25 units per acre would allow them to construct a 534
3-story building potentially. 535
536
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 537
538
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 539
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 540
541
AYES: 5 542
NAYS: 0 543
ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 544
545
Commissioner Noonan recommended the re-guiding of the property to allow multi-family 546
residential uses up to 25-units per acre. He would feel comfortable pursuing the second option – 547
creating a unique category called Urban Residential, largely because this is free-standing, 548
undeveloped site; whereas, the other two examples Mr. Wall identified are already developed and 549
would be subject to redevelopment if that is the case under High Density. But it may elicit the 550
discussion as part of the Comprehensive Plan review process. 551
552
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 553
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-43, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 554
AMENDMENT TO RE-GUIDE TO 25-UNITS PER ACRE AS URBAN RESIDENTIAL 555
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 556
1. Commercial development in this area, in compliance with the goals and policies of the 557
City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, may not be viable due to access and visibility constraints. 558
2. Residential land use would be in character with other surrounding properties and the 559
existing vegetation and adjacent commercial use can provide a physical and visual buffer 560
between the proposed high-density housing and nearby low-density residential housing. 561
3. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and 562
would allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development. 563
4. The increased density provides for construction of a housing type that is lacking in the City 564
and would help to reach the forecasted population projections. 565
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 566
1. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is approved by the Metropolitan Council. 567
2. The applicant submits the necessary complete applications in consideration of the proposed 568
concept development plan within twelve (12) months of receiving approval from the 569
Metropolitan Council. 570
3. If the deadline is not met, the current future land use designation for the subject parcels 571
may remain in place. 572
573
Commissioner Roston expressed his belief that it seems to create a lot of busywork to create a new 574
district, and then create what he believes would be a new zoning district when the City is going to 575
be re-doing the Comprehensive Plan anyway. In concept, he very much likes the applicants’ 576
concept and would support it but believes it is unnecessary to create a new comprehensive zoning 577
district. 578
579
Commissioners had further discussions regarding this application, the two option choices 580
presented by staff, the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Review, and the necessary timing 581
mentioned in condition #2. 582
583
AYES: 5 584
NAYS: 0 585
ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 586
587
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 15, 2015 588
meeting. 589
590
Verbal Review 591
592
Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: 593
594
PLANNING CASE #2015-38 595
Spectrum Sign Systems, on behalf of Robert Lindahl/Crosswind, LLC and Prime Therapeutics, 596
LLC, 1440 Northland Drive. 597
Variance Request 598
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 599
600
Announcements 601
602
• Planner Wall expressed his appreciation to the members of the Planning Commission who 603
participated in the workshop with the City Council regarding the Industrial District 604
Redevelopment Plan. This will be brought forward for Council review at the December 15, 605
2015 meeting. 606
• Per request by the Chair, Planner Wall reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Review timeline. 607
• The December 22, 2015 Planning Commission meeting may be cancelled if no applications 608
are submitted by the November 30, 2015 deadline. 609
• Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello noted that other than a few punch 610
list items that will be completed in the spring, the Victoria Road project has been completed 611
for the year. 612
• Mr. Mazzitello also provided an update on the Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway 613
pedestrian grade-separated crossing. A recommendation to be made to the County Board 614
on December 1, 2015. County staff will be recommending the eastern alignment. 615
616
Adjournment 617
618
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 619
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:53 P.M. 620
621
AYES: 5 622
NAYS: 0 623
ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 624
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING
October 13, 2015
The October meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on
Tuesday, October, 2015 at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve.
Chair Hinderscheid called to order the parks and recreation commission meeting at 6:30 p.m.
The following commissioners were present: Chair Hinderschied, Commissioners: Ira Kipp,
Stephanie Levine, David Miller, Joel Paper and Student Representatives Joe Quehl and
Rachel Farber. Staff present: Recreation Programmer Sloan Wallgren.
Approval of Agenda
COMMISSIONER LEVINE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA;
COMMISSIONER PAPER SECONDED THE MOTION.
AYES 5: NAYS 0
Approval of Minutes from September 8, 2015
COMMISSIONER PAPER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 MEETING; COMMISSIONER MILLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
AYES 5: NAYS 0
Pollinator-Friendly Resolution
Mr. Wallgren presented the commission with the resolution that would be sent to city council
next week. The commission discussed the resolution and decided that it was a great idea and
very worthwhile.
COMMISSIONER MILLER MADE A MOTION FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO
CONCIDER RESOLUTION 2015-79 FOR THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TO
BECOME A POLLINATOR-FRIENDLY CITY.
AYES 5: NAYS 0
Marie Park
Mr. Wallgren informed the commission that the new warming house at Marie Park was almost
complete. Staff has received many inquiries and requests from people to use the new
pickleball courts at Marie Park, the courts have been very popular. Mr. Wallgren also noted
that a new tennis practice board was installed at the tennis courts. The new practice board was
very affordable and if it is popular we could install one at the other parks in town that have
tennis courts.
Dakota County CIP
Mr. Wallgren presented the 2016 Dakota County Capital Improvement Plan that would include
some additions to the Big Rivers Trail Head located in Mendota Heights along Sibley
Memorial Highway on the west side of the city. The plan would include a shelter with
restrooms, signage, and drinking water and possibly a covered space with tables. The plan also
would expand the parking lot. This project would be funded 50% from the County and 50%
from the State of Minnesota.
page 11
Off-Leash Dog Area
Staff informed the commission that the fence is now installed at the Off-Leash Area and the
space is ready for people to use. We will include an article in the November issue of the
Heights Highlights letting people know that it is now open and provide them with some of the
location and proper rules for use.
Par 3 Report
Mr. Wallgren presented the golf course report for the month of August. The course is having a
great year financially and the course conditions are excellent. Net revenue for the year after
August was a profit of $34,404.
Commission Comments
Commissioner Kipp was glad to see the activities planned for winter.
Commissioner Levine thought it was a good meeting and encouraged people to get our and use
the parks and trails while we still have this great weather.
Commissioner Miller thought that the meeting was positive and was glad to see things being
added to our parks.
Commissioner Paper was glad to see the golf course doing well and was excited to see the new
warming house at Marie Park.
Chair Hinderscheid commented that we have added many new things to our parks this year and
was happy with the work of the parks commission
COMMISSIONER PAPER TOTH A MOTION TO ADJURN THE MEETING.
COMMISSIONER MILLER SECONED THE MOTION.
AYES 5: NAYS 0
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted by Sloan Wallgren
page 12
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING
November 10, 2015
The November meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on
Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve.
Chair Hinderscheid called to order the parks and recreation commission meeting at 6:30 p.m.
The following commissioners were present: Chair Hinderschied, Commissioners: Ira Kipp,
Stephanie Levine, Jack Evans and Michael Toth. Staff present: Recreation Programmer Sloan
Wallgren.
Approval of Agenda
Chair Hinderscheid add the Lebanon Hills Greenway to the agenda.
COMMISSIONER LEVINE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA;
COMMISSIONER EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION.
AYES 4: NAYS 0
Approval of Minutes from October 13, 2015
COMMISSIONER LEVINE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE
OCTOBER 13, 2015 MEETING; COMMISSIONER EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION.
AYES 4: NAYS 0
Announcements
Mr. Wallgren congratulated all of the local high school student athletes that were participating
in the various state tournaments.
Park Dedication Fees
Mr. Wallgren explained to the commission that the park dedication fee is currently $2,700 for
residential lots and 10% of the assessed value for new commercial and industrial lots. This fee
was last increased in 2003 from $1,500 to $2,700. A recent survey of other metro cities shows
that the City of Mendota Heights is below the average ($3,911) for park dedication fees of
residential lots. The commission discussed the reason and necessity to increase the park
dedication fees.
COMMISSIONER LEVINE MADE A MOTION FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO
CONSIDER INCREASING THE PARK DEDICATION FEE OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO
AT LEAST THE METRO AVERAGE OF $3,911. COMMISSIONER EVANS SECONDED
THE MOTION.
AYES 5: NAYS 0
Pollinator-Friendly City Resolution
Mr. Wallgren explained that the commission should develop a plan of action to become a
Pollinator-Friendly City, before this resolution is brought forward to the city council. The
commission discussed items that they would like to see involved with becoming a Pollinator-
page 13
Friendly City. The following list are several things that the city would do to encourage
residents to be pollinator-friendly:
-Have an educational article in the spring issue of the Heights Highlights.
-Work with Green River Greening to plant pollinator-friendly plantings.
-Establish a plant sharing program.
-Work with the Mendota Heights Garden Club to plant some pollinator-friendly plantings.
- Provide information on the city website.
Staff will put together a list of the items along with additional information and bring it back to
the commission in December.
Lebanon Hills Greenway Trail
The commission discussed the three options that the county has recommended for the trail
crossing at Highway 110. The commission feels that a wide tunnel or over pass would be a
safer option than a tunnel.
CHAIR HINDERSCHID MADE A MOTION TO SUPPORT OPTION #2 WHICH IS
LOCATED CLOSER TO DODD ROAD AND WOULD INCLUDE A WIDE TUNNEL OR
OVER PASS. COMMISSIONER LEVINE SECCONDED THE MOTION.
AYES 4: NAYES 0: OBSTAINED 1
Par 3 Report
Mr. Wallgren presented the golf course report for the month of September. The course has had
a great year so far. Net revenue for the year through September was a profit of $38,554. The
golf course will close for the season on November 11th.
Commission Comments
Commissioner Kipp encouraged citizens to participate in the city government activities.
Commissioner Levine expressed her sympathy for Jerry Murphy’s family.
Commissioner Toth encouraged people to keep an eye out for deer and other animals this fall.
Commissioner Evans thought it was a good meeting and thanked everyone.
Chair Hinderscheid congratulated all the local athletes on their success this fall, and send his
sympathy out to the Murphy family.
COMMISSIONER PAPER LEVINE A MOTION TO ADJURN THE MEETING.
COMMISSIONER EVANS SECONED THE MOTION.
AYES 5: NAYS 0
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted by Sloan Wallgren
page 14
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sloan Wallgren, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: September Par 3 Update
Update
The golf course closed for business on November 11th. We had a great year in terms of revenue
and programs offered. We are looking at expanding programs such as after school golf clubs in
the spring and fall, as well as offering a senior league on Thursday mornings. Staff has applied
for several grants that will help us to expand our programming efforts and purchase equipment.
Maintenance Update
Everything has been removed from the golf course and put in the maintenance build for the winter.
We will have all of our equipment services and sharpened during the month of February. We also
will have to develop a plan as to how we are going to handle maintenance of the course with the
passing of Mr. Jerry Murphy. At this time staff is also looking for used golf carts to purchase
($1,500-$2,000 each), as well as a used sprayer ($8,000-$15,000).
Budget
Total sales for the month of September were $16,769 and total expenses were $13,379. Total sales
for the year through September are $154,933 and expenses are $116,379 resulting in a net profit
of $38,554 year to date.
page 15
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3
BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT
September 2015 (75% OF YEAR)
REVENUES SEPTEMBER YTD YTD
BUDGET 2015 2015 %
GREENS, LEAGUE & TOURN FEES $105,000 $11,726 $97,738 93.08%
RECREATION PROGRAMS $35,000 $2,047 $35,866 102.47%
CONCESSIONS $21,000 $2,972 $21,195 100.93%
SUNDRY REVENUE $0 $25 $134
INTEREST $250 $0 $0 0.00%
CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS $0 $0 $0 0.00%
PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $161,250 $16,769 $154,933 96.08%
EXPENDITURES SEPTEMBER YTD YTD
BUDGET 2015 2015 %
CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $30,000 $3,061 $26,187 87.29%
ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $25,043 $1,951 $19,045 76.05%
FICA/PERA $9,854 $894 $7,234 73.41%
MEDICAL INSURANCE $7,144 $490 $4,410 61.74%
U/E & W/C INSURANCE $1,250 $0 $1,536 122.87%
RENTALS $2,500 $127 $2,591 103.63%
UTILITIES $10,400 $1,133 $8,054 77.44%
PROFESSIONAL FEES - AUDIT $2,500 $0 $2,513 100.53%
PROF FEES - CONSULTING FEES $300 $0 $332 110.67%
PROF FEES - GROUNDS MGMT $6,000 $1,000 $6,000 100.00%
PROF FEES - GROUNDS WAGES $18,000 $1,957 $12,754 70.86%
PROF FEES - TREE MAINTENANCE $0 $0 $0 0.00%
ADVERTISING/NEWSLETTER $400 $0 $159 39.74%
LIABILITY/AUTO INSURANCE $3,300 $0 $3,383 102.50%
OPERATING COSTS/SUPPLIES $5,500 $1,025 $6,694 121.71%
FUEL $2,500 $131 $1,272 50.89%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $16,500 $272 $8,863 53.71%
SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $2,800 $739 $2,314 82.64%
CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $0 0.00%
ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $2,700 $598 $3,037 0.00%
PAR 3 EXPENDITURES TOTAL $146,691 $13,379 $116,379 79.34%
page 16
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3
BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT
September 2014 AND 2015
REVENUES Sept Sept YTD YTD
2014 2015 2014 2015
GREENS, LEAGUE, TOURNAMENT
FEES $11,593 $11,726 $77,577 $97,738
RECREATION PROGRAMS $1,691 $2,047 $37,328 $35,866
CONCESSIONS $2,166 $2,972 $16,072 $21,195
SUNDRY REVENUE $0 $25 $113 $134
INTEREST $0 $0 $0 $0
CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS $0 $0 $0 $0
PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $15,450 $16,769 $131,090 $154,933
EXPENDITURES
CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $2,954 $3,061 $21,176 $26,187
ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $1,861 $1,951 $18,375 $19,045
FICA/PERA $836 $894 $5,925 $7,234
MEDICAL INSURANCE $490 $490 $4,407 $4,410
U/E & W/C INSURANCE $0 $0 $1,223 $1,536
RENTALS $61 $127 $2,401 $2,591
UTILITIES $1,134 $1,133 $6,970 $8,054
PROFESSIONAL FEES-AUDIT $0 $0 $2,425 $2,513
PROF FEES-CONSULTING FEES $0 $0 $1,520 $332
PROF FEES-GROUNDS MGMT $1,000 $1,000 $6,000 $6,000
PROF FEES-GROUNDS WAGES $2,013 $1,957 $11,855 $12,754
PROF-FEES-TREE MAINTENANCE $0 $0 $0 $0
ADVERTISING/NEWSLETTER $104 $0 $309 $159
LIABILITY/AUTO INSURANCE $0 $0 $3,242 $3,383
OPERATING COSTS/SUPPLIES $1,374 $1,025 $5,324 $6,694
FUEL $262 $131 $1,656 $1,272
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $1,804 $272 $8,545 $8,863
SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $0 $739 $2,284 $2,314
CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0
ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $455 $598 $2,359 $3,037
CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $1,760 $0
PAR 3 EXPENDITUES TOTAL $14,347 $13,379 $107,756 $116,379
page 17
DATE: December 1, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Renewal of Tobacco Licenses
BACKGROUND
The following is a list of the current tobacco licensees who have applied for renewal of their
licenses. The licenses would be effective January 1 – December 31, 2016.
1) Mendota Heights Amoco, 2030 Dodd Road
2) Mendakota Country Club, 2075 Mendakota Drive 3) Mendota Liquor, 766 Highway 110
4) Northern Tier Retail, LLC d/b/a SuperAmerica #4516, 1200 Mendota Heights Road
5) Northern Tier Retail, LLC d/b/a SuperAmerica #4411, 1080 Highway 110 6) Walgreens #11764, 790 Highway 110
The establishments listed above have each submitted a complete application packet and the $200
license fee. The Police Department has completed a background investigation on all of the
applicants and found no issues or concerns.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the tobacco license renewals for the
establishments listed above for the period of January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.
page 18
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Water Tower Agreement for Cell Tower Leasing
BACKGROUND
At the October 20th meeting, the Mendota Heights City Council approved an Omnibus
Agreement with the Board of Water Commissioners for the City of Saint Paul. The new
agreement will deed ownership of the water system, including the water tower, to the Saint Paul
Regional Water Service (SPRWS). The City of Mendota Heights maintains cellular telephone
leases on the water tower, and the attached Lease agreement allows for that practice to continue
under the supervision of Mendota Heights.
The Lease agreement covers the terms previous agreed to in the Omnibus Agreement, and has
been reviewed and commented on by the City’s insurance provider, a League of Minnesota
Cities Insurance Trust attorney, and the Mendota Heights City Attorney. All parties are in
agreement that the Lease Agreement honors the provisions of the Omnibus Agreement and
should be approved as proposed.
BUDGET IMPACT
Other than the provisions agreed to Omnibus Agreement, the Lease Agreement does not include
any further financial obligations on the part of the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Lease Agreement Between Board of Water
Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul and the City of Mendota Heights.
If Council desires to implement the Staff recommendation, pass a motion approving the attached
Lease Agreement Between Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul and the
City of Mendota Heights by a simple majority vote.
page 19
LEASE AGREEMENT
Between Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul and
The City of Mendota Heights
This Lease Agreement (“Lease”) is entered into this ____ day of __________________,
2015, between the BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SAINT
PAUL, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“Lessor”), and THE CITY OF MENDOTA
HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“Lessee”).
Lessor and Lessee have previously entered into an Omnibus Agreement dated_______________,
2015 (“Omnibus Agreement”) whereby Lessee, in addition to various obligations and
agreements, agrees to transfer to Lessor title and ownership of the Lessee’s water tower located
at 2431 Lexington Avenue, Mendota Heights, Minnesota; and whereby Lessor, in addition to
various obligations and agreements, agrees to lease space on the water tower back to Lessee so
that Lessee may maintain its existing antenna site leasing program at that location.
In consideration of the terms and conditions of this Lease, the parties agree as follows:
1. Leased Premises.
(a) Lessor hereby leases to Lessee certain space located at and on Lessor’s water tower at
2431 Lexington Avenue. The water tower and its appurtenances (together, the
“Structure”), are situated within an easement granted to Lessor by Lessee, as required by
Article II, Section 7 of the Omnibus Agreement (the “Easement Area”),
(b) The interest leased and granted by the Lessor to Lessee (collectively, the “Leased
Premises”) consists of the following:
(1) Structure exterior for attachment of antennas and appurtenances;
(2) Space required for cable runs to connect antennas and appurtenances to ground
equipment situated at grade;
(3) At-grade space within the dry fluted column of the water tower for storage of
property owned by Lessee, amount and location of which to be approved by Lessor.
Lessee agrees that at no time shall such property storage adversely affect Lessor’s
access to any portion of the Structure
(c) No other space or property interests are being leased to Lessee.
2. Term
(a) Following execution of this Lease by the authorized parties, the term of this Lease shall
commence on the same date the Omnibus Agreement between Lessor and Lessee
becomes effective (“Commencement Date”) and shall be effective until terminated by the
parties in accordance with this Lease or upon termination of the Omnibus Agreement.
3. Lease Compensation.
page 20
(a) Lessee shall make all payments of compensation to Lessor at the following address or
until otherwise notified of a change in address:
Board of Water Commissioners
Attn: SPRWS Accounting
1900 Rice Street, Office Building
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55113
(b) Lessor’s FIN number is # 41-6005521.
(c) Lessee shall compensate Lessor by paying to it fifty percent (50%) of the total revenues
received from any and all sublease activities, which payment shall initially be collected
by the Lessor as a part of the Omnibus Agreement, Article III, Section 1, Phase-in
Schedule, for the years 2016 through 2021. Thereafter, pursuant to this Lease, Lessee
shall pay directly to Lessor fifty percent (50%) of the said total revenues, beginning
January 1, 2022, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the same.
(d) In the event that a sublease should become suspended, terminated or expired, Lessee shall
continue to owe Lessor compensation as if such sublease was still in effect until the date
that all such sub-lessee’s facilities are removed from the Leased Premises.
4. Use of Leased Premises.
(a) Primary Use of Structure
The primary use and purpose of the Structure, including the Leased Premises, is for a
water storage structure and appurtenances to provide water service to customers of the
Lessor (“Primary Use”). Lessor’s operations in connection with pursuit of the Primary
Use (“Lessor’s Operations”) take priority over Lessee’s operations and Lessor reserves
the right to take any action it deems necessary, to repair, maintain, alter, or improve the
Structure in connection with the Primary Use.
(b) Jeopardy of Primary Use
(1) In the event that the Lessor’s Primary Use of the Structure is put at risk because of
Lessee’s operations (“Jeopardy”), Lessor shall provide written notice of such event to
Lessee. Lessor and Lessee agree to work together to cure the occurrence that causes
the Jeopardy. Lessee shall make all good efforts to cure the Jeopardy within thirty
(30) days of receipt of written notice of event. If Lessee does not cure the Jeopardy
within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice of event, said occurrence of
Jeopardy shall constitute an event of default by Lessee, as otherwise defined in
Section 20. Termination. If circumstances beyond the control of Lessee prohibit the
Jeopardy from reasonably being cured within thirty (30) days, Lessee shall notify
Lessor of such circumstances and commence actions required to cure the Jeopardy
(e.g. assessing the problem, ordering necessary equipment) within seven (7) days of
Lessor’s written notice of Jeopardy and shall diligently pursue the cure to completion
within a reasonable time thereafter.
page 21
(2) In the event of Jeopardy that poses an immediate threat of substantial harm or damage
to the water supply, to persons, and/or property on the Leased Premises, as solely
determined by Lessor (“Severe Jeopardy”), Lessor may enter the Easement Area and
take actions it determines are required to protect the water, individuals or personal
property from such Severe Jeopardy; provided that promptly after such emergency
entry onto the Leased Premises, and in no event later than twenty-four (24) hours
after such entry, Lessor gives written notice to Lessee of Lessor’s emergency
entrance.
(3) If Lessor determines that the conditions of a Severe Jeopardy would be benefited by
cessation of Lessee’s or its sub-lessees’ operations, Lessee or its sub-lessee shall
immediately cease its operations on the Leased Premises upon notice from Lessor to
do so and Lessee shall be permitted to terminate this Lease upon written notice to
Lessor.
(c) Lessee’s Use of Leased Premises
(1) Lessee shall have the exclusive right, at its sole cost and expense, to sublet the Leased
Premises for the transmission and reception of wireless communications signals
(“Approved Use”). In accordance with this Approved Use, the Lessee’s sub-lessees
have the right to install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, store or remove its
antennas, equipment, personal property, leasehold improvements, and appurtenances
for the transmission and reception of wireless communications signals.
(2) Lessee shall be responsible for extraordinary expenses incurred by the Lessor
resulting from the use and/or occupancy of the Leased Premises by Lessee or its sub-
lessees. Lessor shall submit an itemized invoice of such expenses to Lessee and
Lessee shall make payment to Lessor within thirty (30) days of receipt.
(3) Lessee shall be responsible for all actions, omissions, operations and liabilities of its
sub-lessees, including all actions and operations that may be required or prohibited by
this Lease. In the event that a sub-lessee acts or operates in a manner which is in
violation of any terms or conditions of this Lease, or creates a situation as a result of
its actions, omissions or operations which requires remedies as may be specified by
this Lease, and rectification of such violations or remedy of such situations is not
accomplished within thirty (30) days of written notice to Lessee of such violations or
situation, Lessor shall have the right to take any and all actions it deems necessary to
rectify such violations or accomplish such remedies, subject to terms and conditions
of this Lease. Lessee is responsible for all costs and expenses Lessor incurs as a
result of such actions. Lessee shall reimburse Lessor for said costs and expenses
within thirty (30) days of receipt of the same.
(4) In the event that Lessor chooses not to exercise its right to take said actions, and
rectification of such violations or remedy of such situations is not accomplished to
Lessor’s satisfaction within sixty (60) days of receipt by the Lessee of written notice
of such violation or situation, Lessor may terminate this Lease, subject to Section
20.(a)(1).
(d) Additional Leases by Lessor
page 22
Lessor agrees not to lease the Leased Premises to any other party and shall refer any such
request to the Lessee.
5. Installation of Equipment and Leasehold Improvements.
(a) Within thirty (30) days of the Commencement Date of this Lease, Lessee shall provide
Lessor with the following:
(1) Copies of all leases and any subsequent amendments to such leases, current and
expired, on the Structure which Lessee entered into prior to Commencement Date;
and
(2) A site plan consisting of drawings and diagrams of the existing antenna facilities and
any leasehold improvements on the Leased Premises and within the Easement Area,
which show the actual location of all equipment, utilities and improvements. Said
drawings shall be accompanied by a complete and detailed inventory of existing
antenna facilities including all equipment, personal property, and frequencies. Lessee
shall provide same site plans and inventory for future installations at least thirty (30)
days in advance of the proposed date of installation. All such drawings and diagrams
must be provided in a digital format acceptable to Lessor; and
(3) A radiation survey of the Leased Premises performed by a professional radio
frequency engineer chosen by the Lessor.
(b) All new subleases of the Leased Premises and initial installations by Lessee or its sub-
lessees’ facilities and leasehold improvements, and any subsequent revisions and/or
modifications of the same or existing facilities which are entered into or which occur
after the Commencement Date of this Lease, shall be subject to prior written approval by
Lessor. Lease shall include all construction drawings and specifications proposed for
installation. Lessor shall approve or object to such subleases, installations and
improvements within thirty (30) days of receipt of proposals for same, and Lessor’s
failure to make any objection within said thirty (30) day period shall be deemed approval
by Lessor. Any damage to the Structure, Leased Premises, or any equipment thereon
caused by Lessee or its sub-lessees’ use of the Structure shall be repaired or replaced at
Lessee’s expense and to Lessor’s reasonable satisfaction.
(c) Lessee must obtain an engineering study performed by a qualified engineer, showing that
the Structure is able to support proposed facilities. If the study finds that the Structure is
inadequate to support the proposed antenna loads, Lessee shall be responsible for any
construction required for the improvement of the Structure to accommodate such added
load. However, Lessor reserves the right to deny installation of such facilities prior to
commencement of any such construction.
(d) Lessee must obtain a radio frequency interference study carried out by an independent
professional radio frequency engineer (“RF Engineer”) showing that any proposed use
will not interfere with Lessor’s existing communications facilities located on the
Structure. RF Engineer shall provide said evaluation no later than thirty (30) days after
frequencies are provided by Lessee or its sub-lessee. Lessee shall provide Lessor with a
copy of a satisfactorily completed RF evaluation prior to its proposed sub-lessee
transmitting or receiving radio waves within the Leased Premises.
page 23
(e) Lessor shall have the right to install, maintain and operate a Supervisory Control and
Data Acquisition (SCADA) radio broadcasting system on the Leased Premises. Lessee
agrees to provide the necessary interference studies to insure that proposed modified or
additional frequencies will not cause harmful radio interference to Lessor’s system prior
to modifying or placing additional transmitter or receiver frequencies on the Leased
Premises, or allowing its sub-lessees to do the same. Such studies shall be performed by
a registered professional communications engineer and submitted to Lessor for review.
However, Lessor, in its sole discretion, shall retain the right provided herein to submit the
study results to its own registered professional communications engineer for review at
Lessee’s expense.
6. Modifications.
(a) Before the Lessee or its sub-lessees update or replace the Antenna Facilities, Lessee must
provide a detailed proposal to Lessor. The proposal shall include any information
reasonably requested by Lessor of such requested update or replacement, including but
not limited to construction drawings, specifications, and a complete list of all proposed
equipment and frequencies as may be required under Section 5. Installation of
Equipment and Leasehold Improvements of this Lease, without expense to Lessor. The
proposal must be approved by Lessor, which shall not be withheld, conditioned or
delayed without cause.
(b) Lessee shall provide at least sixty (60) days written notice to Lessor before any
frequencies may be modified. Said notice shall describe all equipment and frequencies
proposed to be added or modified and shall be subject to review and approval by the RF
Engineer, which shall not be withheld, conditioned or delayed without cause. Said review
shall consist of interference studies to ensure that the modified or additional frequencies
will not cause harmful radio interference to Lessor’s Operations. All such interference
studies shall be provided at no expense to Lessor. In the alternative, Lessee may perform
the interference studies and submit the results to the Lessor for review and approval.
However, Lessor shall, in its sole discretion, retain the right provided herein to submit the
study results to the RF Engineer for review at Lessee’s sole expense.
(c) If Lessee or its sub-lessees seek to increase the number of antennas and/or associated
transmitting accessories, and such installation shall exceed the requirements or standard
submitted in the engineering report as required by Section 5.(c), then Lessee must obtain
an engineering study carried out by a qualified professional demonstrating that the
Structure can structurally support the additional accessories.
7. Marking and Lighting Requirements.
(a) Lessor acknowledges that it shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, for
compliance with all building marking and lighting requirements that the Federal Aviation
Administration (“FAA”) may require with respect solely to the height of the Structure.
The responsibility, however, is expressly limited to the requirements that would be
required of an elevated water storage facility having no communications equipment
installed on it, irrespective of Lessee’s Approved Use. Lessor shall indemnify and hold
harmless Lessee from any fines or other liabilities caused by Lessor’s failure to comply
with such requirements for an elevated water storage facility structure. Further, should
page 24
the FAA cite Lessor, or in the event any claims are brought against Lessor because the
Structure alone is not in compliance, as opposed to the Structure with antenna facilities,
then Lessor shall indemnify Lessee for full costs, liabilities, damages and expenses,
including reasonable attorney’s fees. Further, if Lessor does not cure the conditions of
noncompliance on the Structure within the timeframe allowed by the citing agency,
Lessee may terminate this Lease immediately without any further liability hereunder
upon written notice to Lessor.
(b) Lessee acknowledges that it shall be responsible at its sole cost and expense, for
compliance with all building marking and lighting requirements that the FAA may
require with respect to Lessee’s Approved Use. In the event the FAA determines that the
Structure must be additionally marked, lighted, or in any way modified, due to Approved
Use, Lessee shall have the option to mark, light or modify the Structure at its sole
expense, or to terminate this Lease, pursuant to Section 20. Termination. Said marking,
lighting and modifying shall be subject to prior written approval by Lessor. Lessor shall
approve or object to such plans within a reasonable period of time to allow timely
compliance with FAA regulations.
8. RF Radiation Compliance.
(a) An RF Engineer chosen by the Lessor shall perform a radiation survey of the Leased
Premises within thirty (30) days of full integration of any future facilities. Lessee shall be
responsible for all costs of such survey.
(b) Lessee shall be responsible for the implementation of all measures at the transmission site
required by Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulations, including but not
limited to posting signs and markings. Lessor shall cooperate with and permit Lessee and
its sub-lessees to implement all reasonable measures in order for Lessee and its sub-
lessees to fulfill its Radio Frequency exposure obligations. Future subleases must require
the sub-lessee to assume all liability for later-arising non-compliance of FCC Radio
Frequency radiation limits, as measured on the Leased Premises.
9. Maintenance and Repairs.
(a) Structure
Lessor reserves the right to take any action it deems necessary, in its sole and reasonable
discretion, to repair, maintain, alter, or improve the Structure in connection with Lessor's
Operations.
(b) Structure Reconditioning and Repairs
(1) From time to time, Lessor paints, reconditions, or otherwise improves or repairs the
Structure in a substantial way (“Reconditioning Work”). Lessor shall reasonably
cooperate with Lessee and its sub-lessees to carry out Reconditioning Work activities
in a timely manner and in a manner that minimizes interference with Lessee’s
Approved Use.
(2) Prior to commencing Reconditioning Work, Lessor shall provide Lessee with not less
than sixty (60) days prior written notice thereof. Upon receiving such notice, it shall
page 25
be the sole responsibility of Lessee to provide adequate measures to cover or
otherwise protect Lessee’s and its sub-lessees’ antenna facilities from the
consequences of such activities, including but not limited to paint and debris fallout.
Lessor reserves the right to require Lessee to remove all antenna facilities from the
Structure and Leased Premises during Reconditioning Work.
(3) During Lessor’s Reconditioning Work, Lessee may maintain a mobile site within the
Easement Area to accommodate the needs of its sub-lessees. If proposed
accommodations adversely affect Lessor’s easement rights or the Reconditioning
Work, such accommodations must be approved by Lessor prior to its implementation
which shall not be withheld, conditioned or delayed without cause.
(4) Lessee may request a modification of Lessor’s procedures for carrying out
Reconditioning Work in order to reduce the interference with Lessee’s Approved
Use. If Lessor agrees to the modification, Lessee shall be responsible for all
incremental cost related to the modification.
(5) For minor repairs or maintenance, Lessor agrees to provide Lessee with five (5) days
advance notice of any such activities and to reasonably cooperate with Lessee to carry
out such activities in a manner that minimizes interference with Lessee’s Approved
Use.
(c) Leased Premises
Lessee shall require its sub-lessees to maintain their respective antenna facilities in good
and safe condition, and in compliance with applicable fire, health, building, and other life
safety codes at their own cost and expense.
10. Leased Premises Access.
Access to the Leased Premises, by outside persons, including Lessee’s employees, agents,
sublessees and assigns, shall at all times be governed by Lessor’s Security Plan, attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, Security Plan. Lessee agrees it shall conduct
its operations on the Leased Premises in accordance with all requirements and conditions of
said Security Plan. Subject to said requirements and conditions of said Security Plan, Lessee
and Lessor agree to the following:
(a) Lessee may, at its own cost and expense, enter upon the Leased Premises to study and
determine its suitability for any other use of Lessee, which studies may include surveys,
radio wave propagation measurements, or field strength tests.
(b) Lessor retains the right to examine and inspect the Leased Premises for safety reasons
and to ensure Lessee’s compliance with the terms of this Lease. Lessor shall be liable
for, and hold harmless Lessee from, any damage to the Leased Premises or to Lessee’s
equipment and Antenna Facilities caused by Lessor in exercising its right to examine and
inspect the Leased Premises.
11. Compliance and Statutes, Regulations, and Approvals.
(a) Lessee’s and its sub-lessees’ use of the Leased Premises herein is contingent upon
obtaining all certificates, permits, zoning, and other approvals that may be required by
page 26
any federal, state or local authority, including but not limited to an engineering study and
a radio frequency interference study.
(b) Lessee’s Antenna Facilities and any other facilities shall be installed, maintained, and
operated in accordance with all state, federal, local, or municipal statutes, ordinances,
rules, or regulations now in effect, or that hereafter may be issued by the FCC or any
other governing bodies which apply to Lessee’s Authorized Use of the Leased Premises.
12. Interference.
a) In the performance of its Approved Use, Lessee shall not damage or interfere with
Lessor’s Operations, including its radio frequency transmissions, provided that the
equipment used by Lessor is operating within the technical parameters specified by its
manufacturer and/or as defined by the FCC. In the event of any such interference, Lessee
shall immediately cause the interference to cease, except for brief tests necessary for the
elimination of the interference and until Lessee is able to resolve the problem. In the
event Lessee cannot correct the interference, Lessee shall have the option to terminate
this Lease, pursuant to Section 20. Termination.
b) Lessor in no way guarantees to Lessee noninterference with Lessee’s transmission or
subleasing operations.
13. Insurance.
(a) Lessee shall maintain standard insurance coverage with the League of Minnesota Cities
Insurance Trust or equivalent coverage from an insurance company licensed to operate in
Minnesota in accordance with this section. The Lessee shall be covered under such
insurance programs from claims for damages and bodily injuries, including accidental
death, as well as from claims for damage to property including property owned by
Lessor, which may arise from operations incidental to this Lease, including coverage for
damage to structures of any kind or underground structure of any kind, whether such
operations be by Lessee or its sub-lessees, or by any contractor or subcontractor or by
anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them. The minimum amount of such
coverage shall be the maximum liability limits set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section
466.04 as amended. Lessee agrees to add Lessor and its employees, officers and agents
as additional insureds on Lessee’s general liability coverage.
(b) Lessee shall require that Sub-lessees obtain and maintain the following insurance to
protect the parties against any and all claims, demands, actions, judgments, expenses, and
liabilities that may arise out of or result from its use of the Leased Premises:
(1) General Liability Insurance
a. Bodily Injury $1,500,000 each occurrence
$3,000,000 aggregate
b. Property Insurance $1,500,000 each accident
$3,000,000 aggregate
c. These limits may be satisfied by the commercial General Liability coverage or in
combinations with an umbrella or excess liability policy, provided coverage
page 27
afforded by the umbrella or excess policy are no less than the underlying
commercial General Liability coverage.
d. Policy must include an “all services, products, or completed operations”
endorsement. Sub-lessee shall maintain completed operations coverage for a
minimum of two years after the construction is completed.
(2) Automobile Insurance
a. Bodily Injury $1,000,000 per person
$1,500,000 per accident
b. Property damage not less than $1,500,000 per accident.
c. The liability limits may be afforded under the Commercial Policy, or in
combination with an umbrella or excess liability policy provided coverage of
rides afforded by the umbrella or excess policy are not less than the underlying
Commercial Auto Liability coverage.
d. The Commercial Automobile Policy shall include at least statutory personal injury
protection, uninsured motorists and under insured coverage.
e. Coverage shall be provided by Bodily Injury and Property Damage for the
ownership, use, maintenance or operation of all owned, non-owned and hired
automobiles.
(3) Workers Compensation and Employer’s Liability
a. Worker’s Compensation per Minnesota Statute
b. Employer’s Liability shall have minimum limits of:
1. $500,000 per accident;
2. $500,000 per employee
3. $500,000 per disease policy limit
c. Sub-lessees with 10 or fewer employees who do not have Workers Compensation
coverage are required to provide a completed “Certificate of Compliance” (State
of Minnesota form MN LIC 04) verifying the number of employees and the
reason for their exemption.
(c) Prior to the commencement date of any subleases, and annually thereafter prior to
expiration date of the same, Lessee shall require its sub-lessees to provide Lessor with
evidence of the required insurance in the form of a Certificate of Insurance (“COI”)
issued by an insurance company (rated A- or better by Best Insurance Guide) licensed to
do business in the State of Minnesota, which shall include all coverage required in
Section 13. (b) above. COI must be approved by the Lessor and shall:
(1) State that the insurance provides primary coverage
(2) Provide that Lessor shall be given notice of cancellation in accordance with the
policy’s terms and conditions.
(3) State if the policy includes errors and omissions coverage.
(4) State that the Lessor and the City of Saint Paul, and their officials, employees, agents
page 28
and representatives are Additional Insureds under General Liability and Automobile
coverage.
(d) Policies are to be written on an occurrence basis or as acceptable to the Lessor.
(e) Satisfaction of policy and endorsement requirements for General Liability and Auto
Insurance, of “each occurrence” and “aggregate” limits, can be met with an umbrella or
excess policy with the same minimum monetary limits written on an occurrence basis,
providing it is written by the same insurance carrier.
14. Indemnity.
Lessee agrees to indemnify, defend, save, and hold harmless Lessor and the City of Saint
Paul, and/or any agents, officers or employees thereof from all claims, demands, actions, or
causes of action of whatsoever nature or character, arising out of, or by reason of, the leasing
of the Leased Premises by the Lessor to Lessee, or arising out of, or by reason of, the use or
condition of the Leased Premises, or as a result of Lessee’s operations or business activities
taking place on the Leased Premises or Lessee’s breach of any provision of this Lease,
provided the same is not due to the contributory negligence or willful misconduct of the
Lessor, the City of Saint Paul and/or any agents, contractors, officers, or employees thereof.
It is fully understood and agreed that Lessee is aware of the conditions of the Leased
Premises and leases the same “as is.”
15. Notices.
All notices, requests, demands, and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and
shall be deemed to have been duly given (a) when delivered in person, (b) upon receipt after
dispatch by registered or certified mail or (c) on the next Business Day if transmitted by
national overnight courier (with confirmation of delivery) to the following addresses:
If to Lessor: Board of Water Commissioners
Attn: General Manager
1900 Rice Street, Office Building
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55113
If to Lessee, to: Mendota Heights City Administrator
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
16. Representations and Warranties.
(a) Lessor represents that (i) it has full right, power, and authority to execute this Lease; (ii)
it has good and unencumbered title to the Structure free and clear of any liens or
mortgages, subject to such liens of record; (iii) Lessee shall have quiet enjoyment of the
Leased Premises during the term of this Lease in accordance with its terms.
(b) Lessee warrants that the individuals signing and executing this Lease on behalf of Lessee
have the requisite corporate power and authority to enter into and perform this Lease on
behalf of Lessee. Lessor warrants that the individuals signing and executing this Lease
on behalf of Lessor have the requisite corporate power and authority to enter into and
page 29
perform this Lease on behalf of Lessor.
(c) Lessor represents that it has no knowledge of any substance, chemical or waste within the
Easement Area that is identified as hazardous, toxic or dangerous in any applicable
federal, state or local law or regulation, as defined in Section 16.(d) of this Lease. Lessor
shall be solely liable for and shall defend, indemnify and hold Lessee, its agents and
employees harmless from and against any and all direct claims, costs and liabilities,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with the
removal, cleanup or restoration of the Easement Area with respect to hazardous, toxic or
dangerous materials from any and all sources other than those hazardous, toxic or
dangerous materials introduced to the Easement Area by Lessee. Lessee represents and
warrants that its use of the Leased Premises herein shall not generate and it shall not store
or dispose within the Easement Area nor transport to or over the Easement Area any
hazardous substance, chemical or waste contrary to any applicable law or regulation.
Lessee further agrees to hold Lessor harmless from and indemnify Lessor against any
release of any such hazardous substance, and any damage, loss, expense, or liability
resulting from the breach of this representation or from the violation of any applicable
state or federal law by such release associated with Lessee’s use of hazardous substances,
including payment of all reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and penalties incurred as a
result thereof, except for any release caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of
Lessor, its employees, or agents.
(d) “Hazardous substance” shall be interpreted broadly to mean any substance or material
defined or designated as hazardous or toxic waste, hazardous or toxic material, hazardous
or toxic or radioactive substance, or other similar term by any federal, state, or local
environmental law, regulation or rule presently in effect or promulgated in the future, as
such laws, regulations, or rules may be amended from time to time.
17. No Liability on Lessor.
Except due to Lessor’s willful misconduct or negligence, Lessor shall not be liable for any
damage to Lessee’s or its sub-lessees’ equipment or antenna facilities. Lessor shall not be
liable for vandalism or malicious mischief caused by third parties, known or unknown, to
Lessee's or its sub-lessees’ equipment or facilities, nor shall Lessor be liable for any lost
revenue, business or profits of Lessee or its sub-lessees.
18. Assignment.
Lessee may not assign or sublet this Lease without the prior written consent of Lessor.
19. Successors and Assigns.
This Lease shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective
successors, personal representatives and assigns.
20. Termination.
(a) Except as provided for in Section 20.(a)(3)b. below, or as otherwise provided herein, this
Lease may be terminated by either party upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other
party for the following reasons:
page 30
(1) By either party, upon a material default of any other covenant or term hereof by the
other party; which default is not cured within sixty (60) days of receipt of written
notice of default to the other party (without, however, limiting any other rights of the
parties at law, in equity, or pursuant to any other provisions hereof), or if such cure
cannot be completed within sixty (60) days, within such reasonable time as may be
required, provided the defaulting party commences the cure within ten (10) days of
receipt of written notice of default and diligently pursues such cure to completion;
(2) By Lessee, in the event that:
a. Lessee is unable to obtain or maintain any license, permit, or other governmental
approval necessary for Lessee’s Approved Use;
b. The Leased Premises are or become unusable under Lessee’s design or
engineering specifications for its Approved Use;
c. Lessee’s or any of its sub-lessees’ transmissions are interfered with by Lessor.
Such right to terminate shall become void if Lessor cures such interference within
thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice; or
d. The Structure or any portion thereof is destroyed or damaged so as to hinder its
effective use, upon thirty (30) days written notice to Lessor. In such event, all
rights and obligations of the parties shall cease as of the date of the damage or
destruction and Lessee shall be entitled to the reimbursement of any
Compensation prepaid by Lessee, prorated to the date of the event.
(3) By Lessor, in the event that:
a. Lessor determines, after review by an independent structural engineer, that the
Structure is structurally unsound, including but not limited to consideration of age
of the Structure, damage or destruction of all or part of the Structure from any
source, or factors relating to condition of the Structure;
b. Lessee fails to pay the compensation provided for in Section 3. Lease
Compensation within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice from Lessor of a
payment being overdue; or
c. Upon one year prior written notice by the Lessor to Lessee if Lessor decides, for
any reason, to redevelop and/or discontinue use of the Leased Premises in a
manner inconsistent with continued use of the Leased Premises by Lessee.
(b) If this Lease is terminated, pursuant to the terms and conditions of Section 20.(a),
Compensation shall be pro-rated to the expiration date or the date on which all of
communication equipment is removed from the Leased Premises, whichever is later.
(c) In the event Lessee becomes aware of any hazardous materials within the Easement Area,
or any environmental, health or safety conditions or matter relating to the Easement Area,
that, in Lessee’s sole determination, renders the condition of the Leased Premises
unsuitable for Lessee’s use, or if Lessee believes that the leasing or continued leasing of
the Leased Premises would expose Lessee to undue risks of liability to a government
agency or third party, Lessee shall have the right, in addition to any other rights it may
have at law or in equity, to terminate this Lease upon written notice to Lessor specifically
identifying all such materials, conditions or matters relating to the Easement Area.
21. Surrender of Leased Premises.
page 31
(a) In the event that this Lease is terminated, Lessee shall have sixty (60) days from the
termination to quit peacefully and surrender possession of the Leased Premises in as good
condition as when it was delivered to Lessee, reasonable wear and tear and casualty loss
excepted. Lessee shall require the removal of its sub-lessees’ equipment, personal
property, Antenna Facilities, and leasehold improvements from the Structure, and shall
repair any damage to the Structure caused by such equipment, all at Lessee’s own cost
and expense.
(b) In the event Lessee’s sub-lessees’ equipment, personal property, antenna facilities, and
leasehold improvements are not removed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Lessor
within sixty (60) days from the termination, the Lessor shall have the option to fully
decommission the Antenna Facilities, have the Antenna Facilities removed, and repair
and restore the Structure, and Lessee shall be responsible for the cost of such actions.
22. Miscellaneous.
(a) Each party agrees to furnish to the other, within thirty (30) days after notice of receipt of
the request, such truthful estoppel information as the other party may reasonably request.
(b) This Lease constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties and
supersedes any and all offers, negotiations, or other agreements of any kind. There are no
representations or understandings of any kind not set forth herein. Any modification of
or amendment to this Lease must be in writing and executed by both parties. No
provision of this Lease shall be deemed waived by either party unless expressly waived in
writing by the waiving party. No waiver shall be implied by delay or any other act or
omission of either party. No waiver by either party of any provisions of this Lease shall
be deemed a waiver of such provision with respect to any subsequent matter relating to
such provision. This Lease may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall
be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute a single instrument.
(c) This Lease shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Any legal action may only be commenced and proceed in the relevant district court in
Ramsey County, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
(d) If any term of this Lease is found to be void or invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the
remaining terms of this Lease, which shall continue in full force and effect.
(e) Any terms and conditions contained in this Lease that by their sense and context are
intended to survive the termination or expiration of this Lease shall so survive.
(f) The submission of this Lease to any party for examination or consideration does not
constitute an offer, reservation of or option for the Leased Premises based on the terms
set forth herein. This Lease shall become effective as a binding Lease only upon the
handwritten legal execution and delivery hereof by Lessor and Lessee.
-- The remainder of this page left intentionally blank --
page 32
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on
the dates listed below.
Approved as to form:
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL
By: By:
Stephen P. Schneider, General Manager
Saint Paul Regional Water Services
Matt Anfang, President
Date: Date:
By: By:
Lisa Veith
Assistant City Attorney
Mollie Gagnelius
Secretary
Date: Date:
By:
Todd Hurley
Director, Office of Financial Services
Date:
Approved as to form: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By: By:
City Attorney Sandra Krebsbach
Mayor, City of Mendota Heights
Date: Date:
By:
Mark McNeill
City Administrator, City of Mendota Heights
Date:
page 33
EXHIBIT “A”
SECURITY PLAN
Remote Facilities Access
Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS)
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
Effective Date: November 15, 2010
INTENT:
SPRWS is dedicated to providing its employees with the safest work environment possible and
to taking every reasonable precaution to ensure the safety of potable water delivered to our
communities. This SOP provides conditions for persons with need to access SPRWS facilities
outside the McCarrons Center facilities (Remote Facilities). It establishes procedures for access
and responsibilities for both those wishing to enter remote facilities and those allowing such
access.
SECURITY OF FACILITIES:
Persons with routine access to remote facilities include SPRWS staff, agents of entities leasing
space, agents of various cities, and various law enforcement personnel. Other entities also have
occasional access needs under the supervision of SPRWS staff. With so many persons having
legitimate access needs, it is imperative that specific procedures be established to ensure that the
highest level of security possible. As a result, the following procedures are established:
1.0 SITE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
1.01 Request to access site required prior to entry. Important: note that the police will be
called to the site if a call is not made to SPRWS prior to entry.
Note: all requests for entry to remote sites must be made through the Engine Room!
Any other employee asked to allow entry to a remote site must inform the requester to
call the Engine Room so that they can be cleared for entry.
a) Routine and regularly scheduled
Whenever possible, authorized agencies that require repeated, routine access
should schedule such access during normal business hours at least one day in
advance by calling SPRWS Engine Room at 651-266-1660. The Engine Room
Pumping Engineer will record the name of the agent and arrange for crew to meet
agent on site and allow for access after checking for proper ID. Pumping Engineer
will verify that agents requesting access are those that arranged for the access
previously, and pass the authorized agents names to the field crew for verification
in the field. If access is allowed, field crew will notify Engine Room that an entry
to a site will occur.
EXHIBIT “A”
Page 1 of 5
page 34
b) Emergencies
1. Contact Engine Room [651-266-1660].
2. Engine Room Pumping Engineer (PE II) will check against a list of authorized
companies for each site to ensure that a particular company has reason to be
on site.
3. If company is authorized, PE II will make arrangements with the Distribution
after-hours Turn-On truck to allow for access at the site.
4. Distribution personnel will be responsible to verify the identity of the agent(s)
and to monitor agent(s’) activity at the site.
5. Under certain conditions, Distribution personnel may not be available, in
which case PE IIs will use their best judgment to determine if there is another
way to grant access to the agent, or to deny or delay access.
1.02 While at site:
a) Authorized agents are required to perform their necessary work on the site in a
manner that does not compromise site security. This includes, but is not limited
to, securing all doors and gates before leaving the site.
b) SPRWS employees will determine whether or not they will need to monitor the
activity at the site. If SPRWS employee believes that the agent is not there for a
legitimate business reason, the employee should get to a safe area and call 911 to
have police confront the agent and remove them if necessary. In this event,
SPRWS employee should also call the Engine Room to inform them of the
proceedings.
1.03 Leaving site:
a) Authorized agents must notify Engine Room [651-266-1660] when leaving the
site.
2.0 IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES
2.01 All SPRWS staff and personnel are issued a SPRWS photo identification card (ID
card) at the McCarrons facility. This ID is to be displayed above the waist. Anyone
purporting to be a SPRWS employee should be asked to display this ID card if it is
not visible.
EXHIBIT “A”
Page 2 of 5
page 35
2.02 Contractors or agents seeking entrance to a remote facility are required to show a
valid driver’s license. SPRWS employee allowing them access will forward the name
and phone number of the entrant to the Engine Room to confirm that access should be
granted.
3.0 FACILITY LOCKS
3.01 All Remote Facilities will be secured with high-security locks utilizing high-security
keys.
a) Locks will be furnished and installed by SPRWS.
b) No other locks are permitted, and all such other locks will be removed and disposed
of.
c) SPRWS may make some exceptions in cases where, for the convenience of
SPRWS staff, contractor locks will be allowed to be “daisy-chained” onto a
SPRWS facility. These exceptions will be on a case by case basis, and the
decision to allow this will be made by SPRWS security officer.
d) For sites that are undergoing construction, SPRWS will install construction locks
and give contractors construction keys.
3.02 Issuance of Keys
a) SPRWS staff that require access, as determined by the appropriate SPRWS division
manager, will be issued keys. Such keys will be reduced to the lowest possible
number.
1. SPRWS staff are responsible for the safe keeping of keys issued to them.
2. Repeated lost keys will be considered negligence and may result in corrective
action and/or discipline by SPRWS management.
b) Key audits will be conducted at least once each calendar year.
1. Each SPRWS staff member, and each Authorized Agent, to whom SPRWS
keys were issued will be required to sign a key Audit Statement
acknowledging their continued possession of the key.
2. Both Public and Private Agencies are responsible for the return of all keys
and/or contractor keys issued to their agents who leave their employ or are no
longer required by the Authorized Agency to access SPRWS facilities.
EXHIBIT “A”
Page 3 of 5
page 36
3. Lost keys must be reported immediately to SPRWS by contacting the Engine
Room at 651-266-1660.
4. Repeated losses may result in deposit requirements, as may be determined
necessary by SPRWS staff.
4.0 SPRWS CONTACTS
Normal and emergency access after normal business hours:
PE II [651-266-1660].
CONTRACTOR PROCEDURES FOR ENTERING
SPRWS WATER TOWER FACILITIES
Routine Accesses:
1) Notify SPRWS Pumping Engineer at 651-266-1660 of desired access at least 24 hours
prior to accessing site. Pumping Engineer will verify that company has agreement to be
on site, and if so will arrange for crew to meet contractor at designated time and place.
Contractor must provide names of all employees that will access the site.
2) At time of arranged access, provide IDs (in the form of valid driver’s licenses) for
SPRWS field crew. If IDs match the names given to the Pumping Engineer, crew will
provide access. If not, no access will be provided.
3) SPRWS field crew may accompany contractor while they are on site. If the crew does not
accompany contractor, contractor must call the Pumping Engineer when they leave the
site.
Emergency Accesses:
1) Notify SPRWS Engine Room at 651-266-1660 of need to access site.
2) Engine Room Pumping Engineer will verify that contractor has an agreement to be on a
particular site.
3) If contractor has agreement to be on site, and a reasonable explanation of the emergency
is given, Pumping Engineer will arrange for a crew to meet contractor at the site.
EXHIBIT “A”
Page 4 of 5
page 37
4) Contractor will need to produce IDs and work orders.
5) If OK, crew will allow for access.
6) Repeated emergencies will be cause for SPRWS to bill the contractor or deny access.
7) Contractor will call Engine Room when leaving site.
- End -
EXHIBIT “A”
Page 5 of 5
page 38
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation
BACKGROUND
The City of Mendota Heights has a number of transportation facilities traversing the City that are
the property of the Minnesota State Department of Transportation (MnDOT). The City has our
own street network and utility lines that cross these state facilities at multiple locations From
time to time it becomes necessary to execute work orders on these facilities in a cooperative
arrangement between the City and MnDOT. The attached Master Partnership Contract would
allow for the City and MnDOT to execute work order on each other’s behalf without having to
execute separate agreements for each individual work order.
The City has had similar agreements with MnDOT in the past, and has fostered an excellent
working relationship between the two agencies. This Master Partnership Contract continues that
relationship and allows for work to be executed as efficiently as possible.
BUDGET IMPACT
Only work orders issues to MnDOT would be paid for by the City of Mendota Heights. Any
work orders issued would be within established budgetary limits
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Master Partnership Contract between MnDOT
and the City of Mendota Heights.
If Council desires to implement the Staff recommendation, pass a motion approving the attached
State of Minnesota and City of Mendota Heights Master Partnership Contract by a simple
majority vote.
page 39
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AND
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT
This master contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Transportation
hereinafter referred to as the “State” and the City of Mendota Heights, acting through its City Council, hereinafter
referred to as the “Local Government."
Recitals
1. The parties are authorized to enter into this agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. §§15.061, 471.59
and 174.02.
2. Minn. Stat. § 161.20, subd. 2, authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with
and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and
improving the trunk highway system.
3. Each party to this Contract is a “road authority” as defined by Minn. Stat. §160.02, subd. 25.
4. Minn. Stat. § 161.39, subd. 1, authorizes a road authority to perform work for another road authority.
Such work may include providing technical and engineering advice, assistance and supervision,
surveying, preparing plans for the construction or reconstruction of roadways, and performing roadway
maintenance.
5. Minn. Stat. §174.02, subd. 6, authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into agreements
with other governmental entities for research and experimentation; for sharing facilities, equipment, staff,
data, or other means of providing transportation-related services; or for other cooperative programs that
promote efficiencies in providing governmental services, or that further development of innovation in
transportation for the benefit of the citizens of Minnesota.
6. Each party wishes to occasionally procure services from the other party, which the parties agree will
enhance the efficiency of delivering governmental services at all levels. This Master Partnership Contract
provides a framework for the efficient handling of such requests. This Master Partnership Contract
contains terms generally governing the relationship between the parties hereto. When specific services are
requested, the parties will (unless otherwise specified herein) enter into a “Work Order” contracts.
7. Subsequent to the execution of this Master Partnership Contract, the parties may (but are not required to)
enter into “Work Order” contracts. These Work Orders will specify the work to be done, timelines for
completion, and compensation to be paid for the specific work.
8. The parties are entering into this Master Partnership Contract to establish terms that will govern all of the
Work Orders subsequently issued under the authority of this Contract.
Master Contract
1. Term of Master Contract; Use of Work Order Contracts; Survival of Terms
1.1. Effective Date: This contract will be effective on the date last signed by the Local Government,
and all State officials as required under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 2.
1.2. A party must not accept work under this Contract until it is fully executed.
1.3. Expiration Date. This Contract will expire on June 30, 2017.
page 40
1.4. Work Order Contracts. A work order contract must be negotiated and executed (by both the State
and the Local Government) for each particular engagement, except for Technical Services
provided by the State to the Local Government as specified in Article 2. The work order contract
must specify the detailed scope of work and deliverables for that engagement. A party must not
begin work under a work order until such work order is fully executed. The terms of this Master
Partnership Contract will apply to all work orders issued hereunder, unless specifically varied in
the work order. The Local Government understands that this Master Contract is not a guarantee of
any payments or work order assignments, and that payments will only be issued for work actually
performed under fully-executed work orders.
1.5. Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this master
contract and all work order contracts: 12. Liability; 13. State Audits; 14. Government Data
Practices and Intellectual Property; 17. Publicity; 18. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue;
and 22. Data Disclosure. All terms of this Master Contract will survive with respect to any Work
Order issued prior to the expiration date of the Master Contract.
1.6. Sample Work Order. A sample work order contract is available upon request from the State.
2. Technical Services
2.1. Technical Services include repetitive low-cost services routinely performed by the State for the
Local Government. These services may be performed by the State for the Local Government
without the execution of a work order, as these services are provided in accordance with
standardized practices and processes and do not require a detailed scope of work. Technical
services are limited to the following services:
2.1.1. Pavement Striping, Sign and Signal Repair, Bridge Load Ratings, Bridge and Structure
Inspections, Minor Bridge Maintenance, Minor Road Maintenance (such as guard rail repair
and sign knockdown repair), Pavement Condition Data, Materials Testing and Carcass
Removal.
2.1.2. Every other service not falling under the services listed in 2.1.1 will require a Work
Order contract.
2.2. The Local Government may request the State to perform Technical Services in an informal
manner, such as by the use of email, a purchase order, or by delivering materials to a State lab
and requesting testing. A request may be made via telephone, but will not be considered accepted
unless acknowledged in writing by the State.
2.3. The State will promptly inform the Local Government if the State will be unable to perform the
requested Technical Services. Otherwise, the State will perform the Technical Services in
accordance with the State’s normal processes and practices, including scheduling practices taking
into account the availability of State staff and equipment.
2.4. Payment Basis. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties prior to performance of the services,
the State will charge the Local Government the State’s then-current rate for performing the
Technical Services. The then-current rate may include the State’s normal and customary labor
additives. The State will invoice the Local Government upon completion of the services, or at
regular intervals not more than once monthly as agreed upon by the parties. The invoice will
provide a summary of the Technical Services provided by the State during the invoice period.
3. Services Requiring A Work Order Contract
3.1. Work Order Contracts: A party may request the other party to perform any of the following
services under individual work order contracts.
page 41
3.2. Professional and Technical Services. A party may provide professional and technical services
upon the request of the other party. As defined by Minn. Stat. §16C.08, subd. 1,
professional/technical services “means services that are intellectual in character, including
consultation, analysis, evaluation, prediction, planning, programming, or recommendation; and
result in the production of a report or completion of a task.” Professional and technical services
do not include providing supplies or materials except as incidental to performing such services.
Professional and technical services include (by way of example and without limitation)
engineering services, surveying, foundation recommendations and reports, environmental
documentation, right-of-way assistance (such as performing appraisals or providing relocation
assistance, but excluding the exercise of the power of eminent domain), geometric layouts, final
construction plans, graphic presentations, public relations, and facilitating open houses. A party
will normally provide such services with its own personnel; however, a party’s
professional/technical services may also include hiring and managing outside consultants to
perform work provided that a party itself provides active project management for the use of such
outside consultants.
3.3. Roadway Maintenance. A party may provide roadway maintenance upon the request of the other
party. Roadway maintenance does not include roadway reconstruction. This work may include
but is not limited to snow removal, ditch spraying, roadside mowing, bituminous mill and overlay
(only small projects), seal coat, bridge hits, major retaining wall failures, major drainage failures,
and message painting. All services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills,
training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a
qualified employee of the party performing the work.
3.4. Construction Administration. A party may administer roadway construction projects upon the
request of the other party. Roadway construction includes (by way of example and without
limitation) the construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of mainline, shoulder, median,
pedestrian or bicycle pathway, lighting and signal systems, pavement mill and overlays, seal
coating, guardrail installation, and channelization. These services may be performed by the
Providing Party’s own forces, or the Providing Party may administer outside contracts for such
work. Construction administration may include letting and awarding construction contracts for
such work (including state projects to be completed in conjunction with local projects). All
contract administration services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills,
training, expertise or certification to perform such work.
3.5. Emergency Services. A party may provide aid upon request of the other party in the event of a
man-made disaster, natural disaster or other act of God. Emergency services includes all those
services as the parties mutually agree are necessary to plan for, prepare for, deal with, and recover
from emergency situations. These services include, without limitation, planning, engineering,
construction, maintenance, and removal and disposal services related to things such as road
closures, traffic control, debris removal, flood protection and mitigation, sign repair, sandbag
activities and general cleanup. Work will be performed by an employee with sufficient skills,
training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a
qualified employee of the party performing the work. If it is not feasible to have an executed
work order prior to performance of the work, the parties will promptly confer to determine
whether work may be commenced without a fully-executed work order in place. If work
commences without a fully-executed work order, the parties will follow up with execution of a
work order as soon as feasible.
3.6. When a need is identified, the State and the Local Government will discuss the proposed work
and the resources needed to perform the work. If a party desires to perform such work, the parties
will negotiate the specific and detailed work tasks and cost. The State will then prepare a work
order contract. Generally, a work order contract will be limited to one specific
page 42
project/engagement, although “on call” work orders may be prepared for certain types of services,
especially for “Technical Services” items as identified section 2.1.2. The work order will also
identify specific deliverables required, and timeframes for completing work. A work order must
be fully executed by the parties prior to work being commenced. The Local Government will not
be paid for work performed prior to execution of a work order and authorization by the State.
4. Responsibilities of the Providing Party
The party requesting the work will be referred to as the “Requesting Party” and the party performing the
work will be referred to as the “Providing Party.” Each work order will set forth particular requirements
for that project/engagement.
4.1. Terms Applicable to ALL Work Orders. The terms in this section 4.1 will apply to ALL work
orders.
4.1.1. Each work order will identify an Authorized Representative for each party. Each party’s
authorized representative is responsible for administering the work order, and has the
authority to make any decisions regarding the work, and to give and receive any notices
required or permitted under this Master Contract or the work order.
4.1.2. The Providing Party will furnish and assign a publicly employed licensed engineer
(Project Engineer), to be in responsible charge of the project(s) and to supervise and
direct the work to be performed under each work order. For services not requiring an
engineer, the Providing Party will furnish and assign another responsible employee to be
in charge of the project. The services of the Providing Party under a work order may not
be otherwise assigned, sublet, or transferred unless approved in writing by the Requesting
Party’s authorized representative. This written consent will in no way relieve the
Providing Party from its primary responsibility for the work.
4.1.3. If the Local Government is the Providing Party, the Project Engineer may request in
writing specific engineering and/or technical services from the State, pursuant to Minn.
Stat. Section 161.39. The work order may require the Local Government to deposit
payment in advance or may, at the State’s option, permit payment in arrears. If the State
furnishes the services requested, the Local Government will promptly pay the State to
reimburse the state trunk highway fund for the full cost and expense of furnishing such
services. The costs and expenses will include the current State labor additives and
overhead rates, subject to adjustment based on actual direct costs that have been verified
by audit.
4.1.4. Only the receipt of a fully executed work order contract authorizes the Providing Party to
begin work on a project. Any and all effort, expenses, or actions taken by the Providing
Party before the work order contract is fully executed is considered unauthorized and
undertaken at the risk of non-payment.
4.1.5. In connection with the performance of this contract and any work orders issued
hereunder, the Providing Agency will comply with all applicable Federal and State laws
and regulations. When the Providing Party is authorized or permitted to award contracts
in connection with any work order, the Providing Party will require and cause its
contractors and subcontractors to comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations.
4.2. Additional Terms for Roadway Maintenance. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.2 will
apply to all work orders for Roadway Maintenance.
4.2.1. Unless otherwise provided for by agreement or work order, the Providing Party must
obtain all permits and sanctions that may be required for the proper and lawful
performance of the work.
page 43
4.2.2. The Providing Party must perform maintenance in accordance with MnDOT maintenance
manuals, policies and operations.
4.2.3. The Providing Party must use State-approved materials, including (by way of example and
without limitation), sign posts, sign sheeting, and de-icing and anti-icing chemicals.
4.3. Additional Terms for Construction Administration. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.3
will apply to all work orders for construction administration.
4.3.1. Contract(s) must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder or best value proposer in
accordance with state law.
4.3.2. Contractor(s) must be required to post payment and performance bonds in an amount
equal to the contract amount. The Providing Party will take all necessary action to make
claims against such bonds in the event of any default by the contractor.
4.3.3. Contractor(s) must be required to perform work in accordance with the latest edition of
the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction.
4.3.4. For work performed on State right-of-way, contractor(s) must be required to indemnify
and hold the State harmless against any loss incurred with respect to the performance of
the contracted work, and must be required to provide evidence of insurance coverage
commensurate with project risk.
4.3.5. Contractor(s) must pay prevailing wages pursuant to applicable state and federal law.
4.3.6. Contractor(s) must comply with all applicable Federal, and State laws, ordinances and
regulations, including but not limited to applicable human rights/anti-discrimination laws
and laws concerning the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in federally-
assisted contracts
4.3.7. Unless otherwise agreed in a Work Order, each party will be responsible for providing
rights of way, easement, and construction permits for its portion of the
improvements. Each party will, upon the other’s request, furnish copies of right of way
certificates, easements, and construction permits.
4.3.8. The Providing Party may approve minor changes to the Requesting Party’s portion of the
project work if such changes do not increase the Requesting Party’s cost obligation under
the applicable work order.
4.3.9. The Providing Party will not approve any contractor claims for additional compensation
without the Requesting Party’s written approval, and the execution of a proper
amendment to the applicable work order when necessary. The Local Government will
tender the processing and defense of any such claims to the State upon the State’s
request.
4.3.10. The Local Government must coordinate all trunk highway work affecting any utilities
with the State’s Utilities Office.
4.3.11. The Providing Party must coordinate all necessary detours with the Requesting Party.
4.3.12. If the Local Government is the Providing Party, and there is work performed on the trunk
highway right-of-way, the following will apply:
4.3.12.1 The Local Government will have a permit to perform the work on the trunk
highway. The State may revoke this permit if the work is not being performed
in a safe, proper and skillful manner, or if the contractor is violating the terms
of any law, regulation, or permit applicable to the work. The State will have no
page 44
liability to the Local Government, or its contractor, if work is suspended or
stopped due to any such condition or concern.
4.3.12.2 The Local Government will require its contractor to conduct all traffic control
in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
4.3.12.3 The Local Government will require its contractor to comply with the terms of
all permits issued for the project including, but not limited to, NPDES and
other environmental permits.
4.3.12.4 All improvements constructed on the State’s right-of-way will become the
property of the State.
5. Responsibilities of the Requesting Party
5.1. After authorizing the Providing Party to begin work, the Requesting Party will furnish any data or
material in its possession relating to the project that may be of use to the Providing Party in
performing the work.
5.2. All such data furnished to the Providing Party will remain the property of the Requesting Party
and will be promptly returned upon the Requesting Party’s request or upon the expiration or
termination of this contract (subject to data retention requirements of the Minnesota Government
Data Practices Act and other applicable law).
5.3. The Providing Party will analyze all such data furnished by the Requesting Party. If the Providing
Party finds any such data to be incorrect or incomplete, the Providing Party will bring the facts to
the attention of the Requesting Party before proceeding with the part of the project affected. The
Providing Party will investigate the matter, and if it finds that such data is incorrect or
incomplete, it will promptly determine a method for furnishing corrected data. Delay in
furnishing data will not be considered justification for an adjustment in compensation.
5.4. The State will provide to the Local Government copies of any Trunk Highway fund clauses to be
included in the bid solicitation and will provide any required Trunk Highway fund provisions to
be included in the Proposal for Highway Construction, that are different from those required for
State Aid construction.
5.5. The Requesting Party will perform final reviews and/or inspections of its portion of the project
work. If the work is found to have been completed in accordance with the work order contract,
the Requesting Party will promptly release any remaining funds due the Providing Party for the
Project(s).
5.6. The work order contracts may include additional responsibilities to be completed by the
Requesting Party.
6. Time
In the performance of project work under a work order contract, time is of the essence.
7. Consideration and Payment
7.1. Consideration. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the work order.
The State’s normal and customary labor additives will apply to work performed by the State,
unless otherwise specified in the work order. The State’s normal and customary labor additives
will not apply if the parties agree to a “lump sum” or “unit rate” payment.
7.2. State’s Maximum Obligation. The total compensation to be paid by the State to the Local
Government under all work order contracts issued pursuant to this Master Contract will not
exceed $50,000.00.
page 45
7.3. Travel Expenses. It is anticipated that all travel expenses will be included in the base cost of the
Providing Party’s services, and unless otherwise specifically set forth in an applicable work order,
the Providing Party will not be separately reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred
by the Providing Party in performing any work order contract. In those cases where the State
agrees to reimburse travel expenses, such expenses will be reimbursed in the same manner and in
no greater amount than provided in the current "MnDOT Travel Regulations” a copy of which is
on file with and available from the MnDOT District Office. The Local Government will not be
reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside of Minnesota unless it has
received the State’s prior written approval for such travel.
7.4. Payment.
7.4.1. Generally. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the
applicable work order, and will make prompt payment in accordance with Minnesota law.
7.4.2. Payment by the Local Government.
7.4.2.1. The Local Government will make payment to the order of the Commissioner of
Transportation.
7.4.2.2. IMPORTANT NOTE: PAYMENT MUST REFERENCE THE “MNDOT
CONTRACT NUMBER” SHOWN ON THE FACE PAGE OF THIS
CONTRACT AND THE “INVOICE NUMBER” ON THE INVOICE
RECEIVED FROM MNDOT.
7.4.2.3. Remit payment to the address below:
MnDOT
Attn: Cash Accounting
RE: MnDOT Contract Number 1002060 and Invoice Number ######
Mail Stop 215
395 John Ireland Blvd
St. Paul, MN 55155
7.4.3. Payment by the State.
7.4.3.1. Generally. The State will promptly pay the Local Government after the Local
Government presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and
the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices
must be submitted as specified in the applicable work order, but no more
frequently than monthly.
7.4.3.2. Retainage for Professional and Technical Services. For work orders for
professional and technical services, as required by Minn. Stat. § 16C.08, subd.
2(10), no more than 90 percent of the amount due under any work order contract
may be paid until the final product of the work order contract has been reviewed
by the State’s authorized representative. The balance due will be paid when the
State’s authorized representative determines that the Local Government has
satisfactorily fulfilled all the terms of the work order contract.
8. Conditions of Payment
All work performed by the Providing Party under a work order contract must be performed to the
Requesting Party’s satisfaction, as determined at the sole and reasonable discretion of the Requesting
Party’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, rules, and
regulations. The Providing Party will not receive payment for work found by the State to be
unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal or state law.
page 46
9. Local Government’s Authorized Representative and Project Manager; Authority to Execute Work
Order Contracts
9.1. The Local Government’s Authorized Representative for administering this master contract is the
Local Government’s Engineer, and the Engineer has the responsibility to monitor the Local
Government’s performance. The Local Government’s Authorized Representative is also
authorized to execute work order contracts on behalf of the Local Government without approval
of each proposed work order contract by its governing body.
9.2. The Local Government’s Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract.
10. State’s Authorized Representative and Project Manager
10.1. The State's Authorized Representative for this master contract is the District State Aid Engineer,
who has the responsibility to monitor the State’s performance.
10.2. The State’s Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract.
11. Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Contract Complete
11.1. Assignment. Neither party may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this Master
Contract or any work order contract without the prior consent of the other and a fully executed
Assignment Agreement, executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved
this Master Contract, or their successors in office.
11.2. Amendments. Any amendment to this master contract or any work order contract must be in
writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who
executed and approved the original contract, or their successors in office.
11.3. Waiver. If a party fails to enforce any provision of this master contract or any work order
contract, that failure does not waive the provision or the party’s right to subsequently enforce it.
11.4. Contract Complete. This master contract and any work order contract contain all negotiations and
agreements between the State and the Local Government. No other understanding regarding this
master contract or any work order contract issued hereunder, whether written or oral may be used
to bind either party.
12. Liability.
Each party will be responsible for its own acts and omissions to the extent provided by law. The Local
Government’s liability is governed by Minn. Stat. chapter 466 and other applicable law. The State’s
liability is governed by Minn. Stat. section 3.736 and other applicable law. This clause will not be
construed to bar any legal remedies a party may have for the other party’s failure to fulfill its obligations
under this master contract or any work order contract. Neither party agrees to assume any environmental
liability on behalf of the other party. A Providing Party under any work order is acting only as a
“Contractor” to the Requesting Party, as the term “Contractor” is defined in Minn. Stat. §115B.03 (subd.
10), and is entitled to the protections afforded to a “Contractor” by the Minnesota Environmental
Response and Liability Act. The parties specifically intend that Minn. Stat. §471.59 subd. 1a will apply to
any work undertaken under this Master Contract and any work order issued hereunder.
13. State Audits
Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the party’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures
and practices relevant to any work order contract are subject to examination by the parties and by the
State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this
Master Contract.
14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property
page 47
14.1. Government Data Practices. The Local Government and State must comply with the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State
under this Master Contract and any work order contract, and as it applies to all data created,
collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Local Government under this
Master Contract and any work order contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to
the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Local Government or the State.
14.2. Intellectual Property Rights
14.2.1. Intellectual Property Rights. The Requesting Party will own all rights, title, and interest in
all of the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets,
trademarks, and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under
work order contracts. Works means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether
or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs,
negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived,
reduced to practice, created or originated by the Providing Party, its employees, agents,
and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this
master contract or any work order contract. Works includes “Documents.” Documents
are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies,
photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other
materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the Providing Party, its
employees, agents, or contractors, in the performance of a work order contract. The
Documents will be the exclusive property of the Requesting Party and all such
Documents must be immediately returned to the Requesting Party by the Providing Party
upon completion or cancellation of the work order contract. To the extent possible, those
Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act will be
deemed to be “works made for hire.” The Providing Party Government assigns all right,
title, and interest it may have in the Works and the Documents to the Requesting Party.
The Providing Party must, at the request of the Requesting Party, execute all papers and
perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the Requesting Party’s ownership
interest in the Works and Documents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Requesting
Party grants the Providing Party an irrevocable and royalty-free license to use such
intellectual property for its own non-commercial purposes, including dissemination to
political subd.s of the state of Minnesota and to transportation-related agencies such as
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
14.2.2. Obligations with Respect to Intellectual Property.
14.2.2.1. Notification. Whenever any invention, improvement, or discovery (whether or
not patentable) is made or conceived for the first time or actually or
constructively reduced to practice by the Providing Party, including its
employees and subcontractors, in the performance of the work order contract,
the Providing Party will immediately give the Requesting Party’s Authorized
Representative written notice thereof, and must promptly furnish the
Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure
thereon.
14.2.2.2. Representation. The Providing Party must perform all acts, and take all steps
necessary to ensure that all intellectual property rights in the Works and
Documents are the sole property of the Requesting Party, and that neither
Providing Party nor its employees, agents or contractors retain any interest in
and to the Works and Documents.
15. Affirmative Action
page 48
The State intends to carry out its responsibility for requiring affirmative action by its Contractors,
pursuant to Minn. Stat. §363A.36. Pursuant to that Statute, the Local Government is encouraged to
prepare and implement an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and
the qualified disabled, and submit such plan to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human
Rights. In addition, when the Local Government lets a contract for the performance of work under a work
order issued pursuant to this Master Contract, it must include the following in the bid or proposal
solicitation and any contracts awarded as a result thereof:
15.1. Covered Contracts and Contractors. If the Contract exceeds $100,000 and the Contractor
employed more than 40 full-time employees on a single working day during the previous 12
months in Minnesota or in the state where it has its principle place of business, then the
Contractor must comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn. R. Parts
5000.3400-5000.3600. A Contractor covered by Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 because it employed more
than 40 full-time employees in another state and does not have a certificate of compliance, must
certify that it is in compliance with federal affirmative action requirements.
15.2. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 requires the Contractor to have an affirmative
action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and qualified disabled individuals
approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights (“Commissioner”) as indicated by a
certificate of compliance. The law addresses suspension or revocation of a certificate of
compliance and contract consequences in that event. A contract awarded without a certificate of
compliance may be voided.
15.3. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600.
15.3.1. General. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 implement Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. These
rules include, but are not limited to, criteria for contents, approval, and implementation of
affirmative action plans; procedures for issuing certificates of compliance and criteria for
determining a contractor’s compliance status; procedures for addressing deficiencies,
sanctions, and notice and hearing; annual compliance reports; procedures for compliance
review; and contract consequences for non-compliance. The specific criteria for approval
or rejection of an affirmative action plan are contained in various provisions of Minn. R.
Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 including, but not limited to, parts 5000.3420-5000.3500 and
5000.3552-5000.3559.
15.3.2. Disabled Workers. The Contractor must comply with the following affirmative action
requirements for disabled workers:
15.3.2.1. The Contractor must not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of physical or mental disability in regard to any position
for which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. The
Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to employ, advance in
employment, and otherwise treat qualified disabled persons without
discrimination based upon their physical or mental disability in all employment
practices such as the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer,
recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of
compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship.
15.3.2.2. The Contractor agrees to comply with the rules and relevant orders of the
Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota
Human Rights Act.
15.3.2.3. In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the requirements of this
clause, actions for noncompliance may be taken in accordance with Minn. Stat.
Section 363A.36, and the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota
page 49
Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights
Act.
15.3.2.4. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees
and applicants for employment, notices in a form to be prescribed by the
commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Such notices
must state the Contractor's obligation under the law to take affirmative action
to employ and advance in employment qualified disabled employees and
applicants for employment, and the rights of applicants and employees.
15.3.2.5. The Contractor must notify each labor union or representative of workers with
which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract understanding,
that the Contractor is bound by the terms of Minn. Stat. Section 363A.36, of
the Minnesota Human Rights Act and is committed to take affirmative action
to employ and advance in employment physically and mentally disabled
persons.
15.3.3. Consequences. The consequences for the Contractor’s failure to implement its affirmative
action plan or make a good faith effort to do so include, but are not limited to, suspension or
revocation of a certificate of compliance by the Commissioner, refusal by the
Commissioner to approve subsequent plans, and termination of all or part of this contract by
the Commissioner or the State.
15.3.4. Certification. The Contractor hereby certifies that it is in compliance with the requirements
of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 and is aware of the
consequences for noncompliance.
16. Workers’ Compensation
Each party will be responsible for its own employees for any workers compensation claims. This Master
Contract, and any work orders issued hereunder, are not intended to constitute an interchange of
government employees under Minn. Stat. §15.53. To the extent that this Master Contract, or any work
order issued hereunder, is determined to be subject to Minn. Stat. §15.53, such statute will control to the
extent of any conflict between the Contract and the statute.
17. Publicity
17.1. Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of a work order contract where the State is
the Requesting Party must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released
without prior written approval from the State’s Authorized Representative. For purposes of this
provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports,
signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Local Government individually or jointly
with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided
resulting from a work order contract.
17.2. Data Practices Act. Section 17.1 is not intended to override the Local Government’s
responsibilities under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
18. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue
Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this master contract and all work
order contracts. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this master contract or any work order contracts, or
the breach of any such contracts, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent
jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
19. Prompt Payment; Payment to Subcontractors
page 50
The parties must make prompt payment of their obligations in accordance with applicable law. As
required by Minn. Stat. § 16A.1245, when the Local Government lets a contract for work pursuant to any
work order, the Local Government must require its contractor to pay all subcontractors, less any
retainage, within 10 calendar days of the prime contractor's receipt of payment from the Local
Government for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor(s) and must pay interest at the rate of
one and one-half percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor(s) on any undisputed
amount not paid on time to the subcontractor(s).
20. Minn. Stat. § 181.59. The Local Government will comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 181.59
which requires: Every contract for or on behalf of the state of Minnesota, or any county, city, town,
township, school, school district, or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction
shall contain provisions by which the Contractor agrees: (1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled
labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material
supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons
who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the
work to which the employment relates; (2) That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any
manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons
identified in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or
persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a
violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and (4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the
state, county, city, town, school board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for
employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be forfeited for a second or
any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract.
21. Termination; Suspension
21.1. Termination by the State for Convenience. The State or commissioner of Administration may
cancel this Master Contract and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon
30 days written notice to the Local Government. Upon termination, the Local Government and
the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily
performed.
21.2. Termination by the Local Government for Convenience. The Local Government may cancel this
Master Contract and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days
written notice to the State. Upon termination, the Local Government and the State will be entitled
to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed.
21.3. Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate or suspend this
Master Contract and any work order contract if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota
legislature or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow
for the payment of the services covered here. Termination or suspension must be by written or fax
notice to the Local Government. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are
provided after notice and effective date of termination or suspension. However, the Local
Government will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily
performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the
master contract or work order is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota legislature
or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Local Government
notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State’s receiving that notice.
22. Data Disclosure
Under Minn. Stat. §270C.65, subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Local Government consents to
disclosure of its federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number,
already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the
page 51
payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and
state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Local Government to file state tax returns and pay
delinquent state tax liabilities, if any.
23. Defense of Claims and Lawsuits
If any lawsuit or claim is filed by a third party (including but not limited to the Local Government’s
contractors and subcontractors), arising out of trunk highway work performed pursuant to a valid work
order issued under this Master Contract, the Local Government will, at the discretion of and upon the
request of the State, tender the defense of such claims to the State or allow the State to participate in the
defense of such claims. The Local Government will, however, be solely responsible for defending any
lawsuit or claim, or any portion thereof, when the claim or cause of action asserted is based on its own
acts or omissions in performing or supervising the work. The Local Government will not purport to
represent the State in any litigation, settlement, or alternative dispute resolution process. The State will
not be responsible for any judgment entered against the Local Government, and will not be bound by the
terms of any settlement entered into by the Local Government except with the written approval of the
Attorney General and the Commissioner of Transportation and pursuant to applicable law.
24. Additional Provisions
[The balance of this page has intentionally been left blank – signature page follows]
page 52
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
The Local Government certifies that the
appropriate person(s) have executed the contract
on behalf of the Local Government as required
by applicable ordinance, resolution, or charter
provision.
By:
By: (with delegated authority)
Title: Title Division Director
Date: Date:
By:
COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION
As delegated to Materials Management Division
Title By:
Date: Date:
page 53
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Dave Dreelan, Assistant Fire Chief
SUBJECT: October 2015 Fire Synopsis
Fire Calls
The department responded to 22 calls for the month. The majority of calls were classified as
false alarms or as good intent calls. Five of the calls were residential in nature, of the other calls,
nine were commercial responses, and four were EMS calls. There was one utility check, one car
fire, one mutual aid call to Eagan, and one injury accident.
Monthly Training
The monthly department and squad training focused on teaching all of the firefighters a new hose
deployment procedure for our pre-connected attack lines. Each of the apparatus has two or three
pre-connected hose lines that are 200’ in length. These are the primary hose lines that are pulled
for nearly every fire.
The new procedure will allow one firefighter to deploy all 200 feet of hose more efficiently than
the previous method.
page 54
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
OCTOBER 2015 MONTHLY REPORT
FIRE CALLS NO. 15198 -15219 NUMBER OF CALLS:22
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial $2,510
Structure - MH Residential $100,000
Structure - Contract Areas $1,750
Vehicle - MH 1 $30,400
Vehicle - Contract Areas $0
Grass/Brush/No Value MH
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
MEDICAL
Assist 4 $0 $0 $0
Extrication
HAZARDOUS SITUATION FIRE LOSS TOTALS MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Spills/Leaks 1
Arcing/Shorting ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0 $134,660
Chemical
Power Line Down MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $100,010
FALSE ALARM
Residential Malfunction 1 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $31,900
Commercial Malfunction 5
Unintentional - Commercial 2 MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $131,910
Unintentional - Residential 1
Criminal BILLING FOR SERVICES
GOOD INTENT
Smoke Scare 1 AGENCY THIS MONTH TO DATE
Steam Mistaken for Smoke
Other 5 MN/DOT $0
MUTUAL AID 1 MILW. RR $0
CNR RR $0
TOTAL CALLS 22 OTHERS:
$0
LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS:TO DATE LAST YEAR
TOTALS:$0 $0
MENDOTA HEIGHTS 18 181 205
MENDOTA 0 5 7 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
SUNFISH LAKE 1 11 13
LILYDALE 2 14 25 INSPECTIONS
OTHER 1 8 7
INVESTIGATIONS
TOTAL 22 219 257
RE-INSPECTION
WORK PERFORME HOURS TO DATE LAST YEAR
MEETINGS
FIRE CALLS 336 3437 4158
MEETINGS 41 288.5 325.5 ADMINISTRATION
DRILLS 144.5 1486 1449
WEEKLY CLEAN-UP 31 350.5 349 SPECIAL PROJECTS
SPECIAL ACTIVITY 673.5 2521 3587.8
ADMINISTATIVE 0 0 TOTAL 0
FIRE MARSHAL 485.5 565.5
TOTALS 1226 8568.5 10434.8 REMARKS:SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS
page 55
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: John P. Maczko, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Approve the Purchase of Turnout Gear
BACKGROUND
The 2015 fire budget includes $16,000 for the purchase of turnout gear. A recent inspection of the
turnout gear found that there are five full sets of turnout great that are in need of replacement.
Assistant Chief Dreelan has received two quotes for the necessary turnout gear. The lowest quote was
received from Fire Equipment Specialties for $2,130.00 a set. The total cost of the five full sets of
turnout gear would be $10,650.00.
BUDGET IMPACT
There is $16,000 budgeted for the purchase of the five sets of turnout gear and the purchase of
the five full sets would be under budget.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the City Council approve the purchase of the necessary turnout gear from Fire
Equipment Specialties for the amount of $10,650.00.
page 56
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, and City Council
FROM: Tamara Schutta, Assistant to the City Administrator/HR Coordinator
SUBJECT: Personnel Action Item
Item 1: Approval of employment of part-time winter 2015/2016 seasonal employees
Staff is requesting council approval for the hiring of the below listed part-time winter seasonal
ice rink attendants and ice skating instructor. All final candidates were offered their position
contingent upon a successful completion of a criminal background check and council approval.
The proposed salaries are consistent with the part-time seasonal staff pay matrix.
Parks and Recreation –Seasonal Rink Attendant Positions 2015/2016
Name Hourly Rate Name Hourly Rate
Caleb Butler $9.00
Bethany Ferguson $9.00
Anthony Kammeyer $9.00
Andrew Keis $9.00
Dan Keis $9.00
Kieran Lynch $9.00
William Maher $9.00
Matthew Morse $9.00
Matt O’Connell $9.00
Noah Odalen $9.00
Austin Paterson $9.00
Grant Poole $9.00
Shane Sienko $9.00
Daniel Welle $9.00
Zachary Ziebol $9.00
2016 Ice Skating Instructor
Alexandra Henderson $22.75
BUDGET IMPACT
As noted above.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the action requested above for
item one. A simple majority vote is all that is needed on this issue.
page 57
page 58
page 59
page 60
page 61
page 62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page 66
page 67
page 68
page 69
2015 Licensing List for City Council
Type Contractor Name
Gas Piping
Sunburst Heating & Air
General
Hunerberg Construction Company
Twin City Garage Door
HVAC
Marsh Heating & Air Conditioning
Plumbing Services, Inc
Monday, November 23, 2015 Page 1 of 1
page 70
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director
SUBJECT: 2016 Final Budget and Tax Levy
BACKGROUND
On September 15, 2015 council adopted resolution 2015-72 approving the preliminary tax levy for the
year 2016. The preliminary levy of $7,416,595 was certified to Dakota County in September 2015. The
amount to be levied for debt service and the amount for the Par 3 bonds have been reduced to reflect the
savings we will realize from refunding those bonds. This reduced the amount to be levied for debt service
by $30,196.
As a result, there was a total of $20,000 added to the budget for cell amplifier, smoke detectors in city hall
and building security upgrades, which had previously been proposed but was unable to be funded in the
preliminary budget. Those are recommended to be added back in.
Therefore, with the savings from the bond refunding, less the $20,000 add-backs in expenditures to the
general fund, the final levy is proposed to be $10,196 less than the preliminary levy which was set in
September. This 2016 budget reflects an amount for an increase in wages for both union and non-union
employees, although the final amount is still to be negotiated with some of the unions.. The 2016 budget
document is included in your packet and is also available for review on the city’s website.
The city will accept public comments regarding the final budget and levy for 2016 at the tonight’s
meeting. Attached are the slides that I will be presenting. The 2016 tax rate, levy and budget will be
reviewed at that time. At this hearing, residents are free to address the council regarding their questions
or concerns with the 2016 levy or budget. I have not received any phone calls from residents regarding
their property taxes.
Following is a comparison of the levies from 2015 and 2016:
Levy Comparison 2015 Levy 2016 Proposed 2016 Final
General Fund $5,711,992 $6,011,954 $6,031,954
Emergency Preparedness 25,000 25,000 25,000
Fire Relief 90,000 108,000 108,000
Infrastructure/Facility Reserve 20,000 20,000 20,000
Equipment Reserve 20,000 20,000 20,000
Legal & Contingency 40,000 40,000 40,000
page 71
Improvement Bonds 737,029 828,509 822,752
Equipment Certificates 55,066 77,765 78,427
Market Value Referendum 267,887 265,367 240,266
Street Light District 33,000 20,000 20,000
Total Levy $6,999,974 $7,416,595 $7,406,399
BUDGET IMPACT
The final levy proposed is $406,425 greater than 2015. This represents a 5.81% increase from last year.
The 2016 final budget for all funds is $12,647,076.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council accept public comments on the 2016 levy and
budget. After the hearing has been conducted, it should adopt the attached resolution approving the final
2016 levy and budget.
page 72
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-92
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL 2015 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2016 AND
ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2016
WHEREAS, the city has previously adopted a preliminary tax levy in resolution 2015-72;
and
WHEREAS, the city will accept public comments on December 1, 2015 on the proposed
budget and tax levy.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the city council adopts the following levy
for tax against all taxable property in the City of Mendota Heights for collection in the year 2016.
2016 Final
General Fund $ 6,031,954
Emergency Preparedness $ 25,000
Fire Relief $ 108,000
Infrastructure/Facility Reserve $ 20,000
Equipment Reserve $ 20,000
Legal & Contingency $ 40,000
General Levy $ 6,244,954
Special Debt Levies
Improvement Bonds $ 822,752
Equipment Certificates $ 78,427
Total Special Levy $ 901,179
Market Value Referendum Levy $ 240,266
Street Light District Levy $ 20,000
Net Certified Levy $ 7,406,399
page 73
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the budget as proposed is deemed to be practical
and reasonable to maintain the city operations and is hereby approved. The 2016 budget reflects
$12,647,076 of expenses for all funds. The 5 year capital improvement plan is presented as part
of the 2016 final budget document.
The clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Dakota
County Treasurer-Auditor.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of
December, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
___________________________
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 74
Net Tax Capacity
Pay 2015 Pay 2016
Actual Preliminary
Tax Capacity Value 20,953,527 22,020,808 5.09%
Fiscal disparaties Contribution (2,554,386) (2,494,377) -2.35%
Net Tax Capacity 18,399,141 19,526,431 6.13%
Tax Capacity Rate
Estimate
Tax levy 6,699,087 7,146,133 6.67%
Fiscal disparities (268,921) (268,609) -0.12%
Net tax levy 6,430,166 6,877,524 6.96%
Net Tax Capacity 18,399,141 19,526,431 6.13%
Tax Capacity Rate 0.34964 0.35222 0.74%
City of Mendota Heights
page 75
page 76
Market Value for Residential Properties Increased 6.22% from 2015 to 2016
2016 2016
Home Value Total 2015 Tax City Tax Referendum Total 2016 Tax Difference % Change
$211,825 $772.63
$225,000 $792.50 $28.80 $821.30 $48.67 6.30%
$315,254 $1,149.88
$334,863 $1,179.58 $42.86 $1,222.45 $72.57 6.30%
$470,720 $1,716.96
$500,000 $1,761.10 $64.00 $1,825.10 $108.14 6.30%
$659,010 $2,403.74
$700,000 $2,465.54 $89.60 $2,555.14 $151.40 6.30%
Tax Rates for Mendota Heights
2006 28.027
2007 26.398
2008 24.142
2009 26.165
2010 28.061
2011 29.733
2012 32.057
2013 34.479
2014 34.737
2015 34.964 0.0001511 2015 referendum rate
2016 35.222 0.0001280 2016 referendum rate
page 77
page 78
2016 levy is $7,406,399 which represents a 5.81% increase over last year’s levy of $6,999,974
2016 budget for all funds totals $12,647,076
The taxable market value for 2016 is $1,841,670,890 - this is an increase of 5.91% from 2015
2016 proposed city tax rate is 35.222 compared to the 2015 tax rate of 34.964
page 79
Average residential home value increased
approximately 6.22% from 2015
$470,720 home value in 2015 paid $1,717 in city taxes
That same home in 2016 would have a value of
$500,000 and pay approximately $1,825 in city taxes
This example shows an increase of approximately
6.30% in the city’s portion of their property taxes
$334,700 - median home value in Mendota Heights in
2016
page 80
page 81
Department 2015 Final 2016 Proposed Percent
Police $3,345,183 $3,457,531 3.36%
Admin/Elections $997,714 $1,149,653 15.23%
Parks/Recreation $808,095 $796,146 -1.48%
Streets $981,232 $1,023,577 4.32%
Fire $474,615 $469,754 -1.02%
Code Enforcement $133,050 $149,455 12.33%
IT $138,437 $178,391 28.86%
Planning/Recycling/
Council/Other
$180,397 $193,937 7.51%
TOTALS: $7,058,723 $7,418,444 5.10%
page 82
page 83
2015 Final 2016 Proposed Percent
Tax Levy $5,711,992 $6,031,954 5.60%
License & Permits $269,850 $329,550 22.12%
Fines $72,500 $69,000 -4.83%
Charges for Srvcs. $483,811 $499,020 3.14%
Intergovernmental $381,070 $393,170 3.18%
Misc. & Other $139,500 $95,750 -31.36%
TOTALS: $7,058,723 $7,418,444 5.10%
page 84
page 85
2015 Final 2016 Proposed Percent
General Fund $5,711,992 $6,031,954 5.60%
Legal & Cont. $40,000 $40,000 0.00%
Emergency Prep $25,000 $25,000 0.00%
Fire Relief $90,000 $108,000 20.00%
Infrastructure $20,000 $20,000 0.00%
Equip Reserve $20,000 $20,000 0.00%
Special Levies $792,095 $901,179 13.77%
Referendum $267,887 $240,266 -10.31%
Street Light Dist $33,000 $20,000 -39.39%
Gross Levy $6,999,974 $7,406,399 5.81%
page 86
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2016 BUDGET
BUDGET AND REVENUE SUMMARY
BUDGET 2014 ACTUAL 2015 BUDGET 2016 BUDGET
GENERAL FUND $7,273,662 $7,058,723 $7,418,444 5.10%
GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY $37,878 $40,000 $40,000 0.00%
ENGINEERING FUND $598,256 $666,067 $641,742 -3.65%
UTILITY FUND $1,563,832 $1,869,536 $1,867,358 -0.12%
STORM WATER UTILITY FUND $193,291 $483,700 $472,887 -2.24%
PAR THREE FUND $157,963 $159,691 $170,568 6.81%
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUND $9,211 $10,075 $0 -100.00%
CITY HALL FUND $246,176 $323,557 $259,117 -19.92%
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND $11,550 $38,050 $58,739 54.37%
FACILITY/INFRASTUCTURERESERVE FUND $49,038 $0 $0 0.00%
FIRE RELIEF FUND $154,904 $178,000 $200,000 12.36%
SPECIAL PARK FUND $2,625 $55,125 $18,125 -67.12%
WATER REVENUE FUND $306,736 $305,650 $305,650 0.00%
DEBT FUND $942,790 $1,059,982 $1,141,446 7.69%
EQUIPMENT RESERVE FUND $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 0.00%
STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE FUND $24,566 $33,000 $33,000 0.00%
TOTAL BUDGET $11,592,478 $12,301,156 $12,647,076 2.81%
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND $7,019,714 $7,058,723 $7,418,444 5.10%
GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 0.00%
ENGINEERING FUND $580,251 $646,300 $679,800 5.18%
UTILITY FUND $1,804,337 $1,810,028 $1,898,677 4.90%
STORM WATER UTILITY FUND $873,180 $390,481 $390,481 0.00%
PAR THREE FUND $151,942 $161,250 $170,250 5.58%
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUND $467 $140 $0 -100.00%
CITY HALL FUND $210,730 $206,650 $216,075 4.56%
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND $25,961 $25,500 $25,500 0.00%
FACILITY/INFRASTUCTURERESERVE FUND $27,229 $21,300 $21,200 -0.47%
FIRE RELIEF FUND $157,504 $175,000 $200,000 14.29%
SPECIAL PARK FUND $33,182 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
WATER REVENUE FUND $235,762 $253,750 $253,750 0.00%
DEBT FUND $942,790 $1,059,982 $1,171,641 10.53%
EQUIPMENT RESERVE FUND/RESERVES $23,314 $20,000 $20,000 0.00%
STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE FUND $28,908 $33,000 $20,000 -39.39%
TOTAL REVENUE $12,155,271 $11,903,604 $12,527,318 5.24%
page 87
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2016 BUDGET
TAX LEVY SUMMARY
2015 2016 % CHANGE
GENERAL FUND $5,711,992 $6,031,954 5.60%
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS $25,000 $25,000 0.00%
FIRE RELIEF $90,000 $108,000 20.00%
INFRASTRUCTURE/FACILITY RESERVE $20,000 $20,000 0.00%
EQUIPMENT RESERVE $20,000 $20,000 0.00%
LEGAL AND CONTINGENCY $40,000 $40,000 0.00%
GENERAL FUND LEVY $5,906,992 $6,244,954 5.72%
IMPROVEMENT BONDS $737,029 $822,752 11.63%
EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES $55,066 $53,765 -2.36%
EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES - DUMP TRUCK $0 $24,662 100.00%
TOTAL SPECIAL LEVY $792,095 $901,179 13.77%
MARKET VALUE REFERENDUM LEVY $267,887 $240,266 -10.31%
STREETLIGHT TAXING DISTRICT $33,000 $20,000 -39.39%
TOTAL TAX LEVY $6,999,974 $7,406,399 5.81%
page 88
GENERAL FUND FUND 01
DEPARTMENT 2013 ACTUAL 2014 ACTUAL 2015 BUDGET 2016 BUDGET % CHANGE
CITY COUNCIL $33,275 $34,277 $33,796 $34,315 1.54%
ADMINISTRATION $808,656 $851,456 $956,626 $1,077,954 12.68%
ELECTIONS $28,692 $52,932 $41,088 $71,699 74.50%
IT $131,216 $157,854 $138,437 $178,391 28.86%
POLICE $2,973,890 $2,973,890 $3,337,183 $3,448,531 3.34%
FIRE $399,204 $1,013,549 $474,615 $469,754 -1.02%
BUILDING OFFICIAL $158,532 $130,852 $133,050 $149,455 12.33%
PUBLIC WORKS-STREETS $1,421,938 $1,206,889 $981,232 $1,023,577 4.32%
PUBLIC WORKS-PARKS $682,910 $725,979 $761,395 $757,746 -0.48%
RECREATION $45,656 $56,559 $46,700 $38,400 -17.77%
PLANNING $96,321 $118,141 $122,231 $131,747 7.79%
RECYCLING $25,028 $23,257 $24,370 $27,875 14.38%
ANIMAL CONTROL $5,914 $4,862 $8,000 $9,000 12.50%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $6,811,231 $7,350,497 $7,058,723 $7,418,444 5.10%
GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY $65,872 $11,149 $40,000 $40,000 0.00%
page 89
GENERAL FUND FUND 01
REVENUE SOURCE 2014 ACTUAL 2014 BUDGET 2015 BUDGET 2016 BUDGET % CHANGE
TAXES
CURRENT TAX LEVY $5,379,652 $5,454,959 $5,711,992 $6,031,954 5.60%
LICENSES AND PERMITS
CIGARETTE LICENSES $0 $600 $600 $600 0.00%
RUBBISH LICENSES $1,415 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 0.00%
DOG LICENSES $1,115 $750 $800 $1,000 25.00%
CONTRACTOR LICENSES $16,550 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 0.00%
LIQUOR LICENSES $31,363 $21,000 $21,000 $28,500 35.71%
BUILDING PERMITS $336,441 $135,000 $180,000 $225,000 25.00%
HEATING PERMITS $27,701 $25,000 $30,000 $32,000 6.67%
PLUMBING PERMITS $11,171 $5,000 $7,000 $8,000 14.29%
WATER PERMITS $60 $50 $50 $50 0.00%
RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS $11,161 $5,000 $6,500 $10,000 53.85%
MASSAGE PERMITS $2,096 $1,800 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
RENTAL LICENSES $4,425 $1,000 $3,500 $4,000 14.29%
TOTAL LICENSES AND PERMITS $443,497 $213,600 $269,850 $329,550 22.12%
FINES AND FORFEITS
COURT FINES $57,234 $70,000 $68,000 $65,000 -4.41%
FALSE ALARMS FINES $737 $3,500 $3,500 $3,000 -14.29%
DOG IMPOUNDING $1,100 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
TOTAL FINES AND FORFEITS $59,071 $74,500 $72,500 $69,000 -4.83%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
ACCIDENT REPORTS $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
RECREATION PROGRAMS $40,043 $29,000 $32,000 $38,000 18.75%
PARK USE FEES $4,113 $7,000 $7,000 $5,000 -28.57%
SOFTBALL LEAGUES $10,684 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 0.00%
MAPS AND ORDINANCES $29 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
SURCHARGES $34 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
PLANNING FEES $11,406 $6,500 $6,500 $10,000 53.85%
FIRE CONTRACTS $85,217 $83,877 $101,067 $107,000 5.87%
FIRE PERMITS $0 $0 $0
LILYDALE POLICING $223,512 $226,545 $229,883 $231,500 0.70%
MENDOTA POLICING $67,356 $65,514 $73,861 $74,500 0.87%
POLICE SECURITY (OFF DUTY OT)$11,313 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 0.00%
FIRE CALLS $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
STREET MAINT. CHARGES $1,250 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
ASSESSMENT SEARCHES/SPLITS $60 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
STREET CHARGES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
FILING FEES $40 $20 $0 $20 100.00%
LEASE MAINTENANCE CHARGES $2,257 $3,500 $3,500 $3,000 -14.29%
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES $457,314 $451,956 $483,811 $499,020 3.14%
page 90
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
MSA MAINTENANCE $137,287 $128,000 $130,000 $136,000 4.62%
POLICE STATE AID $129,472 $110,000 $115,000 $118,000 2.61%
SCHOOL RESOURCES OFFICER $99,303 $95,000 $97,000 $99,000 2.06%
FEDERAL AND STATE GRANTS $15,987 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 0.00%
DAKOTA COUNTY GRANT $656 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
PERA AID $9,073 $9,070 $9,070 $9,070 0.00%
TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL $391,777 $358,070 $367,070 $378,070 3.00%
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
SUNDRY REVENUE $27,936 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
GRAVEL TAX $100 $0 $0 $100 100.00%
DONATIONS $20,706 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
INTEREST $115,322 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 0.00%
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $164,064 $40,000 $40,000 $40,100 0.25%
DAKOTA COUNTY
WASTE MANAGEMENT $15,000 $14,000 $14,000 $15,000 7.14%
TOTAL DAKOTA COUNTY $15,000 $14,000 $14,000 $15,000 7.14%
OTHER REVENUE
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND TRANSFER $109,500 $109,500 $99,500 $55,750 -43.97%
TOTAL OTHER REVENUE $109,500 $109,500 $99,500 $55,750 -43.97%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $7,019,876 $6,716,585 $7,058,723 $7,418,444 5.10%
page 91
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
CITY COUNCIL
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $22,592 $22,592 $22,500 $22,500 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $50 $78 $75 $94 25.33%
4135 FICA $1,728 $1,728 $1,721 $1,721 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $24,370 $24,398 $24,296 $24,315 0.08%
4400 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS $1,283 $850 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
4490 HALLOWEEN BONFIRE $1,277 $1,902 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
4490 FIREWORKS $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSES $2,344 $3,127 $2,500 $3,000 20.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $8,904 $9,878 $9,500 $10,000 5.26%
4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $33,275 $34,277 $33,796 $34,315 1.54%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 92
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
ADMINISTRATION
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $411,360 $428,269 $427,608 $456,314 6.71%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $4,000 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $78,373 $74,601 $98,794 $98,794 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $4,517 $5,431 $5,500 $6,875 25.00%
4134 PERA $29,270 $30,052 $33,140 $34,224 3.27%
4135 FICA $32,138 $32,515 $32,712 $34,908 6.71%
4137 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM $1,693 $1,693 $1,650 $1,700 3.03%
4136 FLEX BENEFITS $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $557,351 $572,560 $599,404 $636,815 6.24%
4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $267 $237 $500 $400 -20.00%
4209 CITY HALL OCCUPANCY $61,810 $61,810 $61,810 $64,900 5.00%
4210 TELEPHONE $6,375 $5,968 $5,500 $6,200 12.73%
4220 CITY ATTORNEY $5,389 $7,342 $15,000 $12,000 -20.00%
4220 AUDITOR $18,500 $18,750 $19,000 $20,600 8.42%
4220 CODIFIER-LINK TO CITY CODE $500 $500 $600 $600 0.00%
4220 CODIFICATION SERVICES $1,933 $2,182 $3,000 $2,500 -16.67%
4220 MNET ACCESS $1,776 $1,369 $0 $0 0.00%
4220 STAFF TRAINING $1,350 $0 $2,250 $2,250 0.00%
4220 SAFETY TRAINING $250 $350 $2,400 $2,400 0.00%
4220 COUNCIL RECORDING SERVICES $2,494 $2,887 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
4220 CHECK PROTECTION SERVICE $2,480 $2,490 $2,500 $0 -100.00%
4220 RECORDS MANAGEMENT $7,626 $11,783 $0 $0 0.00%
4220 MISCELLANEOUS $2,823.71 $1,337 $3,000 $8,342 178.07%
4221 RETAINER-CITY ATTORNEY $5,400 $4,700 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
4221 RETAINER-CITY ENGINEER $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 0.00%
4240 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS $1,727 $1,731 $1,700 $1,800 5.88%
4250 LIABILITY AND AUTO INSURANCE $65,510 $67,054 $83,750 $86,000 2.69%
4268 NEWSLETTER $4,469 $6,398 $9,000 $8,000 -11.11%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $204,180 $210,388 $231,510 $237,492 2.58%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $6,351 $6,209 $6,000 $6,500 8.33%
4301 COMPUTER SOFTWARE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4306 RECRUITMENT COSTS $55 $15 $0 $0 0.00%
4318 POSTAGE $2,145 $2,249 $2,100 $2,300 9.52%
4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR $2,278 $1,935 $1,600 $2,000 25.00%
4330 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE $2,007 $1,980 $0 $0 0.00%
4331 MISCELLANEOUS FURNITURE/EQUIP $0 $0 $1,000 $0 -100.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $12,836 $12,388 $10,700 $10,800 0.93%
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 93
4400 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS $9,763 $5,377 $11,000 $7,750 -29.55%
4402 BOOKS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $0 $0 $100 $100 0.00%
4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $15,030 $15,884 $17,500 $17,500 0.00%
4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $2,480 $2,297 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
4437 CREDIT CARD FEES $2,202 $2,626 $1,200 $2,600 116.67%
4480 CONTINGENCY $2,594 $26,729 $15,000 $58,685 291.23%
WSP ICE ARENA CONTRIBUTION $0 $0 $65,212 $65,212 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSE $2,219 $3,207 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $34,289 $56,120 $115,012 $156,847 36.37%
4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $36,000 0.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $36,000 0.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $808,656 $851,456 $956,626 $1,077,954 12.68%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
City Hall Smoke Detectors/Security $20,000
Cellular Amplifier $16,000
page 94
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
ELECTIONS
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $19,873 $20,593 $21,482 $22,838 6.31%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $1,460 $0 $2,000 100.00%
4125 SALARIES-ELECTION JUDGES $0 $15,048 $0 $16,500 100.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $4,117 $3,631 $6,098 $6,098 0.00%
4134 PERA $1,436 $1,597 $1,665 $1,863 11.89%
4135 FICA $1,483 $1,644 $1,643 $1,900 15.64%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $26,910 $43,973 $30,888 $51,199 65.76%
4220 CONSULTING FEES $0 $2,117 $0 $2,200 100.00%
4240 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS $0 $320 $0 $350 100.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $0 $2,436 $0 $2,550 100.00%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $0 $536 $0 $550 100.00%
4318 POSTAGE $0 $797 $0 $850 100.00%
4330 DAKOTA COUNTY SHARED EQUIPMENT $1,625 $1,665 $0 $3,075 100.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $1,625 $2,997 $0 $4,475 100.00%
4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $157 $223 $200 $250 25.00%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSE $0 $3,302 $0 $2,300 100.00%
4490 10 NEW VOTING BOOTHS $0 $0 $0 $2,000 100.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $157 $3,525 $200 $4,550 2175.00%
4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $10,000 $8,925 -10.75%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $10,000 $8,925 100.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $28,692 $52,932 $41,088 $71,699 74.50%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
ELECTION EQUIPMENT $8,925
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 95
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
IT
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $73,624 $75,643 $36,513 $39,297 7.62%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
IT STAFF POSITION $0 $0 $0 $15,000 100.00%
4131 INSURANCE $4,574 $8,432 $7,841 $7,841 0.00%
4134 PERA $5,220 $5,494 $2,830 $2,947 4.13%
4135 FICA $5,872 $5,727 $2,793 $3,006 7.63%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $89,290 $95,296 $49,977 $68,091 36.24%
4210 TELEPHONE $0 $50 $0 $1,680 #DIV/0!
4220 WEBSITE COSTS - CIVIC PLUS $1,100 $1,150 $4,000 $0 -100.00%
SECURITY AUDIT $0 $0 $1,000 $0 -100.00%
CITY ENGINEER $0 $1,212 $2,000 $1,000 -50.00%
LOGIS SUPPORT $891 $4,784 $2,000 $5,000 100.00%
WEB SERVICES $230 $0 $1,500 $1,500 100.00%
OTHER $0 $238 $0 $750 100.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $2,221 $7,434 $10,500 $8,250 -21.43%
4301 COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE $5,771
TREND LICENSES $3,553 $2,178 $2,500 $2,500 0.00%
OFFICE SUBSCRIPTION/OFFICE 365 $8,479 $7,933 $14,000 $15,500 10.71%
COMPUTERS - ADMIN $9,375 $7,155 $4,200 $4,500 7.14%
COMPUTERS - PUBLIC WORKS $3,000 -100.00%
COMPUTERS - POLICE $1,212 $0
COMPUTER - FIRE/CAD $1,657 $0
WIRELESS CONTROLLER $6,000 100.00%
SECURITY CAMERAS $10,000 100.00%
BACKUPS/SOFTWARE $3,099 $5,315 $1,700 $3,500 105.88%
AIRWATCH $4,140 $2,640 $2,700 2.27%
MISC HARDWARE & SOFTWARE $7,043 $2,000 $1,000 -50.00%
LASERFICHE $1,809 $8,606 $9,300 8.06%
ADDITIONAL LASERFICHE LICENSES $2,000 $1,600 -20.00%
BUILDING SECURITY SOFTWARE $1,491 $0 $0 0.00%
COMPUTER SOFTWARE - ADMIN $2,100 $2,100 0.00%
COMPUTER SOFTWARE - PUBLIC WORKS $1,500 -100.00%
ADOBE ACROBAT/PHOTOSHOP $700 100.00%
FIRE TECHNOLOGY NEEDS ASSESSMENT $15,000 100.00%
ADMIN - PRINTER $600 $600 0.00%
WINDOWS SERVER 2012/WINDOWS CAL $1,797 $2,100 $2,100 0.00%
EXCHANGE CALS $0 $1,000 100.00%
BATTERY BACKUPS $1,000 100.00%
OTHER $2,000 100.00%
SWITCH - FIRE & PUBLIC WORKS $8,000 -100.00%
CELL PHONES - ADMIN $2,500 -100.00%
CELL PHONES - PUBLIC WORKS $3,564 -100.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $32,980 $39,028 $61,010 $81,100 32.93%
4400 CONFERENCES AND TRAINING $50 $609 $2,000 $4,000 100.00%
4402 BOOKS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $85 $0 $600 $600 0.00%
4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $0 $290 $0 $0 0.00%
4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCES $64 $0 $350 $350 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSE $476 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $676 $899 $2,950 $4,950 67.80%
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 96
4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $6,049 $15,198 $14,000 $16,000 14.29%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $6,049 $15,198 $14,000 $16,000 14.29%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $131,216 $157,854 $138,437 $178,391 28.86%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
2 SERVERS $16,000
page 97
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
POLICE
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR/PATROL $911,270 $946,241 $895,311 $938,353 4.81%
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR/ADMINISTRATION $678,419 $543,473 $751,987 $734,552 -2.32%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME/PATROL $103,592 $84,022 $90,500 $90,500 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $5,160 $7,014 $10,400 $10,400 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $292,525 $283,267 $383,328 $374,616 -2.27%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $51,413 $65,314 $68,000 $85,000 25.00%
4134 PERA/PATROL $141,987 $152,958 $150,829 $166,674 10.51%
4134 PERA/ADMINISTRATION $91,995 $77,403 $104,295 $105,900 1.54%
4135 FICA/PATROL $15,125 $15,568 $15,090 $15,714 4.14%
4135 FICA/ADMINISTRATION $13,555 $13,331 $19,739 $19,984 1.24%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $2,305,042 $2,188,593 $2,489,479 $2,541,693 2.10%
4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $53,668 $52,556 $56,100 $63,812 13.75%
4209 CITY HALL OCCUPANCY $72,460 $72,460 $72,460 $76,083 5.00%
4210 TELEPHONE $15,767 $15,683 $19,700 $21,920 11.27%
4220 POST LICENSE RENEWALS $360 $585 $0 $180 100.00%
4220 ATTORNEY FEES $3,028 $4,937 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
4220 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $122 $9,309
4222 PROSECUTIONS $66,057 $64,272 $67,500 $70,692 4.73%
4223 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
DCC PUBLIC SAFETY BONDS $9,668 $735 $10,500 100.00%
BCA DEPARTMENT ACCESS CHARGE $0 $0 $1,080 $1,080 0.00%
BCA MOBILE ACCESS CHARGE $2,880 $2,880 $2,880 $2,880 0.00%
DTSCP $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
PRO PHOENIX RMS $14,216 $13,824 $21,296 $21,300 0.02%
AIRCARD/NETMOTION $3,679 $3,346 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
LOGIS-APS TICKET WRITER $0 $0 $2,139 $2,134 -0.23%
LOGIS-APPLICATION SUPPORT $26,028 $27,264 $17,464 $18,653 6.81%
LOGIS-SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT $1,420 $1,492 $1,548 $1,548 0.00%
LOGIS INET $50 $446 $9,819 $10,188 3.76%
LOGIS ANY CONNECT/MAPS $0 $0 $1,650 $1,650 0.00%
LEASE LINE MN OFFICE TECH GROUP $1,510 $1,504 $0 $3,360 100.00%
CJIIN $9,131 $9,238 $9,750 $14,000 43.59%
INT. ASSOCIATION OF POLICE CHIEFS $0 $0 $850 $850 0.00%
AUTOMATED PAWN $204 $204 $204 $250 22.55%
LEXISNEXIS $618 $718 $2,200 $2,200 0.00%
LANGUAGE LINE - INTERPRETER SVCS $283 $55 $400 $500 25.00%
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $31 $345 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
LOGIS PS ASSESSMENT $0 $42,770 $0 $0 0.00%
ELECTRONIC CRIMES TASK FORCE $0 $0 $15,000 $15,000 0.00%
4275 DCC ANNUAL RADIO FEE $8,080 $10,359 $12,380 $12,380 0.00%
4275 DCC ANNUAL FEE $182,092 $201,805 $200,500 $200,320 -0.09%
RADIO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT $1,075 $1,075 $0 $1,800 100.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $472,426 $537,863 $525,920 $564,280 7.29%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $4,252 $4,324 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
4301 COMPUTER SOFTWARE $1,293 $5,526 $46,894 $25,684 -45.23%
4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $6,606 $20,052 $3,000 $49,570 1552.33%
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 98
4305 POLICE RESERVES $3,351 $3,805 $7,500 $3,000 -60.00%
4306 RECRUITMENT COSTS $55 $9,845 $2,500 $4,000 60.00%
4318 POSTAGE $624 $754 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
4320 GAS AND OIL $60,004 $47,363 $60,000 $60,000 0.00%
4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR/GENERAL $15,711 $26,230 $30,000 $25,000 -16.67%
4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR/COPIER $917 $1,697 $2,000 $0 -100.00%
4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR/CAR SET UP $12,475 $13,236 $18,000 $17,500 -2.78%
4330 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4331 MISCELLANEOUS FURNITURE/EQUIP $2,419 $10,966 $17,000 $17,000 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $107,705 $143,799 $192,894 $207,754 7.70%
4400 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS $38,174 $22,413 $34,000 $34,500 1.47%
4402 BOOKS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $0 $0 $500 $500 0.00%
4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $6,190 $9,525 $6,900 $11,019 59.70%
4410 CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT $19,559 $12,643 $26,890 $25,000 -7.03%
4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $1,500 $1,567 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
4430 CAR WASHES $3,741 $4,000 $5,000 $5,500 10.00%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSE $3,503 $3,034 $4,500 $4,500 0.00%
4490 SHREDDING $444 $434 $600 $600 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $73,110 $53,615 $79,890 $83,119 4.04%
4610 CAPITAL OUTLAY $15,606 $0 $49,000 $51,685 5.48%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $15,606 $0 $49,000 $51,685 5.48%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,973,890 $2,923,870 $3,337,183 $3,448,531 3.34%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
FIREARMS REPLACEMENT $23,000
RESERVE SQUAD PURCHASE $12,185
TASER REPLACEMENT $16,500
page 99
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
FIRE
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR/ADMIN $39,953 $40,764 $69,537 $71,483 2.80%
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR/FIREFIGHTERS $143,697 $159,815 $145,176 $148,804 2.50%
4131 INSURANCE $4,350 $4,176 $5,227 $5,227 0.00%
4132 INSURANCE-LONG TERM DISABILITY $2,983 $2,936 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $13,240 $20,706 $23,500 $29,375 25.00%
4134 PERA/ADMIN $2,906 $2,972 $3,511 $3,498 -0.37%
4135 FICA/ADMIN $3,041 $3,057 $5,319 $5,469 2.82%
4135 FICA/FIREFIGHTERS $3,508 $3,933 $2,105 $2,158 2.52%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $213,678 $238,359 $257,375 $269,014 4.52%
4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $29 $26 $300 $300 0.00%
4210 TELEPHONE $3,613 $4,161 $3,850 $3,850 0.00%
4211 ELECTRICAL SERVICE $9,228 $8,435 $9,300 $9,300 0.00%
4212 GAS SERVICE $5,796 $7,320 $6,500 $7,200 10.77%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4220 AUDIT $5,500 $6,300 $5,000 $6,400 28.00%
4220 LEGAL $0 $249 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
4220 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $39 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
4244 MEDICAL EXAMS $5,071 $5,955 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
4268 SNOWPLOW FIREFIGHTER DRIVEWAYS $8,478 $7,991 $6,500 $6,500 0.00%
4268 DEPARTMENT REPORT PRINTING $2,743 $2,823 $3,500 $3,500 0.00%
4268 SCBA MASK FIT TESTING $874 $713 $950 $950 0.00%
4268 AERIAL PUMP TESTING $225 $1,238 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
4268 OTHER CONTRACT SERVICES $0 $0 $3,200 $3,200 0.00%
4275 DCC ANNUAL FEE $9,584 $6,635 $7,000 $7,000 0.00%
4275 DCC RADIO FEE $6,100 $7,839 $6,300 $6,700 6.35%
4280 RUBBISH COLLECTION $724 $561 $800 $800 0.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $58,005 $60,245 $62,700 $65,200 3.99%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $902 $970 $1,700 $1,700 0.00%
4301 COMPUTER SOFTWARE $1,031 $967 $3,040 $3,040 0.00%
4301 COMPUTER HARDWARE $300 $5,400 $5,400 0.00%
4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES
BOOTS/BUNKERPANTS/COATS $16,916 $13,447 $16,000 $16,000 0.00%
HOSE/NOZZELS/FITTINGS $7,596 $1,260 $6,000 $6,000 0.00%
MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING SUPPLIES $17,179 $13,319 $15,300 $15,300 0.00%
4318 POSTAGE $293 $785 $600 $600 0.00%
4320 GAS AND OIL $6,223 $7,421 $7,500 $7,500 0.00%
4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR
COPIER MAINTENANCE $201 $517 $900 $900 0.00%
RADIO REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE $581 $945 $800 $800 0.00%
APPARATUS REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE $21,066 $26,867 $18,000 $18,000 0.00%
SCBA SERVICE $0 $0 $3,500 $3,500 0.00%
OTHER REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE $623 $0 $1,800 $1,800 0.00%
4331 EQUIPMENT $750 $0
4335 BUILDING MAINTENANCE $12,683 $8,820 $16,200 $16,200 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $86,045 $75,617 $96,740 $96,740 0.00%
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 100
4400 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS $12,796 $9,551 $15,000 $15,000 0.00%
4402 BOOKS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $1,173 $935 $1,400 $1,400 0.00%
4403 TRAINING EXPENSES
TRAINING $4,899 $9,468 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
FIRE PREVENTION $3,595 $2,536 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $1,142 $1,355 $1,400 $1,400 0.00%
4415 MILEAGE $207 $0 $500 $500 0.00%
4425 WATER SERVICE $1,776 $1,408 $2,500 $2,500 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSE $882 $1,168 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $26,470 $26,421 $28,800 $28,800 0.00%
4630 CAPITAL OUTLAY $15,007 $612,907 $29,000 $10,000 -100.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $15,007 $612,907 $29,000 $10,000 100.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $399,204 $1,013,549 $474,615 $469,754 -1.02%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
AERIAL TRUCK REPAIRS $10,000
page 101
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
BUILDING OFFICIAL
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $46,711 -$462 $0 $0 0.00%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $16,631 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4133 INSURANCE-WORKERS COMPENSATION $455 $570 $0 $0 0.00%
4134 PERA $3,367 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4135 FICA $2,897 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $70,062 $108 $0 $0 0.00%
4209 CITY HALL OCCUPANCY COSTS $11,100 $11,100 $11,100 $11,655 5.00%
4210 TELEPHONE $5,212 $5,053 $4,250 $5,150 21.18%
4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $2,132 $1,563
CITY ATTORNEY $668 $300 $500 $500 0.00%
CITY ENGINEER/GOPHER ONE $38,340 $29,636 $35,000 $35,000 0.00%
4221 RETAINER-CITY ENGINEER $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 0.00%
4231 CONTRACTED INSPECTIONS $18,745 $70,450 $71,500 $85,800 20.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $83,696 $125,602 $129,850 $145,605 12.13%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $1,658 $1,242 $1,000 $1,250 25.00%
4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $160 $332 $500 $350 -30.00%
4318 POSTAGE $856 $913 $325 $875 169.23%
4320 GAS AND OIL $653 $862 $0 $0 0.00%
4330 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE $286 $159 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $3,613 $3,508 $1,825 $2,475 35.62%
4400 CONFERENCES AND TRAINING $500 $0 $500 $500 0.00%
4402 BOOKS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $0 $0 $250 $250 0.00%
4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $125 $125 $125 $125 0.00%
4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCES $116 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSES $420 $1,509 $500 $500 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $1,161 $1,634 $1,375 $1,375 0.00%
4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $158,532 $130,852 $133,050 $149,455 12.33%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 102
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
PW - STREETS
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $329,932 $308,189 $328,843 $328,320 -0.16%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $22,898 $25,068 $22,375 $22,375 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $79,862 $73,537 $93,044 $93,044 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $18,290 $25,512 $27,500 $34,375 25.00%
4134 PERA $24,606 $25,420 $27,219 $26,302 -3.37%
4135 FICA $28,063 $27,734 $27,251 $27,211 -0.15%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $503,651 $485,460 $531,232 $536,627 1.02%
4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $5,230 $5,059 $5,500 $5,500 0.00%
4210 TELEPHONE $1,517 $1,674 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
4211 ELECTRICAL-STREET LIGHTS $20,181 $20,061 $22,000 $22,000 0.00%
4211 ELECTRICAL-PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE $4,217 $4,458 $4,250 $4,250 0.00%
4211 ELECTRICAL-TRAFFIC SIGNALS $3,190 $3,512 $3,250 $3,500 7.69%
4212 GAS SERVICE $5,076 $7,747 $5,500 $7,750 40.91%
4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $1,129 $614 $2,000 $1,200 -40.00%
4220 ENGINEERING FEES $18,146 $14,739 $10,000 $15,000 50.00%
4220 CITY ATTORNEY $451 $0 $600 $600 0.00%
4221 RETAINER-CITY ENGINEER $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
4224 LABOR NEGOTIATIONS $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4240 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS $0 $69 $0 $0 0.00%
4280 RUBBISH REMOVAL $2,908 $2,902 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $67,046 $65,833 $62,600 $69,300 10.70%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $503 $698 $600 $600 0.00%
4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $12,275 $13,770 $10,000 $12,500 25.00%
4306 RECRUITMENT COSTS $0 $510 $0 $0 0.00%
4318 POSTAGE $30 $409 $50 $50 0.00%
4320 GAS AND OIL $35,300 $30,031 $35,500 $32,500 -8.45%
4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR $41,621 $65,105 $29,000 $30,000 3.45%
4331 MISC OFFICE/COMPUTER EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
4335 PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE MAINTENANCE
BUILDING MAINTENANCE $3,882 $2,048 $3,500 $3,000 -14.29%
CUSTODIAL SERVICES $1,834 $1,451 $2,000 $1,750 -12.50%
4336 SNOW REMOVAL DAMAGE REPAIR $4,866 $1,614 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $100,313 $115,636 $86,650 $86,400 -0.29%
4400 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS $240 $305 $1,200 $1,200 0.00%
4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $139 $191 $150 $150 0.00%
4410 CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT $1,882 $2,130 $1,800 $1,800 0.00%
4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $105 $111 $100 $100 0.00%
4420 STREET SIGNS AND POSTS $6,646 $12,832 $7,000 $9,500 35.71%
4421 SAND AND SALT $203,824 $155,311 $120,000 $135,000 12.50%
4422 STREET MAINTENANCE MATERIAL $28,337 $18,806 $25,000 $25,000 0.00%
4423 CRACK SEALING/CHIP SEALING $102,218 $251,383 $100,000 $100,000 0.00%
4424 STREET SWEEPTING AND STRIPING $32,000 $31,110 $32,000 $32,000 0.00%
4425 WATER SERVICE-PUBLIC WORKS $255 $215 $250 $250 0.00%
4426 BONFIRE CLEAN UP $1,295 $1,049 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSE $223 $488 $250 $250 0.00%
4500 TREE REMOVAL $13,973 $14,535 $12,000 $25,000 108.33%
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 103
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $391,138 $488,466 $300,750 $331,250 10.14%
4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $359,790 $51,494 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $359,790 $51,494 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,421,938 $1,206,889 $981,232 $1,023,577 4.32%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
page 104
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
PW - PARKS
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $249,015 $249,582 $253,123 $263,292 4.02%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $11,173 $17,877 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $51,903 $57,529 $45,000 $45,000 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $54,435 $58,205 $72,658 $72,658 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $7,052 $10,114 $11,000 $13,750 25.00%
4134 PERA $18,664 $18,655 $20,392 $20,497 0.51%
4135 FICA $25,829 $26,236 $23,572 $24,349 3.30%
4138 UNENPLOYMENT INSURANCE $7,696 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $425,766 $438,199 $435,745 $449,546 3.17%
4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $8,633 $8,946 $8,500 $8,500 0.00%
4210 TELEPHONE $3,306 $3,383 $3,500 $3,500 0.00%
4211 ELECTRICAL-PW/WARMING HOUSES $4,217 $3,859 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
4211 ELECTRICAL-COMF. STAT./AERATOR $5,650 $6,202 $5,000 $5,500 10.00%
4212 GAS SERVICE $6,747 $9,267 $7,000 $8,000 14.29%
4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $285 $4,870
ENGINEERING $8,888 $7,032 $4,000 $7,500 87.50%
CITY ATTORNEY $74 $75 $0 $0 0.00%
HR TRAINING/TESTING $200 $525 $600 $500 -16.67%
4221 RETAINER-CITY ENGINEER $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
4268 OTHER CONTRACT SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE $19,183 $20,731 $18,500 $20,000 8.11%
CITY NEWSLETTER $2,459 $2,582 $3,000 $2,500 -16.67%
4280 RUBBISH REMOVAL $2,783 $2,440 $2,750 $2,500 -9.09%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $66,426 $73,913 $60,850 $66,500 9.29%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $1,412 $1,084 $1,500 $1,250 -16.67%
4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $12,286 $16,405 $12,000 $13,000 8.33%
4306 RECRUITMENT COSTS $220 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4318 POSTAGE $437 $102 $150 $150 0.00%
4320 GAS AND OIL $20,564 $18,402 $21,000 $19,000 -9.52%
4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE $29,845 $26,277 $30,000 $30,000 0.00%
RECREATION ROCK $0 $1,249 $2,500 $2,500 0.00%
WEED CONTROL $0 $2,609 $0 $0 #DIV/0!
CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZER $12,673 $9,345 $14,000 $14,000 0.00%
WARMING HOUSE/RINK MAINTENANCE $3,400 $842 $3,500 $3,500 0.00%
VANDALISM REPAIR $2,630 $0 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
TREE AND LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS $413 $1,264 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
TREE REMOVAL $0 $6,220 $8,500 $15,000 76.47%
TOP DRESS BALL FIELDS; NET/PAD INSTALL $0 $5,450 $7,000 $7,000 0.00%
PARKS EQUIPMENT $6,487 $0 $10,000 $5,000 -50.00%
PARK PLAY EQUIPMENT/REPAIR $706 $699 $2,000 $1,000 -50.00%
PLAYGROUND WOOD CHIPS $4,305 $3,844 $10,000 $4,000 -60.00%
PICNIC TABLES $0 $0 $500 $500 0.00%
TRAIL SWEEPING $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
TRAIL MAINTENANCE $8,211 $0 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
STRIPING PAINT/CHALK $2,960 $4,615 $3,000 $3,500 16.67%
SPRINKLER REPAIR $3,645 $1,183 $3,500 $3,500 0.00%
TENNIS COURT MAINTENANCE $0 $0 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
NURSERY TREES $638 $0 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
ERADICATE INVASIVE PLANTS $11,822 $10,000 $13,000 $11,000 -15.38%
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 105
TOWN CENTRE LANDSCAPE MAINT.$0 $0 $3,000 $2,000 -33.33%
PILOT KNOB RESTORATION $845 $0 $5,200 $10,050 93.27%
ROGERS LAKE AERATION/MAINT.$0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
ROGERS LAKE WEED CONTROL $1,518 $1,518 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
SOIL/SAND/SEEDS $0 $3,069 $0 $0 0.00%
OTHER REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE $17,428 $2,267 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
4331 MISC OFFICE/COMPUTER EQUIP $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
4335 BUILDING MAINTENANCE
BUILDING MAINTENANCE $3,914 $2,556 $5,500 $3,000 -45.45%
CUSTODIAL SERVICES $1,801 $913 $1,800 $1,800 0.00%
4336 DAMAGE REPAIR $13 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $148,171 $119,911 $193,650 $186,750 -3.56%
4400 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS $3,930 $8,646 $9,450 $7,250 -23.28%
4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $474 $550 $500 $500 0.00%
4410 CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT $1,110 $1,140 $1,100 $1,100 0.00%
4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $220 $274 $250 $250 0.00%
4422 STREET MAINTENANCE MATERIAL $551 $0 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
4425 WATER SERVICE
PUBLIC WORKS $255 $215 $250 $250 0.00%
PARKS $17,443 $14,487 $18,000 $18,000 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSE $764 $867 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
4490 COMMISSIONER PER DIEM $2,075 $1,725 $2,100 $2,100 0.00%
4500 TREE REMOVAL $1,671 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $28,493 $27,904 $34,150 $31,950 -6.44%
4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $14,054 $66,053 $37,000 $23,000 -37.84%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $14,054 $66,053 $37,000 $23,000 -37.84%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $682,910 $725,979 $761,395 $757,746 -0.48%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
TURF TRUCKSTER $23,000
page 106
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
RECREATION
RECREATION
4435 CHEER AMERICA/GYMNASTICS $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4435 MHAA T-BALL $0 $1,155 $3,000 $1,200 -60.00%
4435 SOFTBALL LEAGUES $6,842 $7,219 $7,500 $7,000 -6.67%
4435 TENNIS LESSONS $2,216 $2,171 $2,500 $2,500 0.00%
4435 SUMMER CONCERTS $1,275 $1,500 $2,000 $3,000 50.00%
4435 SAFETY CAMP $675 $1,184 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
4435 TENNIS TEAM $0 $496 $500 $500 0.00%
4435 SENIORS PROGRAMMING $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
4435 SUMMER PLAYHOUSE $1,122 $1,200 $1,500 $2,000 33.33%
4435 PROGRAM SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT $0 $6 $1,000 $2,000 100.00%
4435 FIELD TRIPS $3,385 $5,702 $3,500 $4,000 14.29%
4435 SUMMER PLAYGROUND PROGRAM $1,273 $2,768 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
4435 RECREATION OFFICE SUPPLIES $0 $0 $500 $1,000 100.00%
4435 KIDS FISHING DERBY $575 $982 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
4435 MHAA CONTRIBUTION $11,245 $10,000 $10,000 $0 -100.00%
4435 YOUTH AND STAFF SHIRTS $0 $850 $500 $500 0.00%
4435 SKATEBOARD CAMPS/CLINICS $0 $2,775 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
4435 BIKE RODEO $0 $150 $200 $200 0.00%
PARK CELEBRATION $15,780 $17,107 $2,500 $3,000 20.00%
MISCELLANEOUS $25 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4436 ONLINE REGISTRATION FEES $1,243 $1,294 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
TOTAL RECREATION CHARGES $45,656 $56,559 $46,700 $38,400 -17.77%
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 107
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
PLANNING
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $26,327 $43,864 $47,090 $50,680 7.62%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $3,119 $4,686 $13,939 $13,939 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4134 PERA $1,799 $3,186 $3,649 $3,801 4.17%
4135 FICA $2,145 $3,531 $3,603 $3,877 7.60%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $33,390 $55,268 $68,281 $72,297 5.88%
4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CITY PLANNER $0 $4,755 $7,000 $7,000 0.00%
COMP PLAN UPDATE $0 $0 $0 $5,000 100.00%
CITY ENGINEERING $3,833 $17,260 $8,500 $8,500 0.00%
CITY ATTORNEY $4,347 $14,060 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
AIR NOISE CONSULTANT/RELATED $707 $770 $800 $800 0.00%
DC RECORDER FEES $1,012 $506 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
PLANNING COMMISSIONER-MINUTES $864 $988 $1,800 $1,800 0.00%
RESOLUTION FILING WITH COUNTY $1,317 $596 $1,600 $1,600 0.00%
4221 RETAINER
CITY PLANNER $28,800 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
CITY ENGINEER $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 0.00%
4222 PROSECUTIONS $0 $0 $3,750 $3,750 0.00%
4240 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS $914 $1,707 $900 $900 0.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $57,794 $56,642 $45,350 $50,350 11.03%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $982 $695 $1,200 $1,200 0.00%
4318 POSTAGE $317 $711 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR - VEHICLE MNTCE $0 $0 $500 $500 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $1,299 $1,407 $2,700 $2,700 0.00%
4400 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS $110 $725 $500 $1,000 100.00%
4402 BOOKS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $0 $42 $100 $100 0.00%
4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $50 $408 $400 $400 0.00%
4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCES $159 $122 $300 $300 0.00%
4490 PLANNING COMMISSION PER DIEM $1,475 $1,650 $2,100 $2,100 0.00%
4490 ARC PER DIEM $1,800 $1,750 $2,100 $2,100 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY $243 $128 $400 $400 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $3,837 $4,825 $5,900 $6,400 8.47%
4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $96,321 $118,141 $122,231 $131,747 7.79%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 108
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
RECYCLING
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $13,601 $10,966 $11,772 $12,670 7.63%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $2,128 $3,154 $3,485 $3,485 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4134 PERA $895 $797 $912 $950 4.17%
4135 FICA $1,075 $883 $901 $970 7.66%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $17,698 $15,800 $17,070 $18,075 5.89%
4220 COMMUNITY CLEAN UP DAY $6,297 $6,944 $5,000 $7,500 50.00%
4268 CITY NEWSLETTER $344 $482 $700 $700 0.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $6,641 $7,426 $5,700 $8,200 43.86%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4318 POSTAGE $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $28 $0 $100 $100 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY $660 $31 $500 $500 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $688 $31 $600 $600 0.00%
4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $25,028 $23,257 $24,370 $27,875 14.38%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
NONE
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 109
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
ANIMAL CONTROL
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4134 PERA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4135 FICA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4225 IMPOUNDING FEE $4,928 $4,793 $6,500 $6,500 0.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $4,928 $4,793 $6,500 $6,500 0.00%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $0 $0 $500 $500 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $0 $0 $500 $500 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY $986 $69 $1,000 $2,000 100.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $986 $69 $1,000 $2,000 100.00%
4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $5,914 $4,862 $8,000 $9,000 12.50%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
NONE
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 110
ENGINEERING FUND FUND 05
REVENUES
REVENUE SOURCE 2013 ACTUAL 2014 ACTUAL 2014 BUDGET 2015 BUDGET 2016 BUDGET % CHANGE
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS $430,657 $363,708 $520,000 $480,000 $510,000 6.25%
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES $541 $243 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 0.00%
RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL LICENSES AND PERMITS $431,198 $363,951 $526,000 $486,000 $516,000 6.17%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS
GENERAL FUND RETAINER
ADMINISTRATION $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 0.00%
CODE ENFORCEMENT $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 0.00%
ROAD AND BRIDGE $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
PARKS $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
PLANNING $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 0.00%
GENERAL FUND FEES
CODE ENF/FOOTING INSP/GIS $38,340 $29,636 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 0.00%
PLANNING FEES $3,833 $17,260 $8,500 $8,500 $8,500 0.00%
OTHER FEES $26,177 $36,755 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 0.00%
IT FEES $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
UTILITY FUND FEES
RETAINER $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 0.00%
SSES $31,335 $53,080 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 0.00%
MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
STORM UTILITY RETAINER $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
STORM UTILITY FEES $28,045 $20,069 $30,000 $31,500 $35,000 11.11%
CITY HALL FUND FEES $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
WMO FEES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
SPECIAL PARK FUND MISC.$0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
INTEREST INCOME $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND TRANSFER -$8,200 -$8,200 -$8,200 -$8,200 -$8,200 0.00%
TOTAL INTERFUND $179,030 $208,100 $153,800 $160,300 $163,800 2.18%
TOTAL ENGINEERING FUND REV.$610,228 $572,050 $679,800 $646,300 $679,800 5.18%
page 111
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
ENGINEERING
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $341,175 $354,553 $368,888 $380,469 3.14%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $12,599 $13,025 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $9,810 $6,192 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $68,062 $68,562 $80,325 $80,325 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $1,956 $2,737 $2,950 $3,688 25.02%
4134 PERA $25,320 $25,670 $29,364 $29,285 -0.27%
4135 FICA $27,247 $26,955 $29,750 $30,636 2.98%
4139 OPEB $5,712 $5,835 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $491,882 $503,531 $531,277 $544,403 2.47%
4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $665 $850 $800 $800 0.00%
4209 CITY HALL OCCUPANCY $46,980 $46,980 $46,980 $49,329 5.00%
4210 TELEPHONE $3,920 $3,976 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CITY AUDIT $3,025 $3,050 $3,050 $3,050 0.00%
ASBUILT SCANNING $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $591 $777 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
4250 LIABILITY AND AUTO INSURANCE $8,663 $8,737 $11,160 $11,160 0.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $63,845 $64,370 $68,990 $71,339 3.40%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $1,728 $1,927 $2,500 $2,500 0.00%
4301 COMPUTER SOFTWARE $3,047 $3,241 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $513 $735 $700 $700 0.00%
4318 POSTAGE $33 $21 $300 $300 0.00%
4320 GAS AND OIL $1,642 $1,394 $1,650 $1,650 0.00%
4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR $297 $321 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
4331 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE/COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
COMPUTER REPLACEMENT $2,947 $2,104 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT $1,179 $0 $1,250 $1,250 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $11,384 $9,744 $13,900 $13,900 0.00%
4400 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS $3,371 $3,824 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
4402 BOOKS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $139 $18 $250 $250 0.00%
4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $344 $909 $800 $900 12.50%
4410 CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT $233 $0 $250 $250 0.00%
4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $803 $937 $800 $900 12.50%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSE $165 $172 $250 $250 0.00%
4491 DEPRECIATION $4,559 $6,552 $4,550 $4,550 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $9,614 $12,412 $11,900 $12,100 1.68%
4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $40,000 $0 -100.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $40,000 $0 -100.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $576,725 $590,056 $666,067 $641,742 -3.65%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 112
UTILITY FUND FUND 15
REVENUES
REVENUE SOURCE 2013 ACTUAL 2014 ACTUAL 2014 BUDGET 2015 BUDGET 2016 BUDGET % CHANGE
SEWER RENTAL $1,526,229 $1,594,422 $1,688,531 $1,772,978 $1,861,627 5.00%
WATER SURCHARGE TRANSFER $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 0.00%
SEWER PERMITS $200 $600 $100 $200 $200 0.00%
LILYDALE LIFT STATION MAINT.$2,627 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
MISCELLANSOUS INCOME $11,839 $12,768 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
INTERST INCOME $6,182 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
UNAPPROPRIATED TRANSFER -$11,150 $16,199 -$11,150 -$11,150 -$11,150 0.00%
TOTAL UTILITY FUND REVENUE $1,560,927 $1,636,488 $1,725,481 $1,810,028 $1,898,677 4.90%
page 113
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
SEWER UTILITY
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $120,432 $122,675 $121,012 $125,763 3.93%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $247 $135 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $6,329 $5,418 $5,500 $5,500 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $21,754 $22,980 $32,931 $32,931 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $4,504 $5,938 $6,300 $7,875 25.00%
4134 PERA $8,693 $8,408 $9,766 $9,807 0.42%
4135 FICA $10,646 $10,223 $10,061 $10,424 3.61%
4139 OPEB -$428 $2,285 $0 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $172,178 $178,062 $190,570 $197,300 3.53%
4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $7,164 $7,305 $7,000 $7,000 0.00%
4209 CITY HALL OCCUPANCY COSTS $0 $0 $6,575 $6,904 5.00%
4210 TELEPHONE $7,088 $6,460 $7,000 $7,000 0.00%
4211 ELECTRIC SERVICE
PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE $4,217 $4,159 $4,250 $4,250 0.00%
LIFT STATIONS $10,454 $11,955 $10,000 $10,500 5.00%
4212 GAS SERVICE
PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE $5,260 $7,746 $5,250 $5,500 4.76%
LIFT STATIONS $938 $1,257 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
4214 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $6,725 $146
CITY ENGINEER $19,810 $19,950 $11,000 $11,000 0.00%
CITY AUDIT $2,555 $2,600 $2,600 $2,600 0.00%
IT MANAGER $0 $0 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
TRAINING $250 $350 $350 $350 0.00%
4221 RETAINER-CITY ENGINEER $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 0.00%
4250 LIABILITY AND AUTO INSURANCE $6,587 $6,561 $7,000 $7,000 0.00%
4268 CITY NEWSLETTER $492 $689 $500 $550 10.00%
4280 RUBBISH REMOVAL $2,707 $2,662 $2,500 $2,500 0.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $76,747 $74,338 $74,025 $75,154 1.53%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $2,096 $1,798 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $6,014 $9,077 $4,000 $5,000 25.00%
4305 VOICEMAIL/PHONE UPGRADE $0 $0 $0 $0 -100.00%
4318 POSTAGE $4,822 $4,379 $4,500 $4,500 0.00%
4320 GAS AND OIL $5,096 $4,553 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
SEWER CLEANING/TELEVISING $32,670 $35,517 $62,000 $62,000 0.00%
SEWER LINING $0 $0 $110,000 $110,000 0.00%
ROOT CHEMICALS $3,808 $2,148 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
HYDRANT MARKERS $0 $639 $600 $600 0.00%
SOFTWARE SUPPORT $806 $795 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
LIFT STATIONS MAINTENANCE $13,770 $17,344 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT REPAIRS $42,080 $21,072 $30,000 $30,000 0.00%
4331 FURNITURE/EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $1,200 $1,200 100.00%
4335 PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE MAINTENANCE
BUILDING MAINTENANCE $3,910 $1,671 $3,750 $3,750 0.00%
CUSTODIAL SERVICES $1,801 $1,491 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $116,873 $100,483 $241,050 $242,050 0.41%
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 114
4400 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS $638 $1,412 $1,500 $2,500 66.67%
4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $89 $91 $100 $100 0.00%
4410 CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT $370 $380 $350 $350 0.00%
4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $110 $326 $150 $250 66.67%
4425 WATER SERVICE $255 $215 $250 $250 0.00%
4437 CREDIT CARD FEES $727 $231 $750 $750 0.00%
4449 MWCC CHARGES $991,207 $1,034,517 $1,161,541 $1,164,404 0.25%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSE $3,835 $6,965 $3,750 $3,750 0.00%
4491 DEPRECIATION $147,867 $161,272 $145,500 $145,500 0.00%
4492 BAD DEBT EXPENSE $13,248 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $1,158,345 $1,205,410 $1,313,891 $1,317,854 0.30%
4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $50,000 $35,000 -30.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $50,000 $35,000 100.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,524,143 $1,558,293 $1,869,536 $1,867,358 -0.12%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
MHR/NORTHLAND LIFT STATION REHAB
page 115
STORM WATER UTILITY FUND 29
REVENUES
REVENUE SOURCE 2013 ACTUAL 2014 ACTUAL 2014 BUDGET 2015 BUDGET 2016 BUDGET % CHANGE
STORM WATER UTILITY FEES $400,812 $402,911 $398,631 $398,631 $398,631 0.00%
MISCELLANSOUS INCOME $550 $250,048 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
INTEREST INCOME -$2,527 $5,142 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
UNAPPROPRIATED TRANSFER -$9,650 -$196,109 -$9,650 -$9,650 -$9,650 0.00%
TOTAL STORM UTILITY FUND REVEN $389,185 $461,992 $390,481 $390,481 $390,481 0.00%
page 116
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
STORM WATER UTILITY
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $18,433 $18,823 $19,106 $19,894 4.12%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $3,444 $3,005 $5,401 $5,401 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4134 PERA $1,337 $1,366 $1,481 $1,492 0.74%
4135 FICA $1,367 $1,388 $1,462 $1,521 4.04%
4139 OPEB -$115 $113
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $24,465 $24,695 $27,450 $28,308 3.13%
4209 CITY HALL COSTS $6,575 $6,575 $6,575 $6,904 5.00%
4214 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE $0 $0 $200 $200 0.00%
4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CITY AUDIT $960 $975 $975 $975 0.00%
WMO MEETINGS $0 $0 $6,000 $6,000 0.00%
NPDES ENGINEERING FEES $31,335 $49,036 $31,500 $35,000 11.11%
RAIN GARDEN DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION $0 $0 $3,500 $3,500 0.00%
SURFACE WATER TREATMENT $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $15,009 $4,720 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
4221 RETAINER-CITY ENGINEER $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
4240 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS $43 $105 $250 $250 0.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $54,922 $62,411 $57,000 $60,829 6.72%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $0 $0 $250 $250 100.00%
4318 POSTAGE $1 $1 $25 $25 0.00%
4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR $2,918 $5,350 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
4337 STORM SEWER MAINTENANCE $24,700 $46,347 $45,000 $45,000 0.00%
4339 POND MAINTENANCE $4,030 $0 $80,000 $80,000 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $31,649 $51,698 $128,275 $128,275 0.00%
4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $13,519 $18,833 $13,500 $14,000 3.70%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSE $474 $13 $475 $475 0.00%
4491 DEPRECIATION $31,833 $35,637 $32,000 $32,000 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $45,825 $54,482 $45,975 $46,475 1.09%
4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $225,000 $209,000 -7.11%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $225,000 $209,000 -7.11%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $156,861 $193,286 $483,700 $472,887 -2.24%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
Mendota Road Storm Sewer Improvements $209,000
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 117
PAR 3
REVENUES
REVENUE SOURCE 2013 ACTUAL 2014 ACTUAL 2014 BUDGET 2015 BUDGET 2016 BUDGET % CHANGE
GREEN FEES $93,202 $83,624 $105,000 $105,000 $110,000 4.76%
RECREATION PROGRAMS $30,920 $37,328 $35,000 $35,000 $38,000 8.57%
CONCESSIONS $19,773 $17,252 $21,000 $21,000 $22,000 4.76%
SUNDRY REVENUE $12,581 $13,123 $100 $0 $0 0.00%
INTEREST -$327 $614 $250 $250 $250 0.00%
TOTAL PAR THREE FUND REVENUE $156,148 $151,941 $161,350 $161,250 $170,250 5.58%
page 118
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
PAR 3
4110 SALARIES-ADMIN $22,253 $24,500 $25,043 $26,391 5.38%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME (HOLIDAY)$617 $15 $0 $0 0.00%
4110 SALARIES-CLUBHOUSE $26,574 $24,085 $30,000 $30,000 0.00%
4110 SALARIES - MAINTENANCE $0 $13,398 $18,000 $18,000 100.00%
4131 INSURANCE $5,225 $5,876 $7,144 $7,144 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $974 $1,228 $1,250 $1,563 25.04%
4134 PERA $2,666 $2,977 $4,266 $4,229 -0.87%
4135 FICA $4,805 $4,338 $5,588 $5,691 1.84%
4138 UNEMPLOYMENT $3,390 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4139 OPEB $1,037 $689 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $67,541 $77,107 $91,291 $93,018 1.89%
4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $1,424 $2,583 $2,500 $2,600 4.00%
4210 TELEPHONE $1,606 $2,875 $2,000 $2,400 20.00%
4211 ELECTRIC SERVICE
CLUBHOUSE $1,107 $707 $1,200 $900 -25.00%
MAINTENANCE $3,745 $4,545 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
4212 GAS SERVICE $639 $890 $700 $1,000 42.86%
4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $25 $216
CITY AUDIT $2,390 $2,425 $2,500 $2,500 0.00%
CITY ATTORNEY $102 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
CONSULTANT FEE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
LIQUOR LICENSE FEES/COMPLIANCE $275 $332 $300 $350 16.67%
4250 LIABILITY AND AUTO INSURANCE $3,249 $3,263 $3,300 $3,500 6.06%
4268 CONTRACT SERVICES
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE MGMT $6,000 $5,972 $6,000 $6,000 0.00%
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE WAGES $13,355 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
CITY NEWSLETTER $295 $413 $400 $400 0.00%
4280 RUBBISH REMOVAL $742 $560 $800 $900 12.50%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $34,953 $24,781 $23,700 $24,550 3.59%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $241 $561 $500 $500 0.00%
4305 GOLF SUPPLIES $1,208 $772 $500 $500 0.00%
4306 RECRUITMENT COSTS $120 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4310 CONCESSIONS
FOOD $1,920 $2,936 $2,000 $2,500 25.00%
POP $953 $1,110 $1,500 $1,000 -33.33%
BEER $832 $636 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
4320 GAS AND OIL $2,145 $1,735 $2,500 $2,500 0.00%
4330 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
GROUNDSKEEPING EQUIPMENT REPAIR $6,085 $1,275 $7,000 $5,000 -28.57%
4334 COURSE MAINTENANCE $451 $5,222
CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZER $5,004 $3,052 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR $1,254 $1,049 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
COURSE BEAUTIFICATION $64 $147 $1,000 $3,000 200.00%
SOIL/SAND $406 $863 $500 $500 0.00%
4335 BUILDING MAINTENANCE $1,841 $5,222 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $22,523 $24,579 $24,500 $24,500 0.00%
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 119
4400 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS $49 $250 $100 $100 100.00%
4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $165 $160 $300 $300 0.00%
4410 CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $200 $200 0.00%
4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $125 $7 $200 $200 0.00%
4425 WATER SERVICE $450 $295 $500 $500 0.00%
4427 SEWER SERVICE $1,117 $1,137 $1,200 $1,200 0.00%
4436 ONLINE REGISTRATION FEE $689 $910 $700 $1,000 42.86%
4437 CREDIT CARD FEES $1,842 $1,813 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSE $1,672 $2,067 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
4480 CONTINGENCY $15,957 $14,770 $0 $0 0.00%
4491 DEPRECIATION $12,736 $10,081 $13,000 $11,000 -15.38%
4500 TREE REMOVAL $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $34,802 $31,488 $20,200 $18,500 -8.42%
4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $10,000 0.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $10,000 0.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $159,820 $157,955 $159,691 $170,568 6.81%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
PURCHASE 4 USED GOLF CARTS $10,000
page 120
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2016 BUDGET
2016 REVENUE PROJECTIONS
CITY HALL
FUND NO. 8
FUND BALANCE 12/31/2015 $30,000
RENT $215,775
INTEREST $300
$246,075
page 121
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
CITY HALL
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $57,541 $62,450 $58,434 $59,895 2.50%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $9,291 $9,350 $17,424 $17,424 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $1,342 $2,716 $3,300 $4,125 25.00%
4134 PERA $3,997 $4,176 $4,529 $4,492 -0.82%
4135 FICA $4,795 $4,956 $4,470 $4,581 2.48%
4138 UNEMPLOYMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4139 OPEB $644 $793 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $77,610 $84,442 $88,157 $90,517 2.68%
4210 TELEPHONE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4211 ELECTRIC SERVICE $24,659 $23,533 $24,500 $24,500 0.00%
4212 GAS SERVICE $8,668 $11,096 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CITY ENGINEER $3,511 $9,755 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $75 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4250 LIABILITY AND AUTO INSURANCE $5,631 $5,684 $6,000 $6,000 0.00%
4280 RUBBISH SERVICE $2,141 $2,172 $2,000 $2,200 10.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $44,685 $52,239 $47,500 $47,700 0.42%
4305 COMPUTER $0 $0 $1,200 $1,200 100.00%
4335 BUILDING MAINTENANCE $32,860 $49,246 $45,000 $45,000 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $32,860 $49,246 $46,200 $46,200 0.00%
4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $50 $0 $50 $50 100.00%
4415 MILEAGE $392 $147 $400 $400 0.00%
4425 WATER SERVICE $3,647 $2,783 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
4480 CONTINGENCY/RESERVE $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSES $156 $0 $250 $250 0.00%
4491 DEPRECIATION $58,772 $57,306 $60,000 $60,000 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $63,017 $60,236 $74,700 $74,700 0.00%
4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $67,000 $0 -100.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $67,000 $0 -100.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $218,172 $246,163 $323,557 $259,117 -19.92%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 122
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2016 BUDGET
2016 REVENUE PROJECTIONS
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
FUND NO. 7
FUND BALANCE 12/31/2015 $75,000
2016 TAX LEVY $25,000
INTEREST $750
$100,750
page 123
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4134 PERA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4135 FICA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4138 UNEMPLOYMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4211 ELECTRIC SERVICE $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0!
4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $0 $7,246 $6,000 $7,000 16.67%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $0 $7,246 $6,000 $7,000 16.67%
4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $180 $0 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
4330 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE $1,738 $654
SIREN MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT $0 $0 $3,750 $4,000 6.67%
N95 MASK TESTING $0 $0 $700 $700 0.00%
PHSYICALS $0 $0 $2,000 $3,000 50.00%
DAKOTA COUNTY SPECIAL OPS $0 $0 $2,500 $3,000 20.00%
EOC SUPPLIES $0 $0 $1,500 $2,000 33.33%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $1,918 $654 $11,950 $14,200 18.83%
4400 AMEM ANNUAL CONFERENCE $0 $0 $1,200 $1,200 0.00%
4400 TRAINING $390 $100 $5,700 $6,000 5.26%
4400 CONTINGENCY $5,230 $0 $0 $1,000 0.00%
4400 DAKOTA COUNTY EMER. PREP. CMTE.$2,920 $3,476 $3,500 $4,000 14.29%
4400 DRILL CONSULTANT/EXPENSES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4490 MISCELLANEOUS $7 $74 $500 $1,000 100.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $8,547 $3,650 $10,900 $13,200 21.10%
4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $9,200 $24,339 164.55%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $9,200 $24,339 164.55%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $10,465 $11,550 $38,050 $58,739 54.37%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
SIREN ESCROW $9,200
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT $15,139
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 124
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2016 BUDGET
2016 REVENUE PROJECTIONS
FACILITY RESERVE FUND
FUND NO. 24 AND 19
FUND BALANCE 12/31/2015 $120,000
2016 TAX LEVY $20,000
2016 INTEREST EARNINGS $1,200
BALANCE AVAILABLE $141,200
EXPENSES
FUND BALANCE 12/31/2016 $141,200
DETAIL OF REVENUE DISTRIBUTION AND EXPENSES
FACILITIES INFR.
REVENUES RESERVE RESERVE
(F 24)(F 19)
EST. 2015 FUND BALANCE $90,000 $30,000
EST. 2016 RECEIPTS $0 $20,000
EST. 2016 INTEREST $900 $300
EXPENDITURES
FACILITY PROJECTS $0 $0
EST. 12/31/2016 FUND BALANCE $90,900 $50,300
page 125
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2016 BUDGET
2016 REVENUE PROJECTIONS
FIRE RELIEF
FUND NO. 6
FUND BALANCE 12/31/2015 $3,000
2016 TAX LEVY $108,000
2016 FIRE AID $92,000
$203,000
page 126
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
FIRE RELIEF
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4134 PERA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4135 FICA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4138 UNEMPLOYMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4490 FIRE AID $89,922 $90,244 $85,000 $88,000 3.53%
4490 CITY CONTRIBUTION $67,160 $64,660 $90,000 $108,000 20.00%
4490 SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT ADMIN $0 $0 $3,000 $4,000 33.33%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $157,082 $154,904 $178,000 $200,000 12.36%
4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $157,082 $154,904 $178,000 $200,000 12.36%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
NONE
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 127
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2016 BUDGET
2016 REVENUE PROJECTIONS
SPECIAL PARK FUND
FUND NO. 10
FUND BALANCE 12/31/2015 $200,000
2016 TAX LEVY $0
2016 INTEREST $2,000
BALANCE AVAILABLE $202,000
page 128
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
SPECIAL PARK
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4134 PERA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4135 FICA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4138 UNEMPLOYMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4220 CITY AUDIT $1,115 $1,125 $1,125 $1,125 0.00%
4220 CITY ENGINEER $0 $0 $2,000 $0 -100.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $1,115 $1,125 $3,125 $1,125 -64.00%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4460 CONSTRUCTION COSTS $28,250 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSES $1,181 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $29,431 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $54,858 $0 $52,000 $17,000 100.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $54,858 $0 $52,000 $17,000 100.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $85,404 $1,125 $55,125 $18,125 -67.12%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
HOCKEY BOARDS AT FRIENDLY HILLS PARK $17,000
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 129
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2016 BUDGET
2016 REVENUE PROJECTIONS
WATER REVENUE FUND
FUND NO. 3
FUND BALANCE 12/31/2015 $375,000
2016 RECEIPTS $250,000
2016 INTEREST $3,750
BALANCE AVAILABLE $628,750
page 130
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
WATER REVENUE
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4134 PERA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4135 FICA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4138 UNEMPLOYMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CITY AUDIT $2,555 $2,600 $2,650 $2,650 0.00%
OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $423 $1,136 $0 $0 0.00%
TRANSFER TO UTILITY FUND $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 0.00%
TRANSFER TO WATER SYSTEM $0 $0 $275,000 $275,000 0.00%
TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $2,978 $3,736 $305,650 $305,650 0.00%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSES $32,852 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $32,852 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $35,830 $3,736 $305,650 $305,650 0.00%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
NONE
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 131
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2016 BUDGET
DEBT SUMMARY
IMPROVEMENT BONDS 2015 LEVY 2016 LEVY END DATE
2006 $6,500 $3,400 2/1/2017
2007 $80,400 $0 2/1/2027
2008 $170,572 $0 2/1/2028
2009 $27,300 $26,999 2/1/2020
2010 $41,242 $42,007 2/1/2030
2011 $200,329 $205,946 2/1/2031
2012 $91,067 $91,568 2/1/2032
2013 $119,619 $122,453 2/1/2034
2014 Refunding $0 $83,254 2/1/2027
2014 $0 $79,365 2/1/1935
2015 Refunding $0 $167,760 2/1/2028
TOTAL $737,029 $822,752
EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES 2015 LEVY 2016 LEVY END DATE
FIRE TRUCK $55,066 $53,765 2/1/2020
DUMP TRUCK $0 $24,662
PAR THREE BONDS 2015 LEVY 2016 LEVY END DATE
PAR THREE $267,887 $240,266 2/1/2023
GRAND TOTAL $1,059,982 $1,141,446
page 132
2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4134 PERA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4135 FICA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4138 UNEMPLOYMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4211 ELECTRICAL SERVICES $14,955 $11,369 $17,500 $17,500 0.00%
4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $0 $0 $500 $500 0.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $14,955 $11,369 $18,000 $18,000 0.00%
4330 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE $9,587 $13,197 $15,000 $15,000 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $9,587 $13,197 $15,000 $15,000 0.00%
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $24,542 $24,566 $33,000 $33,000 0.00%
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
NONE
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION
page 133
page 134
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Not In Plan
Streets
Kensington Neighborhood Rehabilitation 740,000.00$
Warrior Drive Rehabilitation 358,000.00$
Marie Avenue Rehabilitiation 2 911,000.00$
CenterPoint/Commerce Rehabiltation 1,232,000.00$
Mendota Heights Road Rehabilitation 2 610,000.00$
Mendota Road Reconstruct 1,114,000.00$
Wesley Neighborhood Rehabilitation 517,000.00$
Sylvandale Neighborhood Rehabilitation 1,066,000.00$
South Plaza Drive/Mendakota Court Rehabilitation 744,000.00$
Avanti/Twin Circle Rehabilitation 700,000.00$
Victoria Curve/Dakota Drive/Carmen Lane Reconstruction 1,200,000.00$
Friendly Hills Water Main 2,170,000.00$
Brompton/Winston Water Main 775,000.00$
1,472,000.00$ 1,350,000.00$ 1,428,000.00$ 1,232,000.00$ 1,066,000.00$ 1,444,000.00$ 1,200,000.00$ 2,945,000.00$
Sanitary Sewer
Mendota Heights Road/Northland Lift Station Rehabilitation 35,000.00$
Ridge Place Sewer Main Reconstruction 315,000.00$
35,000.00$ 315,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Storm Sewer
IVC Stream Bank Repair 96,000.00$
Mendota Road Reconstruct 200,000.00$
Lake Augusta Alum Treatment 35,000.00$
Mendota Heights Road Rehabilitation 2 10,000.00$
Kensinngton Rehabilitation 5,000.00$
Cherokee Heights Culvert Repair 40,000.00$
Marie Avenue 2 Rehabilitation 5,000.00$
Wesley Neighborhood Rehabilitation 5,000.00$
CenterPoint/Commerce Rehabiltation 32,000.00$
Sylvandale Neighborhood Rehabilitation 5,000.00$
South Plaza Drive/Mendakota Court Rehabilitation 5,000.00$
Avanti/Twin Circle Rehabilitation 5,000.00$
Victoria Curve/Dakota Drive/Carmen Lane Reconstruction 50,000.00$
331,000.00$ 55,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 32,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 50,000.00$ -$
Parks/Trails
Hockey Board Replacement - Friendly Hills Park 25,000.00$
Warming House Replacement - Friendly Hills Park 35,000.00$
Warming House Replacement - Wentworth Park 35,000.00$
Reroof Park Pavilions 60,000.00$
Marie Avenue 2 Trail Rehabilitation 70,000.00$
Mendota Heights 2 Road Trail Rehabilitation 73,000.00$
Dodd Road Trail - Market Street to Marie Avenue 292,000.00$
Tennis Court Rehabilitation - Marie Park 10,000.00$
Basketball Court Rehabilitation - Mendakota Park 15,000.00$
Dodd Road Trail - Mendota Heights Road to I-494 200,000.00$
85,000.00$ 425,000.00$ 70,000.00$ 35,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000.00$
page 135
Water
Mendota Road Reconstruct 38,000.00$
Mendota Heights Road Rehabilitation 2 5,000.00$
Marie Avenue Rehabilitiation 2 5,000.00$
Kensington Neighborhood Rehabilitation 5,000.00$
CenterPoint/Commerce Rehabiltation 9,000.00$
Wesley Neighborhood Rehabilitation 5,000.00$
South Plaza Drive/Mendakota Court Rehabilitation 5,000.00$
Avanit/Twin Circle Rehabilitation 7,500.00$
Sylvandale Neighborhood Rehabilitation 10,000.00$
Victoria Curve/Dakota Drive/Carmen Lane Reconstruction 15,000.00$
Friendly Hills Water Main 2,050,000.00$
Brompton/Winston Water Main 525,000.00$
38,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 12,500.00$ 15,000.00$ 2,575,000.00$
City Hall/Facilities
Generator Replacement (city hall)60,000.00$
Alarm System Upgrade (city hall)11,000.00$
Replace Boiler & Pumps (city hall)70,000.00$
Sidewalk/Concrete/Parking Lot Replacement (city hall)165,000.00$
Air Handler Replacement (1) (city hall) - per unit (5)20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
Parking Lot Upgrade/Expansion (city hall/police dept)75,000.00$
Electrical/Lighting Upgrade (cityhall/police)15,000.00$
Telephone Network Upgrade (cityhall/IT/police dept)25,000.00$
City Hall Smoke Detector/Security (city hall/police dept)20,000.00$
LOGIS Backup Solution (IT)9,750.00$
LOGIS Server Hosting (IT)8,100.00$
Email Exchange (IT)10,000.00$
File Server - City & Police (IT)6,000.00$
Laserfiche (IT)12,000.00$
Security Cameras (IT)10,000.00$
Fire Hall Door Security System (Fire/IT)5,000.00$
Backup Equipment - if not moved to cloud (IT)10,000.00$
Switch - Server Room (IT)15,000.00$
Video - Building & Squads (IT)12,000.00$
Fire Network (IT)5,000.00$
Public Works Network (IT)5,000.00$
HVAC System - Vehicle Bay (public works)15,000.00$
Salt Storage Facility (public works)120,000.00$
Fence (public works)27,000.00$
Carpet/Furniture (fire)10,000.00$
Apparatus Room HVAC (fire)20,000.00$
Extractor (fire)10,000.00$
Emergency Generator (fire)45,000.00$
61,000.00$ 145,850.00$ 250,000.00$ 132,000.00$ 162,000.00$ -$ -$ 85,000.00$
Equipment
Replace Snow Plow (streets)200,000.00$
Back Hoe (streets)90,000.00$
page 136
Wing/Plow Quick Connect for Loader (Streets)15,000.00$
Full-Ton Pickup Truck with Dump Box and Plow (streets)60,000.00$
Xmark Mower (parks)15,000.00$
Turf Truckster (parks)23,000.00$
full-Ton Pickup Truck with Dump Box and Plow (parks)60,000.00$
Chief's Vehicle (police)38,500.00$
Cell Coverage Enhancement (admin)16,000.00$
Handguns (police)23,000.00$
Tasers (police)16,500.00$
Reserve Squad (police)12,185.00$
Radio Replacements (police)50,000.00$
Investigator's Vehicle (police)35,500.00$
SRO Vehicle (police)36,750.00$
Unmarked Squad Replacement (police)35,000.00$
Drug Task Force Car (police)10,000.00$
Replace Chief 1 Tahoe (fire)30,000.00$
Replace Rescue 10 (fire)350,000.00$
21 Portable Radios (fire)80,000.00$
11 Mobile Radios (fire)49,500.00$
Ladder 10 Aerial Ladder Repair (fire)10,000.00$
Community Sign (fire)25,000.00$
300,685.00$ 309,000.00$ 551,250.00$ 95,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ 25,000.00$
2,322,685.00$ 2,609,850.00$ 2,319,250.00$ 1,535,000.00$ 1,243,000.00$ 1,466,500.00$ 1,265,000.00$ 5,830,000.00$
On Hold Due to Facility Study
page 137
General Levy Bond Sales MSA Assessments Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer Water Special Park City Hall Other Totals
2016
Warrior Drive Rehabilitation 182,000.00$ 168,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 358,000.00$
Mendota Road Reconstruct 512,000.00$ 450,000.00$ 152,000.00$ 200,000.00$ 38,000.00$ 1,352,000.00$
Mendota Heights Road/Northland Lift Station Rehabilitation (sewer)35,000.00$ 35,000.00$
IVC Stream Bank Repair 96,000.00$ 96,000.00$
Lake Augusta Alum Treatment 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$
Hockey Board Replacement - Friendly Hills Park 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$
Reroof Park Pavilions 60,000.00$ 60,000.00$
Replace Snow Plow (streets)200,000.00$ 200,000.00$
Turf Truckster (parks)23,000.00$ 23,000.00$
Handguns (police)23,000.00$ 23,000.00$
Tasers (police)16,500.00$ 16,500.00$
Reserve Squad (police)12,185.00$ 12,185.00$
Cell Coverage Enhancement (admin)16,000.00$ 16,000.00$
Telephone Network Upgrade (city hall/IT/police)25,000.00$ 25,000.00$
City Hall Smoke Detectors/Security (city hall/police)20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
Email Exchange (IT)10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
File Server - City & Police (IT)6,000.00$ 6,000.00$
Ladder 10 Aerial Ladder Repair (fire)10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
336,685.00$ 694,000.00$ 450,000.00$ 320,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 339,000.00$ 38,000.00$ 85,000.00$ -$ 25,000.00$ 2,322,685.00$
2017
Mendota Heights Road Rehabilitation 2 238,000.00$ 148,000.00$ 224,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 625,000.00$
Mendota Heights Road Trail Rehabilitation 2 73,000.00$ 73,000.00$
Kensington Estates Neighborhood Rehabilitation 370,000.00$ 370,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 750,000.00$
Cherokee Heights Culvert Repair 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$
Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction 315,000.00$ 315,000.00$
Dodd Road Trail - Maple to Marie 292,000.00$ 292,000.00$
Warming House Replacement Friendly Hills Park 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$
Back Hoe (streets)90,000.00$ 90,000.00$
Wing/Plow Quick Connect for Loader (streets)15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
Tennis Court Rehabilitation - Marie Park 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
Basketball Court Rehabilitation - Mendakota Park 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
Radio Replacements (police)50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
Chief's Vehicle (police)38,500.00$ 38,500.00$
Investigator Vehicle (police)35,500.00$ 35,500.00$
LOGIS Backup Solution (IT)9,750.00$ 9,750.00$
LOGIS Server Hosting (IT)8,100.00$ 8,100.00$
Laserfiche (IT)12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
Security Cameras (IT)10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
Fire Hall Door Security System (Fire/IT)5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
21 Portable Radios (fire)80,000.00$ 80,000.00$
Electrical/Lighting Upgrade (cityhall/police)15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
Generator Replacement (city hall)60,000.00$ 60,000.00$
Alarm System Upgrade (city hall)11,000.00$ 11,000.00$
HVAC System - Vehicle Bay (public works)15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
368,850.00$ 681,000.00$ 440,000.00$ 594,000.00$ 315,000.00$ 55,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 86,000.00$ -$ 2,609,850.00$
page 138
2018
Marie Avenue Rehabilitiation 2 490,000.00$ 330,000.00$ 91,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 921,000.00$
Marie Avenue Trail Rehabilitiation 2 70,000.00$ 70,000.00$
Wesley Neighborhood Rehabilitation 267,000.00$ 250,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 527,000.00$
Xmark Mower (parks)15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
Full-Ton Pickup Truck with Dump Box and Plow (streets)60,000.00$ 60,000.00$
X-Mark Mower (parks)15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
Drug Task Force Vehicle (police)10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
SRO Vehicle (police)36,750.00$ 36,750.00$
Public Web (IT)8,000.00$ 8,000.00$
Backup Equipment - if not moved to cloud (IT)10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
Replace Chief 1 (Tahoe) (fire)30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
Replace Rescue 10 (fire)350,000.00$ 350,000.00$
11 Mobile Radios (fire)49,500.00$ 49,500.00$
Sidewalk/Concrete/Parking Lot Replacement (city hall)165,000.00$ 165,000.00$
Parking Lot Upgrade/Expansion (city hall/police)75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
584,250.00$ 827,000.00$ 330,000.00$ 341,000.00$ -$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ -$ 240,000.00$ -$ 2,342,250.00$
2019
CenterPoint/Commerce Rehabiltation 670,600.00$ 450,000.00$ 111,400.00$ 32,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 1,273,000.00$
Warming House Replacement - Wentworth Park 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$
Full-Ton Pickup Truck with Dump Box and Plow (parks)60,000.00$ 60,000.00$
Replace Air Handler (city hall) - 1 of 5 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
Replace Boiler and Pumps (city hall)70,000.00$ 70,000.00$
Fence (Public Works)18,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 27,000.00$
Unmarked Squad Replacement (police)35,000.00$ 35,000.00$
Switch - Server Room (IT)15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
128,000.00$ 670,600.00$ 450,000.00$ 111,400.00$ 9,000.00$ 32,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 90,000.00$ -$ 1,535,000.00$
2020
Sylvandale Neighborhood Rehabilitation 693,000.00$ 373,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 1,081,000.00$
Replace Air Handler (city hall) - 2 of 5 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
Salt Storage Facility (Public Works)120,000.00$ 120,000.00$
Video - Building & Squads (IT)12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
Fire Network (IT)5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
Public Works Network (IT)5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
142,000.00$ 693,000.00$ -$ 373,000.00$ -$ 5,000.00$ 10,000.00$ -$ 20,000.00$ -$ 1,243,000.00$
2021
Avanti/Twin Circle Rehabilitation 400,000.00$ 300,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,500.00$ 712,500.00$
South Plaza Drive/Mendakota Court Rehabilitation 474,000.00$ 270,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 754,000.00$
-$ 874,000.00$ -$ 570,000.00$ -$ 10,000.00$ 12,500.00$ -$ -$ -$ 1,466,500.00$
2022
Victoria Curve/Dakota Drive/Carmen Lane Reconstruction 850,000.00$ 350,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 1,265,000.00$
-$ 850,000.00$ -$ 350,000.00$ -$ 50,000.00$ 15,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ 1,265,000.00$
Future Year (funding year/source unidentified)
streets
page 139
Friendly Hills Water Main 2,170,000.00$
Brompton/Winston Water Main 775,000.00$
parks/trails
Dodd Road Trail - Mendota Heights Road to I-494 200,000.00$
water
Friendly Hills Water Main 2,050,000.00$
Brompton/Winston Water Main 525,000.00$
facilities
Air Handler Replacement (city hall) - 3, 4, 5 of 5 20,000.00$ each
Apparatus Room HVAC (fire)20,000.00$
Wash Machine (fire)10,000.00$
Carpet/Furniture (fire)10,000.00$ On Hold Due to Facility Study
Emergency Generator (fire)45,000.00$
Community Sign (fire)25,000.00$
page 140
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Preliminary and Final Plat Requests for the Caroline’s
Lake View Second Addition
BACKGROUND
The applicants are requesting preliminary and final plat approval at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court. The
properties are part of two different plats and must be replatted.
The proposed preliminary and final plats would dissolve Outlot A and create two lots; one containing the
existing dwelling and an additional lot for construction of a new single-family dwelling. The applicants
recently received building permit approval to remodel the existing dwelling and plan to sell the newly-
created parcel to another party to build on in the future.
The proposed parcels are compliant with the applicable subdivision and zoning ordinance provisions and
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Concept Plan submitted with the application shows that a potential
new dwelling could be constructed on Lot 2 that meets the applicable Code standards and is not meant to
bind a future property owner into a specific location or design. Based on the location of the potential
building pad, additional permitting would be necessary due to the proximity to the wetland. In this case,
since no construction is being proposed on Lot 2 at this time, the future property owners would be
responsible for obtaining the necessary permits prior to any applicable development activities.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the November 24 meeting; there were no public
comments.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary and final plat requests, with
conditions, as described in Planning Case 2015-39. If the City Council desires to implement the
recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2015-93 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND
FINAL PLAT FOR CAROLINE’S LAKE VIEW SECOND ADDITION.
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 141
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2015-93
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR
CAROLINE’S LAKE VIEW SECOND ADDITION
WHEREAS, Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light have applied for a preliminary and final plat
for the Caroline’s Lake View Second Addition as proposed in Planning Case 2015-39 and
described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter at their regular meeting on November 24, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the preliminary and final plat requests as proposed in Planning Case 2015-39 are hereby
approved based on the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed requests meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The requests are necessary to dissolve an existing outlot so that future access to Wagon
Wheel Court is available to Lot 2.
3. The newly-created parcels do not create any non-conformities with the existing dwelling
on Lot 1 and would allow for construction of a new single-family dwelling on Lot 2 in
compliance with the applicable zoning standards.
4. A wetlands permit for future construction on Lot 2 will require compliance with
applicable land disturbance and drainage standards to ensure there are no negative
impacts to the surrounding water bodies and environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
preliminary and final plat requests as proposed in Planning Case 2015-39 are hereby approved
with the following conditions:
1. Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City
Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any
additional permits by the City.
2. Depending on future access from Wagon Wheel Court or Wagon Wheel Trail, a Public
Utility/Improved Public Right-of-Way Fee is paid to the City prior to issuance of a
building permit for construction on Lot 2.
3. In the event that future utility connections are made to Wagon Wheel Court, utility
connection fees are paid to the City prior to issuance of a building permit for construction
on Lot 2.
4. The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utility easements on both parcels
to be denoted on the Final Plat submitted to Dakota County: 10-foot wide along the front
property lines and 5-foot wide along the side and rear property lines.
5. No grading or construction activity on Lot 2 will occur on slopes over 25%.
page 142
6. All grading and construction activity on Lot 2 will be in compliance with applicable
federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s
Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
7. A wetlands permit is obtained prior to any applicable development activities on Lot 2.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of December, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_____________________________
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 143
DATE: November 24, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-39
Preliminary/Final Plat – Caroline’s Lake View Second Addition
APPLICANT: Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2270 Wagon Wheel Court
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: February 19, 2016 (120 days)
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants are seeking preliminary and final plat approval to dissolve an outlot and plat an additional
lot at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court. The properties are part of two different plats and must be replatted.
BACKGROUND
The applicants own approximately three acres (131,568 square feet) of land adjacent to Rogers Lake and
reside at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court. Their property includes parts of Lots 16 and 17 of the Caroline’s Lake
View Addition, platted in 1927, as well as Outlot A of the Kipp Addition, platted in 2001. The subject
parcels are bordered by Rogers Lake to the south, Wagon Wheel Court to the west, and wetlands and Wagon
Wheel Trail to the north.
Wagon Wheel Court was constructed in 2007 and was facilitated by approval of the Kipp Addition Plat.
The plat created five single-family lots on the west side of Wagon Wheel Court and Outlot A along the east
side of the road. Two of those lots contained pre-existing single-family dwellings with access to Rogers
Lake. The applicant’s property containing the existing dwelling was not included in the Kipp Addition, but
they have since purchased Outlot A. Since the parcels now owned by the applicants are part of different
plats, they need to be replatted in order to facilitate the creation of the new parcels proposed in this case.
The proposed preliminary and final plats would dissolve Outlot A and create two lots; one containing the
existing dwelling and an additional lot for construction of a new single-family dwelling. The applicants
recently received building permit approval to remodel the existing dwelling and plan to sell the newly-
created parcel to another party to build on in the future.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s
request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.71 acres and 2.31
acres, is consistent with the intent of a single-family residential maximum density of 2.9 units per acre.
page 144
Preliminary and Final Plat
Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the
resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. As shown in the table
below based on the preliminary and final plat drawings, both proposed parcels and the existing dwelling
and potential building pad meet the applicable R-1 District standards:
Standard Required Lot 1:
Existing Dwelling
Lot 2:
New Parcel
Lot Area 15,000 SF 15,000 SF 30,936 SF 100,632 SF
Lot Width1 100 ft. 100 ft. 162.51 ft. 317 ft./258 ft.
Front Yard2 Minimum: 30 ft.
Corner Lot: (A-30/2) + 30
Lot 1: 30 ft.
Lot 2: 39 ft. 47.6 ft. 68 ft.
Side Yard3 10 ft. (min.)
15 ft. (max.)
10 ft. (min.)
15 ft. (max.)
40 ft. (west)
25 ft. (east)
210 ft. (west)
43 ft. (east)
Rear Yard 30 ft. or 20% of the average lot
depth, whichever is greater
Lot 1: 42 ft.
Lot 2: 89 ft. 67 ft. 163 ft.
1The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first thirty feet (30') of the
lot depth
2In the case of a building to be erected or extended on a corner lot, the minimum front yard depth shall be increased
by an amount not less than one-half (1/2) the depth in excess of thirty feet (30') of the front yard of the nearest building
310' 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'
Concept Utility and Grading Plan
As shown on the concept utility and grading plan, a potential building pad on Lot 2 could contain a dwelling
with driveway and utility access to Wagon Wheel Court or Wagon Wheel Trail. The proposed plan is only
required to show that a potential new dwelling could be constructed that meets the applicable Code
standards and is not meant to bind a future property owner into a specific location or design.
Title 12-2 of the Code requires a wetlands permit for any construction/grading activities or vegetation
removal within 100 feet of a wetland or water resource-related area. Based on the location of the potential
building pad on Lot 2, additional permitting would be necessary due to the proximity to the wetland. In
this case, since no construction is being proposed on Lot 2 at this time, the future property owners would
be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits prior to any applicable development activities.
According to Title 11-3-8-A of the City Code:
Slope Limitations: Subdivision design shall be consistent with limitations presented by steep slopes.
Subdivisions shall be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes
steeper than twenty five percent (25%) in grade.
Slopes over 25% on Lot 2 are shown on the plan. The potential building pad is shown outside of this area
and is compliant with the Code. A condition of approval is included that prohibits construction or grading
on slopes over 25% on Lot 2 as part of future building plans.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat requests, based on the attached findings of
fact with conditions.
OR
page 145
2. Recommend denial of the preliminary and final plat requests, based on the findings of fact that the
proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and will have a
negative impact on surrounding properties and natural resources.
OR
3. Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary and final plat requests based on the attached findings of fact
(Alternative 1), with the following conditions:
1. Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council approval
and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City.
2. Depending on future access from Wagon Wheel Court or Wagon Wheel Trail, a Public
Utility/Improved Public Right-of-Way Fee is paid to the City prior to issuance of a building permit
for construction on Lot 2.
3. In the event that future utility connections are made to Wagon Wheel Court, utility connection fees
are paid to the City prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 2.
4. The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be
denoted on the Final Plat submitted to Dakota County: 10-foot wide along the front property lines
and 5-foot wide along the side and rear property lines.
5. No grading or construction activity on Lot 2 will occur on slopes over 25%.
6. All grading and construction activity on Lot 2 will be in compliance with applicable federal, state,
and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document.
7. A wetlands permit is obtained prior to any applicable development activities on Lot 2.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Site map
2. Site photos
3. Planning applications, including supporting materials
page 146
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Preliminary and Final Plat
2270 Wagon Wheel Court
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed requests meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The requests are necessary to dissolve an existing outlot so that future access to Wagon Wheel
Court is available to Lot 2.
3. The newly-created parcels do not create any non-conformities with the existing dwelling on Lot 1
and would allow for construction of a new single-family dwelling on Lot 2 in compliance with the
applicable zoning standards.
4. A wetlands permit for future construction on Lot 2 will require compliance with applicable land
disturbance and drainage standards to ensure there are no negative impacts to the surrounding water
bodies and environment.
page 147
72
9
36
9
27
6
199
33
2
16
1
15799
170
145
95
91
87
11
1
103
10
0
66
62
55
26
52
49
71
46
43
44
110 10738
37
3
4
97
31
30
29
28
27
25
24
11
23
22
2120
19
9
18
17
8
1
6
15714
13
12
6
5
10
3
11
25
1
3
21
3 8
11
18
12
170
16
7
2011
18
44
1
5
1
1
8
157
3
0
22
31
19
71
1
7
15
25
1
1
17
23
21
16
16
2270
954
954
2273
2275
954
2270
2270
2257
954
2275
954
WAGON WHEEL TRL
WA
G
O
N
W
H
E
E
L
R
D
Planning Case 2015-392270 Wagon Wheel Court City of
Mendota
Heights090
SCALE IN FEET
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 containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor 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.
11/19/2015
page 148
Wagon Wheel Court – looking southeast towards Rogers Lake
Wagon Wheel Court – looking northeast towards Wagon Wheel Trail
page 149
Wagon Wheel Trail – looking southwest towards Wagon Wheel Court
Wagon Wheel Trail – looking southeast towards Rogers Lake
page 150
Boyd Ratchye & Susan Light
2270 Wagon Wheel Court
Preliminary and Final Plat Request
CAROLINES LAKE VIEW SECOND ADDITION
Narrative (November 6, 2015)
Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light reside at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court. They own approximately
3.02 acres (or 131,568 square feet) lying north of and abutting Roger’s Lake. They currently
have a single family home on the south portion of the property. The land is comprised of parts of
Lots 16 and 17, Caroline’s Lake View Addition which was platted in 1927 and it includes Outlot
A, KIPP ADDITION, platted in 2001. The property is currently zoned R-1.
The nature of this application is to request Preliminary and Final Plat approval to split their
property into two lots: Lot 1 on the south consisting of 30,936 square feet which would contain
their existing house; and Lot 2 on the north consisting of 100,632 square feet on which a new
single family home could be built in the future, by a future buyer.
The property has about 240 feet of frontage on the shoreline of Roger’s Lake. There is a wetland
running along the shoreline of Roger’s Lake as well as a separate wetland in the northeast corner
of the property. There is lawn area around the existing house and numerous mature trees on the
proposed South Parcel. The proposed North Parcel also contains numerous mature trees along
with scrub trees and underbrush.
Kipp Addition lies west of the site and was platted in 2001. The remainder of Lot 16 lies to their
east. Their property has 283 feet of frontage on Wagon Wheel Trail and also has 455 feet of
frontage on Wagon Wheel Court.
Preliminary and Final Plat Request
The two parcels resulting from this requested plat meet all zoning code requirements for single
family parcels in the R-1 district.
On Lot 1, containing the existing house, we have shown the required building setbacks. The
current house meets all of those setbacks. This lot will be a 30,936 square foot parcel, over twice
the required 15,000 square foot minimum in the R-1 district. All improvements on Lot 1 will
remain as they have been for decades. The owners are planning an extensive remodel of this
house in the near future which will be almost entirely interior remodeling. The house on Lot 1 is
currently served by public sewer and water in Wagon Wheel Trail. When the proposed remodel
is undertaken the existing home will be connected to sewer and water in Wagon Wheel Court, as
shown conceptually on the Concept Utility and Grading Plan in this submittal packet. At that
time the current sewer and water services will be cut and plugged and left for the possible use of
a house built on Lot 2 sometime in the future. That future home on Lot 2 could, as an alternative,
page 151
be connected to utilities in Wagon Wheel Court – whatever the landowner at that time decides, in
conjunction with the City of Mendota Heights public works department. A future owner of Lot 2
would also have the choice of which street to access with their driveway - either construct a
driveway entrance onto Wagon Wheel Trail or onto Wagon Wheel Court.
Lot 2 is being proposed as a site for a future home. We have shown Lot 2 with a conceptual
house pad. In discussions with city staff it was confirmed that the new line between Lots 1 and 2
would be considered a side lot line and that the Roger’s Lake shoreline would be the rear lines.
Taking the average depth of Lot 2 (from Wagon Wheel Trail to the shoreline) and dividing that
by 5 (20%) we get an approximate rear setback from the lake of 89 feet. The building setback
lines (BSBL) are shown on the Preliminary Plat. It can be seen that a home could be built in
many places on Lot 2d and meet all setback and parcel requirements.
We have shown the Wetland District lines (100 feet from the delineated wetlands) on the map as
well as the Non Disturb Wetland Buffer (25 feet from the delineated wetlands). We have also
shown the slopes on Lot 2 that exceed 25% because these slopes, per ordinance, cannot be built
on. The theoretical, conceptual house pad shown on the plan avoids those 25% slopes with its
construction and grading. The house pad shown lies within the 100 foot Wetland District. We
understand, based upon staff direction and from past experience designing developments in
Mendota Heights, that homes can be built within the 100 foot Wetland District. We have also
designed a concept grading plan for this potential pad which demonstrates that a house could be
built in this general location meeting all requirements for floor elevation, grades, wetland
buffers, etc. We understand that this plan will not be construed as limiting future construction to
the location or design as it is shown on the plan. We recognize that future construction and/or
grading within the 100 foot wetland district would require applying for a Wetlands District
Permit at that time. We believe the plan shows that a house consistent with the neighborhood
could be constructed in many places on Lot 2 and meet all setbacks. The pad location shown also
demonstrates that a house in that position would have a lowest floor elevation more than 3 feet
above the Highest Known Elevation of Rogers Lake (as required).
We think it is also clear that this Preliminary and Final Plat request, creating one new lot, is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for Mendota Heights. This area is guided, in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, for Low Density Residential use. This use calls for a density of 2.9 units
per acre. On this site, at 3.01 acres that density could result in almost 9 units. We are only
requesting two units (one new lot) in this application. The creation of two single family home
lots on this site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Considering all of the above factors we feel it is clear that this request for Preliminary and Final
Plat approval is well supported by the current zoning code and comprehensive plan. Thank you
for your consideration of this request.
Paul McGinley, PLS, for:
Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light
2270 Wagon Wheel Court
Mendota Heights, MN 55120; 651-686-5238
page 152
page 153
page 154
page 155
page 156
page 157
page 158
page 159
page 160
LOUCKS
W:
\
2
0
0
1
\
0
1
7
9
0
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
S
U
R
V
E
Y
\
S
0
1
7
9
0
-
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
1
1
/
0
9
/
2
0
1
5
8
:
4
8
A
M
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
CADD QUALIFICATION
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
2270
Wagon Wheel
Court
Mendota Heights
Boyd Ratchye &
Susan Light
2270 Wagon Wheel Court
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
10/22/15 DRAWING ISSUED
11/06/15 CITY COMMENTS
Preliminary Plat
Paul J. McGinley - PLS
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
16099
01-790
PJM
JT
BS
10/22/15
PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTES
SURVEYOR:OWNER/DEVELOPER:
Loucks, Inc.Boyd Ratchye & Susan Light
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 2270 Wagon Wheel Court
Maple Grove, MN 55330 Mendota Heights, MN 55120
763-424-5505 651-686-5238
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL 1:
That part of the west 55.00 feet of Lot 17, Caroline's Lake View, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder,
Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said West 55.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 04 minutes 00 seconds East, bearing assumed,
along the east line of said west 55.00 feet 393.49 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence continuing southerly
along said east line 63.90 feet; thence South 40 degrees 19 minutes 11 seconds West 44.38 feet; thence North 49 degrees 40 minutes 49
seconds West 34.26 feet; thence northeasterly 62.27 feet along a nontangential curve, concave to the west, radius 105.20 feet, central
angle 33 degrees 54 minutes 52 seconds, the chord of which has a bearing of North 17 degrees 56 minutes 23 seconds East and a length
of 61.36 feet; thence North 0 degrees 58 minutes 57 seconds East 28.39 feet; thence South 61 degrees 35 minutes 28 seconds East 27.28
feet; thence North 81 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds East 11.59 feet to the point of beginning.
AND
PARCEL 2:
Lot Sixteen (16) excepting therefrom the East Two Hundred ten (210) feet thereof;
Lot Seventeen (17) excepting therefrom the West fifty five (55) feet thereof,
And excepting from said Lots 16 and 17 any parts lying southwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner
of said west 55 feet; thence S. 04' 00"E., assumed bearing, along the east line of said west 55 feet 457.39 feet; thence S. 19' 11"W.,
44.38 feet; thence S. 40' 49" E., 37.75 feet more or less to the east line of said west 55 feet, said point being the point of beginning of
the line to be described; thence S. 40' 49" E. to the intersection with the west line of the east 210 feet of said Lot 16 extended southerly,
and there terminating,
All within Caroline's Lakeview, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds within and for Dakota
County, Minnesota.
AND
That part of the west 55 feet of Lot 17, Caroline's Lake View, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder,
Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said west 55 feet; thence 6 04' 00"E., assumed
bearing, along the east line of said west 55 feet 457.39 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence S. 19' 11"W.,
44.38 feet; thence S. 40' 49"E., 37.75 feet, more or less, to the east line of said west 55 feet; thence northerly to the point of beginning
and there terminating
AND
Outlot A, KIPP ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM
That part of said Lot 17 which lies northerly of a line run parallel with and distant 50.00 feet southerly of the following described line:
From a point on the north line of Section 35, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, said Dakota County, distant 970.65 feet east of the
northwest corner thereof, run southwesterly at an angle of 84 degrees 19 minutes 01 seconds with said north section line for 528.37 feet to
the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 95 degrees 36 minutes 37 seconds for 1430.93
feet and there terminating.
DATE OF PREPARATION:
September 25, 2015
EXISTING ZONING:
Zone (R-1)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Zone (R-1)
AREAS:
Proposed Lot 1 = 30,936 Sq.Ft. or 0.71 Acres
Proposed Lot 2 = 100,632 Sq.Ft. or 2.31 Acres
Total= 131,568 Sq.Ft. or 3.02 Acres
PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKS:
Front = 30 Feet
Side = 10 Feet 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 feet
Rear = 30 feet or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater
FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION:
This property is contained in unprinted Flood Insurance Rate Map 27037C0085E (no special flood hazard areas).
SCALE IN FEET
0 30 60
page 161
LOUCKS
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Susan Light and U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustees of the
Susan Light Revocable Trust dated January 9, 2008, as amended, owners of the following described property situated in the
County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, to wit:
PARCEL1:
That part of the west 55.00 feet of Lot 17, Caroline's Lake View, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the
County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said West 55.00 feet, thence South 00 degrees 04 minutes 00 seconds East,
bearing assumed, along the east line of said west 55.00 feet 393.49 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be
described; thence continuing southerly along said east line 63.90 feet; thence South 40 degrees 19 minutes 11 seconds
West 44.38 feet; thence North 49 degrees 40 minutes 49 seconds West 34.26 feet; thence northeasterly 62.27 feet
along a nontangential curve, concave to the west, radius 105.20 feet, central angle 33 degrees 54 minutes 52 seconds,
the chord of which has a bearing of North 17 degrees 56 minutes 23 seconds East and a length of 61.36 feet; thence
North 0 degrees 58 minutes 57 seconds East 28.39 feet; thence South 61 degrees 35 minutes 28 seconds East 27.28
feet; thence North 81 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds East 11.59 feet to the point of beginning.
AND
PARCEL 2:
Lot Sixteen (16) excepting therefrom the East Two Hundred ten (210) feet thereof;
Lot Seventeen (17) excepting therefrom the West fifty five (55) feet thereof;
And excepting from said Lots 16 and 17 any parts lying southwesterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said west 55 feet; thence S. 04' ´ E, assumed bearing, along the east line
of said west 55 feet 457.39 feet; thence S. 19' ´ W., 44.38 feet; thence S. 40' ´ E., 37.75 feet more or less
to the east line of said west 55 feet, said point being the point of beginning of the line ot be described; thence S.
´ E. to the intersection with the west line of the east 210 feet of said Lot 16 extended southerly, and there
terminating,
All within Caroline's Lakeview, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds
within and for Dakota County, Minnesota.
AND
That part of the west 55 feet of Lot 17, Caroline's Lake View, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the County
Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said west 55 feet;
thence S. 04' ´ E., assumed bearing, along the east line of said west 55 feet, 457.39 feet to the point of beginning of
the parcel to be described; thence S. 19' ´ W., 44.38 feet; thence S. 40' ´ E., 37.75 feet, more or less, to the
east line of said west 55 feet; thence northerly to the point of beginning and there terminating.
TOGETHER WITH
Outlot A, KIPP ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM
That part of the above described parcels (taken for highway purposes and recorded as Parcel 29B in Final Certificate
Number 82312) which lies northerly of a line run parallel with and distant 50 feet southerly of the following described line:
From a point on the north line of Section 35, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, distant 970.65 feet east of the northwest
corner thereof, run southwesterly at an angle of 84 degrees 19 minutes 01 seconds with said north section line for 528.37
feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 95 degrees 36 minutes 37
seconds for 1430.93 feet and there terminating.
Have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as CAROLINES LAKE VIEW SECOND ADDITION, and do hereby
dedicate to the public for public use forever the drainage and utility easements as created by this plat.
In witness whereof said Susan Light, Trustee of the Susan Light Revocable Trust, dated January 9, 2008, as amended, has
hereunto set her hand this ______ day of ____________________, 20____.
SUSAN LIGHT REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED JANUARY 9, 2008, AS AMENDED
____________________________________
Susan Light, Trustee
State of ________________
County of ______________
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ___________________________________ by Susan Light, Trustee of the
Susan Light Revocable Trust, Dated January 9, 2008, as amended.
_________________________________________
(Signature)
_________________________________________
(Printed Name)
Notary Public ____________________ County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires ___________________
In witness whereof said U.S. Bank, National Association, Trustee of the Susan Light Revocable Trust, Dated January 9, 2008
as amended, has caused these presents to be signed by ______________________________, its
______________________________ and ______________________________, its ______________________________
this ______ day of ____________________, 20____.
SUSAN LIGHT REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED JANUARY 9, 2008, AS AMENDED
_________________________________________________________________________________
(Signature)(Signature)
_________________________________________________________________________________
(Printed Name)(Printed Name)
_________________________________________________________________________________
(Title)(Title)
State of ________________
County of ______________
This instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of _______________________, 20_____ by
______________________________, ______________________________ and ______________________________,
______________________________ of U.S. Bank, National Association, Trustee of the Susan Light Revocable Trust, Dated
January 9, 2008 as amended, on behalf of the Association.
_________________________________________
(Signed)
_________________________________________
(Printed Name)
Notary Public ____________________ County, ___________
My Commission Expires ___________________
SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE
I, Paul J. McGinley, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all
mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on the plat have been, or will
be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01,
Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on
this plat.
Dated this _____________ day of __________________, 201___.
__________________________________________
Paul J. McGinley, Licensed Land Surveyor
Minnesota License No. 16099
State of Minnesota
County of Hennepin
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ____________________________________ by Paul J. McGinley.
_________________________________________
(Signed)
_________________________________________
(Printed Name)
Notary Public Hennepin County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires January 31, 2020
CITY COUNCIL, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
This plat of CAROLINES LAKE VIEW SECOND ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this ______ day of ____________________, 20_____, and
said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.
By ______________________________, Mayor By__________________________________, Clerk
COUNTY SURVEYOR
Pursuant to Section 383D.65, Minnesota Statutes, and the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance, this plat has been
approved this ______ day of ____________________, 20_____.
By: ___________________________________________
Todd B. Tollefson
Dakota County Surveyor
Secretary, Dakota County Plat Commission
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
This plat of CAROLINES LAKE VIEW SECOND ADDITION was approved pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 505 and
pursuant to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat ordinance and approved by resolution of the Board of Commissioners of
Dakota County, Minnesota, at a regular meeting of said Board this ______ day of ___________________, 20_____.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
Chair, County Board County Treasurer-Auditor
DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION AND RECORDS
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable in the year 20_____ on the land hereinbefore
described have been paid. Also, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes and transfer
entered this ______ day of ____________________, 20_____.
________________________________________, Director
Department of Property Taxation and Records
REGISTRAR OF TITLES, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA
I hereby certify that plat of CAROLINES LAKE VIEW SECOND ADDITION was filed in the office of the Registrar of Titles for
public record on this ________ day of ________________________, 20_____, at __________ o'clock _____.M., and was
duly filed in Book __________ of __________, Pages ________, _________, ________, ________, ________, and
________, as Document Number _____________.
__________________________________, Registrar of Titles
By _______________________________
page 162
SCALE IN FEET
0 30 60
LOUCKS
1 INCH = 30 FEET
page 163
LOUCKS
W:
\
2
0
0
1
\
0
1
7
9
0
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
C
3
-
1
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
1
1
/
0
9
/
2
0
1
5
8
:
5
8
A
M
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
CADD QUALIFICATION
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
2270
Wagon Wheel
Court
Mendota Heights
Boyd Ratchye &
Susan Light
2270 Wagon Wheel Court
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Concept
Utility and
Grading Plan
4" SANITARY SEWER
1" COPPER
UTILITY SERVICE LEGEND
10/22/15 DRAWING ISSUED
11/06/15 CITY COMMENTS
Review Date
SHEET INDEX
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
Todd W. McLouth - PE
20383
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
10/22/15
01-790
PJM
DDL/JT
PJM
BS
Slop
e
s
G
r
e
a
t
e
r
than
2
5
%
page 164
page 165
page 166
Page 1 of 1Print Preview
11/2/2015http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...
page 167
Page 1 of 1Print Preview
11/2/2015http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...
page 168
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance at 754 and 750 Upper
Colonial Drive
BACKGROUND
The property owners of both parcels are seeking to adjust the interior property boundary line to resolve an
existing encroachment. The existing dwelling located at 754 Upper Colonial Drive encroaches across the
interior property boundary line onto 750 Upper Colonial Drive. In order to resolve the encroachment, both
parties have agreed to adjust the interior property boundary line.
As a result of the proposed adjustment, side yard setbacks and lot width non-conformities will be brought
into conformance on 754 Upper Colonial. However, the existing non-conforming lot width is transferred
to 750 Upper Colonial and requires a variance. Practically speaking, approval of the requests would result
in the adjustment of lines on a map.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the November 24 meeting; there were no public
comments.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot line adjustment and variance requests, with
conditions, as described in Planning Case 2015-40. If the City Council desires to implement the
recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2015-94 APPROVING A LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE AT 754 AND 750 UPPER COLONIAL DRIVE.
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 169
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2015-94
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE
AT 754 AND 750 UPPER COLONIAL DRIVE
WHEREAS, Alan and Gloria Weinblatt and Brian and Jamie Nordin have applied for a lot
line adjustment and variance as proposed in Planning Case 2015-40 and described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter at their regular meeting on November 24, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
lot line adjustment and variance requests as proposed in Planning Case 2015-40 are hereby
approved based on the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the
City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the interior
property boundary line.
3. In order to comply with the required minimum side yard setback standards based on the
existing conditions, the non-conforming lot width will be transferred from Lot 9 to Lot 10.
4. The existing conditions were not created by the current property owners and create a
practical difficulty in adjusting the interior property boundary line in compliance with the lot
width standard in order to address the non-conformities created by the encroachment.
5. Other alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the
dwelling or acquisition of additional property not owned by the applicants are not practical.
6. Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not
negatively impact the character of the neighborhood.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the lot line
adjustment and variance requests as proposed in Planning Case 2015-40 are hereby approved with
the condition that the appropriate documents are recorded with Dakota County.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of December, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_____________________________
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 170
DATE: November 24, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-40
Lot Line Adjustment and Variance
APPLICANT: Alan and Gloria Weinblatt/Brian and Jamie Nordin
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 754 and 750 Upper Colonial Drive
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: January 1, 2016 (60 days)
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The property owners of both parcels are seeking to adjust the interior property boundary line to resolve an
existing encroachment. The request requires City Council approval before being recorded by Dakota
County. In addition, the proposed request requires a variance from the minimum lot width standard.
BACKGROUND
The properties were platted as Lots 9 and 10, Block 7 of the Cherry Hill Addition Plat in 1960. The existing
dwelling located on Lot 9 (Weinblatt/754 Upper Colonial Drive) encroaches across the interior property
boundary line onto Lot 10 (Nordin/750 Upper Colonial Drive). In order to resolve the encroachment, both
parties have agreed to adjust the interior property boundary line as shown in the attached survey.
Lot 9 does not currently meet the R-1 District’s required side yard setback or lot width standards and would
be brought into conformance as a result of the proposed adjustment. However, as a result the proposed
adjustment, Lot 10’s existing width would become non-conforming and requires a variance. As part of a
separate application to be considered on its own merits, the city is requesting a lot split and variances to
convey a portion of adjacent city-owned property containing existing encroachments to the owners of Lot
10. If approved and recorded accordingly, Lot 10 would be brought into compliance with the applicable
zoning standards.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
Both parcels are guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The lot line
adjustment and variance requests are consistent with the continued single-family residential use of both
properties.
page 171
Lot Split
Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the
resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. As shown in the table
below based on the attached survey, the proposed lot line adjustment would resolve the existing non-
conformities on Lot 9 and create a non-conforming lot width on Lot 10:
R-1 Zoning District Lot 9
754 Upper Colonial
Lot 10
750 Upper Colonial
Standard Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Lot Area 15,000 SF 16,214 SF 17,724 SF 17,887 SF 16,377 SF
Lot Width1 100 ft. 98.58 ft. 113.61 ft. 110.7 ft. 95.67 ft.
Side Yard Setback2 10 ft. (min.)
15 ft. (max.) 0 ft. 10 ft. 24 ft. 11.48 ft.
1The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first thirty feet (30') of the
lot depth
210' 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'
Based on the height of the existing dwellings contiguous to each side yard shown on the survey, the required
minimum setback is 10 feet on both parcels. As previously noted, the lot width non-conformity being
created on Lot 10 is proposed to be brought into conformance by consideration of a separate case by the
City.
Variance
When considering a variance for the proposed lot line adjustment request, the City is required to find that:
1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive
plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The request to adjust an interior property boundary line to address an existing encroachment is reasonable
and meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. The proposed lot line
adjustment resolves the lot width and side yard setback non-conformities on Lot 9. In order to meet the
side yard setback standards based on the height and location of the existing dwellings, the width of Lot 10
is being reduced to less than the 100-foot standard. As a result, the existing non-conforming lot width is
essentially transferred from Lot 9 to Lot 10.
2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to
circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on
economic considerations.
It is assumed that long-standing surveying mistakes caused the construction of dwellings which encroach
into the required side yard setbacks or over the property boundary lines on several properties in the
immediate area. In order to resolve the situation in this case and satisfy additional conditions for the sale
of Lot 9, the most reasonable solution is adjustment of the interior property boundary line in conformance
with the required side yard setback standard as agreed upon by the affected property owners. Other
alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the dwelling on Lot 9 or
requiring the owners of Lot 10 to acquire additional property are not practical.
Based on the existing conditions, the applicants have established a practical difficulty in adjusting the
interior property boundary line in compliance with the applicable zoning standards. Furthermore, the
existing condition of both properties is a unique circumstance not created by the applicants.
page 172
3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Practically speaking, approval of the requests would result in the adjustment of lines on a map. Therefore,
no changes will be visible to either property and no negative impacts are anticipated to the character of the
neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment and variance requests, based on the attached
findings of fact, with conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment and variance requests, based on the findings of fact
that the proposed adjustment is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and will
have a negative impact on surrounding properties.
OR
3. Table the requests.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment and variance requests based on the attached findings
of fact (Alternative 1), with the condition that the appropriate documents are recorded with Dakota County.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Site map
2. Site photos
3. Planning applications, including supporting materials
page 173
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment and Variance
754 and 750 Upper Colonial Drive
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the City
Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the interior property
boundary line.
3. In order to comply with the required minimum side yard setback standards based on the existing
conditions, the non-conforming lot width will be transferred from Lot 9 to Lot 10.
4. The existing conditions were not created by the current property owners and create a practical
difficulty in adjusting the interior property boundary line in compliance with the lot width standard
in order to address the non-conformities created by the encroachment.
5. Other alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the dwelling or
acquisition of additional property not owned by the applicants are not practical.
6. Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively
impact the character of the neighborhood.
page 174
750
754
760
757
751
1480
763
UPPER COL
O
N
I
A
L
D
R
C
H
E
R
R
Y
H
I
L
L
R
D
Aerometrics
Planning Case 2015-40754 and 750 Upper Colonial Drive City of
Mendota
Heights040
SCALE IN FEETDate: 11/19/2015
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 containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
page 175
754 and 750 Upper Colonial Drive
page 176
page 177
page 178
page 179
page 180
page 181
page 182
page 183
Page 1 of 1Print Preview
11/2/2015http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...
page 184
Page 1 of 1Print Preview
11/2/2015http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...
page 185
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Lot Split and Variances for a portion of Wentworth Park
BACKGROUND
The City is seeking approval to subdivide a portion of Wentworth Park for purchase by an adjacent private
property owner. The portion of land in-question does not meet the lot area, width, or driveway setback
standards for the R-1 District and requires a variance.
The property owners of 750 Upper Colonial Drive have requested to acquire a portion of city-owned
property immediately adjacent to their eastern property boundary line that is currently part of Wentworth
Park. The area in-question includes existing driveway, landscaping, and fencing encroachments onto city
property and would be combined and dissolved into the existing parcel after being purchased and recorded.
The dwelling was constructed in 1967, and to the best of staff’s knowledge, the existing conditions have
existed for several decades. The private property owners already use and maintain the property in-question,
therefore no negative impacts are anticipated to the park or the character of the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the November 24 meeting. A member of the
public questioned whether or not the City has conveyed park land to private property owners in the past.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot split and variance requests, with conditions,
as described in Planning Case 2015-41. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass
a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2015-95 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCES FOR CITY-
OWNED PROPERTY.
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 186
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2015-95
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCES
FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has applied for a lot split and variances for a portion of city-
owned property within Wentworth Park as proposed in Planning Case 2015-41 and described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their
regular meeting on November 24, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the lot split and
variance requests as proposed in Planning Case 2015-41 are hereby approved based on the following findings of
fact:
1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the non-conformities
created by the encroachments onto city-owned property.
3. The temporary non-conformities created as a result of the requests will be eliminated once the property
in-question is combined and dissolved by the private property owners.
4. The existing conditions were not created by the current private property owners and create a practical
difficulty in subdividing a reasonable amount of land in compliance with the applicable Code
requirements.
5. Approval of the requests will not negatively impact the park or the character of the neighborhood.
6. Approval of the requests is reasonably necessary to correct a surveying error and does not intend to
establish a policy of selling city parkland.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the lot split and variance
requests as proposed in Planning Case 2015-41 are hereby approved with the following conditions:
1. A purchase agreement is entered into between the City and the private property owner to be approved by
the City Council prior to the lot split being recorded by Dakota County.
2. Upon closing on the sale of the property in-question, the private property owner is required to combine
and dissolve the property into 750 Upper Colonial Drive.
3. All costs related to the sale and recording of the required documents are paid for by the private property
owner.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of December, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_____________________________
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 187
DATE: November 24, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-41
Subdivision Request for Lot Split and Variances
APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A – Wentworth Park
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/P-Parks
ACTION DEADLINE: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The City is seeking approval to subdivide a portion of Wentworth Park for purchase by an adjacent private
property owner. The request requires City Council approval before being recorded by Dakota County. In
addition, variances are necessary to create a parcel that is non-conforming with the required minimum lot
area, width, and driveway setback standards in the applicable zoning district.
BACKGROUND
The property owners of 750 Upper Colonial Drive have requested to acquire a portion of city-owned
property immediately adjacent to their eastern property boundary line that is currently part of Wentworth
Park. The area in-question includes existing driveway, landscaping, and fencing encroachments onto city
property and would be combined and dissolved into the existing parcel after being purchased and recorded.
The dwelling was constructed in 1967, and to the best of staff’s knowledge, the existing conditions have
existed for several decades.
The portion of Wentworth Park in this area was platted as Outlots A and B of the Cherry Hill Addition Plat
in 1960. It is separated from the main area of the park off Wentworth Avenue and includes an off-street
trail connection to Upper Colonial Drive, tennis courts, and wetlands. The area in-question does not contain
any public improvements.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The city-owned property is guided as P-Parks and 750 Upper Colonial Drive is guided LR-Low Density
Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The request to split a portion of city-owned property for
purposes of combination with an existing single-family residential parcel already using the area in-question,
is consistent with the continued use of both parcels as park and low density residential uses. If approved,
the new property boundary lines would be updated accordingly on the Future Land Use Map.
page 188
Lot Split
Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the
resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. As shown in the table
below based on the attached survey, the proposed lot split would temporarily create non-conformities with
the R-1 District’s minimum lot area, lot width, and driveway setback standards:
R-1 Zoning
District
Proposed
Parcel
City-owned
Parcel
750 Upper
Colonial Drive
Standard Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Lot Area 15,000 SF N/A 4,401 SF 85,603 SF 81,202 SF 17,887 SF 22,228 SF
Lot Width1 100 ft. N/A 29.11 ft. 208 ft. 179 ft. 110.7 ft. 139.81 ft.
Side Yard
Setback2
10 ft. (min.)
15 ft. (max.) N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 ft. 34 ft.
Driveway
Setback 5 ft. N/A 0 ft. (west)
15 ft. (east) 0 ft. N/A 0 ft. 15 ft.
1The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first thirty feet (30') of the
lot depth
210' 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'
In order to ensure the non-conformities created by the proposed lot split are eliminated, a condition of
approval is included requiring the private property owner to combine and dissolve the newly-created parcel.
Variance
When considering variances for the proposed subdivision request, the City is required to find that:
1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive
plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The request to subdivide a portion of city-owned property containing pre-existing encroachments in order
to be combined and dissolved into the adjacent private property is a reasonable use of both properties.
While the request will create several temporary non-conformities, the end result essentially formalizes the
existing conditions and will bring both properties into compliance with the applicable zoning standards.
2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to
circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on
economic considerations.
The current owners of 750 Upper Colonial Drive purchased the property with the aforementioned non-
conformities resulting from the existing encroachments. In order to address the issues, it was determined
that a purchase of the property in-question from the City was the best alternative. A proposed lot split
meeting all the applicable zoning standards would create an oversized parcel that is not necessary in order
to address the existing non-conformities on both properties. While the proposed lot split will create
temporary non-conformities, the intent is not to create a new buildable parcel.
Based on the existing conditions, a practical difficulty in subdividing the property in-question in order to
combine and dissolve into the adjacent private property compliant with the applicable zoning standards is
demonstrated. Furthermore, the existing condition is a unique circumstance not created by the current
private property owners.
3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the non-conformities
page 189
created by the encroachments onto city-owned property. The private property owner already uses and
maintains the property in-question, therefore no negative impacts are anticipated to the park or the character
of the neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the subdivision and variance requests, based on the attached findings of
fact, with conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the subdivision and variance requests, based on the findings of fact that the
proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and will have a
negative impact on surrounding properties.
OR
3. Table the requests.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and variance requests based on the attached findings of fact
(Alternative 1), with the following conditions:
1. A purchase agreement is entered into between the City and the private property owner to be
approved by the City Council prior to the lot split being recorded by Dakota County.
2. Upon closing on the sale of the property in-question, the private property owner is required to
combine and dissolve the property into 750 Upper Colonial Drive.
3. All costs related to the sale and recording of the required documents are paid for by the private
property owner.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Site map
2. Site photos
3. Planning applications, including supporting materials
page 190
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Subdivision Request for Lot Split and Variances
City-owned Property (portion of Wentworth Park)
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the non-
conformities created by the encroachments onto city-owned property.
3. The temporary non-conformities created as a result of the requests will be eliminated once the
property in-question is combined and dissolved by the private property owners.
4. The existing conditions were not created by the current private property owners and create a
practical difficulty in subdividing a reasonable amount of land in compliance with the applicable
Code requirements.
5. Approval of the requests will not negatively impact the park or the character of the neighborhood.
page 191
750
754
751
Planning Case 2015-41750 Upper Colonial DriveWentworth Park
City of
Mendota
Heights030
SCALE IN FEETDate: 11/19/2015
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 containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor 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.
Proposed Acquisition
page 192
Proposed area to be split
page 193
page 194
VARIANCE CHECKLIST/QUESTIONNAIRE
Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the
Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all
required materials have been submitted. Application
submittal deadlines are available on the City’s website
or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete
applications will not be put on the agenda.
Office Use Only:
Case #:_____________________
Applicant:____________________
Address:_____________________
A variance is a request to vary from the City of Mendota Heights zoning standards. Under
Minnesota State Law, variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of the zoning code and when consistent with the comprehensive
plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are practical
difficulties in complying with the zoning standards. “Practical difficulties,” in regards to variance
requests, has three parts: (1) the proposed use of the property is a reasonable; (2) unique
circumstances exist on the property which are not created by the landowner; and (3) the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Please consider
these requirements carefully before requesting a variance.
APPLI CATION REQUIREMENTS:
• Dated original of all the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day
the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month.
• If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller – only submit originals.
• If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 24 copies, folded to 8 ½ x 11.
• Any drawing in color – must submit 24 copies.
The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete:
Fee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights)
NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees
which may be required for you to complete your project.
Completed Application Form (only original needs to be submitted).
Sketch plan showing all pertinent dimensions, and including the location of any easements
having an influence upon the variance request.
Letter of Intent.
Please complete the attached questions regarding your request.
page 195
Please answer the following questions as they relate to the variance request.
You may fill in this form or create your own.
1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner?
YES NO
Why or why not?
2. Please describe the circumstances unique to the property (not created by you).
3. In your opinion, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the
neighborhood?
YES NO
Why or why not?
The Planning Commission must make an affirmative finding on all of the criteria listed
above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to
show that all of the criteria listed above have been satisfied.
page 196
page 197
page 198
page 199
Page 1 of 1Print Preview
11/2/2015http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...
page 200
Page 1 of 1Print Preview
11/2/2015http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...
page 201
Page 1 of 1Print Preview
11/2/2015http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...
page 202
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Approval of a Purchase Agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and
Brian and Jamie Nordin for a portion of Wentworth Park
BACKGROUND
The property owners of 750 Upper Colonial Drive have requested to acquire a portion of city-owned
property immediately adjacent to their eastern property boundary line, as discussed in Planning Case 2015-
41. Assuming the City Council approves the lot split and variance requests required to facilitate the
purchase of the property in-question, the proposed purchase agreement must also be approved.
The attached agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and proposes to convey the property for a
sum of $100.00. Conditions of approval incorporated into the agreement and planning case resolution
include the following:
1. Upon closing on the sale of the property in-question, the private property owner is required to
combine and dissolve the property into 750 Upper Colonial Drive.
2. All costs related to the sale and recording of the required documents are paid for by the private
property owner.
BUDGET IMPACT
Budget impacts would be minimal since the property in-question is currently being used and maintained
by the property owners. In addition, all legal and recording costs are being borne by the property owners.
RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council desires to approve the request, pass a motion APPROVING THE PURCHASE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND BRIAN AND JAMIE NORDIN
FOR A PORTION OF WENTWORTH PARK.
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 203
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
between
City of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Seller
and
Brian and Jamie Nordin, Purchasers
dated as of
October 30, 2015
page 204
This PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), is entered into between City of
Mendota Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation , ("Seller"), and Brian and Jamie Nordin,
("Purchaser").
WITNESSETH
The parties hereto, for themselves, and their respective successors and assigns hereby covenant as
follows:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
"Agreement" has the meaning set forth in the Preamble.
"Property" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.01.
"Purchase Price" has the meaning set forth in Section 3.01.
"Purchaser" has the meaning set forth in the preamble to this Agreement.
"Real Property" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.01(a).
"Seller" has the meaning set forth in the preamble to this Agreement.
ARTICLE II
PURCHASE AND SALE
Section 2.01 The Property. Seller agrees to sell to Purchaser and Purchaser agrees to purchase
from Seller in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, all of the following
(collectively referred to as the "Property"):
(a) The real property, including all right, title and interest therein, located adjacent to
750 Upper Colonial Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, encompassing parts of Outlot A and
Outlot B, Cherry Hill Addition, more particularly described on EXHIBIT 1 attached hereto, (the
"Real Property").
(b) All rights, privileges, easements and rights of way appurtenant to said Real
Property, including without limitation, all mineral, oil and gas and other subsurface rights, air
rights and water rights.
page 205
ARTICLE III
PURCHASE PRICE AND OTHER COSTS
Section 3.01 Purchase Price. Purchaser shall pay Seller the sum of ONE-HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($100.00) (the "Purchase Price").
Section 3.02 Payment of Purchase Price. Purchaser shall pay the Purchase Price as follows:
(a) The sum of ONE-HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00), upon the execution of this
Agreement, by bank check drawn on a Purchaser’s bank, Anchor Bank located at 66 Thompson
Avenue East, West. St. Paul, Minnesota, shall be delivered to the Seller.
Section 3.03 Purchaser shall pay any and all costs associated with Seller’s legal review of
documents associated with the purchase and sale of said Property and any and all recording costs.
ARTICLE IV
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 4.01 Seller shall deliver all documents reasonably necessary to consummate the
transaction contemplated by this Agreement.
Section 4.02 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Minnesota. EACH PARTY HERETO AGREES THAT ALL ACTIONS
OR PROCEEDINGS ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT AND THE
TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY SHALL BE TRIED AND LITIGATED IN STATE
OR FEDERAL COURTS LOCATED IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA UNLESS SUCH ACTIONS
OR PROCEEDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT IN ANOTHER COURT TO OBTAIN
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
page 206
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Purchaser has made this offer to Seller on this 30th day of October 2015.
PURCHASER:
Brian and Jamie Nordin
______________________________
Brian T. Nordin
______________________________
Jamie D. E. Nordin
ACCEPTANCE BY SELLER
The foregoing offer to purchase real property is hereby accepted in accordance with the terms and
conditions specified above.
Date this ___________ day of _______________________, 2015.
SELLER:
City of Mendota Heights
(a Minnesota municipal corporation)
______________________________
By:___________________________
Its:____________________________
page 207
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Legal Description of Real Property
Exhibit 2 Survey of Property at 750 Upper Colonial Drive, Mendota Heights,
Minnesota
page 208
page 209
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Lot Split and Variance at 789 Ridge Place
BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking approval to subdivide the subject parcel located at 789 Ridge Place. In addition,
a variance is required to disturb slopes greater than 25% as part of grading and construction activities for
new single-family dwellings.
The subject parcel contains an existing single-family residential dwelling, which would be demolished if
the requests are approved. The new parcels would be 19,823 square feet and 15,018 square feet and are
compliant with the R-1 District’s minimum lot size and width requirements. Based on the existing
conditions, and in an effort to maintain a consistent frontage in character with the neighborhood, staff is
recommending that Ridge Place be considered Parcel A’s front yard with driveway access from either street.
Additional conditions are included to mitigate any drainage impacts resulting from future grading and
construction activities on the newly-created parcels.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the November 24 meeting. Members of the public
commented on the potential impacts to surrounding properties, the proposed frontage of the newly-created
lots, and historical background on the subject parcel.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot split and variance requests, with conditions,
as described in Planning Case 2015-42. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass
a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2015-96 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCE AT 789
RIDGE PLACE.
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 210
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2015-96
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCE
AT 789 RIDGE PLACE
WHEREAS, Mark Gergen, on behalf of Mary Solberg and Patrick Kirchberg, have
applied for a lot split and variance as proposed in Planning Case 2015-42 and described in
Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter at their regular meeting on November 24, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the lot split and variance requests as proposed in Planning Case 2015-42 are hereby approved
based on the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Front yards for both proposed parcels oriented towards Ridge Place will maintain
consistent frontage compared to the dwellings to the east and across the street.
3. The impacted slopes over 25% appear to be man-made as part of construction of the
existing dwelling and associated landscaping.
4. The impacted slopes over 25% are less than the current 33% maximum industry-standard
for constructed slopes and do not span a large linear area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the lot split
and variance requests as proposed in Planning Case 2015-42 are hereby approved with the
following conditions:
1. Parcel A shall front Ridge Place and be subject to the applicable setback standards.
2. A permit is obtained and the existing single family dwelling is demolished prior to the
subdivision being recorded by Dakota County.
3. Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City
Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any
additional permits by the City.
4. Street reconstruction assessment fee in the amount of $3,900, as part of Project
9514/Improvement 96-3, is collected after City Council approval and before being
recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City.
5. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a
building permit.
6. The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utility easements on both parcels
to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-foot wide
along the front property lines and 5-foot wide along the side and rear property lines.
7. The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the
Planning Department as part of any building permit application.
page 211
8. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with
associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department as
part of any building permit application.
9. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state,
and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land
Disturbance Guidance Document.
10. Future construction on the newly-created parcels will be compliant with all applicable
City Code provisions.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of December, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_____________________________
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 212
DATE: November 24, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-42
Subdivision Request for Lot Split and Variance
APPLICANT: Mark Gergen
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 789 Ridge Place
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: January 8, 2016 (60 days)
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is seeking approval to subdivide the subject parcel located
at 789 Ridge Place. The request requires City Council approval before being recorded by Dakota County.
In addition, a variance is required to disturb slopes greater than 25% as part of grading and construction
activities for new single-family dwellings.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is 34,841 square feet (0.8 acres) and contains an existing single-family residential
dwelling and attached garage accessing Wachtler Avenue. If the requests are approved, the existing
dwelling would be demolished and two new single-family dwellings would be constructed. The new
parcels would be 19,823 square feet and 15,018 square feet. According to the applicant, the subject parcel
would be re-graded to create two flat building sites. If approved by the Council, the proposed location and
design of the new dwellings will be reviewed as part of the building permit process and must be compliant
with all applicable City Code standards.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s
request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.46 acres and 0.34
acres, is consistent with single-family residential use and the maximum density of 2.9 units per acre.
Lot Split
Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the
resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district.
page 213
Lot Size/Width
As shown in the table below based on the attached surveys, the proposed parcels are compliant with the
R-1 District’s lot area and width standards:
Standard Subject Parcel
(corner lot)
Parcel A
(corner lot) Parcel B
Lot Area 15,000 SF 34,841 SF 19,823 SF 15,018 SF
Lot Width1 100 ft. 168.1 ft.
234.6 ft.
168.1 ft.
121.6 ft. 113 ft.
1The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within
the first thirty feet (30') of the lot depth
Setbacks
The subject parcel is a corner lot, therefore Parcel A would remain as such. Title 12-1D-4-D-3 of the Code
requires the following:
In the case of a building to be erected or extended on a corner lot, the minimum front yard depth
shall be increased by an amount not less than one-half (1/2) the depth in excess of thirty feet (30')
of the front yard of the nearest building.
Parcel B would be situated between Parcel A and 781 Ridge Place to the east. Title 12-1D-4-D-2 of the
Code requires the following:
Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no
building shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the
required district setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures.
However, according to Title 12-1D-4-D-4 of the Code, the following standard overrides the other standards:
Subsections D2 and D3 of this section shall not be applied so as to require a front yard in excess
of one-third (1/3) of the average depth of the lot.
Based on the corner lot setback standard, the minimum front yard setback for Parcel A fronting Wachtler
Avenue would be 75 feet. If fronting Ridge Place, based on the corner lot setback standard, the minimum
front yard setback would be 65 feet. However, applying the “1/3 Rule” above allows for minimum front
yard setbacks of 41.8 feet fronting Wachtler Avenue and 53.5 feet fronting Ridge Place for Parcel A.
The minimum front yard setback for Parcel B will ultimately be based on the construction timeline and
location of the dwelling on Parcel A. However, the required minimum front yard setback cannot exceed
44.3 feet based on the “1/3 Rule.”
Title 12-1B-2 of the Code defines the front lot line as follows:
That boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street and, in the case of a
corner lot, the front lot line shall be designated by the owner, subject to the approval by the code
enforcement officer. Appeals to the determination of the code enforcement officer may be filed with
the zoning board of appeals in accordance with section 12-1L-3 of this chapter.
The existing dwelling on the subject parcel has an 88-foot front yard setback from Wachtler Avenue, while
the adjacent dwelling to the north (1940 Wachtler Avenue) has a 120-foot setback. If Parcel A were to
front Wachtler Avenue, the required minimum setback would be 41.5 feet less than the existing dwelling
on the subject parcel and 78 feet less than that of the adjacent dwelling. As a result, the drastic difference
in potential minimum front yard setbacks is not recommended.
page 214
Parcel B, the adjacent dwelling to the east (781 Ridge Place), and all three dwellings across the street front
onto Ridge Place. Based on the existing conditions, and in an effort to maintain a consistent frontage in
character with the neighborhood, staff is recommending that Ridge Place be considered Parcel A’s front
yard with driveway access from either street.
As shown in the following table and depicted in the attached surveys, dwellings constructed on the newly-
created parcels are subject to conformance with the required minimum setbacks:
Parcel A:
Fronting Wachtler
Parcel A:
Fronting Ridge Place
Parcel B:
Fronting Ridge Place
Front Yard1 41.8 ft. 53.5 ft. 44.3 ft.
Side Yard2 30 ft. (south)
10-15 ft. (north)
30 ft. (west)
10-15 ft. (east) 10-15 ft.
Rear Yard3 30 ft. 32.1 ft. 30 ft.
1Parcel A: In the case of a building to be erected or extended on a corner lot, the minimum front yard depth shall be
increased by an amount not less than one-half (1/2) the depth in excess of thirty feet (30') of the front yard of the
nearest building.
Parcel B: Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building
shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required district setback and
average setback of the adjoining principal structures.
Applicable Setback: Subsections D2 and D3 of this section shall not be applied so as to require a front yard in excess
of one-third (1/3) of the average depth of the lot.
210' 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’. A side yard abutting a street shall not be less than thirty feet (30') in width.
330' or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater.
Based on the applicable minimum setback standards, there appears to be adequate buildable area for two
new single-family dwellings on both proposed parcels. As previously noted, the final setbacks will be
determined and verified as part of the building permit review process.
Variance
According to Title 11-3-8-A of the City Code:
Slope Limitations: Subdivision design shall be consistent with limitations presented by steep slopes.
Subdivisions shall be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes
steeper than twenty five percent (25%) in grade.
Preservation of the natural topography and bluffs in Mendota Heights is most likely the intent of this
standard. As shown on the surveys, Parcel A and B both contain slopes greater than 25% that would be
disturbed by construction and grading for the new dwellings; therefore a variance is required to approve the
lot split request in this case.
When considering a variance for the proposed construction and grading activities, the City is required to
find that:
1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive
plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The applicant’s request to subdivide the subject parcel and construct two new single-family dwellings are
a reasonable use of the property and meet the general purpose and intent of the City Code and
Comprehensive Plan. Besides the impacted slopes, the requests are otherwise compliant with the applicable
standards.
page 215
2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to
circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on
economic considerations.
Based on the survey information, the slopes over 25% are located in the front yard near the existing dwelling
and retaining wall. The greatest slopes are approximately 30%, which only occur over a 10-foot span
between the driveway and retaining wall.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the existing conditions and has noted the possibility that the
slopes in-question may be man-made, as they appear to be uniformly-graded and consistent across their
length. Although greater than 25%, the slopes appear to be less than the industry-standard maximum
allowable non-reinforced slope of 33%. At the time the Code was adopted, the industry-standard for
constructed slopes was a 25% maximum. The current standard is now 33% maximum, which would make
the slopes in-question compliant if the City were to consider following the current standard. In addition,
other contours on the subject parcel appear to have been undisturbed and the slopes in-question cut into
them in an obvious manner.
Based on the existing conditions, the applicant has established a practical difficulty in subdividing the
subject parcel in order to construct two new single-family dwellings in compliance with the applicable slope
disturbance standards. Furthermore, the existing condition is a unique circumstance not created by the
applicant.
3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
The Bunker Hills neighborhood has experienced several lot splits and subsequent tear-downs/rebuilds in
recent years. As shown in the attached map, lot sizes and setbacks vary for the surrounding properties along
Wachtler Avenue and Ridge Place. Due to the lack of consistent character of the immediate neighborhood,
staff feels the construction of two new single-family dwellings on the newly-created parcels fronting Ridge
Place in compliance with the applicable R-1 District standards will not have a negative impact.
The existing topography will be substantially-altered to create building pads for the new dwellings. As a
result, further review of grading and drainage plans as part of the building permit application process are
required to ensure there are no negative impacts to surrounding properties.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the subdivision and variance requests, based on the attached findings of
fact, with conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the subdivision and variance requests, based on the findings of fact that the
proposed subdivision and associated construction and grading activities are not consistent with the
City Code or Comprehensive Plan and will have a negative impact on surrounding properties.
OR
3. Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and variance requests based on the attached findings of fact
(Alternative 1), with the following conditions:
1. Parcel A shall front Ridge Place and be subject to the applicable setback standards.
page 216
2. A permit is obtained and the existing single family dwelling is demolished prior to the subdivision
being recorded by Dakota County.
3. Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council approval
and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City.
4. Street reconstruction assessment fee in the amount of $3,900, as part of Project 9514/Improvement
96-3, is collected after City Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or
issuance of any additional permits by the City.
5. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building
permit.
6. The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be
denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-foot wide along the front
property lines and 5-foot wide along the side and rear property lines.
7. The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning
Department as part of any building permit application.
8. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with associated
easements, subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department as part of any building
permit application.
9. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
Document.
10. Future construction on the newly-created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code
provisions.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Site map
2. Lot size/setback map
3. Site photos
4. Planning applications, including supporting materials
page 217
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Subdivision Request for a Lot Split and Variance
789 Ridge Place
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Front yards for both proposed parcels oriented towards Ridge Place will maintain consistent
frontage compared to the dwellings to the east and across the street.
3. The impacted slopes over 25% appear to be man-made as part of construction of the existing
dwelling and associated landscaping.
4. The impacted slopes over 25% are less than the current 33% maximum industry-standard for
constructed slopes and do not span a large linear area.
page 218
50
0
246
12
0
232
192
17
5
159
14
5
130
119
113
18
4
18
0
28
9
30
0
90
144
50
35
6
170
10
0
250
30
44
1
3
2
20
260
289
145
781
789
1940
790800
1920
804
770
764
772
1919
765
RIDGE PL
WA
C
H
T
L
E
R
A
V
E
R
I
D
G
E
P
L
Planning Case 2015-42789 Ridge Place City of
Mendota
Heights060
SCALE IN FEET
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 containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor 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.
11/19/2015
page 219
804
781
770
764
782
810
780
789
1897
1909
1919
765
790
1900
1920
1940
825
1941
816
800
784
1937
750
755
1933
772
822
1894
812
1801
1888
1960
776
828
1882809
1944
HIL
L
T
O
P
R
D
RIDGE PL
WA
C
H
T
L
E
R
A
V
E
DO
D
D
R
D
VA
L
L
E
Y
C
U
R
V
E
R
D
R
I
D
G
E
P
L
Wachtler/Ridge PlaceLot Size and FY setbacks City of
Mendota
Heights0150
SCALE IN FEET
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 containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor 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.
11/19/2015
34,799 SF
85 ft.
792
1910
63,269 SF
100 ft.
30,192 SF
65 ft.
33,880 SF
15 ft.53,963 SF
30 ft.21,722 SF
30 ft.
209,626 SF
100 ft.
41,837 SF
18 ft.
35,553 SF
120 ft.
36,574 SF
53 ft.
16,789 SF
37 ft.
20,198 SF
35 ft.
23,476 SF
38 ft.
45,080 SF
65 ft.
43,504 SF
70 ft.
page 220
Approximate area of slopes over 25%
page 221
page 222
page 223
page 224
page 225
page 226
page 227
page 228
page 229
page 230
page 231
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Presentation by Brian Birch
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
At the December 1st City Council meeting, Mr. Brian Birch will make a presentation regarding
the Village at Mendota Heights/Mendota Heights Town Center.
BACKGROUND
Under the “Public Comments” section of the October 6th City Council meeting, Mendota Heights
resident Brian Birch appeared before the Council, asking that the City Council turn back a
currently undeveloped lot or lots in the Village at Mendota Heights to him to develop as twin
homes. The City Council took no action that night, and directed Mr. Birch to be in contact with
City staff and the City Attorney.
Staff and the City Attorney did meet with Mr. Birch on October 13th, but no resolution of his
request was reached. Mr. Birch has subsequently provided the attached information regarding
the acquisition of 5.43 acres of his property for a portion of the Village at Mendota Heights (the
residential portion of the overall development) project, approximately fourteen years ago. It
outlines some history of the project and associated information from his perspective, and his
involvement with the City.
Settlement Agreement: I have attached the Stipulation of Settlement and Award in
Condemnation for three parcels of land, dated September 30, 2003, in which the City was
ordered to pay Brian L. and Joyce L. Birch $ 1,215,000.
In that award, both parties agreed that the condemnation proceeding was settled, and that the
payment was:
“…Compensation in full under Minn. Stat. Chapter 117 for any and all of his rights in
and to the Property including, without limitation and by way of example only, any and all
page 232
claims related to the law of eminent domain, claims for the land, claims for severance
damages, claims for any consequential damages and claims for interest, appraisal fees
and any other expenses associated with this condemnation that may be recoverable under
Minnesota law.” (Paragraph 3)
The agreement further stated that he was not entitled to any further payments from the City in
connection with the Property or that condemnation action (paragraph 4).
Mr. Birch has requested time to make a formal presentation to the City Council to state his case
as to why additional consideration is warranted.
ACTION REQUIRED
The Council should hear the presentation by Mr. Birch, and give direction, as appropriate, for
any follow-up.
_______________________
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 233
page 234
page 235
page 236
page 237
Mendota Heights Long Term City Discrimination History
November 10,2015
Brian L. Birch,755 Willow Lane,651-452-6015,bbirch7@q.com
Request for turnback of my remaining property that has gone unsued by the City,since 2002
Background - 5 years of City abuse and discrimination
Whereas in 1%7,I purchased my home site property.
1.Whereas in 1967,the City Building Inspector,Dick Bjorkland denied my right to build,saying the prop-
erty was un-buildable. Dick said that the property was too low to build a building upon it.That was untrue,
deliberately. I was needlessly harrassed by Bjorkland
2.Whereas in 1967,the City Building Inspector,Dick Bjorkland denied my right to build,saying I person-
ally was not allowed to build my home myself. That was untrue. I appealed to the State of Minnesota and
they intervened and demanded that the City abide by the laws of MN.
Whereas in 1968,I learned that the City Building Inspector,Dick Bjorkland,had lived adjacent next door
east of my property and was denied buying my property for himself by the seller who had sold the property
to me.
Commercial site information-the next 29 years of City abuse and discrimination
Whereas in January 16, 1973,1 purchased for myself a good portion of the present Town Center prop-
erty.It was properly zoned B-2 for my purposes.That purchase consisted of two parcels,a one acre westerly
portion,and the Lis Pendens Rights portion of the then northerly proposed Highway 149,Dodd Road/Hwy
110 interchange.
I had a dream to locate my company's business building there. I designed the building so it could serve my
business needs and the community's youth. I was denied my permit because the city inspector would not
approve of my plan for what I believed were his own personal reasons.
3.Whereas on May 15,1975,1 confronted MN Dot about the mining and removal of my dirt for City and
State purposes that year and the next.In part it involved rebuilding Hwy 13 through MH.I had to take force-
ful action to stop it. I finally had to pull my car right behind MN Dot's front end loader and pin the loader
against the hill so it could not move.In less than 15 minutes the authorities from the state arrived and pulled
all their equipment off my property.I also asserted my Lis Pendens Rights to the intersection.The City never
offered to make it right with me,nor apologized for it.
Whereas on May 15,1975,MN Dot disclosed that Hwy 149 was not likely to ever be built. I attempted
to have MN Dot release my land that they had held for many years. When that was about to happen, the
city immediately said they wanted my land. So MN Dot held it for the city's desire for a highway overpass.
4.Whereas in December, 1977, I applied for the right to build my B-2 heating and air conditioning com-
pany on my new property and was denied my legal right by the City Council and the City Building Inspec-
tor,Dick Bjorkland.
The City arbitrarily turned down my right to build by saying I could not have more that 3 service persons
employed,6 persons total people,which was not applied to any other business within the B-2 zoning areas
in the City.That financially ended that attempt to build.
The Building Inspector said that a 6" diameter drain pipe would not drain a 5000 sq ft area, even though
their own building of greater sq ft had Dick's approved 6" diameter drain.This prejudicial pattern was now
evident.
page 238
page 239
page 240
page 241
page 242
page 243
page 244
page 245
page 246
page 247
page 248
page 249
page 250
page 251
page 252
page 253
page 254
page 255
page 256
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Proposed Sanitary Sewer Utility Rate Increases
BACKGROUND
The City of Mendota Heights had not raised Sanitary Sewer usage rates since 1994, until the
rates were adjusted for the 2010 calendar year. At that time it was presented that the sanitary
sewer rates would be looked at on an annual basis and adjusted periodically to account for
increases in costs, specifically the charges billed to the City from the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES) division, for the maintenance and operations of the sewage
treatment plants. In addition, the annual costs of maintaining our sanitary sewer system would
be reviewed and the annual budget adjusted accordingly. Since 2012, City Staff has developed a
five-year Sanitary Sewer Improvement and Maintenance Plan (SSIMP) which projects future
costs for the ongoing maintenance of the City’s sanitary sewer infrastructure. Part of the SSIMP
projects incremental rate adjustments (presumed to be increases) to compensate for increases on
costs and fees to the utility.
The City’s single family residential bill rate for sanitary sewer is based upon the non-summer (1st
quarter) water usage quantity. The current base rate is $63.75 for the first 15,000 gallons of
water consumed per quarter. For every 750 gallons used above the 15,000, single family
residences are billed an additional $2.25. The commercial rate ranges from $106.52 to $1,310.40
per quarter based on the size of the water meter and are summarized in the tables in this memo.
MCES invoices the City based on flow volumes contributed to the metro-wide wastewater
treatment system. MCES has given indications that rate increases of 3%-5% per year should be
anticipated for several years to come. The following table shows MCES fee rates per 1,000,000
gallons of sanitary sewer flow along with the annual totals:
MCES Sanitary Sewer Rates 2006-2016 (*5.5% increase over 2015)
YEAR
MCES RATE
(per million gallons)
MCES TOTAL
(per year)
YEAR
MCES RATE
(per million gallons)
MCES TOTAL
(per year)
2006 $1544.33 $782,570.00 2012 $1853.62 $1,000,920.00
2007 $1526.60 $892,078.00 2013 $2029.00 $991,207.00
2008 $1696.81 $864,303.00 2014 $2141.55 $1,034,516.88
2009 $1754.30 $936,092.00 2015 $2087.67 $1,161,541.00
2010 $1980.74 $895,986.00 2016 $2202.55 $1,225,458.00*
2011 $2025.75 $921,414.00
page 257
MCES flow quantities the City contributes to the system vary greatly from year to year. In the
past, Mendota Heights has had a high rate of inflow and infiltration into our sanitary sewer
system. This is storm water runoff that finds its way into the sanitary sewer system through
cracks in the sewer pipe, unsealed manholes, roots penetrating the sewer pipe, and basement
sump pumps connected to the sanitary sewer, just to name a few. Although inflow and
infiltration can never be eliminated, ongoing annual projects to televise, clean, and line the
sanitary sewer pipe greatly reduce the amount of inflow and infiltration into the system, thus
helping to create a more predictable sanitary sewer flow rate from year to year.
Because the City of Mendota Heights does not have a sewage treatment plant, MCES controls
approximately 63% of the City’s sewer utility expenses through their sewer rate charge. As a
result of the MCES fees increasing, an increase to our sanitary sewer billing rate is necessary.
The MCES rate for 2016, represents a 5.5% increase to the MCES charge over 2015. The City
has had the benefit of a sanitary sewer utility fund cash balance for the past several years. The
annual utility budget had been running in deficit until the rate increase for the year 2010. The
proposed rate increase will keep the annual budget out of deficit, and maintain the integrity of
the positive yet reasonable fund balance.
City Staff is proposing an increase to the City sanitary sewer utility rate. Staff estimates that the
new base rate will need to be raised 2% to $65.08 per quarter. This represents a base rate
increase of $1.28 per quarter, ~$0.43 per month, or $5.12 per year. The second tier usage rate,
currently set at $2.25 is proposed to increase by the same 2% rate to $2.30. The proposed rate
for commercial usage would also increase by 2%. The proposed commercial rates would range
from $108.65 to $1,336.61 per quarter based on the size of the water meter. Commercial
properties utilizing wells for their water source have a separate billing rate schedule.
Commercial Sewer Rate With 2% Increases (per Quarter)
Minimum Per Meter Size Existing Rate Proposed Rate
¾ Inch $106.52 $108.65
1 Inch $122.70 $125.15
1 ¼ Inch $165.53 $168.84
1 ½ Inch $327.60 $334.15
2 Inch $655.20 $668.30
3 Inch $1,310.40 $1,336.61
Commercial Well Sewer Rate With 5% Increases (per Quarter)
Minimum Per Meter Size Existing Rate Proposed Rate
5/8 Inch $220.00 $224.40
¾ Inch $220.00 $224.40
1 Inch $298.67 $304.34
1 ¼ Inch $375.06 $382.56
1 ½ Inch $509.36 $519.55
2 Inch $1,037.24 $1,057.99
3 Inch $2,074.49 $2,115.98
4 Inch $4,393.20 $4,481.06
6 Inch $9,552.75 $9,743.81
In addition to the sanitary sewer bills paid by Mendota Heights’ residents and businesses, there is
also a flat-rate storm sewer utility fee applied to all the sewer bills sent out by the City. The
page 258
storm sewer utility fee is $7.25 per quarter, or $29.00 per year. This fee creates the Storm Sewer
Utility Fund, which is utilized for maintenance and upkeep of our storm sewer pipes, catch
basins, and pond inlets and outlets. Additionally, this fund has been utilized to provide funding
for street reconstruction projects that include the installation of new storm sewers, and has been
used occasionally for stream bank erosion projects. Accounting for anticipated revenue into the
fund at the current $7.25 per quarter rate, the fund will be able to fund upcoming capital
improvement projects. Staff does not anticipate a need for changing the Storm Sewer Utility Fee
for 2016, although this fund and fee level is analyzed annually.
Staff is proposing the sanitary sewer rate increase be implemented for the 1st quarter (January -
March) billing cycle of 2016. Residents and businesses could then be notified with their 4th
quarter 2015 bills that will be sent in January 2016. The new rate would then be collected in
April of 2016 with the 1st quarter 2016 billing cycle.
The City of Mendota Heights has been monitoring the financial health of the sanitary sewer
utility account since the last rate increase. The increase in charges from MCES is driving the
necessity for a City-wide rate increase. By increasing the billed rate 2%, and by adjusting the
schedule of capital improvement projects within the forecast, the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund
remains viable and out of deficit. Even after the proposed 2% sanitary sewer rate increase, the
City of Mendota Heights will remain as one of the lowest base sanitary sewer rate in northern
Dakota County. A five-year outlook for the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund is provided below:
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2014 Balance = $367,258
Revenue $1,810,028 $1,846,229 $1,938,540 $2,035,467 $2,137,240 $2,244,102
Depreciation Deposit $145,309 $145,309 $145,309 $145,309 $145,309 $145,309
MCES Grant for I/I $25,000
Total Revenue $1,980,337 $1,991,538 $2,083,849 $2,180,776 $2,282,549 $2,389,411
Maintenance & Operations $485,995 $495,715 $505,629 $515,742 $526,057 $536,578
MCES Fees $1,161,541 $1,164,404 $1,199,336 $1,235,316 $1,272,376 $1,310,547
I/I Surcharge* $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Annual Sewer Cleaning $62,000 $62,000 $62,000 $62,000 $62,000 $62,000
Annual Sewer Lining $245,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000
Lift Station Rehabilitation
$35,000
Mendota Road/Warrior Drive Improvement
$21,450
Trunk Main Sewer Rehab NW of Dodd &110
$315,000
Sewer Camera & Software $15,000
Salt Storage Facility
$40,000
Fence (Public Works)
$9,000
Decorah Lane Emergency Repair $68,720
Total Expenses $2,038,256 $1,888,569 $2,191,965 $1,923,058 $2,019,432 $2,019,125
Account Balance $309,339 $412,307 $304,191 $561,909 $825,026 $1,195,313
* On June 19, 2014, Mendota Heights exceeded our allowable flow due to the storm that occurred on that day,
resulting in a $99,400/year penalty surcharge being assigned. A large part of this exceedance was due to accepting
excess flow from West Saint Paul on the day of the storm. Through negotiation with MCES, and due in part to our
cleaning, televising, and lining program, MCES has agreed to eliminate our surcharge.
page 259
BUDGET IMPACT
Without additional revenues, the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund will eventually deplete its reserve
balances and the City will lose capability and flexibility in maintaining and improving its
sanitary sewer infrastructure.
Approximately 600 property owners are on an automatic withdrawal program for their sanitary
sewer bill payment. These customers must be notified in writing, and the City will incur a one-
time $0.50 per account charge for changing the automatic withdrawal amount.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed sanitary sewer rate increase as outlined above.
The proposed increase is required to maintain the revenue stream required in order to fund a self-
sustaining utility and to defray sanitary sewer and storm sewer related costs.
If Council desires to implement the Staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting Resolution
2015-91, “A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SANITARY SEWER USAGE RATES
BEGINNING IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2016,” by a simple majority vote.
page 260
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2015 - 91
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SANITARY SEWER USAGE RATES
BEGINNING IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2016
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights aspires to have a self-funded sanitary sewer
utility for the residents and businesses of the City; and
WHEREAS, annual expenditures (including fees paid to the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES)) have increased over the past several years; and
WHEREAS, Sanitary Sewer Utility expenditures (including rates charged by MCES) are
anticipated to continue rising over the foreseeable future; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has identified the need to raise sanitary sewer
rates and storm sewer utility fees for 2016.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HERBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights that the rate of charge for the use of the Sanitary Sewer Utility shall be set as
follows effective the 1st quarter of 2016 (to be billed in April 2016):
Residential Base Rate $65.08
Residential Additional Rate per 750 gallons $ 2.30
Commercial Sewer Rate (per Quarter)
Minimum Per Meter Size Proposed Rate
¾ Inch $108.65
1 Inch $125.15
1 ¼ Inch $168.84
1 ½ Inch $334.15
2 Inch $668.30
3 Inch $1,336.61
Commercial Well Sewer Rate (per Quarter)
Minimum Per Meter Size Proposed Rate
5/8 Inch $224.40
¾ Inch $224.40
1 Inch $304.34
1 ¼ Inch $382.56
1 ½ Inch $519.55
2 Inch $1,057.99
3 Inch $2,115.98
4 Inch $4,481.06
6 Inch $9,743.81
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of December 2015.
page 261
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By:______________________________________
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 262
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, t�1N 551�8
051.452.1850 phone ` 551.452.89?Q fax
_ �rww.mendota-heighis.com ,
CITY DF
MEND(�TA HE(�HTB
DATE: December l, 2015
T'O: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
�iZOlVI: Terry Blum — Public Works Superintendent
SUBJ�CT: Purchase of Dump Truck and Snow Piow Equipment
i • ' � 1:
The Street Maintenance 2016 Budget includes $200,000.00 for the purchase of a new dump trucic
with accessories to be paid from bonds sold oii November 3, 2015. The purchase would replace
a 2000 Sterling dump truck. In order to purchase a piece of equipment over $50,000, the City
Purchasing Policy requires we competitively bid the purchase. The attached Resolution
authorizes the City to advertise for bids to purchase a dump truck.
Staff is requesting the purchase of a 2.5 ton, single-axle dump truck with the following major
specifications:
m Front Frame Extension
• 2,572,000 RBM, 21.43 SM, 120,000 PSI, Any CT (Single �le)
s Set back/forward front axle option
• 20,000 pound front axie and matching suspension
• Heavy duty front axle shock absorbers
• Dual front auxiliary steering gear
• 18,000 pound front suspension
• 23,000 pound driver differential locking rear a�le and matching suspension
• 23,000 air suspension
• Rea1 axle heavy-duty shock absorbers
+ Cuinmins ISX 12L 425 HP 16501b/ft torque engine
• Engine Bloek Heater
� Allison 4500 RDS 6-Speed Automatic Translnission
• Back up Alaxm
• Snow Plow Wiring Harness
We have purchased three Mack trucks in the past and are very pleased with all of them. The
purchase of a fourth Mack would standardize our truck/plow fleet to a single malce of vehicle.
We are asking for authorization to bid for the truck now (with purchase and payment in 2016)
because the build date would be in January/February (with delivery in June or early July) and if
we asked for authorization any later the build date would be in late spring with a much later
delivery date.
The total cost of the truck (and associated plow equipment to be purchased later) is expected to
be under the $200,000.00 budget for the purchase.
: _� _I !'�.� ���%i7��
The 2016 Budget includes $200,000.00 for the purchase of the new plow truck. During budget
discussions it was agreed that this vehicle would be purchased via financing, and bonds have
already been soid to purchase the vehicle. Actual invoices will be received and paid in 2016.
ACTION REQUIR.ED•
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the advertisement for bids for the purchase of
a new dump truck. If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion
adopting the attached Resolution 2015-98, A RESOLUTION APPROVING
SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BII)S FOR THE
PURCHASE OF A DUMP TRUC]K by a simple majority vote.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
R]ESOLUTION 2015-98
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A DUMP TR�TCK
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department reported the need to replace a 15 year old
dump truck within the Public Works fleet, and further reported on the proposed costs of said
purchase thereof; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore authorized expenditure in 2016 of funds
necessary for the purchase and for the Public Works Department to proceed with the acquisition
thereof; and
WI3ER.EAS, the City Council has directed the Public Works Department to solicit bids
for the purchase of a new dump iruck; and
WHER.EAS, the Public Works Department has prepared specifications for said purchase
and have presented such specifications to the City Council for approval.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1. That the specifications for said purchase be and they are hereby in all respects approved
by the City.
2. That the Clerk with the aid and assistance of the Public Worlcs Department be and is
hereby, authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said purchase all in accordance
with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, such as bids to be received at the City Hali of the
City of Mendota Heights by 10:00 A.M., Wednesday, January 7, 2016, and at which time
they will be publicly opened in the Mendota Heights City Hall by the Public Works
Director, will then be tabulated, and will then be considered by the City Council at its
next regular City Council meeting.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of December 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA �IEIGH7CS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
Loa-a-i Smith, City Clerk
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Workshop Meetings
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to establish dates at which time to hold its January goal setting workshop,
and also a workshop for the Financial Summit.
BACKGROUND
The practice of the City Council has been to hold a goal setting workshop in January of each
year. The date and time of day for that meeting should be scheduled; three hours’ duration is
anticipated.
In addition, the Council has authorized a 10 year Financial Management Plan to be put together
by the City’s financial advisor, Ehlers and Associates. Initially, the results of that study were to
be reviewed with the City Council in January, but given the availability of some of the
Councilmembers, February would be a better month. However, if all five of the Council is to be
included, mid-April would be the earliest that both meetings could be scheduled.
Attached are calendars January, February, and April.
One additional meeting would be for the City Council to interview prospective Commission
candidates. It is recommended that that be done the day of the City Council meeting of February
2nd. Depending on how many candidates are to be considered, that meeting could start at 5:00
PM, or 5:30 PM
RECOMMENDATION
The Council should chose dates and meeting time for the following:
• Goal Setting Session
• Financial Summit Workshop
____________________________
Mark McNeill,
City Administrator
page 264
page 265
page 266
page 267
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of Proposed Amendment to the Planned Unit Development
Agreement with Mendota Mall Associates, LLP (Paster Properties)
BACKGROUND
The City and Mendota Mall Associates, LLP entered into a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement
in 2009 for the Mendota Plaza redevelopment project. Exhibit H of the agreement includes design standards
regarding architecture, landscaping, and signage specifically for the development which varies from certain
Code requirements that apply to other commercial areas.
In conjunction with the opening of Fresh and Natural Foods, Paster Properties is requesting to erect a
20-foot-tall/8-foot-wide inflatable snowman and a separate 48-square foot sign promoting the store’s
opening along Highway 110 (see attached site plan). Based on the existing PUD Agreement, it appears that
the inflatable snowman is permitted in conjunction with a grand opening. The Agreement also allows for
temporary signage, but does not contain any specific standards. As a result, the following Code
requirements apply to the development:
Title 12-1D-15-D:
Temporary Signs: There shall be no more than one temporary (3 months or less) sign on any lot.
The total area of such sign shall not exceed twenty five (25) square feet.
Based on the information provided by the property owner, in order to allow for the proposed sign, the PUD
Agreement could be amended as follows (see attachment for existing standards):
Standards
• Roof signs, motion signs and portable signs shall be prohibited.
• Air inflated devices, banner, pennants and whirling devices, or any such sign resembling
the same, shall be prohibited within the site area except when used in conjunction with
events, such as grand openings. Ordinances allow for temporary permit. Temporary
signage for qualifying events shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet in area per surface and
may be erected for no more thirty (30) days by permit from the City of Mendota Heights.
• No sign other than governmental signs shall be erected or temporarily placed within any
street right-of-way, or upon any public easement.
Approval of the proposed amendment would then allow the sign by temporary permit, subject to conditions.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A.
The fee for a temporary sign permit is $25.
page 268
RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council desires to approve the request, pass a motion APPROVING THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES, LLP., SUBJECT TO THE
DRAFTING OF A FORMAL AMENDMENT TO BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR
SIGNATURE BY THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK.
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 269
page 270
page 271
page 272
page 273
page 274
page 275
page 276
page 277