2019-03-19 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA
HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
March 19, 2019 – 7:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Adopt Agenda
5. Oath of Office - Police Officers
6. Consent Agenda
a. Approve March 5, 2019 City Council Minutes
b. Acknowledge February 12, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes
c. Authorize 2018 Auditing Services with BerganKDV
d. Approve First Amendment to 2019 Waste Abatement Community Funding Joint Powers
Agreement with Dakota County
e. Approve Resolution 2019-21 Approve Administrative Critical Area Permit - 1217 Victoria
Curve
f. Approval of 2019 Street Sweeping
g. Resolution 2019-23 Approve Traffic Control Signal Agreement for Pilot Knob Road and
Highway 494
h. Approve Professional Services Contract with Rainbow Treecare for Emerald Ash Borer
Protection
i. Resolution 2019-22 Community Roadside Landscape Agreement for the Entrance
Monument Beautification
j. Approve Amendment to Professional Services contract for the Marie Avenue and
Wesley Neighborhood Improvements
k. Approve the Hiring of Two Public Works Maintenance Workers
l. Approval of Claims List
7. Public Comments
8. Presentations
9. Public Hearing - None
10. New and Unfinished Business
a. Ordinance No. 538 Allow Personal Self-Storage Uses as a Conditional Use in the
I-Industrial District
b. Resolution 2019-18 Deny Lot Line Adjustment and Variance for property located at
1840 Hunter Lane (Planning Case No. 2019-03)
c. Approval of Village Lots Development Request for Proposals
d. Resolution 2019 - 20 Providing for the Sale of GO Capital Improvement Plan Bonds,
Series 2019A
e. Award Contracts for Playground Improvements
1. Wentworth Park
2. Hagstrom King
f. Discussion of Change to City Hall Hours
11. Community Announcements
12. Council Comments
13. 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.”
DATE: March 19, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police & Emergency Manager SUBJECT: Oath of Office Presentation
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to do a ceremonial swearing in of Officer Hagelee and Officer Vandersteen.
BACKGROUND
In 2018, the Council approved the promotion of Eric Hagelee from community service officer to
police officer, and the hiring of Leif Vandersteen as a police officer. Officers Hagelee and
Vandersteen have successfully passed their field training and tonight we ask that they be sworn in.
Officer Hagelee was hired as a community service officer (CSO) in November of 2016. He
excelled as a CSO and Council approved his promotion to a sworn officer in August of 2018. Eric
holds a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice from the University of St. Thomas.
Officer Vandersteen was hired by the Council in November of 2018. Prior to working in Mendota
Heights, Leif served as a Minnesota State Trooper. Leif has a Bachelor’s degree from Luther
College in Sociology and Gender Studies.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Mayor do the ceremonial Oath of Office for the two new officers.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council desires to implement the recommendation, bring the candidates forward be sworn
in by the Mayor.
page 3
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Pursuant to due call and notice, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Miller and Petschel were also present.
Councilors Duggan and Paper were absent.
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 with
the exception of item 9a, which had been removed from the agenda.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Paper)
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, pulling item c.) Accept Notice
of Retirement from Cliff Kirchner and Authorize Filling of Public Works Maintenance Worker position.
a. Approval of February 19, 2019 City Council Minutes
b. Acknowledgment of the January 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
c. Accept Notice of Retirement from Cliff Kirchner and Authorize Filling of Public Works Maintenance
Worker position
d. Approve Solar Garden Subscription
e. Approval of January 2019 Treasurer’s Report
page 4
f. Approval of Claims List
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Paper)
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
C) ACCEPT NOTICE OF RETIREMENT FROM CLIFF KIRCHNER AND AUTHORIZE FILLING
OF PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORKER POSITION
Councilor Miller expressed his appreciation for everything that Mr. Cliff Kirchner has done for the city
during his tenure at Public Works. He will be missed and is wished the best during his retirement.
Mayor Garlock noted that Mr. Kirchner could fix anything. He even taught himself how to fix the
various changes to the squad cars for the Police Department. He is a very brilliant and talented man who
will be missed greatly.
Councilor Petschel said that there is probably not a piece of equipment within the city that has not been
repaired by Mr. Kirchner. He has been a hardworking unsung contributor to the city.
Councilor Petschel moved to accept Notice of Retirement from Cliff Kirchner and Authorize Filling of
Public Works Maintenance Worker Position.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Paper)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, addressed the Council on being transparent with the community.
One of the things that has come up is the cost overrun for the Fire Station. She stated that when this project
was originally approved, it was represented to the community to be a certain dollar amount. That amount,
due to market conditions, is exceeding that by $1.2M. In order to be transparent with the community, they
need to be advised of this and have their input received.
Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, spoke regarding the intentions of how the Council proposes to
handle the cost overrun for the Fire Station. It was his understanding that this would be paid for from the
sale of city land on the northwest corner of The Village. He stated that the residents should be given a
chance to weigh in on any additional costs for the fire station.
page 5
PRESENTATIONS
A) ROGERS LAKE WATER QUALITY REPORT BY SAINT THOMAS ACADEMY
Mr. Tony Kinzley, Advanced Placement Environmental Sciences Instructor at Saint Thomas Academy,
introduced his students who conducted the Rogers Lake Water Quality research to present their findings.
There were approximately 100 students who participated in this study so they believe their data to be very
accurate.
Rogers Lake continues to be a very healthy lake in the Metro area. By all of the measurements they took,
this appeared to be a record year. The key takeaways were that the water is overall clearer than past years.
The nitrates and phosphates are down, indicative of less organic waste in the water. Most of the readings
were considered acceptable; many of the readings are records.
Areas to be of continued focus will be fecal coliform which was slightly worse this year than in years past.
There was one measurement where the fecal coliform reading spiked, and all of the other times it measured
0. This brought up the average.
There were some unusual Biochemical Oxygen Demand readings; however, given the combination of
elevated readings with low to normal nitrate and phosphate readings, it was hypothesized that this could
be caused by a mineral or other pollutant that the students do not test for (i.e. copper as an agent to fight
algae).
The class recommended that the city continue to use buffer zones to keep organic waste out of the water
and to continue to stress to the residents to pick up pet waste to keep it from getting into the water. Yard
waste should also be cleaned up to prevent it from entering the lake. A mineral they do not test for could
be influencing the Biochemical Oxygen Demand and they recommended further monitoring on that.
Councilor Miller noted that the presentation was extremely thorough and expressed his appreciation for
the report and the work the students do. He asked if there was any correlation between the temperature
increase and the lower dissolved H20 and lower turbidity. The response was that the major cause of the
temperature change addressed earlier was due to their equipment malfunctioning earlier in the year, and
turbidity would cause an increase in temperature; however, this year’s turbidity was clearer and the
students did not feel it had any cause on the temperature increase.
Councilor Petschel also expressed her appreciation for the data and how it is trending. She attributed some
of this to the Council’s decision to install barrier curb on Wagon Wheel Trail.
PUBLIC HEARING
No items scheduled.
page 6
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) RESOLUTION 2019-18 DENYING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1840 HUNTER LANE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-03)
This item was pulled from the agenda and would be brought back to the March 19, 2019 City Council
meeting.
B) RESOLUTION 2019-19 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AND LOT COMBINATION FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 963 CHIPPEWA AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-04)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this request from Mark and Kris Morin to
approve their Lot Split application to subdivide a residential parcel of land located at 963 Chippewa
Avenue. The property is a corner lot and consists of two original platted lots. Upon completion of the
lot split, the residential dwelling at 963 Chippewa Avenue will have a smaller parcel. The remaining
parcel will be combined with the property at 530 Simard Street, which is located to the west.
Mayor Garlock moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-19 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 963 CHIPPEWA AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-04).
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Paper)
D) AWARD OF CONTRACTS TO CONSTRUCT FIRE STATION PROJECT
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that the Fire Station project is at another milestone point.
This would be to actually authorize the remodeling of the existing 1980’s era building, which would
more than double the size of the building. He said that this project started last year when CNH
Architects were hired to do some preliminary design and cost estimations. The Council decided that a
General Obligation Bond would be used to fund the project. The bond issuance was approved after a
public hearing was held, as opposed to a referendum process. The preliminary budget was set at
$6.125M; however, on the recommendation of the city’s financial advisor the bond issuance was for
$7.0M.
In August 2018, after a required public hearing was held, CNH was directed to prepare construction
documents. The city also hired a construction management company, which allowed some additional
ability to keep costs down. As the design reached its conclusion, the Fire Station Building Committee
(FSBC) made reductions wherever possible in an attempt to keep the project within budget.
Fire Chief Dave Dreelan then explained that the committee realized that the construction market was
even more inflated than originally anticipated. In November 2018, the committee tried to identify areas
where additional funds could be saved. They eliminated $131,000 in design changes and $31,000 in
scope reduction.
page 7
In January 2019, the committee received news that the market was still climbing at a rate that was
unprecedented. They went back and reduced another $155,000 in design changes related to the station,
and another $25,000 in scope reductions. At that point they started entering into an area where it would
not look quite as nice as the original design. Chief Dreelan noted that any additional changes to the
building itself would dramatically change the functionality and the design, and it would then not meet
the objectives that were laid out for the needs of the station and the community.
Chief Dreelan stated that they are not done in their cost savings campaign. They have started
conversations with the contractors and have identified additional areas where they think they could save
some money.
Mr. McNeill noted that the bids were opened February 21, 2019. When they added up all of the 21
different components, the bids came to approximately $6.8M; $1.2M over the budget. He said that the
options for the Council to consider were to reject the bids and start over, or stay with the bids obtained
and find a way to fund the increase. He said that if the project was to be rebid right now, the City would
be competing for the same companies that have already indicated that they have enough work to do. It
would therefore be unlikely there would be any savings. If the project was to wait to this fall and be
rebid for the 2020 construction season, there would be an additional year of construction inflation.
Funding options to address the overage include:
1. Call for a new public hearing to talk about increasing the bonds to cover the incremental
difference of $1.2M. This would further increase property taxes. The hearing would be only for
increasing the bonds sale; the public hearing was not for the overall project size.
2. Use existing capital funds.
3. Assign the proceeds of the sale of The Village lots towards this project. The estimated
preliminary value of the lots is $800,000.
He noted that the bids are only good for 30 days; making March 21, 2019 the deadline to make the
decision to award. Staff recommended that Council authorize the execution of the 20 recommended
contracts; adding up to approximately $6.8M. The one item that Construction Manager is not
recommending moving forward is the fire suppression bid, as that was still being negotiated. This
would be brought back to the Council at the March 19, 2019 meeting.
Councilor Miller, in the interest of transparency, asked for confirmation from City Attorney Andrew
Pratt that his position on the Council and voting on this, is not a conflict of interest due to his
participation on the Fire Department. Attorney Pratt confirmed that Councilor Miller has no personal
financial interest that he would be giving to the exclusion of others. He said that, as a result, there would
be no conflict of interest on the part of Councilor Miller.
Councilor Miller noted that one of the alternatives for the Council would be to hit the pause button and
go back for community input and re-bond this project. The virtue of going back and having that public
discourse is important; however, also important is the stewardship of tax dollars. If the pause button is
hit, continued discussions occur on what has transpired and by the time this comes back to the Council
this project could be up to $9.0M or $10.0M. He questioned if this would be true stewardship of our tax
page 8
dollars. He did not believe it would be. He believed it to be important to try to balance the need for
transparency with fiduciary responsibility in making this work.
Councilor Miller stated that it is important for the public to understand that the sale of The Village lots is
not something that came up for discussion after the realization of the over budget situation of the Fire
Station. In early 2017, the sale of the lots was discussed by the Council. The Council also discussed
putting out a Request for Proposals on the sale of The Village lots during the January 2019 goal setting
sessions of the Council. He stated that the Council will continue to work to find the right fit for that land.
Mayor Garlock stated that the city actually started working on the sale of these lots in 2017. The Council
listened to the residents of the community regarding the size of the potential project indicating their
objections. Taking that into consideration, the Council decided to scale down the project. The Council is
not trying to sell these lots in a hurry to offset the overrun for the Fire Department.
Mayor Garlock believes that the public safety of the community is paramount. There were some delays
in the process, the costs have gone up, and it appears that delaying this any further would end up in
additional costs. He would be in favor of moving this process forward.
Councilor Petschel clarified that the RFP that was worked on for The Village lots was agreed to by all of
the Councilmembers and contrary to what was stated earlier, does not commit them to any one plan. In
fact, a number of plans have come forward that have significantly fewer units on it than the 100-unit
project mentioned earlier. The RFP gives a broad range; but no commitment has been made to any plan.
She said that the Council is also in the process of getting an appraisal of that land, which will be
important. Stewardship of land is extremely important. This land was returned to the city in a tax
forfeiture and the residents have been waiting, from a financial standpoint, to reap some of the proceeds
of the investment they made.
Councilor Petschel noted that this fire station is needed for the continued public safety and also for the
safety of the firefighters. The commitment made to the residents was in terms of what the levy would be;
what the effect would be on an individual resident in terms of paying for this fire station. The Council
made that promise and they need to abide by it.
Councilor Miller stated that the station that was put together and proposed by the station committee, the
architects, and the plan manager is a pragmatic station; it is not a gold standard, or top of the line quality
station. Everybody worked diligently to make a station that addressed the safety needs of the firefighters
and, most importantly, the safety needs of the community.
Mr. McNeill stated that it is important for the Council to understand that if they decide to have a bond
sale they need to talk about what the impact would be, especially with the new numbers. When this was
first advertised, it was a $6.125M project – estimated impact on a $356,000 home was $91.00 - based on
a 15-year bond. Using the $7.0M bond amount, the impact on a $365,000 property would be $103.76
annually for a 15-year bid; and $84.77 for a 20-year bid.
page 9
Councilor Petschel asked about the potential savings that could be made if the state legislature decides
on the sales tax exclusion proposal. Chief Dreelan replied that they have started to look at that and they
are hopeful that it could provide a savings of $100,000 to $150,000.
Administrator McNeill noted that he has spoken with Representative Ruth Richardson; the bill has been
introduced and has received one hearing. It has been referred to the House Tax Committee. He said that
the Mendota Heights bill may be put into an Omnibus Bill, rather than considered individually. There
are no assurances at this time.
Mayor Garlock moved to authorize the execution of 20 contracts for the 2019 Mendota Heights Fire
Station Remodeling and Addition project.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Paper)
City Administrator McNeill asked for discussion and a consensus on the repayment term of the bonds
for the General Obligation bonds to be issued to fund the project.
Councilor Petschel stated that she would like a consensus of the other two councilmembers who were
not in attendance. Councilor Miller agreed. Attorney Pratt noted that the bond resolution would be on
the next Council agenda and would basically authorize the selling of the bonds. A preliminary official
statement would go out after that resolution is approved. He said that the terms are always fluid until the
bonds are actually sold; which would be sometime in April so the proceeds would be received prior to
the late May deadline.
Administrator McNeill noted that they could have the bonds set up for both a 15-year term and a 20-year
term, and that the Council could then decide.
C) RESOLUTION 2019-17 APPROVING A VARIANCE TO BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARDS
IN THE R-1 DISTRICT FOR FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL (ISD #197) –
701 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-02)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was a request from ISD 197 to
approve a variance to the building height standard for the Friendly Hills Middle School property located
at 701 Mendota Heights Road. In 2018, the voters approved a $117M building bond to help with the
district’s improvements throughout their various school campuses. One of those improvements is to add
a gymnasium addition on the backside of the existing gymnasium.
City Code restricts buildings in the R-1 zoning district to a maximum of 25 feet in height. The school
district is proposing to add an addition at the northwest corner of the school, next to the existing
gymnasium facility, and match the height of the existing building, at 31 feet 5 inches.
page 10
The school is proposing to close off one of the two entry points onto Mendota Heights Road to serve as
a single access point for deliveries and buses. A secondary access point would be onto Huber. However,
these proposals are not part of the variance request. The image of this proposed site plan was included to
show the location of the proposed gymnasium addition.
Mr. Benetti noted that one letter of objection was received and was included in the Council packet.
Councilor Miller, referring to the diagrams provided, asked why the addition did not match the existing
aesthetics of the building? Mr. Ryan Hoffman of ICS Consulting replied that the rendering was more of
a representation to draw distinction to where it is. The structure will be a pre-cast structure, whereas the
rest of the building is of brick. The intent will be to match the brick as closely as possible, but because it
is two different building systems, there is going to be a difference in look.
Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-17 APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE
BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARDS IN R-1 DISTRICT FOR FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL
(ISD #197) – LOCATED AT 701 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-02).
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Paper)
Councilor Petschel moved, once the traffic study is completed on the proposed school property entrance
adjustments, to have the proposed site plan and traffic study sent to the Planning Commission for
review.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Paper)
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that the on-line registration system for summer recreation
programs opened on March 4, 2019. Employment applications for summer assistance in the recreation
program are being taken. The Marie Park Ice Rink will be open through the weekend, weather permitting.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Petschel commended staff for the quality of the Heights Highlights as it was an extraordinary
edition. There was so much information in there and this is mailed out to every resident. On the front page
was the wonderful Los Almas group from Henry Sibley; who has helped the Council pass two important
ordinances regarding the age of smoking and anti-vaping measures.
page 11
She was impressed with the quality of the presentation this evening by St. Thomas Academy, and
recognized the importance of this information to the Council in terms of best practices. She has come to
the conclusion that Mendota Heights is a very blessed community in the quality of the education and the
wonderful working relationship between the schools, the city, and this Council.
Councilor Miller, regarding transparency, stated that if people are feeling like the City Council has not
been as transparent as they would like to see, then to please raise that issue. There is always room for
improvement and the Council should continually be working on this goal.
He also stated, in regards to the Fire Station project, the Council is trying to balance transparency and
being diligent with their fiduciary responsibilities. Everyone has put a lot of time, energy, and effort into
the project to get the best value for their money.
If anyone has any questions or additional comments, he said that all of the Council members’ doors are
open.
Mayor Garlock noted that he has mailed out information about the 5K to all previous participants,
reminding them of the upcoming 5K event. Registration is also available through the city’s website.
ADJOURN
Councilor Petschel moved to adjourn.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2 (Duggan, Paper)
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 12
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING
February 12, 2019
The February meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on
Tuesday, February 12, 2019, 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 Meyer, and Dan Sherer.
Commissioner David Miller was absent . Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator
Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Public Works Director Ryan
Ruzek, and Natural Resources Technician Krista Spreiter.
2.a Introduction of New Commissioners
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence introduced the two new Parks and
Recreation Commission Members, Ms. Stephanie Meyer, and Mr. Dan Sherer, who each
provided a brief background about themselves.
3. Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, stated that Section 2.3 of The Rules of
Order states that at the February meeting, the Commission elects from its membership a
chairperson and a vice-chairperson. Both of these terms last for one-year and become effective
at the February meeting.
Commissioner Klepperich nominated Commissioner Goldade for the position of chair. Goldade
accepted the nomination.
Motion Klepperich / second Kipp to appoint Commissioner Goldade as the chairperson for the
Parks and Recreation Commission for the year 2019 AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1
Commissioner Klepperich nominated himself for the position of vice chair.
Motion Klepperich / second Goldade to appoint Commissioner Klepperich as the vice-
chairperson for the Parks and Recreation Commission for the year 2019
AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1
4. Approval of Agenda
Motion Klepperich / second Hinderscheid to approve the agenda as presented
AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT: 1
page 13
5. Approval of Minutes from January 8, 2019
Motion Kipp / second Hinderscheid to approve the minutes of the January 8, 2019 Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting. AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT: 1
6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
No citizens were in attendance.
7. Unfinished and New Business
7.a Natural Resources Update
Natural Resources Technician Krista Spreiter provided a brief introduction of her background
and some of the activities she has had the opportunity to participate in. Ms. Spreiter then
provided a brief update on the on-going and up-coming Natural Resources Projects and
Programs going on in the city:
Lexington Highlands Curb-cut Rain Gardens
o Started by two local residents seeking a Master Water Steward certification
through the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization.
o To design and install 11 curb-cut raingardens in conjunction with the street
reconstruction project; intended to continue with future road reconstruction
projects
o Ultimate goal is to take stormwater runoff from the neighborhood that would
otherwise go into the storm sewer and into the surface waters and infiltrate it, let
it soak into the ground, or treat it
Valley Park Pollinator Corridor
o Partnered with Great River Greening and Xcel Energy to restore and a pollinator
habitat in the Valley Park utility corridor within Valley Park
o Part of the larger Metro Big Rivers Phase 8 Plan, which focuses on protecting
and improving wildlife habitats
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Management
o In 2018, there were approximately 300 trees that were treated as part of the city’s
EAB program; 37 were public trees and the rest were private trees
o RFP for a 3-year contract has been sent to area Tree Care Professionals to aid
in the management and prevention of EAB
Oak Wilt Management
o Quotes have been requested from Rainbow Tree Care and Sav-a-Tree to
conduct oak wilt management in Hagstrom-King Park and Friendly Hills Park
Commissioner Hinderscheid asked about the plan for the boulevard trees in regards to EAB
Management. Ms. Spreiter replied that there were some boulevard trees that are part of a U of
M study and some are being treated as part of that program. The city is treating some boulevard
trees that are within the city’s public owned property; however, private property within the
boulevard is up to the private homeowner for treatment.
Commissioner Kipp asked if it was the city’s plan to not replace the boulevard trees that die
because of EAB. Ms. Spreiter replied not at this time on private property.
Commissioner Hinderscheid asked if the city had any assessment on the wildlife in the
community. Ms. Spreiter replied she was unaware of any such assessment. However, they have
page 14
spoken about creating a Natural Resources Management Plan, which this could be a part of. It
is usually the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that tracks and has programs
for wildlife.
Commissioner Hinderscheid noted that there was a time when the Commission talked about
Natural Resources Management and they had quite a turnout of residents. He then asked if she
had planned any public forums where the residents could express their areas of concern. Ms.
Spreiter replied that she has not; however, it is a great idea.
Commissioner Sherer asked where the raingardens would be located. Ms. Sherer replied that
they would be located in the right-of -way so the city could maintain them. They are about a foot
off of the curb.
Commissioner Sherer asked if there had been any conversations or plans created to mitigate
salt and sand being put into the raingardens during the winter. Ms. Spreiter replied that the
Public Works Department are well aware of the project; and hearty plants were chosen. There
will be some maintenance needed, which the city is coordinating. Public Works Director Ryan
Ruzek also noted that there are trench drains that are anchored to the back of the curbs with the
intent to get the sand or sediment to filter out into the trench drain and then the homeowners, in
the spring, can unbolt it and shovel out the sand and sediment.
Mr. Ruzek asked Ms. Spreiter to speak to the tree sale. Ms. Spreiter noted that there has been
talk about a tree sale and quite a few residents have expressed interest. She has been
speaking with Tree Trust on coordinating with them on getting a tree sale for residents; the trees
would be offered at a reduced price. They are anticipating on having this sale take place in early
spring – mid-April.
7.b Playground Subcommittee – Wentworth and Hagstrom-King
Public Works Director, Ryan Ruzek, stated that a playground subcommittee meeting took place
on February 11, 2019, with Commissioners Sherer and Hinderscheid in attendance.
Commissioners Sherer and Hinderscheid expressed their interest in continuing to participate.
Commissioner Meyer agreed to participate as well.
Chair Goldade assigned Commissioners Dan Sherer and Stephanie Meyer to the Playground
Subcommittee. Commissioner Pat Hinderscheid is already on the subcommittee.
Commissioner Hinderscheid also noted that Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek had sent out
information on a grant program through the Minnesota DNR. Mr. Ruzek explained that there is a
MN DNR program which awards approximately $2 million per year to different agencies. He
looked at the 2019 awards; however, the city would be looking at a 2020 award. It would be
acceptable for the city to move forward as this is a reimbursement type program.
Motion Hinderscheid / second Klepperich to have staff pursue a grant from the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources for the Wentworth and Hagstrom-King Playground Equipment
AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1
7.c Wentworth Warming House
page 15
Public Works Director, Mr. Ruzek, stated that in September 2018, the City Council awarded a
contract to CNH Architects for a schematic layout and cost estimate for the new warming house
at Wentworth Park. Discussions of wanting a warming house with running water and full-time
bathrooms occurred. The architect submitted different renderings, which Mr. Ruzek shared with
the Commission and asked for feedback.
The Commission discussed the following points:
Bathroom entrances inside and outside of the warming house – possibly one of each
Unisex bathrooms rather than designated one for men and one for women
Use of this particular warming house year-round rather than using it strictly for storage in
the summer
Plans for summer programs to occur at this park, in and around the warming house
Possible inclusion of windows
Size of the building footprint
Location of the bathrooms / inclusion of changing stations
Addition of park benches
Colors coordinated with the playground equipment
Addition of another room for meeting space
Cost
Staff was directed to investigate what kinds of programs could be held in this building and what,
if any, of the suggestions could be accommodated. Staff would then bring this topic back to the
March 2019 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting.
Mr. Ruzek noted that this building could be added to the grant application for the playground
equipment.
7.d Pilot Knob / Oheyawahe Improvements
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that the city purchased the Pilot Knob site in 2007 and
the city was recently awarded a grant from the American Express Foundation for work to update
the Pilot Knob / Oheyawahe Restoration and Improvement Plan. The plan is focusing on
enhancing the visitor access to the site. The plans are out for public comments, which are
currently closing on February 20, 2019. Staff asked the Commission to provide feedback on the
plan.
Once the public comments and feedback has been received, Great River Greening would
present the plan to the City Council. From there, staff would look at applying for different grants.
Chair Goldade asked if this was a Mendota Heights Park. Mr. Ruzek replied that this is a City of
Mendota Heights park; however, there are a lot of limitations on what can occur there. For
instance, it cannot have playgrounds or other recreation amenities.
Mr. Ruzek shared the planned enhancements to the visitor access:
Monument sign on the corner of Pilot Knob and Acacia, highlighting that this is a city
park with the name of the park
The gravel parking lot would be relocated slightly to the north, expanded somewhat
Repairing the gate and removing half of the existing roadbed that runs to the cemetery,
planting vegetation there
Constructing a paved walking path that would be ADA compliant
page 16
Visitor entrance center
Gathering site for field-trip groups
Installing a mowed trail to the seven Oaks area
Installing a mowed trail to the four Oaks area
Installing a mowed trail to the future interpretative area
Gravel or off-road type trail that would bring residents down to the Big Rivers Regional
Trail
Commissioner Hinderscheid asked for the purpose of the park. Mr. Ruzek replied that it is a
historical park and is intended to be a native prairie park. The entire park is listed on the
National Historical Registry.
7.e Pedestrian Trail Benches
Mr. Ruzek explained that Commissioner Kipp reached out to staff and requested that the city set
a standard of one bench for every one mile of trail that the city maintains. Currently, there are
only a couple of benches along city trails as most are located within the city parks. Most of the
benches are along a county road or a major road; some of those locations should meet the
requested criteria.
He noted that the city does have a Park Bench Donation Program. The cost to install a single
park bench can range from $1,500 to $3,000. A $1,000 donation is required and the city
sponsors the remaining costs. There are currently approximately 22 miles of city trails, which
would equate to approximately 22 benches.
Staff requested feedback from the Commission was whether they feel there are an adequate
number of benches on the city’s trail system, should there be more, and are there specific
locations where they would want benches,
Commissioner Hinderscheid said it would be easier to have a discussion if they knew where the
current benches were located. He also noted that having one for every mile seemed more than
what would be needed.
Commissioner Sherer asked how the Park Bench Donation Program was promoted. Mr. Ruzek
replied that it is on the city’s website within the Parks and Recreation page. It has not been
promoted much, per se. However, it could be marketed in the city’s various publications. It was
also noted that whenever a bench is donated the Commission is informed.
Staff was directed to do an existing bench study and create a map of where the benches are
located and return to the Commission for further discussion.
7.f Horseshoes Request
Chair Goldade noted that this topic was brought to the Commission at their January 2019
meeting.
Mr. Ruzek stated that the resident who originally placed the request lives near Kensington Park.
North Kensington Park is currently an open space area and that is where Mr. Ruzek had
originally suggested putting the horseshoe pits. The Commission asked staff to provide some
additional information.
page 17
The resident is looking for three or four courts (a 50’ x 50’ area) and are open to any Mendota
Heights park. Residents are currently going to West St. Paul on a weekly basis to play
horseshoes.
The Commission had noted that they felt the horseshoe area would get more use if they were
located near an existing park pavilion. Staff discussed with Parks Maintenance on a possible 50’
x 50’ location near an existing pavilion and received the following feedback:
Wentworth Park – ce nter island near pavilion, would require removal of trees
Valley Park – no room near pavilion
Friendly Hills – possible under power lines, would require grading (adding to the cost)
Kensington – soccer fields take up most open space
Rogers Lake – not much room left with aerator, canoe rack, volleyball and playground
Hagstrom-King – possible near basketball court (no pavilion)
Mendakota – possible on top of hill near basketball courts (not near pavilion)
Commissioner Hinderscheid asked about an open area in Wentworth Park where there had
been discussion of installing an archery range in the past. Mr. Ruzek replied that the open area
was still there, but it is not near the pavilion.
Commissioner Hinderscheid asked for confirmation that at one time the Commission had
requested someone do a study on amenities that the residents would be looking for within the
city. Assistant City Administrator, Cheryl Jacobson, replied that they had talked about doing a
more comprehensive survey; the City Council is also looking at that larger community scale as
well. However, staff does have the recreation survey submitted to a variety of educational
institutions to see if they could get a statistics class to pick up the survey. However, no response
has been received as of yet.
Motion Meyer, second Klepperich, to delay any decision on the horseshoes request and
possible inclusion of an archery range until some kind of recreation amenities survey has been
tabulated AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1
Commissioner Hinderscheid asked if the volleyball court at Rogers Lake is used. Recreation
Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, replied that she does not believe it gets used too
often. Commissioner Hinderscheid suggested that if it is not used very often, it might be a good
place for Horseshoes.
7.g Rogers Lake Park Streetlight
Mr. Ruzek reminded the Commission that at their December 11, 2018, meeting, the
Commission recommended the installation of a streetlight at the entrance to the upper Rogers
Lake parking lot. Letters were then sent to adjacent property owners asking for their input
regarding the installation of this light. The majority of the properties voted against this proposal
and the city received a petition objecting to this proposal.
The City Council unanimously voted down the request to install a streetlight at the entrance to
the upper Rogers Lake parking lot.
page 18
Commissioner Hinderscheid expressed his appreciation to staff for including the opposition
letter in the packet of information as it is helpful to see the impact of lighting on the wildlife
habitats.
7.h Assign Commissioner Parks
Ira Kipp – Rogers Lake; Valley View Heights
Steve Goldade – Valley Park; Wentworth
Bob Klepperich – Mendakota, Civic Center
Pat Hinderscheid – Dog Park; Ivy Hills
David Miller – Market Square Park; Victoria Highlands
Dan Sherer – Hagstrom-King Park; Friendly Hills
Stephanie Meyer – Marie Park; Kensington
8. Reports
8.a Par 3 Update
Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, announced that on January 15, 2019, the
City Council approved the purchase of a new fairway mower for the Mendota Heights Par 3;
total cost being $32,475.79. The Council, in their generosity, decided to fund the cost through
their General Fund so there will be no impact t o the Par 3’s budget. The new Toro Reelmaster
3100D fairway mower will arrive late February 2019.
Commissioner Hinderscheid asked why the $60,000 in the cash fund was not used for these
purchases. Ms. Lawrence replied that they have spent much more than $60,000 on Par 3
equipment for this year. If they had used the cash fund for these purchases it would be deeply in
a negative balance. The Council is trying to help the Par 3 golf course out by using the General
Fund.
Ms. Lawrence then reviewed the December 2019 Par 3 Financial Report (unofficial). She hopes
to provide the Par 3 Annual Report at next month’s meeting.
Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that the proposed budget that was set up was high based on
2017 for the green fees. Ms. Lawrence replied that this was correct. They tried to be more
realistic in the 2019 budget on what is a realistic number for rounds played.
Commissioner Kipp asked when the debt would be paid off on the golf course. Ms. Lawrence
replied that this would be paid off in 2023. He suggested that she ask the Council for some
guidance on what to do with the excess funds once that happens.
Chair Goldade suggested that the Commission come up with suggestions on ways to increase
the number of rounds and bring those suggestions to the March 2019 meeting.
8.b Recreation Update
Recreation Program Coordinator Lawrence provided the following updates:
Winter Program Recap
o Gymnastics and skating programs ended in January
o Naturalist Led Hike was held on January 12, 2019, partnered with Dodge Nature
Center; 15 participants
page 19
o “Blade with the Blue” – February 2, 2019; 25 youth participants
o Partnered with TriDistrict Community Education to host Family Movie Night;
February 9, 2019, at Henry Sibley High School
o Royal Ball; February 10, 2019, at Concord Exchange Building
Warming House Update
o 2018 and 2019 Warming House logs were provided
Summer Program Update
o New program options for 2019 summer season was discussed. Registration
opens March 4, 2019, at 8:00 a.m.
Registration Software Update
o Introducing CivicRec, a new registration software, anticipated to launch for
spring/summer program registrations
o Easier use and capabilities; enhanced data analysis
8.c Commissioner Park Updates
Commissioner Klepperich – commented there is a lot of snow
Commissioner Hinderscheid – nothing to note at this time
Commissioner Kipp – the volleyball court at Rogers Lake Park is used extensively on weekends
in the summer. Vast increase in the number of ice fishermen on Rogers Lake
Chair Goldade – Wentworth and Hagstrom-King – commented there is a lot of snow
9. Announcements and Commission Comments
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence made the following announcement:
Seasonal staff hiring is starting. Positions are posted on the city’s website
Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that this was a good meeting and the Commission is making
nice progress on some pretty good projects. He welcomed Dan and Stephanie to the
Commission.
He then asked Mr. Ruzek to comment on the Wentworth and Friendly Hills Tennis Court
resurfacing. Mr. Ruzek replied that he would have to look at the Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP), but he believed they were staggered to be 2 years apart; one in 2020 and one in 2022.
Commissioner Klepperich welcomed the two new commissioners. He expressed his
appreciation to Pat Hinderscheid for his work as the chair and welcomed Commissioner
Goldade as the new chair.
Commissioner Kipp welcomed the two new commissioners.
Commissioner Meyer expressed her appreciation for the warm welcome to the Commission.
Commissioner Sherer echoed Commissioner Meyer’s sentiments on the warm welcome.
Chair Goldade also welcomed Dan and Stephanie to the Commission.
He also requested that Ms. Lawrence spend 30 minutes putting together a report on Nordic
Skiing / Cross Country Skiing and have a Commission conversation on that at the March 2019
meeting.
page 20
He also asked if staff has the ability to, after people pay for golf, send a them to a survey with a
reward. Ms. Lawrence replied that the new software will allow staff to send a survey after every
program is done. As per rounds of golf, they are working in the software to figure out how they
best utilize this new software for the golf course; still in the learning phase.
Chair Goldade also mentioned that he would like to get these meetings to be 90 minutes or less;
he believes that if everyone works together as a group it can happen. He does want every voice
to be heard.
10. Adjourn
Motion Klepperich / Second Meyer to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 PM
AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1
Minutes Taken By:
C. Darlene Oehlke
Independent Contractor
page 21
DATE: March 19, 2019
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Audit Services
BACKGROUND
In August 2009, the city went out for RFP’s for auditing services. In November 2009, the city
contracted for those services with KDV for a three year term. Once the initial three year term had
concluded, the city extended the audit engagement for an additional three years. The city is able
to extend that contract without seeking bids from other firms. At this time, BerganKDV has
provided us with a quote for the upcoming 2018 audit. The cost for the 2018 audit is as follows.
2018 audit $35,200
The cost of the 2017 audit was $34,500. This represents an increase of 2.03%. We have had a
good working relationship with BerganKDV. They provide a thorough report with useful
information. I recommend that we continue to work with BerganKDV and enter into a contract
for the 2018 audit at a cost of $35,200.
BUDGET IMPACT
This price has been budgeted for in the 2019 budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council enter into the contract for auditing
services with BerganKDV for the 2018 audit as quoted above.
page 22
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: March 19, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Amending Joint Powers Agreement for Waste Abatement Community Funding
with Dakota County
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to amend a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for Waste Abatement
Community Funding with Dakota County.
BACKGROUND
The Mendota Heights City Council approved a JPA with Dakota County for Waste Abatement
Community Funding on November 7, 2018. The JPA outlines the city 2019 Waste Abatement
work plan and Dakota County is providing the city $30,263 for these activities.
DISCUSSION
The Dakota County Board of Commissioners approved additional funds as part of the 2019
Environmental Resources Department Budget. Mendota Heights is to receive an additional
$605.28 for its 2019 Waste Abatement Activities.
For the city to receive these additional funds, the JPA must be amended. Staff revised the 2019
work plan to provide additional subsidies for mattress collection at the city cleanup day.
BUDGET IMPACT
The additional funds are to be used to offset the collection fees for mattress disposal at the city
cleanup day. For example, the city charged $15 per mattress or box spring in 2018, and the city
will be able to reduce this fee to $5-10 at the 2019 cleanup day event. (The city pays the
contractor $30 per mattress.)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that council approve the amendment for the Waste Abatement Funding
program.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT
TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND THE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR 2019 WASTE ABATEMENT COMMUNITY
FUNDING. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 23
FIRST AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
FOR 2019 WASTE ABATEMENT COMMUNITY FUNDING
WHEREAS, effective December 5, 2018, the County of Dakota (County) and the City of Mendota Heights (Munic-
ipality), (collectively referred to as the “Parties”), entered into an Agreement for participation in the 2019 Waste
Abatement Community Funding Program;
WHEREAS, the County Board of Commissioners approved additional funds as part of the 2019 Environmental Resources
Department budget;
WHEREAS, additional funds in the amount of $605.28 are allocated to the Municipality for a total 2019 allocation of
$30,868.28 to complete the revised Work Plan attached and incorporated as Exhibit 1A; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the terms of the Agreement as set out below; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that any amendments shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly
signed by the Parties.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the Parties agree as follows:
1. To amend Section 6.1 to provide the total 2019 allocation under the Agreement shall not exceed
$30,868.28.
2. All other terms of the Agreement between the County and Municipality shall remain in full force and effect.
3. In any case where this Amendment conflicts with the Agreement, this Amendment shall prevail.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date(s) indicated below.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTY OF DAKOTA
/s/Helen R. Brosnahan 2/27/19
Assistant County Attorney Date By: __
County Attorney File No.:KS-19-102 Matt Smith, County Manager
Date of Signature: __
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By:
__
Neil Garlock, Mayor
Date of Signature: _
Attest ________________________________
_____________________________________(title)
Date of Signature: ______________________
Dakota County Contract #C0030884.1
Dakota County Resolution #18-322
page 24
Exhibit 1A
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 25
2
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
1/29/19
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 26
3
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 27
4
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 28
5
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 29
6
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.
*additional COLA funds used for additional mattress collection
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 30
7
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 31
8
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 32
9
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 33
10
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 34
11
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 35
12
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 36
13
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
$16,788.56
$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
$97,588.56 $15,376.80 $111,051
$112,964.56
page 37
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2019
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2019-21 – Approving an Administrative Critical Area Permit for
1217 Victoria Curve (Mark Olson – Applicant / Planning Case No. 2019-07)
Introduction
Mark Olson is requesting approval of an Administrative Critical Area Permit for his vacant lot property located
at 1217 Victoria Curve.
Background
The subject property is 0.70 acres in size, and located between Glenhill Road and Hunter Lane (refer to
attached aerial/location map). The property is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential zone, and is within
the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. Pursuant to Title 12-3-5 of the City Code, all properties located
in the critical overlay area that require any zoning action, including new construction, demolition, vegetation
removal and plantings, and/or grading work requires approval of such permits prior to commencement of any
work. Title 12-3-5 also provides for “administrative” level approval if certain conditions are met.
Description of Request
Mr. Olson is currently seeking to sell and/or develop the lot with a new single-family dwelling. As part of the
pre-development activities, Mr. Olson has hired Easy Tree Service to do limited tree and brush removals in the
front area of the lot, and around the future driveway location. The tree service will also remove any dead,
diseased or invasive vegetation that may exist on the site (box elders, buckthorn, etc.). The proposed house
pad will be cleared, but no grading or earth work performed under this permit. A soil testing company will be
performing soil borings in and around the proposed pad site, driveway, and other areas as needed (refer to Site
Plan – with descriptions of work).
The new home, permanent driveway and any other physical features, which may include retaining walls, patios,
fences, and other new residential improvements, will be considered later under a separate (and full) critical
area permit. The work allowed under this permit shall only be for the tree and vegetation removals.
All existing drainage swales should remain in place and not affected by this work. Any disturbed or exposed
areas will need to be restored or effective erosion-control measures in place during and after site clearings.
Analysis - Critical Area Permit
According to Title 12-3-5-D of the City Code, in the case of a minor development and/or change involving a
single-family dwelling, and if the site plans conform to the standards of the critical area overlay district, the
city administrator shall bring the request to the attention of the city council at its next regular meeting following
receipt of an application for critical area ordinance consideration. The city council shall review such request
and may, if it so determines, exempt the applicant from complying with any unduly burdensome requirements
page 38
of this chapter. This allowed exemption can be considered under an administrative review process, which is
the case in this particular application.
The proposed projects and sites must comply with the following conditions (with Staff comments noted
afterwards):
1. No part of the subject property shall have slopes of greater than eighteen percent (18%).
Staff Comments: Some of the area of work requested under this permit is in the Victoria Curve ROW
area, which has a steep slope rising up from the edge of the roadway to the front edge/lot line of the
property. This slope is estimated to be approximately 16% to 17% in gradient. The interior area of
the subject lot appears to level off once you get past this front slope. The work involved is limited, and
all final grades and measured slopes will be determined later at the follow-up critical area permit
review for the new house and driveway. The vegetation removal work does not involve or include
areas of slopes greater than the 18% threshold.
2. No part of the subject property shall be within forty feet (40'), whether on the same parcel or on
abutting parcels of any area defined as a bluff by this chapter, or any area with slopes greater than forty
percent (40%).
Staff Comments: There is no bluffs on or near the property; and no work will take place in or around
areas with slopes greater than 40%.
3. The proposed project shall not expand the enclosed area of the principal or accessory structures by
more than one hundred forty four (144) square feet.
Staff Comments: Not applicable. There are no structures on the property at this time; and there are
no structures to be built or approved under this administrative critical area permit.
4. The proposed project shall not increase the height of any existing structure.
Staff Comments: Not applicable. There are no structures on the property at this time; and there are
no structures to be built or approved under this administrative critical area permit.
5. The proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this chapter, and any other
applicable regulations.
Staff Comment: The proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this
chapter, and any other applicable regulations, including the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines.
6. The proposed project shall not result in changes to the existing finished grade.
Staff Comments: There are no planned changes to the existing grades as part of this removal work.
Based on staff’s interpretation of the intent of this provision, the scope of the project does not require Planning
Commission recommendation and a public hearing; and therefore may be given full consideration and approval
by the City Council.
The application materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and they responded
that they had no comments on the proposed project.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council adopts RESOLUTION NO. 2019-21 APPROVING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1217 VICTORIA
CURVE.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 39
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019-21
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1217 VICTORIA CURVE
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-07)
WHEREAS, Mark Olson (as the “Applicant”) has applied for an Administrative Critical
Area Permit to allow certain vegetation (tree and brush) removal work, as proposed under Planning
Case No. 2019-07 application, for the property located at 1217 Victoria Curve, which is legally
described in Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the Critical Area Overlay District of
the City of Mendota Heights, and the proposed project qualifies as a minor development under
Title 12-3-5-D of the City Code provisions for properties within the Critical Area Overlay District;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is compliant with the required conditions for exemption
from a public hearing to be considered directly by the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
administrative critical area permit request as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-07 is hereby
approved with the finding of fact that the proposed project will have no negative impacts upon the
critical corridor area or bluffs; will not impact or change any major grades or drainage ways on
the property; that the proposed project will be done in accordance with all requirements of the
City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines, and meets the general purpose and intent of the Critical Area
Overlay District and City Code.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 19th day of March, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 40
666666666666666666
6666666
66666
66
6666!*
!""
!
"
"
""
"
*
6 6 6 66666666666
6!!2
!!2 !!2
!!2
!!2
1215
1948
12031954
1219
1942 119012061200
1193
19911949
1941
GLENHILL RDVICTORIA CUR
360'249'217'
351'
128'
Dakota County GIS
City ofMendotaHeights080
SCALE IN FEETDate: 3/13/2019
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.
1217 Victoria Curve RoadMark Olson
page 41
page 42
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
For
1217 VICTORIA CURVE
PID: 27-15600-00-022
LOT 2, EXCEPT THE NORTH ONE-THIRD (1/3) OF SAID LOT 2,
BURNS’ HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
page 43
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: March 14, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Terry Blum, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: 2019 Street Sweeping COMMENT:
Introduction
The City Council is asked to award a contract for street sweeping.
Background
Every spring the City goes out for bid to sweep the city’s streets.
Requests for bids were sent out to four contractors that have been interested in bidding in the past.
We received three bids and they are as follows:
Mike McPhillps, Inc. $89.00 an hour
Pearson Bros., Inc. $90.00 an hour
Allied Blacktop Company $90.00 an hour
Discussion
Mike McPhillips has swept the city streets in the past and are good to work with. They will be
providing four to six sweepers a day to sweep the streets. City staff will be inspecting all of the
streets in advance to determine which streets will actually be swept—with the City-wide reduction
in the use of sand (and salt), some areas may not need as much sweeping, if any at all.
In 2018, the total cost for sweeping the streets in the spring was $16,116.75 over three days.
Budget Impact
There is $40,000 in the 2019 Budget for street sweeping and striping.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the bid from Mike McPhillips,
Inc., the lower bidder, to sweep the streets in 2019.
Action Required
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion awarding the
contract to the low bidder, Mike McPhillips, Inc., for their bid price of $89.00 an hour.
page 44
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: March 19, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Traffic Control Signal Agreement for Pilot Knob Road and Highway 494
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve a Traffic Control Signal Agreement with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT).
BACKGROUND
The City of Mendota Heights has certain responsibilities to the maintenance of traffic signals on
State and County roadways.
DISCUSSION
Dakota County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will be replacing the
traffic signal at the intersection of Pilot Knob Road (CSAH 31) and Trunk Highway 494 in 2019.
As part of the signal replacement project, a renewal of the maintenance agreement is required.
The attached agreement outlines the maintenance responsibilities of MnDOT, Dakota County,
and the City of Mendota Heights. The City’s responsibilities under this agreement remain the
same as under previous agreements and are consistent with City responsibilities for other signals
throughout the City. The City of Mendota Heights will be responsible for:
1. Maintain the signal pole mounted LED luminaires and all internal components,
including replacing the LED luminaires when necessary.
2. Provide the State's District Engineer or their designated representative a list of all
vehicles with EVP emitter units, if requested by the State.
BUDGET IMPACT
Streetlight maintenance expenses are funded out of the Street Department, which is a general
fund levy funded department. Maintenance of this traffic signal is already included in the
budget, and the new signal, with LED luminaries, is anticipated to require less maintenance that
the existing signal. No adverse budgetary impacts are anticipated as a result of executing this
agreement. The City is not participating in the funding of the signal installation.
page 45
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council approve the attached Traffic Control Signal Agreement Number
1033143.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to act of staff’s recommendation, adopt Resolution 2019-23, A
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL
AGREEMENT NUMBER 1033143 FOR THE TRAFFIC CONROL SIGNAL AT THE
INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 31 (PILOT KNOB ROAD) AND HIGHWAY 494.
This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 46
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019-23
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO TRAFFIC CONTROL
SIGNAL AGREEMENT NUMBER 1033143 FOR THE TRAFFIC CONROL SIGNAL
AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 31 (PILOT KNOB ROAD)
AND TRUNK HIGHWAY 494
IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Mendota Heights enter into Agreement No. 1033143 with
the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes:
To provide for the operation, maintenance and power of the new Traffic Control Signal with
Signal Pole Mounted Luminaires, Accessible Pedestrian Signals, Emergency Vehicle Pre-
emption System and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 494 north ramps at County State Aid Highway
No. 31 (Pilot Knob Road) within the corporate City limits under State Aid Project No. 019-631-
052 and State Project No. 1985.148.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Public Works Director and the
(Title) City Administrator are authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the
(Title) Agreement.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council
of the City of Mendota Heights an authorized meeting held on the 19th day of March, 2019, 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 _________________, 2019
Notary Public ________________________
My Commission Expires _______________
page 47
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
And
CITY OF EAGAN
And
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
And
DAKOTA COUNTY
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT
State Project Number (S.P.): 1985-148
Dakota County Total
Obligation
$216,141.48
Trunk Highway Number (T.H.): 494=112
State Aid Project Number (S.A.P.): 019-631-052
Signal System "A" ID: 2405058 (21726)
Signal System "B" ID: 2405059 (21725)
This Agreement is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Transportation ("State"), the
City of Eagan acting through its City Council ("Eagan"), and the City of Mendota Heights acting through its City
Council ("Mendota Heights"), and Dakota County acting through its Board of Commissioners ("Dakota County").
Recitals
1.The State will remove the existing traffic control signals and install new traffic control signals with signal
pole mounted luminaires and signing ("Signal Systems"), on Trunk Highway No. 494 south ramp a t County
State Aid Highway (C.S.A.H.) No. 31 (Pilot Knob Road), in the City of Eagan, and on Trunk Highway
No. 494 north ramp at County State Aid Highway No. 31 (Pilot Knob Road), in the City of Mendota Heights,
located in Dakota County, Minnesota, according to State-prepared plans, specifications and special provisions
designated by the State as State Project No. 1985-148 and State Aid Project No. 019-631-052
(T.H. 494=112) ("Project"); and
2.The State will install Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption Systems ("EVP Systems") and Accessible Pedestrian
Signals ("APS") as part of the new Signal Systems; and
3.The State will furnish a cabinet and controller Type R and Video Detection Cameras ("State Furnished
Materials"), according to the Project Plans, to operate the Signal Systems covered under this Agreement; and
4.The State and Dakota County wish to participate in the costs of the Signal Systems, APS, EVP Systems, and
Interconnect construction, State Furnished Materials lump sum amounts, and associated construction
engineering; and
5.The State, City of Eagan, City of Mendota Heights, and Dakota County will participate in the operation and
maintenance of the new Signal Systems, APS, EVP Systems, and Interconnect; and
6.Minnesota Statutes § 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make
arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing,
maintaining and improving the trunk highway system.
Agreement
1.Term of Agreement; Survival of Terms; Plans
1.1. Effective Date. This Agreement will be effective on the date the State obtains all signatures required by
Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, subdivision 2.
1.2. Expiration Date. This Agreement will expire when all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled.
page 48
1.3. Survival of Terms. All clauses which impose obligations continuing in their nature and which must survive
in order to give effect to their meaning will survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement,
including, without limitation, the following clauses: 8. Liability; Worker Compensation Claims; 10. State
Audits; 11. Government Data Practices; 12. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue; and 14. Force Majeure.
The terms and conditions set forth in Article 3. Signal System and EVP System Operation and Maintenance
will survive the expiration of this Agreement, but may be terminated by another agreement between the
parties.
1.4. Plans, Specifications, and Special Provisions. Plans, specifications, and special provisions designated by
the State as State Aid Project No. 019-631-052 and State Project No. 1985-148 (T.H. 494=112) are on file in
the office of the City Engineer at Eagan, Minnesota, in the office of the City Engineer at Mendota Heights,
Minnesota, in the office of the County Engineer at Dakota County, Minnesota, and incorporated into this
Agreement by reference ("Project Plans").
1.5. Exhibits. Preliminary Schedule "I" is attached and incorporated into this Agreement.
2.Construction by the State
2.1. Contract Award. The State will advertise for bids and award a construction contract to the lowest
responsible bidder according to the Project Plans.
2.2. Direction, Supervision and Inspection of Construction. The State will direct and supervise all construction
activities performed under the construction contract, and perform all construction engineering and
inspection functions in connection with the contract construction. All contract construction will be
performed according to the Project Plans.
2.3. Plan Changes, Additional Construction, Etc.
A.The State will make changes in the Project Plans and contract construction, which may include Dakota
County participation construction covered under this Agreement, and will enter into any necessary
addenda and change orders with the State's contractor that are necessary to cause the contract
construction to be performed and completed in a satisfactory manner. The State District Engineer's
authorized representative will inform the appropriate Dakota County officials of any proposed addenda
and change orders to the construction contract that will affect the Dakota County participation
construction covered under this Agreement.
B.Dakota County may request additional work or changes to the work in the plans as part of the
construction contract. Such request will be made by an exchange of letters with the State. If the State
determines that the requested additional work or plan changes are necessary or desirable and can be
accommodated without undue disruption to the Project, the State will cause the additional work or plan
changes to be made.
2.4. Satisfactory Completion of Contract. The State will perform all other acts and functions necessary to cause
the construction contract to be completed in a satisfactory manner.
3.Signal System and EVP System Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance responsibilities will be as follows for the Signal Systems and EVP Systems on
T.H. 494 south ramp at C.S.A.H. 31 (Pilot Knob Road) (Signal System "A"), and T.H. 494 north ramp at
C.S.A.H. 31 (Pilot Knob Road) (Signal System "B").
3.1. Eagan, Mendota Heights, and Dakota County Responsibilities.
A.City of Eagan and Dakota County Power. Eagan and Dakota County will be responsible for the
hook-up cost and application to secure an adequate power supply to the service pad or pole and will pay
all monthly electrical service expenses necessary to operate the Signal System and EVP System on
T.H. 494 south ramp at C.S.A.H. 31 (Pilot Knob Road) (Signal System "A"). Dakota County will invoice
Eagan for 100 percent of the luminaire costs and 50 percent of the signal power costs.
page 49
B. City of Mendota Heights and Dakota County Power. Mendota Heights and Dakota County will be
responsible for the hook-up cost and application to secure an adequate power supply to the service pad or
pole and will pay all monthly electrical service expenses necessary to operate the Signal System and
EVP System on T.H. 494 north ramp at C.S.A.H. 31 (Pilot Knob Road) (Signal System "B"). Dakota
County will invoice Mendota Heights for 100 percent of the luminaire costs and 50 percent of the signal
power costs.
C. Minor Signal System Maintenance. Eagan, Mendota Heights, and Dakota County will provide for the
following, without cost to the State.
i. Dakota County will provide for the following, without cost to the State.
a. Replace the Signal Systems LED indications. Replacing LED indications consists of replacing
each LED indication when it reaches end of life per the MnDOT Traffic Engineering Manual or
fails or no longer meets Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) standards for light output.
b. Clean the Signal Systems, controller cabinets, and service cabinet exteriors.
ii. Eagan will provide for the following at T.H. 494 south ramp at C.S.A.H. 31 (Pilot Knob Road)
(Signal System "A"), without cost to the State.
a. Maintain the signal pole mounted LED luminaires, including replacing the luminaires when
necessary. The LED luminaire must be replaced when it fails or when light levels drop below
recommended AASHTO levels for the installation.
b. Clean the luminaire and luminaire mast arm extensions.
iii. Mendota Heights will provide for the following at T.H. 494 north ramp at C.S.A.H. 31 (Pilot Knob
Road) (Signal System "B"), without cost to the State.
a. Maintain the signal pole mounted LED luminaires, including replacing the luminaires when
necessary. The LED luminaire must be replaced when it fails or when light levels drop below
recommended AASHTO levels for the installation.
b. Clean the luminaire and luminaire mast arm extensions.
3.2. State Responsibilities.
A. Interconnect; Timing; Other Maintenance. The State will maintain the Interconnect and signing, and
perform all other Signal System, APS, and signal pole luminaire circuit maintenance without cost to
Eagan, Mendota Heights, or Dakota County. All Signal System timing will be determined by the State,
and no changes will be made without the State's approval.
B. EVP System Operation. The EVP Systems will be installed, operated, maintained, and removed
according to the following conditions and requirements:
i. All maintenance of the EVP Systems must be done by State forces.
ii. Emitter units may be installed only on authorized emergency vehicles, as defined in Minnesota
Statutes § 169.011, Subdivision 3. Authorized emergency vehicles may use emitter units only when
responding to an emergency. Eagan and Mendota Heights will provide the State's District Engineer
or their designated representative a list of all vehicles with emitter units, if requested by the State.
iii. Malfunction of the EVP Systems must be reported to the State immediately.
iv. In the event the EVP Systems or its components are, in the opinion of the State, being misused or the
conditions set forth in Paragraph ii. above are violated, and such misuse or violation continues after
Eagan or Mendota Heights receives written notice from the State, the State may remove the EVP
System. Upon removal of the EVP System pursuant to this Paragraph, all of its parts and
components become the property of the State.
v. All timing of the EVP Systems will be determined by the State.
page 50
3.3. Right-of-Way Access. Each party authorizes the other parties to enter upon their respective public
right-of-way to perform the maintenance activities described in this Agreement.
3.4. Related Agreements. This Agreement will supersede and terminate Agreement No. 64139M, dated
December 2, 1987, supersede Agreement No. 76514, dated August 18, 1997, and supersede Agreement
No. 07045, dated April 1, 2016, between the parties for the intersections of the T.H. 494 ramps at
C.S.A.H. 31 (Pilot Knob Road).
4. Basis of Dakota County Cost
4.1. Schedule "I". The Preliminary Schedule "I" includes all anticipated Dakota County participation
construction items, State Furnished Materials lump sum amounts, and the construction engineering cost
share covered under this Agreement, and is based on engineer's estimated unit prices.
4.2. Dakota County Participation Construction. Dakota County will participate in the following at the
percentages indicated.
A. Signal System, APS, EVP System, and State Furnished Materials on T.H. 494 south ramp at C.S.A.H. 31
(Pilot Knob Road) (System "A").
i. 50 Percent will be Dakota County's rate of cost participation.
B. Signal System, APS, EVP System, and State Furnished Materials on T.H. 494 north ramp at
C.S.A.H. 31 (Pilot Knob Road) (System "B").
i. 50 Percent will be Dakota County's rate of cost participation.
4.3. Construction Engineering Costs. Dakota County will pay a construction engineering charge equal to 8
percent of their respective total participation construction covered under this Agreement.
4.4. Plan Changes, Additional Construction, Etc. Dakota County will share in the costs of construction contract
addenda and change orders that are necessary to complete the Dakota County participation construction
covered under this Agreement, including any Dakota County requested additional work and plan changes.
The State reserves the right to invoice Dakota County for the cost of any additional Dakota County
requested work and plan changes, construction contract addenda, change orders and associated construction
engineering before the completion of the contract construction.
5. Dakota County Cost and Payment
5.1. Dakota County. $216,141.48 is Dakota County's estimated share of the costs of the contract construction,
State Furnished Materials, and the 8 percent construction engineering cost share as shown in the Preliminary
Schedule "I". The Preliminary Schedule "I" was prepared using estimated quantities and unit prices, and
may include any credits or lump sum costs. Upon award of the construction contract, the State will prepare a
Revised Schedule "I" based on construction contract unit prices, which will replace and supersede the
Preliminary Schedule "I" as part of this Agreement.
5.2. Conditions of Payment. Dakota County will pay the State their respective full and complete lump sum
amount, as shown in the Revised Schedule "I", after the following conditions have been met:
A. Execution of this Agreement and transmittal to Dakota County, including a copy of the Revised
Schedule "I".
B. Dakota County receipt of a written request from the State for the advancement of funds.
5.3. Acceptance of Dakota County's Cost and Completed Construction. The computation by the State of the
amount due from Dakota County will be final, binding and conclusive. Acceptance by the State of the
completed contract construction will be final, binding and conclusive upon Dakota County as to the
satisfactory completion of the contract construction.
5.4. Final Payment; Additional Dakota County Requested Work. Upon completion of all contract construction
and upon computation of the final amount due to the State's contractor, and only if additional work has been
page 51
requested under Article 2.3.B of this Agreement, the State will prepare a Final Schedule "I" and submit a
copy to Dakota County. The Final Schedule "I" will be based on final quantities of any additional Dakota
County requested participation construction items and the construction engineering cost share due to
additional requested work. The computation by the State of the amount due from Dakota County will be
final, binding and conclusive.
The State, and Dakota County waive claims for any payments or refunds less than $5.00 according to
Minnesota Statutes § 15.415.
6. Authorized Representatives
Each party's Authorized Representative is responsible for administering this Agreement and is authorized to give
and receive any notice or demand required or permitted by this Agreement.
6.1. The States's Authorized Representative will be:
Name/Title: Greg Kern, MnDOT Metropolitan District Traffic Engineering (or successor)
Address: 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113
Telephone: (651) 234-7877
E-Mail: gregory.kern@state.mn.us
6.2. Eagan's Authorized Representative will be:
Name/Title: John Gorder, City Engineer (or successor)
Address: 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, MN 55122
Telephone: 651-675-5646
E-Mail: jgorder@cityofeagan.com
6.3. Mendota Heights' Authorized Representative will be:
Name/Title: Ryan Ruzek, City Engineer (or successor)
Address: 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Telephone: 651-255-1123
E-Mail: ryanr@mendota-heights.com
6.4. The Dakota County's Authorized Representative will be:
Name/Title: Mark Krebsbach, County Engineer (or successor)
Address: 14955 Galaxie Avenue, 3rd Floor, Apple Valley, MN 55124
Telephone: 952-891-7102
E-Mail: mark.krebsbach@co.dakota.mn.us
7. Assignment; Amendments; Waiver; Contract Complete
7.1. Assignment. None of the parties may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this Agreement
without the prior consent of the other parties and a written assignment agreement, executed and approved by
the same parties who executed and approved this Agreement, or their successors in office.
7.2. Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has
been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original Agreement, or
their successors in office.
7.3. Waiver. If a party fails to enforce any provision of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision
or the party's right to subsequently enforce it.
7.4. Contract Complete. This Agreement contains all prior negotiations and agreements between the State,
Eagan, Mendota Heights, and Dakota County. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether
written or oral, may be used to bind the parties.
page 52
8. Liability; Worker Compensation Claims
8.1. Each party is responsible for its own acts, omissions and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law
and will not be responsible for the acts and omissions of others and the results thereof. Minnesota Statutes
§ 3.736 and other applicable law govern liability of the State. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other
applicable law govern liability of Eagan, Mendota Heights, and Dakota County.
8.2. Each party is responsible for its own employees for any claims arising under the Workers Compensation
Act.
9. Nondiscrimination
Provisions of Minnesota Statutes § 181.59 and of any applicable law relating to civil rights and discrimination are
considered part of this Agreement.
10. State Audits
Under Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, subdivision 5, Eagan's, Mendota Heights' and Dakota County's books,
records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to this Agreement are subject to
examination by the State and the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years
from the end of this Agreement.
11. Government Data Practices
Eagan, Mendota Heights, Dakota County, and the State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as it applies to all data provided under this Agreement, and as it
applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Eagan, Mendota
Heights, and Dakota County under this Agreement. The civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes §13.08 apply to the
release of the data referred to in this clause by Eagan, Mendota Heights, Dakota County, or the State.
12. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue
Minnesota law governs the validity, interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue for all legal
proceedings arising out of this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with
competent jurisdiction in Dakota County, Minnesota.
13. Termination; Suspension
13.1. By Mutual Agreement. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of the parties.
13.2. Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate this Agreement if it does not
obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at
a level sufficient to allow for the performance of contract construction under the Project. Termination must
be by written or fax notice to Eagan, Mendota Heights, and County.
13.3. Suspension. In the event of a total or partial government shutdown, the State may suspend this Agreement
and all work, activities and performance of work authorized through this Agreement.
14. Force Majeure
Neither party will be responsible to the other for a failure to perform under this Agreement (or a delay in
performance), if such failure or delay is due to a force majeure event. A force majeure event is an event beyond a
party's reasonable control, including but not limited to, unusually severe weather, fire, floods, other acts of God,
labor disputes, acts of war or terrorism, or public health emergencies.
[The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank]
page 53
CITY OF EAGAN
The undersigned certify that they have lawfully
executed this contract on behalf of the Governmental
Unit as required by applicable charter provisions,
resolutions or ordinances.
By:
Title:
Date:
By:
Title:
Date:
page 54
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
The undersigned certify that they have lawfully
executed this contract on behalf of the Governmental
Unit as required by applicable charter provisions,
resolutions or ordinances.
By:
Title:
Date:
By:
Title:
Date:
page 55
DAKOTA COUNTY
The undersigned certify that they have lawfully
executed this contract on behalf of the
Governmental Unit as required by applicable
charter provisions, resolutions or ordinances.
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Recommended for Approval:
Recommended for Approval: By:
(District Engineer)
By: Date:
(County Engineer)
Approved as to form: Approved:
By: By:
(County Attorney) (State Design Engineer)
Approved: Date:
By:
(Physical Development Director)
Date: COMMISSIONER OF
ADMINISTRATION
County Board Resolution
No. Date: By:
(With Delegated Authority)
Date:
page 56
DAKOTA COUNTY
RESOLUTION
IT IS RESOLVED that Dakota County enter into MnDOT Agreement No. 1033143 with the
State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes:
To provide for payment by Dakota County to the State of Dakota County's share of the costs of
the Traffic Control Signals to be constructed at the intersections of the Trunk Highway No. 494
ramps and County State Aid Highway 31 (Pilot Knob Road) within the corporate City limits of
the City of Eagan and the City of Mendota Heights under State Aid Project No. 019-631-052 and
State Project No. 1985-148.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the
(Title)
and the
(Title)
are authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Board of
Commissioners of Dakota County at an authorized meeting held on the day of , 2019,
as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
________ day of _________________, 2019
Notary Public ________________________
My Commission Expires _______________
____________________________________
(Signature)
____________________________________
(Type or Print Name)
____________________________________
(Title)
page 57
CITY OF EAGAN
RESOLUTION
IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Eagan enter into MnDOT Agreement No. 1033143 with the
State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes:
To provide for the operation, maintenance and power of the Traffic Control Signal with Signal
Pole Mounted Luminaires, Accessible Pedestrian Signals, Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption
System and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 494 south ramps at County State Aid Highway 31
(Pilot Knob Road) within the corporate City limits under State Aid Project No. 019-631-052 and
State Project No. 1985-148.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the _______________________________________ and the
(Title) _____________________________________ are authorized to execute the Agreement and any
(Title) amendments to the Agreement.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council
of the City of Eagan at an authorized meeting held on the __________ day of
____________________, 2019, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
________ day of _________________, 2019
Notary Public ________________________
My Commission Expires _______________
____________________________________
(Signature)
____________________________________
(Type or Print Name)
____________________________________
(Title)
page 58
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
RESOLUTION
IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Mendota Heights enter into MnDOT Agreement No. 1033143
with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes:
To provide for the operation, maintenance and power of the Traffic Control Signal with Signal
Pole Mounted Luminaires, Accessible Pedestrian Signals, Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption
System and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 494 north ramps at County State Aid Highway 31
(Pilot Knob Road) within the corporate City limits under State Aid Project No. 019-631-052 and
State Project No. 1985-148.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the _______________________________________ and the
(Title) _____________________________________ are authorized to execute the Agreement and any
(Title) amendments to the Agreement.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council
of the City of Mendota Heights at an authorized meeting held on the __________ day of
____________________, 2019, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
________ day of _________________, 2019
Notary Public ________________________
My Commission Expires _______________
____________________________________
(Signature)
____________________________________
(Type or Print Name)
____________________________________
(Title)
page 59
PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE "I"
Agreement No. 1033143
Dakota County
S.P. 1985-148 (T.H. 494=112) Prime Preliminary: January 10, 2019
S.P. 1986-38 (T.H. 494=112) Associated
S.A.P. 019-631-052
Federal Funds
Traffic Control Signal, EVP Systems, and ADA improvement construction to start approximately 7/15/19 under
State Contract No. ____ with ____
Located on T.H. 494 south ramp at Dakota C.S.A.H. 31 (Pilot Knob Road), and on T.H. 494 north ramp at Dakota C.S.A.H. 31 (Pilot Knob Road)
DAKOTA COUNTY TRAFFIC SIGNAL COST PARTICIPATION
Signal System "A" and "B" Work Items From Sheet No. 2 145,221.00
State Furnished Materials - Type "R" Cabinet and Controller and Video Detection From Sheet No. 2 54,910.00
Subtotal $200,131.00
Construction Engineering (8%)16,010.48
(1)Total County Cost $216,141.48
(1) Amount of advance payment as described in Article 5 of the Agreement (estimated amount)
page 60
(1) 50% STATE, 50% COUNTY
ITEM S.P. 1985-148 UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST
NUMBER WORK ITEMS (1)
2565.516 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM "A"SYSTEM 1.00 117,218.00 117,218.00
2565.516 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM "B"SYSTEM 1.00 133,873.00 133,873.00
2565.501 TRAFFIC CONTROL INTERCONNECT LUMP SUM 1.00 27,909.00 27,909.00
2565.501 EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE-EMPTION SYSTEM "A"LUMP SUM 1.00 5,513.00 5,513.00
2565.501 EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE-EMPTION SYSTEM "B"LUMP SUM 1.00 5,929.00 5,929.00
TOTAL $290,442.00
(2) 50% STATE COST $145,221.00
50% COUNTY COST $145,221.00
STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS - TYPE "R" CABINET AND CONTROLLER EACH 2.00 31,000.00 62,000.00
STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS - VIDEO DETECTION CAMERA EACH 6.00 6,570.00 39,420.00
STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS - VIDEO DETECTION COMMS MANAGER EACH 2.00 4,200.00 8,400.00
TOTAL $109,820.00
(2) 50% STATE COST $54,910.00
50% COUNTY COST $54,910.00
page 61
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: March 19, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician
SUBJECT: Rainbow Treecare – Agreement for Professional Services Contract
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to authorize an agreement with Rainbow Treecare to provide treatment of
public ash trees, and to offer and provide discounted treatment to private residents upon request,
to aid in the control of Emerald Ash Borer.
BACKGROUND
In the spring of 2015, the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) was discovered in Mendota Heights.
Mendota Heights had been included within the Dakota County quarantine from the Department
of Agriculture (MDA) since 2013. Currently there are approximately 8,600 ash trees in Mendota
Heights, making the species the fourth highest concentration of tree species (8.8 percent). There
are approximately 682 public ash trees in maintained public right-of-way and City parks.
Based on interest and discussion with residents in 2018, the City entered into an agreement with
Rainbow Treecare to provide professional tree care services including treatment of designated
public ash trees and discounted rates offered to residents for treatment of private ash trees. See
the attached sheet for the Rainbow usage history for the preceding three years.
As Rainbow Treecare has provided competitive rates as a part of their current proposal, and as
Rainbow Treecare has provided quality service to the community of Mendota Heights, Staff is
recommending that City Council accept the current proposal and enter into an agreement for
professional services with Rainbow Treecare for a duration of three years.
DISCUSSION
In January of 2019, the City sent a request for proposals to several area tree care service
providers for the prevention and treatment of Emerald Ash Borer. Three quotes, or proposals,
were received from three separate tree care professional service providers. Of these three, the
proposal submitted by Rainbow Treecare provided the most competitive price for the services
requested (proposal attached). This agreement for professional services, if approved by City
Council, will be valid through 2021.
page 62
Rainbow Treecare is proposing to provide chemical injection treatments to the City for city-
designated ash trees, as well as a discount program offered to all private property owners, as
initiated by such, for a duration of three years. The City will not be a party to private treatments.
Also included in the proposal is an end-of-year report provided to the City, as well as an
education and promotion program for residents which includes the design, printing, and mailing
of co-branded flyers to all residents. Proposed cost for provided treatment of public ash trees is
$3.95 per inch. Size is based on tree diameter (DBH, or Diameter at Breast Height), where 1.3
meters above ground is used as the standard. This price still remains less than the cost of
treatment of ash trees by City Staff. Treatments are expected to last for two years.
BUDGET IMPACT
Mendota Heights will pay for treatment costs for public trees from the Public Works tree
removal budget, in accordance with the City’s purchasing policy. The discounted rate being
offered to residents is able to be offered due to bulk treatments (economies of scale), and is not
subsidized by the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council authorize Staff to execute the professional services agreement
with Rainbow Treecare for EAB treatments.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to act on the staff recommendation, pass a motion authorizing Staff to execute
the professional services agreement with Rainbow Treecare. This action requires a simple
majority vote.
page 63
page 64
February 26, 2019
Ryan Ruzek
Public Works Director
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Also sent via e-mail to: ryanr@mendota-heights.com
Re: Rainbow Treecare Emerald Ash Borer Injection Proposal to the City of Mendota Heights
Dear Mr. Ruzek:
I am enclosing the quote from Rainbow Treecare to the City of Mendota Heights (City) for the
treatment of public and private ash trees by means of trunk injection to help control the spread of EAB.
In addition to offering a competitive price for ash tree protection, we excel in our GIS, municipal
customer service, and outreach & education to homeowners. Through these efforts, municipal
partnership residents protect ash trees at three times the rate per 1000 people than residents in
other cities.
Included in Rainbow Treecare’s price per inch :
Dedicated full-time municipal consulting and GIS staff
o Single point of contact
o End of year reporting on program participation including protected tree locations
Design, printing, and mailing of co-branded flyers to residents (examples included)
o Our 2018 marketing contributions were $4,000 to $6,000 per city
National experience in communicating the impacts and management of EAB in communities.
Our team won the 2018 Tree Care Industry Association Communications Award for our EAB City
Partnerships Marketing Campaign
Thank you for considering Rainbow Treecare for this important project. I look forward to your
response.
Respectfully,
Jeff Hafner
Director of Municipal Consulting
Rainbow Treecare
952-252-0596
page 65
Rainbow Treecare Proposal to the City of Mendota Heights Page 1
Rainbow Treecare Proposal to the City of Mendota Heights
Emerald Ash Borer Prevention and Treatment
1. Project Understanding
Rainbow Treecare (RTC), the undersigned contractor proposes and agrees, if this proposal is accepted, to enter into an
Agreement with The City of Mendota Heights, and to perform all work as specified or indicated in the Request for
Proposal documents for the prices and within the times indicated in this Proposal and in accordance with the other terms
and conditions of the proposal documents.
Rainbow Treecare accepts all terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal. This Proposal will remain subject to
acceptance for 90 days after the Proposal opening.
In submitting this Proposal, Rainbow Treecare represents that it has examined and carefully studied the Request for
Proposal documents, and any data and reference items identified in the Request for Proposal documents.
A. Background
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) was first confirmed within the City of Mendota Heights (the City) in May of 2015. In 2018 the
City began its EAB Prevention Program, which consists of a citywide discount offered to residents for any privately
owned trees, as well as treatment of designated public trees.
The City is also actively partnering with the University of Minnesota in an EAB study, which involves treatment of some
trees in designated neighborhoods.
The Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is a continued threat to thousands of ash trees within the City, ultimately causing loss of
these trees and high monetary and natural resource loss. In order to slow the spread and prevent the loss of as many of its
ash trees as possible, the City is seeking to continue its EAB prevention program through partnership with a professional
tree care company.
B. Project Scope
The Mendota Heights EAB prevention program will generally consist of:
Treatments, and continued treatments, of high-value, City-identified, City-owned ash trees in parks and public
open space
Discount program offered to all private property owners within the City of Mendota Heights to encourage
residents to proactively protect their ash trees through City-approved insecticide treatments
All treatments shall be completed between June 1 and September 30 of each year
Education and program promotion for residents
Project Areas
City Property
Ash trees identified by the City, within City property, and designated by the City to receive insecticide
treatments after notice to proceed has been given. All invoices for public ash trees to be remitted to the City of
Mendota Heights and are to include property name and/or location, and specific number assigned to each ash
tree.
Private Property
Ash trees treated on private property will be initiated by individual homeowners, and any agreements,
contracts, and communication will occur directly between Rainbow Treecare and the property owner. The
City will not be a party to any contract between the private land owner and Rainbow Treecare. Any contract
or agreement between Rainbow Treecare and the private property owner shall be subject to the following
terms:
o Rainbow Treecare will inspect the ash tree(s) within private property and determine if it/they warrant
treatment
o All treatments shall be completed between June 1 and September 30 of each year, unless otherwise
directed by the City
o Any variances in dates shall be approved by City Staff
o All invoices will be remitted directly to the private property owner
page 66
Rainbow Treecare Proposal to the City of Mendota Heights Page 2
Residents and private property owners may hire Rainbow Treecare, with approval from City Staff, to treat ash trees
growing within the Right-of-Way, that are not being treated by the City or part of the on-going University of MN study.
Any ash trees treated within the Right-of-Way shall still meet the requirements given for Private Property, above.
C. Schedule
The injection period for all ash trees will begin approximately June 1 and end September 30 of each year for 3 years.
Injections are to be completed on trees that have reached complete leaf-out and have not reached fall color. City Staff
reserves the right to extend or limit the time period based on seasonal weather conditions. The tentative schedule is as
follows:
Receive Consultant Proposal March 1, 2019
Award of Contract March 19, 2019
Program Start Spring 2019
Substantial Completion December 2021
D. Advantages of working with Rainbow Treecare
Proven record of a successful EAB programs
Excellent first-year homeowner participation in the City of Mendota Heights
Over 20 Municipal EAB programs in 2018
o Over 18,000 ash trees protected through our municipal partnerships
High capacity for service delivery and tree data collection
o Short response time from bid request to EAB service
Commitment to customer service after the treatment
o Program update meetings with staff and Commission presentations
o Annual report on program participation
o RTC participation during City summer events
15 Years’ Experience Treating for EAB
Injected over 25,000 ash trees in 2018
E. List of References/Communities: F. RTC Certified Pesticide Applicators
G. Rainbow Treecare 2019 Emerald Ash Borer Protection Guarantee
Your ash tree will not die from an Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestation while under our guarantee. If your ash tree dies
from an EAB infestation while under guarantee, you will be refunded your last EAB treatment cost.
Our trunk injected Emamectin benzoate EAB guarantee will begin upon treatment and will last for two years from th e
date of treatment. The guarantee will not lapse if the re-treatment has been approved prior to the expiration of the two year
warranty period and your account is in good standing.
We will visually inspect your protected tree(s) every 1-2 years to examine for evidence of Emerald Ash Borer infestation.
This inspection may take place at the time of re-treatment. We are available to look at your tree at any time should you be
concerned about its condition.
page 67
Rainbow Treecare Proposal to the City of Mendota Heights Page 4
Rainbow Treecare EAB Prevention and Treatment Quote to the City of Mendota Heights
Public Ash Trees - Ash trees on City park property and within the ROW, if initiated by the City of
Mendota Heights (amount/diameter inch (DBH)/tree).
Insecticide/Treatment
method
Rate1
(ml. product/tree)
Tree
Diameter
(DBH)
(inches)
Number of
trees
Price Per
Tree2
Price per
inch Trunk injected 4% Solution of Emamectin benzoate 55 10-12 1 $43.45 $3.95
70 13-15 1 $55.30 $3.95
85 16-18 1 $67.15 $3.95
100 19-21 1 $79.00 $3.95
115 22-24 1 $90.85 $3.95
130 25-27 1 $102.70 $3.95
145 28-30 1 $114.55 $3.95
160 31-33 1 $126.40 $3.95
175 34-36 1 $138.25 $3.95
190 37-39 1 $150.10 $3.95
205 40-42 1 $161.95 $3.95
220 43-45 1 $173.80 $3.95
235 46-48 1 $185.65 $3.95
250 49-51 1 $197.50 $3.95
265 52-54 1 $209.35 $3.95
280 55-57 1 $221.20 $3.95
295 58-60 1 $233.05 $3.95
310 61-63 1 $244.90 $3.95
325 64-66 1 $256.75 $3.95
340 67-69 1 $268.60 $3.95
355 70-72 1 $280.45 $3.95
1Rate reflects the middle DBH in each size class. All trees will be treated at 5 ml. per inch (DBH)
2Price reflects the middle DBH in each size class. All tree prices will be determined by price per inch (DBH). Price per inch
includes all staff time, hourly rates, and materials.
page 68
Rainbow Treecare Proposal to the City of Mendota Heights Page 5
Rainbow Treecare EAB Prevention and Treatment Quote to the City of Mendota Heights
Private Ash Trees - Private Ash Trees and ash trees within the ROW, if initiated by the property owner
(amount/diameter inch (DBH)/tree).
Insecticide/Treatment
method
Rate1
(ml. product/tree)
Tree
Diameter
(DBH)
(inches)
Number
of trees Price Per Tree2 Price per inch Trunk injected 4% Solution of Emamectin benzoate 55 10-12 1 $ 64.02 $ 5.82
70 13-15 1 $ 81.48 $ 5.82
85 16-18 1 $ 98.94 $ 5.82
100 19-21 1 $ 116.40 $ 5.82
115 22-24 1 $ 133.86 $ 5.82
130 25-27 1 $ 151.32 $ 5.82
145 28-30 1 $ 168.78 $ 5.82
160 31-33 1 $ 186.24 $ 5.82
175 34-36 1 $ 203.70 $ 5.82
190 37-39 1 $ 221.16 $ 5.82
205 40-42 1 $ 238.62 $ 5.82
220 43-45 1 $ 256.08 $ 5.82
235 46-48 1 $ 273.54 $ 5.82
250 49-51 1 $ 291.00 $ 5.82
265 52-54 1 $ 308.46 $ 5.82
280 55-57 1 $ 325.92 $ 5.82
295 58-60 1 $ 343.38 $ 5.82
310 61-63 1 $ 360.84 $ 5.82
325 64-66 1 $ 378.30 $ 5.82
340 67-69 1 $ 395.76 $ 5.82
355 70-72 1 $ 413.22 $ 5.82
1Rate reflects the middle DBH in each size class. All trees will be treated at 5 ml. per inch (DBH)
2Price reflects the middle DBH in each size class. All tree prices will be determined by price per inch (DBH). Price per inch
includes all staff time, hourly rates, and materials.
page 69
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: March 19, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician
SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-22 Community Roadside Landscape Partnership Agreement
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve resolution 2019-22 authorizing City Staff to enter into the
proposed agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transporation, in accordance with the
State’s Community Roadside Landscape Partnership Program. The proposed agreement would
provide for payment to the City for costs of landscape material, acquired by the City, for the
landscaping and beautification of the Mendota Heights Monument sign on Dodd Road and
Mendota Heights Road.
BACKGROUND
Mendota Heights constructed the entrance monument on Dodd Road at Mendota Heights Road
in 1999. The vegetation surrounding the monument is need of maintenance and enhancement.
Resolution 2018-101 was approved at the regular City Council meeting on December 18, 2018,
authorizing the City’s Natural Resources Technician to apply for a Community Roadside
Landscape Partnership grant, as offered by the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT). A landscape plan has been designed by MnDOT, and was reviewed by City Staff and
local master gardeners.
DISCUSSION
As part of the Highway 149 (Dodd Road) rehabilitation project, MnDOT is looking at making
landscape improvements along the corridor. MnDOT asked staff about making improvements to
the entrance monument as part of these improvements. Staff met with public works and local
master gardeners in October on this site and have been considering improvements.
MnDOT provided two options for the city. The first option was that MnDOT would include this
work as part of the Dodd Road project but this work would not occur until fall of 2019, and the
City would have minimal input. The second option is the Roadside Landscape Partnership
program, which will be a City-led project, with material costs being reimbursed by MnDOT. The
City will be responsible for any labor costs associated with the project. MnDOT has allocated up
to $10,000 for this beautification project and has also provided the design work.
page 70
BUDGET IMPACT
The city portion of this work is proposed to be installed with a combination of city staff and
volunteers. MnDOT will reimburse the city on the cost of the materials which is estimated to be
around $3,000.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached resolution.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion adopting Resolution
2019-22 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE MN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE COMMUNITY
ROADSIDE LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM. This action requires a simple
majority vote.
page 71
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-22
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO MNDOT AGREEMENT NO.
1033606 WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE T.H. 149 MENDOTA HEIGHTS MONUMENT SIGN
IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Mendota Heights enter into Agreement No. 1033606 with
the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes:
To provide for the payment by the State to the City of Mendota Heights for the acquisition of
landscape materials to be placed adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 149 from 125 feet south of
Mendota Heights Road to Mendota Heights Road under State Project No. 1917-969.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the Public Works Director are authorized to
execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council
of the City of Mendota Heights at an authorized meeting held on the 19th day of March, 2019, as
shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession.
____________________________________
(Signature)
____Neil Garlock_____________
(Type or Print Name)
_____________MAYOR________________
(Title)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
________ day of _________________, 2019
Notary Public ________________________
My Commission Expires _______________
page 72
LA1917-969_CP.dgn 3/1/2019 9:56:04 AMpage 73
page 74
page 75
page 76
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: March 19, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Street Improvements – Amendment #2
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Amendment #2 for the Marie Avenue and Wesley
Neighborhood Street Improvements consulting contract with TKDA.
BACKGROUND
Mendota Heights awarded a contract to TKDA for the design, surveying and inspection of the
Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Street Improvement Project.
TKDA has advised the City that the original contract only included an assessment of the land
bridge and design plans were not included, the existing contract to the consultant will need to be
modified to include this additional work.
DISCUSSION
Amendment #2 is a request from TKDA for an increase in the contract amount to perform the
necessary design, surveying, and inspection work for the land bridge on Marie Avenue.
TKDA submitted the attached project fee estimate. Their estimate of the costs for the additional
work is $26,500.
BUDGET IMPACT
The contract with TKDA for the consulting on the project was $247,900. The additional request
would result in a total contact amount of $274,400. This amount equates to 6.6 percent of the
estimated construction contract amount ($4,134,777). Indirect costs were estimated at 20 percent
of the contract or $751,778. Additional indirect costs include staff time, legal and bonding costs.
Funding for the change order is not expected to have a major impact to the overall project costs.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve Amendment #2 to the TKDA professional services
contract on the Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Street Improvements.
page 86
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion authorizing Amendment #2 for the Marie
Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Street Improvement project. This action requires a simple
majority vote.
page 87
February 19, 2019
Via Email Only: ryanr@mendota-heights.com
Mr. Ryan Ruzek, PE
Public Works Director
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118
Re: Additional Engineering Services – Amendment No. 2
Marie Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvements, City Project 201803
TKDA Project No. 0016948.000
Dear Mr. Ruzek:
Pursuant to our communications with you, we propose to provide Additional Engineering Services
related to design and inspection of the Marie Avenue land bridge in connection with this Project. This
request will amend our original proposal dated May 30, 2018, and Amendment No. 1, dated December
11, 2018.
As discussed, the Project scope is being expanded to include reconstruction of the land bridge on
Marie Avenue. Under this Amendment, TKDA’s services will be increased accordingly to include final
design phase services and construction phase services associated with the land bridge. The additional
fees for these services will be on an hourly time and material basis in the not to exceed amount of
$26,500. Based on the current total contract amount of $247,900 through Amendment No. 1, the
revised total not-to-exceed amount including this Amendment No. 2 will be $274,400. A supplemental
Project Fee Estimate is attached.
If you have any questions, please contact Larry Poppler at 651.292.4457 or larry.poppler@tkda.com.
Sincerely,
Lawrence P. Poppler, PE Dennis M. Postler, PE
Project Manager Vice President, Municipal Services
LPP:DMP:ces
ATTACHMENT: AMENDMENT FEE ESTIMATE
ACCEPTED FOR THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
By: _________________________________________________________________________
(signature) Printed Name/Title Date
page 88
Project Fee EstimateCity of Mendota HeightsDate: 2/19/2019Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Improvements - LAND BRIDGE (AMENDMENT #2)By:LPPSr Reg Eng Reg Eng ES IGraduate EngineerEng Spec/ConstHydrologist Sr Reg Eng Sr Reg Eng Reg Eng Reg Eng Grad Eng Tech II182$ 120$ 102$ 78$ 96$ 169$ 146$ 165$ 110$ 120$ 85$ 69$ Plans and SpecificationsLand Bridge Design4 8 4 32 1 1 8 80 138 12,663$ SUBTOTAL HOURS4 8 4 32 - - 1 1 - 8 80 - 138 SUBTOTAL COST728$ 960$ 408$ 2,496$ -$ -$ 146$ 165$ -$ 960$ 6,800$ -$ 12,663$ Expenses:Travel & Subsistence (TS)41$ Subtotal12,704$ Construction StageConstruction Observation/AdministrationLand Bridge Construction Observation160 160 13,600$ SUBTOTAL HOURS- - - - - - - - - - 160 - 160 SUBTOTAL COST-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,600$ -$ 13,600$ Expenses:Travel & Subsistence (TS)175$ Subtotal13,775$ TOTAL HOURS4 8 4 32 - - 1 1 - 8 240 - 298 TOTAL LABOR COST728$ 960$ 408$ 2,496$ -$ -$ 146$ 165$ -$ 960$ 20,400$ -$ 26,263$ TOTAL EXPENSES175$ TOTAL PROJECT26,479$ TOTAL (ROUNDED)26,500$ Total DollarsEstimated Person Hours RequiredTotal HoursProject:Client: TaskTask DescriptionBilling Rate/Hr x MultiplierPage 1 of 1page 89
DATE: March 19, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
Terry Blum, Public Works Supervisor
SUBJECT: Public Works Maintenance Worker Hiring Approvals
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve the hiring of Jarrett Krensing and Tom Weiss for the position
of Public Works Maintenance Worker.
BACKGROUND
Staff has completed the recruitment process to fill two vacant Maintenance Worker positions
within the Public Works Department. One vacancy is the result of a department retirement and
one vacancy is to fill the additional position included in the 2019 budget. Staff is pleased to
recommend the hiring of Jarrett Krensing and Tom Weiss for those positions.
Tom Weiss comes to the City having most recently owned and operated his own lawn service
company for over 20 years. He has extensive experience in residential and commercial lawn
care and turf maintenance, snow plowing and general maintenance. Tom holds a Class B
Commercial Driver’s License and has his Minnesota Pesticide Applicator License (A & E).
Jarrett Krensing comes to the City having most recently worked for the City of Eagan as a
seasonal Forestry/Landscaping Technician. Jarrett’s experience includes tree maintenance,
pesticide and herbicide treatments, landscape maintenance, spraying and irrigation. Jarrett holds
a Class A Commercial Driver’s License and has his Minnesota Pesticide Applicator License (A
& E).
A conditional offer has been extended to both, contingent upon the successful completion of a
background check, pre-employment drug screen and physical and approval of the City Council.
Depending on completion of the above, Tom’s anticipated start date is March 25 and Jarrett’s
anticipated start date is April 1.
page 90
BUDGET IMPACT
The Public Works Maintenance Worker position is a budgeted position within the Public Works
Department. The position has a hourly rate of $21.85 (step one) to $31.35 (step five), depending
on qualifications.
ACTION RECOMMENDED
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the hiring of Jarrett Krensing as a Public Works
Maintenance Worker with a starting hourly wage of $21.85; and Tom Weiss as Public Works
Maintenance Worker with a starting hourly rate of $23.85, with an increase to $26.35 per hourly
in October.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council concurs, it should by motion, approve the hiring of Jarrett Krensing and Tom Weiss
as Public Works Maintenance Workers, with the pay provisions listed above.
page 91
page 92
page 93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page 98
page 99
page 100
page 101
page 102
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2019
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consideration of Ordinance No. 538 – an Amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1
to allow “Personal Self-Storage Facility” in the I-Industrial District – requested by
Metro Storage LLC (Planning Case No. 2019-01)
Introduction
The City Council is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would allow
“Personal Self-Storage Facility” as a conditional use in the I-Industrial District. The applicant is Metro
Storage LLC.
Background
City Code does not identify or provide any allowance for a self–storage facility or use in any of the business
or industrial zones. City Code Section 12-1G-2-2 includes a list of prohibited uses within the Industrial
District, and “Personal self-storage facility” is noted as one of these uses.
At the January 22, 2019 planning commission meeting, this draft ordinance was presented to the
commission; and upon staff’s presentation, and discussion with the applicant, commission chose to table
the matter, and requested staff do more research and find an explanation as to why the city listed this use
(self-storage) as a prohibited use in the Industrial zone.
At the February 26, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented additional background
information, including previous staff reports and meeting minutes from 2016, which reflected the discussion
and consideration of a proposed Ordinance No. 491. This ordinance was intended to amend the Industrial
District zoning standards by adding/deleting certain uses, and provided a list of prohibited uses found under
Title 12-1G-2-2. This ordinance was eventually adopted by the City Council on March 3, 2016.
Research of these reports and meeting minutes, including speaking with former city staff members, it was
determined there were no obvious or discernible comments, debate or findings that provided an explanation
as to why “self-storage” uses were included in the prohibited list.
After re-opening the hearing, and taking additional comments from the applicant and public, the Planning
Commission closed the hearing, and provided a recommendation as noted herein.
The proposed draft Ordinance No. 538, along with the two planning commission reports, including all the
background information related to this matter, and meeting minutes, are appended to this memo report.
page 103
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended (on 6-1 vote) that the proposed Ordinance No. 538 be denied,
based on the following findings:
1. The Planning Commission feels the proposed Ordinance to amend City Code Title 12-1G-1 and
12-1G-2-2- would be fundamentally at odds with provisions within the Comprehensive Plan, which
speaks of encouraging employment generating uses.
2. The Planning Commission further determines, and based on previous testimony from the Applicant,
that the number of employees who would be associated with such use(s) is minimal, and is not
fitting with goals and objectives of the city’s Industrial Park Study of 2016.
3. The Planning Commission feels they have not heard any convincing evidence, justification,
rationale or reasons to alter the list, which was recently presented and adopted by the City Council
establishing the list of prohibited uses, including self-storage uses.
Action Required
The City Council may choose to affirm this recommendation and make a motion to deny the proposed
Ordinance No. 538 as presented, and vote accordingly with a simple majority vote; or
The Council may choose to reverse the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and adopt Ordinance No.
538 as presented herein. This action will also require a simple-majority vote.
page 104
D R A F T
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 538
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G.
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY
AS A CONDITIONAL USE
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Title 12-1G-2: Conditional Uses is hereby amended as follows:
Personal self-storage facility, provided that:
A. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of vehicles, trailers,
and equipment is strictly prohibited.
B. Maintenance and servicing of vehicles stored on site is prohibited, except for minor
maintenance such as tire inflation, adding oil, wiper replacement, and battery
replacement.
C. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons
renting at the facility.
D. Facility shall not be located closer than three hundred feet (300') to any residential
use and/or zone.
E. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or
concrete.
F. All storage space openings shall be oriented internally to the facility and shall not
directly face a public highway or major collector.
G. Access to the interior of the fenced area shall be available to emergency responders in
a manner acceptable to the fire marshal.
H. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than
one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area
Section 2.
Title 12-1G-2-2: Prohibited Uses is hereby amended as follows:
Personal self-storage facility
page 105
D R A F T
Section 3.
This ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an ordinance this _____ day of March, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
(Strikeout text indicates matter to be deleted, while underlined text indicates new matter)
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
page 106
Planning Report
(Supplemental)
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-01
Zoning Code Amendment – Personal Self-Storage Facility Uses in
the I-Industrial Zone
APPLICANT: Metro Storage LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTION DEADLINE: (extended to April 25, 2019)
INTRODUCTION
The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would
allow “personal self-storage facility” uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial
district. The applicant is Metro Storage LLC (Lake Forest, IL).
This item was officially presented under a public hearing item at the January 22, 2019 regular meeting; and
after initial discussion, a motion was made to table the matter and leave the hearing open until the next
regular scheduled meeting.
DISCUSSION
At the January 22, 2019 regular meeting, staff presented a planning report and analysis (dated 01/22/19 –
attached hereto); and after the presentation, questions were raised by commissioners on the issue of why
“personal self-storage” uses were listed as a prohibited use in the I-Industrial district regulations. Staff did
not have any information or answers to report; and was directed to do more research and provide additional
information for further consideration.
Staff was able to find additional information, and has prepared for you the following information and chain-
of-events related to this request:
January 4, 2016: City Council discussed at a workshop meeting the final implementation
strategies of the city’s Industrial District Redevelopment Plan (adopted by the City Council -
January 2016). As part of this discussion, staff was directed to proceed with exploring potential
page 107
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 2 of 3
revision and additions to the uses in the Industrial District. The staff memo and minutes from this
workshop meeting are appended as Exhibit-A.
January 26, 2016: city staff presented a planning commission report of proposed Zoning Code
Amendment to the Industrial District Uses. This report provided an initial draft Ordinance No. 491
for consideration, with certain uses added, revised, or struck from the city Zoning Code. The PC
elected to table the matter in order for staff to provide additional information, compare other city
ordinances, and bring the matter back to the next meeting. The report and minutes from that
meeting are appended as Exhibit –B.1 and B.2.
February 23, 2016: city staff presented a follow-up report with additional information; including
an updated Ord. No. 491, but with two different options for the PC to choose. Option No. 1 does
not make any reference or identification of “self-storage” or similar uses, nor does it have a list of
prohibited uses. Option No. 2 however, did provide a list of prohibited uses, which included
“personal self-storage facility”. The PC eventually determined Option 2 as the preferred choice to
present to the Council. Minutes from that meeting reflect little, if any discussion points on how or
why they chose Option 2 or reasoning for including the list of prohibited uses. The report and
minutes from that meeting are appended as Exhibit C.1 and C.2.
March 3, 2016: City Council takes up the recommendation from the PC on Ord. No. 491 (Option
2). The planner’s report included a statement: “Title 12-1G-2-2 is established. As proposed, most
manufacturing uses would still be allowed under the proposed permitted use category, as long
as they are compliant with the existing definition. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Industrial District be amended to include "prohibited uses." The proposed list came from
reviewing example ordinances, but can certainly be expanded.” As the minutes from the city
council meeting reflect, comments appear to have focused on “trade schools, colleges, and
universities” and “massage therapy services” – but apparently no comments or input on
prohibited uses was given, either to the list itself or to any specific uses. The report and
minutes from that meeting are appended as Exhibits D.1 and D.2 .
On March 3, 2016, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 491, which officially amended Article G.
Industrial District zoning standards, and provided the current list of prohibited uses found under
Title 12-1G-2-2.
Speaking with the former city planner at the time the Industrial District standards and Ordinance 491 were
being researched and considered, he does not recall any discernible comments, objections, or support for
this list of prohibited uses, nor any extended discussion related to personal self-storage uses. For all intents
and purposes, the former staff member suggested he may have simply added another city’s list of prohibited
uses, and offered them up for consideration to the Planning Commission, which was eventually accepted
or made part of the overall recommendations, and later adopted by the City Council.
As for recorded evidence or video of these previous meetings, the city unfortunately retains video records
(CD’s) of all televised meetings for one year (per city retention policies), and Town Square Television does
not retain video of meetings beyond one year as well.
Since there apparently is no “hard proof” or written/recorded evidence of why or how personal self-storage
uses became a prohibited use in the Code, the Planning Commission must decide on whether or not this use
or activity should be removed from the list; and if so, does the Commission support the allowance of such
uses in the community. The draft Ordinance No. 538 (included herein) provides language for such
allowance, but only as a conditional use in the I-Industrial district, with specific certain site standards. The
Commission may choose to accept this draft ordinance as presented, or modify accordingly. Conversely,
page 108
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 3 of 3
if the Commission feels this use should remain a prohibited use or not allowed as this time, a
recommendation of denial is in order, with findings (or statements) supporting such a recommendation.
Please note the Applicants are requesting the commission consider additional information for consideration
in this matter. Included in this report is a narrative, which explains the process for calculating demand and
predicting future demand(s) for self-storage uses in certain markets (see attached Exhibit E).
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
The Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the draft Ordinance No. 538 as presented (or with revisions), which
amends Zoning Code Title 12-1G-2 by adding “Personal self-storage facility” as a conditional use
with certain site standards in the I-Industrial district, and amending Title 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited
Uses by removing “Personal self-storage facility” under said section; or
2. Recommend denial of the requested Zoning Code Amendment, and make no changes to Title 12-
1G-1 (Industrial District) or Title 12-1G-2-2, with findings to support such recommendation; or
3. Table the request, and direct city staff to provide additional information for further consideration
by the Planning Commission, and present this information at the next scheduled Planning
Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Re-open the public hearing; allow for additional public comments as needed; discuss with city staff and/or
the Applicant the request for zoning code amendment; make a motion to either approve the request as
presented by recommending favorably on the draft Ordinance No. 538 as presented herein; or deny the
request with certain findings to support such denial.
If the Planning Commission wishes to delay this matter once again, you should provide reasonable
justifications for tabling, and make a motion accordingly.
Attachments
1) Exhibit –A: 01/04/16 Council Report Memo and 01/04/16 Council Workshop minutes
2) Exhibit –B: 01/26/16 Planning Report and PC Mtg. minutes
3) Exhibit –C: 02/23//16 Planning Report and PC Mtg. minutes
4) Exhibit –D: 03/03/16 Council Report Memo & City Council Mtg. minutes
5) Exhibit –E: Supplemental Narrative from Applicant
6) 01/22/19 Planning Staff Report (Complete) with Draft Ordinance No. 538
page 109
page 110
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
A) PLANNING CASE #2019-01
METRO STORAGE LLC
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TITLE 12-1G-1
Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community Development
Director Tim Benetti reminded the Commission that this was a zoning code amendment from Metro Storage
LLC who were seeking a new ordinance to the industrial category in the Industrial District to allow for
personal self-storage facility. Currently, personal self-storage facilities are considered on a list of prohibited
uses in the Industrial zone. Metro Storage was seeking the opportunity to place a new 80,000 square foot
indoor only self-storage facility in the community. This item was presented at the January 22, 2019 meeting.
With the public hearing, this item was tabled for more information, this is now a continuation of that public
hearing.
The City Code does not identify any allowances for self-storage facilities in either the Business or the
Industrial zone. Under Code 12-1G-2-2, there is a list of prohibited uses and within that list is enclosed
personal self-storage facilities. During the January 22, 2019 the Commission asked how that had become a
part of the prohibited list. During their research, staff discovered and presented the following:
January 4, 2016 – City Council discussed at a workshop meeting the final implementation strategies
of the city’s Industrial District Redevelopment Plan and instructed staff to proceed with exploring
potential revision and additions to the uses.
January 26, 2016 – Draft Ordinance 491 was presented to the Planning Commission with certain
uses added, revised, or struck from the Zoning Code. This matter was tabled in order for staff to
gather additional information.
February 23, 2016 – Follow-up report was presented to the Planning Commission with two different
options for them to choose from. Option 1 did not include a list of prohibited uses; however, Option
2 did – including ‘personal self-storage facility’. No explanation for that decision was evident in
the minutes.
March 3, 2016 – City Council took up the recommendation of the Planning Commission and
adopted Ordinance 491, which officially amended Article G, Industrial District zoning standards
and provided the current list of prohibited uses found under Title 12-1G-2-2
Mr. Benetti continued by stating that he spoke with the former city planner and he did not recall any
discernible comments, objections, or support for the list of prohibited uses. He also noted that recorded
evidence of the meetings have been destroyed, based on the city’s one-year retention policy.
Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development at Metro Storage, LLC 13528 W. Bolton Blvd., Lake
Forest, IL make himself available should the Commission have questions.
Chair Magnuson re-opened the public hearing.
Ms. Belina Reisman, a resident of Mendota Heights, asked if this was to open up the zoning or the ordinance
to this type of business. Chair Magnuson explained that this would be an amendment to Title 12-1G-2 of
the City Code. This amendment would do two things:
1. Delete ‘personal storage facilities’ from the prohibited use provisions
2. It would permit these ‘personal storage facilities’ as a conditional use within the Industrial Zone
only, subject to the criteria that were formally listed
Chair Magnuson continued by noting that the Commission currently does not have a proposal in front of
them for a storage unit and they are not looking at any particular storage unit at this time. The applicant
page 111
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
would like to place a storage unit in the Industrial District, but tonight the Commission is looking only at
the possibility of amending the ordinance to permit that type of personal storage unit to be located within
the Industrial Zone.
Mr. Thomas Smith, Hampshire Drive, expressed his opposition to the idea of providing a conditional use
for the storage facility based the provisions as he understood them; basically a three-story unit. Chair
Magnuson replied that there is not a specific proposal under consideration. The Commission has seen some
schematics provided in terms of the type of facility that they are hoping to propose, with approximately 800
particular storage units within there; however, that is something that has not yet been discussed or proposed,
and the Commission does not have anything like that in front of them.
Mr. Smith stated that if the design ultimately is put before the Commission advocates a three story facility,
he would speak out against it. The current buildings in the Industrial Park are all two story. A three story
facility would be out of character and inappropriate.
Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-01
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 538 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G.
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AS A
CONDITIONAL USE for the following reasons:
1. The Planning Commission feels the proposed Ordinance to amend City Code Title 12-1G-1 and
12-1G-2-2- would be fundamentally at odds with provisions within the Comprehensive Plan, which
speaks of encouraging employment generating uses.
2. The Planning Commission further determines (and based on previous testimony from the
Applicant), that the number of employees who would be associated with such use(s) is minimal
and is not fitting with goals and objectives of the city’s Industrial Park Study from 2016.
3. The Planning Commission feels they have not heard any convincing evidence, justification,
rationale or reasons to alter the list, which was recently presented and adopted by the City Council
establishing the list of prohibited uses, including self-storage uses.
COUNCILMEMBER CORBETT SECONDED THE MOTION
Commissioner Mazzitello reminded the Commission that he brought up at the previous meeting where this
was heard of how some of the past actions Commission and the Council have taken to amend zoning code
with respect to allowed and permitted and conditional uses where they have tailored conditions within the
code specifically to address one site so that the permitted or conditional nature of the use would not be an
prevalent through the entire zoning district. There is not a specific proposal at this time; however, the
applicant has informed the Commission in their narrative letter where they are thinking of developing this
facility. It is a vacant lot on the southeast corner of Northland Drive and Trunk Highway 55. This site has
been vacant since the inception of the Industrial Park (approximately 40 years) and has not been developed.
If there were an employment generating use consistent with the desire of the Comprehensive Plan and the
Industrial Park, that lot would have been built by now.
page 112
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
One of the reasons it has not been developed is access. An employment generating business, use, or activity
is going to have employees/customers/truck traffic challenged to get into and out of the site.
Commissioner Petschel asked for a map view of the area being discussed. He also noted that the
Commission should be very specific and should not consider an individual location. The Commission
should not distract anyone with the notion that they are only considering it on this particular location.
Commissioner Mazzitello concluded that if the Commission were to consider this application in the same
spirit in which they have considered other use changes in the past; such as beekeeping, dog training, vehicles
sales, trampoline park, indoor athletic facilities – the Commission could consider this ordinance with
additional conditions for that in order for a self-storage unit to be eligible for a Conditional Use Permit it
must be abutting a State Trunk Highway and within 1,500 feet of an Interstate. Then there would be only
one site within the Industrial Zone eligible for that Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Noonan asked this wouldn’t be spot zoning, to which Commissioner Mazzitello replied that
it would still be in the Industrial Zone. It would be an Industrial use surrounded by other Industrial uses –
it has been done before.
Commissioner Noonan expressed his disagreement and stated that the way the Commission treated other
zoning applications were on the basis of the merits and the fact in support of the policy. In this case, there
were some fairly substantial hurdles to clear:
1. Contrary policy in the Comprehensive Plan
2. There is a prohibition, which he has not heard a reason why there is merit in terms of eliminating
the prohibition, other than it is a matter of convenience. There was extensive discussion and the
decision made in 2016 was well-reasoned and supported by Council.
He did not want to get caught up in thinking about a location and thinking about the difficulty of this
particular location. If it is difficult for employees and clients, it sure will be difficult for the public pulling
stuff in to provide for storage.
Commissioner Petschel stated that he is sympathetic and cheers argument; he also appreciates and would
like to support the property owners in the Industrial District to maximize the value for their property; if it
is an empty lot that could be best served as a storage facility – great. But then again, he is extremely
sympathetic to the notion that it’s not that lot that he is worried about – it’s when other businesses or other
facilities that do employ people are then converted into storage facilities. He does see them being converted
back into places of greater employment. He is also against the Commission referring where certain
businesses go; no matter that this was a brilliant proposal on how to potentially legally do it. It did not know
if that was a wise venture.
The whole prohibited businesses list is problematic because there are some very clear prohibitions – such
as an asphalt production facility. It still speaks for itself.
Chair Magnuson called for the vote.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 1 (Mazzitello)
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting.
page 113
Planning Report
MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-01
Zoning Code Amendment – Personal Self-Storage Facility Uses in
the I-Industrial Zone
APPLICANT: Metro Storage LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTION DEADLINE: February 25, 2019
INTRODUCTION
The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would
allow “personal self-storage facility” uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial
district. The applicant is Metro Storage LLC (Lake Forest, IL). Metro Storage is seeking the opportunity
to place a new 80,000 sq. ft., indoor only, self-storage facility in the community.
This item (request) was originally introduced at the November 27, 2018 regular meeting, whereby the
applicant’s representatives asked the Planning Commission to provide preliminary feedback and comments
on whether or not such use (indoor self-storage) would be given favorable consideration. The excerpt
minutes from the 11/27/18 meeting are appended to this report for the Commissioner’s review.
This item is being presented under a public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published
in the local Pioneer Press newspaper.
ANALYSIS
City Code does not identify or provide any allowance for a self–storage facility or use in any of the business
districts (B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4), nor the I-Industrial zone. Moreover, Section 12-1G-2-2 provides a list of
prohibited uses within the Industrial zone, and “Personal self-storage facility” is noted as one of these uses.
Zoning Code Sect. 12-1G-1 does allow warehousing as a permitted use in the Industrial zone; with
warehousing defined as follows:
“WAREHOUSING: The storage of materials or equipment within an enclosed building.”
page 114
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 2 of 5
In staff’s professional opinion, “warehousing” [in general] is not the same as self-storage or similar uses,
and should be considered a use or activity limited to or associated with wares, goods and products services
stored or distributed from a permitted use within the district.
A comment made at the 11/27/18 Planning Commission meeting is noted below:
“This type of use would be somewhat inconsistent with the industrial study that the city
commissioned, where they did a look at what the industrial park wanted to be. It is quite clear that
the city desired it to be a robust employment generator that supported the economic development
aspirations of the city. This section in the Comprehensive Plan currently under discussion
certainly supports that notion. A use like this, which one could suggest is rather sterile in the sense
that it does not have a larger plant base or the activity that would be associated with the activity
in the industrial area, would be out of character. That may have been one of the reasons why it
was prohibited originally and has nothing to do with whether the storage is outside or inside.”
The “industrial study” noted above is in reference to the Mendota Heights Industrial District
Redevelopment Plan of 2016. As a follow-up to this comment, staff is presenting an excerpted (reduced)
version of this study, including trends, which are highlighted below:
Trend 1: Large warehousing facilities are needed.
Trend 2: Flexibility is critical.
Trend 3: Sustainability is key.
Trend 4: Telecommuting and transit.
Trend 5: New technology.
Trend 6: Decline and reuse.
The study also provide a list of recommendations, some of which are noted in the partial list below:
1) Keep the area guided and zoned for office, industrial and related uses; don’t make significant
changes that would interfere with its success as a business park.
2) Explore potential revisions or additions to the uses allowed in the park by scrutinizing and
revising if necessary the list of permitted and conditional uses in the zoning code.
10) Stay current on changes in the requirements of industrial and office uses generally and adjust
the city’s policies and regulations as needed to respond to new developments.
11) Promote the opportunity for Industrial land use on the City-owned Bourne Lane site, and only
encourage other uses if the market warrants it.
12) Continue to work cooperatively with Industrial Park owners, managers and tenants to keep the
park successful.
15) Explore ways to communicate, brand, and promote the Industrial District.
As was communicated by staff at the Nov. 27th meeting, there has been a number of inquiries from different
real estate management groups or self-storage user groups (including the applicant) searching for a site
within the City of Mendota Heights. A number of metro cities have embraced or allowed similar indoor
(only) self-storage facilities within their own communities. The following table provides a list of
surrounding communities that allow self-storage, warehousing or similar uses/activities:
page 115
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 3 of 5
METRO-NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES - COMPARISON MATRIX
CITY USE or ACTIVITY PERMITTED or
CONDITIONAL USE
ZONING
Eagan Storage facilities w/n Enclosed
Building
Permitted G-B General Bus. Dist.
West St. Paul Warehousing (enclosed building) Permitted I-1 and I-2 Zones
South St. Paul Warehousing (enclosed building) Permitted
CUP
I-Ind. Dist.
Exterior storage w/ permitted
warehouse use
Inver Grove Heights Self-Storage (mini-storage) CUP B-3 Gen. Business
I-1 Limited Industry
Burnsville Mini-Storage Uses
Permitted B-4 Highway Comm.
I-3 Office-Industrial Park
Warehousing (enclosed building) Permitted Gateway Ind. Heavy;
Gateway Ind. Medium
Blaine Mini-Storage w/o Outdoor Storage CUP
B-2 Community Comm.
B-3 Regional Comm.;
I-1 Light Industrial
I-2 Heavy Industrial
Brooklyn Center Warehousing and Storage (inside) Special Use Permit I-1 Industrial Park
Brooklyn Park Self-Storage facility CUP B-3; B-4; I-Industrial
Cottage Grove Self-Storage Facility CUP B-2 Retail Bus.;
B-3 Gen. Bus.;
P-B Planned Business Park
St. Louis Park Warehousing and Storage Permitted
CUP
Ind. Park Dist.; Gen Industrial Dist.
Business Park Dist.
Apple Valley Self-Storage Facility w/n Enclosed
Building
Permitted GB-General Business
Woodbury Self-storage Use CUP BC-Business Campus Dist.
Of all the communities listed, only one (Cottage Grove) offered the following or added conditions as part
of any self-storage facility use:
page 116
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 4 of 5
Self-storage facilities [Cottage Grove] are subject to the following conditions:
A. Shall not allow maintenance of any vehicles on site, except for minor maintenance such as tire
inflation, adding oil, wiper replacement, and battery replacement.
B. Shall have a security system adequate to limit access to person s renting a storage site.
C. Shall screen all storage, consistent with the requirements of this code.
D. Shall be screened from all public right of way and residential use and/or zone, with an opaque
fence, wall or berm not to exceed eight feet (8') in height, constructed of new materials (chain-
link with slats is not an acceptable screening material), and maintained in good condition.
E. Exterior storage is prohibited.
F. Shall not be located closer than three hundred feet (300') to any residential use and/or zone.
G. All drive aisles and parking surfaces are surfaced with asphalt or concrete.
H. All storage space openings shall be oriented internally to the facility and shall not directly face a
public street or adjoining property.
I. An accessory caretaker residence may be permitted with a storage facility, provided it is only
used for resident security and management purposes and the exterior building materials match
those of the principal and accessory storage facility structures.
J. The hours of operation of the self-service storage facility shall be restricted to between the
hours of six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M.
K. Access to the interior of the fenced area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner
acceptable to the fire marshal.
L. Common parking space available to all storage units shall be provided at a rate no less than one
space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. (Ord. 904, 5 -16-2012
As the Commission can see, the matrix identifies a number of cities that allow indoor warehousing and self-
storage uses in the commercial / business districts only, the industrial districts only; or a combination of
both business/industrial zones. The matrix also shows the ratio of cities that allow storage type uses is
almost 50/50 as either a permitted use vs. conditional use in the respective cities.
At the Nov. 27th meeting discussion, it appears some Commissioners would consider or support such uses,
but only in the I-Industrial district, and with certain or special conditions. Staff has prepared a draft
ordinance for the Commission to consider, which would allow such use, along with some suggested
conditions (modified from Cottage Grove’s ordinance). T he Commission may choose to add or modify
these conditions accordingly.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
The Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the requested Zoning Code Amendment by removing “Personal self-
storage facility” under City Code Section 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited Uses; and amend Section 12-1G-1
or 12-1G-2 by adding “Personal self-storage facility” as either a permitted use or conditional use
in the I-Industrial district; or
page 117
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 5 of 5
2. Recommend denial of the requested Zoning Code Amendment to remove “Personal self-storage
facility” under City Code Section 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited Uses; and make no amendments to Section
12-1G-1, with certain findings; or
3. Table the request, and direct city staff to seek and provide additional information for further
consideration by the Planning Commission, and present such information at the next scheduled
Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing; allow for public comments; and discuss with city staff and/or the Applicant the
request for zoning code amendment.
Following the public hearing, it is recommended the Planning Commission consider recommending
approval of the requested Zoning Code Amendment by removing “Personal self-storage facility” under City
Code Section 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited Uses; and amend Section 12-1G-2 by adding “Personal self-storage
facility” as a conditional use in the I-Industrial district, with certain condition as presented under the draft
Ordinance No. 538, presented and attached hereto.
Attachments
1) Draft Ordinance No. 538
2) 11/27/18 Planning Commission meeting minutes (excerpts)
3) MH Industrial District Redevelopment Plan of 2016
4) Proposed Self Storage Development Concept Plans and Information
page 118
Metro Self Storage – Mendota Heights, Minnesota
An important indicator for calculating existing demand and predicting future demand for self‐storage
product in various submarkets is to utilize the supply ratio. The supply ratio is calculated by taking all
rentable square footage (“RSF”) within the market (typically, a 3 mile radius surrounding the subject
property is used) and dividing it by the total population in that same trade area. In the trade area
surrounding Metro’s proposed subject property, there are three self‐storage competitors within a 3 mile
radius:
1. Acorn Mini Storage
2935 Lexington Ave S., Saint Paul, MN 55121
2. Beyond Self Storage
3100 Courthouse Lane, Eagan, MN 55121
3. Town Centre Self Storage
3495 Denmark Ave, Eagan, MN 55123
In total, these three facilities offer approximately 216,590 RSF to the marketplace. Given that the total
population is 35,826 in the same trade area, the existing supply ratio is 6.0 RSF / Person:
(216,590 RSF / 35,826 People) = 6.0 RSF / Person
This is a useful formula for calculating demand in the trade area as that specific market is currently
constructed. However, when proposing to develop a new facility in a market, it is also important to
quantify how the market will be impacted by additional self‐storage product offered from the new facility.
Since Metro’s proposed project would feature approximately 80,000 RSF, the proposed supply ratio would
be 8.3 RSF / Person:
(296,590 RSF / 35,826 People) = 8.3 RSF / Person
To offer some perspective, Metro typically views a supply ratio anywhere in the 6‐10 RSF range as the
“sweet spot” for a high‐end, suburban market such as Mendota Heights. Both the pre‐ and post‐ Metro
project supply ratios indicate that the market is undersupplied. Therefore, given the strong physical
occupancies of the existing stabilized self‐storage operators in the trade area (approximately 90‐95%) and
the very healthy supply ratios (both excluding and including the proposed subject facility), Metro is
confident that the market will adequately absorb this additional Class‐A self‐storage product.
In addition to these factors, the average household income in the surrounding market is very strong at
$110,000‐120,000, which will lead to a customer base that will utilize the storage facility products
(premium climate controlled and merchandise).
page 119
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2019
TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-18 [either] Denying or Approving a Lot Line Adjustment with
Variance for property located at 1840 Hunter Lane (Planning Case No. 2019-03
Introduction
The City Council is asked to consider adopting one of two draft resolutions contained in this packet, one of
which affirms the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the lot line adjustment with variance
request for property located at 1840 Hunter Lane; or one that approves the request with amended findings
supporting said approvals.
Background
Julia Weisbecker is requesting a lot line adjustment for one of two parcels located at 1840 Hunter Lane.
Related to this lot adjustment, Ms. Weisbecker is requesting a variance to permit a portion of a lot to have
lesser street width/frontage as required by City Code.
The two parcels are located between 1836 and 1850 Hunter Lane, and are identified by Dakota County
Assessor as two separate parcels of record. The westerly parcel (PID # 27-02700-08-032) is a vacant,
square-shaped lot 127’ x 171’ with 22,390 sf. of area. The easterly parcel (PID # 27-02700-08-040) is a
similar shaped lot of 130’ x 171’ and 25,783 sf. of area.
Ms. Weisbecker is selling-off the easterly parcel with the single-family dwelling, and intends to sell the
westerly parcel separately for future residential development. Since these parcels are considered by City
Code to be “Existing Lots of Record”, they can legally be owned and developed separately. The new owner
of 1840 Hunter Lane has requested that instead of accessing the easterly lot through an easement right (over
the westerly parcel), he wants to secure a 24-ft, wide permanent (fee title) strip of land for the access.
The proposed lot line adjustment would take place on the westerly parcel, which would create a 24-ft. wide
strip of land. The strip would then be added or combined with the easterly parcel, thus creating a flag-lot
configuration when completed. This strip does not meet the 100-ft. lot width or street frontage standard
required under the R-1 Zone standards, thus the variance was needed.
At the February 26, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this item; and
a public hearing was conducted. Comments from the public were received and made part of the meeting
minutes. A copy of the 02/26/2019 Planning Staff Report, with site plans and building elevation plans, and
the Planning Commission meeting minutes (excerpts) are all appended to this memo report.
page 120
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (7-0 vote) to deny the Lot Line Adjustment
and Variance request from Julia Weisbecker, based on the following findings of facts:
1. The applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite practical difficulties in order
to justify Variance (for reduced lot frontage); and
2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty.
Action Required
If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO.
2019-18 DENYING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1840 HUNTER LANE.
If the City Council wishes to reverse this recommendation, you may make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 2019-18 APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1840 HUNTER LANE, based on amended findings of fact supporting such
approval, as noted therein.
Either action to approve one of the two resolutions requires a simple majority vote.
page 121
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019-18
RESOLUTION DENYING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH VARIANCE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1840 HUNTER LANE
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-03)
WHEREAS, Julia Weisbecker (the “Applicant”) has applied for a lot line adjustment with
variance, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-03 for the two parcels located at 1840 Hunter
Lane (the “Subject Properties”), and legally described on attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Properties are both guided LR-Low Density Residential in the
2030 Comprehensive Plan and are located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, Title 11-1-5C of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations) allows for the
readjustment of lot lines between or within legal parcels of records, provided the resulting lots are
compliant with the requirements of the applicable and underlying zoning district; and
WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant
variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code,
and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and
WHEREAS, the Applicant seeks to adjust and realign the southerly boundary line of the
unassigned westerly parcel (PID No. 270270008032) which creates an approximate 24-foot wide
strip of land, that would be created for the purpose of providing a dedicated fee title access strip to
the easterly parcel at 1840 Hunter Lane (PID No. 270270008040) as described and illustrated on
the attached surveys of Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code, the Applicant seeks a variance to
allow the access strip to have less than the 100-foot roadway frontage width standard, as required
under the R-1 District regulations; and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a
public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this
item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote)
to deny the request for Lot Line Adjustment with Variance, with certain findings of fact to support
such denial.
page 122
Res 2019-18 Page 2
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
Lot Line Adjustment with Variance as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-03 are both hereby
denied, with the following findings of fact:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from
the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are
“practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code.
“Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use
the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the
plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute
“practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical
difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the variance for reduced lot frontage.
The creation of a flag lot is not a reasonable use of the property, especially when
both the unassigned parcel and the 1840 Hunter Lane parcel are currently under
common ownership. The Applicant is able to meet the 100-foot roadway frontage
width standard by simply combining the unassigned parcel and the 1840 Hunter
Lane parcel into one property. Alternatively, the Applicant could continue to use
the private easement on the southern edge of the properties for access to the 1840
Hunter Lane parcel. The convenience to the Applicant and subsequent owners of
the property to realize fee title ownership of access to the 1840 Hunter Lane parcel
does not outweigh the unreasonable reorganization of the property into a flag lot.
C. Because the Council finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use
of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the Council need not consider the
remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and
essential character of the neighborhood).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line
Adjustment with Variance for the properties located at 1840 Hunter Lane, and as proposed under
Planning Case No. 2019-03, are hereby denied.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 19th day of March, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 123
EXHIBIT A
page 124
EXHIBIT B
page 125
Res 2019-18 Page 6
page 126
Res 2019-18 Page 7
page 127
Res 2019-18 Page 8
page 128
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019-18
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH VARIANCE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1840 HUNTER LANE
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-03)
WHEREAS, Julia Weisbecker (the “Applicant”) has applied for a lot line adjustment with
variance, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-03 for the two parcels located at 1840 Hunter
Lane (the “Subject Properties”), and legally described on attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Properties are both guided LR-Low Density Residential in the
2030 Comprehensive Plan and are located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, Title 11-1-5C of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations) allows for the
readjustment of lot lines between or within legal parcels of records, provided the resulting lots are
compliant with the requirements of the applicable and underlying zoning district; and
WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant
variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code,
and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and
WHEREAS, the Applicant seeks to adjust and realign the southerly boundary line of the
unassigned westerly parcel (PID No. 270270008032) which creates an approximate 24-foot wide
strip of land, that would be created for the purpose of providing a dedicated fee title access strip to
the easterly parcel at 1840 Hunter Lane (PID No. 270270008040) as described and illustrated on
the attached surveys of Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code, the Applicant seeks a variance to
allow the access strip to have less than the 100-foot roadway frontage width standard, as required
under the R-1 District regulations; and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a
public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this
item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote)
to deny the request for Lot Line Adjustment with Variance, with certain findings of fact to support
such denial.
[25373-33238/2528524/1] Res 2018-
47 Page 2
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
Lot Line Adjustment with Variance as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-03 are both hereby
approved, with the following findings of fact:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from
the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are
“practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code.
“Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use
the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the
plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute
“practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical
difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for reduced lot frontage.
First, providing for ingress and egress to residential properties is foundational for
every property owner, and the Applicant is simply ensuring that stable, fee title
access will permanently exist for the 1840 Hunter Lane parcel. This is a reasonable
use of the property. Second, these are unique properties, as at some point in the
past they were subdivided into two distinct and buildable parcels, despite the lack
of frontage for the 1840 Hunter Lane parcel. The City likely approved this split,
either through City Council action or through an administrative subdivision. Third,
approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the
neighborhood, as this residential area will not be affected by the approval of the
Variance. Finally, the reason for the Variance request is to create fee title access to
the easterly parcel, which is not solely an economic consideration.
C. The Council has additionally considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of
the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public
safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the
Comprehensive Plan.
D. Approval of the Variance is for the 1840 Hunter Lane properties only, and does not
apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All
variance applicants must fill out an application and provide a project narrative to
the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently
by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code.
E. The Council may place conditions upon the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance.
Variance conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the
impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows:
i. The Applicant shall combine and attach the new access strip parcel to be
created under the Lot Line Adjustment to the easterly parcel (PID # 27-
02700-08-040).
[25373-33238/2528524/1] Res 2018-
47 Page 3
ii. The Applicant must provide proof of a private easement for driveway
purposes from the owners of 1850 Hunter Lane (to the south).
iii. Should the new owner(s) or any subsequent owner(s) of 1840 Hunter Lane
ever decide to reconstruct the driveway leading back to the property, it must
be re-centered and placed within the approximate 20-foot wide access strip.
iv. All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the
Lot Line Adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota
County. The Applicant shall pay all recording fees.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line
Adjustment with Variance for the properties located at 1840 Hunter Lane, and as proposed under
Planning Case No. 2019-03, are hereby approved.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 19th day of March, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
page 132
page 133
page 134
page 135
Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 1 of 6
Planning Report
DATE: February 26, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-03
Lot Line Adjustment and Variance
APPLICANT: Julia Weisbecker
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1840 Hunter Lane
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: May 28, 2019 (120-days per MN State Statute § 462.358 – subdivisions)
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Ms. Julia Weisbecker is requesting a lot line adjustment for one of two parcels located at 1840 Hunter Lane.
Related to this lot adjustment, Ms. Weisbecker also requests a variance to permit a portion of a lot to have
lesser street width/frontage as required by City Code. In essence, to allow a flag lot.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-
feet of the subject property. Staff has not received any comments or objections related to this item.
BACKGROUND
Both parcels are located between the properties of 1836 and 1850 Hunter Lane, and are identified by Dakota
County Assessor as two separate tax identified parcels (see GIS image – below).
page 136
Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 2 of 6
Staff was unable to determine when, how or why these two parcels were separated in the first place. It
appears over the course of time, the former owners of these two properties sold or transferred them as one
combined property. The properties to the north of the subject property were platted in Celia’s Addition in
1989; and the properties to the south were platted into Sun View Hills Addition in 1977. The families that
previously owned 1840 Hunter Lane apparently did not plat or become part of either plat on each side, and
they remain unplatted, separate parcels to this day.
The westerly parcel (PID # 27-02700-08-032 – outlined in RED below) is a vacant, square-shaped lot, 127-
ft. wide by 171-ft. deep, with 22,390 sq. ft. of area. The easterly parcel (PID # 27-02700-08-040 - outlined
in BLUE below) is a similar square shaped lot, but 130-ft. wide by 171-ft. deep, with 25,783 sq. ft. of area.
The east parcel contains a 3,745 sf. dwelling (built in 1950), which has a single -lane bituminous driveway
that leads out on to Hunter Lane across the southern part of the westerly parcel. The survey reveals that an
existing 15-ft. wide Ingress/Egress Easement is present along the south edge of this westerly parcel, but the
physical driveway does not come close to being centered or located inside this easement space, and veers
off more to the south when travelling easterly and back towards the east parcel.
The survey also reveals this driveway encroaches slightly over the northerly property line of 1850 Hunter
Lane (to the south). The owners of 1850 Hunter Lane have stated they do not wish to participate in a similar
lot line adjustment on their private land, nor grant any permanent land rights in order to eliminate this
encroachment (due to current mortgage and other legal/title issues). However, this neighbor has agreed to
provide a 5-foot easement for driveway purposes on this northerly notched segment of their land, which
will go to the benefit of the new owner at 1840 Hunter Lane.
Today, Ms. Weisbecker seeks to sell the easterly parcel with the single-family dwelling on its own; and
sell-off the westerly parcel separately for future residential development. Since these parcels are considered
by City Code to be “Existing Lots of Record”, they can legally be owned and developed individually. The
problem exists however, that once the westerly parcel is sold off, and different ownership takes control of
each parcel, the easterly parcel potentially loses its legal access rights over and across the west parcel , as it
exists today. The new owner of 1840 Hunter Lane has requested that instead of securing an easement right
over the westerly parcel for the driveway access, he is requesting a more permanent solution.
page 137
Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 3 of 6
The lot line adjustment will take place only on the westerly (unassigned) parcel. The adjustment creates a
20.18-ft. to 23.51 ft. wide parcel strip along the south edge of this westerly parcel, which parcel will then
be combined to the easterly parcel for a new permanent (fee title) access strip for the easterly 1840 Hunter
Lane parcel (see close-up image – below).
Once this strip parcel has been created and is combined or added to the east parcel, it essentially creates a
“flag-lot” design, which is something the city allowed at one time (as evident throughout the city), but no
longer. City Code requires that all single-family parcels have at least 100-feet (lot width) along a public
roadway frontage. To accommodate the new owner’s request for a permanent access/driveway strip, M s.
Weisbecker seeks a variance to the 100-foot wide standard as part of this lot line adjustment.
ANALYSIS
Lot Line Adjustment
City Code Title 11 - Subdivision Regulations, Section 11-1-5 allows the subdivision of parcels through a
lot line adjustment, provided the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot and
the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with
this title or the zoning ordinance.
In most cases of lot line adjustments, two property owners typically work out an agreement for one to secure
added legal rights to another neighboring owner property, usually a side-yard or rear-yard area. This case
is somewhat unusual, in that the adjustment creates or leaves a narrow strip, which is then intended to be
combined to the land-locked property to the rear.
As noted previously and as illustrated on the Applicant’s survey, the adjustment creates a new “access strip”
20.18-ft. wide along Hunter Lane, which tapers out slightly to 23.51-ft. wide on the back end and abuts to
the easterly parcel. This results in the westerly parcel having 107-ft. of frontage along Hunter Lane and
171.25-ft. of depth. The survey also illustrates the far west edge of the westerly parcel legally extends out
into Hunter Lane ROW; and the Applicant is proposing to dedicate a 14-ft. even strip of land to the City of
Mendota Heights for permanent road ROW, thereby reducing the lot width to 157.25 ft. The west parcel is
then left with 16,825 sf. of land area for development. The width and area still keep the adjusted westerly
lot legal and conforming to City Code (R-1 One Family Zone) standards.
page 138
Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 4 of 6
Variance
As noted previously, as a result of this lot line adjustment, an approximate 20+ ft. wide strip parcel will be
created and combined with the easterly land-locked parcel, thereby creating a new “flag-lot” design. City
Code requires that all single-family parcels have at least 100-feet (lot width) along a public roadway
frontage.
When considering a variance for the proposed lot line adjustment request, the City is required to consider
an Applicant’s response to certain questions, and carefully weigh certain findings as they apply to these
standards. As part of the variance application, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own
responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text):
1. Is this request in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and
comprehensive plan; and are there any “practical difficulties” in connection with the variance;
meaning does the property owner propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by this chapter?
Ms. Weisbecker proposal will continue to facilitate use of the property in a reasonable manner because
its use as a residential lot will not change. The property is zoned R-l, which allows for single family
dwellings. There is currently a single family dwelling located on the property and the property will
continue to be used as a single family dwelling. If a variance is not granted, the property will not have
unambiguous, permanent access, will be unmarketable and cannot be put to any reasonable use.
2. Due to the nature of this variance request, is the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner? .
If the variance is not granted, 1840 Hunter Lane will be effectively land locked due to circumstances
beyond Weisbecker's control. The lot split which created the unassigned parcel, thereby extinguishing
access to 1840 Hunter Lane, was approved by the City before the ordinance prohibiting "flag lots" was
passed. At the time of the approval of the lot split, the City approved the unassigned lot as a separate,
buildable lot from 1840 Hunter Lane. If the variance is not granted, the lot split approved by the City
will be effectively nullified.
3. Would the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
If the lot split, combination of parcels and variance are granted, both 1840 Hunter Lane and the
unassigned parcel will fit with the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is zoned R-l and
consists of single family dwellings. There is an existing single family dwelling on 1840 Hunter Lane
and Weisbecker expects to sell the unassigned parcel to be developed as a single family dwelling. In
addition, there are at least two "flag lots" currently in the neighborhood at 1827 Hunter Lane and 1889
Hunter Lane.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment with the requested variance for reduced lot width
standard, based on the attached findings of fact with conditions; or
2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment and variance based on amended findings of fact that
the proposed lot line adjustment and variance are not consistent with the City Code, Comprehensive
Plan or other justifiable and stated reasons: or
3. Table the applications, pending additional information from city staff or the Applicant.
page 139
Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 5 of 6
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested lot line adjustment and variance, based on the attached findings
of fact and with the following conditions:
1) The Applicant shall combine and attach the new access strip parcel to be created under the lot line
adjustment to the easterly parcel (PID # 27-02700-08-040).
2) The Applicant must provide proof of a private easement for driveway purposes from the owners of
1850 Hunter Lane (to the south).
3) Should the new owner(s) of 1840 Hunter Lane ever decide to reconstruct the driveway leading back
to the property, it must be re-centered and placed within the approximate 20-ft. wide access strip.
4) All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and
lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Location/Site Map
2. Letter of Intent from Homeowners
3. Planning Application w/ Variance Responses (from homeowners)
4. Surveys with Legal Descriptions
page 140
Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 6 of 6
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment & Variance
1840 Hunter Lane
Planning Case No. 2019-03
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and
Variance requests:
1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the City
Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of the request is to provide a permanent (fee title) access right to the easterly parcel,
which will better serve said parcel instead of an easement right.
3. The existing conditions of the two parcels, with one essentially being land-locked, was not created
by the current property owners; and this lot adjustment and variance to lot width standards is a
reasonable request, the issue of the land-locked parcel does create some practical difficulty in
providing legal access rights to the site; and the requests do not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
page 141
6 66666666666
6666666666666666666666
66
6 6
³³³³!
³
³
³
³
"""
"
"
""66666666 6 666666666!!2 !!2 !!2
!!2 111110221171157
150149136
131130129141
84
11575
455
408
155
10060
139
194
404
30 23124
20185175916
90185150100
13120157
171
15730
100100
171
157 301851140
1850
1154
1840
1830
1836
1835
1845
1831
1855
1175 1151
1819
1155
1827
1145
11451171
HUNTER LNORCHARD PL
375'250'237'269'138'
Dakota County GIS
1840 Hunter Lane(J. Weisbecker Properties)City ofMendotaHeights080
SCALE IN FEETDate: 1/22/2019
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
page 142
January 23, 2019
LETTER OF INTENT
City of Mendota Heights
e 1101 Victoria Curv
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
ttn: Tim Benetti A
timb@mendota‐heights.com
e: nce Request R Lot Split/Property Co
1840 Hunter Lane, Me
File No.: 6639‐2
mbination and Varia
ndota Heights, MN
Our
Dear Tim:
Julia Weisbecker owns 1840 Hunter Lane, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 and an unassigned
parcel immediately West of 1840 Hunter Lane and adjacent to Hunter Lane (referred to
hereinafter as the “Unassigned Parcel”). The Unassigned Parcel was the result of a lot split
approved by the City prior to Ms. Weisbecker’s ownership of the property. Ms. Weisbecker
recently entered into a purchase agreement to sell 1840 Hunter Lane. She will continue to
own the Unassigned Parcel and expects to sell the unassigned parcel for development as a
single‐family, detached dwelling.
A recent survey has disclosed that there is an approximate three (3) foot gap between 1840
Hunter Lane and 1850 Hunter Lane and also between the Unassigned Parcel and 1850
Hunter Lane. Ms. Weisbecker is in the process of commencing a quiet title action to
eliminate the gap(s) and establish ownership of the gap property. The relief being
requested in the quiet title action is that Ms. Weisbecker be declared the owner of the gap
between the Unassigned Parcel and 1850 Hunter Lane and the owners of 1850 Hunter Lane
be declared the owners of the gap between their property and 1840 Hunter Lane.
Contingent on final judgment being entered in the quiet title action, Ms. Weisbecker is
requesting a lot split of the Unassigned Parcel, severing the south 24 feet (approximately)
of said parcel. The parcel that is severed will be conveyed to the purchaser of 1840 Hunter
Lane and combined with 1840 Hunter Lane. The lot split and combination with 1840
Hunter Lane is requested to provide unambiguous, permanent access to 1840 Hunter Lane.
In connection with the lot split and combination with 1840 Hunter Lane, Ms. Weisbecker is
also requesting a variance for 1840 Hunter Lane from the City’s zoning ordinances, which
page 143
City of Mendota Heights
January 23, 2019
Pg. 2
require properties located within the R1 zoning district to have front yard lots 100 feet
wide and prohibiting “flag lots.”
If Ms. Weisbecker’s request for a lot split/combination of property and variance is denied,
the lot split approved by the City which created the Unassigned Parcel, and which was
elied upon by Weisbeceker, will effectively be nullified and 1840 Hunter lane will be r
unmarketable.
The survey referenced above also shows that the West boundary line of the Unassigned
Parcel extends to the center line of Hunter Lane. There is no easement of record for Hunter
Lane over the Unassigned Parcel. In connection with the request for a lot split/combination
nd variance, Ms. Weisbecker is willing to assist the City in resolving this issue by granting
ed Parcel for Hunter Lane.
a
an easement over the Unassign
nclose p
E
d lease the following:
1.Planning Application;
Application;
Application; and
2. Lot Split
3.Variance
4. Survey.
Ms. Weisbecker will submit the required fees under separate cover. Please contact Ms.
eisbecker directly or through her real estate agent, Paul Dorn, with regard to payment of W
the fees.
f you require additional information or have any questions, please contact Mike Orme or
igned. Thank you for your assistance.
I
the unders
Sincerely,
ana K. Nyquist
t@ormelaw.com
D
dnyquis
DKN
c: ‐mail)
:jlf
C Julia Weisbecker (via e
Paul Dorn (via e‐mail)
page 144
EXHIBIT A
1. Ms. Weisbecker's proposal will continue to facilitate use of the property in a
reasonable manner because its use as a residential lot will not change. The property is
zoned Rl, which allows for single family dwellings. There is currently a single family
dwelling located on the property and the property will continue to be used as a single
family dwelling. If a variance is not granted, the property will not have unambiguous,
permanent access, will be unmarketable and cannot be put to any reasonable use.
2. If the variance is not granted, 1840 Hunter Lane will be effectively land
locked due to circumstances beyond Weisbecker's control. The lot split which created the
unassigned parcel, thereby extinguishing access to 1840 Hunter Lane, was approved by the
City before the ordinance prohibiting "flag lots" was passed. At the time of the approval of
the lot split, the City approved the unassigned lot as a separate, buildable lot from 1840
Hunter Lane. If the variance is not granted, the lot split approved by the City will be
effectively nullified.
3. If the lot split, combination of parcels and variance are granted, both 1840
Hunter Lane and the unassigned parcel will fit with the character of the neighborhood. The
neighborhood is zoned Rl and consists of single family dwellings. There is an existing
single family dwelling on 1840 Hunter Lane and Wisebecker expects to sell the unassigned
parcel to be developed as a single family dwelling. In addition, there are at least two "flag
lots" currently in the neighborhood at 1827 Hunter Lane and 1889 Hunter Lane.
page 145
EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
C) PLANNING CASE #2019-03
JULIE WEISBECKER, 1840 HUNTER LANE
LOT ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE
Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community Development
Director Tim Benetti explained that Ms. Julia Weisbecker, 1840 Hunter Lane, was seeking a Lot Line
Adjustment and Variance for one of two parcels that she owns. This item was presented under a public
hearing, all people within 350 feet of the subject property were mailed notices and no comments or
objections have been received.
The west parcel is 127’ x 171’ or approximately 22,390 square feet. The east parcel is 130’ x 171’ or
approximately 25,783 square feet. The east lot contains a 3,745 square foot dwelling, which has a single-
lane bituminous driveway from Hunter Lane. These are two legal parcels of record. The packet of
information received by the Commission included four surveys.
The first survey deals with a quiet title action because there is a 3.5’ gap between the 1840 parcels and the
1850 parcel to the south. The quiet title action is to work on the agreement between property owners when
there is a discrepancy or dispute between property lines. This was discovered when the new surveys were
called for on this property.
Eventually, the east parcel will contain the 3,700 square foot home. There is a driveway that comes off the
rear of the parcel from Hunter and slightly veers off into the 1850 property as well. The west parcel is
designed for a future home pad; however, one has not been approved on that site. They are filling in the site
as approved as part of the separate grading permit by Ms. Weisbecker from the City Council.
The lot line adjustment was simply asking to adjust the south line by approximately 24 feet. The reason is
that the new homeowner of 1840 Hunter wanted to make sure that, in order to avoid any easement rights or
disputes in the future, he requested that he be able to have a fee title strip that would be affixed to the back
parcel for the driveway or access easement. They also need to provide for a little additional easement to
make sure that the encroaching driveway will be taken care of in the future.
It is only an approximately 5’ easement on the south side; if this driveway ever has to be fixed, repaired, or
reconstructed staff has asked for a condition that it has to be put back into the easement area.
Once they affix the 24’ foot strip, it would create a flag-lot, which is something the city no longer allows.
City Code requires that all single-family parcels have at least 100-feet along a public roadway frontage. To
accommodate the new owner’s request for a permanent access/driveway strip, Ms. Weisbecker seeks a
variance to the 100-foot wide standard as part of this lot line adjustment.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the criteria that must be considered when reviewing a variance request and responses
were provided by the applicant to assist the Commission in determining if a Variance is warranted in this
case.
Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions.
Commissioner Noonan noted that staff reported that the city does not allow flag-lots and asked if that was
outright prohibition in ordinance. Mr. Benetti replied that by default it is because every new developable
lot created has to have at least 100-feet of frontage on a city street. By affixing this parcel to the back of the
lot, it would not meet the 100-foot frontage requirement.
page 146
EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
Commissioner Noonan noted that the lot at 1840 Hunter has the required frontage. Mr. Benetti replied that
it does not have the required frontage. It does not have any frontage. They are trying to fix their land-locked
situation by adding this strip. Eventually, they would be dedicating the 14-feet of the westerly area to the
city as part of the additional Hunter Lane right-of-way. Commissioner Noonan then asked why the current
flag-lot configuration considered a non-conforming use. Mr. Benetti replied that it is a legal lot of record
and he was not sure if it could be called a legal non-conforming lot. It is a legal non-conforming, but not a
legal non-conforming use.
Commissioner Petschel asked for confirmation that staff was unable to find any records that allowed for
this split. Mr. Benetti replied that he went back and was able to find previous owner names, but was unable
to find anything. He believed this could have been corrected had the former owners joined in with the plats
to the north or to the south. Unfortunately, they never did.
By the city’s code and definitions, these are considered legal lots of record and they can be developed per
the city’s code.
Commissioner Corbett asked if they intended to develop the western lot, thus creating the hardship. Mr.
Benetti replied that there is no hardship because Ms. Weisbecker wanted to leave things the way they are.
There is a reasonable requirement to developing the lot. Any correction would be adjoining the lots and
combining them into one; that would make it conforming. The new buyer of 1840 Hunter is simply asking
for their own fee title strip because they recognize that access easements can get flakey over time. He would
prefer to have his own fee title strip.
Commissioner Petschel asked if someone came to the Commission with an elongated lot with a house in
the back, would the Commission allow them to split their lot like this. The reply was a resounding negative.
Commissioner Petschel continued by saying that the only enabling condition that allows this even be
considered is the fact that it is already split. Mr. Benetti confirmed.
Commissioner Noonan then commented that the owner of the front lot could come in and ask for a building
permit and get it as of right now. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was true. Commissioner Noonan continued
by stating that the only reason there is an application now is for the desire to have fee title to a driveway,
rather than doing a real estate transaction whereby the front gives an easement to the back. Mr. Benetti
confirmed. As of right now, Ms. Weisbecker owns both lots. Pretty soon there will be two different
ownerships involved. The new owner of the back parcel, 1840 Hunter, has a personal and legal desire to
secure their own rights to that driveway and not subject to any easement rights.
Chair Magnuson asked for confirmation that there is currently an easement of record there. Mr. Benetti
confirmed. She continued by noting that the driveway does not follow the easement of record, but it does
exist – so there is an access point. If that easement were simply continued or widened through another
easement of record, there would not be any land lock issue; this is a preference for the new owner but not
something that is necessary absolutely in order to create access to Hunter Lane. Mr. Benetti confirmed.
Commissioner Corbett noted that starting at 1850 Hunter and heading closer towards Highway 62, all of
those lots are basically the same size. He asked this there was any way that those lots could be split up in
the same way. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative, unless they had at least a minimum of 100 feet of frontage;
however, splitting them like this would probably be next to impossible because every newly created lot has
to have at least 100 feet of frontage onto Hunter or the next road.
However, per Commissioner Mazzitello, they could ask for a variance and split off the front portion of their
lots and this could take place down Hunter Lane. Mr. Benetti confirmed.
page 147
EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
Commissioner Noonan stated that approving this request could provide a precedence to guide future actions,
potentially. Commissioner Petschel stated that he thought this was predicated as a fact that the lot was
already split and that no one could come forward and try to do a front/back split and get approval. He asked
if this was setting a precedence or just recognizing a unique situation.
Commissioner Katz raised the concern of there is going to be a cul-de-sac coming in through the backside
of the lot the house is on and some of the lots on that side are still for sale. He then asked, in theory, if
someone could ask for a variance to connect Hunter Lane to whatever that new cul-de-sac is going to be
called, and then there would be a new road between them. Then there would be two houses where there is
currently just one and then may be another road that goes back through to this cul-de-sac and dividing that
neighborhood even more into more segmented lots and connects them all. Mr. Benetti replied that, in theory,
this could occur; however, he does not foresee that ever happening.
Chair Magnuson stated that she was unsure how these properties ended up how they were; however, this is
not the only property like this on Hunter Lane. Across the street is another home that has two lots back-to-
back. Conceivably, the Commission would be setting precedence.
Mr. Benetti echoed Commissioner Petschel’s comments about not being too worried about setting a
precedent because Variances have to stand on their own merit and their own test as they are presented. The
Commission would have the choice to say yes or no and make recommendations.
Commissioner Toth, referring to the term flag-lot, noted that they were allowed in Mendota Heights in the
past, but no longer. He asked why the city make the decision to not allow flag-lots within the city. Mr.
Benetti replied that he was unsure, but believed that it was more of a preferred choice not to have homes
set behind homes and set behind homes; a decision made 15+ years ago.
Ms. Julie Weisbecker expressed her appreciation to the Commission for considering her application. She
shared a non-legal document that she received from the previous owner stating that this split occurred
sometime around 1967.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Mr. Charles Campion, 1836 Hunter Lane, has lived in the area for approximately 23 years and does not
remember this lot being split. He understood that they are two lots of record; however, they were always
presented to him as one lot.
He remembered going through the process of having the buggy trail removed between his lot and this before
he could build. This whole two lot discussion has hit him by surprise. He woke up one day and they were
digging dirt on the lot. He called the city right away and they came and put a stop to it. This does not comply
with the rest of the lots in the neighborhood. There are other lots in the area that there are houses behind it,
but they are larger lots than this. By moving and giving this Variance, he believed would set a precedence
in the neighborhood to do this more.
There has never been any conversation on how they are going to fill in between the houses. A developer
bought some lots down the road and he is also involved in this one. He started bringing the dirt over from
down the street and dumping onto this lot. This has been a sore spot for them since the beginning and he
does not agree with it.
Mr. Paul Dorn, 1129 Orchard Circle, was the agent of record when this lot was purchased by the
Weisbecker’s approximately 10 years ago. He is working with Ms. Weisbecker now through this process.
He noted that there would be a house built on the vacant no matter what the decision is on the Variance. In
page 148
EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
his experience, if this were reversed and the house was sitting in front and they were trying to gain access
to something behind, that would be different. However, they are already have a house of record, have a
legal platted lot in front that has the frontage and meets the requirements. From the standpoint of the fee
simple versus the easement, the benefit of the fee simple is, especially for mortgage companies, etc., it
creates a much cleaner ability for title and to be able to get a mortgage on the property. This is the cleanest
way for the city to be able to grant something that is a very unique and is not setting a precedence.
During this process, they have discovered that the properties to the north and to the south have drainage
easements running through this property. They worked with Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek on making
sure that they now grant, behind were the proposed house would be on the front lot, a drainage easement
also to make sure that the drainage is going to be beneficial and not create another problem that way. The
homeowner has been willing to make sure they work with that as well as granting that right-of-way
easement in front.
Upon request, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek shared the locations of the drainage easements as well
as other easements.
Commissioner Toth, noting that he drove by the property and noticed quite a bit of fill, expressed his
concerns about drainage from there. He asked how that would be managed due to the increase in elevation
due to the fill. Mr. Dorn replied that they have been working with the public works department on this for
a number of months and they have tried to adhere to everything the engineer has requested.
Commissioner Petschel asked for an explanation of how this Variance request due to a practical difficulty.
Mr. Dorn replied that the Variance would create a cleaner title for the future property owner and for the
property owners to the south. Leaving the easement as is would create a huge lift potentially as far they are
going to support this, and could potentially hamper any future mortgage negotiations.
Chair Magnuson asked rather than overcomplicating this with another easement for the people on the south,
why weren’t they taking this opportunity to clean up that encroachment and move the driveway into the
property line and make it then complying rather than having the owners to the south have to grant an
easement for some indeterminate period of time. This would be a good opportunity to fix that encroachment.
Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson asked for confirmation that if the Commission denied the Variance request, they would
not be creating a landlocked parcel because there is access to the lot via an easement already in place.
Granting the Variance would just be creating a different mode of accessing Hunter Lane. Mr. Benetti
confirmed.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-03 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that this is a unique situation with these lots. He agreed with the testimony
heard that fee simple ownership does make for a cleaner title; however, the practical difficulty in this
situation is one that the burden of proof has not been met. If a fee simple is cleaner, then fee simple a 100
page 149
EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
feet of frontage and be done with it; and said Variance is no longer needed. Better yet, combine the two lots
and then there is no Variance needed. He believed the impudence for this application is one of economics,
which they are not supposed to consider anyway.
Commissioner Petschel agreed with these comments. He agreed with Mr. Dorn and the applicant that this
would be a superior solution if it were allowed. However, he did not understand how they could grant a
Variance for this and not for any other applicant that came in with a non-conforming lot, saying that their
lot does not apply.
Commissioner Mazzitello provided the following Finding of Fact for Disapproval:
1. The applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite practical difficulties in order
to justify Variance (for reduced lot frontage); and
2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty.
As the second on the motion, Commissioner Katz accepted the Finding of Fact for Disapproval.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting.
page 150
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
Subject: Approval of Village Lots Development Request for Proposals
Date: March 19, 2019
Comment:
Introduction:
The Council is asked to approve a Request for Proposals (RFP) which would solicit proposals for the sale
of, and eventual development of, the three City-owned lots in the Village at Mendota Heights.
Background:
For several years, the City Council has had a goal of developing the three City-owned lots at the Village,
which are situated between Linden Street and Dodd Road. As part of the original MU-PUD (Mixed Use-
Planned Unit Development), the site was to have been developed as 14 attached townhomes, with an
additional five “home-offices”. The home-offices would have been a mixture of both residential and
commercial uses. However, because of the poor economy about a decade ago, the original concept failed
to develop, and the City received the lots back as tax forfeitures. That left the ultimate use of the
properties undecided. There is no obligation to proceed with the original concept.
In addition to the three lots, there exists an outlot (Outlot D) of about one acre in size. That has drainage
and utility easements upon it; however, as long as provisions for drainage and utilities are provided, those
easements are not exclusive. Outlot D can be incorporated into the overall project development through a
re-platting, or be used for other things such as a street right-of-way.
Recent Development Proposals: Two years ago, the City considered a proposal from Trammell Crow
Companies which would have place approximately 150 apartment units in a building that was five stories
tall. Previous to that, negotiations took place for the construction of a medical office building.
Current Interest: As part of the discussion for the City Council’s 2019-2020 Goals on January 7th, it was
again determined that the development of the Village lots would be a work objective over the next two
years.
Following the goal–setting workshop, on January 29th the City Council met in a work session to review 6
possible types of development of the Village lots which had been submitted to staff as unsolicited
proposals over the past couple of years. As a result of that meeting, the consensus of the Council was for
a development that would be multi-family residential, although a mixed use development would also be
page 151
considered. The Councilors also expressed a desire for the RFP to specify the use of quality building
materials, with architectural designs which would complement the neighboring buildings in the Village.
The consensus of the Council has indicated an interest in the development to have between 70 to 100
residential units. Those could be contained in either a single building, or in multiple buildings. Any
building would be limited to three stories or less, although limited use ancillary structures (such as sun
decks or solariums) as upper level structures could be considered. However, while a development of this
size was the preferred for the Council, it was also decided that other residential or mixed use proposals
would be considered if submitted.
Environmental features such as low-impact storm water treatment would be mandatory, as would be
connections to the City’s sidewalk and trail system.
The Council said that it would consider the relocation of the pavement portion of Maple Street to the
north (to the Outlot), so that it would line up with Hilltop Road. However, the City will not pay for the
relocation of any utilities which exist in the Maple Street right of way. Access from Maple Street to the
veterinary clinic will need to be maintained.
At a second work session on February 26th, the Council reviewed a draft RFP. It directed additional
changes, including the ability to see three-dimensional drawings and views from adjacent properties.
The purchase price would be subject to negotiation. It is being noted that an appraisal done in 2017 found
the values to be:
Parcels A, B, and C $570,000 1.72 acres
Out Lot D 157,500 .95 acres
Vacated Portion of Maple Street 85,700 .26 acres
Total $813,200 2.93 acres
The Council approved an appraisal update to be done. That should be completed in March, and interested
parties will be notified of any resulting estimated change in value.
Sale Proceeds: Subsequent to the earlier discussions, on February 21st, the City opened bids on the Fire
Station Construction project. The bids were approximately $1.2 million over budget, which is more than
21%. At the February 26th workshop, the Council gave a preliminary indication that it would apply the
net proceeds of the sale of the Village lots properties to help to fund the Fire Station project. It should be
noted that the decision to proceed with the development of the City-owned lots was made independent of
the Fire Station funding decision.
Schedule: If the City Council approves the RFP, it should direct that its availability be advertised, and
that the more than twenty parties who have previously expressed an interest would then be advised of its
“for development” status. The tentative schedule calls for submittals to be returned by April 12. Staff
would then review the submittals, and would prepare a summary for the Council to review, showing the
type of development, size, valuation, proposed purchase price, and other relevant information.
Depending on the number of submittals received, the City Council could then give direction for the
process as to how to further define the preferred submittal. It is likely that the City Council will want to
interview the leading proposals. Negotiations would then proceed with the preferred submitter, and a
prospective closing date would be scheduled following the final Council approval.
The City Attorney has advised that Minnesota law provides that any data submitted by a private business
in response to an RFP is private until the time and date in which the RFP’s are due. At that time, the
page 152
names of the responders may become public, but the data still remains private until the “completion of the
evaluation process.” That process will occur when the City completes negotiating the contract with the
selected proposing company. Once evaluations are complete and a vendor is selected, all data is public,
except for trade secret data.
Recommendation:
The Council is asked to review and approve the draft RFP, and direct that staff send notices to parties
previously indicating interest, and otherwise advertise its availability.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, review and approve the Request for Proposals for the
development of three city-owned lots and Outlot D in the Village at Mendota Heights, and direct that
notice be made, and advertising be done of its availability.
page 153
City of Mendota Heights, MN
Request for Proposals
Residential or Commercial Development Opportunity
for
City-Owned Vacant Lots
at
The Village at Mendota Heights
March, 2019
page 154
1. General City Information
Mendota Heights is one of the Twin Cities premier suburbs, offering high quality residential and business
areas. Per capita incomes and average property values are among the highest in the area, but homes in more
moderate price brackets are also available. While the emphasis has been on maintaining large lots and
spacious development, the community is also unique in its convenient location and highway access.
The city welcomes high quality development, and is fortunate to have a limited number of parcels and areas
to facilitate new development opportunities within the community. Mendota Heights has an approximate
population of 11,100 residents, with about 4,500 households. The population and household numbers are
projected to increase to 11,400 and 4,800 respectively by 2040. Most of the land in the community is platted;
and yet construction activity in new construction and redevelopment remains an active element of the city.
Estimated market value for all property is $2 billion.
2. The Village at Mendota Heights Background
The Village at Mendota Heights is an award-winning 23-acre mixed use, planned unit development (PUD)
located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Dodd Road (a/k/a State Highway 149) and State
Highway 62 (formerly 110). The development contains the following uses and amenities (see image on next
page):
• Diverse mix of retail/office space (single and two-story)
• On-street and underground public parking facilities (approximately 400 spaces)
• 36-unit condominium units (2 buildings)
• 20 row homes (3 buildings)
• 60-unit senior apartment building (owned and operated by the Dakota County CDA)
• Market Square Park (0.24-acre open space with fountain)
• River to River Greenway Trail connection (regional trail)
The final Master Development Plan and Design Standards for Mendota Heights Town Center (later changed
to The Village at Mendota Heights) was approved in 2002-2003 and constructed in phases, with most of the
center’s construction completing around 2007. The City later acquired four remnant parcels within the
Village Center development (the “Subject Lots”). The subject lots were originally planned for 14 single-family
row-houses and 5 office-townhome units, with underground parking (see Exhibit C). These lots failed to
develop (see PUD Master Plan image – next page).
page 155
The entire Village at Mendota Heights development is zoned Mixed Use-PUD. The City is open to considering
a change in use or density from the approved plans. Any changes to the final plan will require an Amendment
to the Final PUD Plan in compliance with Title 12, Chapter 1, Article K of the City Code and approval by the
City Council. As part of the original approval, design guidelines were also established for the entire
development that need to be considered as part of any proposed development.
3. General Description of Development Lots
The City owns the four subject lots in question, and desires to have them developed by a private individual
or development group. The four lots are identified and described generally below:
Parcel ID Plat Description Size (acres)
27-48335-03-020 Lot 2, Block 3 0.79
27-48335-03-010 Lot 1, Block 3 0.48
27-48335-02-010 Lot 1, Block 2 0.45
27-48335-00-040 Outlot D 0.95
TOTAL: 2.70 *
[* Note: there is also a small, triangular shaped remnant parcel of 0.07 acres (PID # 27-48335-00-040) at the immediate
southeast corner of Dodd Road and Maple Street, which may be available if needed).
The lots are bounded by Dodd Road to the west, Maple Street to the south, and Linden Street to the east
(see attached Location Map). Access will be from Maple Street or Linden Street only; with no direct access
General Location of
City-Owned Lots
page 156
allowed on to Dodd Road. The lots are relatively flat, completely vacant, and to the best of the city’s
knowledge, are free and clear of any buried materials, underground contaminants, negative environmental
issues, or poor soils. The City makes no representations as to the environmental quality of the parcels.
All utilities, including sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, gas, electric and cable are all available from the
adjacent public street right-of-ways. The City will also discuss and entertain the option of relocating Maple
Street (including underground utilities) to the north area of the lots, in order for said roadway to line up
across from Hilltop Road to the west.
4. Goals of the RFP
The City’s goal with this RFP is to provide a new, well-designed development opportunity for either residential
living development, or a mix of both residential and commercial development. The new development should
complete the overall vision of The Village PUD, and must complement and support the ongoing
redevelopment and economic efforts of this mixed-use area.
The City is expecting proposals that include the following:
1. New development must incorporate and demonstrate high-quality architectural elements and site
design, including but not entirely limited to the following standards:
• Architecture design and building materials must be top quality, with varying relief elements
incorporated into the exterior framework of the building(s). The design and architecture of
any new building, whether residential or mixed-use, must complement and respect the
surrounding residential and commercial developments.
• Visual interest and harmony should be fostered through creative design and quality building
materials.
• Landscaping design should enhance the development and streetscape.
• Stormwater treatment that includes low impact development techniques should be
incorporated.
• Residential developments shall consist of up to no more than 100 living units total; may
consist of a single building or multiple building layout; must not exceed three (3) stories in
height; flat-top roofed design preferred, with limited parapets allowed. Roof-top decks or
small solarium rooms over and above the three-story limit may be considered.
• Connections from the development to local trails and sidewalks are required.
• A relocation of Maple Street to the Outlot to the north of the lots will be considered, and the
costs for that are negotiable. However, the City will not pay for the relocation of any utilities
as a result. Access to the parking lot of the adjacent commercial structure from Maple Street
shall be maintained.
2. Underground parking for the development is encouraged.
page 157
The City reserves the right to refuse any proposal. The 2017 aggregate appraised value for the four lots was
approximately $813,000 (update in process). Purchase price will be one of several factors weighed in the
evaluation of proposals.
5. RFP Submittal Requirements
Interested Developers or Project Teams should submit seven (7) hard-copies and one (1) electronic copy with
the following information:
1) Letter of Interest along with a statement of how the proposed development meets the goals and
visions of the City at this location.
2) A detailed Concept Plan (or Plans – multiple) that identify a preliminary site layout based on the
intended use of the parcels.
3) Four-sided architectural or elevation images of the proposed building(s), with 3-D imagery and
view-points from adjacent properties.
4) Preliminary work plan, including any proposed phasing, that outlines key steps and timelines in
the development process.
5) The offered price to purchase the lots.
6) The estimated finished construction value of the structure(s).
7) Any additional relevant information you feel should be considered in evaluating the proposal.
The RFP must include the name, address, telephone number, and email addresses of the Developer or
Project Team members. Brief resumes and roles of key personnel, including development experience
partnering with government agencies is valuable. Project examples, preferably local projects, which
demonstrate successful public/private partnerships, or any other applicable work experiences should
be included.
RFP narrative submittals shall be 10-pages or less.
Privacy Disclosure: Minn. Stat. 13.591, subd. 3(b) provides that any data submitted by a private business
in response to an RFP is private until the time and date in which the RFP’s are due. At that time, the
names of the responders are public, but the data still remains private until the “completion of the
evaluation process.” That process occurs when the municipality completes negotiating the contract with
the selected vendor. Once evaluations are complete and a vendor is selected, all data is public, except
for trade secret data.
page 158
6. Anticipated RFP Schedule
Date Process
April 12 All RFP submittals due to City
April 15-April 30 City review of RFP submittals.
Early May City Council review of preferred Proposals
Mid May City Council interview of preferred proposals.
Late May Staff and finalist negotiate proposed purchase and development contract.
June 4 (tentative) City Council approval of purchase and development contract
The City reserves the right to alter any of the selection criteria, selection schedule, or reject any
or all submitted proposals.
Submittals must be received by the City on or before the deadline date as noted above. No
exceptions or extensions will be granted.
Submittal of the RFP response documents and questions must be directed to:
Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Office: (651) 255-1142
timb@mendota-heighs.com
Engineering related questions, such as site conditions, utilities, storm water requirements, etc.
should be directed to:
Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Office: (651) 255-1152
Email: ryanr@mendota-heights.com
THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY AND ALL SUBMITTALS.
page 159
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Authorization to Sell G.O Bonds for Fire Station Project
Date: March 19, 2019
Comment:
Introduction:
The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution which will authorize the City’s Financial Advisor, Ehlers
and Associates, to sell $7.0 in General Obligation Bonds to finance the Fire Station expansion and
remodeling project.
Background:
At the March 5th City Council meeting, the Council authorized entering in contracts totaling $6.759
million to finance the construction of the Fire Station project. Combined with other costs such as
architectural and construction management fees, contingencies, furniture, fixtures, and equipment, the
overall project is $8.143 million.
The Council awarded the contracts, and determined that the amount of the bonds to be sold would remain
at $7.0 million. At that meeting, the City Council was asked to determine if the repayment of the bonds
would be 15 years, or 20 years. Because only three members of the Council were then present, the
Council deferred that decision to this meeting.
Property Tax Impact: In June, 2018, the City Council made the decision to issue General Obligation
bonds in accordance with the provisions in State law allowing without that to be done without a
referendum. At that time, the estimated impact on a typical property valued at $356,000 was $91
annually, based on a 15 year bond term, and for a bond issuance of $6.125 million. However, the Council
subsequently increased the bonding amount to $7.0 million. Using that amount for a $365,000 property,
the new impacts would be $103.76 annually for a 15 year bond, or $84.77 for a 20 year term.
The attached information (“Pre-Sale Report 2019A) from Ehlers shows the two amortization schedules.
As with a home mortgage, the shorter the term of the bond, the larger are the overall savings in interest
paid.
Note that the determination of the 15, or 20 year term will have an impact on how much is going to be
available from the 2019 levy to be applied to the $1.143 million amount in excess of the proceeds from
the $7.0 million bond issuance. See below:
page 160
The first payments for construction will be needed in late May. Ehlers has therefore provided for a rating
call with the City’s bond ratings agency the week of April 8th to determine whether the City’s AAA bond
rating will be impacted. The schedule further provides that the bonds will be awarded by the City
Council on April 16th, with a closing on May 8th.
Budget Impact:
The attached information from Ehlers details the financial impacts on the City.
Recommendation:
The City Council should first determine its preference for a 15 year, or 20 year repayment schedule. It
should then adopt the resolution authorizing the solicitation of proposals for
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the following:
1. Choose between and 15 year, or 20 year term of bond
2. Adopt the following Resolution 2019-20, a Resolution Providing for the Sale of $7,000,000
General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2019A
___________________________ _________________________
Dave Dreelan, Mark McNeill,
Fire Chief City Administrator
page 161
Council Member _________________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019 - 20
Resolution Providing for the Sale of
$7,000,000 General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2019A
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota has heretofore determined
that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $7,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series
2019A (the "Bonds"), to finance the construction of a Fire Station in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as
its independent municipal advisor for the Series 2019As in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section
475.60, Subdivision 2(9);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to assist the City for the sale of
the Series 2019As.
2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on April 16, 2019, for the
purpose of considering proposals for and awarding the sale of the Bonds.
3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby
authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the
Series 2019As and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 19th day of March, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 162
March 19, 2019
Pre-Sale Report for
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
$7,000,000 General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan
Bonds, Series 2019A
Prepared by:
Stacie Kvilvang, CIPMA
Senior Municipal Advisor
And
Jason Aarsvold, CIPMA
Senior Municipal Advisor
page 163
Presale Report
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
March 19, 2019
Page 1
Executive Summary of Proposed Debt
Proposed Issue: $7,000,000 General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2019A
Purposes: The proposed issue includes financing the construction of a Fire Station. Debt service will be
paid from ad valorem property taxes.
Authority: The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475.521 and will be
general obligations of the City for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged.
The City held the required public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds on July 2, 2018 and
no reverse referendum petition was received by the City within 30 days of the hearing.
The Bonds count against the City’s general obligation debt capacity limit of 3% of the City’s
estimated market value. In the City, the EMV for pay 2018 (pay 2019 is not yet available) is
$1,985,476,693. Therefore, the total amount of outstanding debt cannot exceed $59,564,301.
As of March 1, 2019, the City has $1,075,000 subject to the legal debt limit.
In addition, a separate limitation under the CIP Act is that, without referendum, the total
amount of principal and interest in any one year on all CIP Bonds issued by the City debt
cannot exceed 0.16% of the total estimated market value in the municipality. In the City, that
maximum annual debt service amount is $3,176,763 for the Pay 2018 tax year
($1,985,476,693 x .0016). The annual principal and interest payments on the CIP Bonds
proposed to be issued under this CIP will average approximately $471,000 to $577,000,
dependent upon the term of the bonds the Council chooses to move forward with (no other
CIP Debt). As such, debt service on the CIP Bonds will be within the annual limits under the
CIP Act
Term/Call
Feature:
We have provided the Council with two options for financing, either a 15-year term or a 20-
year term. As noted on the attached schedules following are the differences between the two:
Bond Type Term Par Amount Deposit to
Construction Fund Average P & ITotal P & I Annual Tax Impact
on $365,000 Home
15 585,983$ 8,789,748$ 103.76$
20 478,665$ 9,573,306$ 84.77$
Difference 15 vs 20 ‐5 N/A N/A 107,318$ (783,558)$ 18.99$
7,000,000$ GO CIP 6,849,000$
Principal on the Bonds will be due on February 1, starting in 2021 and interest is payable
every six months beginning February 1, 2020.
Regardless of which term the Council chooses for the Bonds, they will be subject to
prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1, 2028 or any date thereafter.
Bank
Qualification:
Because the City is expecting to issue no more than $10,000,000 in tax exempt debt during
the calendar year, the City will be able to designate the Bonds as “bank qualified” obligations.
Bank qualified status broadens the market for the Bonds, which can result in lower interest
rates.
page 164
Presale Report
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
March 19, 2019
Page 2
Rating: The City’s most recent bond issues were rated by Standard & Poor’s. The current ratings on
those bonds are “AAA”. The City will request a new rating for the Bonds.
Basis for
Recommendation:
Based on our knowledge of your situation, your objectives communicated to us, our advisory
relationship as well as characteristics of various municipal financing options, we are
recommending the issuance of tax-exempt general obligation CIP bonds as a suitable
financing option for the following reasons:
- The issuance is a viable option available to finance this type of project under state law
and federal regulations.
- This option is the most overall cost-effective debt option that still maintains future
flexibility for the repayment of debt.
Method of
Sale/Placement:
We will solicit competitive bids for the purchase of the Bonds from underwriters and banks.
We will include an allowance for discount bidding in the terms of the issue. The discount is
treated as an interest item and provides the underwriter with all or a portion of their
compensation in the transaction.
If the Bonds are purchased at a price greater than the minimum bid amount (maximum
discount), the unused allowance may be used to reduce your borrowing amount.
Premium Pricing: In some cases, investors in municipal bonds prefer “premium” pricing structures. A premium
is achieved when the coupon for any maturity (the interest rate paid by the issuer) exceeds the
yield to the investor, resulting in a price paid that is greater than the face value of the
bonds. The sum of the amounts paid in excess of face value is considered “reoffering
premium.” The underwriter of the bonds will retain a portion of this reoffering premium as
their compensation (or “discount”) but will pay the remainder of the premium to the City. The
amount of the premium varies, but it is not uncommon to see premiums for new issues in the
range of 2.00% to 10.00% of the face amount of the issue. This means that an issuer with a
$2,000,000 offering may receive bids that result in proceeds of $2,040,000 to $2,200,000.
For this issue of Bonds we have been directed to use the net premium to reduce the size of the
issue/increase the net proceeds for the project. The resulting adjustments may slightly change
the true interest cost of the issue, either up or down.
The amount of premium can be restricted in the bid specifications. Restrictions on premium
may result in fewer bids but may also eliminate large adjustments on the day of sale and
unintended impacts with respect to debt service payment. Ehlers will identify appropriate
premium restrictions for the Bonds intended to achieve the City’s objectives for this financing.
Review of
Existing Debt:
We have reviewed all outstanding indebtedness for the City and find that there are no
refunding opportunities at this time.
We will continue to monitor the market and the call dates for the City’s outstanding debt and
will alert you to any future refunding opportunities.
page 165
Presale Report
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
March 19, 2019
Page 3
Continuing
Disclosure:
Because the City has more than $10,000,000 in outstanding debt (including this issue) and
this issue is over $1,000,000, the City will be agreeing to provide certain updated Annual
Financial Information and its Audited Financial Statement annually, as well as providing
notices of the occurrence of certain reportable events to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board (the “MSRB”), as required by rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The City is already obligated to provide such reports for its existing bonds, and has contracted
with Ehlers to prepare and file the reports.
Arbitrage
Monitoring:
Because the Bonds are tax-exempt obligations, the City must ensure compliance with certain
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules throughout the life of the issue. These rules apply to all
gross proceeds of the issue, including initial bond proceeds and investment earnings in
construction, escrow, debt service, and any reserve funds. How issuers spend bond proceeds
and how they track interest earnings on funds (arbitrage/yield restriction compliance) are
common subjects of IRS inquiries. Your specific responsibilities will be detailed in the
Nonarbitrage Certificate prepared by your Bond Attorney and provided at closing. You have
retained Ehlers to assist you with compliance with these rules.
Investment of and
Accounting for
Proceeds:
In order to more efficiently segregate funds for this project and maximize interest earnings,
we recommend using an investment advisor, to assist with the investment of bond proceeds
until they are needed to pay project costs. Ehlers Investment Partners, a subsidiary of Ehlers
and registered investment advisor, will discuss an appropriate investment strategy with the
City.
Other Service
Providers:
This debt issuance will require the engagement of other public finance service providers. This
section identifies those other service providers, so Ehlers can coordinate their engagement on
your behalf. Where you have previously used a particular firm to provide a service, we have
assumed that you will continue that relationship. For services you have not previously
required, we have identified a service provider. Fees charged by these service providers will
be paid from proceeds of the obligation, unless you notify us that you wish to pay them from
other sources. Our pre-sale bond sizing includes a good faith estimate of these fees, but the
final fees may vary. If you have any questions pertaining to the identified service providers
or their role, or if you would like to use a different service provider for any of the listed
services please contact us.
Bond Counsel: Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association
Paying Agent: Bond Trust Services Corporation
Rating Agency: Standard & Poor's Global Ratings (S&P)
Summary: The decisions to be made by the City Council are as follows:
Determine the term of financing (15 years versus 20 years)
Adopt the resolution attached to this report.
page 166
Presale Report
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
March 19, 2019
Page 4
This presale report summarizes our understanding of the City’s objectives for the structure and terms of this
financing as of this date. As additional facts become known or capital markets conditions change, we may need to
modify the structure and/or terms of this financing to achieve results consistent with the City’s objectives.
Proposed Debt Issuance Schedule
Pre-Sale Review by City Council: March 19, 2019
Due Diligence Call to review Official Statement: Week of April 1, 2019
Distribute Official Statement: Week of April 1, 2019
Conference with Rating Agency: Week of April 8, 2019
City Council Meeting to Award Sale of the Bonds: April 16, 2019
Estimated Closing Date: May 8, 2019
Attachments
Estimated Sources and Uses of Funds
Estimated Proposed Debt Service Schedule
Resolution Authorizing Ehlers to Proceed With Bond Sale
Ehlers Contacts
Municipal Advisors: Stacie Kvilvang (651) 697-8506
Jason Aarsvold (651) 697-8512
Disclosure Coordinator:Emily Wilkie (651) 697-8588
Financial Analyst: Alicia Gage (651) 697-8551
The Preliminary Official Statement for this financing will be sent to the City Council at their home or email
address for review prior to the sale date.
page 167
$7,000,000
15
2.78%
Estimated Bond Rating S&P
AAA
Actual Net Tax Capacity - Payable 2018 $21,060,499
Debt Levy @ 105% - Average 606,001
Estimated Tax Capacity Rate:
Payable - 2018 Without Proposed Bonds 39.647%
Payable - 2018 With Proposed Bonds 42.524%
Estimated Tax Rate Increase 2.877%
Estimated Market Value Taxable Net Tax Current Proposed Proposed
Market Value Exclusion Market Value Capacity City Tax Tax Increase*City Tax
250,000$ 14,740$ 235,260$ 2,353$ 932.74$ 67.69$ 1,000.43$
275,000 12,490 262,510 2,625 1,040.77 75.54 1,116.31
300,000 10,240 289,760 2,898 1,148.81 83.38 1,232.19
365,000 4,390 360,610 3,606 1,429.71 103.76 1,533.47
400,000 1,240 398,760 3,988 1,580.96 114.74 1,695.70
Residential 450,000 - 450,000 4,500 1,784.12 129.48 1,913.60
Homestead 500,000 - 500,000 5,000 1,982.35 143.87 2,126.22
600,000 - 600,000 6,250 2,477.94 179.84 2,657.78
700,000 - 700,000 7,500 2,973.53 215.81 3,189.33
800,000 - 800,000 8,750 3,469.11 251.77 3,720.89
900,000 - 900,000 10,000 3,964.70 287.74 4,252.44
1,000,000 - 1,000,000 11,250 4,460.29 323.71 4,784.00
100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 947$ 375.44$ 27.25$ 402.69$
200,000 - 200,000 2,052 813.46 59.04 872.49
Commercial/Industrial 300,000 - 300,000 3,314 1,314.05 95.37 1,409.41
400,000 - 400,000 4,577 1,814.63 131.70 1,946.33
500,000 - 500,000 5,840 2,315.22 168.03 2,483.25
1,000,000 - 1,000,000 12,153 4,818.17 349.68 5,167.85
Apartments 200,000$ -$ 200,000$ 2,500$ 991.18$ 71.94$ 1,063.11$
(4 or more units)300,000 - 300,000 3,750 1,486.76 107.90 1,594.67
500,000 - 500,000 6,250 2,477.94 179.84 2,657.78
150,000$ 23,740$ 126,260$ 1,263$ 500.58$ 36.33$ 536.91$
400,000 23,740 376,260 2,513 996.17 72.30 1,068.47
Agricultural 500,000 23,740 476,260 3,013 1,194.41 86.69 1,281.09
Homestead **600,000 23,740 576,260 3,513 1,392.64 101.07 1,493.71
800,000 23,740 776,260 4,513 1,789.11 129.85 1,918.96
1,000,000 23,740 976,260 5,513 2,185.58 158.62 2,344.20
Agricultural 1,500$ -$ 1,500$ 15$ 5.95$ 0.43$ 6.38$
Non-Homestead 2,000 - 2,000 20 7.93 0.58 8.50
(dollars per acre)2,500 - 2,500 25 9.91 0.72 10.63
100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 1,000$ 396.47$ 28.77$ 425.24$
Seasonal/Recreation 200,000 - 200,000 2,000 792.94 57.55 850.49
Residential 300,000 - 300,000 3,000 1,189.41 86.32 1,275.73
400,000 - 400,000 4,000 1,585.88 115.10 1,700.98
Number of Years
PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION
* The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross
increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker") program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund,
based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners.
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
Estimated Tax Impact
March 13, 2019
Bond Issue Amount
BOND ISSUANCE INFORMATION
TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS
Average Interest Rate
Type of Property
15 Year Term
Prepared by Ehlers
3/13/2019
page 168
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
$7,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2019A
Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 25bps
15 Years
Sources & Uses
Dated 05/08/2019 | Delivered 05/08/2019
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $7,000,000.00
Total Sources $7,000,000.00
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.200%)84,000.00
Costs of Issuance 67,000.00
Deposit to Project Fund 6,849,000.00
Total Uses $7,000,000.00
Series 2019A GO CIP Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/13/2019 | 9:22 AM
page 169
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
$7,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2019A
Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 25bps
15 Years
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
05/08/2019 -----
02/01/2020 --132,595.83 132,595.83 132,595.83
08/01/2020 --90,750.00 90,750.00 -
02/01/2021 395,000.00 1.950%90,750.00 485,750.00 576,500.00
08/01/2021 --86,898.75 86,898.75 -
02/01/2022 405,000.00 2.000%86,898.75 491,898.75 578,797.50
08/01/2022 --82,848.75 82,848.75 -
02/01/2023 410,000.00 2.050%82,848.75 492,848.75 575,697.50
08/01/2023 --78,646.25 78,646.25 -
02/01/2024 420,000.00 2.150%78,646.25 498,646.25 577,292.50
08/01/2024 --74,131.25 74,131.25 -
02/01/2025 430,000.00 2.250%74,131.25 504,131.25 578,262.50
08/01/2025 --69,293.75 69,293.75 -
02/01/2026 440,000.00 2.350%69,293.75 509,293.75 578,587.50
08/01/2026 --64,123.75 64,123.75 -
02/01/2027 450,000.00 2.450%64,123.75 514,123.75 578,247.50
08/01/2027 --58,611.25 58,611.25 -
02/01/2028 460,000.00 2.550%58,611.25 518,611.25 577,222.50
08/01/2028 --52,746.25 52,746.25 -
02/01/2029 470,000.00 2.650%52,746.25 522,746.25 575,492.50
08/01/2029 --46,518.75 46,518.75 -
02/01/2030 485,000.00 2.750%46,518.75 531,518.75 578,037.50
08/01/2030 --39,850.00 39,850.00 -
02/01/2031 495,000.00 2.850%39,850.00 534,850.00 574,700.00
08/01/2031 --32,796.25 32,796.25 -
02/01/2032 510,000.00 2.950%32,796.25 542,796.25 575,592.50
08/01/2032 --25,273.75 25,273.75 -
02/01/2033 525,000.00 3.050%25,273.75 550,273.75 575,547.50
08/01/2033 --17,267.50 17,267.50 -
02/01/2034 545,000.00 3.100%17,267.50 562,267.50 579,535.00
08/01/2034 --8,820.00 8,820.00 -
02/01/2035 560,000.00 3.150%8,820.00 568,820.00 577,640.00
Total $7,000,000.00 -$1,789,748.33 $8,789,748.33 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $64,348.89
Average Life 9.193 Years
Average Coupon 2.7813197%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.9118581%
True Interest Cost (TIC)2.9168587%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.7640414%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.0405767%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 2.7813197%
Weighted Average Maturity 9.193 Years
Series 2019A GO CIP Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/13/2019 | 9:22 AM
page 170
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
$7,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2019A
Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 25bps
15 Years
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I
105%
Overlevy
02/01/2020 --132,595.83 132,595.83 139,225.62
02/01/2021 395,000.00 1.950%181,500.00 576,500.00 605,325.00
02/01/2022 405,000.00 2.000%173,797.50 578,797.50 607,737.38
02/01/2023 410,000.00 2.050%165,697.50 575,697.50 604,482.38
02/01/2024 420,000.00 2.150%157,292.50 577,292.50 606,157.13
02/01/2025 430,000.00 2.250%148,262.50 578,262.50 607,175.63
02/01/2026 440,000.00 2.350%138,587.50 578,587.50 607,516.88
02/01/2027 450,000.00 2.450%128,247.50 578,247.50 607,159.88
02/01/2028 460,000.00 2.550%117,222.50 577,222.50 606,083.63
02/01/2029 470,000.00 2.650%105,492.50 575,492.50 604,267.13
02/01/2030 485,000.00 2.750%93,037.50 578,037.50 606,939.38
02/01/2031 495,000.00 2.850%79,700.00 574,700.00 603,435.00
02/01/2032 510,000.00 2.950%65,592.50 575,592.50 604,372.13
02/01/2033 525,000.00 3.050%50,547.50 575,547.50 604,324.88
02/01/2034 545,000.00 3.100%34,535.00 579,535.00 608,511.75
02/01/2035 560,000.00 3.150%17,640.00 577,640.00 606,522.00
Total $7,000,000.00 -$1,789,748.33 $8,789,748.33 $9,229,235.75
Significant Dates
Dated 5/08/2019
First Coupon Date 2/01/2020
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $64,348.89
Average Life 9.193 Years
Average Coupon 2.7813197%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.9118581%
True Interest Cost (TIC)2.9168587%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.7640414%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.0405767%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 2.7813197%
Weighted Average Maturity 9.193 Years
Series 2019A GO CIP Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/13/2019 | 9:22 AM
page 171
$7,000,000
20
3.03%
Estimated Bond Rating S&P
AAA
Actual Net Tax Capacity - Payable 2018 $21,060,499
Debt Levy @ 105% - Average 495,054
Estimated Tax Capacity Rate:
Payable - 2018 Without Proposed Bonds 39.647%
Payable - 2018 With Proposed Bonds 41.998%
Estimated Tax Rate Increase 2.351%
Estimated Market Value Taxable Net Tax Current Proposed Proposed
Market Value Exclusion Market Value Capacity City Tax Tax Increase*City Tax
250,000$ 14,740$ 235,260$ 2,353$ 932.74$ 55.30$ 988.04$
275,000 12,490 262,510 2,625 1,040.77 61.71 1,102.48
300,000 10,240 289,760 2,898 1,148.81 68.11 1,216.92
365,000 4,390 360,610 3,606 1,429.71 84.77 1,514.48
400,000 1,240 398,760 3,988 1,580.96 93.73 1,674.70
Residential 450,000 - 450,000 4,500 1,784.12 105.78 1,889.89
Homestead 500,000 - 500,000 5,000 1,982.35 117.53 2,099.88
600,000 - 600,000 6,250 2,477.94 146.91 2,624.85
700,000 - 700,000 7,500 2,973.53 176.30 3,149.82
800,000 - 800,000 8,750 3,469.11 205.68 3,674.79
900,000 - 900,000 10,000 3,964.70 235.06 4,199.76
1,000,000 - 1,000,000 11,250 4,460.29 264.45 4,724.73
100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 947$ 375.44$ 22.26$ 397.70$
200,000 - 200,000 2,052 813.46 48.23 861.69
Commercial/Industrial 300,000 - 300,000 3,314 1,314.05 77.91 1,391.95
400,000 - 400,000 4,577 1,814.63 107.59 1,922.22
500,000 - 500,000 5,840 2,315.22 137.27 2,452.49
1,000,000 - 1,000,000 12,153 4,818.17 285.66 5,103.83
Apartments 200,000$ -$ 200,000$ 2,500$ 991.18$ 58.77$ 1,049.94$
(4 or more units)300,000 - 300,000 3,750 1,486.76 88.15 1,574.91
500,000 - 500,000 6,250 2,477.94 146.91 2,624.85
150,000$ 23,740$ 126,260$ 1,263$ 500.58$ 29.68$ 530.26$
400,000 23,740 376,260 2,513 996.17 59.06 1,055.23
Agricultural 500,000 23,740 476,260 3,013 1,194.41 70.82 1,265.22
Homestead **600,000 23,740 576,260 3,513 1,392.64 82.57 1,475.21
800,000 23,740 776,260 4,513 1,789.11 106.07 1,895.18
1,000,000 23,740 976,260 5,513 2,185.58 129.58 2,315.16
Agricultural 1,500$ -$ 1,500$ 15$ 5.95$ 0.35$ 6.30$
Non-Homestead 2,000 - 2,000 20 7.93 0.47 8.40
(dollars per acre)2,500 - 2,500 25 9.91 0.59 10.50
100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 1,000$ 396.47$ 23.51$ 419.98$
Seasonal/Recreation 200,000 - 200,000 2,000 792.94 47.01 839.95
Residential 300,000 - 300,000 3,000 1,189.41 70.52 1,259.93
400,000 - 400,000 4,000 1,585.88 94.03 1,679.91
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
Estimated Tax Impact
March 13, 2019
20 Year Term
BOND ISSUANCE INFORMATION
Bond Issue Amount
* The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross
increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker") program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund,
based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners.
Number of Years
Average Interest Rate
PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION
TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Property
Prepared by Ehlers
3/13/2019
page 172
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
$7,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2019A
Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 25bps
20 Years
Sources & Uses
Dated 05/08/2019 | Delivered 05/08/2019
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $7,000,000.00
Total Sources $7,000,000.00
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.200%)84,000.00
Costs of Issuance 67,000.00
Deposit to Project Fund 6,849,000.00
Total Uses $7,000,000.00
Series 2019A GO CIP Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/13/2019 | 9:21 AM
page 173
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
$7,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2019A
Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 25bps
20 Years
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
05/08/2019 -----
02/01/2020 --143,703.93 143,703.93 143,703.93
08/01/2020 --98,352.50 98,352.50 -
02/01/2021 275,000.00 1.950%98,352.50 373,352.50 471,705.00
08/01/2021 --95,671.25 95,671.25 -
02/01/2022 280,000.00 2.000%95,671.25 375,671.25 471,342.50
08/01/2022 --92,871.25 92,871.25 -
02/01/2023 285,000.00 2.050%92,871.25 377,871.25 470,742.50
08/01/2023 --89,950.00 89,950.00 -
02/01/2024 290,000.00 2.150%89,950.00 379,950.00 469,900.00
08/01/2024 --86,832.50 86,832.50 -
02/01/2025 300,000.00 2.250%86,832.50 386,832.50 473,665.00
08/01/2025 --83,457.50 83,457.50 -
02/01/2026 305,000.00 2.350%83,457.50 388,457.50 471,915.00
08/01/2026 --79,873.75 79,873.75 -
02/01/2027 310,000.00 2.450%79,873.75 389,873.75 469,747.50
08/01/2027 --76,076.25 76,076.25 -
02/01/2028 320,000.00 2.550%76,076.25 396,076.25 472,152.50
08/01/2028 --71,996.25 71,996.25 -
02/01/2029 330,000.00 2.650%71,996.25 401,996.25 473,992.50
08/01/2029 --67,623.75 67,623.75 -
02/01/2030 335,000.00 2.750%67,623.75 402,623.75 470,247.50
08/01/2030 --63,017.50 63,017.50 -
02/01/2031 345,000.00 2.850%63,017.50 408,017.50 471,035.00
08/01/2031 --58,101.25 58,101.25 -
02/01/2032 355,000.00 2.950%58,101.25 413,101.25 471,202.50
08/01/2032 --52,865.00 52,865.00 -
02/01/2033 365,000.00 3.050%52,865.00 417,865.00 470,730.00
08/01/2033 --47,298.75 47,298.75 -
02/01/2034 375,000.00 3.100%47,298.75 422,298.75 469,597.50
08/01/2034 --41,486.25 41,486.25 -
02/01/2035 390,000.00 3.150%41,486.25 431,486.25 472,972.50
08/01/2035 --35,343.75 35,343.75 -
02/01/2036 400,000.00 3.200%35,343.75 435,343.75 470,687.50
08/01/2036 --28,943.75 28,943.75 -
02/01/2037 415,000.00 3.250%28,943.75 443,943.75 472,887.50
08/01/2037 --22,200.00 22,200.00 -
02/01/2038 430,000.00 3.300%22,200.00 452,200.00 474,400.00
08/01/2038 --15,105.00 15,105.00 -
02/01/2039 440,000.00 3.350%15,105.00 455,105.00 470,210.00
08/01/2039 --7,735.00 7,735.00 -
02/01/2040 455,000.00 3.400%7,735.00 462,735.00 470,470.00
Total $7,000,000.00 -$2,573,306.43 $9,573,306.43 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $84,898.89
Average Life 12.128 Years
Average Coupon 3.0310249%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.1299661%
True Interest Cost (TIC)3.1288061%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.0057347%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.2284747%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 3.0310249%
Weighted Average Maturity 12.128 Years
Series 2019A GO CIP Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/13/2019 | 9:21 AM
page 174
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
$7,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2019A
Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 25bps
20 Years
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I
105%
Overlevy
02/01/2020 --143,703.93 143,703.93 150,889.13
02/01/2021 275,000.00 1.950%196,705.00 471,705.00 495,290.25
02/01/2022 280,000.00 2.000%191,342.50 471,342.50 494,909.63
02/01/2023 285,000.00 2.050%185,742.50 470,742.50 494,279.63
02/01/2024 290,000.00 2.150%179,900.00 469,900.00 493,395.00
02/01/2025 300,000.00 2.250%173,665.00 473,665.00 497,348.25
02/01/2026 305,000.00 2.350%166,915.00 471,915.00 495,510.75
02/01/2027 310,000.00 2.450%159,747.50 469,747.50 493,234.88
02/01/2028 320,000.00 2.550%152,152.50 472,152.50 495,760.13
02/01/2029 330,000.00 2.650%143,992.50 473,992.50 497,692.13
02/01/2030 335,000.00 2.750%135,247.50 470,247.50 493,759.88
02/01/2031 345,000.00 2.850%126,035.00 471,035.00 494,586.75
02/01/2032 355,000.00 2.950%116,202.50 471,202.50 494,762.63
02/01/2033 365,000.00 3.050%105,730.00 470,730.00 494,266.50
02/01/2034 375,000.00 3.100%94,597.50 469,597.50 493,077.38
02/01/2035 390,000.00 3.150%82,972.50 472,972.50 496,621.13
02/01/2036 400,000.00 3.200%70,687.50 470,687.50 494,221.88
02/01/2037 415,000.00 3.250%57,887.50 472,887.50 496,531.88
02/01/2038 430,000.00 3.300%44,400.00 474,400.00 498,120.00
02/01/2039 440,000.00 3.350%30,210.00 470,210.00 493,720.50
02/01/2040 455,000.00 3.400%15,470.00 470,470.00 493,993.50
Total $7,000,000.00 -$2,573,306.43 $9,573,306.43 $10,051,971.75
Significant Dates
Dated 5/08/2019
First Coupon Date 2/01/2020
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $84,898.89
Average Life 12.128 Years
Average Coupon 3.0310249%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.1299661%
True Interest Cost (TIC)3.1288061%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.0057347%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.2284747%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 3.0310249%
Weighted Average Maturity 12.128 Years
Series 2019A GO CIP Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/13/2019 | 9:21 AM
page 175
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: March 19, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Award Wentworth Park Playground Improvements
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to award a contract to Flagship Recreation for improvements to the
Wentworth Park Playground.
BACKGROUND
The Parks & Recreation Commission established a playground subcommittee that met with
vendors and developed a recommendation for playground improvements at Wentworth and
Hagstrom King Parks.
DISCUSSION
The proposed equipment at Wentworth Park will have natural elements which will fit well with
the park setting. The base of the new playground will be made from Glass Fiber Reinforced
Concrete (GFRC) which will be aesthetically pleasing and is also functional as a climbing
surface. Other additions include a companion swing, see saw, Tospy Turney Spinner, fire pole,
chinning bar and other elements. In addition, the existing 2-5 age equipment will remain in
place.
BUDGET IMPACT
The City Council authorized a budget amount of $140,000 for the improvements to the
Wentworth Park Playground. The current estimate for this work is $148,936.49. Reductions can
be realized by waiving the bonding ($4,393.83) and having parks maintenance staff provide
some demolition or disposal ($15,833.24). The city is proposing to use the Special Park Fund
for this project. A grant is also applied for and the city will know if it was selected in early
summer.
The Council should be aware that the current balance of the Special Parks Fund is approximately
$1,000,000. That includes the Park Dedication fees which are anticipated from the Phase 2 of
the Michael Development, but have not yet been received.
Factoring in the recommendations for the improvements to these two playgrounds, and the
anticipated $150,000 to be spent for the new Wentworth warming house, the balance of the
Special Parks fund will be reduced to $550,000.
page 176
RECOMMENDATION
The Parks & Recreation Commission recommend that Council award the Wentworth Park
Playground Improvements to Flagship Recreation.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council agrees with the recommendation from the Parks & Recreation Commission, the
Council should pass a motion awarding a playground improvement contract to Flagship
Recreation for a not-to-exceed amount of $144,542.66. This action requires a simple majority
vote.
page 177
page 178
page 179
page 180
page 181
February 26, 2019 Wentworth Park
Mendota Heights, MN
2019 State Contract List Price
QTY NO DESCRIPTION PRICE EXT PRICE
1 114665A Arch Bridge (42")2,126$ 2,126.00$
1 120873B 84"Disc Challenge w/Handhold Panels 16"Deck Diff Attached To 24"Dk DB 2,747$ 2,747.00$
1 111812A Headform Set -$ -$
1 169318B Wood Plank Wiggle Ladder 40"Deck w/Recycled Wood-Grain Handholds DB 1,333$ 1,333.00$
1 207581A The Ascent Rock 5,595$ 5,595.00$
1 207582A The Bend Rock 7,343$ 7,343.00$
1 152907C Deck Link w/Barriers Steel end panels 3 Steps 2,449$ 2,449.00$
3 111228A Square Tenderdeck 939$ 2,817.00$
1 121949A Tri-Deck Kick Plate 8"Rise 152$ 152.00$
2 122197A 90* Triangular Tenderdeck 793$ 1,586.00$
1 152911B Curved Transfer Module Right 40"Dk DB 2,530$ 2,530.00$
1 193168B Netplex 7-Post w/3-Roofs Steel Posts and DB Only 10,110$ 10,110.00$
1 224086A Disc Net Climber w/Double Swoosh Slide for 7-Post Mainstructure 23,634$ 23,634.00$
1 111357A Chinning Bar Alum DB 490$ 490.00$
1 120872A Swing Out 1,227$ 1,227.00$
1 123824A Triple Ring Fling 2,449$ 2,449.00$
1 193170A LolliLadder w/2 E-Pods 2,313$ 2,313.00$
1 111403O 150"Steel Post For Roof DB 359$ 359.00$
3 111403K 182"Steel Post For Roof DB 384$ 1,152.00$
2 111404O 132"Steel Post DB 278$ 556.00$
3 111404M 148"Steel Post DB 323$ 969.00$
3 111404E 116"Alum Post DB 283$ 849.00$
1 111404D 124"Alum Post DB 323$ 323.00$
3 111404C 132"Alum Post DB 338$ 1,014.00$
3 111404A 148"Alum Post DB 359$ 1,077.00$
4 178470A Pine Tree Accent Topper 1,121$ 4,484.00$
1 169317B Firepole w/Recycled Wood-Grain Handholds 72"Dk DB 1,379$ 1,379.00$
1 222708A WhooshWinder Slide 72"Dk DB 4,641$ 4,641.00$
Cost of PlayStructure Items 85,704.00$
INDEPENDENT:
1 123831A SuperScoop DB Only 970$ 970.00$
1 123832B SuperScoop Wheelchair Acc DB 889$ 889.00$
1 148637A Seesaw 4-Seats DB 3,151$ 3,151.00$
1 164075B Double Bobble Rider DB 1,894$ 1,894.00$
1 205800A TopsyTurny Spinner 42"Bury DB Only 4,535$ 4,535.00$
1 182503C Welcome Sign (LSI Provided) Ages 5-12 years Direct Bury -$ -$
2 174018A Belt Seat ProGuard Chains for 8' Beam Height 116$ 232.00$
1 176038G Full Bucket Seat ProGuard Chains for Toddler Swing 293$ 293.00$
1 177337A Toddler Swing Add-On Beam 460$ 460.00$
1 177345A Single Post Swing Frame 52" Bury Additional Bay 8' Beam Height Only 919$ 919.00$
1 237296A Friendship Swing w/Single Post Frame 52" Bury ProGuard Chains 2,969$ 2,969.00$
Cost of Independent Items 16,312.00$
Cost of Equipment 102,016.00$
Total 102,016.00$
page 182
Preliminary Budget Possible Additions
Possible
Reductions QTY Notes
Play Equipment & Installation
Wentworth Park Revsions 2-26-19 Revision 91,814.40 10%State Contract Discount Applied - State Contract #119795
Sales Tax - if applicable 0.00
Equipment Installation (Man Hours & Concrete for Footings)18,715.58 Full professional installation by Landscape Structures Certified Installers.
Labor & Concrete = 20.38 value of equipment.
Delivery of Play equipment 600.00 estimated / final quote will be provided
Mobilization 500.00
Dumpster(s) - 30 Yard 505.00 Dipsoal of packaging material
Site work
Excavation & Hauling (new container) 0.00
Demo, Excavation & Disposal (existing container)15,833.24 (15,833.24)Possible deduction if City of Mendota Heights performs demo, excavation & disposal
Special Equipment (Lull, Lift, Compactor, etc.)0.00
Border Options
Concrete Border Straight (LF)0.00 0 Standard 6" W x 12" D w/ rebar
Concrete Boarder Curved (LF)0.00 0 Standard 6" W x 12" D w/ rebar
Wooden Landscape Timbers 0.00
Retaining Wall 0.00
Concrete Flatwork
Concrete Flatwork (Sq. Ft.)0.00 0 4" sidewalk
Thickened Edge (LF)0.00 0 Thickend edge used when installing a sidewalk adjacent to playground container. Prevents stone
base from washing out.
Asphalt 0.00
Concrete Base / mound or sloped surface (2" skim coat)0.00
Subgrade Preparation
Drainage Aggregate - Pea Rock (Tons)4,339.70 (4,339.70)69 Pea Rock - 3" depth. Possible deduction if drainage aggregate not used
Compacted Aggregate Base (Class V or Recycled Concrete) (Tons)0.00 0 Class V aggregate or recycled concrete (w/fines), delivery and installation . 4" - 6" compacted
depth
Drain Tile (LF)0.00 0 Perforated Corrugated Drain Tile with Sock
Surfacing Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF)
EWF - Playground Safety Surfacing (CY)9,969.07 247 IPEMA Certified Playground Surfacing - Meets the standards of ASTM, ADA & CPSC
GeoTextile Fabric (Sq. Ft.)2,321.55 6,130 Price includes installation
Dynacushion Rubber Wear Mat (#R20C4872)0.00 0 4' x 6' x 2" Rubber Wear Mat. Includes wear pad and delivery
Surfacing Poured In Place (PIP) & Synthetic Turf
PlayBound Poured In Place by Surface America (Sq. Ft.)0.00 0
Budget estimate assumes use of Aromatic Binder (7 year warranty), 50/50 mix of standard colors
& black. Aliphatic Binder (10 year warranty) is $1.31 per sq. ft. additional, Premium Colors are an
additional $.36 per sq. ft. The manufacture recommends using Aliphatic Binder with premium
colors.
Synthetic Turf (Sq. Ft.)0.00 0
Site Restoration 0.00 Scope of Work TBD
Payment & Performance Bonds (IF REQUIRED) 3% of Total 4,337.96 (4,393.83)Per State Contract payment & performance bonds required on projects over $100,000
Total Total w/ Additions Total w/ Reductions Total w/ Additions & Reductions
148,936.49 0.00 (24,566.77)124,369.72
2/26/2019
BUDGET SHEET
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director
page 183
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: March 19, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Award Hagstrom King Park Playground Improvements
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to award a contract to Mn-Wi Playground for improvements to the
Hagstrom King Park Playground.
BACKGROUND
The Parks & Recreation Commission established a playground subcommittee that met with
vendors and developed a recommendation for playground improvements at Wentworth and
Hagstrom King Parks.
DISCUSSION
The proposed equipment at Hagstrom King Park include a dual Zipline feature. Hagstrom King
will require a new container be constructed as the new layout will be much larger than the
existing layout. Highlighted features include an arch swing (tire swing), tilted sky runner, and
slides. In addition, the existing 2-5 age equipment will be salvaged and reinstalled. Other
changes will be moving the entire playground approximately 15 feet west to utilize existing trees
for shade.
The colors on the attached selected layout rendering will not be the final color choice, the final
page shows the preferred coloring.
BUDGET IMPACT
The City Council authorized a budget amount of $160,000 for the improvements to the Hagstrom
King Park Playground. The current estimate for this work is $160,000. The city is proposing to
use the Special Park Fund for this project. A grant is also applied for and the city will know if it
was selected in early summer.
The Council should be aware that the current balance of the Special Parks Fund is approximately
$1,000,000. That includes the Park Dedication fees which are anticipated from the Phase 2 of
the Michael Development, but have not yet been received.
page 184
Factoring in the recommendations for the improvements to these two playgrounds, and the
anticipated $150,000 for the new Wentworth warming house, the balance of the Special Parks
fund will be reduced to $550,000.
RECOMMENDATION
The Parks & Recreation Commission recommend that Council award the Hagstrom King Park
Playground Improvements to Mn-Wi Playground.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council agrees with the recommendation from the Parks & Recreation Commission, the
Council should pass a motion awarding a playground improvement contract to Mn-Wi
Playground for a not-to-exceed amount of $160,000. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 185
page 186
page 187
Plan D9282L2
Hagstrom King Park City of Mendota Heightspage 188
QuantityQuantityQuantityQuantity Part #Part #Part #Part #DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription Unit PriceUnit PriceUnit PriceUnit Price AmountAmountAmountAmount
1 INS Install play equipment, benches, fabric, and
wood fiber. -
Includes the relocation and installation of the
existing Toddler 2
$28,002.00 $28,002.00
1 WASTE Disposal of packaging and construction waste.$726.00 $726.00
SubTotal:
Total Amount:
$28,728.00
$28,728.00
This quotation is subject to current Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground policies as well as the following terms and conditions. Our quotation is
based on shipment of all items at one time to a single destination, unless noted, and changes are subject to price adjustment. Purchases in excess
of $1,000.00 to be supported by your written purchase order made out to Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground.
Pricing: f.o.b. factory, firm for 30 days from date of quotation. A tax-exempt certificate is needed at time of order entry for all orders whether
from tax-supported goverment agencies or not. Sales tax, if applicable, will be added at time of invoice unless a tax exempt certificate is
provided at time of order entry.
Payment terms: net 30 days for tax supported governmental agencies. A 1.5% per month finance charge will be imposed on all past due accounts.
Equipment shall be invoiced separately from other services and shall be payable in advance of those services and project completion. Retainage
not accepted.
Minnesota / Wisconsin Playground
5101 Highway 55, Suite 6000
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
Ph. 800-622-5425 | 763-546-7787
Fax 763-546-5050 | dan@mnwiplay.com
QUOTE
#23878
02/25/2019
Hagstrom-King Park D9282L2 Install
City of Mendota Heights
Attn: Ryan Ruzek
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Phone: 651-452-1850
ryanr@mendota-heights.com
Ship To Zip: 55118
Page 1 of 3
page 189
QuantityQuantityQuantityQuantity Part #Part #Part #Part #DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription Unit PriceUnit PriceUnit PriceUnit Price AmountAmountAmountAmount
1 RDU GameTime - Play Equipment as shown per
plan drawing.
$84,314.55 $84,314.55
(1) 4842 -- Echo Chamber Ass'Y
(1) 4843 -- Flat Mirror Ass'Y
(1) 5055 -- Merry-Go-All
(1) 5056 -- Arch Swing
(1) 5128 -- Expression Swing 3 1/2" X 8'
(1) 6201 -- Tilted Sky Runner (F/S)
(1) 6248 -- Deco Spring Rider Double
(1) 8696 -- Encl Seat 3 1/2"(8696)
(2) 8910 -- Belt Seat 3 1/2"Od(8910)
(1) 12024 -- 3 1/2" Uprt Ass'Y Alum 9'
(4) 12025 -- 3 1/2" Uprt Ass'Y Alum 10'
(4) 12027 -- 3 1/2" Uprt Ass'Y Alum 12'
(2) 12068 -- 3 1/2"Uprt Ass'Y Alum 13'
(2) 12069 -- 3 1/2"Uprt Ass'Y Alum 14'
(2) 12928 -- Deck Flat Cap Pkg-45 1/2"
(1) 18200 -- 36" Sq Punched Deck P/T 1.3125
(6) 18201 -- 36" Tri Punched Deck P/T
(1) 18679 -- Bongos
(1) 18763 -- Nature Discovery Table - 36"
(1) 18826 -- Primetime Swing 3 1/2" X 8'
(1) 18827 -- Primetime Swing Add A Bay 3
1/2" X 8'
(2) 19002 -- Single Gizmo Panel
(1) 19005 -- Transfer System W/Barrier (2'
Rise)
(1) 19036 -- Optional Access Step (4')
(1) 19084 -- Ashiko
(1) 19085 -- Djembe
(1) 19253 -- Scramble Up (3'6" & 4')
(1) 19255 -- Scramble Up (5'6" & 6')
(1) 19286 -- Transfer Platform W/ Guardrail 4'
(1) 19289 -- Two Piece Hex Deck
(1) 19362 -- 3'-6"/4'-0" Zip Swerve Slide Left
Minnesota / Wisconsin Playground
5101 Highway 55, Suite 6000
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
Ph. 800-622-5425 | 763-546-7787
Fax 763-546-5050 | dan@mnwiplay.com
QUOTE
#23899
02/27/2019
Hagstrom-King Park D9282L2 Materials
City of Mendota Heights
Attn: Ryan Ruzek
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Phone: 651-452-1850
ryanr@mendota-heights.com
Ship To Zip: 55118
Page 1 of 4
page 190
QuantityQuantityQuantityQuantity Stock IDStock IDStock IDStock ID DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription Unit PriceUnit PriceUnit PriceUnit Price AmountAmountAmountAmount
(1) 19369 -- Gt Jambox
(3) 19386 -- Left Curve Section Wilderslide Ii
(1) 19391 -- Support Wilderslide Ii
(1) 19418 -- Walk-In Double Fun-L Up (Link)
(1) 19424 -- Long Exit ( Use On 7' & 8' Slides)
(1) 206167 -- Double Entrance Section
(1) 19689 -- Pine Climber 8'
(1) 19692 -- Erratic Climber W/Hex Net
5'6"-6'6"
(1) 26058 -- 3 Way X-Pod Step
(1) 26064 -- Dna Climbing Wall Attachment
(4) 26094 -- Triangular Shroud
(1) 26095 -- Hanging Pod Link
(1) 26159 -- 4'-0" Connectscape Climber
(1) 26170 -- Xcelerator
(1) 32076 -- Trinet (Med) W/Pt Connection
(4) G12069 -- 3 1/2"Uprt Ass'Y Galv 14'
(1) M90863 -- Zip Track 53' with a Zero G
Chair
(1) M90863B -- Zip Add A Track
1 23002 GameTime - In-Ground Pkg For 20002 $898.00 $898.00
2 28009 GameTime - 6' P/S Bench W/Back Inground $643.11 $1,286.22
4 161290 GameTime - Geo-Textile 2250 Sqft Roll $659.00 $2,636.00
1 178749 GameTime - Owner's Kit $55.00 $55.00
1 EWF - 12L EWFLGE - 12" compressed depth engineered
wood fiber.
$6,947.65 $6,947.65
1 158244 GameTime - Bubble Panel $660.00 $660.00
1 RDU GameTime - 20002 Replacement hardware $30.34 $30.34
(2) 801010 -- 3/8 X 2-3/4 Hex Hd Bolt
(2) 801014 -- 3/8 X 3-3/4 Hex Hd Bolt
(6) 817334 -- 3/8 Lockwasher
(4) 817401 -- 3/8" Flatwasher 1"O.D.
(8) 156079 -- Molded Bolt Guard
(4) 804556 -- 3/8 T Nut (Spanner)
(4) 817424 -- 3/8 Flat Washer 1 1/4" Od
(2) 811057 -- 3/8"X2 1/2"But Hd Soc Scr
Minnesota / Wisconsin Playground
5101 Highway 55, Suite 6000
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
Ph. 800-622-5425 | 763-546-7787
Fax 763-546-5050 | dan@mnwiplay.com
QUOTE
#23899
02/27/2019
Hagstrom-King Park D9282L2 Materials
Page 2 of 4
page 191
QuantityQuantityQuantityQuantity Part #Part #Part #Part #DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription Unit PriceUnit PriceUnit PriceUnit Price AmountAmountAmountAmount
1 SITE Demo and dispose existing equipment,
excavate and dispose existing surfacing and
playcurbs, and install a 6" wide by 12" tall
concrete border.
$28,846.00 $28,846.00
SubTotal:
Total Amount:
$28,846.00
$28,846.00
This quotation is subject to current Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground policies as well as the following terms and conditions. Our quotation is
based on shipment of all items at one time to a single destination, unless noted, and changes are subject to price adjustment. Purchases in excess
of $1,000.00 to be supported by your written purchase order made out to Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground.
Pricing: f.o.b. factory, firm for 30 days from date of quotation. A tax-exempt certificate is needed at time of order entry for all orders whether
from tax-supported goverment agencies or not. Sales tax, if applicable, will be added at time of invoice unless a tax exempt certificate is
provided at time of order entry.
Payment terms: net 30 days for tax supported governmental agencies. A 1.5% per month finance charge will be imposed on all past due accounts.
Equipment shall be invoiced separately from other services and shall be payable in advance of those services and project completion. Retainage
not accepted.
Minnesota / Wisconsin Playground
5101 Highway 55, Suite 6000
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
Ph. 800-622-5425 | 763-546-7787
Fax 763-546-5050 | dan@mnwiplay.com
QUOTE
#23877
02/25/2019
Hagstrom-King Park D9282L2 Site Work
City of Mendota Heights
Attn: Ryan Ruzek
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Phone: 651-452-1850
ryanr@mendota-heights.com
Ship To Zip: 55118
Page 1 of 3
page 192
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: City Hall Business Hour Change Proposal
Date: March 19, 2019
Comment:
Introduction:
The Council is asked to approve a change in business hours at City Hall. These would be from April 29th
through September 27th. –in effect, May through September.
Background:
City Hall is currently open from 8:00 AM until 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday.
Contractors have been observed waiting in the City Hall parking lot for the building to open at 8:00 AM.
This is most common during the summer months. It is felt that if business hours were offered beyond the
current hours, we could better accommodate those users, and it would be perceived positively by other
customers of the City.
This concept has been discussed with City staff. We have determined that the front desk of City Hall
could open as early as 7:00 AM, and stay open until 4:30 PM, at least on Mondays through Thursdays. In
exchange, the building would close Fridays at 11:30 AM.
Discussion:
In order to gauge the potential impact on City Hall’s customers of a mid-day closure on Fridays, last year
the receptionist was asked to keep a log of how many telephone calls were taken, and how many front
desk walk-ins were helped on Friday afternoons. This was for a seven week period from mid-May
through the end of June. It was found that an average of 11.28 telephone calls were handled each Friday
afternoon, as well as an average of 10 walk-ins.
An average of 2-3 of the telephone calls each week were related to building permits. Many of the walk-
ins were found to be related to employment issues—job applications or W2 information being dropped
off, or seasonal employees picking up checks. Those types of contacts could easily be accommodated
during other working hours.
It appears that the majority of City Hall employees would participate if the change is implemented, which
would mean that most full-time employees would work four 9.5 hour days (including lunch and break
periods) and one four hour day each week. Employees would be able to select a starting time between
page 193
7:00 and 8:00 AM. Depending on the starting time, employees would generally end their work day 9.5
hours later. Employees who do not want to participate could continue to work the standard 8:00 AM to
4:30 PM work hours Monday through Friday, and we know that they would have sufficient work with
which to keep busy even with few or no other co-workers around on Friday afternoons. The City Hall
reception desk would be staffed beginning at 7:00 AM Monday through Friday.
This change in hours would be for the period from the week before the first full weekend in May
(meaning the changed hours would start April 29th), and end the last full weekend of September
(September 27th).
This modification would be for “upstairs” in City Hall, although the ability to do “flex time” would also
be offered to the sole full time non-sworn Police employee. The lower level doors to the Police area
would remain open on Friday afternoons for walk-in traffic for Police.
Public Works currently has had summer operating hours, which would not change.
Budget Impact:
Providing for flexible work hours and extended City Hall reception desk hours would not create an
additional wage expense. Employees will continue to work the number of weekly hours (full or part time)
that they were hired to work. However, flexible scheduling may allow for extra tasks to be done which
are not possible now. Funding for those extra tasks exists in the 2019 budget.
Recommendation:
I feel that the changed hours will present an overall benefit to the external users of City Hall, and will also
be seen as a positive by many City Hall employees. I therefore recommend approval for 2019.
If approved by the City Council, the public will be notified by social media, in the City website, and
notification signs posted on the doors at City Hall.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the change in business hours for City Hall, to
operate from 7:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Thursdays, and 7:00 AM to 11:30 AM on Fridays, to
be effective April 29th through September 27th.
_______________________
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 194