Loading...
2018-09-04 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA September 4, 2018 – 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 August 15, 2018 Council Work Session Minutes b.Approval of August 28, 2018 Council Work Session Minutes c.Acknowledge July 10, 2018 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes d.Acceptance of Firefighter Retirement e.Acknowledgement of July 2018 Fire Synopsis f.Approval of Resolution 2018-69 “A Resolution Providing for the First Supplemental Indenture of Trust Related to Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Lexington Heights Apartments Project), Series 2013 and Authorizing the Execution of Documents Related Thereto.” g.Resolution No. 2018-70 Approving an Administrative Critical Area Permit for 1908 Glenhill Road h.Approval of Appointment of Student Representative to the Parks and Recreation Commission i.Approval of Purchases from BSN Sports j.Ordinance 531 All Way Stop Intersection – South Lane and Mendota Road k.Accept Wetland Delineation Report for the Lemay Lake Protection Project l.Approval of a Professional Services Contract for Wentworth Park Warming House m.Approval of a Contract with South St. Paul Animal Hospital for Animal Control Services n.Approval of a Temporary Liquor License for Convent of the Visitation School for September 21, 2018 o.Acknowledgement of Par 3 July Financial Report p.Approval of Claims List 6.Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7.Presentations—None 8.Public Hearing—None 9.New and Unfinished Business a.Resolution No. 2018-65 Approving the Final Plat of THE ORCHARD and Approve the Developers Agreement for The Orchard Subdivision Development b.Approve Increase in Project Quantity and Budget for Lexington Highlands and Mendakota Neighborhood Improvement Project 10.Community Announcements 11.Council Comments 12.Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Work Session Held August 15, 2018 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at the City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Petschel, and Paper were present. Also present were: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator; Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director; Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director; Terry Blum, Public Works Supervisor; Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief; Wayne Wegener, Police Captain; and Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF FY2019 PROPOSED BUDGET City Administrator McNeill opened the meeting by reviewing the adjustments made to the budget. With the current adjustments, the budget increase to the general fund levy is proposed at 3.63 percent and just under 9.7 percent overall. A.Financial Impacts from Monday Discussion Public Safety Police and Fire Funding Formulas- City Administrator McNeill and Police Chief McCarthy explained the current way of billing for police services to the Cities of Mendota, Lilydale and Sunfish Lake. McCarthy stated that each city has a different billing formula, and that would be easier for budgeting purposes to use the formula used for Lilydale. Finance Director Schabacker explained that Lilydale is a flat percentage rate, 7.4 percent, which is based on population and calls. McNeill noted that the fire station bonds will impact the cities of Sunfish, Lilydale and Mendota. Current billings to each city are based on different formulas. Schabacker explained each city’s current billings, and potential increases due to bonds which would be sold to fund the new fire station. Discussion was had regarding a 30 year payment schedule for the cities. McNeill noted that the City of Mendota Heights has not talked with the other cities at this time, and that the bond calculations were not factored to include payments by the other cities. Mendota Heights’ term is 15 years. McCarthy proposed that a meeting with the cities be held to discuss a flat percentage fee formula based on population. Once decided a written agreement with each city would be signed. McNeill summarized #5a page 3 August 15, 2018 City Council Work Session- Budget Page 2 that that cities would be notified of the billing structure proposal based on population, instead of call counts. Mayor Garlock noted that the information should go out immediately. Animal Control Contract - McCarthy summarized the current animal control agreement with 4Paws, which is located in Shakopee. McCarthy stated that due to a number of resident complaints about animal control services, an RFP was issued for animal control. However, little intere4sst in responding was received. As a result, the department directly solicited providers; South St. Paul Animal Hospital then responded. McCarthy noted that the new arrangement with South St. Paul included a flat $25 impound fee, a $21 per day boarding fee and a $60 to $80 disposal fee depending on the size of the dog. The City would stop using 4Paws, and switch to South St. Paul Animal Hospital on September 1. The switch would result in the animal control budget decreasing from $8,000 to $4,500, and would be closer for Mendota heights residents. McCarthy noted that a chip scanner had been purchased by the Department making it easier and quicker to identify animals. Councilor Paper asked if South St. Paul Animal Hospital is available 24 hours a day? McCarthy replied that they are not but the Police Department would have 24 hour access to drop animals off. Public Works - McNeill reviewed leasing or buying mower equipment, and noted that leasing is almost the same cost as is buying it outright. He said that this year, the City is trying to reduce the fund balance, and outright purchasing is one way to do that. The alternative of leasing mowing equipment would increase the levy for the next four years by about $20,730. The group consensus was to purchase the mowing equipment. Councilor Duggan asked about capping reserves at 80 percent, instead of 75 percent. McNeill stated that with adjustments to the proposed budget, reserves will be well above the 75 percent level. Discussion by the group was held, and a consensus was reached. Councilor Miller confirmed that reserves would not drop to 75 percent, but instead be above 80 percent. Schabacker stated that reserve balances are determined at the end of the year. Parks and Recreation - Assistant City Administrator Jacobson provided an overview of a proposed field use fees for the 2019 season. She said that an increased demand for fields and the prepping of fields have had an impact on staffing and maintenance costs. Staff recommended a fee structure for fields and user priority categories. The group discussed adding a half time person in Public Works in response to the increased demand for fields and the associated work. It was suggested that the position be full-time, April through November. McNeill stated that staff would need to look at a number of factors including discussion with the union. Councilor Paper suggested looking at a Tuesday through Saturday schedule in order to address weekend field prep. McNeil stated that the field use fees could be a funding source for the new position. Councilor Paper added that parks workload has expanded, but labor has not. Staff is stretched further and further and things page 4 August 15, 2018 City Council Work Session- Budget Page 3 aren’t getting done. Public Works Supervisor Blum added that staff are doing extra things, such as pollinator friendly work and workload has increased. Discussion continued regarding field usage fees to support a full-time employee. Staff suggested that there is enough work to support year round work. The budget includes the addition of one seasonal worker at a cost of $10,000. Staff suggested that for 2019, fund a new full time position for nine months, minus $10,000. Council members directed staff to look at adding a full-time Public Works employee starting April 1, with possible work days of Tuesday through Saturday. McNeill noted that the number of users of Kensington Park has increased for soccer, and that parking on evenings and weekends may be an issue. As such, the Council may see an increase in complaints. Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 3:22 p.m. Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 5 August 28, 2018 City Council Work Session Page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Work Session Held August 28, 2018 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at the City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 1:35 pm. Councilmembers Duggan, Petschel, Paper were present. Absent was Councilmember Miller. Also present were: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator; Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director; Tim Benetti, Community Development Director; and Andy Pratt, City Attorney. DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE ORCHARDS PLAT City Administrator McNeill reviewed the outstanding issues and changes to the Developer’s Agreement for the Orchard Plat. McNeill reported that the developer’s earlier request for an exemption from the requirement to provide fire sprinkler systems in each home has been withdrawn. McNeill noted that the agreement limits hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Work on Sunday would require City Council approval. Council and staff noted that the hours of operation included the mobilization of equipment. Council and staff noted that the developer has been issued one citation for violation of hours of operation. Councilor Petschel noted the importance of having complaints and citations on the record and encouraged neighbors to call the police for hours of operation violations. City Attorney Pratt defined chronic violations as provided for in the agreement. Pratt referred to Section 5 of the agreement and reviewed available remedies and process. Councilor Duggan suggested and staff agreed to add to the emergency access language the word “and” before maintain emergency access in and to remove “as all time” at the end of the sentence. Public Works Director Ruzek explained changes to the warranty language in the agreement. The agreement includes a two year warranty period, which is a modification from the original language. #5b page 6 August 28, 2018 City Council Work Session Page 2 Councilor Petschel asked about responsibility for repairs to existing streets. Ruzek replied that repairs would be the responsibility the developer. A resident noted a large pond near her fence and inquired whether it was supposed to be there. Ruzek replied that the final grading plan did not identify any type of water feature. Councilor Petschel asked about potential builders for the development and what type of homes will be built. McNeill noted that there are 18 lots platted, but said that the developer had reported interest from buyers to purchase more than one lot for a home. Community Development Director Benetti reported that there are two or three builders have been identified by the developer. He said that homes will have an estimated cost of $1 million. Councilor Duggan asked about the City’s opportunity to see individual home plans in advance of construction. Benetti responded that building permits are not normally reviewed by the Council. Ruzek noted that the homes will be custom built homes. Councilor Duggan then asked if staff will coordinate with the builders on the type of homes being built and stated that the character of the neighborhood is key. Councilor Petschel noted that if the requirements are fulfilled and city guidelines are met the City does not have control over what is built. If there is no variance requested, then there is no approval of the home being built. McNeill stated that it is the buyer’s choice. Councilor Duggan commented to push buyers to be creative and interesting, in terms of architectural design and landscaping. Discussion was held about staff involvement in the types of houses that would be built in the development. Councilor Paper noted that trends are followed and a variety of homes already exists. Councilor Duggan suggested that reasonable standards should be expected, and staff should ask buyers to make small changes, as necessary. A resident inquired as to why, with the death of the original applicant, the process didn’t start over, and why weren’t the residents notified of the lawsuit. Pratt replied that the applicant was Royal Oaks LLC, the corporate entity of the project, not an individual applicant. McNeill noted that specific notifications to residents of litigation involving the City was not something that the City typically did. Mayor Garlock noted that the Council had publically stated that the City was in litigation during summary statements of meetings during City C ouncil meetings. Councilor Duggan asked that copies of Developer’s Agreement be made available. McNeill noted that this item and a final version of the Agreement will be included in the Council packet for approval consideration at the September 4 City Council meeting, which begins at 7:00 p.m. A resident commended the Council for staying on top of the car lights issue and the home at the end of the road, and that the Council’s efforts to achieve a resolution were appreciated. Discussion was held regarding screening for those homes that have car headlight intrusion issues, given street placement. Staff was directed to inquire about asking the Developer again about screening landscaping for the one house impacted by lights. page 7 August 28, 2018 City Council Work Session Page 3 Ruzek noted that City may be able to do something regarding screening landscaping in the right of way. Councilor Petschel responded favorably to the suggestion. Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 2:30 p.m. Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 8 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING July 10, 2018 The July meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, July 10, 2018, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. 1. Call to Order – Chair Pat Hinderscheid called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Pat Hinderscheid, Commissioners Bob Klepperich, Stephanie Levine, David Miller, and Nissa Tupper. Absent: Commissioner Steve Goldade. Commissioner Ira Kipp arrived late (6:37pm). Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, and City Administrator Mark McNeill. 3.Approval of Agenda Motion Klepperich / second Miller to approve agenda. AYES 5: NAYS 0: ABSENT 2 4. Approval of Minutes 4.a. Approval of Minutes from June 12, 2018 Motion Klepperich / second Miller to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2018 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. AYES 5: NAYS 0: ABSENT 2 4.b Minutes from May 9, 2018 Joint Council / Parks & Recreation Commission Work Session Minutes – Informational Only 5. Unfinished and New Business 5.a Review of Parks Capital Prioritization from Joint Meeting 5/9/18 City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that the Parks & Rec Commission had a joint meeting with the City Council where good discussions took place. One of the major discussions centered around the Capital Improvement projects that have been presented and discussed. The goal now is to review the funding sources and discuss what could be done within the next couple of years. Funding sources include: Special Parks Fund - $600,000 Property Taxes - $250,000 Administrator McNeill quickly reviewed the prioritization list from that joint meeting and asked if there were any other discussions to be had or any items to be added or reprioritized. Staff also asked for direction from the Commission regarding the potential of conducting a community survey to identify other potential projects or to establish different priorities; keeping in mind that if the desired survey is to replace the current list of priorities, the City Council would need to approve such a survey. #5c page 9 Chair Henderscheid noted that he had created a list of priorities based on feedback received from the joint meeting, the Parks Celebration, and from social media. Commissioner Miller, referencing the Projects Splashpad, asked if the anticipated cost of $5,000 was accurate. It was his understanding that it would be much higher. Chair Henderscheid apologized as he had put the wrong figure on the list; it should have been $350,000 - $500,000. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence reminded the Commission that there would be an on-going costs as well. Commissioner Levine opinioned that the Commission should focus on the needs, do a few of the ticket items that are not hugely expensive, and then talk about how to enhance the parks / playgrounds. Motion Henderscheid / second Miller to move forward with the following projects: Wentworth Warming House Wentworth Rink Light Replacement Marie Park Tennis Resurfacing AYES 5: NAYS 0: ABSENT 2 5.b Special Parks Funding City Administrator Mark McNeill shared the funding sources available to the Parks & Recreation Commission on an ongoing basis. Current Balance Special Parks Funds - $580,000 Cash Balance – Par 3 Fund - $60,000 Projected Income - 2018 Assumes 70 apartment units in the Michael Development Phase I - $280,000 o The case against the city has been dismissed Orchard Heights Development - $64,000 Condon Court - $8,100 Projected Income – 2019 Assumes 68 apartment units in the Michael Development Phase II - $272,000 Total New Funds - $624,100 12/31/19 Ending Balance (less any 2018-19 expenditures) - $1,204,100 Financial Obligations Ice Arena Bonds Par 3 General Obligation Bonds Administrator McNeill then reviewed the governing section of State Law regarding the use of Special Parks Funds for Capital Improvements; summary: each Capital Improvement project should be analyzed to determine if it is a maintenance project (must be funded by the levy) or an improvement project (eligible to use the Special Parks fund). page 10 The Commission discussed what they should or could ask the Council when decisions are being made of what to do with the additional dollars once the two financial obligations have ended to ensure that the Council is aware of the need for park maintenance funds and not solely focus on the new fire station. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that he and his staff would be reviewing the budget over the next couple of months and making requests/suggestions to the City Council. Motion Levine / second Miller to request Council set aside sufficient funds of $250,000 in 2019, adjusted annually, in order to maintain the high quality parks and recreation system that the citizens of Mendota Heights expect Commissioner Kipp opinioned that it is not the Commissions responsibility nor its purview to tell the City Council how much to spend. Since the Commission has discussed this issue at length, he was sure it would come to the City Council’s attention and they will realize the importance the Commission has put upon maintaining the city parks. The Commission does not set the budget for the city nor does it set the limits on what the city can spend; it is for the City Council to determine. Therefore, he would be voting against the motion. AYES 5: NAYS 1 (Kipp): ABSENT 1 5.c Purchase Discussions Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that there were certain items under purchase consideration. Staff was asking the Commission to review and discuss each proposed purchase and recommend approval of each. Park Bike Racks Staff received a quote for 14 rolling bike racks, each of which would hold five (5) bikes, have a galvanized finish, and be surface mounted to a new concrete pad. The cost of each rack is $318; for a total of $4,452. Thirteen of the racks would be installed in the city parks and the 14th would be installed near the Market Square Park; across the street on an existing concrete pad. The estimated cost of the 13 concrete pads is approximately $1,250 each; for a total of $16,250. Total cost of the project is estimated to be $20,702 and would be funded through the Special Parks Fund. Mr. Ruzek did note that since the above quote was received, staff did receive a less expensive quote that would save the city approximately $500. Motion Tupper / second Kipp to recommend approval of the installation of the park bike racks. AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 Marie Park Basketball Improvement Staff received quotes for the expansion of the Marie Park Basketball Court. The concrete to expand the court by an additional 1,200 square feet, with the installation of City provided basketball hoops, and court striping would be approximately $11,700. The purchase of the new page 11 basketball hoops would be approximately $3,000 each; for a total of $6,000. Grand total estimate would be $17,700. Commissioner Levine opinionated that she does not see the need for a two basket basketball court; especially since there are other higher priority tasks to be accomplished – like the tennis court surface, the pickleball courts, etc. She would almost rather do nothing than do something that does not make sense at this time. Mr. Ruzek replied that he is looking at a number of items at Marie Park; keep an area to convert over to a natural planting, add a nature trail, and rehabilitate the hockey rink in conjunction with the tennis court resurfacing. He is requesting Council to accept the plans and authorize the bidding of the project. So he is hoping to get a number of improvements in addition to this basketball expansion done in 2018. The hockey rink and tennis court would be combined into one bid. The concrete slab for the basketball court would be a completely separate project. Chair Hinderscheid asked if there were any other two basket basketball courts in the city. Mr. Ruzek replied that he believes the one at Mendakota may be a two basketball court. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that Mendakota does have one full basketball court. It is used fairly often by basketball leagues. She has not heard anything from them, or anyone else, about needing another full basketball court. Commissioner Tupper asked about adjustable basketball hoops and whether or not it could or would be considered as part of this project. Mr. Ruzek replied that he would assume that the installation costs would be comparable. The cost of the hoops may increase some; however, he did not do the research on the hoops. Staff is open to adjustable hoops if the cost is feasible. Commissioner Tupper asked if it would benefit the parks programing to have a full-court basketball. Ms. Lawrence replied that they currently hold one basketball camp in the summer and there were approximately 25 participants this last year. That camp was indoors. However, basketball leagues are something that other cities do have. She does not know if there is enough interest in Mendota Heights for that. It is something that could be considered. Chair Hinderscheid noted that since Commissioner Goldade, who championed this project, was not present that it be deferred to next month. The remainder of the Commission agreed. Market Square Tables Staff researched the possibility of providing two tables at Market Square Park and discovered that the ADA would require that both of those tables be ADA compliance. If the city chose to add additional tables, then 20% of them must be ADA compliant. A 46” round ADA table would cost approximately $698 plus shipping. There had been some discussion about having tables with backs; however, that would limit the choice options. Staff was looking for direction from the Commission on the table shape, color, and whether or not to proceed with the project. If the motion was to proceed, the funds would come through the Special Parks Fund in the approximate amount of $1,500. Chair Hinderscheid stated that the example provided appeared to fit the bill as it has three benches with a back and then an open side. He then asked if it was ADA compliance. Mr. page 12 Ruzek replied that it is ADA compliant; however, they would not be purchasing the umbrella shown in the picture. The cost would be $700 to $1,500. If the commission decided to have a shade structure installed it would need to be a large enough structure capable of withstanding the elements. Staff had not secured quotes but discussions with manufacturers would put this above $20,000 in cost. Motion Hinderscheid, second Levine to recommend approval of moving forward with the Market Square Park Tables project with the three benches, a back, and an open side in black for an estimated amount of $1,500. Commissioner Miller, noting that the next item up for discussion was the shaded seated area for the dog park, asked if this project should include shading as well. Commissioner Levine replied that the shade option for the dog park would not look very well in Market Square Park and she would not be in support of it. Mr. Ruzek stated that to install this in Market Square Park it would entail installing footings and having it constructed. Also, with how the city was looking to be able to remove the benches to allow for other activities the shading would be prohibitive to that goal. AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 Dog Park Table/Shade Structure Chair Hinderscheid had provided an option for staff to consider, which was a standard picnic table with benches on two sides, metal structure with a metal shade canopy constructed in it. This would require footings to be installed and a landscaper will be sending a specific quote versus purchasing one on the internet. The cost of the table is $3,636 plus shipping and installation. The estimated cost of the installation is approximately $2,000, although a specific quote has not yet been received. The Dog Park Shade/Picnic Table is proposed to be funded through the Special Parks Fund at an estimated total amount of $6,000. Discussion occurred regarding the planting of a tree to provide shade; however, with this being a temporary dog park the planting of a tree would not be advisable, especially considering how long it would take for the tree to grow to be effective for shade. As for a requirement for this table to be ADA compliance, seeing as how this is a temporary dog park use, there would not necessarily be a requirement at this point. However, if it were to become a permanent dog park then it would need to become ADA compliant. Motion Levine, second Hinderscheid moved to recommend approval of the installation of the shade/picnic table combination at the Dog Park AYES 5: NAYS 1 (Kipp): ABSENT 1 5.d Wentworth Park Lot Split Update Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek reminded the Commission that at their June 2018 meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti presented an idea that would clean up Wentworth Park a little bit while also allowing some residents to clean up some lot lines that were messed up during their original homes’ construction in the 1960’s. The proposal was to split off a portion of the park to Lots 8 and 9 of the Cherry Hill Addition. The commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of this request. page 13 The Planning Commission recommended approval of this request by an unanimous vote at their meeting on June 26, 2018. On July 2, 2018, the City Council heard this proposal and voted unanimously to not proceed with the subdivision of the city-owned park land. The Council asked staff to return with options on how to remedy to the current encroachments of the property owners on the city-owned park land. There are currently no plans to improve that area of the park. At this point in the meeting, Commissioner Tupper reminded the Commission that they had not made a decision on the subject of a community survey. However, with the discussions on the budget and project she would be in favor of moving that discussion to a later meeting. Chair Hinderscheid replied that the new Communications person may be able to help the Commission with the survey. The remainder of the Commission agreed. 6. Reports 6.a Par 3 Update Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence provided the Par 3 Update. Some grass clumping occurred in the rough areas of the golf course due to wet weather, equipment problems, and the amount of mowing completed. This matter was rectified when staff borrowed a tow-behind mechanical blower from an adjacent community. Staff asked City Council for approval to obtain price quotes for the replacement of the rough mower and to purchase a debris blower, which the City Council approved. The funding for these items would be from the City’s General Fund and not from the Par 3 Fund. Staff is in the process of testing prospective equipment and will receive quotes for Council’s review on July 17, 2018. The tee mower is currently not working either; however, staff is able to make do with the fairway mower for now. Leasing options were discussed. A master gardener event was held on June 26, 2018 with lots of participants. The rain garden and the plantings by the clubhouse are looking very good. She encouraged residents to stop by and see them. With the holidays, the finance department was unable to provide a Park 3 Financial Report print out for the Commission. 6.b Recreation Updates Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence provided Recreation Updates as follows: page 14 Summer Programs Are in full swing Participation numbers have been strong Good feedback received Marie Park Tennis Grant Grant process with the USTA has been completed Waiting for a response regarding funding Should receive a response to the grant next month Summer concert Series Three events remaining o Wednesday, July 18 – The Percolators, 6:30pm o Wednesday, August 22 – Kids Dance, 6:30pm o Saturday, September 22 – Movie in the Park, 7:00 pm Puppet Wagon Events take place on Mondays, June 18-August 13 Free to the public Events take place at Market Square Park Summer Playhouse Events take place on Tuesdays at 11:00am at Mendakota Park Free to the public Safety Camp First day was today 75 participants from Mendota Heights, 3rd and 4th graders 6.c Commissioner Park Updates Commissioner Tupper noted that she had sent an email about a couple of issues with some trees so staff is aware. Commissioner Levine stated that she had already said enough about the parks today, so nothing new to add. Commissioner Miller stated, regarding Victoria Highlands, that he was concerned about the fence he saw being put in. However, it looks a lot better than he ever thought it would. Market Square Park appears to be in good shape. Chair Hinderscheid said he was at the Dog Park and spoke with some people there. They had very positive things to say about the Dog Park. Ivy Falls – there is a low spot from where they filled in that has created another place that is catching water. Commissioner Klepperich checked the baseball field and Mendakota Park and made a couple of recommendations to Ms. Lawrence about some safety issues. He recommended the Commission listen to MHAA and look at which baseball field might need refurbishing. Overall, the fields at Mendakota Park look good. page 15 Commissioner Kipp noted that there had been a problem at Rogers Lake Park after the last thunderstorm, a number of trees with large limbs broken off. He complimented the Parks Department and the Police Department for responding to his call almost immediately by putting out cones and cutting off branches that might have fallen off on residents. 6.d Natural Resources Technician Hiring Update Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek informed the Commission that the City had received 47 applications for the Natural Resources Technician position. The applications have been scored and the first round of interviews have been scheduled, beginning July 11th. It is hoped that the interviews and background testing will be completed in July, with plans to send an offer to someone and get them on-boarded as soon as possible. 6.e Rainbow Treecare – Emerald Ash Borer Flyer/Postcard Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that residents in the city should have received a flyer from Rainbow Treecare offering a discounted treatment of Emerald Ash Borer of Ash Trees. A notice to proceed was provided to Rainbow Treecare to treat the Ash Trees in Marie Park, Hagstrom-King Park, and at the Public Works facility. Ivy Hill Park and Wentworth Park are currently part of a University of Minnesota study so the trees in those areas cannot be treated at this time. 7. Announcements and Commission Comments There were no announcements from staff. Commissioner Kipp stated that this was an informative meeting and although he was not in agreement on all of the policies, that is the purpose of a resident constituency to determine how to work with other people. Commissioner Klepperich noted that he is lucky to live close to a biking and walking trail. He has seen a number of near misses between bikes and walkers. He cautioned everyone to share the trails and, by all means, share the streets. Chair Hinderscheid respectfully asked bikers to announce when passing walkers or other bikers to prevent collisions and accidents. Commissioner Miller stated that this was a good meeting. Commissioner Levine also said this was a good meeting. Also, for safety sake, she noted that she and her dog were watched by a coyote on a couple of occasions. Everyone should be aware and if a coyote is in the vicinity, stay in your group, make loud noises, and do not run. Commissioner Tupper also said this was a good, informative meeting. She echoed all of the comments about biking and walking on the trail or on the street. She also expressed her appreciation to staff for all of the time and effort they put in. Chair Hinderscheid also stated that having the help of Cheryl, Meredith, Ryan, and Mark is very helpful. A lot of ground was covered this evening and forward movement is being seen. He reminded all that follow-up on the survey needs to occur. Also, a recommendation on the page 16 Special Park Fund was not made and it still needs to be addressed. It was a great meeting and he appreciated everyone’s efforts. 8. Adjourn Motion Levin / Second Klepperich to adjourn the meeting at 8:34 PM AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 Minutes Taken By: C. Darlene Oehlke Independent Contractor page 17 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Firefighter Retirement COMMENT: Background Firefighter Vince Belmares has announced his retirement from the Fire Department effective September 1, 2018. Vince become a firefighter with the Mendota Heights Fire Department on November 16, 2005. Budget Impact N/A Recommendation I recommend that the City Council accept the retirement of Vince Belmares effective September 1, 2018. Action Required If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should formally thank Vince and his family for his 11.9 years of service to our community as a Mendota Heights Firefighter. #5d page 18 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: July 2018 Fire Synopsis Fire Calls For the month of July, the Mendota Heights Fire Department responded to 23 calls for service. Of those, 17 were located in Mendota Heights, one in Sunfish Lake, one in Mendota, and three in Lilydale. In addition, we had a mutual aid call to the city of Eagan. The 23 calls were made up of three actual fires: one vehicle fire, one grease fire at a restaurant in Mendota, and a significant structure fire at Mendakota Country Club involving a storage building and their clubhouse. Five of the other calls were either false alarms or unintentional transmission of alarms, six calls were cancelled before our arrival, two were medical calls, a good intent call, and one was classified as a severed gas line. The remaining five calls they were classified as “other” in nature. It should be noted that the fire at the Mendakota Country Club at 4:31am on Friday July 13th, had no injuries and although the storage building was destroyed, the main clubhouse suffered damage to one wall, along with significant smoke and water damage within the building. Appreciation to our neighboring mutual aid partners of Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, and South Metro Fire as well as to HealthEast and the Mendota Heights police department. Department Training Opportunities July 11 Water Rescue This drill allows the firefighters to take the Zodiac boat out onto a body of water, place a firefighter into the water and run through rescue scenarios while practicing safe and effective rescue boating skills. July 12 Elevator Operations This drill had firefighters practice safe and successful removal of occupants in a stalled elevator. As a department we receive several of these calls each year, and we have many different brands and types of elevators. Our firefighters spent time going over the proper procedure in getting occupants out safely. July 23 or 24 Fire Apparatus Operator This was a mandatory drill and was set up with multiple stations for firefighters to go over pumping with different trucks as well as with using our soon to be in service new hoses and nozzles. In addition, firefighters were made to use specialty equipment for making foam that would be used at class B type fires (oil and gasoline for example). #5e page 19 MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT JULY 2018 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE CALLS NO. 18130 -18152 NUMBER OF CALLS:23 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial 1 $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 Structure - MH Residential $300 Structure - Contract Areas 1 $400 $100 $550 Cooking Fire Vehicle - MH 1 $16,000 $19,500 Vehicle - Contract Areas $0 $8,000 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES MEDICAL Assist 2 $500,400 $500,100 $16,000 Extrication HAZARDOUS SITUATION FIRE LOSS TOTALS MENDOTA HEIGHTS Spills/Leaks 1 Arcing/Shorting ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$1,016,500 $1,028,350 Chemical Power Line Down MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $1,000,300 FALSE ALARM Residential Malfunction 1 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $17,500 Commercial Malfunction 1 Unintentional - Commercial MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $1,017,800 Unintentional - Residential 3 Criminal GOOD INTENT Smoke Scare Dispatched & Cancelled 6 STRUCTURE CONTENT Steam Mistaken for Smoke Other 5 SPRINKLER ACTIVATION - MH 80,000.00$ 15,000.00$ MUTUAL AID 1 TOTAL CALLS 23 LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS:TO DATE LAST YEAR TOTALS:$80,000 $15,000 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 17 118 104 MENDOTA 1 8 3 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH SUNFISH LAKE 1 5 14 LILYDALE 3 13 11 INSPECTIONS 15 OTHER 1 8 10 INVESTIGATIONS 30 TOTAL 23 152 142 RE-INSPECTION WORK PERFORMED HOURS TO DATE LAST YEAR MEETINGS 4 FIRE CALLS 410.25 2201.75 2153.5 MEETINGS 36.5 267.75 239 ADMINISTRATION 3.5 DRILLS 261 2166.25 1188.5 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 61 144 1400.5 SPECIAL PROJECTS 2 FIRE MARSHAL 54.5 104 307.5 TOTAL FOR FIRE MARSHAL 54.5 TOTALS 823.25 4883.75 5289 REMARKS:SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS MISC LOSS - TOTALS page 20 DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: Lexington Heights Apartments Amendments INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve action to amend Refunding Bonds which were issued by the City on behalf of the Lexington Heights Apartments. These requested actions are technical, and are necessary due to changes in Federal tax law. BACKGROUND The City issued Multifamily Revenue Refunding Bonds to Lexington Heights Apartments in 2013. Council is being requested to authorize amendments to the Indenture Trust relating to those bonds. The City received a letter from Briggs and Morgan regarding the need for these amendments and how they relate to the City. This letter is attached for your information. Representatives from both Briggs and Morgan (bond counsel) and Lexington Heights Apartments will be present at the meeting if you have any questions for them. BUDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact to the City. Lexington Heights Apartments will be charged a non- refundable fee of $1500, and any City expenses that would exceed this amount. RECOMMENDATION If City Council wishes to authorize the First Supplemental Indenture of Trust Related to Series 2013 Bonds for Lexington Heights Apartments, Council should pass a motion adopting the attached resolution: A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST RELATED TO THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (LEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PROJECT), SERIES 2013 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO. #5f page 21 11041190v1 Catherine J. Courtney (612) 977-8765 ccourtney@briggs.com August 29, 2018 BY E-MAIL Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director City Councilmembers City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4106 Re: Authorizing First Supplemental Indenture of Trust Related to Series 2013 Bonds for Lexington Heights Dear Councilmembers and Ms. Schabacker In 2013, the City of Mendota Heights issued its Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Lexington Heights Apartments Project), Series 2013 (the “Bonds”), originally sold to Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the “Bondholder”). The proceeds of the Bonds were loaned to Riley Family Lexington Heights, LLLP, a Minnesota limited liability limited partnership (the “Borrower”), to refinance, in part, certain obligations of the Borrower related to the Lexington Heights Apartments located in the City. The documents related to the Bonds provide that the interest rate will be based, in part, on the federal corporate tax rate. The “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” adopted by Congress at the end of 2017, made certain changes to the federal corporate tax rate, among other things, that affect the overall transaction between the Borrower and the Bondholder. Therefore, the Bondholder and Borrower have agreed to make certain amendments to the Indenture of Trust related to the Bonds to account for these technical changes arising from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and have requested that the City approve a First Supplemental Indenture of Trust (the “Supplemental Indenture”) to reflect these changes. The Bonds, as originally issued and as reissued as a result of the Supplemental Indenture, do not and shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property or funds of the City except the revenues and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. The holders of the Bonds shall never have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the outstanding principal on the Bonds or the interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City. The Bonds recite in substance that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof. The Bonds do not and shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. page 22 11041190v1 Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director August 29, 2018 Page 2 The Borrower has presented a resolution to the City Council requesting that the City adopt the resolution at its September 4th meeting to approve the Supplemental Indenture. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, Catherine J. Courtney CJC Enclosure page 23 11021062v2 Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was duly held at City Hall in said City on Tuesday, the 4th day of September, 2018 at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The following Council members were present: and the following were absent: Council member ___________________ then introduced and read the following written resolution and moved its adoption: A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST RELATED TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (LEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PROJECT), SERIES 2013 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member __________________, and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. page 24 11021062v2 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-69 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST RELATED TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (LEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PROJECT), SERIES 2013 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: SECTION 1 LEGAL AUTHORIZATION AND FINDINGS. 1.1 Findings. The City hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: (1)The City, pursuant to Resolution 2013–38 adopted on June 4, 2013 (the "Bond Resolution"), has previously authorized the issuance of its revenue bonds in an original aggregate principal amount of $10,570,000 to provide funds that were loaned to Riley Family Lexington Heights, LLLP, f/k/a Lexington Heights Associates Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited liability limited partnership (the "Borrower"), to refinance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of a 225-unit multifamily housing development, located at 230 South Lexington in the City, which facilities are owned and operated by the Borrower (the "Project"). (2)The City issued its Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Lexington Heights Apartments Project), Series 2013, dated August 1, 2013, (the "Bonds"), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), and sold the Bonds to Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, a national banking association (the "Purchaser" or "Sole Bondholder") in accordance with an Indenture of Trust dated as of August 1, 2013 (the "Indenture") between the City and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"). (3)Pursuant to a Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement") dated as of August 1, 2013 between the City and the Borrower, the Borrower agreed to repay the Bonds in specified amounts and at specified times sufficient to pay in full when due the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. In addition, the Loan Agreement contains provisions relating to the expenditure of proceeds of the Bonds, the maintenance and operation of the Project, indemnification, insurance, and other agreements and covenants which are required or permitted by the Act and which the City, the Borrower, and the Sole Bondholder deemed necessary or desirable for the refinancing of the Project. (4)The Sole Bondholder, the Borrower, and the Trustee have informed the City that they have agreed to certain changes in the terms of the Indenture. (5)The form of First Supplemental Indenture of Trust between the City and the Trustee, and consented to by the Borrower and the Sole Bondholder, proposed to be entered into in order to document changes in the terms of the Indenture has been submitted to the City Council and is on file in the office of the City Clerk (the "Supplemental Indenture"). page 25 11021062v2 2 SECTION 2 AUTHORIZATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE. 2.1 Approval and Execution of Supplemental Indenture. (1)The Supplemental Indenture is made a part of this Resolution as though fully set forth herein and is hereby approved in substantially the form presented to the City Council. The Mayor and the Administrator are authorized and directed to execute, acknowledge, and deliver the Supplemental Indenture on behalf of the City with such changes, insertions, and omissions therein as bond counsel to the City may hereafter deem appropriate, such execution to be conclusive evidence of approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. (2)The Mayor and the Administrator are authorized and directed to execute and deliver all other documents which may be required under the terms of the Supplemental Indenture or by bond counsel, and to take such other action as may be required or deemed appropriate for the performance of the duties imposed thereby to carry out the purposes thereof. (3)The Mayor and Administrator and other officers of the City are authorized to furnish to the Trustee, the Borrower, and bond counsel certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Supplemental Indenture, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. (4)In the event that for any reason the Mayor or the Administrator is unable to carry out the execution of any of the documents or other acts provided herein, any other officer of the City or member of its City Council as, in the opinion of the City's attorney, is authorized to act in that capacity and undertake such execution or acts on behalf of the City, shall without further act or authorization execute and deliver the Supplemental Indenture and do all things and execute all instruments and documents required to be done or executed by such officers, with full force and effect, which executions or acts shall be valid and binding on the City. (5)This resolution constitutes a supplement to the Bond Resolution. 2.2 No Liability of City. Nothing in this resolution or in the documents prepared pursuant hereto shall authorize the expenditure of any municipal funds on the Project other than the revenues derived from the Project or otherwise granted to the City for this purpose. The Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property or funds of the City except the revenues and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. The holders of the Bonds shall never have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the outstanding principal on the Bonds or the interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City. The Bonds recite in substance that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof. The Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. page 26 11021062v2 3 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota this 4th day of September, 2018. _______________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Clerk page 27 11021062v2 CERTIFICATE STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ) I, Lorri Smith, duly appointed, acting and qualified Clerk of the City of Mendota Heights, do hereby certify that I have examined the City of Mendota Heights records and the Minute Book of said Authority for the meeting of the 4th of September, 2018 and that the attached copy of the RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST RELATED TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (LEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PROJECT), SERIES 2013 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO was approved and is a true and correct copy of the City Proceedings relating to said Resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day of __________, 2018. Clerk City of Mendota Heights page 28 4813-1206-6415.1 KUTAK ROCK DRAFT 08/21/18 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST THIS FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST (the “First Supplement”) dated as of September 1, 2018 (the “Supplement Date”) is entered into by and between the CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA (the “Issuer”) and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association (the “Trustee”) W I T N E S S E T H : WHEREAS, the Issuer and the Trustee have previously entered into an Indenture of Trust, dated as of August 1, 2013 (the “Original Indenture” and as hereby amended, the “Indenture”), relating to $10,570,000 City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Lexington Heights Apartments Project), Series 2013 (the “Bonds”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.02 of the Original Indenture, the Issuer and the Trustee wish to amend the Original Indenture as provided herein; and WHEREAS, Section 8.02 of the Original Indenture requires that the Trustee obtain the consent of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as sole holder of the Bonds (the “Bondholder”) and of Riley Family Lexington Heights, LLLP (the “Borrower”) to this First Supplement; and WHEREAS, the Bondholder and the Borrower have consented to this First Supplement as evidenced by their signature hereto; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE I AMENDMENTS Section 1.01. Amendments to Section 1.01. Section 1.01 of the Original Indenture is hereby amended by replacing the existing definitions of “Applicable Factor”, “Applicable Spread,” “Authorized Denomination,” “Direct Purchase Period Purchase Date,” “LIBOR Index” “Margin Rate Factor” and “Taxable Rate” in their entirety with the following: “Applicable Factor” means (a) during the initial Direct Purchase Period, 80.375% and (b) during any other Direct Purchase Period, a percentage between 65% and 135% as may be designated in writing by the Borrower as the Applicable Factor for such LIBOR Index Rate Period pursuant to Section 2.04(a) or 2.04(b), as applicable. For purposes of page 29 2 4813-1206-6415.1 this definition, the initial Direct Purchase Period is the Direct Purchase Period ending on the Direct Purchase Period Purchase Date. “Applicable Spread” means, with respect to each Index Interest Rate Period, the following: (a)During the initial Direct Purchase Period, 201 basis points (2.01%). (b)During any Index Interest Rate Period other than the initial Rate Period, the number of basis points determined by the Market Agent on or before the first day of such Index Interest Rate Period and designated by the Borrower in accordance with Section 2.04(a) or 2.04(b), as applicable (which may include a schedule for changes to the Applicable Spread based upon changes to the Obligor Rating) that, when added to the SIFMA Index or the product of the LIBOR Index multiplied by the Applicable Factor, as applicable, would equal the minimum interest rate per annum that would enable the Bonds to be sold on such date at a price equal to the principal amount thereof (without regard to accrued interest, if any, thereon). “Authorized Denomination” means (a) during any Short-Term Rate Period or any Medium-Term Rate Period, $100,000 and multiples of $5,000 in excess thereof, (b)during any Fixed Rate Period, $5,000 and integral multiples thereof, (c) during any Index Interest Rate Period, $100,000 and multiples of $5,000 in excess thereof and (d)during any Direct Purchase Period, regardless of the Rate Period, $250,000 and multiples of $0.01 in excess thereof or, if less, the Principal Amount. “Direct Purchase Period Purchase Date” means (a) for the initial Direct Purchase Period, June 30, 2016, as the same may be extended to June 30, 2019 and June 30, 2023, pursuant to the terms of the Continuing Covenant Agreement, and (b) during any subsequent Direct Purchase Period, the date designated by the Borrower pursuant to Section 2.04(a) or (b), as applicable. “LIBOR Index” means, for any date of determination, the per annum rate of interest determined on the basis of the rate on deposits in United States dollars of amounts equal to or comparable to the Principal Amount, offered for a term of one month, which rate appears on the display designated as Reuters Screen LIBOR01 Page (or any successor page), determined as of approximately 11:00 a.m., London time, on each Computation Date, or if such rate is not available, another rate determined by the Calculation Agent of which the Borrower has received written notice. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, during any period of time while the LIBOR Index, determined as provided above, would be less than zero percent (0.0%), the LIBOR Index shall be deemed to be zero percent (0.0%). “Margin Rate Factor” means the greater of (a) 1.0, and (b) the product of (i) one minus the Maximum Federal Corporate Tax Rate in effect on the Maximum Federal Corporate Tax Rate Adjustment Date multiplied by (ii) the quotient of (A) one divided by (B) one minus the Maximum Federal Corporate Tax Rate in effect on the Amendment Effective Date. The “Maximum Federal Corporate Tax Rate Adjustment Date” shall be page 30 3 4813-1206-6415.1 the effective date of the decrease or increase (as applicable) in the Maximum Federal Corporate Tax Rate. The effective date of any change in the Margin Rate Factor shall be the effective date of the decrease of increase (as applicable) in the Maximum Federal Corporate Tax Rate resulting in such change. The Maximum Federal Corporate Tax Rate is currently 21% such that the current Margin Rate Factor equals 1.0. The Margin Rate Factor will not go below 1.0. “Taxable Rate” means, for any date of determination, the rate of interest per annum equal to the product of the interest rate on the Bonds then in effect multiplied by the quotient of (a) one divided by (b) one minus the Maximum Federal Corporate Tax Rate in effect on the date of calculation. Section 1.02. Addition to Section 1.01. Section 1.01 of the Original Indenture is hereby amended by adding the following definition: “Amendment Effective Date” means __________, 2018 Section 1.03. Amendments to Section 2.04. Section 2.04 of the Original Indenture is hereby amended by deleting the existing Section 2.04 and replacing it with the following: Section 2.04. Conversion of Interest Rate Determination Period. (a)Conversion Notice. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.04(b), the Interest Rate Determination Method for the Bonds may be changed under this Section from any Short-Term Rate, Index Interest Rate or Medium-Term Rate to any other Interest Rate Determination Method, from an Index Interest Rate to a new Index Interest Rate or from a Medium-Term Rate to a new Medium-Term Rate, on any Conversion Date by the Borrower giving written notice of such change (a “Conversion Notice”) to the Remarketing Agent, if any, the Market Agent, if any, the Calculation Agent, the Trustee and during a Direct Purchase Period, the Purchaser, with a copy to the Issuer, the Paying Agent, the Rating Agency, if any, rating the Bonds and the Credit Provider, if any; provided, however, that during a Direct Purchase Period the Interest Rate Determination Method may not be changed to another Interest Rate Determination Method or from an Index Interest Rate Period to a new Index Interest Rate Period without the prior written consent of the Purchaser. During a period other than a Direct Purchase Period, the Conversion Notice must be received by the Remarketing Agent or the Calculation Agent, as applicable, and the Trustee at least twenty-five (25) days prior to the proposed Conversion Date, and, except as otherwise provided in Section 2.04(b), during a Direct Purchase Period, the Conversion Notice must be received by the Remarketing Agent, if any, the Market Agent, if any, the Calculation Agent, the Trustee and the Purchaser at least sixty (60) days prior to the proposed Conversion Date. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.04(b), each Conversion Notice shall state (i) that the Borrower elects to change the Interest Rate Determination Method to a new Interest Rate Determination Method, or from the interest rate applicable during a Medium-Term Rate Period to a new interest rate during a new Medium-Term Rate Period, or from an Index Interest Rate Period to a new Index Interest Rate Period, (ii) the page 31 4 4813-1206-6415.1 proposed Conversion Date, (iii) the Interest Rate Determination Method to be in effect from and after such Conversion Date, (iv) whether a Credit Facility is to be in effect from and after such Conversion Date, and, if so, the terms of such Credit Facility, and (v) if a Medium-Term Rate or Fixed Rate is to be in effect from and after such Conversion Date, and if redemption premiums different from those set forth in Section 2.18 are to be applicable as described in Section 2.03(d) and Section 2.03(e), the redemption premiums to be applicable during such Medium-Term Rate Period or Fixed Rate Period. In addition, if an Index Interest Rate is to be in effect immediately following such Conversion Date, such Conversion Notice shall state (1) whether such Index Interest Rate shall be a SIFMA Index Rate or a LIBOR Index Rate, (2) the new Direct Purchase Period Purchase Date, (3) the new Applicable Spread and (4) if such Index Interest Rate shall be a LIBOR Index Rate, the new Applicable Factor. If the Bonds are converted to an Index Interest Rate Period, the new Applicable Spread shall be the number of basis points determined by the Market Agent, having due regard for prevailing market conditions for bonds or other securities comparable as to tax treatment, credit and maturity to the Bonds, which when added to the SIFMA Index or the product of the LIBOR Index multiplied by the Applicable Factor, as applicable, would equal the minimum interest rate per annum that would enable the Bonds to be sold on the Conversion Date at a price of par (without regard to accrued interest, if any, thereon). In the event that the Bonds are converted to any other Direct Purchase Period, the new interest rate shall be, in the judgment of the Market Agent, having due regard for prevailing market conditions for bonds or other securities similar to the Bonds, the interest rate necessary, but not to exceed the interest rate necessary to enable the Bonds to be placed at a price of par on the Conversion Date. In the case of a conversion to a Weekly Rate Period, each Conversion Notice shall be accompanied by evidence that a Remarketing Agent shall have been appointed and accepted such appointment. The Issuer, at the direction of the Borrower, shall, by notice given to the Trustee at the same time and in the same manner as the Conversion Notice is given (which notice may be contained in such Conversion Notice), elect that after the Fixed Rate Conversion Date (A) the Bonds may be converted to have one or more Stated Maturities (as defined below), maturing sequentially in consecutive years, or (B) all or a portion of the Bonds may be converted to one or more term bonds subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption, with principal installments due sequentially in consecutive years; provided, however, that the principal amount of any Bond due either at a Stated Maturity or on a mandatory sinking fund payment date shall be in an Authorized Denomination; provided, further, that prior to electing any combination of (A) and (B) above the Issuer shall obtain an Approving Opinion. For purposes of this paragraph “Stated Maturity” shall mean, when used with respect to any Bond or any installment of interest thereon, the date specified in such Bond as the fixed date on which the principal of such Bond or such installment of interest is due and payable. (b)Certain Conversions between Direct Purchase Periods. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 2.04(a), in the event that (i) the Bonds are subject to a Direct Purchase Period, (ii) a single Purchaser is the Owner of all the Bonds and (iii) such Purchaser and the Borrower wish to convert the Bonds to new Rate Period which is a page 32 5 4813-1206-6415.1 Direct Purchase Period where such Purchaser shall continue to be the Owner of all of the Bonds, all in accordance with the terms of the Continuing Covenant Agreement, such Purchaser and the Borrower may cause the Bonds to be converted to such new Rate Period by delivering to the Trustee a notice in the form of Exhibit H (a “Direct Purchase Period Conversion Notice”) properly completed and executed by the Borrower, such Purchaser and the Market Agent not less than five (5) Business Days prior to the Conversion Date on which the change in the Interest Rate Determination Method of the Bonds is to be effective, as specified in such notice. The Direct Purchase Period Conversion Notice shall contain that information described in the second paragraph of Section 2.04(a) which relates to conversion of the Bonds to a Direct Purchase Period. (c)Opinions With Respect to Conversions. Except for a conversion of the Interest Rate Determination Method pursuant to Section 2.04(b) (for which no Approving Opinion shall be required), the Borrower shall deliver an Approving Opinion to the Remarketing Agent, if any, the Market Agent, if any, the Calculation Agent, if any, the Purchaser, if any, and the Trustee, by 10:00 a.m., Local Time, on the proposed Conversion Date under this Section. (d)Conversion Date. If the Interest Rate Determination Method in effect prior to the proposed Conversion Date under this Section is: (i)a Weekly Rate, the Conversion Date may be any Business Day; (ii)a Flexible Term Rate, the Conversion Date must be the day that would otherwise be an Interest Payment Date for all of the Bonds, such Interest Payment Date to be determined at the time the Conversion Notice is received by the Remarketing Agent, the Market Agent or the Calculation Agent, as applicable; (iii)an Index Interest Rate, the Conversion Date (A) must be a day that would otherwise be an Interest Payment Date and (B) shall be subject to any conditions set forth in a Continuing Covenant Agreement; or (iv)a Medium-Term Rate, the Conversion Date must be the Business Day immediately succeeding the last day of the Medium-Term Rate Period. (e)Notice of Conversions. The Trustee shall give written notice to the registered owners of the Bonds of a proposed Conversion Date (except with respect to a Conversion Date occurring solely due to an event described in clause (c) of the definition thereof), which notice shall be in substantially the form attached to this Indenture as Exhibit D appropriately completed, and shall be sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the proposed Conversion Date. (f)Failure or Revocation of Conversion. If (i) the Borrower fails to deliver the Approving Opinion, if any, required by Section 2.04(c) to the Trustee, the Purchaser, if applicable, and the Remarketing Agent, the Market Agent or the Calculation Agent, as applicable, by 10:00 a.m., Local Time, on the proposed Conversion Date, or (ii) an Event of Default shall have occurred and be continuing hereunder, the Interest Rate Determination Method for the Bonds shall not be changed on the proposed Conversion page 33 6 4813-1206-6415.1 Date and the Trustee shall immediately notify by telephone the Credit Provider, if any, the Remarketing Agent, if any, the Market Agent, if any, the Issuer, the Calculation Agent, the Purchaser, if any, and the Paying Agent that the Interest Rate Determination Method for the Bonds shall not be changed on the proposed Conversion Date. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Indenture to the contrary, no conversion of the Interest Rate Determination Method to the Fixed Rate shall occur if the Borrower, not later than 10:00 a.m., Local Time, on the Business Day immediately preceding the applicable Computation Date, directs the Remarketing Agent or the Market Agent, as applicable, not to change the Interest Rate Determination Method to the Fixed Rate by written notice, with a copy to the Trustee, the Issuer, the Paying Agent, the Remarketing Agent, if any, the Market Agent, if any, the Calculation Agent, the Purchaser, if any, and the Credit Provider, if any. If a proposed conversion of the Interest Rate Determination Method is cancelled pursuant to the provisions of the two preceding paragraphs, all Bonds (other than Bonds subject to a Direct Purchase Period) shall nevertheless be tendered for purchase on the proposed Conversion Date and shall be purchased by the Issuer on the proposed Conversion Date. If the Issuer shall fail to so purchase the Bonds subject to tender on such proposed Conversion Date, such failure shall constitute an Event of Default and, except as otherwise provided in Section 2.03(l), the Bonds shall continue to bear interest in accordance with the Interest Rate Determination Method in effect prior to the proposed Conversion Date and, in the case of a proposed change from a Medium-Term Rate, for a Medium-Term Rate Period ending on the first day that is a day immediately preceding a Business Day and that occurs on or after the day that is the same number of days after the proposed Conversion Date as the number of days in the immediately preceding Medium-Term Rate Period (but in no event later than the maturity of the Bonds); provided, however, that the rate of interest that the Bonds will bear shall be determined on the proposed Conversion Date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a proposed conversion of the Interest Rate Determination Method is cancelled pursuant to the provisions of the two preceding paragraphs, any Bonds then subject to a Direct Purchase Period shall not be subject to tender for purchase and shall continue to bear interest at the Interest Rate Determination Method in effect prior to the failed proposed conversion. (g)Failure to Mail Certain Notices. Failure to mail the notice described in Section 2.04(e), or any defect therein, shall not affect the validity of any interest rate or change in the Interest Rate Determination Method on any of the Bonds or the requirement that the Bonds shall be tendered pursuant to Section 2.06(e) or extend the period for tendering any of the Bonds for purchase, and the Trustee shall not be liable to any Owner by reason of its failure to mail such notice or any defect therein. (h)Compliance with Rule 15c2-12. Notwithstanding any provision in this Indenture to the contrary, no conversion of the Interest Rate Determination Method (except for Bonds subject to a Direct Purchase Period immediately succeeding such conversion) shall be permitted unless the Trustee, the Issuer and the Remarketing Agent, if any, shall have received, at least two (2) Business Days prior to the proposed Conversion Date, either (i) a copy of a continuing disclosure agreement imposing page 34 7 4813-1206-6415.1 obligations upon the Borrower or any other responsible party to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Rule”), with respect to the Bonds, together with such disclosure documents as the Remarketing Agent, if any, shall require in order to comply with the Rule, if the Rule will be applicable upon such conversion or (ii) an Opinion of Counsel that, notwithstanding such conversion, the Rule will not be applicable to the Bonds as of and after the Conversion Date. (i)Conversion to Flexible Term Rate. The Interest Rate Determination Method may not be converted to a Flexible Term Rate unless the interest component of the Credit Facility to be in effect immediately following such conversion, if any, provides for payment of at least 271 days of interest on the Bonds at the Ceiling Rate. If a rating for the Bonds is to be maintained after any such conversion, the Trustee and the Remarketing Agent, if any, must receive, prior to the effective date of such conversion, written confirmation from each Rating Agency rating the Bonds that such rating will not be reduced or withdrawn. The following additional conditions must be satisfied before a conversion to a Flexible Term Rate shall become effective: (A)The Borrower must engage, at its expense, an issuing and paying agent having access to the Securities Depository’s electronic money market issuing and payment system and otherwise eligible to serve as an issuing and paying agent under the Securities Depository’s policies and procedures for the issuance and payment of Flexible Term Rate; (B)The Remarketing Agent, the Market Agent or the Calculation Agent, as applicable, must arrange for the provision of any necessary CUSIP numbers; and (C)The Issuer and the Borrower shall take all other action needed to comply with the Securities Depository’s requirements applicable to the issuance and payment of the Bonds while in the Flexible Term Rate. (j)Exchange of Bonds. Upon conversion of the Bonds to a Rate subject to a Direct Purchase Period from a Rate not subject to a Direct Purchase Period, or from a Rate not subject to a Direct Purchase Period to a different Rate not subject to a Direct Purchase Period, the Issuer shall execute at the written request and sole expense of the Borrower, and the Trustee shall authenticate and deliver, new Bonds of like dates and denominations and in the form of Exhibit A when converting to a Short-Term Rate, Exhibit B when converting to a Rate subject to a Direct Purchase Period (other than a Fixed Rate), and Exhibit C when converting to a Medium-Term Rate not subject to a Direct Purchase Period or a Fixed Rate, all in accordance with Section 2.20. Section 1.04. Amendments to Section 2.14. Section 2.14 of the Original Indenture is hereby amended by replacing the final paragraph of Section 2.14 and replacing it with the following: page 35 8 4813-1206-6415.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, (i) for so long as the Bonds are held under the Book Entry System, transfers of beneficial ownership will be effected pursuant to rules and procedures established by the Securities Depository, and (ii) during the Direct Purchase Period the Bonds may only be transferred in Authorized Denominations to (x) an affiliate of an Owner of the Bonds, (y) a trust or custodial arrangement established by an Owner of the Bonds or one of its affiliates, the owners of the beneficial interests in which are limited to qualified institutional buyers, as defined in Rule 144A promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”), or (z) to a Person that is a qualified institutional buyer that is a commercial bank having a combined capital and surplus, determined as of the date of any transfer pursuant to this Section, of $5,000,000,000 or more that has executed and delivered to the Trustee, the Issuer and the Borrower an Investor Letter in the form of Exhibit G. Section 1.05. Insertion of New Exhibit H. The Original Indenture is hereby amended by inserting Exhibit A hereto as Exhibit H to the Original Indenture. ARTICLE II FULL FORCE AND EFFECT The Original Indenture is hereby amended to the extent provided in this First Supplement and, except as specifically provided herein, the Original Indenture shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. ARTICLE III GOVERNING LAW THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES UNDER THIS FIRST SUPPLEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 9.08 OF THE ORIGINAL INDENTURE. ARTICLE IV HEADINGS Section headings in this First Supplement are included herein for convenience of reference only and shall not have any effect for purposes of interpretation or construction of the terms of this First Supplement. ARTICLE V COUNTERPARTS This First Supplement may be signed in any number of counterpart copies, but all such copies shall constitute one and the same instrument. page 36 9 4813-1206-6415.1 ARTICLE VI REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Each party hereto represents and warrants to the other that this First Supplement has been duly authorized and validly executed by it and that the Original Indenture as hereby amended constitutes its valid obligation, enforceable in accordance with its terms, except to the extent that the enforceability thereof may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws affecting creditors’ rights generally and subject to the application of general principles of equity including but not limited to the right of specific performance. ARTICLE VII SEVERABILITY In case any one or more of the provisions contained herein should be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein shall not in any way be affected or impaired hereby. ARTICLE VIII DEFINITIONS All capitalized terms used herein and not defined shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in the Original Indenture. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] page 37 S-1 4813-1206-6415.1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Supplemental Indenture of Trust to be duly executed and delivered as of the date and year first written above. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA By: ________________________________ Name:_______________________________ Title: ________________________________ [Signature page of First Supplemental Indenture of Trust – Lexington Heights Apartments Project] page 38 S-2 4813-1206-6415.1 WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee By: Name: Title: [Signature page of First Supplemental Indenture of Trust – Lexington Heights Apartments Project] page 39 S-3 4813-1206-6415.1 Consented to and agreed to by: RILEY FAMILY LEXINGTON HEIGHTS, LLLP By: Name: Title: [Consent page of First Supplemental Indenture of Trust – Lexington Heights Apartments Project] page 40 S-4 4813-1206-6415.1 Consented to and agreed to by: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Sole Bondholder By: Name: Title: [Consent page of First Supplemental Indenture of Trust – Lexington Heights Apartments Project] page 41 A-1 EXHIBIT A TO FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST EXHIBIT H FORM OF DIRECT PURCHASE PERIOD CONVERSION NOTICE [DATE] Wells Fargo Bank, National Association 600 S 4th Street, 6th Floor MAC N9300-060 Attention: Jeff Carlson $10,570,000 City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Lexington Heights Apartments Project) Series 2013 Ladies and Gentlemen: Reference is hereby made to that: A. Indenture of Trust, dated as of August 1, 2013, as amended (the “Indenture”), between the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the “Issuer”) and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee; B. Loan Agreement dated as of August 1, 2013 (the “Agreement”), between the Issuer and Riley Family Lexington Heights, LLLP (the “Borrower”); and C. Continuing Covenant Agreement dated as of June 28, 2013 (the “Continuing Covenant Agreement”) between the Borrower and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Purchaser (the “Purchaser”). All capitalized terms contained herein which are not specifically defined shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Indenture. The Borrower hereby elects, pursuant to Section 2.04(b) of the Indenture, to change the Interest Rate Determination Method for the Bonds to a new Interest Rate Determination Method as follows: Conversion Date: __________________________________. New Interest Rate Determination Method: [Index Interest Rate Period][Medium-Term Rate Period][Fixed Rate Period]. page 42 A-2 [IF A FIXED RATE PERIOD IS SELECTED: Term of Fixed Rate Period [to Maturity]. New Fixed Rate: ________________________. [IF A M EDIUM-TERM RATE PERIOD IS SELECTED: 3. Term of new Direct Purchase Period: __________________. 4. New Medium-Term Rate: _____________________. 5. New Direct Purchase Period Purchase Date __________________. [IF AN INDEX INTEREST RATE PERIOD IS SELECTED: 3. New Index Interest Rate: [LIBOR Index Rate] [SIFMA Index Rate]. 4. New Direct Purchase Period Purchase Date: _________________________. 5. New Applicable Factor: _______%. 6. New Applicable Spread: _____ basis points (___%)[; provided, however, that in the event that any of the Obligor Ratings is reduced or falls below [“____” by Moody’s, “____” by Fitch or “____” by S&P], the number of basis points set forth opposite the rating then assigned to the Obligor Ratings under the caption “Applicable Spread” in the chart below: Obligor Ratings (lowest rating applies) Applicable Spread Moody’s Fitch S&P Al or higher A+ or higher A+ or higher _____ basis points (___%) A2 A A _____ basis points (___%) A3 A- A- _____ basis points (___%) Baal BBB+ BBB+ _____ basis points (___%) Baa2 BBB BBB _____ basis points (___%) Baa3 BBB- BBB- _____ basis points (___%) In addition, in the event that any Obligor Rating is withdrawn or suspended by [Moody’s, Fitch or S&P], the Applicable Spread shall equal _____ basis points (___%). In the event that more than one of Moody’s, Fitch or S&P has assigned an Obligor Rating and such rating agencies have not assigned equivalent Obligor Ratings, the lowest Obligor Rating assigned shall be used to determine the Applicable Spread. Any change in the Applicable Spread shall become effective on [the first LIBOR Index Reset Date] or SIFMA Rate Reset Date, as applicable, succeeding the date of announcement or publication by [Moody’s, Fitch or S&P] of a change in such Obligor Rating, or in the absence of such announcement or publication, on the effective date of such changed Obligor Rating. page 43 A-3 References to the ratings above are to rating categories as determined by Moody’s, Fitch or S&P as of the Conversion Date and, in the event of the adoption of any new or changed rating system by such rating agency, including, without limitation, any recalibration or realignment of the Obligor Rating in connection with the adoption of a “global” rating scale, the ratings from the rating agency in question referred to above shall be deemed to refer to the rating category under the new rating system which most closely approximates the applicable rating category in effect on the Conversion Date.] [IF FIXED RATE OR MEDIUM-TERM RATE IS SELECTED: The redemption provisions for the Bonds while in the new Rate Period are as follows: [INCLUDE OPTIONAL AND SINKING FUND PROVISIONS] Please be advised that the Borrower is hereby appointing Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, having due regard for prevailing market conditions for bonds or other securities comparable as to tax treatment, credit and maturity to the Bonds, to serve as Market Agent for the sole and limited purpose of determining the number of basis points (i.e. the Applicable Spread), which when added to the [SIFMA Index][the product of the LIBOR Index multiplied by the Applicable Factor], would equal the minimum interest rate per annum that would enable the Bonds to be sold on the Conversion Date at a price of par (without regard to accrued interest, if any, thereon). Very truly yours, RILEY FAMILY LEXINGTON HEIGHTS, LLLP By Name Title page 44 A-4 [Signature Page to Conversion Notice] Wells Fargo Bank, National Association hereby (i) certifies that it is the Owner of 100% of the outstanding aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, and (ii) agrees, subject to the satisfaction all requirements of the Indenture, to purchase the Bonds in the new [Index Interest Rate Period] [Medium-Term Rate Period] [Fixed Rate Period] upon the foregoing terms on the Conversion Date. All capitalized terms contained herein which are not specifically defined shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the foregoing Conversion Notice. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Purchaser By Name Title Dated: ____________, 20 ___ page 45 A-5 [Signature Page to Conversion Notice] Wells Fargo Bank, National Association hereby accepts its appointment to serve as Market Agent for the purposes set forth in the foregoing Conversion Notice. In the judgment of the Market Agent, having due regard for prevailing market conditions for bonds or other securities comparable as to tax treatment, credit and maturity to the Bonds, ____ basis points (i.e. the Applicable Spread), when added to the [SIFMA Index][the product of the LIBOR Index multiplied by the Applicable Factor], is the minimum interest rate per annum that would enable the Bonds to be sold on the Conversion Date at a price of par (without regard to accrued interest, if any, thereon). All capitalized terms contained herein which are not specifically defined shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the foregoing Conversion Notice WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Market Agent By Name Title Dated: ___________, 20____ page 46 A-6 [Signature page to Conversion Notice] Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee, hereby acknowledges and agrees to the terms of the foregoing Conversion Notice. All capitalized terms contained herein which are not specifically defined shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the foregoing Conversion Notice. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee By Name Title Dated: _________, 201__ page 47 - Request for City Council Action DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-22 Administrative Critical Area Permit for 1908 Glenhill Road Introduction Shane and Mikki Wright are requesting approval of an Administrative Critical Area Permit for their property located at 1908 Glenhill Road. Background The subject property is located in the R-1 One Family Residential zoning district, and within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. Pursuant to Title 12-3-5 of the City Code, all properties located in the critical overlay area that require any zoning action, including new construction, demolition, vegetation removal and plantings, and/or grading work requires approval of such permits prior to the commencement of any work in said area. Title 12-3-5 also provides for “administrative” level approval if certain conditions are met. Description of Request The Wright’s have hired Walker Lawn and Landscape to create a more level, useable back yard space and play area for their family. Walker Landscape will be installing an approximate 65-foot long by 3-ft. high (varying heights – according to adjacent grades) modular block retaining wall to create the additional level play area. Existing excavated soil will remain on site and be graded out. All existing drainage swales will stay as-is and not be affected by project. All disturbed areas will be re-sodded and an erosion-control plan in place at all times during, after construction and until the site has been completely restored. There will also be some re- grading around foundation to mitigate some settling issues. Analysis - Critical Area Permit According to Title 12-3-5-D of the City Code, in the case of a minor development and/or change involving a single-family dwelling, and if the site plans conform to the standards of the critical area overlay district, the city administrator shall bring the request to the attention of the city council at its next regular meeting following receipt of an application for critical area ordinance consideration. The city council shall review such request and may, if it so determines, exempt the applicant from complying with any unduly burdensome requirements of this chapter. This allowed exemption can be considered under an administrative review process, which is the case in this particular application. The proposed projects and sites must comply with the following conditions (with Staff comments noted afterwards): 1.No part of the subject property shall have slopes of greater than eighteen percent (18%). #5g page 48 Staff Comments: All new grading and removal work does not involve or include areas of slopes greater than the 18% threshold. 2.No part of the subject property shall be within forty feet (40'), whether on the same parcel or on abutting parcels of any area defined as a bluff by this chapter, or any area with slopes greater than forty percent (40%). Staff Comments: There are no bluffs on or near the property; and no work will take place in or around areas with slopes greater than 40%. 3. The proposed project shall not expand the enclosed area of the principal or accessory structures by more than one hundred forty four (144) square feet. Staff Comments: Not applicable. No physical expansion of the existing dwelling or any accessory structure is planned. 4. The proposed project shall not increase the height of any existing structure. Staff Comments: Not applicable; there is no request to revise or change the existing single-family structure on the subject property. 5.The proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this chapter, and any other applicable regulations. Staff Comment: The proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this chapter, and any other applicable regulations, including the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines. 6. The proposed project shall not result in changes to the existing finished grade. Staff Comments: Changes to the previous condition grades will be and all new or proposed grades were thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by city staff. The additional grading and fill work as requested under this application, appear to be nominal and within safe range or allowances per the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines. Based on staff’s interpretation of the intent of this provision, the scope of the project does not require Planning Commission recommendation and a public hearing; and therefore may be given full consideration and approval by the City Council only. The application materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and they responded that they had no comments on the proposed project. Discussion The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision and zoning requests and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-70 APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1908 GLENHILL ROAD. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 49 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-70 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1908 GLENHILL ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-22) WHEREAS, Shane and Mikki Wright (the “Applicants”) have applied for an Administrative Critical Area Permit to allow certain grading/fill work and a new retaining wall system, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-22 application, and located at 1908 Glenhill Road, which is legally described in Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the Critical Area Overlay District of the City of Mendota Heights, and the proposed project qualifies as a minor development under Title 12-3-5-D of the City Code provisions for properties within the Critical Area Overlay District; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is compliant with the required conditions for exemption from a public hearing to be considered directly by the City Council. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the administrative critical area permit request as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-22 is hereby approved with the finding of fact that the proposed project will have no negative impacts upon the critical corridor area or bluffs; will not impact or change any major grades or drainage ways on the property; that the proposed project will be done in accordance with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines, and meets the general purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District and City Code. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of September, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 50 Res 2017-116 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A Legal Description – 1908 GLENHILL ROAD PID: 27-81250-01-030 LOT 3, BLOCK 1, VALLEY VIEW OAK ADDITION, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA page 51 page 52 HWY 62 D S T 2ND ST 4 T H S T HUNTER LNE S T G S T SIBLEY M E M O RI AL H W Y F S T VICTORIA CUR CENTRE POINTE CUR3RD ST HWY 13 CULLIGAN LN GLENHILL RDORCHARD PL VERONICA LN HWY 62 Dakota County GIS City ofMendotaHeights0510 SCALE IN FEETDate: 8/28/2018 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. 1908 Glenhill Road(Wright residence) page 53 1903 1901 12051921 1902 1889 1920 1908 1914 1235 1199 1936 1224 1935 1247 1885 1206 1200 1230 CULLIGAN LNGLENHILL RDDakota County GIS City ofMendotaHeights080 SCALE IN FEETDate: 8/28/2018 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. 1908 Glenhill Road(Wright residence) page 54 page 55 page 56 page 57 DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Appointment of Parks and Recreation Student Representative INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve the appointment of Matthew Boland as Student Representative to the Parks and Recreation Commission. BACKGROUND The Student Representative to the Parks and Recreation Commission serves in an advisory capacity and is a communication link for ideas, observations, concerns, satisfactions and questions to the Commission. The student representative is non-voting member of the Commission and the position is open to Mendota Heights residents who attend a high school located in Mendota Heights. To fill the vacancy, staff solicited interest from area high school sophomores and juniors. Staff is recommending the appointment of Matthew Boland to serve as Student Representative to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Matthew is a junior at St. Thomas Academy and a lifelong resident of Mendota Heights. He is a multi-sport athlete, participating in football, basketball and baseball. He states that he has been a park user for many years and would enjoy learning about how the parks are maintained and managed. If approved, Matthew’s term will go through this school year, ending May 31, 2019. The opportunity for reappointment would be reviewed in the spring, prior to the end of the term. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends the appointment of Matthew Boland to serve as Student Representative to the Parks and Recreation Commission, with a term ending May 31, 2019. ACTION REQUIRED If City Council concurs, it should be motion, appoint Matthew Boland as Student Representative to the Parks and Recreation Commission with a term ending May 31, 2019. #5h page 58 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for Basketball System and Tennis/Pickle Ball Systems COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize a purchase order for an online purchase of basketball nets (2), tennis court nets (2) and pickle ball nets (8). BACKGROUND City Council authorized improvements to the Marie Park basketball court and tennis court. In addition to the above listed items, the Parks and Recreation Commission made a recommendation to improve and expand pickle ball in the two paved hockey rinks (Marie & Friendly Hills) DISCUSSION Public Works has worked with BSN Sports on previous recreation purchases. Staff received a quote from BSN sports for the purchase of two adjustable basketball systems ($1500/each), two tennis court net systems and center anchors ($255/each), and 8 pickle ball net systems with nets ($338/each). It is proposed that a quote will be needed yet to install the nets on the hockey rink next spring. The post sleeves have caps that will not interfere with winter usage. The total price for this order is $6,214. BUDGET IMPACT The costs of this purchase is proposed to be paid for out of the Special Park Fund. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the Council authorize the purchase order for the Basketball, Tennis and Pickle ball systems to BSN Sports. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize staff to execute a purchase order to BSN Sports for $6,214. This action requires a simple majority vote. #5i page 59 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Ordinance 531 All Way Stop Intersection – South Lane and Mendota Road COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve Ordinance 531 amending City Code; Title 6, Chapter 3 designating an All Way Stop Intersection at South Lane and Mendota Road. BACKGROUND The City has received calls periodically regarding speeding on Mendota Road for a number of years. Mendota Road was previously a frontage road to Highway 110/62. Due to the narrow separation between this road and the highway, traffic on that street tends pace itself with the highway traffic. City staff collected data with the city data collection device and also had tube counters placed during its MSA street traffic count collection project. Results from this data showed a number of vehicle approaching 70 MPH. DISCUSSION The Traffic Safety Committee met on August 6, 2018 and discussed this speeding issue. The Committee unanimously voted in favor of adding a stop sign at South Lane. This is an unusual recommendation from the Committee as stop signs are designed to assign right-of-way versus attempting to control speed. Due to the conditions present being adjacent to the highway, the Committee felt a stop sign would be warranted. BUDGET IMPACT Public Works Staff will need to purchase and install two stop signs for approximately $150 each. RECOMMENDATION The recommendation from the Traffic Safety Committee is to add stop signs on Mendota Road at South Lane. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the city council pass a motion adopting Ordinance 531, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY CODE”. This action requires a simple majority vote. #5j page 60 City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 531 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3, OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains as follows: The following streets are hereby added to be designated as All-Way Stop Intersections to Title 6, Chapter 3, Section 1, Paragraph B of the City Code: South Lane and Mendota Road This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this fourth day of September, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST: By___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 61 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Accepting Wetland Delineation Report for the Lemay Lake Protection Project COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked approve a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) permit application for boundary and type of wetland. BACKGROUND The City Council of Mendota Heights is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) that administers the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). A wetland delineation report for the Lemay Lake Protection Project was initiated by staff to address residents’ concerns with the Michaels Development and existing erosion from the Augusta Shores Development. This delineation was done on an Outlot to the Augusta Shores development which covered by a drainage and utility easement. DISCUSSION The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data showed a potential water feature on the site. The purpose of this report was to determine if wetlands truly exist on the site. A professional consultant was hired by the City and they determined that the feature does exist and delineated the boundaries. Staff met with Dakota County SWCD on site and concurred with the boundaries as submitted in the report. Staff will use these delineated boundaries to work with a consultant on installing secondary treatment to the storm water discharge from Augusta Shores and the Michaels Development. BUDGET IMPACT None, this process is a judicial requirement of the city. If council accepts the report a Notice of Decision will be sent to respective agencies (Dakota County SWCD, BWSR, LMRWMO, Army Corps.) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that council approve and accept the report as submitted by Jacobson Environmental, PLLC for their determination of wetland boundaries and direct staff to issue the Notice of Decision. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion accepting the delineation report and authorizing staff to issue a Notice of Decision. This action requires a simple majority vote. #5k page 62 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT 08/08/2018 Jacobson Environmental, PLLC jacobsonenv@msn.com 2018-213 Ruzek Lemay Lake Mendota Heights, MN page 63 Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW’s-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans 1 Table of Contents 1.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 EXISTING INFORMATION REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 Antecedent Precipitation ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory ....................................................................................................... 3 2.1.3 Web Soil Survey ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.4 Public Waters Inventory ............................................................................................................... 3 2.1.5 Topographic Map ......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 FIELD DELINEATION ............................................................................................................................. 3 2.2.1 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Hydric Soils ................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Cautions Used in Applying the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils .................................................... 5 3.0 RESULTS................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 WETLAND BASIN DESCRIPTIONS ......................................................................................................... 6 4.0 CONFIRMATION OF JURISDICTIONAL STATUS ........................................................................................ 7 5.0 CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Appendices Appendix A Antecedent Precipitation Data Appendix B Sample Data Sheets Appendix C Site Photographs Appendix D Wetland Type and Boundary Approval Forms Figures Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 National Wetland Inventory Map Figure 3 Soils Map Figure 4 Public Waters Inventory Map Figure 5 Delineation Map Figure 6 Topographic Map Figure 7 Hydric rating Map page 64 Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW’s-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans 2 1.0 SUMMARY Jacobson Environmental, PLLC (JE) visited the project site at the corner of Lemay Lake Drive and Acacia Boulevard, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 on August 2, 2018. The site was approximately 5.5 acres in size, and was located at Sec. 27, T28N, R23W. See Figure 1 for a Site Location Map. The purpose of the investigation was to identify areas within the project boundary meeting the technical criteria for wetlands, delineate the jurisdictional extent of the wetland basins, and classify the wetland habitat according to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation: Midwest Region. Wetlands are areas that are saturated or inundated with surface and or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in hydric soil conditions. Examples of wetlands include seasonally flooded basins, floodplain forests, wet meadows, shallow and deep marshes, shrub swamps, wooded swamps, fens, and bogs. Wetland boundaries were determined through a routine analysis of the vegetation, soils and hydrology which must all show wetland characteristics for an area to be delineated as a wetland. Two basins were delineated within the project area, which are summarized below and shown on Figure 5. Basin ID Circular 39 Cowardin Eggers & Reed Dominant Vegetation Size (acres) 1 Type 3 PEM1C Shallow marsh Reed Canary Grass, Narrowleaf Cattail, Jewelweed 0.153 2 Type 1 PFO1Ad Hardwood Swamp (ditched) American Elm, Cottonwood 0.116 All figures and appendices referenced by this report are presented at the end of the text. This wetland delineation was performed by Jacobson Environmental, PLLC under the direction of Wayne Jacobson, Minnesota Professional Soil Scientist #30611, Society of Wetland Scientists – Professional Wetland Scientist #1000, University of Minnesota / BWSR Wetland Delineator, Certified #1019, American Fisheries Society – Associate Fisheries Scientist #A-171. page 65 Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW’s-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans 3 2.0 METHODS 2.1 EXISTING INFORMATION REVIEW Prior to field delineation, Jacobson Environmental reviewed the following information: 2.1.1 Antecedent Precipitation The previous three month’s precipitation data obtained from the Minnesota State Climatology Office suggest that the sampling period occurred under normal conditions. Antecedent precipitation data can be found in Appendix A. The growing season in this area is approximately from mid-April to mid-October, when the air temperature averages above 28 degrees F. This delineation was completed during the growing season. 2.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) identified one PFO1A wetland complex within the property boundary (Figure 2). 2.1.3 Web Soil Survey The National Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (Figure 7) identified the following soils: Soil Hydric Rating Kennebec silt loam 0 Kingsley-Mahtomedi complex 0 2.1.4 Public Waters Inventory The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Public Waters Inventory shows that one public water (Lemay Lake) exists on the property (Figure 4). 2.1.5 Topographic Map A topographic map with aerial photo overlay was obtained from MnTOPO (Figure 6). This map was reviewed for suspected wetland areas based on topography and vegetative cover. 2.2 FIELD DELINEATION page 66 Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW’s-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans 4 The wetlands on the subject property were delineated using the routine determination methodology set forth in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation: Midwest Region as follows: 1) The vegetative community was sampled in all present strata to determine whether 50% of the dominant plant species were hydrophytic using the 50/20 method. 2) Soil pits were dug using a Dutch auger to depths of 18”-40”, noting soil profiles and any hydric soil characteristics. 3) Signs of wetland hydrology were noted and were compared to field criteria such as depth to shallow water table and depth of soil saturation found in the soil pits. Transects were established in representative areas of each wetland. Each transect consisted of one sample point within the wetland and one sample point in upland. Other areas which have one or more of the wetland vegetation, soils, or hydrologic characteristics present, or where questionable conditions exist may also have been sampled. Data sheets for each sample point are available in Appendix B. Wetland classifications discussed in the text are set forth in Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31, Cowardin et al. 1979) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39, Shaw and Fredine, 1971.) Additionally, plant community types as named by Eggers and Reed (1998) are given. Wetland edges were marked with “wetland boundary” flagging tape tied on vegetation. Sample points are marked with orange numbered pin flags. Any wetlands or sample points were mapped using GPS. 2.2.1 Vegetation The plant species within the parcel were cataloged and assigned a wetland indicator status according to: Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin, 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings, Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. In the text of this report and on the enclosed data forms, the plant indicator status follows the plant’s scientific name unless a status has not been assigned. The hydrophytic plant criterion is met when more than 50 percent of the dominant species by the 50/20 rule for each stratum (herb, shrub/sapling, tree, and woody vine) were assigned an obligate (OBL)1, facultative wet (FACW), and/or facultative (FAC) wetland status. 1 OBL=Obligate Wetland, occurs an estimated 99% in wetlands. FACW=Facultative Wetland, has an estimated 67%-99% probability of occurrence in wetlands. FAC=Facultative, is equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands, 34%-66% probability. FACU=Facultative Upland, occurs in wetlands only occasionally, 1%-23% probability. UPL=Upland, almost never occurs in wetlands, <1% probability. NI= No Indicator, insufficient information available to determine an indicator status. Positive or negative sign previously indicated a frequency toward higher (+) or lower (-) frequency of occurrence within a category. page 67 Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW’s-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans 5 With the 50/20 rule, dominants are generally measured by absolute % cover in each stratum which individually or collectively account for more than 50% of total vegetative cover in the stratum, plus any other species which itself accounts for at least 20% of the total vegetative cover. 2.2.2 Hydric Soils A hydric soil is a soil formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. If a soil exhibits the indicators of a hydric soil or is identified as a hydric soil the hydric soil criterion is met. The break between hydric and non-hydric soils was determined by excavating soil pits along transects crossing the wetland/upland eco-tone and evaluating the soil colors, textures, and presence or absence of redoximorphic indicators (i.e., mottles, gley or oxidized rhizospheres). Hydric Soil Indicators for the Midwest Region were noted as presented in the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States version 8.1 (USDA NRCS 2017) if present at each sample point. Upper soil profiles were also compared to the mapped or inclusionary soil series found in the sample area for soil identification purposes. 2.2.3 Cautions Used in Applying the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils There are hydric soils with morphologies that are difficult to interpret. These include soils with black, gray, or red parent material; soils with high pH; soils high or low in content of organic matter; recently developed hydric soils, and soils high in iron inputs. In some cases, we do not currently have indicators to assist in the identification of hydric soils in these situations. If the soil meets the definition of a hydric soil, the lack of an indicator does not preclude the soil from being hydric. The indicators were developed mostly to identify the boundary of hydric soil areas and generally work best on the margins. Not all the obviously wetter hydric soils will be identified by the indicators. Redoximorphic features are most likely to occur in soils that cycle between anaerobic (reduced) and aerobic (oxidized) conditions. Morphological features of hydric soils indicate that saturation and anaerobic conditions have existed under either contemporary or former hydrologic regimes. Where soil morphology seems inconsistent with the landscape, vegetation, or observable hydrology, it may be necessary to obtain the assistance of an experienced soil or wetland scientist to determine whether the soil is hydric. To clarify, when investigating hydric soils in this area, one must consider the following: x Many of these soils have black or gray parent materials. x Many of the soils have a high organic matter content. x The hydric soil margin is typically higher than the wetland boundary margin on the site. x Not all the obviously wetter soils will be identified by the indicators. x Many of the hydric soils are Mollisols which are classic problem hydric soils in many cases. page 68 Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW’s-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans 6 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 WETLAND BASIN DESCRIPTIONS Basin 1 Basin 1 was an approximately 0.153-acre, type 3, PEM1C, shallow marsh wetland along the shore of Lemay Lake. The OHW for Lemay Lake is 835’. The basin was dominated by Reed Canary Grass (FACW), Jewelweed (FACW), and Narrowleaf Cattail (OBL). Hydrology indicators included A2 (high water table) and A3 (saturation). Wetland soils met indicators A11 (depleted below dark surface). Adjacent upland was typically dominated by Common Buckthorn (FAC), Green Ash (FACW), Red Oak (FACU), and Bur Oak (FAC). Primary hydrology indicators were not observed at the upland sample point, and no hydric soil indicators were found in the upland sample point soil. The wetland boundary followed a change in vegetation from wetland to upland plant communities, as well as a distinct change in topography. The basin was partially shown as a PFO1A wetland on the NWI map (Figure 2) and was located within an area mapped as Kennebec silt loam (RATING=0) and Kingsley- Mahtomedi complex (RATING=0) by the Web Soil Survey (Figure 7). Sample data sheets 1-UP and 1-WET in Appendix B correspond to this basin. Basin 2 Basin 2 was an approximately 0.116-acre, type 1, PFO1Ad, hardwood swamp (ditched) wetland. The basin was dominated by American Elm (FACW) and Cottonwood (FAC). The basin drains into basin 1 and then into Lemay Lake through a ditch (see photos in Appendix C). Hydrology indicators included B8 (sparsely vegetated concave surface), F2 (geomorphic position) and F5 (FAC neutral test). Wetland soils met indicators F6 (redox dark surface). Adjacent upland was typically dominated by Common Buckthorn (FAC) and Box Elder (FAC). Primary hydrology indicators were not observed at the upland sample point, and no hydric soil indicators were found in the upland sample point soil. The wetland boundary followed a change in vegetation from wetland to upland plant communities, as well as a gradual change in topography. The basin was shown as a PFO1A wetland on the NWI map (Figure 2) and was located within an area mapped as Kennebec silt loam (RATING=0) by the Web Soil Survey (Figure 7). page 69 Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW’s-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans 7 Sample data sheets 2-UP and 2-WET in Appendix B correspond to this basin. 4.0 CONFIRMATION OF JURISDICTIONAL STATUS Jacobson Environmental is submitting this report to the client and regulatory agencies to request a wetland boundary and type determination. We have enclosed an official WCA Approval of Wetland Type and Boundary form in Appendix D along with a USCOE wetland delineation concurrence request. 5.0 CERTIFICATION I certify that this wetland delineation meets the standards and criteria described in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation: Midwest Region. This was a Routine On-Site Determination and the results reflect the conditions present at the time of the delineation. I certify that this report has been prepared in accordance with regulatory standards. Thank you for the opportunity to provide wetland services on this important project. If any wetland impacts are planned for this project, permits would be necessary from the LGU and other agencies. 08/08/2018 page 70 page 71 Map data ©2018 Google 1000 ft Figure 1 Site MapSitepage 72 page 73 6RLO0DS²'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD )LJXUH6RLOV0DS 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV &RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH :HE6RLO6XUYH\ 1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\  3DJHRI  44° 52' 44'' N 93° 9' 44'' W44° 52' 44'' N93° 9' 32'' W44° 52' 34'' N 93° 9' 44'' W44° 52' 34'' N 93° 9' 32'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84      Feet    Meters Map Scale: 1:1,590 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. page 74 0DS8QLW/HJHQG 0DS8QLW6\PERO 0DS8QLW1DPH $FUHVLQ$2,3HUFHQWRI$2, .HQQHEHFVLOWORDP  (.LQJVOH\0DKWRPHGLFRPSOH[ WRSHUFHQWVORSHV  ::DWHU  7RWDOVIRU$UHDRI,QWHUHVW  6RLO0DS²'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD )LJXUH6RLOV0DS 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV &RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH :HE6RLO6XUYH\ 1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\  3DJHRI page 75 page 76 page 77 00.0250.050.0750.0125MilesThe State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources makes no representationsor warranties expressed or implied, with respect to the use of maps or geographic data providedherewith regardless of its format or the means of its transmission. There is no guarantee or representation to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability, or reliability of this datafor any purpose. The user accepts the data “as is." The State of Minnesota assumes no responsibility for loss or damage incurred as a result of any user reliance on this data. All maps and other material provided herein are protected by copyright. Extreme care was used during the compilation of this product. However, due to changes in ownership and the need to rely on outside information, errors or omissions may exist. If you should discover an oversight, we encourage you to let us know by calling the DNR at 1-888-646-6367 or by e-mail at info.dnr@state.mn.us.Note: Elevation images and contours were generated from LiDAR derived elevation surfaces acquired 2007-2012.³Created on 8/7/2018Figure 6 Topographic Map1:3,381Scale:page 78 +\GULF5DWLQJE\0DS8QLW²'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD )LJXUH+\GULF5DWLQJ0DS 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV &RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH :HE6RLO6XUYH\ 1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\  3DJHRI  44° 52' 44'' N 93° 9' 44'' W44° 52' 44'' N93° 9' 32'' W44° 52' 34'' N 93° 9' 44'' W44° 52' 34'' N 93° 9' 32'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84      Feet    Meters Map Scale: 1:1,590 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. page 79 +\GULF5DWLQJE\0DS8QLW 0DSXQLWV\PERO 0DSXQLWQDPH 5DWLQJ $FUHVLQ$2,3HUFHQWRI$2, .HQQHEHFVLOWORDP  (.LQJVOH\0DKWRPHGL FRPSOH[WR SHUFHQWVORSHV  ::DWHU  7RWDOVIRU$UHDRI,QWHUHVW  5DWLQJ2SWLRQV $JJUHJDWLRQ0HWKRG3HUFHQW3UHVHQW &RPSRQHQW3HUFHQW&XWRII1RQH6SHFLILHG 7LHEUHDN5XOH/RZHU +\GULF5DWLQJE\0DS8QLW²'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD )LJXUH+\GULF5DWLQJ0DS 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV &RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH :HE6RLO6XUYH\ 1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\  3DJHRI page 80 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize Professional Services Contract for the Wentworth Warming House COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize a professional services contract with CNH Architects for a feasibility study relating to the Wentworth Park warming house replacement. BACKGROUND City Council requested a replacement of the Wentworth Park warming house to be considered for expansion including restrooms, additional storage and other amenities. The Parks & Recreation Commission discussed this item at the August meeting and concurred that an expanded structure would provide additional benefits to the park. DISCUSSION Staff discussed this project with CNH Architects which is the consultant providing services to Mendota Heights for the Fire Station Expansion project. CNH Architects submitted a quote to provide a feasibility study on this project for a fixed fee of $4,100. The feasibility study is proposed to include an assessment of space needs, schematic floor plans, exterior image options, and a preliminary cost estimate. BUDGET IMPACT The costs of this study is proposed to be paid for out of the Special Park Fund. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the Council authorize a professional services contract with CNH Architects for a feasibility study of the Wentworth Park warming house. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize staff to execute an agreement with CNH Architects for the Wentworth Park Warming House Feasibility Study for a fixed fee of $4,100. This action requires a simple majority vote. #5l page 81 7300 West 147th St, Suite 504, Apple Valley, MN 55124 | 952.431.4433 | www.cnharch.com | Page 1 PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES PROJECT:Predevelopment Feasibility Study – Wentworth Warming House CNH NO.:18079 CLIENT:City of Mendota Heights August 30, 2018 Ryan Ruzek Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 DESCRIPTION This Predevelopment Feasibility Study will evaluate a 30x40 foot warming house and restroom structure proposed for Wentworth Park. The study will look at possible floor plans, site layouts, code requirements, and exterior image options. Based on input from the City, a final concept plan and image would be provided and a cost estimate developed for the proposed project. GENERAL We propose to perform our services in the following parts: PREDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY Our services for this part of the work consist of a preliminary floor plan, site plan and exterior image options, as well as a general review of city ordinance requirements and building code implications. The services will include revisions to the selected option and a preliminary project budget. SERVICES PROVIDED Development of general program of space needs Preliminary review of building codes Preliminary review of city site planning requirements Walk-through of existing site Schematic site plan options Schematic floor plan options Refinement of selected floor plan option Refinement of selected site plan option Exterior image options for proposed buildings Refinement of selected exterior image option page 82 7300 West 147th St, Suite 504, Apple Valley, MN 55124 | 952.431.4433 | www.cnharch.com | Page 2 3D image rendering Preliminary building section and structural concept Preliminary cost estimate and master budget development Meetings with Client as required SERVICES NOT PROVIDED Construction Documents Structural design Mechanical/Electrical design Civil design Survey Construction Documents Structural design Mechanical/Electrical design Civil design Survey FEE We propose the services indicated above for the following fixed fee, plus reimbursable expenses as indicated below. This proposal fee is valid for 90 days from the date of this document. Predevelopment Feasibility Study $ 4,100 INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO US In a timely manner: Site plan backgrounds to the extent available AGREEMENT The fee is due within 30 days of monthly invoices. A finance charge of 1.5% per month will be charge to unpaid bills after 30 days. We understand that payment is not contingent on project financing, land closings, payment from others, governing ordinance approvals and/or any other contingency not incorporated into this agreement. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Reimbursable expenses include the following items and will be billed as they occur: Miscellaneous B&W and color printing at cost Miscellaneous postage, and shipping at cost Mileage, at IRS designated rate page 83 7300 West 147th St, Suite 504, Apple Valley, MN 55124 | 952.431.4433 | www.cnharch.com | Page 3 SCHEDULE CNH Architects is available to begin this project within two weeks of acceptance of this proposal. A project schedule can be determined as the project proceeds. We appreciate your using us for this work and look forward to proceeding with the project. Sincerely, Quinn S. Hutson, AIA, LEED AP Principal CNH Architects, Inc ACCEPTED BY: Signature: _____________________________ Name: _____________________________ Title: _____________________________ Date: ____________________________ page 84 DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Animal Impound Agreement INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a contract with the South St. Paul Animal Hospital for animal control services. BACKGROUND Title Five, Chapter Three of Mendota Heights Code permits the City Council to designate a suitable animal kennel for impounded animals. Currently, the Mendota Heights Police Department works with 4 Paws Animal Control in Shakopee. Residents have contacted the Police Department and suggested we use a service closer to our community. In 2017, the City prepared a request for proposal for animal impounding. We did not receive any proposals. In 2018, Captain Wegener reached out to local animal hospitals and worked with Dr. David Abramowicz of South St. Paul Animal Hospital and prepared the attached municipal animal pound agreement. If approved, this would be effective retroactive to September 1, 2018. It has a term of one year, during which time any need for modifications could be judged, and could be incorporated into future contract renewals. BUDGET IMPACT There is currently a monthly fee of $300 for the City to use 4 Paws Animal Control. In addition to the monthly fee, 4 Paws charges per animal they impound, $45.00 to pick up the animal and a boarding fee of $10.00 per day. South St. Paul Animal Hospital will not charge a monthly fee, thus saving the city $3,600 per year. The fees associated with an animal impounded at South St. Paul animal hospital will not exceed $281.00 per animal. RECOMMENDATION The City Council approves the attached agreement authorizing the Mendota Heights Police Department to use South St. Paul Animal Hospital for animal impounds #5m page 85 MUNICIPAL ANIMAL POUND AGREEMENT This MUNICIPAL ANIMAL POUND AGREEMENT, dated as of September 1, 2018, by and between the City of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation and political subdivision, and Dr. David Abramowicz (each being sometimes referred to as “Party”, or collectively as “Parties”). WHEREAS, Title Five, Chapter Three of the Code, specifically Section 5-3-7A, provides for a private kennel located inside or outside of the City to be the Municipal Animal Pound for the impounding of Animals found in violation of Title Five, Chapter Three of the Code, or the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Dr. David Abramowicz, a licensed veterinarian, owns and operates an animal hospital and a kennel known as South St. Paul Animal Hospital PA, located at 501 North Concord Street, South St. Paul, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to operate the Municipal Animal Pound upon the terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows: ARTICLE ONE Definitions Section 1.01. Definitions. When used in this Agreement, the following words or phrases have the following meanings and the following definitions shall be equally applicable to both the singular and plural forms of any of the terms herein defined: “Agreement” means this Municipal Animal Pound Agreement, as it may be amended, supplemented or restated from time to time. “Animal” means a dog. “City” means the City of Mendota Heights. “Municipal Animal Pound” or “Pound” means the South St. Paul Animal Hospital PA, 501 North Concord Street, South St. Paul, Minnesota. “Code” means the Mendota Heights City Code. “Abramowicz” means Dr. David Abramowicz. Certain other terms capitalized but not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in Title Five, Chapter Three of the Code. page 86 ARTICLE TWO The Agreement Section 2.01. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to define the rights and obligations of the City and Abramowicz with respect to the operation of the Pound throughout the term of this Agreement. Section 2.02. Cooperation. The City and Abramowicz will cooperate and use their best efforts to ensure the most expeditious implementation of the various provisions of this Agreement. The Parties agree in good faith to undertake resolution of disputes, if any, in an equitable and timely manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Unforeseen problems and situations involving this Agreement on any additional concerns not covered herein, can be resolved by having an open discussion with Abramowicz and a representative of the City. Section 2.03. Term. This Agreement shall remain in effect for one (1) year commencing September 1, 2018, unless either party gives written notice for termination as articulated in Section 6.05 of this Agreement. Section 2.04. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct as of the date of this Agreement and constitute a part of this Agreement. ARTICLE THREE Designation of Pound Section 3.01. Pound Designation. The City hereby designates the South St. Paul Animal Hospital, PA as the Municipal Animal Pound and suitable kennel for the City, pursuant to Title Five, Chapter Three, and more specifically Section 5-3-7A of the Code. ARTICLE FOUR Abramowicz’s Obligations Section 4.01. Impoundment. Abramowicz shall confine Animals in the Pound delivered there by police officers or the community service officers of the City, for the time periods required by this Agreement, and dispose of unclaimed Animals as provided herein, and with the understanding that not more than eight (8) Animals delivered by the City may be confined at any time. If Animals are delivered to the Pound that will result in the maximum number of Animals confined being exceeded, Abramowicz will use his best efforts to find appropriate boarding facilities for them. The City shall not be held responsible or liable for any damages accruing from a failure of Abramowicz to procure appropriate back-up boarding facilities. Section 4.02. Pound Condition. The Pound shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. page 87 Section 4.03. Animal Care. Animals impounded in the Pound shall receive kind treatment, sufficient food and water for the Animal’s comfort, and proper care and shelter. Section 4.04. Pound Hours. (a) The Pound shall be open to the public from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday. The Pound will not be open to the public on Sunday or on legal holidays. (b) Police officers and the community service officers of the City shall have access to the Pound 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Section 4.05. Holding Periods. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, impounded Animals shall be confined for six (6) calendar days, unless sooner claimed by the owner. (b) If an Animal is known to be or suspected of being rabid, regardless of whether it has bitten a person, it must be confined in the Pound for not less than ten (10) days. Section 4.06. Kennel License. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Abramowicz shall maintain a kennel license issued by the State of Minnesota for the Pound. An updated license shall promptly be provided to the City. Section 4.07. Claimed Animals; Fees. Prior to the release of a claimed Animal to its owner, Abramowicz shall collect in cash, or immediately available funds, the impound fee, boarding fee, and medical fee, if any. An Animal shall not be released unless it has a valid license issued by the City, or municipality in which the Owner lives, as the case may be. Section 4.08. Unclaimed Animals; Disposal. Unclaimed Animals are to be disposed of after the six (6) day period. The purpose of the definition of “Disposal” is to prevent a misunderstanding in regards to the term, and thereby avoid any unforeseen legal liability as a result of action taken by South St. Paul Animal Hospital PA. It is agreed that when an impounded Animal comes to the end of its six (6) days stay, it is to be disposed of. Typically, this term means euthanasia. However, it is understood that in the humanitarian interest of the City, Animals may be disposed of in other ways that South St. Paul Animal Hospital PA sees fit. This can include, but not limited to, keeping the Animal longer than the six (6) day period in order that the Animal may be spared and placed in a home or shelter. Keeping Animals beyond the typical six (6) day holding period is discretionary on the part of South St. Paul Animal Hospital PA, and no liability shall attach under this Agreement for such a decision. No additional charges will be payable by the City beyond the Disposal fee. All additional costs beyond the six (6) days shall be the responsibility of South St. Paul Animal Hospital PA. The Animals are not to be sold for research or any other purpose that the Minnesota Board of Animal Health would consider unethical. Section 4.09. Insurance. Abramowicz, at his cost, shall at times during the term of this Agreement, have and keep in force insurance in an amount not less than $10,000 for property damage arising from one occurrence, $200,000 for personal injuries or death, and $600,000 for personal injuries or death arising out of a single occurrence. The City shall be named as an page 88 additional insured under the policy. Any policy maintained under this section shall provide that it shall not be canceled, materially changed, or not renewed without sixty (60) days prior written notice by the insurer to the City. Abramowicz shall furnish a certificate or certificates showing such insurance in effect. ARTICLE FIVE Fees; Payment Section 5.01. Fees. The following fees shall be charged: (a)Impound fee: $25.00; (b)Boarding fee: (i)$21.00 per day or fraction thereof for an Animal. (c)Disposal Fee: (i)$60.00 for an Animal under 50 pounds, (ii)$80.00 for an Animal 50 pounds or more. (d)Medical fee to stabilize an Animal for the confinement period: $50.00 maximum. (e) After the first year of this Agreement and each year thereafter until the Agreement terminates, Abramowicz may increase the disposal fees articulated in item “c” above once per year and by no more than 10% of the then-current disposal fee rate. Notification of an increase in disposal fees shall be done to the City’s Police Chief in writing and at least 90 days before such an increase will take effect. Section 5.02. Fees Payment. The City shall pay the boarding fee, disposal fee and medical fee with regard to each unclaimed Animal. Uncontested fees shall be paid within 30 days following receipt by the City of the fee statement. Section 5.03. Monthly Statement; Activity Report. Abramowicz shall monthly submit a written statement to the City of all fees earned in the preceding month. At the same time, Abramowicz shall remit to the City all fees collected in the preceding month. The monthly statement shall show for each type of Animal in the preceding month (a) the number impounded, (b) the number of days each Animal was confined, (c) the disposal costs, (d) medical costs, and (e) the number placed for adoption. The City shall make payment to Abramowicz for services including boarding, disposal, and medical treatment of Animals where an owner cannot be found. ARTICLE SIX Default; Termination page 89 Section 6.01. Events of Default. The persistent or repeated failure or refusal by a Party to fulfill its material obligations under this Agreement shall constitute an Event of Default on the part of the defaulting Party. Section 6.02. Opportunity to Cure. No event set forth in this Article shall constitute an Event of Default giving rise to the right to terminate unless and until (a) written notice is given to the defaulting Party, specifying that a particular Event(s) of Default exists which will, unless corrected within a reasonable period of time which shall be not less than five (5) days, constitute a material breach of this Agreement on the part of the defaulting Party, and (b) the defaulting Party has not corrected such default within such reasonable period of time, or, if the default cannot be cured within such five-day time period, the defaulting Party is diligently working to cure the default. Section 6.03. Unavoidable Delay. Unavoidable Delay means a delay resulting from a cause over which the Party required to make performance does not have control and which cannot or could not have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care, including but not limited to acts of God, accidents, war, civil unrest, embargoes, strikes, litigation not filed by the defaulting Party, and delays of other the Party or its contractors, employees, or agents in the performance of their duties under this Agreement. Section 6.04. Performance Excused. In the event of an Unavoidable Delay, the inability or delay in the performance of any of the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be excused and shall not constitute an Event of Default. Section 6.05. Termination. Either Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement if an Event of Default as defined in Section 6.1 on the part of the other Party has occurred. A Party shall give ninety (90) days written notice of termination to the other Party. No termination shall limit or otherwise affect the respective rights and obligations of either Party accrued prior to the date of such termination. ARTICLE SEVEN General Provisions Section 7.01. Notices. All notices, requests, or other communications required or permitted to be given or made under this Agreement by either Party hereto shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given or served if delivered personally to or sent by United States registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the Party intended to receive such notice, at the addresses set forth below , or at such other addresses as the Parties may designate from time to time by notice given to the other Party in the manner hereinbefore set forth: If to City: ATTN: Chief of Police City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 90 If to Abramowicz: Dr. David Abramowicz 501 North Concord Street South St. Paul, MN 55075 In the case of a mailed notice by certified mail, the registration or certification slip, and not the return slip shall be conclusive evidence of the mailing date of any such notice. All mailed notices are deemed delivered 72 hours after deposit in a regularly maintained United States Post Office mail box in Minnesota, or upon personal delivery. Section 7.02. Further Action. The Parties agree to execute such further documents, and take such further actions, as may be reasonably required or expedient to carry out the provisions and intentions of this Agreement, or any agreement or document relating hereto or entered into in connection herewith. Section 7.03. Assignment. Neither Party’s rights nor obligations hereunder shall be assignable without the prior written consent of the other Party. Section 7.04. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Section 7.05. Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior agreements and contains the entire agreement of the Parties and all representations with respect to the subject matter hereof. Any prior correspondence, memoranda, or agreements are replaced in total by this Agreement. Section 7.06. Amendments. Any amendments to this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by all Parties. Section 7.07. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, any one of which shall be deemed to be an original, but such counterparts when taken together shall constitute but one agreement. Section 7.08. Captions. Captions are for convenience only and shall not be deemed part of the contents of this Agreement. Section 7.09. Parties in Interest. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure solely to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their permitted assigns, and nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied, is intended to confer upon any other person any rights or remedies of any nature under or by reason of this Agreement. Section 7.10. Waiver. The waiver of any of the rights or remedies arising pursuant to this Agreement on any one occasion by any Party shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies in respect to any subsequent breath or default of the terms of this Agreement. page 91 Section 7.11. Conflict of Interest. Abramowicz represents and warrants that no member, official, officer, or employee of the City has or shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. Section 7.12. Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Information supplied by Abramowicz to the City is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (the “Act”), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, as amended. Such information is public data unless it falls into one of the exceptions in the Act. Abramowicz shall notify the City of any data that Abramowicz believes is classified as non-public data. Section 7.13. Indemnification. Except in the case of willful misconduct or negligence of a Party, to the fullest extent permitted by law, each Party shall indemnify and hold harmless the other, its agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees, arising out of the execution of this Agreement by the other Party, or arising out of the performance or non-performance of the obligations hereunder by the other Party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Abramowicz has executed this Agreement and the City has caused the Agreement to be executed by its authorized representatives, as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By: ______________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor By: ______________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk ABRAMOWICZ ______________________________________ Dr. David Abramowicz page 92 DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Visitation School INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for the Convent of the Visitation School, for a fundraising event to be held On September 21st. BACKGROUND Pursuant to State Statutes and Mendota Heights City Code, no person shall sell or give away liquor without first having received a license. Temporary On-Sale Liquor licenses shall be granted only to clubs and charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations for the sale of intoxicating liquor. The licenses are subject to final approval by the Director of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement. Visitation School, located at 2455 Visitation Drive, is planning to hold an Alumni Reunion fundraising event on Friday, September 21st. They have requested a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages on that night. Visitation School has submitted the application and a certificate of insurance for showing liquor liability for the events. Visitation School will be required to have security on duty while liquor is being served. It should be noted that Temporary On-Sale Liquor licenses have been issued in the past to Visitation School and other charitable, nonprofit and religious organizations within the City with no incidents or negative reports. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends the City Council approve a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Convent of the Visitation School for September 21, 2018 subject to approval of the Director of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement. #5n page 93 DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: July Par 3 Update and Financial Report COMMENT: BACKGROUND Attached is the July Par 3 Financial Report. During the month of July, the course had a total of 1,744 rounds of golf played. The total monthly revenue for July was $25,180, which includes greens fees, recreation programs and concessions. The year-to-date revenue total is $96,340 (months of May, June, and July). The year’s year-to-date revenue total is down from last year’s due to the course not being open in April of 2018 because of the late spring in Minnesota. July expenditures totaled $17,625. The year-to-date expenditure total is $91,041. The course currently has a profit of $5,299 for the 2018 season. Unless there are more equipment repairs needed in 2018 staff does not foresee any large expenses this calendar year. Staff hopes to keep the course open through October of 2018, but the close date will be weather dependent. #5opage 94 MONTHLY EXPENDITURE REPORT JULY 2018 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3 BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT July 2018 (58.33% OF YEAR) JULY REVENUES JULY YTD YTD YTD BUDGET 2018 2018 %2017 GREENS, LEAGUE & TOURN FEES $110,000 $19,843 $55,276 50.25%$56,118 RECREATION PROGRAMS $38,000 $895 $29,782 78.37%$37,784 CONCESSIONS $20,000 $4,426 $11,219 56.09%$11,737 SUNDRY REVENUE $0 $17 $63 100.00%$416 INTEREST $250 $0 $0 0.00%$0 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS $0 $0 $0 0.00%$0 PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $168,250 $25,180 $96,340 57.26%$106,055 EXPENDITURES JULY YTD YTD YTD BUDGET 2018 2018 %2017 CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $30,000 $5,666 $14,777 49.26%$14,139 ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $21,579 $1,929 $10,179 47.17%$12,426 FICA/PERA $9,267 $1,062 $3,839 41.42%$4,766 MEDICAL INSURANCE $6,336 $528 $3,696 58.33%$2,754 U/E & W/C INSURANCE $1,892 -$47 $2,238 118.30%$2,059 RENTALS $2,500 $64 $1,901 76.05%$1,864 UTILITIES $12,400 $845 $6,003 48.41%$4,520 PROFESSIONAL FEES - AUDIT $2,500 $1,145 $2,725 109.01%$2,545 PROF FEES - CONSULTING FEES $350 $0 $0 0.00%$305 PROF FEES - GROUNDS MGMT $4,000 $0 $3,455 86.38%$1,000 PROF FEES - GROUNDS WAGES $19,000 $3,248 $9,949 52.36%$10,230 PROF FEES - TREE MAINTENANCE $2,000 $0 $0 0.00%$0 ADVERTISING/NEWSLETTER $400 $0 $149 37.16%$224 LIABILITY/AUTO INSURANCE $3,200 $0 $3,290 102.81%$3,290 OPERATING COSTS/SUPPLIES $6,000 $791 $3,877 64.61%$3,787 FUEL $1,300 $205 $1,060 81.58%$886 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $14,500 $1,600 $19,708 135.92%$5,874 SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $2,800 $21 $1,968 70.29%$6,903 CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $0 0.00%$0 ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $3,600 $569 $2,228 61.89%$2,379 PAR 3 EXPENDITURES TOTAL $143,624 $17,625 $91,041 63.39%$79,951 8/31/2018 page 95 #5ppage 96 page 97 page 98 page 99 page 100 page 101 page 102 page 103 page 104 page 105 page 106 Request for City Council Action DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Final Plat for “The Orchard” and Developers Agreement Orchard Heights, LLC COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is asked to consider and approve the Final Plat of The Orchard, the new subdivision of the former Olin family properties located at 1136 – 1140 Orchard Place; along with the final Developers Agreement between Orchard Heights, LLC and the City of Mendota Heights. Background & Discussion On August 15, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-57, a resolution that denied the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, along with a variance and wetlands permit needed for said plat. Due to a subsequent Dakota County District Court ruling, on April 17, 2018 the City Council was directed to adopt Resolution No. 2018-32, which approved the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights. Since that meeting, the original developer, Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner has passed away, and his son Keith Eibensteiner stepped in to head the project. The project management and construction responsibilities are now being handled by Mr. Tim Thone, of TMT Land Holdings of Woodbury, MN. The subdivision’s title has also been re-named to “The Orchard”, as it was found that a similarly- named “Orchard Heights” plat title exists in Eagan. This final plat documents and developer’s agreement have been reviewed by the Developer’s attorney and city attorney; and all parties found the plat and the agreement to be acceptable. The City Council considered this version at a work session of the City Council held August 27th. As a result of that meeting, the developer has subsequently agreed to meet with the owners of two neighboring properties whose homes may be subject to the headlight wash, and has indicated a willingness to plant several trees on those properties to lessen the impacts of the headlights. Budget Impact There are no direct impacts on the city’s budget. #9apage 107 Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council adopt a motion to approve the RESOLUTION 2018-65, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF THE ORCHARD; and ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT FOR THE ORCHARD SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT, located at 1136 – 1140 Orchard Place, and authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to execute said developers agreement on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote for both items. page 108 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-65 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR THE ORCHARD 1136 AND 1140 ORCHARD PLACE WHEREAS, Orchard Heights, LLC, (the “Developer”) is requesting consideration and approval of the Final Plat of THE ORCHARD, a new subdivision of properties located at 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place (the “Subject Property”), and legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017 and July 25, 2017, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the applications of a proposed preliminary plat, variance and wetlands permit of a new subdivision to be titled “Orchard Heights”, whereby the commission offered a motion to recommend approval of the plat, variance and wetlands permit, but said motion failed and therefore constituted a recommendation of denial; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2017, the City Council received the recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission, and City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-57, a resolution denying the preliminary plat, variance and wetlands permit for Orchard Heights, with certain findings of denial; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2017, the case of Royal Oaks Realty, Inc., etal vs. the City of Mendota Heights came before Dakota County District Court, whereby the Roya Oaks motion for summary judgment against the City was granted (on March 8, 2018), and the City was ordered by said Court to “unconditionally approve the Orchard Heights Preliminary Plat under the City’s standard subdivision ordinance, including the variance for the proposed cul-de-sac…”; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-32, a resolution approving the preliminary plat, variance and wetlands permit for Orchard Heights subdivision. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Final Plat of THE ORCHARD (formerly titled “Orchard Heights”) as presented herein and a preliminary copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, is hereby approved, based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed final plat is consistent with the general layout and overall design illustrated on the original and previously approved preliminary plat. 2. The proposed final plat meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code, including the proposed and approved planned use of the site as new single-family residential development. page 109 Res 2018--65 Pg. 2 of 2 3. The proposed final plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code, including layout, grading, drainage, easements and lot arrangements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Final Plat of THE ORCHARD, related to the original plat application made under Planning Case No. 2017- 14, is hereby approved; and the Developers Agreement between Orchard Heights, LLC and the City of Mendota Heights is also acceptable and approved, and hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Administrator to execute said developers agreement on behalf of the City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 21st day of August, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 110 Res 2018--65 Pg. 2 of 3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description – 1136 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-010 Lot 1, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota AND Legal Description – 1140 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-020 Lot 2, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota page 111 Res 2018--65 Pg. 2 of 4 EXHIBIT B page 112 page 113 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT THE ORCHARD SUBDIVISION THIS DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT (The Orchard Subdivision), is made and entered into this ______ day of ________________, 2018, by and between the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, a municipal corporation and political subdivision under the laws of the State of Minnesota, having its principal office at 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118-4167 (the “City”) and Orchard Heights, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, its successors and assigns as permitted herein, having its principal office at 2242 Cottage Grove Alcove, Woodbury, MN 55129 (the “Developer”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the subject property consists of approximately 13.45 acres in area; and is generally located in the mid-central area of the City lying west of Lexington Avenue, east of Hunter Lane and directly south of Orchard Place, addressed as 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place, and is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is guided as “LR Low-Density Residential” in the City’s current 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is zoned R-1 One Family Residential; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2018, the City Council of the City granted approval of the Preliminary Final Plat of Orchard Heights (the “Development”), which is the planned re-subdivision of the Property described herein, by adopting Resolution No. 2018-32, which is attached as Exhibit B and is made a part of this Agreement (the “Resolution”); and WHEREAS, the Resolution also approved a variance for a cul-de-sac and a wetlands permit in the Development; and WHEREAS, the Developer has prepared and intends to record a final plat of the new subdivision consisting of eighteen (18) new single–family dwelling lots (the “Project”), to be platted and known as “Orchard Heights” (the “Final Plat”) attached hereto as Exhibit C; and page 114 Page 2 of 18 WHEREAS, the Developer shall prepare and submit for approval to the City the final grading and drainage plans, which shall include any and all related specifications, drawings and related documents with respect to all Infrastructure Improvements (herein defined) as contained in the final Grading and Drainage Plans (the “Final Plans”), approved by the Public Works Director, and which plans were also considered and approved by City Council under a general grading permit approval on June 5, 2018, and which are attached hereto as Exhibit D. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows: SECTION 1 - Representations and Warranties 1.Representations by the City. The City represents, warrants, and covenants to the following: a)The City is a municipal corporation and political subdivision duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota. The City is authorized and has the requisite power to enter into this Agreement and perform its obligations hereunder. b)The City shall use reasonable efforts to cooperate and work with the Developer in connection with: i.further applications, agreements, amendments and approvals relating to, among other things, site plan, planned unit developments, subdivision, utility and other development matters to permit the development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement and the Final Plans; ii.any requirements of local, state or federal governments or agencies thereof relating to the development of the Project; and iii.coordinating the sequencing, commencement and completion of the Infrastructure Improvements. 2.Representations, Covenants and Warranties by the Developer. The Developer represents, warrants, and covenants to the following: a)The Developer is a duly and legally formed Minnesota limited liability company, and is not in violation of any the laws of local, state or federal government, and has all necessary power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to carry out its obligations hereunder. b)All Infrastructure Improvements constructed by the Developer will be constructed, operated and maintained (to the extent retained by it) in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Final Plans and all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning, building code, energy conservation, and public health laws and regulations). c)The Developer has received no notice or communication from any local, state or federal official that the activities of the Developer in the Property may be or will be in violation of any known state or federal environmental laws. The Developer has no knowledge of any facts, the existence of which would cause it or any of its projects to be in violation of any environmental laws, or which would give any person a valid claim under any such environmental laws. page 115 Page 3 of 18 d)The Developer shall use its reasonable efforts to pursue and obtain, in a diligent and timely manner, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and will seek to meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Infrastructure Improvements may be lawfully constructed. e)Neither the execution nor the delivery of this Agreement by the Developer, nor the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement is prevented, materially limited by, or materially conflicts with or results in a material breach of the terms, conditions or provisions of any restriction or any evidences of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Developer is now a party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing. f)The Developer shall cooperate and use its reasonable efforts with the City, in a reasonable, timely and diligent manner, in connection with (a) applications, agreements, amendments and approvals relating to, among other things, site plan, planned unit developments, subdivision, utility installation, submittal for approval of Final Plans and other development matters to permit the development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement and the Final Plans, (b) any requirements of local, state or federal governments or agencies thereof relating to the development of the Project, and (c) coordinating the sequencing, commencement and completion of the Infrastructure Improvements. SECTION 2 - Infrastructure Improvements 1.Final Plans. The Developer will install and construct at its sole expense the following improvements, according to and as shown on the Final Plans, which shall include or provide for at a minimum, specifications for the following, which collectively upon approval as provided for herein shall be known as the “Infrastructure Improvements,” and per the following terms and conditions: (a)Grading and compacting of the Property as necessary for the installation of Infrastructure Improvements set forth herein and as shown on a specific Final Plans for the Property; (b)Installation of the public roadway system, tentatively identified on the Final Plat as Orchard Heights Lane (the “Public Road”) in compliance with all City requirements; plus all of the following when located within the Public Road: curbs, gutters, fire hydrants, and related fire safety items meeting the state fire code, public street signs, non-mechanical traffic controls, landscaping, trees, ground cover or plantings; (c)Installation of necessary utilities within the Public Road including without limitation: 1) electric, 2) telephone, 3) natural gas, 4) water, 5) sanitary sewer, 6) cable, and 7) storm sewer; (d)All landscaping and erosion control measures necessary for the Development as shown on the Erosion Control Plan and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (the “SWPPP”) as contained in the Final Plans; (e)St. Paul Regional Water Services. Installation of water mains shall be in accordance with the Final Plans and shall conform with the St. Paul Regional Water Services (the “RWS”) specifications; and page 116 Page 4 of 18 (f)Sanitary Sewer and Water Easements. All easements and public right-of-ways shall be dedicated to the City, as shown on the Final Plat, for all sanitary sewer and water utilities. 2.Developer Requirements. The Developer shall be financially responsible for the completion of the Infrastructure Improvements in compliance with the Final Plans. Additionally, the Developer shall be solely responsible for completion of the following: a)Demolition. Demolition and removal of all existing structures, foundations, un-useable septic systems, utilities and un-useable driveways or roadways. b)Access During Development. During the period from commencement of construction of any single-family residential unit until the final sale of all of the single-family residential units by the Developer, the Developer shall install and maintain an access road serving each single-family residential unit under construction that satisfies the following requirements: presence of all-weather gravel base, with a gravel or pavement surface that accommodates City inspection vehicles and emergency vehicles; a looped access road, which may utilize a reasonable combination of portions of the Public Road, the private streets and the paved drives currently existing on the Property, and which loop may be reconfigured from time to time as phases advance but shall be accessible to City emergency vehicles at all times; the provision of reasonable and customary snowplowing of such access road; the location of such access road may not be more than 200 feet from each of the single-family residential units under construction. c)Erosion Control. Prior to initiating any Infrastructure Improvements or site grading, the erosion control measures depicted on the Final Plans, the Erosion Control Plan, and the SWPPP shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved in writing by the City. The City may, in its sole discretion, impose at no cost to the City, reasonable, additional erosion control requirements on the Developer if the City determines that such additional measures are necessary to meet the erosion control requirements as described in the Final Plans. All areas disturbed by grading shall be reasonably reseeded in a timely fashion to meet the erosion control requirements as described in the Final Plans. All seeded areas shall be mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. If the Developer does not comply with the Erosion Control Plan and the SWPPP or supplementary conditions imposed by the City, the City may take such reasonable action as is necessary to control erosion. The City will notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action. The Developer shall be solely responsible for any costs properly incurred by the City for erosion control measures. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any cost the City properly incurred for such work within thirty (30) days of invoice, the City shall be allowed to recover its cost by execution securities contained in the Escrow Agreement (hereafter defined). No Infrastructure Improvement or paving construction will be allowed unless the Project is in compliance with the erosion control requirements. d)Storm Sewer Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for maintenance of the storm water ponds shown on the Final Plans during the construction of the Project. The Developer shall provide the City with an inspection report and as-built grading plan verifying the ponds are constructed and operating in accordance with the Final Plans. Subsequent maintenance, as required by any federal, state or local governmental entity or regulation shall be provided by the City. page 117 Page 5 of 18 e)Easement and Right-of-Way Dedications. The Final Plat recorded in Dakota County for the Project shall include, at no cost to the City, any and all required utility, drainage, public and access easements as identified on the Final Plat and within this Agreement. f)Plantings in Easement Areas. Any plantings or landscaping in the aforementioned easements or right-of-ways shall be as provided in the Final Plans and any new landscape plan submitted for each new single-family building lot. g)Utility Locations. Delivery of an as-built survey of all utilities that fall with the aforementioned easements or right-of-ways to the City based on the Dakota County coordinate system and within two (2) feet of the horizontal, including: i.Top nut of hydrants, catch basin and manhole rims and inverts, ii.Sanitary sewers at the wye, property line and where it enters the single-family residential unit or other structure, iii.Water services at the corporation stop, curb box and where it enters the single-family residential unit or other structure, iv.Flared end sections, v.Drain tile within the right-of-way, and vi.Any other information or utility work necessary, as determined by the Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, necessary for the City to conform to the requirements of Minnesota Administrative Rule 7560. h.Park Dedication Fee. Pursuant to the provisions of the City Code, Section 11-5-1 and this Agreement, the Developer shall pay to the City a Park Dedication Fee of Sixty-Four Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($64,000.00) prior to the City signing the Final Plat. i.Pre-Construction Meeting. The Developer agrees to hold one or more pre-construction meetings prior to the initiation of the Infrastructure Improvements, which meetings shall include the Developer, its engineers and contractors, the Public Works Director and other City staff, Dakota County, MnDOT (if necessary), RWS representatives, and representatives from all other private utility providers serving the Development. j.Quality of Work. The Developer agrees that all the Infrastructure Improvements, including all labor, materials and supplies, shall be done and performed in a good and workmanlike manner and in conformance with the Final Plans as approved by the City, and on file with the City Clerk. k.Engineering and Location Services. The Developer shall furnish all engineering services for the Infrastructure Improvements, including: i.Preparation of complete plans and specifications by a professional engineer; ii.Geotechnical testing for design and during construction of the Infrastructure Improvements; page 118 Page 6 of 18 iii.Determination, by a professional excavator or land surveyor, of the precise location of underground utility facilities, without damage, prior to excavating within two feet on either side of the marked location of said facilities; and iv.Unless the Public Works Director makes a written determination that technology is not currently available, installation of a locating wire that effectively marks the location of each nonconductive underground facility installed after December 31, 2005 within a public right-of-way. l.Hours of Operation. Developer will not permit any grading, construction, mobilization, equipment maintenance, fueling or other physical work to be conducted on the site outside of the specified working hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Permission from the Mendota Heights City Council is required for work on Sundays or Holidays. m.Staking and Inspection. It is further agreed that the Developer shall provide any staking or surveying services as required by the Public Works Director. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of a written request, for the cost of the City to provide a City inspector for any required or requested inspection of any Infrastructure Improvements in order to assure that the completed Infrastructure Improvements conform to the Final Plans. The City and RWS will provide for general and final inspection and shall be notified of all tests to be performed. The Developer shall use reasonable efforts to coordinate its inspector, the City Inspector and RWS inspectors’ inspections at various times to check the condition of water stop boxes and other utility extensions. n.Emergency Access. Prior to the sale of all single-family residential units, the Developer shall provide and maintain emergency access to the Development at all times. o.Building Permits. As part of the building permit application process, the City shall promptly review plans prepared by the Developer and/or its contractors, and shall use good faith efforts to review the plans and approve or disapprove within twenty-one (21) business days. The City’s approval of the plans shall not be unreasonably withheld and the Developer will promptly reply to requests for additional information or clarification on items requested by the City in order to ensure an efficient review process. The plans for the Infrastructure Improvements shall be consistent with standard City practices. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms of the plans approved by the City shall control. p.Certificate of Occupancy. No Certificate of Occupancy for any new single-family residential unit shall be issued by the City unless and until all Infrastructure Improvements serving the Project and all residential units have been installed, inspected and accepted by the City and by RWS and are available for use, and to the reasonable satisfaction of the City and so long as no Event of Default exists under this Agreement, remains uncured by the Developer. Furthermore, the Developer shall maintain reasonable access to any occupied units, including necessary street maintenance such as grading and graveling and snow removal prior to permanent street surfacing of the Public Road. q.Final Inspection. Upon completion of all Infrastructure Improvements except the final paving lift to the Public Road, and written notice from the Developer to the Public Works Director, the Public Works Director or a designated representative, a representative of the Developer, its contractor, and its engineer will make a final inspection of the Infrastructure page 119 Page 7 of 18 Improvements. Before final payment is made to any contractor responsible for the Infrastructure Improvements by the Developer, the Public Works Director shall give the Developer written notice that the Public Works Director is satisfied that all Infrastructure Improvements except the final paving lift were satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Final Plans, as indicated in writing by the Public Works Director, and the Developer shall submit to the City a written statement attesting to the same along with a certificate, attested to by a Registered Land Surveyor, that all property corners and survey control points have been properly installed. Upon completion of the Infrastructure Improvements except the final paving lift to the Public Road, the Developer shall cause to be provided to the Public Works Director an electronic copy of the Final Plans and the as- built survey, both in a form acceptable to the Public Works Director. Such electronic copies of Final Plans shall include survey control points. These electronic Final Plans shall also include the locations, elevations and ties to all sanitary sewer and water main services. The Developer shall remain obligated at its expense to complete the final paving lift as weather permits. SECTION 3 – Financial Commitments and Warranties 1.Escrow Agreement. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the Developer has agreed to provide a separate Escrow Agreement (the “Escrow Agreement”), dated as of the date hereof, among the Developer, the City and a specified title services company (the “Title Company”) to pay for and disburse funds for the payment of completed an accepted Infrastructure Improvement work as part of the Development. The Developer shall furnish the City with a signed Escrow Agreement, specifying a deposit of money and securities in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of the Infrastructure Improvements. The amount of the Escrow Agreement shall be as determined by the Developer’s engineer’s estimate, as further described in the Escrow Agreement. The amount of the Escrow Agreement shall be $500,000.00. The Title Company shall be subject to the approval of the City; shall be authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota, and with a principal branch located within the seven-county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The Escrow Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until the Development has been completed or this Agreement has been terminated. 2.No Warranty; Changes to Infrastructure Improvements. Approval of the Final Plans, any portion thereof or any changes thereto by the City is not intended, nor shall it be construed to be a warranty or representation by the City as to: (i) the compliance of the Project with any federal, state, or local statutes, regulations, or ordinances; (ii) the structural soundness of the proposed Project; (iii) quality of materials; (iv) workmanship; or (v) the fitness of the Infrastructure Improvements for their proposed uses. a)The Developer shall submit to the Public Works Director for approval any changes in the Final Plans. The City shall approve changes in the Final Plans in writing if, in the reasonable judgment of the City the changed Final Plans: (i) conform to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (ii) conform to the specifications established by the City or Public Works Director; (iii) conform to all applicable local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations; and (iv) the construction sequencing is such that the City will be able to comply with its obligations set forth herein. No approval by the City of changes to the Final Plans shall relieve the Developer of the obligation to comply with the terms of this Agreement. Any rejection of any change requested shall set forth the reasons therefor. b)For any changes in the Infrastructure Improvements, said improvements shall not be constructed until the City has issued a written approval of any such requested change to page 120 Page 8 of 18 the Final Plans. c)The City may choose to waive this procedure in the future as to any change, however, no such waiver shall be construed as a waiver of the City’s rights pursuant to this Agreement or this section with respect to further changes subsequent to any such waiver. 3.City Expenses. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City for reasonable costs, fees, charges or expenses of the City, related to legal costs, (not related to fees incurred in past litigation between the parties), planning, and engineering services, including without limitation inspection, surveying, supervision and administration costs and fees (collectively, the “City Expenses”) within thirty (30) days of a receipt of a detailed invoice from the City. If such payments are not received by the City within said thirty (30) days, all approvals of the City and the Public Works Director detailed in this Agreement shall be suspended and have no effect until such time as the Developer has paid the City for all City Expenses. Such lack of payment shall also constitute an Event of Default as described in Section 5 of this Agreement. 4.Warranty. The Developer warrants all Infrastructure Improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Agreement against poor material and faulty workmanship for a period of two years commencing upon the installation of bituminous base, curb and gutter (the “Warranty Period”). The Warranty Escrow may be used by the City to pay for warranty work within the above-referenced warranty time periods, provided that the City first provides Developer thirty (30) days written notice of a warranty claim under this Article 4. The City standard specifications for utilities and street construction identify the procedures for final acceptance of streets and utilities and are set out in the Public Works Design Manual. 5.City’s Right to Complete Improvements. The Developer is not required by this Agreement to commence any Infrastructure Improvements, and the Developer may suspend or terminate its work at any time; provided that all Infrastructure Improvements that have been commenced shall be completed in a manner complying with applicable legal requirements and provided further that upon final inspection the Developer shall be required to complete the final paving lift on the Public Road in accordance with this Agreement. If the Developer fails to diligently prosecute in a timely manner completion of any Infrastructure Improvements that have been commenced, in compliance with and pursuant to the Final Plans, and fails to resume diligent prosecution of the same within thirty (30) days after receipt of notice of failure to diligently prosecute from the City, the City shall be free to exercise its option to complete any of the Infrastructure Improvements required of the Developer. The Developer agrees to be and shall be financially responsible for payment to the City for correction of the non-conforming or abandoned work within thirty (30) days of formal billing by the City. If the City has not been paid within 30 days of billing for this work, City may obtain reimbursement through execution on securities contained in the Escrow Agreement, as further described in this Agreement. 6.Infrastructure Improvement Acceptance by the City. Following acceptance of the Infrastructure Improvements by the City and Public Works Director as described in this Agreement, the City shall, in conjunction with other public entities as necessary, including but not limited to RWS, be responsible to maintain and repair all Infrastructure Improvements located in the public easements and rights-of-way of the Development. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and regardless of when the Infrastructure Improvements are actually accepted by the City, the Developer is responsible to complete the final paving lift of the Public Road. 7.Maintenance Prior to City Acceptance. Until acceptance by the City of the Infrastructure Improvements, the Developer shall be solely responsible for all maintenance and repair of the page 121 Page 9 of 18 Infrastructure Improvements. Prior to acceptance of the Infrastructure Improvements by the City, the Developer shall cause warning signs and established detour routes to be placed on and around such streets and other improvements whenever any dangerous or hazardous condition exists on the Property, as necessary, to prevent public travel on and over such property. If and when streets become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. Streets within the Development may not otherwise be closed without the written approval of the Public Works Director. The Developer shall be responsible for keeping paved streets within the Development swept clean of dirt and debris that may spill or wash onto the street from this operation and shall conduct any additional sweeping as reasonably requested by the City, at the Developer’s cost. SECTION 4 - Indemnification, Release and Insurance 1.Indemnity. The Developer, the Developer’s contractors or subcontractors, materialmen, and laborers, release and waive any claims of liability or responsibility in any way against the City, the City Council, and its agents, consultants or employees, arising out of the performance and completion of the Project provided for herein, except for any (i) breach by the City of its obligations hereunder and (ii) negligence or intentional misconduct of the City. Additionally, the Developer will unconditionally indemnify and hold the City harmless from all such claims, demands, damages, actions or causes of actions or the cost of disbursement, and expenses of defending the same, specifically including, without intending to limit the categories of said costs, costs and expenses for City administrative time and labor, costs of consulting engineering services and costs of legal services rendered in connection with defending such claims as may be brought against the City. 2.Release and Waiver. The Developer agrees to rely entirely upon its own property insurance for coverage with respect to any damage, loss or injury to the property interests of the Developer in the Project or interests which may be exposed to damage, loss or injury in connection therewith. The Developer hereby releases the City, its officers, employees, agents, and others acting on its behalf from all liability or responsibility to the Developer, and to anyone claiming through or under the Developer, by way of subrogation or otherwise, for any loss of or damage to the Developer’s business or property caused by fire or other peril or event to the extent that such fire or other peril or event was covered by any type of real or personal property insurance, including any indirect property insurance (such as business interruption coverage) in effect on the date of the loss, even if such fire or other peril or event was caused in whole or in part by the negligence or other act or omission of the City or other party who is to be released by the terms hereof; or by anyone for whom such party may be responsible. 3.Insurance. Except as is specifically provided to the contrary in the following provisions of this Section, the Developer agrees to provide and maintain at all times the insurance coverage set forth in this Section, and to otherwise comply with the provisions that follow. a)Builders’ Risk. Builders’ Risk Insurance, written on a Completed Value coverage form (non-reporting), in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the insurable value of the Infrastructure Improvements at the date of completion. Such coverage shall become effective concurrent with the beginning of the process of construction, and shall continue until replaced by the permanent all risk Property Insurance described below. Coverage shall be provided on an “all risk” basis. b)Workers’ Compensation. Workers’ Compensation insurance in compliance with all applicable statutes. Such policy shall include Employer’s Liability coverage in at least page 122 Page 10 of 18 such amount(s) as are customarily provided in workers’ compensation policies issued in Minnesota. c)General Liability. Occurrence-Based Commercial General Liability insurance, providing coverage on an “occurrence”, rather than on a “claims made” basis, which policy shall include coverage for the Completed Operations Hazard, and which shall also include a Broad Form General Liability Endorsement GL 0404 (Insurance Services Office form designation), or an equivalent form (or forms), so long as such equivalent form (or forms) affords coverage which is in all material respects at least as broad. The Developer agrees to maintain total liability policy limits of at least $2,000,000, applying to liability for Bodily Injury, Personal Injury, and Property Damage, which total limits may be satisfied by the limits afforded under its Occurrence-Based Commercial General Liability Policy (which Policy is to include the Broad Form Endorsement coverage specified above), or by such Policy in combination with the limits afforded by an Umbrella Liability Policy (or policies); provided, however, that the coverage afforded under any such Umbrella Liability Policy shall be at least as broad as that afforded by the underlying Occurrence-Based Commercial General Liability Policy (including Broad Form coverage). Such Occurrence-Based Commercial General Liability Policy and Umbrella Liability Policy (or policies) may provide aggregate limits for some or all of the coverages afforded thereunder, so long as such aggregate limits have not, as of the date of the Developer’s possession of the Property, been reduced to less than the total required limits stated above, and further, that the Umbrella Liability Policy provides coverage from the point that such aggregate limits in the underlying Occurrence-Based Commercial General Liability Policy become reduced or exhausted. An Umbrella Policy which “drops down” to respond immediately over reduced underlying limits, or in place of exhausted underlying limits, but subject to a deductible amount, shall be acceptable in this regard so long as such deductible amount does not cause the Developer’s total deductible for each occurrence to exceed the amount shown in the provision immediately below. All such policies described in this Section shall also name the City as an additional insured and permit waiver of claims in favor of the City. Copies of all policy certificates must be provided to the City. d)Property Insurance. All risk property insurance in an amount not less than the full insurable replacement value of the Infrastructure Improvements. The term “full insurable replacement value” shall mean the actual replacement cost of the Infrastructure Improvements (excluding foundation and excavation costs and costs of underground flues, pipes, drains, and other items customarily omitted from replacement cost valuation for insurance purposes), without deduction for depreciation. e)Insurers. All policies of insurance required under this Agreement shall be maintained with financially sound and reputable insurers licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota and as reasonably acceptable to the City. All policies of insurance required under this Agreement shall be in form and content, and in all other respects reasonably satisfactory to the City. f)Non-Imputation. All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City or the City contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, page 123 Page 11 of 18 promises, agreements and obligations of the City and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, consultant or employee of the City, in their individual capacity. SECTION 5 - Events of Default 1.Defined. The term “Event of Default” shall mean any failure by the Developer or the City to observe or perform any covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement 2.Remedies. Whenever any party becomes aware of the occurrence of an Event of Default, the non- defaulting party may, after providing twenty (20) days’ written notice to the defaulting party of the Event of Default, but only if the Event of Default has not been cured within said twenty (20) days or, if the Event of Default is by its nature incurable within twenty days and the defaulting party does not provide assurances reasonably satisfactory to the non-defaulting party that the Event of Default will be cured as soon as reasonably possible, take whatever other action permitted by law, including the termination of this Agreement and any other legal, equitable or administrative action, which may appear necessary or desirable to cure any such Event of Default or to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant under this Agreement. 3.No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to either party is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies. Each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any remedy or power accruing upon any Event of Default shall impair any such remedy or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof. Any such remedy and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle either party to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be required in this Section. 4.No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any Event of Default is waived by the non-defaulting party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular Event of Default so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent Event of Default hereunder. SECTION 6 - Expiration or Termination of Agreement 1.Automatic Expiration. This Agreement shall automatically expire upon: a)Completion of the Infrastructure Improvements in accordance with the Final Plans; and b)Acceptance of the Infrastructure Improvements by the City (not including the final paving lift of the Public Road by the Developer). In the case of any single-family housing unit sold to a third party that is not an affiliate of the Developer, such unit shall be automatically released from this Agreement upon such sale so long as a final Certificate of Occupancy for such unit has been issued by the City. 2.Option to Terminate. Except as otherwise provided herein, the City or the Developer may terminate this Agreement if there occurs an Event of Default pursuant to this Agreement that is not cured within the applicable cure period. page 124 Page 12 of 18 3.Effect of Termination. Following the termination or expiration of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be null and void and of no effect. 4.Evidence of Termination. If requested by the Developer, the City will provide the Developer with a certification recordable among the public land records certifying that this Agreement has been terminated or has expired and, if true, that the Developer was not in default of its obligations hereunder at the time of such termination or expiration. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.] page 125 Page 13 of 18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developer have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the date and year first above written. ORCHARD HEIGHTS LLC Date: By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ___________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________________, 2018, by ______________________________, the Chief Manager of Orchard Heights, LLC a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of such company. Notary Public page 126 Page 14 of 18 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA Neil Garlock, Mayor Date: Lorri Smith, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________________, 2018, by Neil Garlock and Lorri Smith, the Mayor and the City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation and political subdivision, on behalf of such city. Notary Public page 127 EXHIBIT A Legal Description – 1136 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-010 Lot 1, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota AND Legal Description – 1140 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-020 Lot 2, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota page 128 Page 16 of 18 EXHIBIT B Resolution No. 2018-32 page 129 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-32 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS AND A VARIANCE AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1136 & 1140 ORCHARD PLACE WHEREAS, Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty (the "Developer"), acting on behalf of Marilyn Olin and David Olin (the "Property Owners") has applied for a preliminary plat to be titled "Orchard Heights", along with a related variance to exceed the normal length of a cul- de-sac roadway and wetlands permit for work in and around an established water feature, as proposed under Planning Case 2017-14, located at 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place (the "Subject Property"), and legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on this plat, variance and wetlands permit applications, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the general public and Developer were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing the Planning Commission recommended to table this matter to the July 25, 2017 meeting; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission received a supplemental planning staff report and an updated presentation regarding this new subdivision plat matter, re -opened the public hearing and allowed additional comments from the general public and Developer, and upon closing the hearing the Planning Commission offered a motion to recommend approval of the plat, variance and wetlands permit, but said motion failed 2 votes for and 3 against said adoption, which thereby constituted a recommendation of denial; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2017, the City Council received the recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission, and after discussion between city staff, city council and the Developer, the council elected to adopt Resolution No. 2018-57, a resolution denying a preliminary plat of Orchard Heights and its related variance and wetlands permit for property located at 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place, with certain findings of denial; and WHEREAS, the case of Royal Oaks Realty, Inc., David J. Olin, James OlinMarital Family Trusts (the "Plaintiffs") vs. the City of Mendota Heights (the "Defendant") came before the Honorable Karen J. Asphaug, Judge of District Court, on December 14, 201 7 at the Dakota County Judicial Center, in Hastings, Minnesota, whereby the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the Defendant was granted on March 8, 2018, and the City was ordered by said Court to unconditionally approve the Orchard Heights Preliminary Plat under the City's standard subdivision ordinance, including the variance for the proposed cul-de-sac; and page 130 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council, that the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, along with its related Variance and Wetlands Permit as originally proposed under Planning Case 2017-14, are all hereby approved with the following amended conditions: 1. The existing single family dwellings and detached accessory buildings must be removed prior to the Final Plat being recorded by Dakota County. 2. In lieu of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (18 lots — 2 existing lots = 16 x $4,000/unit, or 64,000) is collected after City Council approval and before the Final Plat is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any permits. 3. All new homes within this development shall have an automatic fire sprinkler/fire suppression system, reviewed and approved by the City Building Official. 4. The final grading plan must be submitted and approved by the Public Works Director prior to any grading or land disturbance operations, pursuant to Mendota Heights Ordinance §12-1-E-2. 5. Street grades in excess of 6% - but no more than 8% are hereby allowed in certain locations as shown on the submitted Plans. In the event the Plans are revised in the future, the Developer must make every effort to meet the 6% grade standard along this roadway section. 6. The cul-de-sac roadway is allowed to be constructed with no less than a 30 -ft. face- to-face street width. 7. A SWPPP shall be developed for the project as required by Mendota Heights Ordinance. § 14-1-6. Protected waters shall have a double silt fence/redundant BMP, and a separate NPDES permit is required, per MPCA rules. 8. No disturbances shall occur within a 20 -foot wide wetland buffer, which shall include provisions for no cutting (non -mowing) and a natural vegetation buffer area around the delineated edges of the wetland. The buffer strip shall be shown and dedicated on the final plat. 9. No utilities may be buried at a depth greater than 20 feet. 10. Any proposed retaining walls) greater than 4 feet in height require engineered drawings. 11. All Plans shall be reviewed and approved by St. Paul Regional Water Service SPRWS). SPRWS requires inspection of the public utilities and water supply to the fixtures. Res. 2018-32 Page 2 of 4 page 131 12. The Developer/Applicant shall submit a lot survey as part of any building permit application as required by Mendota Heights Ordinance §11-2-3(B). 13. Future construction on the newly -created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code and Building Code provisions Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 17th day of April, 2018. OC,F Ric_;iti CITY COUNCIL y.r•• 4 •.• o i y CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS cid or Neil Garlock, -Mayor Lorri Smith, City Clerk Res. 2018-32 Page 3 of 4 page 132 EXHIBIT A Legal Description —1136 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-010 Lot 1, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota AND Legal Description —1140 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-020 Lot 2, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota Res. 2018-32 Page 4 of 4 page 133 Page 17 of 18 EXHIBIT C Final Plat – Orchard Heights page 134 page 135 Page 18 of 18 EXHIBIT D Final Grading and Drainage Plans page 136 page 137 WATER LOT CURB STOP ELEV WYE STATION (A) RISER AT MAIN SERVICE PIPE SLOPE (%) SERVICE INVERT (B) 1 902.5 92 2.0 892.1 2 910.2 69 2.0 897.2 3 920.1 174 2.5 2.0 907.0 4 928.2 281 3.5 2.0 915.5 5 934.9 18 5.0 2.0 923.5 6 937.7 126 8.0 2.0 926.9 7 936.4 269 5.0 2.0 924.5 8 930.8 354 2.0 919.8 9 922.0 372 (C) (C)(C) 10 922.6 370 (C) (C)(C) 11 925.9 368 (C) (C)(C) 12 930.8 357 2.0 919.8 13 936.6 263 7.0 2.0 926.4 14 937.6 120 8.0 2.0 926.9 15 934.8 12 6.0 2.0 924.4 16 928.2 275 6.0 2.0 917.6 17 919.6 168 5.0 2.0 909.1 18 910.1 63 3.0 2.0 899.8 (A) DISTANCE TO DOWNSTREAM M.H. (B) ADD RISER AT END OF SERVICE TO BRING TO NORMAL DEPTH. (C) SERVICES FROM GRINDER PUMPS LOT SEWER & WATER SERVICE INFORMATION SANITARY SEWER page 138 page 139 page 140 page 141 page 142 page 143 page 144 page 145 page 146 page 147 DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements – Quantity Change COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council approve a change in curb and gutter quantities, and the project budget of the Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Improvement project. BACKGROUND Council awarded a contract for the construction of the Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements at its July 2, 2018 meeting. The project was awarded to Midwest Asphalt for their bid of $1,068,235. Prior to Council awarding the project, Mendakota Court was removed from the project scope. DISCUSSION The project is currently under way and is scheduled for completion by November 2, 2018. One of the first steps in the project is making a determination of the curb and gutter that will be replaced. During this process, it was discovered that the quantities included in the construction plans are substantially smaller than the quantities identified in the feasibility report. The project included 1,780 feet of curb replacement; current quantities are measured at approximately 5,280 feet. Therefore, the quantities of curb and gutter needed to achieve the desired results must be increased. Staff has reviewed the impact to the budget, including the replacement of and the addition of the needed curb and gutter, which would add approximately $130,000 to the project. Staff also looked at options to perform some of this work by using a curb machine, which could reduce the per foot price of this work by around $10/foot on some long sections (estimate to be around a $20,000 savings). BUDGET IMPACT The Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Improvement Project is proposed to be financed by special assessments, municipal bonds, and utility funds. Funding sources and amounts are shown below: PROJECT COSTS ITEM CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT* TOTAL LEXINGTON HIGHLANDS $689,497.00 $137,899.40 $827,396.40 SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE $215,253.00 $43,050.60 $258,303.60 MENDAKOTA DRIVE $192,525.00 $38,505.00 $231,030.00 page 148 #9b STORM SEWER $110,960.00 $22,192.00 $133,152.00 Totals $1,208,235.00 $241,647.00 $1,449,882.00 * Includes 20% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance. FUNDING SOURCES ITEM COST ESTIMATE ASSESSMENT MUNICIPAL BONDS UTILITY FUNDS LEXINGTON HIGHLANDS $827,396.40 $323,057.16 $504,339.24 SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE $258,303.60 $68,804.47 $189,499.13 MENDAKOTA DRIVE $231,030.00 $27,405.08 $203,624.92 STORM SEWER $133,152.00 $133,152.00 Totals $1,449,882.00 $419,266.71 $897,463.29 $133,152.00 Even with the increase in curb and gutter quantities, the City’s costs for the project are less than what was identified in the feasibility report, due to a reduced overall scope of project, and favorable bid prices. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve of this increase in quantity of approximately 3500 lineal feet of curb and gutter for replacement, thus increasing the project cost by approximately $110,000. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should approve a motion increasing the quantity of curb and gutter by 3500 lineal feet, and increasing the amount of the contract with Midwest Asphalt Services by approximately $110,000. For the the Lexington Highlands and Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 149