2018-11-07 Council Packet Tues, Nov 6-General Election
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Wednesday, November 7, 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. Approve October 15, 2018 Joint Council/Planning Commission minutes
b. Approve October 16, 2018 City Council Minutes
c. Acknowledge the approved September 25, 2018 Planning Commission minutes
d. Acknowledge the approved September 12, 2018 Parks-Rec Commission minutes
e. Acknowledge the approved September 21, 2018 Parks–Rec Commission Special Meeting
minutes
f. Approve Resolution 2018-82 Authorize Disposal of Surplus Technology Related Equipment
g. Approve Resolution 2018-83 Authorizing a Joint Powers Agreement for Waste Abatement
Community Funding with Dakota County
h. Accept Wetland Delineation Report for Friendly Hills Middle School
i. Approve Resolution 2018-84 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Wentworth Park
Pond Improvements
j. Approve Resolution 2018-85 MnDOT Limited Use Permits for Rogers Lake Trail
k. Approve Selection of CivicRec as the City’s new Recreation Management System
l. Approve Police Officer Hire
m. Approval of Claims List
6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
*See guidelines below
7. Public Hearing
a. Resolution 2018-86 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for the Lexington
Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements
8. New and Unfinished Business
a. Resolution 2018-87 Approving Revised Purchasing Policy
9. Community Announcements
10. Council Comments
11. 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 Joint City Council – Planning Commission Work Session
October 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 6:00 pm. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper,
Petschel were present. Planning Commission members present included Chair Litton Field, Jr.,
Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael
Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: None
City staff present included Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Tim Benetti, Community
Development Director; Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director; Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources
Technician; and Lorri Smith, City Clerk.
REVIEW OF 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave an overview of the updating of the
Comprehensive Plan which is required to be updated every 10 years. This plan is then submitted
to the Metropolitan Council (Met Council), other agencies, and surrounding communities. He
reviewed the purpose and the sections it contains:
• Introduction & Background
• Land Use
• Transportation,
• Parks and Open Space
• Housing
• Economic Development
• Natural Resources
• Resilience
• Critical Area Plan (Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area)
• Implementation
• INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
Councilor Duggan suggested that the schools be placed in order of size. There was consensus to
leave as is, in alphabetical order, on page 1-20.
Councilor Duggan requested that White Pine Senior Living be recognized as being a memory
care facility on page 1-18.
• LAND USE
Discussion centered around dropping the low density residential uses of LR15, LR9, and LR5 as
proposed since the public has shown much concern for not changing this use, and leaving it as is.
There was consensus to not add the LR15, LR9, and LR5 categories to the plan.
page 3
The proposed future Land Use Map, shown on page 2-12, was discussed. Three lots are shown
as medium density, which are now zoned single-family. There was consensus to not change the
zoning for two of these lots. The lot on Lexington/Highway 13 is proposed to be changed to
medium density, to fit in with the surrounding zoning.
Councilor Duggan asked if there might be better language to replace “character of the
community” as stated on page 2.4, Goal 2.
• TRANSPORTATION
Councilor Petschel recommended deleting the paragraph referring to a policy that no longer
exists in regards to runway use at MSP airport, on page 3-17. On page 3-18, she suggested
deleting #6, since that no longer is a procedure that is used at the airport.
Councilor Duggan stated the plan recognizes the Light Rail Transit facility at Fort Snelling, but
does not show transportation option for how to get there. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that
on page 3-14, the plan includes a proposed bus route from Robert Street in West St. Paul to the
Fort Snelling Light Rail Transit.
• PARKS AND TRAILS
No changes proposed.
• HOUSING
Commissioner Mazzitello questioned Goal 1, listed on page 5-1, and asked how the city was
handling code violation complaints. It was noted that issues are handled on a complaint basis,
although city staff has been directed to take care of noticeable ones.
Councilor Duggan suggested on page 5-9, in the last sentence, that the words ‘or remodeled’ be
added with new housing.
• ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
It was noted that there were few changes made to this section.
Councilor Duggan suggested that ‘maintain’ be added to the title of Goal 5, on page 6-3.
• NATURAL RESOURCES
Councilor Duggan suggested that the key wetland management issues be identified, as stated on
page 7-12. Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director, stated that the plan does include a Significant
Vegetation Map on page 7-22.
Councilor Petschel suggested that any new commissions be thoroughly explored and the City
Administrator be consulted, before they are created, since they take a lot of city resources and
staff time to administer. She suggested in policy # 7.1.1., the word ‘Implement’ be changed to
‘Explore’.
Commissioner Corbett suggested that this section includes too many specific actions for the city
to take, and suggested this section be pared down to be broader in scope. These should include
guidelines for staff.
page 4
There was consensus that city staff would rework this section before this goes to the Planning
Commission for the public hearing.
• RESILIENCE
No changes were suggested to this section.
• CRITICAL AREA PLAN
It was noted that this section is recommended by the Department of Natural Resources.
• COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Cindy Johnson stated that she helped to create the Natural Resources section. It is language that
came from Dakota County and other area cities. She asked if the section could be left unchanged
and not pared down, as it includes small steps to the long range plan.
Jonathan Zagel stated the plan should include grand goals for the city. Individual steps are a
challenge, and the goals of the city should be for long-term.
Marty Evans, 2015 Victoria Road South, owner of property proposed to be re-guided from LR to
MR Medium Density Residential, feels the Council and the Planning Commission are taking into
account the will of the people, he would like to have his property remain as single-family.
Jill Smith stated she is a strong proponent of natural resources, but feels the Natural Resources
section to too specific. She stated a Comp Plan should be aspirational and a 20-year plan.
It was noted that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the 2040 Comp Plan on
October 23, 2018, and the City Council will have this on their November 20, 2018 agenda to
accept the plan.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 pm.
___________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
____________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 5
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Miller, and Petschel
were also present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda,
moving item f. under the Consent Agenda to the end of the agenda.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, with the exception of item i)
Approval of Claims List and m) Authorize Final Payment for City Hall Remodeling Project.
a. Approve October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes
b. Approve October 2, 2018 Council Work Session Minutes
c. Approve Purchase of Wetland Banking Credits for the Bourn Property
d. Approve Resolution 2018-79 Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Wentworth Park
Pond Improvement Project
e. Approve 2018-2019 Insurance Renewal and Election to Not Waive Statutory Limits
f. Approve Purchase of City Hall Generator Replacement
g. Acknowledgement of September 2018 Fire Synopsis
h. Approval of September 2018 Treasurer’s Report
i. Approval of Claims List
j. Approve Building Activity Report
k. Approve August Par 3 Update and Financial Report
l. Approve Resolution 2018-81 Accept Donation to City
page 6
m. Authorize Final Payment for City Hall Remodeling Project
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
M) AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT FOR CITY HALL REMODELING PROJECT
Councilor Duggan asked if the Council could see a full report different of the costs associated with the
remodeling of City Hall. Also, if there were any insurance possibilities as there were some substantial
numbers racked up with this project which was needed.
City Administrator Mark McNeil replied that staff could do that. Included in the packet materials, there
was a summary of the total costs, which came to just over $338,000. Of that, $228,000 was for the
contract for the work and $100,000 for mold remediation, investigation, and architectural fees. The city
had reserved $400,000 from the water fund for this project. If the Council wished for a more detailed
report, they could do so.
Councilor Duggan noted that he was thinking more in the line of lessons learned going forward for any
other city buildings. He reiterated his desire for a more detailed report, which staff agreed to provide.
Councilor Duggan moved to authorize immediate payment of $70,776.36 to Dering Pierson Group for
Payment Application #5, and further to release the retainage amount of $11,914.90, after the completion
of a satisfactory final inspection, and receipt of properly executed close-out documents.
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
I) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS LIST
No discussion was necessary since it was initially covered above.
Councilor Miller moved approval of Claims List.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
PUBLIC HEARING
No items scheduled.
page 7
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) RESOLUTION 2018-80 PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $1,125,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2018A
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that earlier in the day there was a sale of bonds and the
city’s bond representatives were present to provide the results.
Mr. Jason Aarsvold from Ehlers & Associates, Inc. shared the results of the bond sales, which took place
to help pay for the city’s 2018 road reconstruction projects. The bond issuance was rated by Standard &
Poors and they affirmed the city’s AAA rating, which is the highest rating they extend.
A competitive sale was held and three bids were returned; the low bidder was Baird out of Milwaukee,
WI. The low bid was 2.8810%, which is a great rate; the highest bidder was just over 3%. This reduced
the total amount of bonds needed to be issued from $1,125,000 at resale down to $1,080,000.
Councilor Paper asked if the $45,000 savings was due to the AAA rating. Mr. Aarsvold replied that it
was not directly a result of the AAA rating; however, it is indirectly one of the factors. Without that
bond rating, the interest rate would have been a little bit higher.
Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-80 PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND
SALE OF $1,080,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2018A,
PLEDGING FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING A TAX
FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
B) RESOLUTION 2018-77 APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW REDUCED SETBACK
FROM SIDE-YARD SETBACK OF A DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA, 1678 LILAC
LANE (PER & SANDRA MOBERG – APPLICANTS)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti shared the details of the request for a variance from Per
and Sandra Moberg for property located at 1678 Lilac Lane. The request was to allow the installation of
an expanded driveway and parking pad area next to their two-car garage; the installation of which would
encroach up to 4-feet into the 5-foot side yard setback standard.
At their October 4, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this item by a 5-
2 vote, with the addition of a condition to allow such encroachment no closer than 1-foot from the side
property line.
Councilor Duggan stated that he looked at the challenge that this property has, particularly with the
narrowness of most of the lots in this area. Because this property is on a curve, he believed the variance
should be granted.
Councilor Paper asked if there had been any consideration given to making the main driveway wider.
Mr. Benetti replied that there had not been any consideration of that; however, staff could work with the
page 8
homeowners. Mr. Benetti explained that as long as they maintain the setback and taper the addition to
the parking pad, staff could work with them on that. Councilor Petschel expressed her support.
Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-77 APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
REDUCED SETBACK FROM SIDE-YARD SETBACKS OF A DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1678 LILAC LANE.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
C) ORDINANCE NO. 534 – ALLOW MOTOR FUEL SERVICE STATIONS AS A PLACE OF
SALE/RESALE OF MOTOR VEHICLES (SEAN HOFFMANN – APPLICANT)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was a reconsideration of a code
amendment request presented by Mr. Sean Hoffman, co-owner/operator of the BP-Mendota Heights
Auto Service station, located at Dodd Road and Highway 62 (Old Hwy 110). Mr. Hoffman is asking for
the allowance to provide an auto brokerage license at the business. Before the state issues this license,
they want to make sure that the property is zoned appropriately and accessible during business hours.
On May 23, 2017, this item was presented to the Planning Commission where they recommended denial
of the request by a 5-0 vote. This item was presented to the City Council on June 6, 2017 where they
struggled to find out how to help this local business. The Council directed staff and the City Attorney to
work with the applicant. Staff met with Mr. Hoffman a number of times; he searched for alternative
locations, but nothing worked out. Therefore, he has requested a reconsideration of his application.
The proposed ordinance included the addition of Item A which read, “Only businesses that provide on-
site automobile repairs will be licensed to conduct such vehicles sales”. The remainder of the
amendment limited it to no more than two vehicles on the site – Mr. Hoffman indicated that there would
probably be only 1 vehicle at a time at the site.
Councilor Miller asked what was meant by ‘the back’ – is it the back parking lot of the business site. Mr.
Benetti replied that the amendment reads “Vehicles for sale shall not be placed in any front yard setback
(including a corner front yard) of the subject property . . .”
Councilor Duggan asked if there was any leeway of having more than two vehicles in a 24-hour period.
Mr. Benetti replied that if it becomes an issue, staff would take it up directly with Mr. Hoffman.
Councilor Paper, referencing Section 1, Item F.4 that reads “. . . trailers or campers.” asked if they were
included. Mr. Benetti replied that, per the language in the ordinance, they would be included; however,
the term ‘trailers or campers; should probably be removed. Staff and Council agreed.
Councilor Miller suggested that the term ‘motor vehicles’ be better defined. Mr. Benetti stated that State
Statute defines what a commercial vehicle is; based on tonnage. The Council decided to exclude trailers
or campers and commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds.
page 9
Councilor Paper moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 534 AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1,
ARTICLE D. GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS TO ALLOW MOTOR FUEL SERVICE
STATIONS AS A PLACE OF SALE OR RESALE OF NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLES, adding
language to exclude trailers or campers and commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
D) RESOLUTION 2018-78 APPROVING VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF ALLOWED
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES STANDARDS; VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES TO EXCEED ALLOWABLE AREA STANDARDS; VARIANCE TO ALLOW
NEW FIELD LIGHT POLES TO EXCEED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HEIGHT
STANDARDS, ALL IN THE R-1/R-1A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE HENRY
SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL, 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE (ISD # 197–APPLICANTS)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti shared the details of the request from ISD #197 on
behalf of Henry Sibley High School, 1897 Delaware Avenue for several athletic field improvements. At
their October 4, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. There were numerous
comments, both in objection to and in support of the application; along with letters, emails, and phone
calls. The Commission recommended approval, with the added condition; “The Applicant shall not hold
another event on site at the same time as a varsity football related event.”
Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property and the current site plan in the north campus area. He
also shared images of the proposed site plan with the following field improvements: Full-sized
football/soccer/lacrosse combination field with synthetic turf; new 9-lane all-weather running track; new
field event areas for shot-put, long jump, high hump, and pole-vault; 1,500 seat home bleachers and 500
seat visitor bleachers; new concession/restroom facility/new team room/storage facility; a new ticket
booth; press box.
Regarding traffic and parking, Mr. Benetti explained that there are no changes to the current access
points, which consist of three access points off Delaware Avenue, secondary access off Warrior Drive,
and no access off Marie Avenue or the frontage road. In regards to parking, the school currently has 508
total parking spaces; however, based on the calculations to reach the required number, they only need
228 spaces. However, athletic fields require one parking space for every three seats. The 2,000 seat
athletic field would require 667 parking spaces. A proof of parking plan was included the Council
packet showing the location of all of the parking spaces, including striping for event parking in the bus
areas, restriping on the east side of the building, and a new southeast parking lot; total parking stalls
equating to 670 parking spaces.
As for traffic, there would be five football games over a 2-3 month period; therefore, traffic would not
be a standard occurrence. Outside of football games, all other events (track meets, soccer games) are
expected to draw fewer spectators and would have minimal impact on the adjacent roads. Football
games are on off-peak hours. The traffic study revealed that the proposed multi-use stadium does not
represent a significant impact to the surrounding roadway systems and would not significantly alter
traffic flow or parking operations.
page 10
Another key part of the plan is lighting, which are designed to be directly reflected down onto the field.
They would include new LED features – not the high bright sodium vapor lights seen on other fields.
The requirements are that there must be zero candle readings of light at the property line.
Councilor Miller explained to everyone in attendance that the Council was not here to debate the merits
of the stadium. The Council was here to discuss the variances associated with this application.
Councilor Petschel asked the school district if they had additional information to share. Mr. Peter Olson-
Skog, Superintendent of ISD #197, stated this was an exciting time for the school. He addressed a
comment made at the Planning Commission meeting that the School District did not involve the
community in the planning of this stadium. He stated that the planning started with a Task Force in
2017, which garnered a lot of input. There were a lot of different mailings to the community, which
included open houses, district residents, community presentations, and more. The community did speak
last May and overwhelmingly supported the improvements at the bond referendum.
Mr. Olson-Skog reviewed the request. He stated the District is not asking for variances when it comes
to the sound or lights; the city will have the ability to enforce those issues. The district plans to enforce
themselves regarding sound, lights, traffic, and parking. The issues being heard tonight are the number,
size, and height of the accessory structures, which had to take into consideration three tests: Is the site
unique; Is it a reasonable request; Would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Olson-Skog introduced Ms. Jenny Tuttle, Architect from LSE Architecture to explain some of the
decisions made. Ms. Tuttle explained that the placement of the multi-purpose turf and field and track is
not under consideration by the Council this evening. She showed a diagram of the site plan, with the
location of the arena to the north that has been discussed for over a year in public communications, in
two previous presentations with the Council, newspaper articles, mailers, on the district website, at
community meetings, and has been part of the facility planning meetings. She offered a few points that
support the location being proposed:
• The 2014 Bond Referendum failed, which proposed the south location. The plan had the football field
oriented east/west rather than what is thought to be preferred, a north/south orientation.
• When proposed in 2014, the River-to-River Greenway trail with easements that encroached on the
dimensions did not exist. Today, the field would not fit.
• The district has made accessibility a high priority for all projects. Equal access and accessibility is a
law. The south field would be approximately 15 feet lower in elevation than the parking lot.
• Fields scarce and valuable resources; the south location would have required the replacement of or
the loss of two baseball fields, a Nordic track, and the sledding hill.
• The cost for a field in the south location was estimated to be $1.5M higher than the north location.
• It is standard practice for high schools that student parking is shared with that of the athletic fields.
Mr. Olson-Skog introduced Mr. Ryan Hoffman, Construction Consultant from ICS Consulting to explain
more about the project. Mr. Hoffman pointed out that fencing would completely encompass the new field
complex to force entry near the parking area. The integrity of the existing landscaping will remain. There
would be four light poles and they are seeking a variance for the height of them so the lights can be focused
down on the field. The poles would be brought in as tight as possible to the middle of the field, as far as
they can get away from the property lines.
page 11
A traffic study was completed, which included actual traffic counts from a recent football game. The data
shows that it would be a little bit less than what the case study was. The quantity of the structures is very
important to this type of complex. The appearance of the structures would be fitting to the neighborhood.
Mr. Hoffman shared an image of the proposed landscaping, however they are continuing to work on the
plan, which would include new trees, most to be planted on the north side for visual and sound impact, on
top of a berm (berm to be approx. 6 ft in height from the field and approx. 8 ft in height from the road).
The District has engaged a technical engineer to help with a sound system plan. Weather, temperature,
and environment affect sound on a daily basis. The District guarantees they will meet the standards.
Mayor Garlock asked what the size of the new trees would be. Mr. Hoffman replied that was undetermined
at this point, but they are looking at planting as mature of trees as possible.
Councilor Duggan stated that since they have taken into consideration the light standards and the experts
say they need to be 80 feet in heights, he would be happy to grant that variance. He also commented that
he would not have an issue with the number of accessory structures. If they could blend the accessory
structures in by using school architecture, neighborhood architecture, or some combination he would be
happy to accept that.
Councilor Duggan continued by stating that he was pleased to see that they were considering aesthetics
regarding the fencing. He hoped they would consider black, and black vinyl, but preferably not mesh. He
was pleased with the emphasis they have given to the landscaping and the number of trees; especially on
the north side, which is a big concern with the neighbors.
Councilor Duggan asked if they were planning on cleaning up the vegetation on the west side or to
maintain it the way it is. Mr. Hoffman replied that the project is located outside of that area.
Councilor Petschel noted that there are a number of people from the community that run on the track. She
asked if the community be able to use the new track. Mr. Olson-Skog replied that was their hope. Once
an investment is made for artificial turf one would want to create some type of access control. The district
sees these as community facilities.
Councilor Petschel noted that an issue the neighbors have is the possible rental of the facility to outside
groups. She asked if they have a policy on that. Mr. Olson-Skog replied that they do have a rental
procedure for the facilities. The school district feels an ongoing commitment that these are facilities that
were built with taxpayer dollars. They have had a long-standing tradition of having their facilities be
community facilities. There may be community organizations, such as MHAA, that would desire to use
the sound system or the lights and the district feels an ongoing commitment to them. Councilor Petschel
stated that it would be nice going forward that there could be some leveling of the lights and noise. Mr.
Olson-Skog reiterated that they would be uncomfortable setting those types of limitations at this point
without understanding the community desires as this is built with taxpayer dollars.
Councilor Duggan asked for an approximate number of rentals that currently take place in the evenings
per year. Mr. Olson-Skog replied that he could provide those numbers but he does not have them available
right now. Councilor Duggan asked if curfews still apply. Mr. Olson-Skog replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Garlock opened the floor for public comments.
page 12
Mr. Rob Anderson, 1759 Ridgewood Drive, stated there has been an arbitrary definition of athletic field
versus a stadium and he respectfully asked that this be investigated. The essential character of this
project will be a significant change to what has been going on in that location today, for example the
additional structures, the 80 foot high lights, the visual impact, the increase in traffic. He requested the
Council look at the totality of the impact on the neighborhood. A sound system would be intrusive. He
asked that the School District commit to not using the sound system or the lights during practices, limit
the rentals to 10 uses in the fall and 10 uses in the spring for track, lacrosse, soccer, and football. He
requested the School District share the details of the abatement strategy so the neighbors understand
exactly what it is.
Mr. Anderson noted an email he sent to the Council that outlined his comments and he provided the
Council a copy of that email.
Councilor Miller responded that in respect to limiting the amount of events held at the facility, that could
be punitive to the sports teams if they are successful in the post season. As a legislative body, the Council
should not be in the business of limiting the events. Mr. Anderson noted that it is not their intention to
prohibit or limit community activities. Their goal is to not have soccer leagues, lacrosse leagues, or other
adult leagues playing until 10:00 pm every night.
Regarding the marching band, Councilor Miller noted the successful band program, and they need an
opportunity to practice. Mr. Anderson clarified that it was not the practice they wished to limit; it was the
use of the sound system. Ms. Amy Powers, the band director, replied that she hoped to be practicing on
the new facility field. She stated that it is nearly impossible for her to teach outside without amplification.
Councilor Miller asked if there were any opportunities for her to lead without the amplification. Ms.
Powers replied that in the new facility they would be facing east, so the amplification would be directed
towards the baseball fields.
Ms. Sarah Kirkwood, 372 Betty Lane, is a band parent and noted that it was 17 evenings out of 92 summer
evenings that the marching band practiced during the evening hours. Her husband is researching a better
microphone and speaker system that would be less intrusive to the neighbors. She stated that an athletic
field with activity is a legitimate expectation for anyone living near a high school.
Ms. Chris Fischer, 1775 Ridgewood Drive, stated she is a Warrior supporter and her children attended
#197 schools. She supported the referendum, but the location of the proposed stadium on the northwest
quadrant of the campus seemed illogical and at odds with the rural residential zoning of the neighbors,
especially considering other options on-site. She had concerns with how close the stadium would be built
to Marie Avenue and the plans to rent the facility. She voiced concern with the number of seats and the
number of parking spaces required. She requested that an additional study be done and plans be approved
in writing before the variances are granted. This long awaited stadium should be thoughtfully considered,
to allow the greater good, with the least possible negative impact on the city.
Ms. Layla Rodgeput, a student at Henry Sibley High School, also a member of the Track and Field team,
shared the point of view from the students. The current track is falling apart. It has holes and cracks. When
it rains, water goes underneath the track and bubbles – causing it to move under their feet. This has caused
multiple injuries. She noted that the players and students are asking for the same facilities that their
competitors have, and facilities the students can take pride in.
page 13
Ms. Susan Micevych, 1778 Ridgewood Drive, stated that no one is trying to take the stadium away from
the students. They understand the need for a stadium. She wanted it to be clear that the neighboring
residents are defending their homes which is very personal for them.
She continued by saying they support Henry Sibley. Her neighborhood understands the stadium is
important; however, they do not believed that ISD #197 has proven the practical difficulties test. There
is no denying that building a stadium 100 feet from their homes will change the character of the
neighborhood; however, in its current state the variances allows the PA system and the voice
amplification to be used at all hours. Other nuisance factors; such as parking, traffic, and crowds make
this stadium, as proposed, a high burden on their homes.
There is nothing physically unique about the topography of the current track and field that would require
the variances to be granted. It is not reasonable to place this huge stadium with no limitations on rental,
or lights, or sound, or even hours of operation right next to their homes when they believe that there is
objectively a much better location on the south side. Cost alone cannot constitute practical difficulties.
They do not think that it is proper for the City to allow the variance to be processed as an athletic field
rather than a stadium.
Ms. Micevych addressed what the neighbors are asking:
• No PA system amplification or lights for stadium rentals.
• Do not rent to pro-soccer teams or traveling soccer teams that are not from our community.
• Limit the lights and PA system usage to Sibley Boys & Girls Varsity games and track meets.
• No PA system or voice amplification for sports or band practices.
• The neighbors would like to see how big the berm is and what that looks like.
She noted that there are 48 homeowners on the northeast side that share her concerns.
Mr. Greg Monson, 1236 Sylvandale Road, had the privilege of serving on the facilities task force with the
district. There was a lot of process and participants in the planning of this facility. After the south location
was rejected by the community at the 2014 bond referendum, the task force focused on the putting the
facility close to the current parking, taking advantage of existing vegetation on the west and northwest
corners of the property, the orientation of the field, the fit of the field, the drainage, etc. As to the
conditions being suggested regarding noise and traffic, those have nothing to do with the variances
requested. The city regulates noise and lights in their ordinances. He stated this process has included
unprecedented levels of opportunity to be heard. He urged the Council to support the resolution.
Mr. Cory Raney, West St. Paul, stated that there are many factors that show the southern location for the
facility is not as preferable as the north location. The parking would be further away and there would be
additional cost to make the field handicap accessible. He has been involved in sports programs at Sibley
for two years and he has never heard a coach use a PA system during practice. He has also been a
member of MHAA for eight years and he has never had a game last later than 7:30 p.m. He lives within
a quarter of a mile from Matson Field and he rarely hears the PA system. These variances are not about
sound. He encouraged the Council to support the request.
Mr. Donny McKenzie, student at Henry Sibley HS and participates in football, wrestling, track, and
band, as well as other school activities. There may not be a lot of students present this evening; however,
page 14
they showed up in mass at the Planning Commission meeting to show their support for the stadium. The
ones who are here represent all of the students who believe in their school and they feel this is very
important.
Ms. Holly Farber, 1701 James Road, previously lived near the high school. It was an asset when they
purchased their home near the high school and it was an asset when the sold it. Happy activity at Sibley
High School is part of the beauty and character of that neighborhood. When one purchases a house in
that neighborhood that is what they want. The variances are for an issue that has already been decided
upon overwhelmingly by the voters and unanimously by the Planning Commission. She encouraged the
Council to vote yes.
Ms. Darcie McKenzie, 1415 Cherry Hill Road, stated that in 2014, when the stadium and the bond
referendum was defeated, it was tough because she worked hard on it. The task force listened to the
voters and asked what they needed to do to get these much needed improvements completed. This is
what they did and why they passed the very solid bond. Tonight they were asking for variances to that.
She hoped that the Council would approve these variances.
Councilor Petschel asked Mr. Olson-Skog to address the acoustic fence that is included in the plan. Mr.
Olson-Skog stated that it is a fence that includes a solid vinyl covering that does provide some acoustical
mitigation. The fence would be, at a minimum, along the north side of the field, and could be extended
further.
Councilor Duggan stated that black vinyl clad chain link fence disappears and is unseen and would be
more appropriate. Mr. Olson-Skog reiterated that the current plan contains a chain link fence that
extends around the parameter and, in addition, would include a vinyl covering that does make it appear
like a more solid surface along that northern portion, at a minimum.
Councilor Paper stated that there were requests for more and larger trees, a berm, and acoustical fencing;
although those were not what was before the Council. Mr. Olson-Skog confirmed. Councilor Paper
stated that the school district has stepped forward and met some of the requests from the neighbors. He
asked if high school soccer games and lacrosse games run late. Mr. Olson-Skog stated, in terms of the
rentals, the school district would continue to implement restrictions on the lights, they would turn off at
9:30 p.m., with a possible extension to 10:00 p.m. when cleanup is needed. Councilor Paper stated that
with the additional trees, a berm, an acoustic fence, and lights that are off by 10:00 p.m., the plan has
been improved and the district striving to be a good neighbor.
Councilor Duggan noted that lights could be adjusted if needed. He was sure the district would go to
great strides to minimize the negative effects on the neighborhood. In regards to accessory structures, he
asked how much does that exceed what the ordinances allow. Mr. Benetti replied that the total number
of square feet is 15,182 which includes the stadium. The limitation is 425 square feet. Council Duggan
asked, if the stadium was removed, what the total would be. Mr. Benetti replied the square footage of the
bleacher areas was approximately 8,200 square feet; so it would be approximately half the square
footage.
Councilor Duggan stated when he thinks of the size of the space physically and the separation of the
different proposed buildings, he did not think that it was going to be as massive as people may think.
The key points he heard were no lights after 10 p.m., minimal rentals, and reduced sound.
page 15
Ms. Elena Lucille Thomas, Sibley Alum, a former teacher in the district, a coach in cross country and
track & field, and part of the district task force and the smaller task force specifically about this athletic
field, stated she knows that there were community members who were a part of this process from
Warrior Drive, and they made their voice heard. She heard them talking about how this is intruding on
their home life; and as a former student of Sibley, the track was her home for six years. Sibley is home
to the current students and the future students. She urged the Council to think about request and to move
forward without limitations. The opportunities that this kind of a facility would offer are very important.
Ms. Rachel Quick, 554 Junction Lane, noted that a lot of time has been spent on this topic. Throughout
the whole process, only approximately 20 minutes have been spent on the topic under consideration. She
understood and sympathized with the concerns brought up, however, there has to be progress. There was
a very legitimate voting process and it is important to focus on just what is being requested. It is time to
move this process forward.
Mr. Brian Udell, 1715 Lansford Lane, a participant and an instructor marching bands, stated he was
heartened to see that the Sibley Marching Band has been on the up and up lately; this is a unique
opportunity to capitalize on that momentum. If the notion of restricting the use of the field was
entertained, then not only would that handicap the Sibley Marching Band on a competitive level but it
picks favorites among the activities that the youth are engaged in. He would hate to see one more
roadblock for a group that is thriving and growing.
Mr. Dean Verdoes, 1509 Dodd Road, an instructor, an administrator, and a volunteer in the District,
stated he is very excited for the students of Henry Sibley High School and for the community. This is a
big step forward for them and will give the district facilities that are comparable to the rest of the
schools in the conference.
City Attorney Andrew Pratt explained that public schools are a permitted use in the R-1 Residential
Districts. It is true that the City Code does not go into detail as far as what a stadium is or what an
athletic field is. There is a reference of athletic field in the zoning code allowing for one parking space
per three seats of design capacity, however, that does not relate to the discussions this evening.
The variance test, as has been discussed, has to be considered. The requested usage must be in harmony
with the general purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Public
Schools are a permitted use in the R-1 District.
Regarding practical difficulties, state statute states that a new variance cannot alter the essential
character of the ‘locality’; whereas the City Code says ‘neighborhood’. Economic considerations alone
do not constitute a practical difficulty. Per state law, the condition of a variance must be directly related
to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. City Code language has more
liberal use for conditions on variances. Mr. Pratt believed that if the Council would like to place more
conditions on the variances, those conditions should be limited to the reason why the variances have to
exist in the first place – height, number of, and size of the accessory structures.
Regarding noise amplification, the city has a nuisance ordinance that could be enforced when there are
complaints and an issue.
page 16
City Attorney Pratt suggested changes to Paragraph C, D, and E that would give more specificity to the
accessory buildings and light poles. He suggested adding at the end of each paragraph:
• Paragraph C – It is a reasonable use of the property to place light poles and accessory buildings
in this location.
• Paragraph D – The property is physically unique in that the large size of the campus and the
application for the accessory structures and the light poles necessitates the need for the variances.
• Paragraph E – The light poles and accessory buildings are not out of scale, out of place, or
inconsistent with the appearance of the neighborhood.
Councilor Duggan suggested that Item 2, “The Applicant shall not deviate from the amended site plan
under this application review; . . .”, should read “The Applicant shall not deviate from the amendment of
the site plan under this application review; . . .”
Councilor Duggan then asked if the remainder of Item 2 was in conflict with itself. Counsel Pratt replied
that he did not see any conflict and it means that if the school district wants to apply for more accessory
structures, they would need another variance. Mr. Benetti agreed and stated that the intent was to hold
them to the current standards. With the review of the Comprehensive Plan, there are some new zoning
ordinance updates to come. He has been informed by the Planning Commission that staff needs to put
schools and other institutional uses in their own category to help them to not have to go through
something like this in the future.
Councilor Miller moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-78 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR
NUMBER OF ALLOWED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES STANDARDS; A VARIANCE FOR
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO EXCEED ALLOWABLE AREA STANDARDS; AND A
VARIANCE TO ALLOW NEW FIELD LIGHT POLES TO EXCEED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
HEIGHT STANDARDS, ALL IN THE R-1/R-1A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR HENRY SIBLEY
HIGH SCHOOL - LOCATED AT 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-23)
with the amendments as noted by the City Attorney.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Councilor Duggan, in relation to granting these variances, asked if there needed to be further
clarification as to the reasons for the statements that had been made so that the city was in compliance
with all the laws. City Attorney Andrew Pratt replied that he would interpret approval to include all of
the items included in the Planning Report, incorporated within this resolution, and also the statements
that he made to include.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
E) APPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE VILLAGE RETAINING WALLS
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Council was being requested to authorize a
professional services contract for public safety improvements of the Village retaining walls. In 2004, the
city was part of a development to construct a Planned Unit Development, including commercial and
residential space at the northeast corner of Dodd Road and Highway 62. Part of the project constructed a
number of retaining walls behind the row homes on Oak Street, and adjacent to a parking lot.
page 17
A number of the boulders have started rolling out of the walls along the city trail that runs through the
commercial properties to Linden Street. Through research, it was determined that the city is responsible
for retaining walls. Therefore, for the immediate improvement, staff will install chain link netting that
would be anchored into the boulder wall to prevent any additional boulders from rolling out. There is a
steep slope that comes off the patios behind the property, so staff is proposing a short chain link fence on
top of the wall as a safety improvement. They are also proposing to add some signage.
For $2,500, the consultant will put together an initial assessment and a bid package. Staff is estimating
the fencing, armoring, and safety signage to cost $10,000. Funds are available in an infrastructure fund
that would allow staff to proceed with the project this fall.
The consultant is estimating approximately $35,000 to do a full design for the replacement of these
retaining walls. Staff has been informed that they should undertake this project in the spring of 2019.
Staff requested that Council approve the professional services contract; staff would then get the
consultant approved; get a bid package together; get the quotes and bring them back to Council as soon
as possible. Staff would return to Council early next year with a more refined proposal for a professional
services contract to bid the wall replacement.
Councilor Petschel asked if the city could bond for the balance. Mr. Ruzek replied that it would be
assessed in the feasibility process in the early spring or possibly held off and rolled into the street
bonding in the fall.
Councilor Paper asked if the Council would be presented with different solutions. Mr. Ruzek replied that
would be part of the report. A professional services contract looking at the wall options, costs, and a full
design of the preferred option would be brought back to the Council in the early spring of 2019.
Councilor Miller moved to authorize Staff to execute a professional services contract with Bolton &
Menk for $2,535.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
F) CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 5F: AUTHORIZE PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE
OF CITY HALL GENERATOR
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that this was an item that had been discussed with Council
during the budget process and is something that the Fire Marshall has been asking staff to address.
Staff obtained three quotes to replace the generator at City Hall. Three quotes were received, the lowest
was just under $63,000. The City Attorney noted that the city’s purchasing policy calls for formal
competitive bids whenever a purchase would be over $50,000. This was not done; however, the Council
could choose to waive the city’s purchasing policy and proceed to authorize the purchase order.
Staff also suggested that the Council might want to direct staff to look at updating the purchasing policy.
State bid requirements require anything over $175,000 go through a formal competitive bid process.
page 18
Councilor Miller asked why there was a large ($40,000) gap between the lowest bid and the others. Mr.
McNeill replied that staff reviewed the lowest bid, it appeared to be legitimate, and that the bidder was
aware of all of the necessary requirements.
Councilor Miller asked, since the city would be looking at purchasing a generator for the newly
remodeled fire station, if there could be a deal that could be worked out. Mr. McNeill replied that he
would have to talk to the architect to determine what they are going to have at the fire station; it may not
be comparable. This particular bid includes the removal of the current diesel fueled generator and the
installation of a dual fueled (propane and natural gas) generator. It may be that the same company would
be the low bidder for the fire station; however, it would also be part of the overall fire station bid
process. He was unsure if the city would see any efficiency on that.
Council Paper asked if the dual fueled generator would run first on natural gas and then propane. Mr.
Ruzek replied that it would be a natural gas generator with an easy conversion to propane. There would
not be a propane tank on the premises.
Councilor Duggan moved to approve the quote from Allied Generator for $62,950.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill reminded residents to check the city’s website for recreational
information. He reminded residents about the Halloween Bonfire on October 31 and that the city is not
accepting brush for the bonfire this year. He stated the 2040 Comprehensive Plan public hearing is being
continued on October 23 by the Planning Commission.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Duggan wished luck to all of the council candidates and wished everyone a safe Halloween. He
expressed his appreciation to the planning staff and the Planning Commission for all of the work they have
done on the Comprehensive Plan. He also mentioned the renaming of the pedestrian tunnel.
Council Paper stated that it was wonderful news for the school district and the community. He is excited
for the first football game next fall. This is going to be a transformative thing for the community as a
gathering space. He noted that St. Thomas Academy football team is 7-0 and tomorrow night is the final
game of the season versus Hill Murray. The atmosphere there for their games is really quite thrilling and
he hopes it is a taste of what is to be seen at Henry Sibley in years to come.
Council Miller echoed the sentiments of Councilors Duggan and Paper. He reminded residents that this
year’s bonfire may be the last bonfire at that particular location. He encouraged all to attend.
Mayor Garlock expressed his appreciation to staff, Council, and Commissioners for the long hours over
the last few days and thanked them for their hard work.
page 19
Councilor Petschel complimented the Public Works department for the new fencing along the culvert at
Rogers Lake. It is as attractive as it can be and appears that it will be effective. She shared that the Convent
of Visitation lost one of their longest serving sisters – Sister Jane de Chantal – who was one of the most
beautiful souls God ever created.
ADJOURN
Councilor Duggan moved to adjourn.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 9:59 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 20
September 25, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 14
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 25, 2018
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
September 25, 2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John
Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel.
Those absent: None
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of July 24, 2018 Minutes
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2018, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
A) DISCUSS THE LAND USE PLAN AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN ELEMENTS OF THE
PROPOSED 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Planning Consultant Phil Carlson from Stantec explained that city staff and Stantec have been
working for close to two years on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which is required to be updated
every 10 years. This plan is then submitted to the Metropolitan Council (Met Council), other
agencies, and surrounding communities. Mr. Carlson then provided a brief overview of purpose
of the Comprehensive Plan and the sections it covers:
Introduction & Background
Land Use
Transportation
Parks and Open Space
Housing
Economic Development
Natural Resources
Resilience
Implementation
Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor Plan
page 21
September 25, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 14
Mr. Carlson then shared the Vision Statement:
“Mendota Heights will be recognized as a high quality, family-oriented residential
community, with a spacious, natural feel and the amenities of a city.”
and the Mission Statement:
“Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in Mendota Heights by
providing quality public safety, infrastructure, and planning for orderly and
sustainable growth.”
LAND USE
Mr. Carlson explained that Land Use means what is actually happening on the ground, how are
the structures and land being used on the ground. Most of the City of Mendota Heights is
designated as ‘low density residential’. There are large areas of park and open space; a large
industrial park of 400+ acres, which is a well-functioning and well regarded business park; smaller
areas of commercial and mixed use; and smaller areas of medium and high density residential.
These land uses reflect generally what had been planned in the past and what is intended to be
planned in the future.
There are changes that are being proposed in the 2040 plan compared to the 2030 plan; some of
which are housekeeping type changes; however, there are two areas that are being guided in the
2040 plan with slightly different low density designations. These two areas are still single family,
low density residential; however, allowing for a smaller lot size. A lot size study was completed
and concluded that some lots were larger than the city’s 15,000 square foot minimum; howe ver,
there were some that were smaller and did not conform to the 15,000 square foot minimum.
Therefore, new land use designations were created to allow these lots to meet the standards that
they are in.
An analysis of the age of the housing stock was also conducted; some parts of the city were
developed in the 1930’s and 1940’s; a large area was developed in the 1950’s; and then every
decade since there has been development.
Affordable housing is an issue every city and in every region. There are many, many people who
simply cannot afford a house at almost any price. Trying to look for ways to provide more
affordable housing is a challenge for every community. Housing is considered affordable if it costs
less than 2.5 times the salary of the homeowner. This can be a real challenge and a burden for
people at the very lowest end of the income scale. Many of these people work in the businesses
we patronize in the city, many times they are public employees; it is not just busloads of poor
people from the inner city. It is often times our friends and neighbors. Looking for ways to provide
affordable housing is a challenge for the entire region.
Goals and Policies
The Goals and Policies listed in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan are:
GOAL 1: The land use plan will serve as the foundation for land use decisions in Mendota Heights.
page 22
September 25, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 14
Policies:
Develop in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for land use, housing, transportation,
parks and other community facilities.
Review and amend the Comprehensive Plan as necessary to ensure consistent development
policy in current and future development decisions.
Zoning and rezoning decisions shall conform to the Land Use Plan.
The Land Use Plan will be updated to reflect changing priorities and conditions or as
required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
Balance land use designations to meet projected growth demand.
GOAL 2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and
character of the community.
Policies:
Subdivision and zoning standards will emphasize high quality site and building design.
Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in
community development and building.
Parks, trails and open spaces will be planned within walking distance of all residential
areas.
Encourage development and planning of land that provides for reasonable access to
surrounding properties.
Public buildings and properties will be designed, constructed and maintained to be a source
of civic pride and to set a standard for private property owners to follow.
Historic preservation will be considered in land use decisions.
GOAL 3: Support industrial and commercial development in designated areas.
Policies:
The City will use available resources to meet redevelopment needs. This will include
cooperation with the Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council to achieve
redevelopment objectives.
Encourage appropriate transitions and buffering between potentially incompatible land
uses.
GOAL 4: Reduce the impact of aircraft noise within the community.
Policies:
Increase public participation and representation through the Noise Oversight Committee
(NOC) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC).
Achieve noise reduction through advocating modified takeoff procedures and corridor
compliance.
Advocate an equitable distribution of aircraft traffic and a more equitable runway use
system.
page 23
September 25, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 14
Monitor the continued implementation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) airport
Comprehensive Plan.
Advocate for specific noise control measures through operational changes and advance
technology.
Encourage establishment of a physical capacity for the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor
and transfer of general aviation use to other reliever airports.
Notify and work with MnDOT in the event that potential airspace obstructions are
encountered.
Consider aircraft noise and safety issues as in applicable land use and zoning decisions.
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Carlson explained that the transportation section looks at the roadway and highway system,
which consists of arterials (main roadways), collector streets (secondary), and local streets. In
Mendota Heights there are a combination of federal highways, state highways, county roadways,
and local streets. The city is well served by this major highway system, with 35E, Highway 110
(now known as Highway 62), I-494, and Highway 55. By the same token, these major highways
do divide the community and creates barriers to getting across the city and creating a community
that is knitted together.
An important piece of the transportation system is Dodd Road; many people are concerned about
that because it is the link to the new Viking Development just south of our border in Eagan. City
staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council are actively looking at what can be done to try
and make that manageable. Dodd Road is a state highway – not a city street; therefore, the city
does not have direct control over it.
The city is served by a transit bus system; not as robustly as some communities that are more
densely developed. This is a blessing and a curse of Mendota Heights. It is a spacious community
and with that comes a lower density of potential riders. The businesses in the Industrial Park
lamented that they wished there was better bus service to bring their employees to and from the
park. Other parts of the city are also looking for a better bus service.
The parks and trail systems are a combination of city and county parks and county trails, as well
as private open spaces. These provide a network within the city and is one of the real sources of
pride that makes the quality of life and character of Mendota Heights what it is.
Goals and Policies
The Goals and Policies listed in the Transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan are:
GOAL 1: Provide a safe, high quality, and cost effective multi-model transportation system
Policies:
Transportation improvements will be coordinated with the plans of MnDOT, Dakota
County, Metropolitan Council, and adjoining communities.
page 24
September 25, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 14
The City will support regional improvements to major transportation facilities serving the
city when feasible.
New construction techniques, technologies, and environmental sustainability will be
considered in planning new transportation facilities.
A network of sidewalks and trails will be constructed in all new developments and
redevelopments, where practical and feasible.
Developers will be required to provide the transportation facilities within and adjacent to
new subdivisions, including rights-of-way, roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities
necessary to support their development.
Existing transportation facilities will be maintained so as to preserve or improve service
levels and minimize life-cycle costs. This includes an ongoing pavement management
program for city streets.
Where practical and feasible, planning for roadway improvements will include
landscaping, street lighting, and other aesthetic improvements.
GOAL 2: Expand transit options serving Mendota Heights
Policies:
The City will continue to support and participate in efforts to implement improved transit
service in the City.
The City will seek county, regional, state or federal funding to expand transit services in
and around the city.
Chair Field opened the public hearing on the Land Use and Transportation sections of the draft
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update.
Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, has lived in Mendota Heights for 61 years, served on the
Planning Commission for 12 years, and has been heavily involved in matters involving the city
planning and zoning since the early 1960’s. He referenced an article in a Minneapolis newspaper
written by Jack Davies, former legislature and court of appeals judge, where he said that “the battle
to end the scourge of multi-subject bills seems to be won”, where he was referring to the bills
containing legislation on many different subjects that inhibits the ability of both legislators and the
public to give appropriate attention and debate to the individual subjects. Mr. Friel felt that the
manner in which the Planning Commission was handling the proposed changes to the
Comprehensive Plan was subject to the same criticism. He suspected that many did not understand
what was really being proposed.
He stated that the Commission is actually proposing a half dozen Comprehensive Plan land use
amendments, further amendments to existing land use categories, several new land use categories,
and changing written policies and adding provisions. To have the public understand and back up
these proposals they should be considered separately.
The city was proposing two Comprehensive Plan land use changes, an LR-9 and an LR-5, and
were saying they were necessary to avoid variance requests to alter setbacks of yards, buildings,
and other structures on non-conforming grandfathered lots, particularly in Friendly Hills and the
north end, which were developed before there were zoning or Comprehensive Plans. He believed
page 25
September 25, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 14
that the city could do all of that without changes in the Comprehensive Plan. The city already has
three different land use categories in single family residential; an R-1 at 15,000 square feet, an R-
1B at 30,000 square feet; and an R-1C with 20,000 square feet – each with its own individual set
of setbacks, building sizes, etc. He felt there was no reason why the city couldn’t an R-1D and an
R-1E. He believed that the proposed land use changes would open the city to requests to re-guide
properties other than those being proposed at this time. Even if this Council, or some future
Council, were to refuse said requests, they could be overturned just as the Council’s decision was
on the Olin property recently.
Mr. Friel could not understand the motivation for making such sweeping changes to the land use
plan; changes that could only have the effect of promoting significant increases in density and
traffic to the degradation of this city’s fine reputation; opening a door to providing for employment
for developers, planners, engineers, and lawyers.
Mr. Friel continued by noting that last week, in response to a suggestion he made at the Planning
Commission workshop, the outside planner suggested that he lacked the background to disagree
with him, certified that the outside planner’s 45 years of experience trumped the point Mr. Friel
was making. In response to this, Mr. Friel listed his qualifications:
For approximately 10 years he served as City Attorney for two metropolitan area
communities
Served as bond council for hundreds of municipal governments in the State of Minnesota
and elsewhere
The Cities of Duluth and Cloquet hired him to draft the legislation which created the
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
He was called upon frequently by the Minnesota State Reviser of Statutes to draft bills for
the Minnesota Legislature
He organized and chaired the Municipal Bond Department of his law firm that is now the
bond council for this city.
Mr. Friel pointed out that none of his qualifications were relevant in determining whether his
position was correct or trumped a different view; it was rather whether his position has factual
support. In that connection he might refer to something Mr. Carlson said earlier – the industrial
area of this community has not needed any fixing and has functioned very well. Frankly, that
remark applies to everything else in the City of Mendota Heights and its current Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Brian Selg, 867 Bluebill Drive, has been a resident for 45 years and raised his family here. He
stated that his position was that the city could forget about everything they were planning on doing;
no further development in Mendota Heights. The tipping point has already been exceeded and any
existing open spaces should be converted to either forest land or prairie land.
Ms. Marina Mcmanus, 1026 Victoria Court, has been a resident since 1989 and has served as a
Planning Commissioner. She moved into this community because of its location, positive
reputation of being family focused, and open spaces. Her concern now for the community is that
the character and best features be maintained. Therefore, she does not support the proposals for
increasing density and all of the things that come along with it – traffic being one of them. The
page 26
September 25, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 14
residents and the city cannot change the highway systems; however, they can change what was
being proposed to be done in the community that would create more traffic. She is not opposed to
growth or change and as a Planning Commissioner she supported commercial and residential
development; however, when discussing those particular developments it was to serve current and
future needs – not too big and not too little, but just right to maintain the character and the feel of
the community. The effects of large developments are already being felt; traffic noise, congestion,
and air quality do not improve once the natural and environmental character is lost; and would not
fit the mission statement.
She recently received notices of changes proposed along Victoria Curve and did not understand
the rationale or the need to change from low density residential to medium density as it is not in
keeping with the current character of the neighborhood and would seriously change it; she does
not support that and requested that the Planning Commission think about that in the final decision
making.
Ms. Christine Solberg, 1062 Chippewa Avenue, stated that she would be directly affected by the
northeast proposal (smaller lot sizes) as she has vacant lots on either side of her home; she was
very concerned about water flows should homes be built on these two lots as she is located at the
bottom of a hill. She was also concerned about the value of her home declining as these lots do not
allow for a very large homes and her home value would be based on the values of neighboring
homes. She and the other second generation people living in the area love the neighborhood the
way it is – the open space they have is in compliance with the vision statement. She felt that her
neighborhood was considered ‘the ugly stepchild’ because they border St. Paul and West St. Paul.
She would like to have their vacant 5,000 – 6,000 square foot lots left alone so they too can enjoy
some of that open space.
Ms. Nancy Gerber, 1081 Douglas Road, was present to talk about the change that is across the
driveway in her back yard at the corner of Sibley Memorial Highway and Lexington. Her driveway
is off the hill on Lexington and in the winter it is treacherous and is often closed by the Police. The
traffic on Lexington is slated to increase some and the new development in The Orchard will add
homes that would likely use Lexington. The speed limit on Lexington is 40 mph and until one gets
to Marie, after which it turns to 30 mph. Many of the motorists do not notice the change in speed
limit. She questioned the safety of putting all of those people on the hill behind her.
She requested that the commissioners read the comments that she provided to them and reiterated
that traffic is an issue as well as pedestrian / bike traffic as there are no sidewalks or trails, this
being a county road. Also her property is in a historic area and the property behind her probably is
as well. It does not look like it would be the most buildable kind of place – it would really change
the character of that corner.
The property on the other western side of the road is also a single family home that is not being
changed to a high density property and she questioned why one side and not the other.
Mr. John Maczko, 751 Cheyenne Lane, has lived in the community for over 58 years. He knew
when he purchased his lot that it was considered a non-conforming lot and went through all of the
necessary steps to obtain the variances needed to build. He expressed his concern that the proposed
page 27
September 25, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 14
land use could easily morph into the unintended consequences as allowing other undeveloped areas
– like a 3 acre parcel – being developed as medium density. He questioned whether or not a current
15,000 square foot lot could be subdivided into three 5,000 square foot lots in keeping with the
character of the community, obtaining the necessary variances, etc.
Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, is a candidate for mayor of Mendota Heights, served for
eight years on the City Council, and has significant leadership and planning experience on other
county, regional, and university boards and with 3M. She spoke strongly against the proposed
provisions of adding land use designations to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. These are intended
for legal non-conforming areas of the city under the current zoning and arbitrary changes in others.
This action would open the door for greater density and could compromise the character and
integrity of existing neighborhoods. Adding new land use categories is a poor solution for well
thought out city planning. These changes would also require new zoning regulations that have not
yet been determined and would affect existing neighborhoods. This would also deprive many
residents the ability to consider the full impacts of these changes. Other solutions – like revisions
to the zoning code – would better serve to address this issue and not compromise the future
character of the city. She requested consideration be given to other more responsible solutions for
this matter.
Ms. Beth Pearlman 1773 Diane Road, asked what was driving this land use change. She understood
that part of it was to update the look of the city plan. She asked if there were developers or other
organizations who were asking for these changes or was it simply coming out of the city’s desire
to make it look cleaner and more organized. Chair Field replied that, as mentioned by Mr. Carlson,
it was to clean up some land use issues in the city and trying to make some of those properties,
which are currently legal non-conforming uses, into conforming land uses. Ms. Pearlman
suggested that maybe this was not worth opening up the hornet’s nest as it appears to be doing.
Mr. Steve Treichel, 2174 Lemay Lake Drive, echoed the comments made by everyone else before
him. He also noted that the dog park located on Acacia Drive is being changed to Industrial and
asked how the dog owners would be notified of that land use change.
He noted that everyone needs to live consequently. He was at a Planning Commission meeting
where a gentleman – Michael Swenson – stood in front of the commission and said there was not
going to be any stormwater draining into Lemay Lake. He requested that the commission live
consequently and do their homework – find out if that is true or not.
He continued by explaining that the city should have better control over the state highways within
the city. Who cares that they are state roads – do something and talk with the state regarding the
traffic.
Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the dog park was currently designated as
Industrial. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it is currently guided as
Industrial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and also guided as Industrial in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan – there is no change proposed in that land use.
page 28
September 25, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 14
Mr. Maurice Lazarus, 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, in response to his friends and neighbors
comments regarding the Highway 13 and Lexington property – the one that would be changed
from LR-15 into a medium density guidance in the current plan – reminded the commission of an
application received from the owner of that property approximately one year ago for the same
guidance in the plan. The major point that he took up in support of his application was the fact that
‘all of the properties around him were of much higher density’; however, they were located in the
City of Lilydale. The commission also heard how the 2030 Comprehensive Plan guided medium
density to zero by the end of the plan. The commission approved that guidance at the point in time,
but it was not adopted by the City Council. With that consideration in mind, he thought it would
be appropriate that this continue to be guided as LR-15 property with the two home that are on it.
He urged the commission to make that edit within the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
He also stated that he understands that this is a laborious process and expressed his appreciation
to the commission for all of their hard work. However, it is important to listen to the residents as
the paramount voice guiding these issues.
Mr. Keith Ostrosky, 1680 Lexington Avenue, lives on the corner of Lexington Avenue and
Highway 13 – the property referenced by Mr. Lazarus. According to this draft 2040
Comprehensive Plan, the idea to rezone would be to make it fit into the character of the
neighborhood; from a single family home that is surrounded by 408 units in multi-family homes.
He tried last year to rezone that property so it would fit into the character of the neighborhood. He
was not asking to build a condominium in the middle of single family homes, he was asking to put
condominiums in the middle of condominiums. To maintain the R-1 guidance would continue to
have his property be out of character of the surrounding neighborhood. He would be in support of
the re-guidance as proposed in the draft plan.
Mr. Ned Rukavina, 1704 Vicki Lane, expressed his appreciation to the commission for their
service to the community and to the residents for coming and being active in the process, being
informed in their voting, and their participation. His concern was that when smaller lot sizes are
introduced without having a zoning code that would follow with them and then the development
guidelines of character, look, and setbacks – it would not be in sync with the whole proposal. He
wished the commission to look at it in its entirety so the development guidelines, the zoning code,
and the enforcement of the zoning codes.
Ms. Tamara Will, 788 Hokah Avenue, have four comments to make:
There is a disparity between the definition of ‘spacious’ and ‘low density’ between the
commission, the residents, and the planner; 5,000 and 9,000 square foot lots are not
‘spacious’
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan map and the ‘what is existing’ map do not match. That tells
her that the city has not been following the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. She wondered aloud
what the point was. She was not the only one who has been taken by surprise by events
that affect her that were not in the plan.
The ramifications of traffic on the different things being proposed – she lives just off of
Dodd Road, across from Mendakota Park. Traffic has been increasingly more congested as
time goes by. People are taking the I-494 / 35E interchange and they do not want to wait
in that traffic so they zoom down to Highway 110 and then take 35E. In addition to the
page 29
September 25, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 14
Viking Complex, the Mendota Apartment Building, Mendota Plaza, etc. they city has that
as well. There is a bigger picture here that needs to be considered. The crash study
completed in 2015 showed that there were already significant issues at Highway 110 and
Dodd Road; at South Plaza Drive and Dodd Road, yet the heavy developments in Mendota
Plaza were still allowed. Dodd Road is a state highway, but to her it is her residential street
and she hoped the city would advocate on her behalf.
The commission and staff have obviously worked very hard on this plan and 1.5 – 2 years
is a lot of time to put into something. She realized it was probably disappointing to have it
criticized and it would be hard to think about throwing it out; however, she suggested that
they do just that.
Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, made the observation that the agenda for this meeting
was posted on the city website at 10:30 am yesterday; less than 36 hours from when this meeting
started. This struck him as unacceptable in terms of the service, which this commission is supposed
to provide. This was not adequate citizen notification of what the commission is about.
He also expressed his contradiction to Mr. Carlson’s statements in three major respects:
1. Mr. Carlson claimed that every 10 years the Met Council requires the Comprehensive Plan
of a municipality, including this one, to be updated. This is incorrect. It is perfectly
acceptable, since the Met Council has not notified this city that changes to the existing
Comprehensive Plan is required, for the city to submit the existing plan to the Met Council
without any need for further concern.
2. He noted that many residents had asked what was driving this plan update. He believed it
to be the Met Council, who have had for a long time an agenda of density development. In
fact, the Met Council wording of the THRIVE 2040 Plan, their plan for development in the
Twin Cities area, is replicated in a number of major respects in the city’s draft 2040
Comprehensive Plan. If the Comprehensive Plan is modified as proposed by this
commission, this opens the door for any residential property in the city to be downsized to
5,000 or 9,000 square feet. It would be inevitable. He theorized that one of the incentives
for this was the 400 acre Viking development just south of the city. He claimed that he had
it on good authority, from one of the region’s major developers, which clients are already
nosing around looking for development opportunities in Mendota Heights – like a plum
waiting to be plucked.
3. He also pointed out that there options, as Mr. Freil described, rather than changing the
Comprehensive Plan – that being to change the existing zoning ordinances – adding two –
which would take care of the problem without the threat of degrading the whole character
of the community. He disagreed with Mr. Carlson when he said that this change to the
Comprehensive Plan would support spacious development in the city. Mr. Carlson also
claimed that it would improve the quality of life in the city – Mr. Smith disagreed.
Mr. Smith concluded by stating that the changes to the Comprehensive Plan are unnecessary,
inappropriate, and should be categorically rejected by the commission.
Mr. Charles Mathison, 2294 Dodd Road, noted that there are three larger properties on the
southeast corner of Decorah and Dodd Road and asked if they were considered part of the Friendly
page 30
September 25, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 14
Hills Addition. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that they are not a part of the Friendly Hills
Addition.
He also asked about the two houses on the corner of Keokuk and Apache – were they the ones
asking for the land to be subdivided. This seems like, if there are just two houses, they have an
option. It seems like a lot of work to go through just to be able to rezone it if there are only two
properties in the entire addition. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that no one has requested this.
He also noted that these two lots are large enough and have the frontage so under this proposal
they could potentially be split in the future. However, since both of those would split and create a
corner lots, which would have front yard setbacks on two sides of the new property, one of the two
lots on each of those corners would not be buildable. There would not be any economic advantage
to splitting them.
Mr. Mathison then asked if there were any lots in the Friendly Hills Addition that could be split.
Mr. Mazzitello replied in the negative. Mr. Mathison asked what the purpose of making the change
in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Noonan replied that it was as Mr. Carlson said – to
recognize what was on the ground today, to guide it so it matches up with what the mini lots are
with the 90-foot frontages, and eliminating non-conforming uses.
Mr. Chadwick Vandarious, 1312 Wachtler Avenue, stated that doing the changes as mentioned by
Mr. Mathison – for conformity reasons and to clean up the guidance – seemed to him that the
Comprehensive Plan is way too important to be used for clean-up. He did not want to repeat a lot
of what has already been said, but wanted to express his discontent and say that he opposes the
draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The arguments he heard in defense were along the lines of ‘it’s
not really going to change anything’; ‘it’s not a big deal’; and rather stepping in the wrong direction
it’s not really stepping in any direction – so why do it. He then encouraged others, even if they did
not have anything new to add, to stand up and express their opposition.
Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, has lived in Mendota Heights since 1962 and served on the
original Park Board. He too could repeat everything that was said; however, the thing that really
bothered him was that the commission did not appear to be listening to the people. He has not
heard one person tonight say that this was a good idea or a good plan. He questioned who was
working the commission and the Council over.
Ms. Kate Christensen, 2280 Ocala Court, echoed a lot of the comments already made. When she
came early enough to ask why the changes she was told that it was to eliminate people having to
apply for variances to, for example, put a shed on their lot. She proposed that the commission
look at facts and data and find out how many variances had to be applied for and talked through
in the last 10 years. If it was only a few, then she would propose that these changes are
unnecessary.
In regards to the information received, as she read it looked like density. The information is also
misleading and at times incorrect. For instance, it reads ‘typically they are less than 10,000
square feet’. She looked it up at the Dakota County website and found that it was only 15% - not
typical. Then it says ‘most are less than the minimum’ – 15% is not most either. When the public
notices are sent out they need to be correct. She also proposed that they include the ‘why’ in the
page 31
September 25, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 14
notice letter. She then pointed out what she considered to be errors in the draft 2040
Comprehensive Plan and suggested that they get the details right.
She concluded by saying that it does not appear to be a reason to change and agreed with most
everyone in attendance by suggesting it not be done.
Mr. Jonathan Zagel, 2230 Copperfield Drive, expressed his appreciation for being given the
opportunity to speak and for all of the hard work the commission put into the plan and for all that
have done for the city. He stated that a group of citizens, along with some of the city employees,
have put a lot work also into a Natural Resources Plan and a Resiliency Plan is still being worked
on. One of the things concentrated on during these meetings was ‘what is the long-term strategy,
why are we doing the things we want to do’. He believed that the goals that were skimmed over
or skipped by Mr. Carlson may have been the most important part of the Comprehensive Plan.
This is what sets the tone and where the city wants to be in 20 years.
He agreed that the changing of zoning would be more appropriate to an ordinance discussion, not
when talking about a large strategic plan. He urged the Planning Commission to really concentrate
and think about where the city wants to be in 20 years and get on the same page, rather than getting
stuck on these tactical items.
Mr. Jeff Fischer, 989 William Court, noted on the 2030 map there is a rezone for three houses off
Highway 110 on Dakota Drive. He asked what the plan was there right now, because there are
only three small lots, with a bike shop next door, and a joke of a daycare. He was concerned
because it starts with three houses and then it can morph into larger lots, from medium density to
high density. Mr. Benetti replied that the lots are currently single family residential but the
guidance in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is to have them guided as medium density residential.
They are next to commercially zoned properties.
Commissioner Mazzitello suggested that this be reviewed and a definite answer be provided to
Mr. Fischer.
Mr. Ultan Duggan, 2331 Copperfield Drive, noted that many people in the Hiawatha area on the
north end of town have requested consideration of a change by the Commission, the city, or th e
City Council. He asked how many people in the Friendly Hills area have asked for consideration
of a change in designation to their land to LR-5 or LR-9; and he was surprised to see a third
designation of LR-6. As a councilmember he had no idea of any of this; none of this has come
through the City Council. Chair Field replied that typically this is where the commission would
start to do that as part of the plan process.
Mr. Duggan noted that it is correct in that the city does not have to make a change. He suggested
that if the Commission is not hearing much from the Hiawatha area nor from the Friendly Hills
area, they should question why this is being pursued and wasting their valuable time.
Being a current Councilmember, Mr. Duggan confirmed that the City Council has decided that the
dog park shall remain as a dog park for at least another 4.5 to 5 years.
page 32
September 25, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 14
Ms. Ingrid Mattson, 2005 Victoria Road, said that she feels like she landed in the best place in the
State of Minnesota to live. She has wonderful neighbors and loves the feeling in the community.
She explained that the heart of the matter is that the residents love this community and they want
to protect it. It is not true that the residents are not open to change; they accepted curb being
installed in the neighborhood, they accepted The Village, and have accepted a lot of other changes.
The city has done a good job in trying to plan what is best for the future. However, she asked that
these changes from residential to medium density not take place; there is already too much traffic.
Ms. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane, has lived in the city since 1966. She attended various
meetings and listened to the exciting future of the Comprehensive Plan for the community and felt
really in sync with her neighbors. She encouraged the Commission to go back and review the notes
provided by the residents on what they would like to see – rural feel, open spaces, green spaces,
biking paths – the community that the people expressed; comments and feedback that was
requested by the Commission. Now there is a room full of very confused people wondering how
they got from those meetings to this today.
Ms. Rachel Quick, 554 Junction Lane, lives on the north end of town. She likes the idea of the
zoning change. As a homeowner it makes things easier for her and would improve her property.
She then noted that she is running for City Council because this is a community and resident
feedback is the most important part about serving in one of these roles. While she feels like the
Commission is trying to correct a wrong in trying to make conforming lots; it does not sound like
there is a strong need for the change. She believed there was more work to be done and if there
was not a strong need for this change, it could be tabled and other options could be reviewed.
Mr. Bob Klepperich, 1092 Vale Drive, noted that he received a notice of a public hearing for three
properties on Victoria Curve; the proposal being to change the zoning from single-family to
medium density residential district. He raised his concern about when these changes are made is
the water table. The creek running next to these properties, which eventually flows into an
underground creek bed; which runs through is front yard. He has had his share of water issues in
the past and would not like to see it get any worse as a result of this proposed construction. He
hoped that the master plan for this proposed construction would include project engineers and
contractors, as well as representatives from the city that would take into account the fragile water
table.
Mr. Chadwick Vandarious, 1312 Wachtler Avenue, returned and noted that in the draft 2040
Comprehensive Plan, medium residential would allow for up to 8 units per acre; however, LR-5
would allow for 8.8 units per acre. He then asked why the inconsistency. Mr. Carlson replied that
years ago, medium residential was guided as only allowing 8 units per acre; however, in the LR-5
district (5,000 square foot lots) dividing a one acre lot by 5,000 square feet would equal 8.8 units
per acre. He also noted that the medium density designation would allow for multi-family
structures, like townhouses. The single-family low density designation would not.
Ms. Joyce Selg, 867 Bluebill Drive, has lived in the community since 1973. She does not consider
Mendota Heights to be what it used to be; the changes made are not what the residents want but
what the commission and the council wants. The residents want parks, they want things to do; and
everything they try to do is being taken away; the land, the animals don’t have any place to go,
page 33
September 25, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 14
even daily walks to the park is dangerous, dangerous driving, and the parking is very limited. She
admonished the Commission for not providing better safety for the residents, appearing to only
want to take the residents money, and destroying the history and memories of the community.
Ms. Cindy Nelson, 1754 Victoria Road South, stated that she learned this evening that the lots on
Victoria Road would also be proposed for a medium density, and with the revelation of there being
an underground creek, she encouraged the Commission to not recommend the medium density
designation on those properties. She encouraged them to keep that a residential low density; like
it is now.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE OCTOBER 23, 2018 MEETING TO HEAR
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE REMAINING CHAPTERS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Adjournment
Chair Field noted that there would be one additional Planning Commission Meeting to be held on
Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers to consider an application which
was presented to the City in time for this current meeting; however, in light of the importance of
receiving comments on the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission did not want to have that public
hearing run concurrent with the discussion on the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that there is another workshop regarding the Comprehensive Plan
on Monday, October 15, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. This is a joint workshop
between the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Mr. Carlson explained the process going forward for the Comprehensive Plan; when the Planning
Commission is comfortable with the plan, they would move it forward to the City Council. The
City Council would then consider the plan and, if passed, it would be submitted to the Metropolitan
Council (Met Council) and surrounding communities for their comments.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL,
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:56 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
page 34
page 35
page 36
page 37
page 38
page 39
page 40
page 41
page 42
page 43
page 44
page 45
page 46
page 47
page 48
page 49
page 50
page 51
page 52
page 53
page 54
page 55
From:ryan Nelson
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:LR-9 Low Density Residential Meeting
Date:Saturday, September 22, 2018 11:16:57 AM
Hello Tim,
I live at 2306 Nashua Ln and I have a few concerns about zoning change proposal and letter
that was sent out last week.
The properties located on Nashua Lane seem to meet the 9,000 square ft requirement and
typically have a different style homes (two story) and larger lots than neighborhood closer to
Dodd Rd with one level homes and much smaller lots. Should these areas really be grouped
together for this zoning purpose? Seems like more properties on Nashua would meet new
zoning district with properties of 9,000 sq ft.
The letter was received this week for a meeting next week. This seems like very short notice
for proposed changes to people's property. Will there be another meeting?
Thanks, Ryan Nelson
page 56
page 57
page 58
Concerns for the proposed development on the corner of Sibley Memorial Highway and Lexington Ave.
1. Traffic
Current traffic on the lower part of Lexington is already concerning. Although the speed limit is reduced
from 40 to 30 at Marie, very few cars slow down. Nearly every time I turn into my driveway going north, I
am tailgated. A left turn from the bottom of the hill can often be precarious because the speeding drivers
cannot see me until they are very close. There have been several near misses.
Additionally, in the winter thee road ices up and cars slide down or cannot make it up the hill. And the
Mendota Heights police often need to travel very quickly on Lexington to answer calls.
There is no space for pedestrians and bikes on this part of the road. This adds to the danger. Pelotons of
bikers like to use the hill for training and it is a missing link in the walking path network. There is little
remedy for this and Dakota County has no plans to improve this section of road.
The development in the orchard will add a significant amount of traffic to this section of road as it is,
making it more dangerous. Adding several households to the area of greatest concern is questionable. The
projections in the 2040 plan document indicate a significant increase in traffic, but no changes in
infrastructure to support it.
2. Density The 2040 plan states : “ Plan for new growth at overall average densities of 5 units per acre.” Yet
this project is proposed to be 8 units per acre. Why does the city want to make this project even more
dense? Does it add to the vitality and stated mission of the city of Mendota Heights?
While it is centrally located in the metropolitan area, the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers form a natural green
belt around it, allowing the community to maintain a quiet, private way of life, unique in the Twin Cities
3. Noise
Construction and possible inhabitants will not maintain a quiet, private way of life foe me and my
neighbors. The property is on a hill and sound travels. Previous projects on the property have had heavy
machinery operating past 9 PM making it unpleasant to be in our yard or have windows open. How long
would I have to endure this construction noise? What is reasonable?
I am a retired teacher and like to garden and utilize my yard.
4. Expense – Any proposed infrastructure will have a greater impact the taxes of current residences with
more property than the new residents with smaller lot sizes. In effect current residents will pay to add the
new ones, with questionable benefit.
5. Historic preservation will be considered in land use decisions. This project falls in the Historic riverway; I
know because it cost us an application and an extra $100 to put up a garden shed. Is this kind of density
consistent with the intention of the historic district?
Vision Statement
Mendota Heights will be recognized as a high quality, family-oriented residential community, with a spacious, natural
feel and the amenities of a city.
Mission Statement
Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in Mendota Heights by providing quality public safety,
infrastructure, and planning for orderly and sustainable
page 59
Does the Mission and Vision of Mendota Heights is a quiet community apply to our property? This change will
likely have a negative impact on our quality of life, safety and property value. I do not have campaign signs in my
yard and have no personal, political, or financial relationships with city officials; but I believe that the council
should represent all of us. I am here to let you know that the proposed project at the corner of Lexington and
Sibley Memorial Highway is of questionable benefit given the increased danger to the people who use the road.
page 60
From:Nancy Gerber
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Concerns about the proposed change in density at the end of Lexington Ave.
Date:Monday, September 24, 2018 2:52:05 PM
Attachments:Document2.docx
Dear Mr. Benetti,
I remain opposed to adding housing to the property on Lexington Avenue and Sibley Memorial
Highway. I have attached a list of my concerns. I plan to attend the open house and council meeting
on Tuesday to add my voice to the comment period. In addition to it having a negative impact on our
quality of life in a quiet suburb, it is dangerous for people using this portion of Lexington Avenue.
I read the 2040 plan and do not see how this piece is consistent with the stated goals of the plan.
Thank you for considering our concerns and point of view,
Clyde and Nancy Gerber
page 61
Concerns for the proposed development on the corner of Sibley Memorial Highway and Lexington Ave.
1. Traffic
Current traffic on the lower part of Lexington is already concerning. Although the speed limit is reduced
from 40 to 30 at Marie, very few cars slow down. Nearly every time I turn into my driveway going north, I
am tailgated. A left turn from the bottom of the hill can often be precarious because the speeding drivers
cannot see me until they are very close. There have been several near misses.
Additionally, in the winter thee road ices up and cars slide down or cannot make it up the hill. And the
Mendota Heights police often need to travel very quickly on Lexington to answer calls.
There is no space for pedestrians and bikes on this part of the road. This adds to the danger. Pelotons of
bikers like to use the hill for training and it is a missing link in the walking path network. There is little
remedy for this and Dakota County has no plans to improve this section of road.
The development in the orchard will add a significant amount of traffic to this section of road as it is,
making it more dangerous. Adding several households to the area of greatest concern is questionable. The
projections in the 2040 plan document indicate a significant increase in traffic, but no changes in
infrastructure to support it.
2. Density The 2040 plan states : “ Plan for new growth at overall average densities of 5 units per acre.” Yet
this project is proposed to be 8 units per acre. Why does the city want to make this project even more
dense? Does it add to the vitality and stated mission of the city of Mendota Heights?
While it is centrally located in the metropolitan area, the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers form a natural green
belt around it, allowing the community to maintain a quiet, private way of life, unique in the Twin Cities
3. Noise
Construction and possible inhabitants will not maintain a quiet, private way of life foe me and my
neighbors. The property is on a hill and sound travels. Previous projects on the property have had heavy
machinery operating past 9 PM making it unpleasant to be in our yard or have windows open. How long
would I have to endure this construction noise? What is reasonable?
I am a retired teacher and like to garden and utilize my yard.
4. Expense – Any proposed infrastructure will have a greater impact the taxes of current residences with
more property than the new residents with smaller lot sizes. In effect current residents will pay to add the
new ones, with questionable benefit.
5. Historic preservation will be considered in land use decisions. This project falls in the Historic riverway; I
know because it cost us an application and an extra $100 to put up a garden shed. Is this kind of density
consistent with the intention of the historic district?
Vision Statement
Mendota Heights will be recognized as a high quality, family-oriented residential community, with a spacious, natural
feel and the amenities of a city.
Mission Statement
Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in Mendota Heights by providing quality public safety,
infrastructure, and planning for orderly and sustainable
page 62
Does the Mission and Vision of Mendota Heights is a quiet community apply to our property? This change will
likely have a negative impact on our quality of life, safety and property value. I do not have campaign signs in my
yard and have no personal, political, or financial relationships with city officials; but I believe that the council
should represent all of us. I am here to let you know that the proposed project at the corner of Lexington and
Sibley Memorial Highway is of questionable benefit given the increased danger to the people who use the road.
page 63
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING
September 12, 2018
The September meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held
on Wednesday, September 12, 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 Steve Goldade, Ira Kipp, Bob Klepperich, Stephanie Levine, and David Miller.
Commissioner Nissa Tupper was absent. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator
Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson and Public Works Director
Ryan Ruzek.
3. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
4. Approval of Minutes from August 15, 2018
Motion Levine/second Miller to approve the minutes of the August 15, 2018 Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting. AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 (Tupper)
5. Unfinished and New Business
5.a Playground Improvements – Hagstrom King and Wentworth Park
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek reminded the Commission of the three potential layouts
reviewed for Hagstrom King and Wentworth Parks. The Commission determined that they
desired to get additional community input. Therefore, an open house was advertised and held
on August 30, 2018. This open house was attended by seven residents with one additional
resident stopping by City Hall following.
The results of the open house were tallied and the preferred pieces of equipment popular
among the attendees were shared by Mr. Ruzek. He also shared the League of Minnesota
City’s guidelines to be considered when purchasing new playground equipment.
Mr. Ruzek also requested a decision by the Commission regarding applying for a grant through
the MN-WI Playgrounds with a potential savings of 50% – application deadline is October 31,
2018 – or purchasing the equipment through Landscape Structures by Thanksgiving.
Landscape Structures has indicated that the city should expect a 6% increase if the project is
put on hold until next year (the equipment could be purchased this year for installation in 2019).
Motion Goldade/second Levine to direct staff to take the community and Commission feedback
back to both MN-WI GameTime and Flagship Landscape Structures and come back with a
second design proposal for both parks to be reviewed at the next Parks & Recreation
Commission Meeting in October 2018; and continue the sub-committee for a possible second
community feedback session after the October 2018 Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting –
dependent on what is decided at said October 2018 meeting.
page 64
Commissioner Levine submitted a friendly amendment by requesting that the direction for
pricing include the grant pricing as well as the non-grant pricing. Commissioner Goldade agreed
to this friendly amendment.
Commissioner Goldade submitted a friendly amendment by suggesting that a work session be
scheduled to review the second design proposals rather than waiting until the October 2018
Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting. Both Goldade and Levine agreed to this friendly
amendment.
AYES 5: NAYS 1 (Hinderscheid): ABSENT 1 (Tupper)
5.b Introduction of Student Representative
Mr. Matthew Boland, a junior at St. Thomas Academy and lifelong resident of Mendota Heights,
was introduced to and welcomed by the Commission as the Student Representative to the
Parks and Recreation Commission. Matthew’s term will go through the school year, ending May
31, 2019. Reappointment will be reviewed in the spring prior to the end of the term.
5.c Discuss Survey
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence explained that Vice-Chair Tupper
requested a rejuvenation of the discussion on input from the community. At the July meeting the
Commission had discussed a community-wide survey on parks, which was tabled as staff does
not have adequate time to complete that at this time.
Chair Hinderscheid clarified that the survey mentioned by Vice-Chair Tupper was a broader list
of general park projects. Ms. Lawrence indicated that some of the items mentioned at the July
meeting have been completed; so the list is narrowing. If the Commission decided to do a
survey the list of projects would need to be revisited and brought up-to-date.
Chair Hinderscheid suggested that the Commission and staff work with Vice-Chair Tupper with
the input received from the City Council during the joint session and from the community during
the Parks Celebration.
Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson reminded the Commission that the joint session
with the City Council included a prioritization of the project list and staff has been working on
moving that priority list forward. If the Commission were to change the priorities, they would
need to go back to City Council recommending a priority change and ask for their approval.
Chair Hinderscheid requested a copy of the prioritization list be sent to each of the
commissioners.
In regards to a community survey, Ms. Jacobson mentioned that staff has been looking at other
Park and Recreation surveys that other cities have done. This commission had talked about
trying to achieve a more statistically valid survey and whether that would be contracting with a
data company to administer the survey and do the analysis. She believed it would be a good
recommendation and discussion to have as a commission. She noted that this could possibly be
a college or high school project and is an idea that staff has been researching.
The commission agreed to have this topic added to the October 2018 meeting agenda.
page 65
5.d Winter Disc Golf at the Par 3
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence explained that Chair Hinderscheid has
requested a discussion of adding winter disc golf to the Par 3. This has been discussed in the
past and just from the staff perspective, she mentioned the following points:
• Concerns by staff regarding damage to the turf
• Costs to have the course laid out and purchasing/installation of equipment
• There is no budget for staffing the course
• Cross country skiing takes place at the Par 3 in the winter
Chair Hinderscheid asked if there would be a fee to play disc golf. Ms. Lawrence said there
would not be; however, staffing of the course would be to have the club house open for
bathrooms and warming up.
A suggestion was made to look into the possibility of having a disc golf course at Mendakota
Park rather than the Par 3.
Additional discussions were had regarding the potential for damage to the Par 3 and the hard
work that staff and the commission has put in to keeping the Par 3 looking good. Commissioner
Levine noted that she would not support having disc golf at the Par 3.
5.e Communications for November Heights Highlights
Chair Hinderscheid reminded the Commission of the Heights Highlights coming up and asked
for ideas/suggestions of events and information that should be included for the resident’s
benefit. Content is due by October 12, 2018 and would hit households in mid-November.
5.f Marie Avenue Trail Realignment
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that staff was planning on having the feasibility study
for the Marie Avenue Trail Realignment project completed in October; so if any commissioners
wished to review the site and provide recommendations they needed to schedule that time
before the end of October.
It was decided to meet at Valley Park at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, September 21, 2018. This
‘meeting’ will be posted.
5.g Rogers Lake Skate Park Update
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the City of Mendota Heights temporarily
closed the Rogers Lake Skate Park from August 22nd to August 31st due to users of the park
making unauthorized improvements that needed to be removed. Public works was able to go
into the park and remove the concrete structures and then the streets department filled in some
of the chiseled areas with an asphalt patch material.
Signs with the new rules have been posted and staff has received a lot of negative comments
(i.e. helmets required). He noted that the city is insured by the League of Minnesota Cities
Insurance Trust, which provides minimum requirements that are necessary to maintain said
insurance.
page 66
Mr. Ruzek informed the Commission that they were welcome to discuss the future operation of
the Rogers Lake Skate Park and make recommendations, or defer this to a future meeting as
the park is currently operational.
Comments and feedback from the Commissioners were that they really liked the skate park and
wanted it to continue to be there.
Commissioner Goldade suggested having the Rogers Lake Park, including the Skateboard
Park, on the October agenda and that a working group (Commissioners Kipp and Goldade,
Student Representative Matt Boland, and a police department representative) to bring
suggestions for improvement to the park – both globally and specifically to the skateboard park.
Motion Goldade/second Hinderscheid to establish a working group in regards to Rogers Lake
Park and making suggestions for possible improvements with Matthew Boland, Ira Kipp, and
Steve Goldade, and invite a police department representative, with the goal of bringing back a
report to the October 2018 Park & Recreation Commission Meeting.
6. Reports
6.a Par 3 Update
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence provided an update on the Par 3, including
a financial report (May, June, and July). Total revenue thus far is $96,340, less $91,041 in
expenditures, equaling a profit of $5,299. Nothing came out of the Par 3 budget for the purchase
of the rough mower (City reserves were used).
Staff plans to keep the course open through October 2018, weather dependent.
The Par 3 will be closed all day on Monday, September 17, 2018 and the AM of Tuesday,
September 18, 2018 for aeration of the greens and fall maintenance.
6.b Recreation Update
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence explained that Fall Registration is open,
which opened on September 1, 2018. Options include gymnastics, fall field trips, family fall
party, and the superhero masquerade. Additional details available on the city’s web site.
Movie in the Park will take place at Mendakota on September 22, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. The movie
“Moana” will be shown. This event is free to the public.
6.c Commissioner Park Updates
Commissioner Levine stated that all is ‘so far, so good’ and have a shout-out to the public works
for doing a really nice job.
Commissioner Miller stated that the things happening at Market Square are pretty well known.
Victoria Highlands is in very nice shape and looks very good.
Chair Hinderscheid noted that the resident who recommended the tables be installed at Market
Square was very happy with the end product and people have been using them. The Dog Park
now has a shaded picnic table, a very nice addition and will be very much appreciated. He also
page 67
expressed his appreciation to Public Works for all of the work they have done. However, he did
notice an issue at Ivy Hills and that being the pond is completely green and he wondered if that
was due to the dredging and if that was a good or bad sign. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek
noted that he has not received any calls regarding that pond but he would certainly go out and
take a look.
Commissioner Klepperich echoed the comments made about the great job being done by Public
Works. He visited Mendakota this week and the baseball field is in good shape. He also
welcomed Matthew Boland to the Commission.
Commissioner Kipp expressed his appreciation to Public Works for taking care of the issue at
the skate park so quickly and so readily.
Commissioner Goldade had no additional comments.
6.d Parks and Natural Resources Update
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that Ms. Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician
started her position on Tuesday, September 4, 2018 and has jumped right in by looking at
improvements to the city’s welcome sign on Dodd Road, prairie plantings at city hall, rain
gardens for the Lexington Highlands Project, Wagon Wheel Trail, and Par 3. It was requested
that Ms. Spreiter attend a future meeting to allow the commissioners a chance to meet her in
person.
Mr. Ruzek also provided an update on the Marie Park Tennis Court rehabilitation project, which
started on Wednesday, September 5, 2018. The Marie Park basketball improvements should
start in early October. City Council approved the purchase of new adjustable basketball
systems, two tennis net systems, and eight pickle ball net systems.
The Bike Racks base pads are scheduled to begin in late September and the Dog Park Picnic
Table and Market Square tables have already been mentioned.
Upon request, Mr. Ruzek provided an update on the culvert over at Wagon Wheel Trail and the
fishing. City Council has awarded a contract to install a 6-foot tall black vinyl chain link fence
along the south side of Wagon Wheel Trail, to eliminate fishing on the south side of the culvert
area. The safety issues with people running across the road far exceeds the ability to allow
people to fish at that spot.
7. Announcements and Commission Comments
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence made the following announcements:
• September 25, 2018 – a tree will be planted at Victoria Highlands donated by The Mom’s
Club
• The city did receive the grant for the Marie Park Tennis Courts in the amount of $20,000
• Winter warming house positions will be posted in the next few weeks
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that at the last City Council meeting, they awarded a
contract to CNH Architects for $4,100 to do a feasibility study for the Wentworth Park Warming
House structure. This is the same architect that is doing the design work for the Fire Hall
expansion.
page 68
Commissioner Goldade:
• Welcomed Matt Boland to the Commission and suggested that he be added to the
agenda each month to provide updates / comments
• Expressed his appreciation to Mr. Ruzek and staff for all of the work done on the two
new playgrounds and the good information provided this evening
• Congratulated staff on receiving the grant for Marie Park Tennis Courts
• Encouraged residents to attend the Commission meetings and sending emails with
input
• Looking for a connection to a college student that wants to do the Park & Recreation
Commission survey – encouraged connection suggestions
Commissioner Kipp:
• Welcomed Matt Boland to the Commission and is looking forward to hearing his input
• Congratulated the city for receiving the $20,000 grant
Commissioner Klepperich:
• Gave his comments during other updates
• He echoed what everyone else said
Commissioner Miller:
• Welcomed Matt Boland to the Commission
• After a number of very lean years, it is nice to see that there are funds available in the
Parks Fund that can be used for a lot of the upgrading that is going on; skate park, the
playgrounds, etc.
Commissioner Levine:
• Echoed everyone else’s comments
• Welcomed Matt Boland to the Commission
• It is really heartwarming working with all of the people and hearing enthusiasm about
community input
• Encouraged everyone to go out and enjoy the trails as they are very beautiful this time of
year
Chair Hinderscheid:
• As there are sometimes people in the audience, should the Commission add a section to
the agenda for public comments (yes, it could be added) – protocol was briefly
discussed
• Welcomed Matt Boland to the Commission
• Expressed appreciation to the public that participated in providing input on the
playgrounds
• Acknowledged great work done on the grant
8. Adjourn
Motion Goldade/Second Klepperich to adjourn the meeting at 8:44 PM
AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 (Tupper)
Minutes Taken By:
C. Darlene Oehlke
page 69
Independent Contractor
page 70
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission –Special Meeting
Held September 21, 2018
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Parks and Recreation Commission,
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at Valley Park, 821 Marie Avenue, Mendota
Heights, MN 55118.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Hinderscheid called the meeting to order at 8:30am. Commissioners Goldade, Levine, and
Klepperich were present.
City staff present included Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director and Meredith Lawrence,
Recreation Program Coordinator.
DISCUSSION ON TRAIL RE-ALIGNMENT
The Parks and Recreation Commissioners present toured the trail to discuss the options regarding
a possible trail realignment. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided information to the
Commissioners regarding the condition of the trail as well as options for future renovations. The
majority of the Commissioners present recommended replacement of the existing underpass,
while not adding a re-aligned trail to the north of the underpass.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 am.
Minutes Taken By:
__________________________
Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
page 71
DATE: November 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Disposal of Surplus Technology Related Equipment (Resolution #2018-82)
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve the disposal of surplus technology related equipment.
BACKGROUND
It is necessary from time to time for the City to dispose of surplus, unused or unneeded equipment
or supplies, including technology related equipment. LOGIS and staff have completed a
comprehensive cleanup of city technology related equipment, including items such as computers,
monitors, printers, cables, adding machines and power supplies. The equipment being
recommended for disposal has minimal or no market value or the cost to environmentally dispose
of it is more than its value.
Minnesota Statutes allow for the donation of surplus equipment to non-profit organizations by
local governments. Staff is recommending the disposal of the identified equipment via
donation to PCs for People.
PCs for People is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that provides affordable computers,
computer repair, and internet service to low-income families and nonprofits. Nationally, PCs for
People has distributed over 60,000 computers, subscribed thousands of families to low-cost
internet, and recycled millions of pounds of electronics. Their services include secure IT asset
disposition and recycling and AAA NAID-certified data sanitization.
Attachments: Inventory of Surplus Technology Equipment
BUDGET IMPACT
None. Equipment to be disposed of has little or no value and is fully depreciated.
ACTION RECOMMENDED
Staff recommends that the City Council declare the equipment listed on the attached as surplus
property and authorize the donation to PCs for People.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council concurs, it should by motion, adopt RESOLUTION 2018-82 AUTHORITZING
THE DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS TECHNOLOGY RELATED EQUIPMENT
page 72
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-82
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS TECHNOLOGY
RELATED EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time for the City to dispose of surplus, obsolete,
unused or unneeded equipment or supplies; and
WHEREAS, such property includes electronic equipment that has minimal or no market
value or the cost to environmentally dispose of it is more than its value; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to dispose of such property without
incurring undue or unnecessary costs or commitment of resources in order to properly dispose of
such property; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statutes allows for surplus property to be donated to non-
profit organizations.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights hereby declares the identified technology equipment to be surplus and no longer suitable
for municipal purposes and authorizes the disposal of said equipment by donation PCs for
People.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of November, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 73
City of Mendota Heights
Inventory of Surplus Technolgy Equipment
Type of Equipment Qty. Mfg/Make/Model
Cash Register 1 Samsung ‐ ER290
Laptop 1 Dell ‐ M6700
Laptop 1 Dell ‐ PP22X
PC 1 Apple Power Mac G3
Monitor 1 Dell ‐ ST22OTC
Monitor 1 Dell ‐ ST22OTC
Monitor 1 Dell ‐ P190ST
Monitor 1 Dell ‐ 1905FPC
Calculators 2 Casio HR‐150LC
Calculator 1 Sharp EL‐2630P
Calculator 1 Royal LD‐64
Printer 1 Canon Cp1250D
Misc Keyboards 18 N/A
Printer 1 Ricoh AFICIO SP4100NL
INK MISC 9
Cell phone case Misc 1
HUB 1 USB HUB 4 Port
GPS 1 GPS Rocket System
Printer 1 Ricoh SP4100NL
APC 1 750XL
APC 1 Model 550
APC 1 Model 550
APC 1 Model 550
APC 1 Model 450
APC 1 Model 500
APC 1 350
APC 1 BX15005
APC 1 500
APC 1 450
APC 1 500
APC 1 550
APC 1 350
APC 1 350
APC 1 350
APC 1 350
APC 1 350
Speakers Generic 1 AX5150PA
Speakers 1 Dell AS500
Speakers 1 Dell AS500
Speakers 1 Dell AS500
Speakers 1 Dell AS500
Speakers 1 Dell AS501
Speakers Generic 1 AX5150PA
10/15/2007
page 74
City of Mendota Heights
Inventory of Surplus Technolgy Equipment
Type of Equipment Qty. Mfg/Make/Model
Speakers Generic 1 N/A
Speakers Generic 1 HK206
Speakers 1 Dell AS500
Headset 1 JVC HA‐W600RF
Docks 1 Dell PR02X
Docks 1 Dell PR02X
Docks 1 Dell PR02X
Docks 1 Dell PR02X
Docks 1 Dell PR02X
Docks 1 Dell PR02X
Docks 1 Dell PR02X
Docks 1 Dell PR02X
Printer 1 CX7800
Printer 1 Inkjet 2800
Monitor 1 Dell w/wall mount
UPS 1 DELL 1920W
A/V 1 Extender
Cables 9 DVI Cable Spliter
Cables 18 DVI
Cables 14 VGA to DVI
Cables 15 VGA Splits
Cables 35 VGA
Cables 1 DVI to HDMI
Cables 2 DVI to HDMI Ad
Cables 3 DVI to DISP
Headset 7
Headset 13 Adapter
Vertical Stand 1 Dell
Credit Card Reader 1 HyperComm T7t
Router 1 Cradlepoint MBR1200B
Phillips Speechmic 1
Phillips Speechmic 1
Phillips Speechmic 1
External USB to Floppy 1 BT414
Garmin Puck 1
Garmin GPS 1 18X
Garmin GPS 1 18X
Garmin GPS 1 18X
Garmin GPS 1 18X
Garmin GPS 1 18X
Netgear 1 GS605
RFID Reader 1 Omnikey
Empty CD Cases 4
Digital Recorders 1 DS2
Digital Recorders 1 DS2
10/15/2007
page 75
City of Mendota Heights
Inventory of Surplus Technolgy Equipment
Type of Equipment Qty. Mfg/Make/Model
Mini Magg Strip Reader 1
Finger Print Reader 1 UPEK
Laptop Locks 3
Cassette Recorder 1 Sony M‐527V
Dictaphone 1 1253
Cables 40 Misc
SD Reader 1 Lexar RW035‐7000
Adapters 9 PS2
Cables 1 VGA‐CAT5
Mousepad 2 Misc
USB 53 Misc
Phone Case 2 Samsung S5
Random Power 45
Surge Protect 2
USB Mag strip 1
Genric Headset 1
10/15/2007
page 76
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-83 – Resolution Approving Joint Powers Agreement for Waste
Abatement Community Funding with Dakota County
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2018-83, a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for Waste
Abatement Community Funding with Dakota County.
BACKGROUND
As part of the 2019 Waste Abatement Community Funding program through Dakota County, the
following items are attached for review:
1. Resolution 2018-83
2. Joint Powers Agreement
3. 2019 Community Funding Application
We are again requesting the maximum allowable funding in 2019. The amount allocated to the
City of Mendota Heights is $30,263. The amount received in 2018 was also $30,263.
DISCUSSION
Work plan goals for 2019 include the following:
1. Attendance at local solid waste group meetings.
2. Monthly recycling tips for all City employees to promote waste reduction in all
facilities.
3. Newsletter articles in the Heights Highlights regarding recycling options.
4. Spring Clean-Up event.
5. Social media postings and information regarding recycling opportunities to residents.
6. Organics and recycling collection at the Parks Celebration.
7. Holiday lights recycling collection at City Hall.
The majority of the budget is for administrative costs to carry out the work plan. Other
expenditures include the spring clean-up, printing, and postage.
page 77
BUDGET IMPACT
The 2019 proposed budget includes funding for recycling events as identified in the attached
materials.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that council approve the resolution for the Waste Abatement Funding
program.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends that the city council pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2018-83,
“RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR 2019 WASTE
ABATEMENT COMMUNITY FUNDING”. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 78
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-83
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
FOR 2019 WASTE ABATEMENT COMMUNITY FUNDING
WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Legislature has mandated that communities in the
metropolitan area implement recycling programs in order to reduce the volume of waste
being taken for burial in landfills; and
WHEREAS, Dakota County has adopted a solid waste master plan which sets goals
and targets for the accomplishment of solid waste recycling in each community in the
county; and
WHEREAS, Dakota County provides the local communities with grant funding for
implementation and maintenance of local community recycling programs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has participated faithfully and successfully
in the Community Landfill Abatement Program from 1989 to 2018 and will continue to
participate in 2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Mendota Heights does hereby approve the Joint Powers Agreement for 2019 Waste
Abatement Community Funding.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of November
2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 79
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND
THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
FOR 2019 WASTE ABATEMENT COMMUNITY FUNDING
This Agreement is between Dakota County (County) and the City of Mendota Heights (Municipality).
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 471.59 authorizes local governmental units to jointly or cooperatively exercise
any power common to the contracting parties; and
WHEREAS, the County and the Municipality are governmental units as that term is defined in Minn. Stat.
§ 471.59; and
WHEREAS, Metropolitan counties are responsible for waste management policy and programs (Minn.
Stat. §115A.551); and
WHEREAS, counties may require local cities and townships to develop and implement programs,
practices, or methods designed to meet waste abatement goals (Minn. Stat. §115A.551); and
WHEREAS, Dakota County Solid Waste Ordinance 110 requires each municipality in the County to have
a solid waste abatement program (Program) that is consistent with the Dakota County Solid Waste
Master Plan (Master Plan); and
WHEREAS; the Master Plan governs all solid waste management in the County (Minn. Stat. § 115A.46);
and
WHEREAS, municipalities may not develop or implement a solid waste management activity that is
inconsistent with the Master Plan (Minn. Stat. § 115A.46); and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan includes multiple strategies to enhance and leverage resources to help the
County meet waste management objectives; and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan supports performance-based funding for municipalities to develop and
implement waste abatement programs, education, and outreach; and
WHEREAS, community funding and waste tire activity amounts are established by the County Board
each year as part of the Environmental Resources Department (Department) budget; and
WHEREAS, by Board Resolution #18-322, the County Board approved 2019 community funding
allocations as presented to the Physical Development Committee of the Whole on June 19, 2018,
contingent upon the availability of funds and subject to funding levels approved by the County Board as
part of the 2019 Department budget; and
WHEREAS, the Program responsibilities for the Municipality/Rural Solid Waste Commission (RSWC)
include ensuring recycling best practices are followed at public facilities; increasing residential waste,
reuse and recycling through materials collection; implementing recycling at large events; providing
education and outreach to residents; increasing organics recycling; and supporting County-led efforts for
Master Plan implementation; and
WHEREAS, the RSWC has an additional responsibility for waste tire activities for residents in rural
Dakota County; and
WHEREAS, County responsibilities include providing technical assistance, container labels, and waste
educational messages and images; maintaining waste management information on the County website;
hosting Master Recycler/Composter classes; and providing best practices strategies and resources for
waste abatement projects; and
page 80
WHEREAS, separate Joint Powers Agreements with municipalities, or entities acting on their behalf,
identify municipality and County responsibilities and fund allocations.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and benefits that the County and
Municipality shall derive from this Agreement, the County and Municipality hereby enter into this
Agreement for the purposes stated herein.
SECTION 1
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for cooperation and funding between the County and the
Municipality for the implementation and operation of a local comprehensive landfill abatement program by
the Municipality in accordance with this Joint Powers Agreement and the 2019 Dakota County
Community Funding Application Packet (attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1) that is submitted
by the Municipality.
SECTION 2
PARTIES
The parties to this Agreement are the County and the Municipality.
SECTION 3
TERM
Notwithstanding the dates of the signatures of the parties, this Agreement shall be in effect January 1,
2019, and shall continue in effect until December 31, 2019, or until termination in accordance with the
provisions herein. This Agreement may be amended in accordance with Section 12.
SECTION 4
COOPERATION
The County and the Municipality agree to cooperate and use their reasonable efforts to ensure prompt
implementation of the various provisions of this Agreement and to, in good faith, undertake resolution of
any dispute in an equitable and timely manner.
SECTION 5
PROGRAM
5.1 PROGRAM PURPOSE. The Master Plan identifies performance-based funding for municipalities to
develop and implement waste abatement programs, education, and outreach. The Community Funding
Program purpose includes: ensure that residents, businesses and public entities have the opportunity to
recycle; and to develop, implement, and maintain projects, programs, practices, and methods to meet
waste abatement objectives. The Community Funding Program supports the County’s efforts for broad-
based education and implementation of local programs and projects for waste reduction, reuse, recycling,
household hazardous waste management, and organics diversion.
5.2 ELIGIBILITY. Eligible municipalities include all cities in Dakota County and the Rural Solid Waste
Commission (RSWC) representing the 13 townships and six small cities in rural Dakota County.
5.3 ANNUAL APPLICATION, WORK PLAN AND BUDGET. Annually, Municipality shall submit an
Application Packet that includes the annual W ork Plan and budget breakdown for each funding activity to
the County by the due date specified in writing on forms provided by County staff.
5.4 IMPLEMENTATION. The Municipality shall develop, implement, and operate a local comprehensive
landfill abatement program that complies with the Master Plan, Dakota County Solid Waste Ordinance
110, this Agreement, and Exhibit 1.
page 81
[For RSWC only 5.41 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS/STANDARDS. If a waste tire collection event is
conducted, the RSWC shall abide by all federal, state, or local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and
regulations, including management of the waste tires collected.]
5.5 RECYCLING. Municipality must ensure the opportunity to recycle exists for all municipal employees,
residents and businesses, including at Municipality-controlled public areas such as parks, community
centers, and city-sponsored events/festivals; must develop and implement programs to increase
residential recycling and organics diversion; and must continue planning to implement community-wide
organics diversion.
5.6 PRIORITY ISSUE. County staff, with input from all eligible municipalities, will develop a Priority Issue
strategy to accomplish during the multi-year Master Plan reporting cycle. The 2017-2020 Priority Issue is
organics diversion. The 2019 Priority Issue focus is on residential food waste prevention education,
implementing organics diversion within municipally-owned/operated buildings, and continued progression
for organics best practices and diversion at public facilities and events. The Priority Issue is subject to
change pending legislation or County strategic planning.
5.7 PERFORMANCE. Municipality shall report its performance on a quarterly basis pursuant to
responsibilities set forth in this Agreement and Exhibit 1, using reporting tools provided by County staff
and including documentation such as vendor invoices or receipts, expense reports produced using
municipal accounting software, or itemized financial statements for the dedicated bank account for all
Work Plan expenses covered by Program funding. County staff will notify the Municipality in writing if a
Recycling Improvement Plan is needed. Within 30 days of notification, the Municipality shall submit a
Recycling Improvement Plan signed by the Municipality’s authorized representative. The Recycling
Improvement Plan must be negotiated with County staff and specify Municipality activities and a
timeframe to achieve compliance.
5.8 ANNUAL REPORT. By January 31, 2019, Municipality shall submit its Annual Report for the year
2018, on the form prescribed by County staff. The Annual Report must be signed by the authorized
representative for this JPA. [For RSWC only: The Annual Report shall include the waste tire
management activities and metrics. If a waste tire collection event is conducted, the Annual Report shall
identify the location, hauling and disposal costs, and number of tires collected.]
5.9 AUDIT. County staff may audit one or more buildings operated by the Municipality through a waste
sort or other means of waste assessment. This data will be used by the Municipality and County to
determine the success of the waste management program, which will influence the Work Plan.
SECTION 6
FUNDING
6.1 FUNDING AMOUNT. Municipalities receive performance-based funding in part from a pass-through
grant from the State. Municipal funding amounts are contingent upon available State and County funds,
and reflect the funding levels presented to the County Board as part of the annual budget. The 2019
allocated funding for the Municipality, or entity acting on its behalf, shall be in the total amount not to
exceed $30,263.00, as set forth in Exhibit 1.
[For RSWC only: 6.12 WASTE TIRE MANAGEMENT FUNDING. County shall pay the RSWC an
amount not to exceed $11,745 for waste tire management in 2019 for rural Dakota County residents.]
6.2 FUNDING PAYMENT. Contingent upon approval by County staff of the Municipality’s Annual Report
for the funding year 2018, the County will pay the Municipality the funding amount set forth in paragraph
6.1 above for 2019. Payment will be made in one installment within 30 days of approval of the Annual
Report. Municipalities with a complete Application Packet and an approved Annual Report receive 100%
payment of allocated funds for eligible expenses.
page 82
6.3 ELIGIBLE EXPENSES. Municipality may use allocated funds only on eligible items as identified in
Exhibit 1 and includes:
6.3.1 Administration
a) Salary and benefits of personnel, full-time and temporary, and consultant services while working
directly on the planning, implementing, promoting, and reporting of eligible activities described in
the Work Plan.
b) Attending Local Solid Waste Staff meetings [for RSWC only: and attending Rural Solid Waste
Commission meetings].
c) Memberships and training necessary for eligible activities, not including out-of-state travel or
lodging.
6.3.2 Municipal Facility Recycling
a) Containers necessary to implement best practices at Municipality-controlled administrative
buildings and public areas, including parks and community centers.
b) Waste abatement education materials for municipal employees and visitors, such as signs,
trainings and mass communication.
6.3.3 Waste Abatement Activities [for RSWC only: and Waste Tire Management]
a) Advertising to promote city-sponsored activities to accept recyclable or reusable materials from
residents.
b) Collection and management of paper from residents to be shredded and recycled.
c) Collection and management of mattresses, bicycles, and carpet from residents for reuse or
recycling.
d) Collection, containers, equipment, and hauling services necessary to implement traditional
recycling at community events/festivals that the Municipality sponsors or helps to coordinate, or
that are held on city property.
e) Stipend for an organization or group to provide event recycling assistance.
f) Design and implementation of projects and programs to enhance residential, park and public area
recycling, including recycling bags for city-supported pickup events and activities.
g) [For RSWC only: Hauling and disposal of waste tires collected at a waste tire collection event for
rural Dakota County residents.]
6.3.4 Residential Outreach and Education
a) Production and dissemination of County-approved education information to increase awareness
and participation in waste abatement programs, including postage for stand-alone mailings when
content cannot be included in mailed communications that are already being sent to residents by
the Municipality [for RSWC only: including for waste tire management].
b) Professional educators who assist in the production and dissemination of information described in
6.3.4.(a).
c) County-approved landfill abatement promotional items up to $500. Items must create minimal
waste and contribute to waste diversion education.
6.3.5 Priority Issue: Organics Diversion
a) Production and dissemination of County-developed and approved education information to
increase awareness and participation in residential organics programs, including postage for
stand-alone mailings.
b) Collection, containers, equipment, hauling services, and compostable bags and products
necessary to implement organics diversion at community events/festivals that the Municipality
sponsors or helps to coordinate, or that are held on Municipality property.
c) Containers and start-up supply of compostable bags necessary to implement organics diversion
at Municipality facilities.
page 83
6.3.6 Solid Waste Master Plan
a) Supporting County-led efforts to implement the Master Plan.
b) Implementing one or more city priority projects to support Master Plan priorities as identified in
the Work Plan.
6.3.7 Non-eligible expenses include:
a) Expenses related to non-waste abatement waste issues (e.g., energy, water).
b) Except for 6.3.3d and 6.3.5b, waste collection, transportation or management (i.e., reuse, recycle,
resource recovery, land disposal) of waste under the Municipality’s control.
c) Food or refreshments, unless approved by County staff as compliant with Dakota County Policy
2740.
d) Payment for collection and management of items that are banned from the landfill (e.g.
appliances, hazardous waste, electronics). [For RSWC only: Except for 6.3.3g, payment for
collection and management of items that are banned from the landfill (e.g. appliances, hazardous
waste, electronics, yard waste).]
6.3.8 Other Expenses
a) Other waste abatement expenses may be eligible with prior written approval from the County
Liaison.
6.4 FUNDING PAYMENT AND WORK PLAN ADJUSTMENTS. The Dakota County Environmental
Resources Director (Director) shall have the authority to approve modifications to the Funding Amount as
requested by the Municipality in the Application Packet, as long as the amount payable under this
Agreement does not exceed the amount approved by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners and so
long as the proposed modifications are consistent with the Agreement and Exhibit 1. The Municipality
must expend the community fund by the end of the calendar year, unless prior written approval is
received from the Director. Municipality must return unspent funds (the difference between the amount of
funds provided and the amount Municipality reports as expended), must return funds if expenditures or
activities are determined by County staff as not consistent with this Agreement and Exhibit 1, and must
return funds if County staff determines performance has not been remedied as identified in the Recycling
Improvement Plan pursuant to Section 5.7. If the Municipality fails to fulfill its responsibilities, the County
may choose to implement activities in the Municipality and may recover costs in accordance with Dakota
County Solid Waste Ordinance 110.
The Director shall have the authority to approve modifications to the Work Plan as requested by the
Municipality, as long as the Work Plan modifications do not cause the amount payable under this
Agreement to exceed the amount approved by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners and are
consistent with this Agreement and Exhibit 1. Only Work Plan modifications approved by the Director are
an eligible expense.
6.5 FUNDING PAYMENT DEDICATED ACCOUNT. Municipality must deposit and manage funds in a
dedicated bank account. Program funds are prohibited from being commingled with any other funds or
used for non-approved activities.
SECTION 7
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
7.1 THE MUNICIPALITY. The Municipality shall:
a. Fulfill responsibilities under this Agreement and as described in Exhibit 1.
b. Designate a Municipality Liaison responsible for Program planning, implementation,
measurement, and reporting.
c. Ensure Liaison attends at least four out of the six Liaison/County staff meetings each year.
d. Ensure newly-assigned Liaisons attend the Dakota County Master Recycler/Composter
class. If not feasible, coordinate with the County to substitute reading materials and tours in
place of the class.
e. Develop and submit an Annual Application Packet, Quarterly Reports, and Annual Report on
forms created by County staff.
page 84
f. Use County-developed resources for required residential waste abatement education; submit
waste abatement outreach materials to County staff at least three business days before
publication for review; and provide funding source credit on all print materials: “Partially
funded by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Dakota County."
7.2 THE COUNTY. The County, through its Environmental Resources Department, shall:
a. Fulfill the following responsibilities under this Agreement:
b. Administration:
i. Manage allocation and recovery of allocated funds.
ii. Develop and provide annual templates for the Application Packet and Quarterly/Annual
Report for the Municipality.
iii. Host six Liaison/County staff meetings each year.
iv. Provide technical assistance for the Municipality to apply, plan for, measure, and report
on work efforts.
v. Monitor and manage performance and compliance with this Agreement and Exhibit 1.
c. Education and Outreach
i. Provide County staff-developed resources, including articles, images, social media posts,
and education kits for solid waste and household hazardous waste management.
ii. Provide color-coded trash, recycling, and organics labels.
iii. Review and approve Municipality waste abatement outreach materials.
iv. Develop and maintain solid and household hazardous waste information on the County
website.
v. Offer at least one Master Recycling Composter session each year.
d. Projects and Programs
i. Develop and provide best practices for solid waste management.
ii. Provide effective strategies, resources, and support for Municipality to implement waste
abatement programs.
iii. As determined by County staff, provide a reasonable supply of reusable and portable
receptacles for Municipality to store and use for waste collection at events.
iv. Provide low- and no-waste guides and best practices tools for event/festival organizers
and vendors.
SECTION 8
PROPERTY
Upon termination of this Agreement, any containers, labels and/or necessary infrastructure purchased by
the County and provided to the Municipality shall be the sole property of the Municipality.
SECTION 9
INDEMNIFICATION
9.1 IN GENERAL. Each party to this Agreement shall be liable for the acts of its officers, employees or
agents and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of
the other party, its officers, employees or agents.
9.2 LIMITATIONS. The provisions of Minn. Stat. § 471.59, the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. Ch.
466 and other applicable laws govern liability of the County and the Municipality.
9.3 SURVIVORSHIP. The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this
Agreement.
page 85
SECTION 10
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND LIAISONS
10.1 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES: The following named persons are designated the Authorized
Representatives of the parties for purposes of this Agreement. These persons have authority to bind the
party they represent and to consent to modifications, except that the authorized representative shall have
only the authority specifically or generally granted by their respective governing boards. Notice required to
be provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided to the following named persons and addresses
unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, or in a modification of this Agreement.
TO THE COUNTY
TO THE MUNICIPALITY
Matt Smith, or successor, County Manager
County of Dakota
1590 Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033
Neil Garlock, Mayor (or successor)
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
In addition, notification to the County regarding termination under Section 11 of this Agreement by the
other party shall be provided to the Office of the Dakota County Attorney, Civil Division, 1560 Highway 55,
Hastings, MN 55033.
10.2 LIAISONS. To assist the parties in the day-to-day performance of this Agreement, to ensure
compliance, and provide ongoing consultation, a liaison shall be designated by the County and the
Municipality. The County and the Municipality shall keep each other continually informed, in writing, of
any change in the designated liaison. At the time of execution of this Agreement, the following persons
are the designated liaisons:
County Liaison: Gena Gerard
Telephone: (952) 891-7021
Email: gena.gerard@co.dakota.mn.us
Municipality Liaison: Name: Ryan Ruzek
Telephone: 651-452-1850
Email: ryanr@mendota-heights.com
SECTION 11
TERMINATION
11.1 IN GENERAL. Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause by giving seven days’ written
notice or without cause by giving thirty (30) days’ written notice, of its intent to terminate, to the other
party. Such notice to terminate for cause shall specify the circumstances warranting termination of this
Agreement. Cause shall mean a material breach of this Agreement and any supplemental agreements or
amendments thereto. Notice of Termination shall be made by certified mail or personal delivery to the
authorized representative of the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not discharge any
liability, responsibility or right of any party, which arises from the performance of or failure to adequately
perform the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination.
page 86
11.2 TERMINATION BY COUNTY FOR LACK OF FUNDING. Notwithstanding any provision of this
Agreement to the contrary, the County may immediately terminate this Agreement if it does not obtain
funding from the Minnesota Legislature, Minnesota Agencies, or other funding source, or if its funding
cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow payment of the amounts due under this Agreement.
Written notice of termination sent by the County to the Municipality by email or facsimile is sufficient
notice under this section. The County is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after
written notice of termination for lack of funding. The County will not be assessed any penalty or damages
if the Agreement is terminated due to lack of funding.
SECTION 12
MODIFICATIONS
Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be
valid when they have been reduced to writing, approved by the parties’ respective Boards, and signed by
the Authorized Representatives of the County and the Municipality.
SECTION 13
MINNESOTA LAW TO GOVERN
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive and procedural
laws of the State of Minnesota, without giving effect to the principles of conflict of laws. All proceedings
related to this Agreement shall be venued in the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota.
SECTION 14
MERGER
This Agreement is the final expression of the Agreement of the parties and the complete and exclusive
statement of the terms agreed upon and shall supersede all prior negotiations, understandings, or
agreements.
SECTION 15
SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable. If any part of this Agreement is rendered
void, invalid, or unenforceable, such rendering shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the
remainder of this Agreement unless the part or parts that are void, invalid or otherwise unenforceable
shall substantially impair the value of the entire Agreement with respect to either party.
page 87
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date(s) indicated
below.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA COUNTY
_________________________________
Matt Smith, County Manager
Date of Signature: __________________
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
Date of Signature: __________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/Margaret M. Horsch 10/26/18
Assistant County Attorney/Date Attest ________________________________
KS-18-243-009 _____________________________________(title)
Date of Signature: ______________________
County Board Res. No. 18-322
page 88
Dakota County, Physical Development Division
Environmental Resources Department
Information: Gena Gerard, 952-891-7021
gena.gerard@co.dakota.mn.us
JPA processing: Sara Glasby 952-891-7963
sara.glasby@co.dakota.mn.us
2019 Dakota County Community Funding Application Packet
Municipality: WSP, SSP, MH, SFL
Application and JPA Submittal Date: (Insert Date)
Funding Period: January 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019
2019 Annual Report Due Date: January 31, 2020
The following documents and information are required as part of the Joint Powers Agreement for
Community Funding:
Municipality Primary Contact
Designated Liaison: Cassandra Schueller Title: Recycling Coordinator
E-mail:cschueller@wspmn.gov Phone: 651-552-4118
Mailing Address: 1616 Humboldt Ave City/State/Zip: West St. Paul, MN 55118
Municipality Secondary Contact
WSP Designated Back-up: Shirley R Buecksler Title: City Clerk
E-mail:sbuecksler@wspmn.gov Phone: 651-552-4102
SSP Designated Back-up: Christy Wilcox Title: Code Enforcement Officer
E-mail:cwilcox@southstpaul.org Phone: 651-554-3204
MH Designated Back-up: Ryan Ruzek Title: Public Works Director
E-mail:ryanr@mendota-heights.com Phone: 651-255-1152
SFL Designated Back-up: Cathy Iago Title: City Clerk/Administrator
E-mail:cjiago@comcast.net Phone: 651-768-7542
Municipality Communications Contact
WSP Contact Name: Dan Nowicki Title:
Marketing and
Communications Coordinator
E-mail:dnowicki@wspmn.gov Phone: 651-552-4117
SSP Contact Name: Christy Wilcox Title: Code Enforcement Officer
E-mail:cwilcox@southstpaul.org Phone: 651-554-3204
MH Contact Name: Sharon Deziel Title: Communications Coordinator
E-mail:sharond@mendota-heights.com Phone: 651-452-1850
SFL Contact Name: Mike Hovey Title: Communications
E-mail:mhovey@hmcc.com Phone: 651-554-0433
page 89
1. Copy of the Official Resolution or Minutes of the Proceedings
Attach an official action from the governing body (e.g., City Council or Commission) submitting the
Application Packet, or a certified copy of the official proceedings of the governing body approving the
Application Packet.
2. Work Plan
Complete and submit the attached 2019 Dakota County Community Funding Work Plan.
3. Budget
Complete the Work Plan budget to itemize the following fund request:
4. Compliance with Public Entity Laws
Check “Yes” or “No” to indicate compliance, and attach requested documentation for the following:
*Identify the timeline and steps being taken to obtain compliance:
I, the undersigned, certify that this 2019 Community Funding Application was prepared under my
direction or supervision, and that the information is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my
knowledge. I certify that a 2019 Annual Report demonstrating compliance with this application will be
submitted to Dakota County by January 31, 2020.
Cassandra Schueller
Cassandra Schueller
Name of person completing document Signature (electronic signature acceptable)
Recycling Coordinator
9/19/18
Title Date
Fund Request County Fund Eligibility
Work Plan Activities $ 95,675
Waste Tire Activities (RSWC Only) $ 0
TOTAL $ 95,675
Yes No*
MN Stat. §115A.552 (community recycling programs in place) X
MN Stat. §115A.552 (residents/businesses have the opportunity to recycle)
NOTE: Municipal code language must be attached if updated in previous calendar year.
X
MN Stat. §115A.151 (internal recycling programs for facilities under the municipality’s
control).
NOTE: Copy of hauler contract must be attached if updated in previous calendar year.
X
MN Stat. §473.848 and §115A.471 (management of solid waste
collected under contract from municipal operations)
X
MN Administrative Rules 1303.1500 (recycling space requirements in new or
remodeled buildings of 1,000 square feet or more).
X
page 90
2019 Dakota County Community Funding Work Plan
Municipality Size Definition
Small (S) Municipalities with fewer than 4,000 households
Medium (M) Municipalities with 4,000-10,000 households
Large (L) Municipalities with more than 10,000 households
RSWC (R) Municipalities comprising the Rural Solid Waste Commission
Minimum work plan requirements for different sized municipalities are identified within each activity
below.
I. Administration: Meeting Attendance, Training, and Reporting
GOAL: Fulfill responsibilities necessary for effective program administration.
Task Activities County
Funds
Requested
Report
Expended
(YTD)
1 Attend at least four of the six Local Solid Waste Staff meetings per
year. NOTE: Rural Solid Waste Commission adds Commission Board
meetings. (S, M, L, R).
PLAN: The cities will attend at least 4 of the LSWS meetings.
REPORT: [report results, report results – list meetings attended]
0
2 Attend waste abatement training such as Dakota County Master
Recycler/Composter class and other training to support Work Plan
activities (S, M, L).
PLAN FOR ALL: Already attended MRC Class Spring 2015. Attend
RAM/SWANA events, along with SWANA chapter training, or other
applicable trainings.
REPORT: [report results – list training attended]
$800
3 Submit quarterly updates using reporting tools provided by the
County with documentation for Work Plan expenses covered by
Program funding within 15 days of the end of the three-month
period (S, M, L, R).
PLAN: Will submit bimonthly updates using reporting form and will
attach invoices from City-wide collection events with hauler invoices
and applicable photos.
REPORT: [report results – enter date(s) submitted]
0
[Additional Notes:]
page 91
II. Municipal Facility Recycling
A. Internal Recycling Implementation
GOAL: Demonstrate compliance with MN Stat §115A.151 to ensure recycling programs for facilities
under the municipality’s control collect at least three recyclable materials and meet best management
practices.
Task Activities County
Funds
Requested
Report
Expended
(YTD)
1 Follow up on infrastructure changes by providing targeted education
to employees and visitors in municipality-controlled administrative
buildings included in the 2017 waste sort.
PLAN: WSP: Update City Hall hallway display case to cover 2017
waste sort results and diversion potential at City Hall, along with
information on organic material in landfills and how residents can
divert their organic material (Thompson Park Drop Site)
SSP: Email department heads to ask how organics recycling is
going and if they need any further training or assistance. Discuss
organics recycling at City Hall in the Wellness Newsletter for
employees. Send out 1 email to all employees re-explaining organics
recycling, and reminder about what goes in the organics bin, versus
the recycling bin.
MH: Insert information in Friday News (electronic news goes
out to employees and some residents) discussing City Hall’s success
rate with adding organics, review waste sort results, and explain how
residents can divert their organic material. Also touch on MPCA’s
2013 waste composition study. Explain what organic material can go
in the organics bin.
SFL: N/A, doesn’t have any municipal buildings
REPORT: [report results, describe activities, locations, dates, and
estimated number of people served]
0
2 Conduct at least one visual waste assessment or a waste sort at the
municipal facility studied in 2017 waste sort, to estimate weights and
diversion rates after targeted education has concluded (S, M, L, R).
PLAN: WSP: City Hall – Perform visual assessment myself
SSP: City Hall – Perform visual assessment myself
MH: City Hall–visual assessment by Terry, building
maintenance
SFL: N/A, doesn’t have any municipal buildings
REPORT: [report results – attach completed Visual Waste
Assessment Form and Measurement Calculations Table with weights
0
page 92
and diversion weights, or results of waste sort]
3 a. Visually inspect and verify waste management at all
municipality-controlled facilities and parks in keeping with
Dakota County’s Best Management Practices Checklist using the
Municipal Recycling Tracking Tool, at least once annually (S, M, L,
R) and
b. Add containers as needed
PLAN: WSP: Visually inspect dumpsters at City Hall and City-owned
facilities such as Public Works. Visit every park in the City to verify
best management practices in each park and municipal building. If
needed, pick 2 parks to receive recycling bins.
SSP: Visually inspect dumpsters at City Hall and City-owned
facilities such as Public Works. Visit every park in the City to verify
best management practices in each park and municipal building. Pick
3 parks to receive recycling bins.
MH: Visually inspect dumpsters at City Hall and City-owned
facilities such as Public Works and Par 3. Visit every park in the City
to verify best management practices in each park and municipal
building
SFL: N/A, doesn’t have any municipal buildings
REPORT: [report results – (a) walk through once and enter data into
the Municipal Recycling Tracking Tool, referring to the Dakota
County Universal Best Management Practices Checklist for specific
BMPs and (b) describe purchases, locations, purpose ]
$10,000
[Additional Notes:]
B. Internal Waste Reduction and Recycling Education
GOAL: Promote recycling to help reach recycling rate goal of 75% for metropolitan counties (MN Stat.
§115A.551).
Task Activities County
Funds
Requested
Report
Expended
(YTD)
1 Educate all municipal employees about how to reduce waste and
recycle when at work, through workshops, email communications,
and/or other education methods, using County toolkit (S, M, L, R).
PLAN FOR ALL: Send email blasts using County toolkit to all
employees that discuss reducing waste and shopping second
hand/using less plastic in the workplace. *send these emails to Cathy
to distribute. Ensure HR Connect (WSP) is updated with current City
Hall recycling and organics information. Include information on
standard recycling 101 in each of the internal City Hall e-news for
WSP, SSP and MH, excluding SFL since there are no Gov buildings.
REPORT: [report results – describe activities, locations, dates, and
0
page 93
estimated number of people served]
[Additional Notes:]
III. Waste Abatement Activities
A. Materials Collection Events and Activities
GOAL: Increase residential waste reuse and recycling through events and activities to collect reusable
and/or recyclable materials, in keeping with the statutory 75% recycling goal for metropolitan counties
(MN Stat. §115A.551) and the waste management hierarchy.
Task Activities County
Funds
Requested
Report
Expended
(YTD)
1 Provide at least two municipality-wide events or opportunities for
residential paper to be shredded and recycled as an addition to an
existing event or as a stand-alone opportunity (M, L).
PLAN FOR ALL: Host 2 paper shred events: April and Oct, and
possibly a third with Inver Grove Heights in the Summer.
REPORT: [report results – describe activities, locations, dates,
estimated number of people served, and weights provided by
vendor]
$2,000
2 a. Provide at least one mattress collection event or opportunity to
residents for recycling as an addition to an existing event or as a
stand-alone opportunity (e.g., cleanup day, roll-off, curbside
collection etc.), and
b. Ensure that any mattresses, bicycles, and carpet in a
municipality-coordinated collection are delivered for reuse or
recycling, with preference given to reuse.
PLAN: WSP: Partner with IGH for Clean Up Day, offering mattresses,
bike and carpet reuse and recycling.
SSP: Offer mattress, bike and carpet reuse and recycling at Clean
Up Day.
MH: Offer mattress, bike and carpet reuse and recycling at Clean
Up Day.
SFL: Partner with IGH for Clean Up Day, offering mattresses,
bike and carpet reuse and recycling.
REPORT: [report results – describe activities, locations, dates,
estimated number of people served, number and type of materials
collected (specify reuse or recycled), and weights provided by
vendor]
$9,875
3 Promote reuse events, resources and/or opportunities currently
available to municipal residents, using list created in 2018 (S, M, L).
0
page 94
PLAN FOR ALL: Ensure 2018 reuse opportunities list is embedded
into city websites. Use Facebook and Twitter to advertise any city
events related to reuse, such as a shoe and clothing recycling event,
(SFL N/A).
REPORT: [report results – describe promotion efforts]
4 Rural Solid Waste Commission only: Conduct waste tire management
activities such as a tire collection event for rural Dakota County
residents. (R)
REPORT: [report results – describe activities, locations, and dates,
estimated number of people served, and number and weights
provided by vendor]
0
[Additional Notes:]
B. Community Events and Festival Recycling
GOAL: Ensure that the opportunity to recycle exists for residents and begin efforts to institutionalize
recycling at community events and festivals.
Task Activities County
Funds
Requested
Report
Expended
(YTD)
1 Work with event coordinators to implement recycling collection with
best management practices at all events/festivals that the
municipality sponsors or helps to coordinate, or that are held on city
property, using Dakota County’s Recycling Best Management
Practices Guide for Public Events (S, M, L, R).
PLAN FOR ALL: Work with event organizers by distributing Event
BMP guide and assisting when necessary. If hosted on City property,
use funds to pay for dumpsters if necessary. See attached list of city
events per city.
REPORT: [report results – submit completed Dakota County
Universal Best Management Practices Checklist and attach
completed Event Summary Form for each event ]
$3,000
2 Implement at least one additional mechanism to require recycling
with best management practices at events/festivals (e.g., event
permit, event vendor agreement, facility rental agreement, event
hauler agreement) (S, M, L, R).
PLAN FOR ALL: Use the list of all rental applications and permits in
each city and implement one in each city to get recycling verbage
added with/by applicable department staff:
MH: No additionally known opportunities
SSP: Central Square Community Center Room Rental Application
SFL: N/A, no government owned buildings in City
WSP: Special Events Permit
0
page 95
REPORT: [report results – identify selected mechanism, describe
progress, and attach new or revised mechanism when completed]
3 Support County efforts to plan and prepare for future city ordinance
amendment(s) pertaining to recycling at events/festivals (S, M, L, R).
PLAN: Support County with endeavors when they arise.
REPORT: [report results – describe activities]
0
[Additional Notes:]
IV. Residential Outreach and Education
A. Website Content and Resident Communications
GOAL: Provide education and outreach to all current and new residents of single family and multiunit
dwellings about recycling, and household hazardous waste, and ensure that local waste collection
information, recycling information, and waste abatement messaging is consistent throughout the
County, in keeping with MN Stat. §115A.552.
Task Activities County
Funds
Requested
Report
Expended
(YTD)
1 a. Verify that solid waste collection requirements within the
municipality are available to residents on the municipal website,
and
b. Verify that direct links to the Dakota County website or the
online Green Guide directory are provided for residents to have
access to both solid and hazardous waste management
information (S, M, L, R).
PLAN FOR ALL: Visit each city website to verify all links to DC’s
website are active. Verify 2019 haulers are updated and correct on
each website. Ensure Green Guide widget is embedded.
REPORT: [report results – verify and state compliance with (a) and
(b)]
0
2 Serve as a resource to the general public by fielding and responding
to waste abatement-related inquiries. (S, M, L, R).
PLAN FOR ALL: Respond to emails and calls every work day.
REPORT: [report results]
0
3 Provide education to all existing and new residents through the
following:
a. Insert at least one article about residential recycling from County
toolkit into a mailed municipal newsletter (S, M, L, R), and
$4,000
page 96
b. Insert at least one article about waste reduction from County
toolkit into a mailed municipal newsletter (S, M, L, R), and
c. If available, use electronic media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, E-
News) to send timely waste management messages to residents
on both topics (M, L).
PLAN FOR ALL: Insert one waste reduction newsletter article, and
one residential recycling newsletter article during the year, using
County toolkit. Use social media (except SFL) to insert at least one
fact or statistic regarding reuse and waste reduction, as well as
advertise for any waste reduction opportunities or events in the
area.
REPORT: [report results – describe activities for (a), (b), and (c),
including dates, topics, and number of people served; attach copies
of articles]
4 Provide direct outreach to residents about waste reduction/reuse
and recycling through the following using County toolkits (M-1, L-2):
a. Staff a booth or conduct a presentation at a large community
gathering (e.g., school assembly, Pollution Prevention Day,
Farmer’s Market), and/or
b. Coordinate a large event (e.g., Earth Day or America Recycles
Day Celebration)
PLAN: WSP: Staff booth at Garlough Elementary Arbor Day Fair with
recycling and waste reduction information using County education
resources.
SSP: Staff booth at farmers market with recycling and waste
reduction information, hire Dem-Con trailer for Safety Camp using
County education resources.
MH: Hire Dem-Con’s Mobile Learning Trailer to provide direct
outreach to residents regarding recycling and waste reduction for
Parks Celebration, and distribute County education resources.
SFL: N/A
REPORT: [report results – describe activities for (a) and (b) including
dates, locations, topics, and estimated number of people served]
$1,000
5 Support County-led efforts to develop a multiunit recycling program
(e.g., connect County staff to known property managers or known
multi-unit education opportunities) (S, M, L).
PLAN: Support County’s plan by attending Multi-Unit Recycling
meetings and assisting County in any way requested. Provide County
a list of property managers if requested.
REPORT: [report results – describe activities]
0
[Additional Notes:]
page 97
V. Priority Issue: Organics Diversion
A. Municipality-Wide Organics Diversion
GOAL: Implement and continue planning for community-wide organics diversion, increase awareness
of organics recycling for residents, increase the organics recycling rate, and decrease the amount of
food thrown away in households, in keeping with the statutory 75% recycling goal for metropolitan
counties (MN Stat. §115A.551) and the waste management hierarchy.
Task Activities County
Funds
Requested
Report
Expended
(YTD)
1 Provide direct outreach to residents about food waste prevention
opportunities through the following using County toolkits:
a. Staff a booth, or conduct a presentation at a large community
gathering (e.g., school assembly, Pollution Prevention Day,
Farmer’s Market), separate from IV.A.4 above, and/or
b. Coordinate a large event (e.g., Food Too Good To Waste
Challenge)
PLAN: WSP: Farmers market with food waste prevention information
using County toolkits
SSP: Farmers market with food waste prevention information using
County toolkits
MH: Parks Celebration with food waste prevention information
using County toolkits
SFL: N/A
REPORT: [report results – describe activities for (a) and (b) including
dates, locations, topics, and estimated number of people served]
0
2 Coordinate internally to implement organics diversion in the
additional municipality-owned/operated building identified by the
2018 Work Plan (M, L).
PLAN: WSP: Public Works
SSP: Doug Woog Arena if 2018 Fall waste sort shows enough
compostable material in waste stream.
MH: No additional buildings were found to generate enough organic
material to be worth adding.
SFL: N/A
REPORT: [report results – describe activities and purchases]
$8,000
3 Identify at least one additional municipality-owned facility with a
large amount of organic waste to be targeted for organics diversion
planning and implementation in 2020. (M, L).
PLAN: WSP: Ice arena? Contact school who helps run arena, to see
what the possibility of organics is. If applicable, purchase containers
and bags for future implementation.
$3,000
page 98
SSP: Northview Pool? Use funds to purchase containers/bags for
future implementation.
MH: Fire. Purchase containers/bags for future implementation.
SFL: N/A
REPORT: [report results – describe progress; identify facility]
4 Work with event coordinators to implement organics collection with
best management practices, as feasible, at events/festivals that the
municipality sponsors or helps to coordinate, or that are held on city
property, using Dakota County’s Recycling Best Management
Practices Guide for Public Events (S, M, L, R).
PLAN FOR ALL: Work with event coordinators to discuss the event’s
potential organic material output. Help with compostable flatware
purchase if needed, dumpster rental and/or staffing the event. If one
of the largest events in the City, possibly hire a 3rd party to assist
with set up and tear down, and manning waste stations during the
event, such as the Boy Scouts or Vince Vanella. See list of events per
City.
REPORT: [report results – submit completed Dakota County
Universal Best Management Practices Checklist and attach
completed Event Summary Form for each event]
$1,000
5 Collaborate with Dakota County to provide food waste prevention
resources to residents through the following:
a. Insert at least one article about food waste prevention into a
mailed municipal newsletter to residents (S, M, L, R), and
b. Provide direct links from the municipality website to the Dakota
County website for food waste prevention (S, M, L, R), and
c. If available, use electronic media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, E-
News) to send timely food waste prevention messages to
residents (M, L).
PLAN FOR ALL: Insert one food waste prevention newsletter article
during the year. Use social media (except SFL) to insert at least one
fact or statistic regarding food waste prevention. Verify all city
websites’ links to DC are active and correct.
REPORT: [report results – describe activities for (a), (b), and (c),
including dates, topics, and estimated number of people served;
attach copies of articles]
$1,000
[Additional Notes:]
VI. Solid Waste Master Plan Support and Implementation
A. Master Plan/Policy Plan Activities
GOAL: Effective planning and implementation for municipality alignment with Dakota County Solid
Waste Master Plan goals and strategies.
page 99
Task Activities County
Funds
Requested
Report
Expended
(YTD)
1 Identify municipal involvement and impacts created by County-led
efforts to amend County ordinances identified by the new Master
Plan. Amendments being considered include: weekly recycling
collection, recycling at events/festivals, multi-unit recycling, or
increased volume-based pricing. (S, M, L, R).
PLAN: Assist County ordinance amendment planning activities
related to Solid Waste Master Plan and engage appropriate city staff
and/or city council members as needed.
REPORT: [report results – describe activities]
0
2 Engage city staff and stakeholders to support other County-led
efforts for Master Plan implementation, for example to identify
municipal barriers and opportunities for phased approaches to
implement the Master Plan (S, M, L, R).
PLAN: Support County’s vision when requested.
REPORT: [report results – describe activities]
0
3 Implement at least one city priority project for landfill abatement
that promotes Master Plan objectives (S, M, L, R).
PLAN FOR ALL: Host another Clothing Recycling Event in the Spring,
Tire Recycling event in the Summer, and Pumpkin Recycling event in
the Fall—partner with SSP Activities for Pumpkin Recycling
REPORT: [report results – describe activities]
0
[Additional Notes:]
page 100
VII. Budget
Complete the budget and expense form below for the Application and Final Report. Municipality
contributions are not required but help to further the aims of the program.
Total # hours estimated for
municipality to coordinate this
program
Planned full-time equivalent (FTE)
for municipality to coordinate
this program
Actual full-time equivalent (FTE)
for municipality to coordinate
this program
Estimate: 1,744 0.8
Budget Item/Expense
County Funds:
Requested
2019
County Funds:
Report
Expended
2019 (YTD)
Municipality
Funds:
Contributed/
Anticipated
2019
Municipality
Funds: Report
Expended
2019 (YTD)
Total Program
Expense
County +
Municipality:
Planned 2019
Total Program
Expense:
County +
Municipality:
Report
Expended
2019 (YTD)
Salary and Benefits $52,000
$5,376.80 MH
Ryan’s time to
supervise
Cassandra
$52,000
I. Meeting attendance,
training and reporting $800 $6,176
II. Municipal Facility
Recycling $10,000 $10,000
III. Waste Abatement
Activities $14,875
$10,000 SSP
SSP provides
an additional
$10,000 for
Clean Up Day,
separate from
what the
County funds
$24,875
IV. Residential
Outreach/Education $5,000 $5,000
V. Organics Diversion $13,000 $13,000
VI. Master Plan Support
and Implementation 0
Total $95,675 $15,376.80 $111,051
page 101
MH sponsored/coordinated events, or held on city
property:
Parks Events
City Events
January
February
March
April
May
June
1. 5K race
2. Parks Celebration
July
1. Fishing Derby
August
1. Night to Unite
September
October
1. Halloween Bonfire—if no waste being collected, no point
November
December
1. Tree lighting Ceremony
page 102
SSP sponsored/coordinated events, or held on city property:
Parks Events
Deb’s Events
City Events
March
1. Fill the plate skate
April
1. Taco Feed
May
1. Memorial Day Parade
2. Fleming Field Airport Pancake Breakfast
3. River Clean Up
June
1. Kaposia Days
2. City Council Hot Dog Give Away
3. Swimming Under the Stars
4. Citywide Camp-Out
July
1. Swimming Under the Stars
August
1. Relay for Life
2. Swimming Under the Stars
3. Night to Unite
September
1. Stargazing (not sure if we will do in 2019 – we are doing in 2018)
2. Fleming Field Airport Pancake Breakfast
October
1. On The Road Again
2. Great Halloween Get Together
3. Halloween Skate
November
1. Recycle Pumpkin / Launch Pumpkin
2. Lions Thanksgiving Dinner
3. Tree Lighting Ceremony
December
1. Holiday Skate
page 103
WSP sponsored/coordinated events, or held on city property:
Parks Events
City Events
Police Events
February
1. Winter Fun Fest
March
1. Eater Egg Hunt
April
1. Garlough’s Arbor Day Fair
2. Major League Baseball – Jr. Home Run Derby
May
1. Open House
2. Harmon Park Festival
June
1. Summer Playhouse
2. Bike Rodeo
July
1. Summer Playhouse
2. Movies in the Park
3. Southview Park Wednesday Activities
August
1. Night to Unite
2. Movies in the Park
3. Southview Park Wednesday Activities
September
1. Family Fun Day
October
1. Halloween Extravaganza
November
1. Superhero Masquerade (WSP, MH)
December
1. Secret Holiday Shop
page 104
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Accepting Wetland Delineation Report for the Friendly Hills Middle School Site
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked approve a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Joint Water Resources
Application for wetland boundary and type for the Friendly Hills Middle School site.
BACKGROUND
The City Council of Mendota Heights is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) that administers
Chapter 8420 of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). A wetland delineation report for
the Friendly Hills Middle School site was submitted by Pinnacle Engineering on behalf of
Independent School District (ISD) #197 on October 11, 2018. The delineation was performed in
preparation for a proposed building and grounds renovation project.
DISCUSSION
The delineation identified two wetland basins on the site. Wetland 1 is located in the northern portion
of the site between the athletic field and the pedestrian trail. Wetland 2 is located in the southwest
corner of the site, and is identified on the National Wetland Inventory map, as well as the MN
Department of Natural Resources Public Waters Inventory map as Public Water 19-228W. Staff
reviewed the delineation on October 11, 2018, and concurred with the boundaries as submitted in the
report. No additional comments were received from the Technical Evaluation Panel.
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 Technical Evaluation Panel members and their respective agencies (Dakota
County SWCD, BWSR, LMRWMO, Army Corps of Engineers.), as well as the applicant and any
members of the public that requested notice (none).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve and accept the report as submitted by Pinnacle
Engineering for determination of wetland boundary and type, 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.
page 105
page 106
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-84 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Wentworth Park
Pond Improvement Project
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2018-84 accepting bids and awarding a contract for
the Wentworth Park Pond Improvement Project.
BACKGROUND
Council authorized staff to bid the Wentworth Park Pond Improvement Project at their October
16, 2018 meeting. The proposed plan includes sediment removal, outlet improvements, rip rap,
restoration and other appurtenant work.
DISCUSSION
Nine bids (see below) were received and opened on Friday, March 2, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. for the
Ivy Hills Park Pond Improvements.
NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID
BKJ Land Company $67,657.00
Peterson Companies $89,801.00
Minger Construction $105,751.00
Meyer Contracting $106,640.00
Rachel Contracting $114,017.00
Urban Companies $117,075.00
Max Steinenger, Inc. $129,994.73
G. F. Jedlicki, Inc $133,232.00
BKJ Land Company submitted the lowest responsible bid of $67,657.00. Their bid was less than
the Engineer's Estimate of $80,498.00. BKJ Land Company is a contractor with many years of
experience with an office in Prior Lake, Minnesota and has completed projects in Eagan in the
past and is recommended by the city consultant, Barr Engineering.
page 107
BUDGET IMPACT
The Wentworth Park Pond Improvements are proposed to be financed by the storm water utility
fund. The total cost for the Wentworth Park Pond Improvements is $67,657.00, not including
indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance. The Storm Sewer CIP identifies
$100,000 for Pond Maintenance in 2019.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the council accept the bids and award the construction contract to BKJ Land
Company for their bid in the amount of $67,657.00.
ACTION REQUIRED
If city council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE
WENWORTH PARK POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. This action requires a simple
majority vote.
page 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-84
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE
WENTWORTH PARK POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the sediment removal, outlet
improvements and related appurtenant work for the Wentworth Park Pond Improvement Project, bids
were received, opened, and tabulated according to law and the following bids were received
complying with said advertisement:
NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID
BKJ Land Company $67,657.00
Peterson Companies $89,801.00
Minger Construction $105,751.00
Meyer Contracting $106,640.00
Rachel Contracting $114,017.00
Urban Companies $117,075.00
Max Steinenger, Inc. $129,994.73
G. F. Jedlicki, Inc $133,232.00
and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director recommended that the lowest responsible bid
submitted by BKJ Land Comany, Minnesota, be accepted.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1. That the bids for the Wentworth Park Pond Improvement Project are hereby received and
accepted.
2. That the bid of BKJ Land Company of Prior Lake, Minnesota, submitted for the
construction of the above described improvements be and the same is hereby accepted.
3. That the contract be awarded to BKJ Land Company of Prior Lake, Minnesota, and that
the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and
all contracts and documents necessary to consummate the awarding of said bids.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of November, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ATTEST
___________________________ _____________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk Neil Garlock, Mayor
page 109
Item Description Unit Estimated
Quantity Unit Price Extension
1.06 A Project Mobilization/Demobilization L.S.1 $7,318.00 $7,318.00
1.06 B Clear and Grub Trees and Brush, Grind Stumps L.S.1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
1.06 C Erosion Control Construction Entrance Each 2 $1,100.00 $2,200.00
1.06 D Street Sweeping L.S.1 $300.00 $300.00
1.06 E Inlet Protection Each 2 $150.00 $300.00
1.06 F Erosion Control Siltation Logs L.F.60 $3.00 $180.00
1.06 G Reinforced Silt Fence or Floating Silt Curtain L.F.50 $10.00 $500.00
1.06 H Control of Water, Dewatering L.S.1 $1,300.00 $1,300.00
1.06 I Site Grading S.Y.1600 $2.00 $3,200.00
1.06 J Mn/DOT Class III Rip Rap/with Type IV Fabric Ton 120 $85.00 $10,200.00
1.06 K Pond Dredging of MPCA Level 1 Unregulated Fill
Material C.Y.265 $15.00 $3,975.00
1.06 L Disposal of MPCA Level 1 Unregulated Excavated
Material at Nearby Owner Designated Location C.Y.335 $10.00 $3,350.00
1.06 M Turf Reinforcing Material S.Y.35 $25.00 $875.00
1.06 N Existing Outlet Berm Removal L.S.1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
1.06 O Berm Area Unsuitable Soil Excavation C.Y.70 $15.00 $1,050.00
1.06 P Berm Embankment Borrow Material and
Construction C.Y.150 $65.00 $9,750.00
1.06 Q Basin Outlet Structure including Internal Weir,
Piping and Trash rack L.S.1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
1.06 R 18” RCP FES and Bull-nosed Trash Rack L.S.1 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 We need to add "w/ Bull nosed trash rack "to the bid form
1.06 S 24” HDPE Pipe L.F.36 $75.00 $2,700.00
1.06 T 24” HDPE FES L.S.1 $1,300.00 $1,300.00
1.06 U Topsoil Borrow Ton 90 $40.00 $3,600.00
1.06 V Flexterra HP-FGM with Seed S.Y.1600 $4.00 $6,400.00
1.06 W Traffic Control L.S.1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00
1.06 X Site Cleanup and Restoration L.S.1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
$80,498.00
Engineer’s Opinion of Cost
Wentworth Park Pond Maintenance
City of Mendota Heights
CITY PROJECT NO. 201808
BASE BID TOTAL =
page 110
Item Description Unit Estimated
Quantity Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension
1.06 A Project Mobilization/Demobilization L.S.1 10,254.73 8,300.00 8,300.00 16,036.09 16,036.09 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,100.00 10,100.00 18,000.00 18,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00
1.06 B Clear and Grub Trees and Brush, Grind Stumps L.S.1 10,092.12 2,500.00 2,500.00 4,390.00 4,390.00 14,000.00 14,000.00 12,775.00 12,775.00 14,000.00 14,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00
1.06 C Erosion Control Construction Entrance Each 2 1,671.85 950.00 1,900.00 2,000.00 4,000.00 1,500.00 3,000.00 2,749.00 5,498.00 1,500.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 4,000.00
1.06 D Street Sweeping L.S.1 1,132.66 250.00 250.00 1,416.00 1,416.00 800.00 800.00 150.00 150.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 1,250.00 1,250.00
1.06 E Inlet Protection Each 2 215.61 145.00 290.00 100.00 200.00 152.00 304.00 250.00 500.00 250.00 500.00 400.00 800.00
1.06 F Erosion Control Siltation Logs L.F.60 5.28 5.00 300.00 7.53 451.80 3.35 201.00 4.00 240.00 5.00 300.00 10.00 600.00
1.06 G Reinforced Silt Fence or Floating Silt Curtain L.F.50 17.43 21.00 1,050.00 5.00 250.00 16.50 825.00 20.00 1,000.00 21.00 1,050.00 35.00 1,750.00
1.06 H Control of Water, Dewatering L.S.1 14,040.16 7,500.00 7,500.00 12,022.00 12,022.00 22,000.00 22,000.00 6,276.00 6,276.00 16,400.00 16,400.00 15,000.00 15,000.00
1.06 I Site Grading S.Y.1,600 2.25 0.55 880.00 1.17 1,872.00 1.75 2,800.00 0.70 1,120.00 3.25 5,200.00 3.00 4,800.00
1.06 J Mn/DOT Class III Rip Rap/with Type IV Fabric Ton 120 74.68 60.00 7,200.00 57.92 6,950.40 70.70 8,484.00 69.50 8,340.00 67.00 8,040.00 100.00 12,000.00
1.06 K Pond Dredging of MPCA Level 1 Unregulated Fill Material C.Y.265 29.69 11.60 3,074.00 6.77 1,794.05 17.70 4,690.50 22.25 5,896.25 18.00 4,770.00 65.00 17,225.00
1.06 L Disposal of MPCA Level 1 Unregulated Excavated Material at Nearby
Owner Designated Location C.Y.335 15.13 10.30 3,450.50 12.52 4,194.20 11.50 3,852.50 15.75 5,276.25 6.00 2,010.00 10.00 3,350.00
1.06 M Turf Reinforcing Material S.Y.35 51.11 15.00 525.00 55.00 1,925.00 26.00 910.00 15.00 525.00 30.00 1,050.00 30.00 1,050.00
1.06 N Existing Outlet Berm Removal L.S.1 2,197.84 1,830.00 1,830.00 2,548.00 2,548.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 1,030.00 1,030.00 4,600.00 4,600.00 1,500.00 1,500.00
1.06 O Berm Area Unsuitable Soil Excavation C.Y.70 18.56 9.75 682.50 10.26 718.20 9.00 630.00 16.50 1,155.00 18.00 1,260.00 35.00 2,450.00
1.06 P Berm Embankment Borrow Material and Construction C.Y.150 37.27 29.30 4,395.00 31.54 4,731.00 32.00 4,800.00 63.25 9,487.50 28.50 4,275.00 35.00 5,250.00
1.06 Q Basin Outlet Structure including Internal Weir, Piping and Trash rack L.S.1 9,113.10 6,200.00 6,200.00 5,300.12 5,300.12 7,000.00 7,000.00 8,918.00 8,918.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00
1.06 R 18” RCP FES and Bull-nosed Trash Rack L.S.1 2,913.19 1,660.00 1,660.00 1,868.04 1,868.04 2,000.00 2,000.00 3,442.00 3,442.00 3,900.00 3,900.00 4,000.00 4,000.00
1.06 S 24” HDPE Pipe L.F.36 136.02 230.00 8,280.00 169.95 6,118.20 53.00 1,908.00 212.50 7,650.00 57.00 2,052.00 100.00 3,600.00
1.06 T 24” HDPE FES L.S.1 810.25 340.00 340.00 378.00 378.00 716.00 716.00 930.00 930.00 600.00 600.00 1,500.00 1,500.00
1.06 U Topsoil Borrow Ton 90 36.75 28.00 2,520.00 56.30 5,067.00 22.00 1,980.00 53.00 4,770.00 49.00 4,410.00 25.00 2,250.00
1.06 V Flexterra HP-FGM with Seed S.Y.1,600 2.37 1.80 2,880.00 3.10 4,960.00 3.35 5,360.00 1.80 2,880.00 2.25 3,600.00 2.00 3,200.00
1.06 W Traffic Control L.S.1 2,190.44 550.00 550.00 1,428.00 1,428.00 3,600.00 3,600.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 2,500.00 2,500.00
1.06 X Site Cleanup and Restoration L.S.1 4,146.47 1,100.00 1,100.00 1,260.00 1,260.00 2,900.00 2,900.00 5,173.00 5,173.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 10,000.00 10,000.00
67,657.00 89,878.10 105,761.00 106,632.00 114,017.00 117,075.00
Bid Form says:89,801.00 Bid Form says:106,640.00
Difference of: 77.10 Difference of: -8.00
TOTAL BASE BID
Minger Construction
Co., Inc.Meyer Contracting G Urban Companies, Inc.BKJ Excavating Peterson Companies, Inc.Rachel Contracting
Stormwater & Water Quality Pond Sediment Removal & Outlet Improvements for Wentworth Park Pon
City of Mendota Heights - City Project No. 201808
Bid Results, Opened Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. CDT
Average Unit
Prices
page 111
Item Description Unit Estimated
Quantity
1.06 A Project Mobilization/Demobilization L.S.1
1.06 B Clear and Grub Trees and Brush, Grind Stumps L.S.1
1.06 C Erosion Control Construction Entrance Each 2
1.06 D Street Sweeping L.S.1
1.06 E Inlet Protection Each 2
1.06 F Erosion Control Siltation Logs L.F.60
1.06 G Reinforced Silt Fence or Floating Silt Curtain L.F.50
1.06 H Control of Water, Dewatering L.S.1
1.06 I Site Grading S.Y.1,600
1.06 J Mn/DOT Class III Rip Rap/with Type IV Fabric Ton 120
1.06 K Pond Dredging of MPCA Level 1 Unregulated Fill Material C.Y.265
1.06 L Disposal of MPCA Level 1 Unregulated Excavated Material at Nearby
Owner Designated Location C.Y.335
1.06 M Turf Reinforcing Material S.Y.35
1.06 N Existing Outlet Berm Removal L.S.1
1.06 O Berm Area Unsuitable Soil Excavation C.Y.70
1.06 P Berm Embankment Borrow Material and Construction C.Y.150
1.06 Q Basin Outlet Structure including Internal Weir, Piping and Trash rack L.S.1
1.06 R 18” RCP FES and Bull-nosed Trash Rack L.S.1
1.06 S 24” HDPE Pipe L.F.36
1.06 T 24” HDPE FES L.S.1
1.06 U Topsoil Borrow Ton 90
1.06 V Flexterra HP-FGM with Seed S.Y.1,600
1.06 W Traffic Control L.S.1
1.06 X Site Cleanup and Restoration L.S.1
TOTAL BASE BID
Stormwater & Water Quality Pond Sediment Removal & Outlet Improvements for Wentwo
City of Mendota Heights - City Project No. 201808
Bid Results, Opened Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. CDT
Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension
8,961.74 8,961.74 5,640.00 5,640.00
13,671.94 13,671.94 15,400.00 15,400.00
1,575.77 3,151.54 1,100.00 2,200.00
1,295.31 1,295.31 1,400.00 1,400.00
227.85 455.70 200.00 400.00
3.83 229.80 3.50 210.00
10.96 548.00 10.00 500.00
21,603.27 21,603.27 11,520.00 11,520.00
2.59 4,144.00 5.00 8,000.00
77.29 9,274.80 95.00 11,400.00
18.16 4,812.40 78.00 20,670.00
25.00 8,375.00 30.00 10,050.00
152.85 5,349.75 85.00 2,975.00
1,874.71 1,874.71 1,200.00 1,200.00
25.00 1,750.00 25.00 1,750.00
59.58 8,937.00 19.00 2,850.00
12,276.64 12,276.64 13,210.00 13,210.00
3,285.46 3,285.46 3,150.00 3,150.00
213.71 7,693.56 52.00 1,872.00
743.01 743.01 1,275.00 1,275.00
24.72 2,224.80 36.00 3,240.00
1.92 3,072.00 2.75 4,400.00
2,675.53 2,675.53 2,270.00 2,270.00
3,588.77 3,588.77 7,650.00 7,650.00
129,994.73 133,232.00
Max Steininger, Inc.G.F. Jedlicki, Inc.page 112
Contractor Name 5%
Bid Bond
Successful Bidder
Contractor
Affidavit/Oath
Bid
Signed Base Bid Amount Order
BKJ Excavating yes yes yes $67,657.00 1
Peterson Companies yes yes yes $89,801.00 2
Minger Construction Co., Inc.yes yes yes $105,761.00 3
Meyer Contracting yes yes yes $106,640.00 4
Rachel Contracting yes yes yes $114,017.00 5
G Urban Companies, Inc.yes yes yes $117,075.00 6
Max Steininger, Inc.yes yes yes $129,994.73 7
G.F. Jedlicki, Inc.yes yes yes $133,232.00 8
Bid Results Summary Table
City of Mendota Heights - City Project No. 201808
Stormwater & Water Quality Pond Sediment Removal
& Outlet Improvements for Wentworth Park Pond
Bid Opening: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. CDT
page 113
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-85 Approve Limited Use Permit with MnDOT for the Rogers
Lake Trail
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked approve a Limited Use Permit (LUP) with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) for the existing Rogers Lake Trail.
BACKGROUND
MnDOT requires a Limited Use Permit for any trail systems that are located within the boundary
of State Right-of-Way.
Staff has been working with Great River Greening on vegetation management within the wooded
area between I-35E and Rogers Lake. Great River Greening has applied for a grant to provide
additional resources for the city to utilize for buckthorn and garlic mustard removal around
Rogers Lake. As the grant application was being prepared, it was noted that a portion of the trail
is within State I-35E right-of-way which extends to the Rogers Lake shoreline. Staff discussed
the grant application with MnDOT and it was also discovered that this trail section does not have
an existing Limited Use Permit.
DISCUSSION
The trail from Valley View Heights Park on Cullen Avenue which runs south to Wagon Wheel
Trail and the Trail from Rogers Lake Park which runs south to Mendota Heights Road were
originally constructed by MnDOT in the early 1980’s during the extension of I-35E. Portions of
these trails are within MnDOT right-of-way. MnDOT is requesting the city approve a limited
use permit for these sections.
BUDGET IMPACT
There are no anticipated fees associated with the Limited Use Permit.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council approve the attached Resolution authorizing staff to enter into
a Limited Use Permit agreement with MnDOT for the pedestrian trail in the Interstate 35E right-
of-way.
page 114
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass the attached RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING A LIMITED USE PERMIT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION FOR A NON-MOTORIZED RECREATIONAL TRAIL IN
THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 35E. This action requires a simple majority
vote.
page 115
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018 – 85
RESOLUTION APPROVING LIMITED USE PERMITS WITH THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR A NON-MOTORIZED
RECREATIONAL TRAIL IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 35E
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is a political subdivision, organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has approved a plan to
construct a non-motorized recreational trail in the right-of-way of Trunk Highway 35E to
promote the orderly and safe pedestrian movement adjacent to the Interstate; and,
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation requires a Limited
Use Permit for the construction and utilization of said non-motorized recreational trail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights hereby enters into a Limited Use Permit with the State of Minnesota,
Department of Transportation for the following purposes:
1. To construct, operate and maintain a non-motorized recreational trail within the right-
of-way of Trunk Highway 35E of the State of Minnesota as shown on Exhibit A. The
City of Mendota Heights shall construct, operate and maintain said trail in accordance
with the Limited Use Permit granted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk and the Mayor are authorized to
execute the Limited Use Permit and any amendments to the Permit.
Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this seventh day of November, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_____________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
____________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 116
I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Mendota Heights at an authorized meeting held on the 7th day of November,
2018, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession.
(Signature)
(Type or Print Name)
(Title)
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this ______ day of _________, 20__
Notary Public ___________________
My Commission Expires _________
NOTARY STAMP
page 117
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LIMITED USE PERMIT
C.S. 1982 (T.H. 35E)
County of Dakota
LUP # 1982-0096
Permittee: City of Mendota
Heights
Expiration Date: 10/26/2028
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 161.434, the State of Minnesota, through its
Commissioner of Transportation, (“MnDOT”), hereby grants a Limited Use Permit (the “LUP”) to City
of Mendota Heights, (“Permittee”), to use the area within the right of way of Trunk Highway No. 35E
as shown in red on Exhibit "A", (the “Area”) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
This Limited Use Permit is executed by the Permittee pursuant to resolution, a certified copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Non-Motorized Recreational Trail
The Permittee's use of the Area is limited to only the constructing, maintaining and operating a
nonmotorized recreational trail ("Facility") and the use thereof may be further limited by 23 C.F.R. 652
also published as the Federal-Aid Policy Guide.
The permittee agrees that this permit totally replaces and supersedes the previously issued
Temporary Limited Use permit affecting the Area, specifically: The permit, # 1982-035, was issued
on 10/5/1976 on CS 1982 (TH 35E=390). Upon issuance of this permit the earlier issued permit is
cancelled.
In addition, the following special provisions shall apply:
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
1. TERM. This LUP terminates at 11:59PM on 10/26/2028 (“Expiration Date”) subject to the right
of cancellation by MnDOT, with or without cause, by giving the Permittee ninety (90) days
written notice of such cancellation. This LUP will not be renewed except as provided below.
page 118
Provided this LUP has not expired or terminated, MnDOT may renew this LUP for a period of up
to ten (10) years, provided Permittee delivers to MnDOT, not later than ninety (90) days prior to
the Expiration Date, a written request to extend the term. Any extension of the LUP term will be
under the same terms and conditions in this LUP, provided:
(a) At the time of renewal, MnDOT will review the Facility and Area to ensure the Facility and
Area are compatible with the safe and efficient operation of the highway and the Facility
and Area are in good condition and repair. If, in MnDOT’s sole determination,
modifications and repairs to the Facility and Area are needed, Permittee will perform such
work as outlined in writing in an amendment of this LUP; and
(b) Permittee will provide to MnDOT a certified copy of the resolution from the applicable
governmental body authorizing the Permittee’s use of the Facility and Area for the
additional term.
If Permittee’s written request to extend the term is not timely given, the LUP will expire on the
Expiration Date.
Permittee hereby voluntarily releases and waives any and all claims and causes of action for
damages, costs, expenses, losses, fees and compensation arising from or related to any
cancellation or termination of this LUP by MnDOT. Permittee agrees that it will not make or
assert any claims for damages, costs, expenses, losses, fees and compensation based upon
the existence, cancellation or termination of the LUP. Permittee agrees not to sue or institute
any legal action against MnDOT based upon any of the claims released in this paragraph.
2. REMOVAL. Upon the Expiration Date or earlier termination, at the Permittee’s sole cost and
expense Permittee will:
(a) Remove the Facility and restore the Area to a condition satisfactory to the MnDOT District
Engineer; and
(b) Surrender possession of the Area to MnDOT.
If, without MnDOT’s written consent, Permittee continues to occupy the Area after the Expiration
Date or earlier termination, Permittee will remain subject to all conditions, provisions, and
obligations of this LUP, and further, Permittee will pay all costs and expenses, including
attorney’s fees, in any action brought by MnDOT to remove the Facility and the Permittee from
the Area.
3. CONSTRUCTION. The construction, maintenance, and supervision of the Facility shall be at no
cost or expense to MnDOT.
Before construction of any kind, the plans for such construction shall be approved in writing by
the MnDOT's District Engineer. Approval in writing from MnDOT District Engineer shall be
required for any changes from the approved plan.
page 119
The Permittee will construct the Facility at the location shown in the attached Exhibit "A", and in
accordance with MnDOT-approved plans and specifications. Further, Permittee will construct
the Facility using construction procedures compatible with the safe and efficient operation of the
highway.
Upon completion of the construction of the Facility, the Permittee shall restore all disturbed
slopes and ditches in such manner that drainage, erosion control and aesthetics are
perpetuated.
The Permittee shall preserve and protect all utilities located on the lands covered by this LUP at
no expense to MnDOT and it shall be the responsibility of the Permittee to call the Gopher State
One Call System at 1-800-252-1166 at least 48 hours prior to performing any excavation.
Any crossings of the Facility over the trunk highway shall be perpendicular to the centerline of
the highway and shall provide and ensure reasonable and adequate stopping sight distance.
4. MAINTENANCE. Any and all maintenance of the Facility shall be provided by the Permittee at
its sole cost and expense, including, but not limited to, plowing and removal of snow and
installation and removal of regulatory signs. No signs shall be placed on any MnDOT or other
governmental agency sign post within the Area. MnDOT will not mark obstacles for users on
trunk highway right of way.
5. USE. Other than as identified and approved by MnDOT, no permanent structures or no
advertising devices in any manner, form or size shall be allowed on the Area. No commercial
activities shall be allowed to operate upon the Area.
Any use permitted by this LUP shall remain subordinate to the right of MnDOT to use the
property for highway and transportation purposes. This LUP does not grant any interest
whatsoever in land, nor does it establish a permanent park, recreation area or wildlife or
waterfowl refuge Facility that would become subject to Section 4 (f) of the Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1968, nor does this permit establish a Bikeway or Pedestrian way which would require
replacement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 160.264. No rights to relocation benefits
are established by this LUP.
This LUP is non-exclusive and is granted subject to the rights of others, including, but not limited
to public utilities which may occupy the Area.
6. APPLICABLE LAWS. This LUP does not release the Permittee from any liability or obligation
imposed by federal law, Minnesota Statutes, local ordinances, or other agency regulations
relating thereto and any necessary permits relating thereto shall be applied for and obtained by
the Permittee.
Permittee at its sole cost and expense, agrees to comply with, and provide and maintain the
Area, Facilities in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, ordinances and regulations issued
page 120
by any federal, state or local political subdivision having jurisdiction and authority in connection
with said Area including the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). If the Area and Facilities
are not in compliance with the ADA or other applicable laws MnDOT may enter the Area and
perform such obligation without liability to Permittee for any loss or damage to Permittee thereby
incurred, and Permittee shall reimburse MnDOT for the cost thereof, plus 10% of such cost for
overhead and supervision within 30 days of receipt of MnDOT’s invoice.
7. CIVIL RIGHTS. The Permittee for itself, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the
consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree that in the event improvements are
constructed, maintained, or otherwise operated on the Property described in this Limited Use
Permit for a purpose for which a MnDOT activity, facility, or program is extended or for another
purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, the Permittee will maintain and
operate such improvements and services in compliance with all requirements imposed by the
Acts and Regulations relative to nondiscrimination in federally-assisted programs of the United
States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, (as may be amended)
such that no person on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, income-
level, or limited English proficiency will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of,
or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said improvements.
8. SAFETY. MnDOT shall retain the right to limit and/or restrict any activity, including the parking
of vehicles and assemblage of Facility users, on the highway right of way over which this LUP is
granted, so as to maintain the safety of both the motoring public and Facility users.
9. ASSIGNMENT. No assignment of this LUP is allowed.
10. IN WRITING. Except for those which are set forth in this LUP, no representations, warranties,
or agreements have been made by MnDOT or Permittee to one another with respect to this
LUP.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL. The Permittee shall not dispose of any materials regulated by any
governmental or regulatory agency onto the ground, or into any body of water, or into any
container on the State’s right of way. In the event of spillage of regulated materials, the
Permittee shall notify in writing MnDOT’s District Engineer and shall provide for cleanup of the
spilled material and of materials contaminated by the spillage in accordance with all applicable
federal, state and local laws and regulations, at the sole expense of the Permittee.
12. MECHANIC’S LIENS. The Permittee (for itself, its contractors, subcontractors, its materialmen,
and all other persons acting for, through or under it or any of them), covenants that no laborers',
mechanics', or materialmens' liens or other liens or claims of any kind whatsoever shall be filed
or maintained by it or by any subcontractor, materialmen or other person or persons acting for,
through or under it or any of them against the work and/or against said lands, for or on account
of any work done or materials furnished by it or any of them under any agreement or any
amendment or supplement thereto.
page 121
13. NOTICES. All notices which may be given, by either party to the other, will be deemed to have
been fully given when served personally on MnDOT or Permittee or when made in writing
addressed as follows: to Permittee at: and to MnDOT at:
Mayor State of Minnesota
City Hall Department of Transportation
1101 Victoria Curve Metro District Right of Way
Mendota Heights, MN 55118 1500 W. County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
The address to which notices are mailed may be changed by written notice given by either
party to the other.
14. INDEMNITY. Permittee shall defend, indemnify, hold harmless and release the State of
Minnesota, its Commissioner of Transportation and employees and its successors and assigns,
from and against:
(a) all claims, demands, and causes of action for injury to or death of persons or loss of or
damage to property (including Permittee's property) occurring on the Facility or connected with
Permittee's use and occupancy of the Area, regardless of whether such injury, death, loss or
damage is caused in part by the negligence of State of Minnesota or is deemed to be the
responsibility of State of Minnesota because of its failure to supervise, inspect or control the
operations of Permittee or otherwise discover or prevent actions or operations of Permittee
giving rise to liability to any person.
(b) claims arising or resulting from the temporary or permanent termination of Facility user
rights on any portion of highway right of way over which this LUP is granted;
(c) claims resulting from temporary or permanent changes in drainage patterns resulting in
flood damages;
(d) any laborers', mechanics', or materialmens' liens or other liens or claims of any kind
whatsoever filed or maintained for or on account of any work done or materials furnished; and
(e) any damages, testing costs and clean-up costs arising from spillage of regulated
materials attributable to the construction, maintenance or operation of the Facility.
page 122
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By______________________________
Its ___________________________
Date__________________________
And________________________________
Its __________________________
Date__________________________
By:___________________________
District Engineer
Date__________________________
APPROVED BY:
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
By:_______________________________
Director, Office of Land Management
Date____________________________
The Commissioner of Transportation
by the execution of this permit
certifies that this permit is
necessary in the public interest
and that the use intended is for
public purposes.
page 123
INTERSTATE 35EWAGON WHEEL TRL
CULLEN AVE TIMMY STTHERESA STINTERSTATE 35EEXHIBIT AMendota Heights TrailCullen Ave to Wagon Wheel Trail
Date: 10/4/2018
City ofMendotaHeights0150
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
Right-of-Way
Mendota Heights Trail
page 124
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LIMITED USE PERMIT
C.S. 1982 (T.H. 35E)
County of Dakota
LUP # 1982-0097
Permittee: City of Mendota
Heights
Expiration Date: 10/26/2028
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 161.434, the State of Minnesota, through its
Commissioner of Transportation, (“MnDOT”), hereby grants a Limited Use Permit (the “LUP”) to City
of Mendota Heights, (“Permittee”), to use the area within the right of way of Trunk Highway No. 35E
as shown in red on Exhibit "A", (the “Area”) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
This Limited Use Permit is executed by the Permittee pursuant to resolution, a certified copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Non-Motorized Recreational Trail
The Permittee's use of the Area is limited to only the constructing, maintaining and operating a
nonmotorized recreational trail ("Facility") and the use thereof may be further limited by 23 C.F.R. 652
also published as the Federal-Aid Policy Guide.
In addition, the following special provisions shall apply:
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
1. TERM. This LUP terminates at 11:59PM on 10/26/2028 (“Expiration Date”) subject to the right
of cancellation by MnDOT, with or without cause, by giving the Permittee ninety (90) days
written notice of such cancellation. This LUP will not be renewed except as provided below.
Provided this LUP has not expired or terminated, MnDOT may renew this LUP for a period of up
to ten (10) years, provided Permittee delivers to MnDOT, not later than ninety (90) days prior to
the Expiration Date, a written request to extend the term. Any extension of the LUP term will be
under the same terms and conditions in this LUP, provided:
(a) At the time of renewal, MnDOT will review the Facility and Area to ensure the Facility and
Area are compatible with the safe and efficient operation of the highway and the Facility
and Area are in good condition and repair. If, in MnDOT’s sole determination,
page 125
modifications and repairs to the Facility and Area are needed, Permittee will perform such
work as outlined in writing in an amendment of this LUP; and
(b) Permittee will provide to MnDOT a certified copy of the resolution from the applicable
governmental body authorizing the Permittee’s use of the Facility and Area for the
additional term.
If Permittee’s written request to extend the term is not timely given, the LUP will expire on the
Expiration Date.
Permittee hereby voluntarily releases and waives any and all claims and causes of action for
damages, costs, expenses, losses, fees and compensation arising from or related to any
cancellation or termination of this LUP by MnDOT. Permittee agrees that it will not make or
assert any claims for damages, costs, expenses, losses, fees and compensation based upon
the existence, cancellation or termination of the LUP. Permittee agrees not to sue or institute
any legal action against MnDOT based upon any of the claims released in this paragraph.
2. REMOVAL. Upon the Expiration Date or earlier termination, at the Permittee’s sole cost and
expense Permittee will:
(a) Remove the Facility and restore the Area to a condition satisfactory to the MnDOT District
Engineer; and
(b) Surrender possession of the Area to MnDOT.
If, without MnDOT’s written consent, Permittee continues to occupy the Area after the Expiration
Date or earlier termination, Permittee will remain subject to all conditions, provisions, and
obligations of this LUP, and further, Permittee will pay all costs and expenses, including
attorney’s fees, in any action brought by MnDOT to remove the Facility and the Permittee from
the Area.
3. CONSTRUCTION. The construction, maintenance, and supervision of the Facility shall be at no
cost or expense to MnDOT.
Before construction of any kind, the plans for such construction shall be approved in writing by
the MnDOT's District Engineer. Approval in writing from MnDOT District Engineer shall be
required for any changes from the approved plan.
The Permittee will construct the Facility at the location shown in the attached Exhibit "A", and in
accordance with MnDOT-approved plans and specifications. Further, Permittee will construct
the Facility using construction procedures compatible with the safe and efficient operation of the
highway.
Upon completion of the construction of the Facility, the Permittee shall restore all disturbed
slopes and ditches in such manner that drainage, erosion control and aesthetics are
perpetuated.
page 126
The Permittee shall preserve and protect all utilities located on the lands covered by this LUP at
no expense to MnDOT and it shall be the responsibility of the Permittee to call the Gopher State
One Call System at 1-800-252-1166 at least 48 hours prior to performing any excavation.
Any crossings of the Facility over the trunk highway shall be perpendicular to the centerline of
the highway and shall provide and ensure reasonable and adequate stopping sight distance.
4. MAINTENANCE. Any and all maintenance of the Facility shall be provided by the Permittee at
its sole cost and expense, including, but not limited to, plowing and removal of snow and
installation and removal of regulatory signs. No signs shall be placed on any MnDOT or other
governmental agency sign post within the Area. MnDOT will not mark obstacles for users on
trunk highway right of way.
5. USE. Other than as identified and approved by MnDOT, no permanent structures or no
advertising devices in any manner, form or size shall be allowed on the Area. No commercial
activities shall be allowed to operate upon the Area.
Any use permitted by this LUP shall remain subordinate to the right of MnDOT to use the
property for highway and transportation purposes. This LUP does not grant any interest
whatsoever in land, nor does it establish a permanent park, recreation area or wildlife or
waterfowl refuge Facility that would become subject to Section 4 (f) of the Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1968, nor does this permit establish a Bikeway or Pedestrian way which would require
replacement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 160.264. No rights to relocation benefits
are established by this LUP.
This LUP is non-exclusive and is granted subject to the rights of others, including, but not limited
to public utilities which may occupy the Area.
6. APPLICABLE LAWS. This LUP does not release the Permittee from any liability or obligation
imposed by federal law, Minnesota Statutes, local ordinances, or other agency regulations
relating thereto and any necessary permits relating thereto shall be applied for and obtained by
the Permittee.
Permittee at its sole cost and expense, agrees to comply with, and provide and maintain the
Area, Facilities in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, ordinances and regulations issued
by any federal, state or local political subdivision having jurisdiction and authority in connection
with said Area including the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). If the Area and Facilities
are not in compliance with the ADA or other applicable laws MnDOT may enter the Area and
perform such obligation without liability to Permittee for any loss or damage to Permittee thereby
incurred, and Permittee shall reimburse MnDOT for the cost thereof, plus 10% of such cost for
overhead and supervision within 30 days of receipt of MnDOT’s invoice.
page 127
7. CIVIL RIGHTS. The Permittee for itself, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the
consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree that in the event improvements are
constructed, maintained, or otherwise operated on the Property described in this Limited Use
Permit for a purpose for which a MnDOT activity, facility, or program is extended or for another
purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, the Permittee will maintain and
operate such improvements and services in compliance with all requirements imposed by the
Acts and Regulations relative to nondiscrimination in federally-assisted programs of the United
States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, (as may be amended)
such that no person on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, income-
level, or limited English proficiency will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of,
or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said improvements.
8. SAFETY. MnDOT shall retain the right to limit and/or restrict any activity, including the parking
of vehicles and assemblage of Facility users, on the highway right of way over which this LUP is
granted, so as to maintain the safety of both the motoring public and Facility users.
9. ASSIGNMENT. No assignment of this LUP is allowed.
10. IN WRITING. Except for those which are set forth in this LUP, no representations, warranties,
or agreements have been made by MnDOT or Permittee to one another with respect to this
LUP.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL. The Permittee shall not dispose of any materials regulated by any
governmental or regulatory agency onto the ground, or into any body of water, or into any
container on the State’s right of way. In the event of spillage of regulated materials, the
Permittee shall notify in writing MnDOT’s District Engineer and shall provide for cleanup of the
spilled material and of materials contaminated by the spillage in accordance with all applicable
federal, state and local laws and regulations, at the sole expense of the Permittee.
12. MECHANIC’S LIENS. The Permittee (for itself, its contractors, subcontractors, its materialmen,
and all other persons acting for, through or under it or any of them), covenants that no laborers',
mechanics', or materialmens' liens or other liens or claims of any kind whatsoever shall be filed
or maintained by it or by any subcontractor, materialmen or other person or persons acting for,
through or under it or any of them against the work and/or against said lands, for or on account
of any work done or materials furnished by it or any of them under any agreement or any
amendment or supplement thereto.
13. NOTICES. All notices which may be given, by either party to the other, will be deemed to have
been fully given when served personally on MnDOT or Permittee or when made in writing
addressed as follows: to Permittee at: and to MnDOT at:
Mayor State of Minnesota
City Hall Department of Transportation
1101 Victoria Curve Metro District Right of Way
page 128
Mendota Heights, MN 55118 1500 W. County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
The address to which notices are mailed may be changed by written notice given by either
party to the other.
14. INDEMNITY. Permittee shall defend, indemnify, hold harmless and release the State of
Minnesota, its Commissioner of Transportation and employees and its successors and assigns,
from and against:
(a) all claims, demands, and causes of action for injury to or death of persons or loss of or
damage to property (including Permittee's property) occurring on the Facility or connected with
Permittee's use and occupancy of the Area, regardless of whether such injury, death, loss or
damage is caused in part by the negligence of State of Minnesota or is deemed to be the
responsibility of State of Minnesota because of its failure to supervise, inspect or control the
operations of Permittee or otherwise discover or prevent actions or operations of Permittee
giving rise to liability to any person.
(b) claims arising or resulting from the temporary or permanent termination of Facility user
rights on any portion of highway right of way over which this LUP is granted;
(c) claims resulting from temporary or permanent changes in drainage patterns resulting in
flood damages;
(d) any laborers', mechanics', or materialmens' liens or other liens or claims of any kind
whatsoever filed or maintained for or on account of any work done or materials furnished; and
(e) any damages, testing costs and clean-up costs arising from spillage of regulated
materials attributable to the construction, maintenance or operation of the Facility.
page 129
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By___________________________
Its ________________________
Date____________________________
And____________________________
Its_________________________
Date____________________________
By:_____________________________
District Engineer
Date____________________________
APPROVED BY:
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
By:_______________________________
Director, Office of Land Management
Date______________________________
The Commissioner of Transportation
by the execution of this permit
certifies that this permit is
necessary in the public interest
and that the use intended is for
public purposes.
page 130
LEXINGTON AVEINTERSTATE 35EINTERSTATE 35E NB RAMPINTERSTATE 494 RAMPINTERSTATE 35EEXHIBIT AMendota Heights TrailRogers Lake
Date: 10/4/2018
City ofMendotaHeights0310
SCALE IN FEET
Right-of-Way
Mendota Heights Trail
page 131
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 7, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Selection of Recreation Management System
COMMENT:
Introduction
The City Council is asked to approve the selection of CivicRec as the City’s new Recreation Management
System.
Background
The City has utilized RegWerks as its primary software solution for supporting parks and recreation
registration and business processes for a number of years. This system has grown limited in scope and
capabilities and provides significant technology challenges for internal and external users.
Staff has researched alternative software which will allow for expanded functionality to better support the
City’s processes and provide a more robust interface with consumers. Based on recommendations from
other cities, staff received proposals and reviewed software from four vendors. Of the four, staff is
recommending CivicRec, a division of CivicPlus.
CivicPlus is used in more than 3,500 local governments throughout the country and has more than 20 years
of experience focused exclusively on local government. They work with 60,000 administrative users each
year and have over 75 million citizens that engage with their system daily. Civic Plus systems and services
include website design and content management, human resources solutions, mass notification and
communication tools, agenda/meeting management solutions, and parks and recreation management
software.
CivicRec is a web-based, hosted application. Features of the system include facility reservations, point of
sale, citizen dashboard management, activity registration, membership management, volunteer
management, league management, reporting/accounting, ticketing, surveys, email/SMS blast capability,
hardware capability, marketing/brochures, and group permission levels.
CivicRec is tailored to meet each city’s specific needs. Civic Rec recommends 16-18 weeks for
implementation. With anticipated summer programs registration opening March 1, it would not be possible
for staff to move forward with CivicRec after January 1 and be ready for the 2019 summer recreation
registration season. Staff is requesting that the City Council approve the contract, so that project
implementation could begin immediately. Billing and payment for the purchase would not take place until
after January 1, 2019.
page 132
Budget Impact
Included in the 2019 preliminary budget is $10,000 for the replacement of the City’s recreation management
system.
CivicRec costs $7,500 for the initial implementation fee, which is the total price for the first year. Year two
costs a total of $4,500 for annual service fees. After year two, annual service fees are subject to a cumulative
annual 5% technology increase.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending that Council approve the contract to purchase CivicPlus (CivicRec) software as the
City’s new Recreation Management System.
Action Required
If the Council agrees, it should, by motion approve the selection of CivicRec Recreation Management
System and authorize staff to execute the contract for purchase and implementation with CivicPlus.
page 133
DATE: November 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police
Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Approve Police Officer Hire
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve the hiring of Leif Vandersteen for the position of Police
Officer.
BACKGROUND
Staff recommends the hiring of Leif Vandersteen to the position of Police Officer. Mr.
Vandersteen comes to the City from the Minnesota State Patrol where he has held the position of
State Trooper for the past two years. Leif has a Bachelor’s degree from Luther College in
Sociology and Gender Studies.
Leif’s anticipated start date is yet to be determined, and is dependent upon approval of by the
City Council and proper notice to his current employer.
BUDGET IMPACT
This is a budgeted position.
ACTION RECOMMENDED
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the hiring of Leif Vandersteen as Police Officer.
Starting salary will be $5,375 per month based on the 2018-2019 Law Enforcement Labor
Services, Inc. labor agreement.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council concurs, it should by motion, approve the hiring of Leif Vandersteen to the position
of Police Officer with the Mendota Heights Police Department.
page 134
page 135
page 136
page 137
page 138
page 139
page 140
page 141
page 142
page 143
page 144
page 145
page 146
page 147
page 148
page 149
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-86 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for the Lexington
Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to conduct an assessment hearing and adopt the assessment roll for the
Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements.
BACKGROUND
Council ordered the Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements at their
February 7, 2018 meeting, and directed staff to prepare plans and specifications for this street
reconstruction project. The plans were approved and authorized to bid at the June 5, 2018
meeting. Council accepted bids and awarded the project to Midwest Asphalt at their July 2, 2018
meeting.
DISCUSSION
The Public Hearing for the consideration of special assessments for the Lexington Highlands &
Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements was advertised for the city council meeting at 7:00
P.M. on November 7, 2018. The project has been substantially completed with only the signage
replacement, sidewalk, Mendakota Drive (Xcel Energy has delayed this portion), and
miscellaneous punch list items remaining.
BUDGET IMPACT
The total construction contract cost for the Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood
Improvements is $1,208,235, not including, indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration,
and finance.
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
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.
page 150
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 $69,978.17 $161,051.83
STORM SEWER $133,152.00 $133,152.00
Totals $1,449,882.00 $461,839.80 $854,890.20 $133,152.00
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - LEXINGTON HIGHLANDS
Assessable Costs $827,396.40
Assessment $413,698.20
Assessable Units 81
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $5,107.38
Proposed Unit Assessment $3,988.36
The residential assessment amount in 2017 was $3,950. The feasibility report identified a
maximum assessment amount of $3,988.36 for the Lexington Highlands neighborhood which
equates to 37% of the project costs.
South Plaza Drive and Mendakota Drive used a front footage assessment of $29.48 per foot. The
assessment roll is attached for reference.
All proposed assessments are payable over a 10 year period at an interest rate of 4.88 percent.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that council conduct the required Public Hearing and adopt the attached
assessment roll as prepared, or amend them if council deems it appropriate to do so.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion adopting A
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE
LEXINGTON HIGHLANDS & MENDAKOTA NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS.
This action requires a super majority vote, meaning that there must be four in the affirmative.
page 151
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-86
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE LEXINGTON
HIGHLANDS & MENDAKOTA NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Mendota Heights City
Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the
improvement to rehabilitate Avanti Drive, Bwana Court, Faro Lane, Summit Lane, Twin Circle Drive,
Vail Drive, West Circle Court, Mendakota Drive, and South Plaza Drive referred to as the Lexington
Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvement.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that:
1. Such proposed assessments, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby
accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each
tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the
amount of the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period
of 10 years. The first of the installments shall be the annual principal plus interest calculated from
the public hearing date to the end of this year plus twelve months of the next year and shall bear
interest at the rate of 4.881% per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment
resolution. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all
unpaid installments.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to
the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the
date of payment, to the City Finance Director, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire
assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution. The property owner may,
at any time thereafter, pay to the City Finance Director the entire amount of the assessment
remaining unpaid, excepting the installment portion appearing upon the current year’s property
tax statement.
4. The City Clerk shall prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of said
assessment rolls with each then unpaid installment and interest set forth separately, to be
extended upon the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect
said assessments in the manner provided by law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of November, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 152
page 153
page 154
City of Mendota Heights - Assessment Roll
Street Rehabilitation = 10 years
Interest Rate = 4.881%Job # 201706
Lexington Highlands Hearing Date: November 7, 2018
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
2702500
50040
Bolton Properties LLC
780 South Plaza Drive
$6,299.65Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Section 25 Twn 28 Range 23 S 200 ft of E 200
ft of W 400 ft of NW 1/4 of SW 1/4
2702500
50050
Mendota Heights Executive Center
LLP
7800 Metro Parkway, Ste 200
$7,989.80Street Rehabilitation
Minneapolis, MN 55424
Section 25 Twn 28 Range 23 S 200 ft of E 260 ft
of W 1/2 of NW 1/4 of SW 1/4
2702500
51011
Dakota County CDA
1228 Town Centre Drive
$3,103.73Street Rehabilitation
Eagan, MN 55123
Section 25 Twn 28 Range 23 pt E 1/2 of E 1/2
of NW 1/4 of SW 1/4 lying S of line beg at
angle pt on E line L-2 B-1 Mendota Plaza
387.28 ft NW of SE cor E parr to S line NW 1/4
to E line said NW 1/4 ex pt platted Mendota
Heights Senior Housing Addition
2702500
51040
Mendota Heights Executive Center
LLP
7800 Metro Parkway, Ste 200
$9,557.03Street Rehabilitation
Minneapolis, MN 55424
Section 25 Twn 28 Range 23 S 200 ft lying W of
W r/w of STH #49 of W 1/2 of E 1/2 of NW 1/4
of SW 1/4
2702600
77012
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
$9,126.81Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4167
Section 26 Twn28 Range 23 pt of SE 1/4 beg
NE cor of S 1/2 of SE 1/4 S 317 ft W 330 ft N
323 ft E 330 ft S 6 ft to beg
11/1/2018 Page 1 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 155
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
2702600
77014
Mendakota Country Club
2075 Mendakota Drive
$27,405.08Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1300
Section 26 Twn 28 Range 23 Pt S 1/2 of SE 1/4
com NE cor S 0D49M50S E 317 ft S
89D33M26S W 330 ft to beg N 0D49M50S W
317 ft S 89D 33M26S W 1639.05 ft to pt 660 ft
E of NW cor S 0D45M 35S E 214.50 ft S
82D49M2S E 1209.54 ft N 82D4M1S E 444.99
ft to beg also S 6 ft of E 577.5 ft of NE 1/4 of SE
1/4 ex E 330 ft
2744950
00012
Elizabeth Jane Bronk
1805 Summit Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Lexington Highlands East py lying E'ly on line
drawn perp from pt on N line 208.93 ft W of
NE cor outlot A
2744950
01010
Thomas & Kathleen Strombeck
1872 Summit Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4138
1 1Lexington Highlands East
2744950
01020
James & Jeanine Sundberg
1864 Summit Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4138
2 1Lexington Highlands East
2744950
01030
Robert P. Thavis &
1856 Summit Lane
$3,988.36
Julianne Frances Star Geis
Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
3 1Lexington Highlands East
2744950
01040
Steven F & Rebecca J Schletz
1848 Summit Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
4 1Lexington Highlands East
11/1/2018 Page 2 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 156
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
2744950
01050
Elizabeth Galloway & William
Schaffer
1840 Summit Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
5 1Lexington Highlands East
2744950
01060
Michael Richards
1832 Summit Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
6 1Lexington Highlands East
2744950
01070
Ross D. Vanness & Stacy M. Vanness
1822 Summit Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4138
7 1Lexington Highlands East
2744950
02010
Thomas J. Strassener &
1859 Faro Lane
$3,988.36
Dorothy M. Strassener
Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4128
1 2Lexington Highlands East
2744950
02020
Kurt A. & June K. Neil
1847 Faro Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
2 2Lexington Highlands East
2744950
02030
Lawrence W. & K. L. Craighead
1839 Faro Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Pual, MN 55118-4128
3 2Lexington Highlands East
2744950
02040
James M. & Leslie E. Strohm
1829 Faro Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4128
4 2Lexington Highlands East
11/1/2018 Page 3 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 157
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
2744950
02050
John A. Larrive
1823 Faro Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4128
5 2Lexington Highlands East
2744950
02060
Phillip A. & Julie H. Souzek
1819 Faro Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
6 2Lexington Highlands East
2744950
02070
Howard Paper &
1818 Faro Lane
$3,988.36
Emily Engman
Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4128
7 2Lexington Highlands East
2744950
02080
Micheal P. Lynch &
1822 Faro Lane
$3,988.36
Christine M. Lynch
Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4128
8 2Lexington Highlands East
2744950
02090
Grey S. Staples
1830 Faro Lane
$3,988.36
Lisa Silverberg
Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4128
9 2Lexington Highlands East
2744950
02100
Brian J. & Jillene R. Taurinskas
1838 Faro Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
10 2Lexington Highlands East
2744950
02110
Louis T. & Kelsey M. Bumgardner
1846 Faro Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
11 2Lexington Highlands East
11/1/2018 Page 4 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 158
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
2744950
02120
Neal A. Foman
1858 Faro Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
12 2Lexington Highlands East
2744950
02130
Mark J. Tste Goldberg
1855 Summit Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4137
13 2Lexington Highlands East
2744950
02140
Kenneth H. & Rhonda J. Fox
1845 Summit Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4137
14 2Lexington Highlands East
2744950
02151
John W & Theresa M B Cosgriff
1837 Summit Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4137
15 2Lexington Highlands East Lot 15 Blk 2 ex beg
NE cor N 82D39M25S W on n'ly line 135.71 ft
to NW cor S on W'ly line 11.25 ft S 86D54M
59S E 133.46 ft to beg
2744950
02161
Richard Dvorak
1831 Summit Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4137
16 2Lexington Highlands East pt Lot 15 Blk 2 beg NE
cor N 82D39M25S W on N'ly line 135.71 ft to
NW cor S on W'ly line 11.25 ft S 87D24M 22S E
133.46 ft to beg & Lot 16 Blk2 ex beg SW cor
Lot 17 Blk 2 S on W'ly line said Lot 16 18.22 ft S
79D 33M56S E 114.30 ft to S'ly line Lot 17 N
70D23M42S W on said S'ly line 113.20 ft to
beg & pt of Lot 17 Blk 2 beg SE cor W on S'ly
line 10.88 ft S 79D33M56S E 11.02 ft to E line
said Lot 17 S'ly 1.76 ft to beg
2744950
02171
Mark & Markda Awada
1825 Summit Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
17 2Lexington Highlands East pt of Lot 16 Blk 2 beg
SW cor Lot 17 Blk 2 S on W'ly line said Lot 16
18.22 ft S 79D33M56S E 114.30 ft to S'ly line
lot 17 N 70D23M 42S W on said S'ly line
113.20 ft to beg & Lot 17 Blk 2 ex beg SE cor W
on S'ly line 10.88 ft S 7933M56S E 11.02 ft to E
line said Lot 17 S'ly 1.76 ft to beg
11/1/2018 Page 5 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 159
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
2744950
02180
Scott M. & Theresa S . Alewine
1815 Summit Lane
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
18 2Lexington Highlands East
2744950
03010
Paul & Carol Portz
1058 Avanti Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4122
1 3Lexington Highlands East
2744950
03020
Ira M. & Peggy S. Denenholz
1052 Avanti Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4122
2 3Lexington Highlands East
2744950
03030
David P. & Naomi P. Tetzlaff
1046 Avanti Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4122
3 3Lexington Highlands East
2744950
03040
Cory & Jacqueline Schmidt
1040 Avanti Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
4 3Lexington Highlands East
2744955
01010
Raymond & Jacquelyn Gavin
1093 Avanti Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4126
1 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01020
Bruce D. & Linda M. Graham
1087 Avanti Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4126
2 1Lexington Highlands West
11/1/2018 Page 6 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 160
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
2744955
01030
Dennis J. & Caryl Davis
1081 Avanti Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4126
3 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01040
Mark C. & Michelle R. Bailey
1075 Avanti Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
4 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01050
Susan R. Seymour
1080 Bwana Court
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
5 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01060
Jerald G. Riessen
1086 Bwana Court
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
6 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01070
Constance L. Fagen
1089 Bwana Court
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4127
7 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01080
Michael J. & Mary E. Johnson
1085 Bwana Court
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
8 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01090
Ryan & Melissa Rae Blazei
1079 Bwana Court
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
9 1Lexington Highlands West
11/1/2018 Page 7 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 161
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
2744955
01100
David A. & Danielle V. Treiber
1827 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
10 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01110
Travis M. Simon
1821 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
11 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01120
Jesse L & Ana L Overby
1815 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
12 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01130
Thomas S. Kurvers
1814 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
13 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01140
Daniel & Carolyn Kleinberger
1818 Twin Cirlce Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4140
14 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01150
Anthony A. & Andrea Heymans
1824 Twin Cirlce Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
15 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01160
Michael Auran &
1832 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36
Elizaberth Paradise
Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
16 1Lexington Highlands West
11/1/2018 Page 8 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 162
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
2744955
01170
Gregory & Catherine Bauman
1840 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4140
17 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01180
Francis & Julianne Hermann
1848 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4140
18 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
01190
Frances J. Tste Dutke
1856 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
19 1Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02010
Henry V. & Mary L. Holec
1095 Vail Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4147
1 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02020
Ronald C. Koltes
1085 Vail Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4147
2 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02030
Michael John Living Fischer
1083 Vail Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
3 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02040
Mark J. Hayes
1927 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4145
4 2Lexington Highlands West
11/1/2018 Page 9 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 163
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
2744955
02050
Lois A. Taddiken
1915 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4145
5 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02060
Patricia Moudry &
1082 West Circle Court
$3,988.36
Marilyn Kern
Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4148
6 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02070
Thomas & Carol Andrews
1088 West Circle Court
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4148
7 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02080
Patrick G. Zimmerman
1090 West Circle Court
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
8 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02090
Craig & Andrea Dodson
1092 West Circle Court
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
9 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02100
Richard A. & Margaret Pearson
1091 West Circle Court
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4148
10 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02110
Richard D. & Susan M. Milnar
1087 West Circle Court
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
11 2Lexington Highlands West
11/1/2018 Page 10 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 164
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
2744955
02120
Thomas H. & Mary R. Suek
1085 West Circle Court
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
12 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02130
Vinod Gupta &
1899 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36
Deep Shikha
Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4143
13 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02140
Susan Bomberg
1889 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4143
14 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02150
Jon M. Boyken &
1881 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36
Elizabeth A. McInerney
Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
15 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02160
Adam & Stephanie Norsten
1871 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
16 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02170
Robert P. Burnett &
1084 Avanti Drive
$3,988.36
Jodell M. Burnett
Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
17 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
02180
Roland J & Lynn Flynn
1090 Avanti Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4125
18 2Lexington Highlands West
11/1/2018 Page 11 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 165
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
2744955
02190
David F. Cavallaro
1096 Avanti Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
19 2Lexington Highlands West
2744955
03010
Robert D. & Judith A. Klepperich
1092 Vail Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4129
1 3Lexington Highlands West
2744955
03020
Donald J. & Coreen M. Pochardt
1084 Vail Drive
$3,988.36
Cynthia M. Borup
Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4129
2 3Lexington Highlands West
2744955
03030
Joseph F. & Kathleen Dayton
1074 Vail Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4129
3 3Lexington Highlands West
2744955
03040
Daniel T & Denise Quinlan
1939 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4139
4 3Lexington Highlands West
2744955
03050
Joe Hoffman
1940 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
5 3Lexington Highlands West
2744955
03060
Barbara A. Disanto
1934 Twin Cirlce Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
6 3Lexington Highlands West
11/1/2018 Page 12 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 166
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
2744955
03070
Richard L. Hamer &
1926 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36
Donna H. Gies
Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4144
7 3Lexington Highlands West
2744955
03080
Carl & Faith Schway
1918 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4144
8 3Lexington Highlands West
2744955
03090
Howard & Ina Pfefer
1910 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4144
9 3Lexington Highlands West
2744955
03100
Daniel Sullivan & Annelisa Steeber
1900 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4144
10 3Lexington Highlands West
2744955
03110
Theodore Kellogg
1890 Twin Circle Drive
$3,988.36
Jaminie Dorner Kellogg
Street Rehabilitation
Saint Paul, MN 55118-4144
11 3Lexington Highlands West
2744955
03120
Patrick & Kelly J. Keis
1880 Twin Cirlce Drive
$3,988.36Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4144
12 3Lexington Highlands West
2744955
03130
Robert F. Goblisch &
1066 Avanti Drive
$3,988.36
Barbara J. Goblisch
Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
13 3Lexington Highlands West
11/1/2018 Page 13 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 167
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
2748225
00020
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
$33,446.28Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4167
BMendakota Estates Outlot
2748325
01010
Dakota County CDA
1228 Town Centre Drive
$5,623.59Street Rehabilitation
Eagan, MN 55123
1 1Mendota Heights Senior Housing Addition
2748401
01060
Mendota Heights WP LLC
750 Main Street, Suite 200
$10,909.15Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
6 1Mendota Plaza Expansion
2748401
01070
Mendota Mall Associates - Outlots
LLC
% Paster Properties LLC
5320 23rd Street W, Suite 205
$10,663.31Street Rehabilitation
Saint Louis Park, MN 55416
7 1Mendota Plaza Expansion
2748401
01080
L & M Holdings LLC
531 Phalen Blvd
$9,526.30Street Rehabilitation
St. Paul, MN 55130
8 1Mendota Plaza Expansion
2777640
01010
Plaza Partners LLC
800 South Plaza Drive
$1,966.72Street Rehabilitation
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
1 1Tuminelly Center
2777640
01020
Mogelson Investments LLC
1775 Lexington Ave. S., Ste 29
$3,165.19Street Rehabilitation
Lilydale, MN 55118
2 1Tuminelly Center
11/1/2018 Page 14 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 168
Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount
Number of Properties:
94
Total Assessment
$461,839.80
11/1/2018 Page 15 of 15Lexington Highlands - 2018 page 169
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Adoption of Revised Purchasing Policy
Date: November 7, 2018
Comment:
Introduction:
The City Council is asked to adopt a revised Purchasing Policy for use by the City in obtaining goods and
services.
Background:
At the October 16th meeting of the Council, it was asked to approve the purchase of a generator for the
City Hall building. Three quotes were received, with the lowest coming in at $62,950. That purchase
was approved, but the Council had to waive City policy, as the existing purchasing policy (which was last
updated in August, 2011), specified that any purchase in excess of $50,000 should go through a formal
bid process.
A formal (sealed) bid process involves drawing up plans and specifications; advertising in the City’s
official newspaper; publically open the bids; and receive City Council approval. It may require the hire of
an outside contractor or advisor to put together the specifications, and may not necessarily attract the
same number of prospective providers as might be obtained through competitive quotes.
Because of inflation, the amount of goods and services which can be purchased for under $50,000 has
diminished. The State of Minnesota now allows purchases of up to $175,000 without the need to go to
formal bids.
In reviewing the City’s existing purchasing policy, we feel that a number of criteria could be updated. A
compete re-write is recommended.
The following monetary changes are recommended:
Value of Contract Existing Policy Recommended Policy
Up to $100 No reference Allows routine purchases up
to $100
Over $100, up to $2.5K One price quote Department discretion;
minimum of one quote
page 170
$2.5K up to $5K Two quotes, any kind; City
Administrator approves
Two written quotes; City
Administrator approves
$5K, up to $25K
Council may choose to obtain
quotes or buy on open market.
Minimum of 2 quotes needed.
$5K, up to $10K 2 quotes required, City
Administrator approves
$10K, up to $25K 2 quotes required, Council
approves
$25K, up to 50K 2 quotes required, Council
approves
$25K, up to $100K 3 quotes required, Council
approves
Greater than $50K Formal bids required
Greater than $100K Formal bids required
The major changes are:
• Increases the amount of the requirement for formal (sealed) bids from the current $50,000, to
$100,000. The recommended amount is still less than the State’s $175,000 limit.
• Increases the amount that the City Administrator can approve for purchases from $5000, to
$10,000, without that purchase first being approved by the City Council. This would be for
budgeted expenditures only.
• Eliminates the current policy to requirement to “Buy American” for uniforms. That language
was initially included because of a State law which was in effect at the time that that policy was
written. However, that law has since been repealed.
• Adds a section on ethics, and relationship expectations between City employees and vendors.
Discussion:
Adoption of these changes will update the City’s purchasing policy, and is intended to streamline the
acquisition process without giving up the financial safeguards which are needed for public funds.
Recommendation:
I recommend the adoption of the updated purchasing policy.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following resolution:
Resolution 2018-87
A Resolution Adopting an Updated Purchasing Policy for the Acquisition of
Goods and Services for the City of Mendota Heights
page 171
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-87
A Resolution Adopting an Updated Purchasing Policy
for the Acquisition of Goods and Services by the City of Mendota Heights
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota heights is obligated to provide for policies and procedures
which safeguard the financial resources of the taxpayers of Mendota Heights; and
WHEREAS, the City is governed by the State of Minnesota for many aspects of the acquisition
of goods and services for use throughout the City organization; and
WHEREAS, the City should from time to time review and update its operating policies and
procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Citywide Policy on Purchasing by City Employees and Authorized Users has
not been updated since the listed review date of August 8,2011; and
WHEREAS, some State requirements for the acquisition of goods and services have changed
since that time, and should now be incorporated into a new written policy.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights that the Purchasing Policy attached hereto, and dated November, 2018, is hereby
adopted,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said policy shall become effective upon adoption of this
resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of November, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 172
City of Mendota Heights Purchasing Policy
I. Purpose
This purchasing policy was created to:
• Clarify and reconcile the complex requirements of state purchasing law, departmental
procedures, and the Finance Department processes
• Provide a comprehensive resource book for staff to be effective and efficient when making
purchases
• Standardize purchasing and payment methods to expedite the purchasing process
The standards in this policy are minimum standards to ensure fiscal responsibility. Departments may set
more restrictive procedures to meet their own budgetary accountability.
II. Quick Reference Guide
Value of Purchase Quotations
Needed
Payment Request
Options
Approvals Needed Prior
to Purchasing
Less than $100 None Credit Card
Check Request
Department
Finance
City Administrator
City Council
X
$100-$2,499
$2500-$4999
Departmental
Discretion
Two written
Quotes or RFPs
Credit Card
Check Request
Credit Card
Check Request
Department
Finance
City Administrator
City Council
Department
Finance
City Administrator
City Council
X
X
X
$5,000-$9,999 Two Written
Quotes or RFPs
Check Request
Purchase Order
Department
Finance
City Administrator
City Council
X
X
X
$10,000-$24,999
$25,000-$99,999
Two Written
Quotes or RFPs
Minimum of two
written Quotes
or RFPs; 3
preferred
Check Request
Purchase Order
Check Request
Purchase Order
Department
Finance
City Administrator
City Council
Department
Finance
City Administrator
City Council
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Greater than
$100,000
Sealed Bids Check Request
Purchase Order
Department
Finance
City Administrator
City Council
X
X
X
X
page 173
Notes:
• If a cooperative purchasing agreement is in place that follows state law requirements for
cooperative purchasing agreements, quotations are not needed.
• All purchases must be approved as part of the annual budget or within the CIP. The level of
budgetary control is established at the department level. Expenditures for departments that
exceed appropriations are not authorized unless additional revenue sources, unspent
appropriations, or fund balances are identified and available. The City Administrator is authorized
to transfer up to $10,000 at any one time between departments if an additional revenue source,
unspent appropriations, or fund balances are identified. Council approval is required for amounts
over $10,000.
• The City Council has pre-approved payment for items such as utility accounts and payroll
transactions that occur in the normal course of business even though they may exceed $10,000.
These are contractual accounts for services that are approved as part of the budget process.
• Debt Service Payments are also pre-approved as listed in the Debt Service Schedule in bond
documents.
• Contractual services are subject to the limits in the Quick Reference Guide above. Independent
contractors are required to provide proof of insurance before providing services.
• RFPs are required for contracting services which are estimated to be in excess of $25,000,
except for contractors included in the consultant pool.
III. Ethics/Relations with Vendors
The City of Mendota Heights holds its employees to the highest ethical standards. Purchases shall be
conducted so they foster public confidence in the integrity of the City’s procurement system, and open
and free competition among prospective suppliers. In keeping with this value, employees shall avoid the
following practices when making purchases on behalf of the City:
• Circumventing competitive bidding requirements – Examples include:
o Splitting purchases so that they can be made through several small purchases
o Using the emergency procedure process when no true emergency exists
o Using a “sole source” exemption when competition is available
• Denying one or more vendors the opportunity to bid on a contract – Examples include:
o Using unnecessarily restrictive specifications
o Pre-qualifying bidders on a discriminatory basis
o Removing companies from a bidders list without just cause
o Requiring unnecessarily high bid guaranties or bonds.
• Giving favored vendors an unfair advantage – Examples include:
o Providing vendors with information regarding their competition’s offers in advance of a bid
opening
o Making information available to favored vendors and not to others
o Giving any vendors inaccurate or misleading information
• Accepting gifts from vendors
o Minnesota Statutes §471.895 prohibits government employees from receiving gifts except
where they are included as part of the cost of a product, good, or service provided (such
as a meal as part of a conference), or if the gifts are of an insignificant value.
page 174
IV. Purchasing Process
The City of Mendota Heights has a decentralized purchasing program where individual departments are
responsible for making their own purchases. There are a few exceptions including centralized office
supplies, paper, and stationery products, and modular furniture and chairs.
The Finance Director or designee will assist staff members who need assistance with research or the
purchase of items in cases where staff are not familiar with particular products.
The Purchasing Process shall generally consist of:
• Determine the need for commodities or services.
• Research the cost of the purchase and determine proper purchasing alternative.
• Determine the appropriate account coding, and whether there is sufficient funds available in that
budget line item.
• Forward requests to department head or designee for approval. If the purchase exceeds $5,000,
City Administrator approval is required. If the purchase exceeds $10,000, City Council approval
is required.
• Department head forwards the request for payment with invoice to the Finance Department for
approval and input into financial accounting system.
• Finance produces claims list for approval by City Council.
• Payment is made by the Finance Department.
V. Purchasing Alternatives
SEALED BIDS
• A formal sealed bid procedure is required for all purchases in excess of $100,000, except for
professional services.
• A published notice of bid is required in the official City newspaper at least fourteen days in
advance of bid opening. The published notice must state where the plans and specifications can
be obtained by bidders and specifically, where the bid opening will be held. The notice may also
be published on the City’s official web site; however, this publication is in addition to the official
newspaper publication. Special Assessment projects shall also meet statutory requirements,
codified in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended.
• All bid openings are to be administered by originating department.
• The preparation of all specifications are to be the responsibility of the originating department.
• Required authorization for all plans and specifications is the responsibility of the originating
department.
• The City Council must formally approve the bid contract.
STATE, COUNTY, AND OTHER COOPERATIVE PURCHASING CONTRACTS
The City of Mendota Heights participates in the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture
(CPV). This enables participants to buy goods and services at a reduced cost under the terms of
contracts already negotiated by the State of Minnesota.
• The City has access to the releases and listings of products/services that can be purchased on
state contract.
page 175
• If it is determined that a product/service is on a state contract, vendors should be told that the
purchase will be made using that contract. When completing the purchasing paperwork, note that
the purchase is per state contract and indicate the contract number.
QUOTES
If a purchase is estimated to exceed $5,000 but not exceed $99,999, the purchase is to be made by
direct negotiation based upon quotations. If a purchase is made in this range, staff members are
required to obtain at least two quotes if at all possible. These quotes should be in writing. If the quotes
are not written, the requestor who received the verbal quote must document the quote in writing. All
such quotes must be forwarded to the Finance Department with the purchasing documents.
EMERGENCY
Emergency situations may arise where the normal purchasing process cannot be followed for the
procurement of goods and services. An emergency means an unforeseen combination of circumstances
that calls for immediate action to prevent a disaster from developing or occurring.
Minnesota Statute §12.29 gives the Mayor the authority to declare a local emergency for up to three
days, which period may be extended by the City Council. During such an emergency, if authorized by
City Council, the City is not required to use the typically mandated procedures for purchasing and
contracts. During that time, the governing body may waive compliance with the prescribed purchasing
guidelines, including compliance with Minnesota Statute §471.345, the Uniform Municipal Contracting
Law.
Whenever possible the current purchasing policies and procedures should be followed even when an
emergency is declared, but as described above if the emergency requires speedy action essential to the
health, safety, and welfare of the community and if there has been an emergency declaration, the
standard purchasing policies and procedures can be waived in accordance with Minnesota Statute
§12.37.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
RFPs may be used to solicit proposals for professional services. Typical information to address in RFPs
includes:
• Background and scope of the project
• The project’s budget to ensure that the proposals stay within that range
• Proposal requirements should include adequate information to allow for proper review and
evaluation including:
o Description of firm and qualifications, including any specialized experience related to the
project
o A list of similar projects that the firm has completed
o Project timetables including: estimate of hours, breakdown by hours by phase, and the
City’s expectation of a completion date
o Designation of a firm principal who will be in charge of the project
o Résumés for all staff who will work on the project
o Statement that either no subcontractors are allowed or that all subcontractors will be
identified and are subject to the City’s approval
o Estimate of cost to provide the service, outline of fee schedule and payment schedule
o Description of City’s selection process
o City’s evaluation criteria, which typically may include:
Quality and thoroughness of the proposal
Similar past experience and/or experience
References
Cost estimate
page 176
o The following statement must be included: “The City reserves the right to reject any and
all proposals, waive all technicalities and accept any proposal deemed to be in the City’s
best interest.”
o Submittal deadline: date, time, project name, and addressee
o Statement: “Proposers are solely responsible for delivery of their proposals to the City
before the deadline. Any proposal received after the deadline will not be considered and
will be returned.”
o Information about where questions should be directed
Attach a copy of the agreement proposed to be used for the project, including the City’s insurance
certificate. The agreement includes provisions to which the firm must agree, so it is important that they
see the agreement up front. It is suggested that the RFP be submitted to the City attorney for review
prior to distribution.
LEASE PURCHASES
All operating and capital lease agreements require approval through the Finance Department and legal
counsel prior to initiating a lease. Staff will conduct a lease versus buy analysis to determine the most
cost-effective method. In some cases, a capital lease may result in a debt obligation being issued, which
may have tax implications to the City.
ON-LINE PURCHASES
The following guidelines are recommended for purchasing products over the internet:
• Purchases should be made only from vendors that use secure servers for e-commerce.
• Standard purchasing guidelines should be followed.
VI. Payment
The City of Mendota Heights uses various processes in making payments for goods and services.
STANDARD PURCHASE ORDERS
Purchase orders are used when required by the vendor to acknowledge the City’s request for goods and
services. A copy of the purchase order will be sent to the vendor when requested.
• The purchase order number used will be a combination of the department and the sequence of
orders issued for the year, e.g., the second purchase order for Public Works in 2019 would be
PW -201902. Return an invoice for payment to the Finance Department when the purchase order
is complete.
CHECK REQUESTS
The Finance Department policy is for bills to be paid on the claims list. For certain exceptions, requests
for checks may be used under the following guidelines:
• Requests for checks are for payments that need to be made prior to the claims list. Examples
include discounts, avoiding late charges, or purchases requiring payment with an order.
BLANKET PURCHASE ORDERS, CHARGE ACCOUNTS, AND HOUSE ACCOUNTS
The City uses charge accounts and house accounts for frequently used vendors. This process requires
submission of a receipt with an account code and department approval. All new open accounts must be
authorized by the requesting department head and the Finance Department.
page 177
INVOICES
Department heads should submit invoices with an account code and department approval. If provided,
packing lists should also be submitted with the invoice. Documentation must be returned to the Finance
Department to be processed on the claims list. In all instances, the City will comply with the Prompt
Payment of Local Government Bills statute, found at Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.425, as amended.
STATEMENTS
The Finance Department tracks all statements – reviewing for old invoices or credits. All statements are
to be mailed directly to the Finance Department.
CREDIT CARDS
The City will issue credit cards to certain individuals to allow for more efficient purchasing and to make
purchases at businesses that no longer allow open accounts. The Finance Department will also make
available a City credit card for use by departments which have infrequent need to use this type of
instrument. The City has a separate Credit Card Policy for these transactions.
ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER
Electronic Funds Transfer may be required in some cases to complete a business transaction and is
often used for recurring items such as tax withholding, PERA remittances, and utility bills.
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
A completed and property authorized form is required for reimbursement to employees for City-related
expenses. Mileage will be paid at the current IRS rate. All requests must contain proper account codes,
department approval, and original receipts must be attached where applicable. Expenses will be
reimbursed by check on the next claims list.
VII. Purchasing Policy Adoption
This Policy will become effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council.
page 178