2021-03-16 Council agenda packetCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
March 16, 2021 – 6:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
MN Stat. 13D.021 - Meeting by telephone or other electronic means: Conditions - MN stat. 13D.021 provides that a meeting of a public body
may be conducted via telephone or other electronic means if meeting in a public location is not practical or prudent because of a health
pandemic or declared emergency.
At its meeting on March 17, 2020, the Mendota Heights City Council declared a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a part of
this action, until further notice all City Council and committee meetings will be held through other electronic means, with social distancing
measures in place. All public meetings will continue to follow the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
Note that while all or most of the members of the City Council will be participating remotely, the Council Chambers will be open to the public
during this meeting, assuming that social distancing protocols are followed. Interested individuals may access the meeting by using the
meeting connection information below.
With both the log-in or dial-in options, the line will be muted. Observers wishing to make comments on any agenda item will need to contact
the City Clerk no later than 12 noon the day of the meeting, and provide their contact information and the agenda item which they want to
address.
Public Attendance is available the following ways:
For listening via telephone: 1-312-535-8110, Meeting Access Code: 133 761 0468 # #
For viewing on television: Comcast Cable Channel 18
For viewing online: https://www.townsquare.tv/webstreaming
For viewing on demand, after the original airing: https://www.townsquare.tv/webstreaming
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Adopt Agenda
5. Consent Agenda
a. Approve March 2, 2021 City Council Minutes
b. Approve March 8, 2021 City Council Work Session Minutes
c. Authorize 2020 Auditing Services with BerganKDV
d. Approve Purchase Order for 4 Column Jacks for the Public Works Garage
e. Approve Purchase Order for Tire Changer and Wheel Balancer
f. Approve Bids for 2021 Street Sweeping
g. Approve Treasurer’s Report
h. Approval of Claims List
i. Approve Building Activity Report
j. Acknowledge February 9, 2021 Park and Rec Minutes
6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
*See guidelines below
7. Public Hearings
a. Resolution 2021-25 Establish a Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor), a
Business Subsidy Policy, and a TIF Agreement with Endeavor Development LLC
b. Resolution 2021-22 Approving A Right-of-Way License Agreement - Perron Road
8. New and Unfinished Business
a. Resolution 2021- 23 Appoint Jeffrey Hamiel to Airports Relations Commission
b. Request Turnback of State Right-of-Way Over City Streets
c. Resolution 2021-24 Approve Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Somerset
Sewer Realignment
d. Discussion of Organics Waste Collection Site at Mendakota Park
9. Community Announcements
10. Council Comments
11. Adjourn
Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity
for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak.
Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic;
presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a
future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious.
Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political
endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens,
nor will any decisions be made at that presentation.
Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem
solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate,
the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.”
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Mazzitello, Miller, and Paper
were present using WebEx.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Miller moved adoption of the agenda.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was performed:
Councilor Duggan aye
Councilor Mazzitello aye
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Paper aye
Mayor Levine aye
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Levine presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilor Miller moved approval of the consent calendar, pulling items a. and f. for a separate vote.
a. Approval of February 16, 2021 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of February 24, 2021 Council Work Session Minutes
c. Approve the January Fire Synopsis
d. Award the Contract for Par 3 Well Rehabilitation Project
e. Approve Resolution 2020-14 Accepting Work and Approving Final Payment for the 2019 Storm
Sewer Improvement Project
f. Authorization of Contract with Ellie Family Partnerships, PLLP
g. Approve the January 2021 Treasurer’s Report
h. Approval of Claims List
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was performed:
Councilor Mazzitello aye
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Paper aye
Mayor Levine aye
Councilor Duggan aye
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A) APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 16, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Councilor Duggan noted on page 10, paragraph four, it should state, “…consider a permanent another
possible location…”
Councilor Duggan moved to approve FEBRUARY 16, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS
AMENDED.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Further discussion: Councilor Mazzitello stated that he supports the change but suggested that staff check
the video to confirm the change. He cautioned against making changes that were not stated at the meeting.
A roll call vote was performed:
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Paper aye
Mayor Levine aye
Councilor Duggan aye
Councilor Mazzitello aye
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
F) AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACT WITH ELLIE FAMILY PARTNERSHIPS, PLLP
Councilor Paper asked for more information on the program. He commented that this seems like a terrific
thing and wanted to make sure they are doing enough.
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy stated this contract provides a twice yearly mandated wellness check for
Police Officers, with the goal that they take ownership of their own mental health. She stated that prior to
2013, PTSD claims were a very small percentage of workers’ compensation claims. Today, PTSD claims
are about 30 percent of total claims. She stated that we are in a recruitment and retention crisis and her
main concern is to preserve and retain employees. She hopes this program will help employees stay
healthy and productive.
Councilor Duggan asked if there is concern for the privacy of the officers through this program. Police
Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that this is protected medical data. She stated that she does not receive the
data, she is only told whether the Officer reports to the session.
Councilor Duggan commented that this is a great program and commended Police Chief Kelly McCarthy
for bringing this forward.
Councilor Paper moved to approve AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACT WITH ELLIE FAMILY
PARTNERSHIPS, PLLP.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was performed:
Councilor Paper aye
Mayor Levine aye
Councilor Duggan aye
Councilor Mazzitello aye
Councilor Miller aye
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A) APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 16, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Councilor Duggan stated that he had another proposed change to the minutes. He noted on page 15, the
first paragraph, it should state, “…lighted ballfields are going to be completed contemplated…”
City Attorney Elliot Knetsch confirmed that the minutes could be further amended through a motion.
Councilor Duggan moved to approve FEBRUARY 16, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS
AMENDED.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was performed:
Mayor Levine aye
Councilor Duggan aye
Councilor Mazzitello aye
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Paper aye
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the public wished to be heard.
PRESENTATIONS
A) ROGERS LAKE WATER QUALITY REPORT - SAINT THOMAS ACADEMY
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that Saint Thomas Academy has been testing the water
of Rogers Lake annually and shares the results with the City.
Tony Kinzley, Saint Thomas Academy, stated that his students collected a lot of data last fall and he has
three students present to share the results.
Student Oliver Balfor provided background information on the water quality noting in 2020, 56 percent
of Minnesota’s lakes did not measure up to those standards. He stated that there were eight tests performed
at nine different test sites. 29 groups collected the tests for a total of over 2,000 pieces of data. He
highlighted the different testing locations around the lake and displayed a table of the data.
Student Brendon Crow provided details on the dissolved oxygen test, stating it was 9.7 which is within
the acceptable range. He provided details on the fecal coliform test, reporting a result of 5.1 col/100ml,
which is within the acceptable range. He reported the hydrogen result of 7.9 pH units which is acceptable.
He reviewed details on the biochemical oxygen demand test and reported a result of 4.1 ppm which is an
unacceptable level. He noted that was the only major test that was outside the acceptable range. He
reviewed the change in temperate results reporting a 2020 result of 1.4 degrees C, which is outside of the
acceptable range but could likely have been attributed to the change from sun to shade.
Student Will Applebaum reviewed the results of the nitrate test reporting a result of 0.3 ppm which is
acceptable. He reviewed the total phosphate result noting a result of 1.1 ppm and stated that is just outside
the acceptable range. He reviewed the turbidity results, reporting a rating of 12.7 JTU which is within the
acceptable range. He stated the total solids result was 277.1 mg/L which is within the acceptable range.
He stated that the overall rating of the lake for 2020 was 79.9 which is acceptable and in the good range.
Mr. Balfor provided data on the historical overall rating of Rogers Lake beginning in the 1990’s through
the present. He reported that seven of the ten tests were within the acceptable range. He noted that the
established buffers have helped to improve the water quality. He reviewed areas of improvement for the
lake and things that could have impacted the test results.
Mayor Levine thanked the students for their presentation.
Councilor Miller thanked the students. He referenced the increase in BOD5 and asked if there is a
hypothesis for that increase. He also asked if there is a correlation between the turbidity increase and
BOD5 increase. Mr. Crow replied that BOD5 is typical from pet and yard waste that trickles into the lake
and the increase was perhaps due to people spending more time in their yards in 2020 due to COVID. He
stated that there could be a correlation between the BOD5 and turbidity.
Mr. Applebaum commented that many of the test results are caused by the same thing. He used the
example of yard waste which could increase BOD5 and noted that could also increase turbidity.
Councilor Paper thanked the students, noting that Rogers Lake is one of the City’s best resources. He
referenced the dissolved oxygen noting the difference from when monitoring began 20 years ago to recent
years and asked if there is a hypothesis on that change. Mr. Balfor replied that as testing and equipment
has evolved and improved, they are most likely gaining better results. He commented that the numbers
are much more reliable within the past ten years. He noted that the increased buffer zones have also helped
to provide improvement to the water quality.
Councilor Paper commented that the BOD5 numbers have increased over the past several years, which he
believes correlates to when the City allowed electric motors on the lake. He asked if that could have
something to do with the increase. Mr. Balfor replied that could be a factor but noted that they did not
have specific data that could affirm that. He stated that BOD5 measures organic runoff into the lake and
therefore was unsure motors would have an impact on that number.
Councilor Paper stated that the data is collected from the south side of the lake and asked if data could
also be collected from the north side of the lake. Mr. Balfor was not sure there would be a huge difference.
Councilor Duggan commented that he looks forward to this presentation each year. He thanked the
students and faculty for the great work.
Councilor Mazzitello echoed the comments of thanks. He stated that the City has been doing active weed
removal in partnership with the Rogers Lake HOA and asked if the data could have been impacted by that.
Mr. Balfor commented that they were not aware of that activity. Mr. Crow commented that it would
depend on where the weeds are removed from. He noted that if weeds are removed from the buffer zone
that could have an impact. Councilor Mazzitello clarified that the weed removal is from in the lake.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that most of these tests were taken during the fall which
was a dry period. He stated that the City has partnered with the HOA to provide aquatic weed treatments
in an attempt to treat the curly leaf pond weed which is an aquatic invasive species. He stated that the City
has been doing buckthorn removal on the west side of the lake which could have provided additional
sunlight into the lake. He agreed that this is valuable data that the City will continue to monitor.
Mayor Levine thanked the students for their work. She stated that things that are measured can be
improved upon, which is why this data is important. She welcomed the students to expand their testing
to other lakes in the community. She asked when the buffer zones were added to the lake. Public Works
Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the City installed a buffer zone in 2003 or 2004.
PUBLIC HEARING
A) NPDES PHASE II STORM WATER PERMIT FOR MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM
SEWER SYSTEM (MS4) – ANNUAL PUBLIC HEARING
Natural Resources Technician Krista Spreiter explained that the Council was being asked to hold a public
hearing outlining the City stormwater requirements for compliance with the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency’s MS4 storm water permit.
Councilor Miller moved to open the public hearing.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was performed:
Councilor Mazzitello aye
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Paper aye
Mayor Levine aye
Councilor Duggan aye
There were no comments from the public.
Councilor Duggan asked if the information would be available on the City website. Natural Resources
Technician Krista Spreiter confirmed that the information is available on the website.
Councilor Duggan asked if there has been any discussion with Saint Thomas Academy about the data they
gathered from Rogers Lake. Ms. Spreiter commented that the City is appreciative for the information
submitted each year, but there have not been any additional conversations with the school.
Mayor Levine stated that she appreciates the work that the City is doing, and that the City has a surface
water management plan. She commented water from Mendota Heights flows into either the Mississippi
or the Minnesota rivers and therefore surface water management is important. She asked if anyone has
signed up for the Water Steward program this year. Ms. Spreiter confirmed that there is one Mendota
Heights resident in the program this year, and two other residents that have completed the program.
Mayor Levine encouraged interested residents to reach out to staff if they would be interested in joining
the program. She referenced the County rain barrel and compost bin sale and asked if residents have
expressed interest. Ms. Spreiter stated that this is the first year the City is partnering to hold the event,
noting that ordering just began the previous day.
Mayor Levine referenced the WHEP and CAMP programs noting that her daughter participated in CAMP
which was transformative for her and led to on the path to study environmental studies in college.
There being no one coming forward to speak, Councilor Mazzitello moved to close the public hearing.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was performed:
Councilor Mazzitello aye
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Paper aye
Mayor Levine aye
Councilor Duggan aye
Councilor Duggan asked if staff has considered waiting an additional two weeks in case there are
additional public comments. Natural Resources Technician Krista Spreiter noted that the public can
submit comments any time within the next year on this presentation.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) RESOLUTION 2021-21 AUTHORIZE PARTICIPATION IN THE MN GREENSTEP CITIES
PROGRAM
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Council was being asked to discuss participation in
the Minnesota GreenStep City program.
Recycling Coordinator Cassandra Johnson introduced Diana McKeown from the Great Plains Institute.
Diana McKeown, Great Plains Institute, stated that GreenStep Cities is a partnership program and noted
that the focus of her organization is to help entities build clean energy projects through CERTs. She
explained how CERTs work and provided background information on the Metro CERT region. She stated
that they focus on cities, counties, and local governments and this is a voluntary program. They currently
have 141 participating cities. She reviewed data on the number of cities within the different steps, noting
that the majority of cities fall under step three.
Ms. McKeown explained the things that earn recognition in the different steps and reviewed the categories
of best practices. She stated that for each best practice there are different actions that could be taken to
accomplish that best practice. She highlighted some of the cities in this area that participate in the program
and explained why some cities choose to join the program.
Councilor Paper stated that it appears the neighboring cities are already involved in the program and asked
when those cities began participating in this program. Ms. McKeown noted that Eagan joined in 2010
and Eden Prairie joined in 2011. She stated that West Saint Paul joined in 2017.
Councilor Paper expressed thanks for the presentation and believed this is a worthwhile program.
Councilor Miller stated that the updated Comprehensive Plan includes a chapter on resiliency and believed
that this program will be an essential component of implementing that chapter.
Councilor Duggan commented that he was shocked at the commitment that may be needed. He referenced
the land use section, noting that it would need to be revised in order to meet the goals of land use. He
stated that he was pleased to hear that the program is voluntary. He stated that he will support this program.
Councilor Mazzitello echoed the comments on the great presentation and program. He commented that
he is supportive of taking the first step and adopting the resolution tonight. He asked that staff exercise
good governance and plan out the actions to be taken and paybacks as this moves forward.
Mayor Levine stated that she is supportive of this program. She asked which staff members would take
the lead on this program and whether they feel there is adequate time in their schedule. Recycling
Coordinator Cassandra Johnson confirmed that this would be the responsibility of herself and Public
Works Director Ryan Ruzek. She stated that she also works for other cities that are members of GreenStep
Cities, therefore she is familiar with the program. She believed the program would be an asset as it is free
and voluntary.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he would imagine forming a Committee that would meet
quarterly or semi-annually to review the list of activities and choose a few to focus on.
Mayor Levine stated that the City is already doing some of the activities on the list and would get credit
for those. She believed this is good timing with the recent adoption of the updated Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. McKeown stated that it is up to the City as to how many actions it chooses to complete and whether
it continues participation in the program.
Councilor Duggan moved to approve RESOLUTION 2021-21 AUTHORIZE THE CITY OF MENDOTA
HEIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MINNESOTA GREENSTEPS CITIES PROGRAM.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was performed:
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Paper aye
Mayor Levine aye
Councilor Duggan aye
Councilor Mazzitello aye
B) RESOLUTION 2021-20 ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IVY FALLS EAST NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained the feasibility report for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood
project. Mr. Ruzek stated the improvements on Brompton Place, Downing Street, London Road, Sutcliff
Circle, Winston Circle, and Winston Court will include removing the existing bituminous surface,
aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter repair, and placing a new bituminous surface, watermain, storm
sewer repair, ADA improvements, and appurtenant work. Trail improvements within the public right of
way leading to Ivy Falls Park are also anticipated.
Councilor Miller asked the estimated start time and the length of construction. Mr. Ruzek commented that
it is not a large project and estimated that construction would start in July and end late September.
Councilor Duggan stated that he spoke with a property owner adjacent to the proposed trail who was
concerned about an increase in pedestrian traffic. He asked if the property owner would be charged for
any of the improvements. Mr. Ruzek replied that the City would bond for the trail costs. He stated that
the trail is not a regional attraction and would serve as an access for the neighbors to the park.
Councilor Duggan asked the recourse if the adjacent property owners do not want the trail. Mr. Ruzek
commented that this is public right-of-way and the trail is an allowed use. He stated the reclaimed material
from the road project would be used to create the gravel base for the trail and the surface would be paved.
City staff would maintain it. He confirmed that there would not be an assessment for the adjacent property
owners for the trail.
Councilor Paper commented that adding the trail would help the entire neighborhood have easier access
to the park. He noted that additional landscaping could be added to provide buffering. He asked if there
are any proposed additional catch basins with this project. Mr. Ruzek identified where catch basins were
proposed to be added to help with identified drainage concerns.
Councilor Paper stated that this was called a small project and asked for additional details. Mr. Ruzek
stated that he originally proposed to complete this project with the Marie Avenue project in 2020. He
noted that these are quieter neighborhood streets and there would not be very much traffic disruption.
Councilor Paper asked if there would be impacts to the bids that may be received because it is a smaller
project. Mr. Ruzek commented that this would be a good fall project for a contractor once they complete
a summer project that may be on their schedule.
Councilor Paper asked the amount of service interruption that residents would experience because of the
watermain work being completed. Mr. Ruzek replied that a temporary water system would be setup for
the residents in this area, noting that these residents would not have a water bill for the time they are
connected to the temporary water system.
Councilor Mazzitello commended staff for the thorough feasibility report. He referenced the proposed
trail and stated that the right-of-way is 60 feet wide with an eight-foot trail proposed. The City should be
able to screen the trail to satisfy the adjacent property owners. He stated that Mendota Heights has always
attempted to connect the community and currently this neighborhood needs to go blocks out of the way to
access this park. This trail connection would benefit the neighborhood.
Mayor Levine asked if the critical area moratorium would impact this project. Mr. Ruzek commented that
this project area is not within the critical area district.
Mayor Levine asked staff how they encourage participation in rain gardens in conjunction with road
projects. Mr. Ruzek stated that he would mail information to the properties within the assessment range
for this project and could include the two properties abutting the proposed trail. He noted that a second
push could be made towards rain gardens in the packet and through the virtual open house meeting. He
stated that initially ten properties were interested in rain gardens.
Councilor Duggan suggested that the two properties abutting the trail should be invited to sit in on the
discussion related to screening for the trail.
Councilor Paper commented that the City should be cautious as to how much screening would be installed
because of the ongoing maintenance.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the City is looking to implement maintenance
agreements for rain gardens.
Mayor Levine stated that perhaps the City would plant a few trees and the neighboring property owners
could plant additional vegetation if desired.
Councilor Paper agreed but noted that there would be a limit because it is City right-of-way.
Councilor Mazzitello agreed that there should be discussions with the neighboring property owners as to
what will be done in the right-of-way and a plan can then be crafted to address those concerns but
recognized there is a limit to what can be done in terms of the ongoing maintenance obligation.
Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2021-20 ACCEPTING THE FEASIBILITY
REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IVY FALLS EAST
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT #201906.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was performed:
Councilor Paper aye
Mayor Levine aye
Councilor Duggan aye
Councilor Mazzitello aye
Councilor Miller aye
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that registration for summer recreation and Par 3 begins the
following week online and at City Hall. He noted that there are spots open for adult open league softball.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Mazzitello commented on the passing of former City Administrator Jim Danielson, noting he
was one of the few people he considered a mentor. He suggested the Council consider memorializing Mr.
Danielson at an upcoming meeting.
Councilor Duggan commented that he was privileged to work with Mr. Danielson for many years on the
Planning Commission and Council. He stated that he supports the idea of some kind of memorial.
Councilor Miller stated that he had the opportunity to meet Mr. Danielson on a few occasions and
commented that he was a kind man and generous with his time. He supported a future motion to name
something after him in the City.
Councilor Paper stated that he did not personally know Mr. Danielson but agreed his fingerprints are all
over the community. He stated that Mr. Danielson left a good impression upon the community. He
thanked the Saint Thomas Academy students for their presentation on Rogers Lake.
Mayor Levine echoed the previous Council comments related to Mr. Danielson. She commented that
those that are temporarily elected to office are only there temporarily and their efforts are paved by those
that have come before. She expressed thanks to Mr. Danielson and the excellent work he completed.
ADJOURN
Councilor Paper moved to adjourn.
Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was performed:
Mayor Levine aye
Councilor Duggan aye
Councilor Mazzitello aye
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Paper aye
Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
____________________________________
Stephanie Levine
ATTEST: Mayor
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Council Work Session
Held Via WebEx
Tuesday, March 8, 2021
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at
City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Council members Duggan, Mazzitello, Miller, and
Paper were also present. Staff in attendance included City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant City
Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Recreation Coordinator Meredith
Lawrence, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, and City Clerk Lorri Smith.
DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
City Administrator Mark McNeill updated the Council on the status of the Wentworth Warming House
project, saying the grant deadline can be extended, giving the City more time to plan this project. For the
skate park improvement project, improvements will need to be made to make it functional this summer.
The improvements are estimated to cost $5,000.
Mr. McNeill and Ms. Jacobson discussed the draft Park Asset Management Plan that was included in the
packet. This is a planning tool that forecasts the city’s needs over a five-year rolling period based on the
goals of the Council. This plan is still being developed, and, when completed, will help the Council move
forward with their goals. Mr. McNeill discussed the possibility of the City hiring an outside consultant to
help the Council with the process to complete the overall strategic plan for the parks and natural resources.
The Council was in agreement to move forward with the hiring of a contractor to help with the process to
develop a well thought out plan, process and timeline for the Park Asset Management Plan.
REVIEW OF FIELD AND USE FEES
Recreation Coordinator Meredith Lawrence discussed with the Council the current fees being charged for
field and facility use. The current fees being charged are per player/season for priority levels 3 and 4.
Priority levels 5, 6, and 7 are charged on a per hour rate/per field. The level 3 user groups were consulted
and they expressed their desire to continue with the per player/season rate schedule.
For tournament fees, the current use charges are $50 per day/per field for priority levels 3 and 4. These user
groups express their desire for this fee to be lowered.
Council Paper stated he has had discussions with MAHA Commissioners who state that it is cost
prohibitive for them to host a tournament in Mendota Heights. They requested a reduction of these
tournament fees. Councilor Paper suggested lowering these fees for Mendota Heights’ residents, keeping it
under $500, and separating out priority levels 3 and 4, if needed.
Council Miller stated he is open to raising the fees for the outside groups.
Mayor Levine suggested separating priority levels 3 and 4 on the tournament fee schedule, and changing
the use fee for priority level 3 to $0.
Ms. Lawrence clarified that it would be difficult to separate out levels 3 and 4, since Mendota Heights’
residents also participate in level 4.
Councilor Mazzitello asked what these fees help to pay for. Ms. Schabacker stated that the fees go into the
general budget and help to pay for staff and field preparation costs. Councilor Mazzitello stated that these
fees help to fund the parks and recreation budget. He suggested that fees remain unchanged until after the
Park Asset Management Plan has been fully developed.
Councilor Paper suggested that the parks with multiple fields, Kensington and Mendakota, be charged
differently.
Mayor Levine suggested capping the tournament fees for priority level 3 to an amount under $500. The
Council was in agreement to this proposal.
Ms. Lawrence discussed the tennis court reservation fee of $25 per year. There is an issue with coaches
and residents reserving the courts for the entire season at this low fee. She stated that most cities do not
reserve tennis courts for users, but have them available on a first come, first serve basis.
The Council was in agreement to amend the fee schedule to lower the tournament fees for priority level 3,
and adjust the tennis court reservation fees. Staff will return to a future City Council meeting with a
recommendation.
ADJOURN
Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:45 pm.
____________________________________
Stephanie Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
DATE: March 16, 2021
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Audit Services
INTRODCUTION
The Council is asked to approve auditing services for 2020.
BACKGROUND
The City has been using the auditing firm of KDV since 2009. Because they are professional
services as defined by the State, the City is able to renew the contract with the auditor without
seeking quotes from other firms.
At this time, BerganKDV has provided the City with a quote for the upcoming 2020 audit. The
cost for the 2020 audit is proposed to be $36,700, plus $3,000 - $5,000 for each federal program
tested under the Single Audit. (The Single Audit will be required for 2020 because of the CARES
funds the City received is over the threshold and requires the Single Audit.)
The cost of the 2018 audit was $35,900. This represents an increase of 2.22%. 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 2020 audit at a cost of $36,700 plus the additional costs for a Single Audit.
BUDGET IMPACT
This cost has been budgeted for in the 2021 budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council enter into the contract for auditing
services with BerganKDV for the 2020 audit as quoted above.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize a contract with BerganKDV to provide
auditing services for the City for budget year 2020, as described herein.
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: March 16, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John Boland, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Purchase of 4 Column Jacks COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to approve the purchase of a set of four column jacks for the mechanics
shop at Public Works. This item was included in the 2021 Budget.
Background
The vehicle hoists at Public Works are not long or heavy enough to accommodate some the
city’s fleet of vehicles and equipment.
Discussion
Staff likes the portability and ease of the use with column jacks over the in-ground hoist. These
jacks are versatile enough to be wheeled out to the parking lot. They can be used on longer
vehicles that do not fit in the garage or need to be worked on in the parking lot. These jacks have
a rating to safely lift any piece of equipment that the city owns, including fire trucks and our
wheel loader.
Midwest Lift has the state contract pricing for Steril Koni USA column jacks for the price of
$52,743.82.
Budget Impact
There is $55,000 in the budget to cover the purchase of these four column jacks. Proceeds from
the sale of the Village lots was identified to be used for this purchase from the General Fund.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the purchase of the four
column jacks for the price of $52,743.82 from Midwest Lift.
Action Required
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion to purchase the
four column jacks for the price of $52,743.82 from Midwest Lift, by simple majority vote.
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: March 16, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John Boland, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Purchase of New Tire Changer and Wheel Balancer
Introduction
The Council is asked to approve the purchase of a new tire changer and wheel balancer for Public
Works.
Background
Included in the Public Works 2021 CIP expenditures budget is the replacement of a tire changer
and wheel balancer.
Currently the city has a 30-year-old tire changing machine and wheel balancer that is used to repair
and change tires. It is not capable of changing the one-ton and larger trucks tires (19.5” wheels)
or the smaller turf tires used in the parks or used at the Par 3. The present machines are beyond
their useful life and it has been difficult to obtain original parts for repairs.
Discussion
A new machine will be capable of changing the 19.5” tires and smaller tires on the turf equipment.
Within the cities fleet of vehicles, there are over 150 tires on vehicles/equipment that this machine
will be tasked with for tire removal/repair.
Staff requested quotes from three vendors with a trade-in on the old machine. Snap-On was the
only quote that included a trade-in value of the old machine. John Bean and Hunter Engineering
were not interested in the old machine based on the age, condition and brand.
Budget Impact
The three quotes received:
Snap-On $12,616.74
John Bean $16,882.57
Hunter Engineering $15,821.45
Staff is familiar with the Snap-On machine. Snap-On has quick availability with the vendor for
maintenance or parts, if there are any issues. The machines do come with a two-year warranty and
Snap-On is a quality brand in the tool industry.
There is $13,200 in the CIP budget to cover the costs of the tire changer and wheel balancer.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council pass a motion to approve the purchase
of a tire changer and wheel balancer from Snap-On in the amount of $12,616.74.
Action Required
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion to approve the
purchase of a tire changer and wheel balancer from Snap-On in the amount of $12,616.74. This
requires a simple majority vote.
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: March 16, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John Boland, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: 2021 Street Sweeping COMMENT:
Introduction
The City Council is asked to award a contract for street sweeping.
Background
Every spring the City goes out for bids to sweep the city’s streets. The bid price includes the
sweeping of the streets in the spring and fall.
Requests for bids were sent out to four contractors that have been interested in bidding in the past.
We received four bids and they are as follows:
Mike McPhillips, Inc. $86.64/hour
Allied Blacktop Company $87.00/hour
Pearson Bros., Inc. $88.00/hour
Reliakor Services $90.00/hour
Discussion
Mike McPhillips, Inc. has swept the city streets in the past with very positive results. They will
be providing four to six sweepers a day to sweep the streets. Weather permitting, we can generally
sweep the streets in the spring in four days, while the fall sweeping takes a few more days because
of the leaves. Scheduling will be set based on weather and availability, with the hope of an early
April start date.
In 2020, the cost to sweep the streets in the spring and fall was $26,026.00.
Budget Impact
There is $50,000.00 in the 2021 Budget for street sweeping and striping.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the bid from Mike McPhillips,
Inc. for their low bid of $86.64 an hour to sweep the streets in the spring and fall of 2021.
Action Required
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion to approve the low
bid from Mike McPhillips, Inc., for their low bid of $86.64 an hour to sweep the streets in the
spring and fall of 2021.
2/27/2021 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official
February 1, 2021 thru February 28, 2021 January 1, 2021 thru February 28, 2021 January 1, 2020 thru February 29, 2020 January 1, 2019 thru February 28, 2019
Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected
SFD 1 685,200.00$ $7,238.14 SFD 2 1,370,450.00$ $14,476.28 SFD 1 400,000.00$ $4,713.64 SFD 1 629,742.00$ 6,776.14$
Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 0 -$ -$
Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ -$
Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$
Misc 40 567,091.66$ 8,203.07$ Misc 75 1,142,485.66$ 15,936.91$ Misc 55 816,689.85$ 11,522.70$ Misc 54 963,294.00$ 11,821.04$
Commercial 1 52,258.35$ $704.25 Commercial 1 52,258.35$ $704.25 Commercial 5 334,858.00$ $3,526.25 Commercial 0 -$ -$
Sub Total 42 1,304,550.01$ 16,145.46$ Sub Total 78 2,565,194.01$ 31,117.44$ Sub Total 61 1,551,547.85$ 19,762.59$ Sub Total 55 1,593,036.00$ 18,597.18$
Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected
Plumbing 21 $1,925.00 Plumbing 35 $3,020.00 Plumbing 46 $4,137.15 Plumbing 35 2,881.50$
Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 -$
Sewer 2 $150.00 Sewer 5 $375.00 Sewer 2 $150.00 Sewer 0 -$
Mechanical 28 $3,200.37 Mechanical 51 397.00$ $5,781.29 Mechanical 59 $4,797.18 Mechanical 51 4,546.05$
Sub Total 51 5,275.37$ Sub Total 91 9,176.29$ Sub Total 107 $9,084.33 Sub Total 86 7,427.55$
License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected
Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 158 7,900.00$
Total 93 1,304,550.01$ 21,420.83$ Total 169 2,565,194.01$ 40,293.73$ Total 168 1,551,547.85$ 28,846.92$ Total 299 1,593,036.00$ 33,924.73$
NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING
FEBRUARY 9, 2021
The February meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on
Tuesday, February 9, 2021, via WebEx.
1. Call to Order – Chair Steve Goldade called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Steve Goldade,
Commissioners: Jaffrey Blanks, Patrick Cotter, Bob Klepperich, Stephanie Meyer, Dan Sherer
and Amy Smith; absent: none. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith
Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator, Cheryl Jacobson and Public Works Director, Ryan
Ruzek.
2.a Introduction of New Commissioner
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence introduced the newest member of the
Parks and Recreation Commission, Jaffrey Blanks.
The members of the Commission introduced themselves.
3. Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence noted that each February the Commission
elects a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the next 12-month period. She reviewed the
duties of each position and opened the floor for nominations for the Chairperson position.
Motion Klepperich/second Blanks to nominate and elect Steve Goldade as Chairperson of the
Parks and Recreation Commission for 2021.
A roll call vote was performed:
Commissioner Smith aye
Commissioner Blanks aye
Commissioner Cotter aye
Commissioner Sherer aye
Commissioner Meyer aye
Commissioner Klepperich aye
Chair Goldade aye
Motion carried.
Ms. Lawrence opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chairperson.
Motion Cotter/second Meyer to elect Bob Klepperich as Vice-Chairperson of the Parks and
Recreation Commission for 2021.
A roll call vote was performed:
Commissioner Sherer aye
Commissioner Meyer aye
Commissioner Klepperich abstain
Chair Goldade aye
Commissioner Smith aye
Commissioner Blanks aye
Commissioner Cotter aye
Motion carried.
4. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
5. Approval of Agenda
Motion Klepperich/second Sherer, to approve the agenda.
A roll call vote was performed:
Commissioner Cotter aye
Commissioner Smith aye
Commissioner Blanks aye
Commissioner Klepperich aye
Chair Goldade aye
Commissioner Sherer aye
Commissioner Meyer aye
Motion carried.
6.a Approval of Minutes from January 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
Motion Klepperich/second Cotter to approve the minutes of the January 5, 2021 Parks and
Recreation Commission Regular Meeting.
Further discussion: Commissioner Meyer asked if these items could be accepted by consensus
in order to avoid roll call votes.
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence noted that State Statute requires a roll call
vote for hybrid and virtual meeting formats.
A roll call vote was performed:
Commissioner Blanks aye
Commissioner Klepperich aye
Commissioner Meyer aye
Commission Sherer aye
Commissioner Smith aye
Chair Goldade aye
Commissioner Cotter aye
Motion carried.
7. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
None.
8. Acknowledgement of Reports
Chair Goldade read the titles of the two updates (Par 3 and Recreation Updates) and polled the
Commissioners for questions.
8.a Par 3 Update
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence briefly reviewed the update noting that
staff is preparing for the 2021 season. She stated that the course had a very good season
noting that the numbers included in the Financial Report are pending approval through the audit
and provided a brief summary. She stated that staff is happy with the numbers and continues to
discuss ideas for the 2021 season. She stated that the rebranding ideas were approved by the
Council at its last meeting and the new logo has begun to be used. She advised of the policies
she is working to update and noted that the seasonal staff positions for the course have been
released for recruitment.
Commissioner Smith asked if there would be golf camps this summer.
Ms. Lawrence replied that staff is planning to have camps, leagues, and tournaments. She
stated that they are keeping registration capacities low and COVID-19 plans will be necessary,
noting that registration begins on March 9th.
Commissioner Sherer stated that he has seen promotions from other courses offering early
passes and asked if the City has considered that option.
Ms. Lawrence replied that she does not have staff at the course at this time but is something
staff could look into for 2022. She stated that staffing duties are at capacity for 2021 as she still
needs to direct time towards COVID-19. She stated that she would be interested in discussing
options for 2022.
Commissioner Cotter asked if a page will be added to the City website specifically for the Par 3
course.
Ms. Lawrence stated that is on the list for the Communications Coordinator to complete. She
stated that there are some constraints to the website and therefore the Council is discussing
options for that in the near future. She confirmed that the page will be updated.
Chair Goldade asked if the Council selected the logo recommended by the Commission.
Ms. Lawrence confirmed that the navy logo recommended by the Commission was approved by
the Council.
8.b Recreation Update
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence reported that warming houses are now
open at Friendly Hills and Marie Parks. She stated that ice rinks have been well-used this
season. She stated that recreation registration opens on March 9th at 9:00 a.m. on the website
or in-person at City Hall. She noted that all programs will have COVID-19 plans as required and
will be updated based on guidance from the Governor. She stated that, as directed by the
Commission, she met with the regular user groups for field and facility use to answer any
questions those groups may have, advise them of deadlines and process, and receive
feedback.
Chair Goldade thanked staff for meeting with the user groups as requested. He hoped that
helped to get the groups off to a positive start.
Commissioner Sherer asked if it would be possible to receive an update on the requests
received and the schedule for granting permits.
Ms. Lawrence replied that requests were due February 1st, but she has not yet had a chance to
review those. She stated that the typical users have all submitted requests. She noted that she
will meet with maintenance staff the following week to determine capacity and hopes to have the
allocations completed by the end of the month or early in March.
Motion Cotter/second Blanks to acknowledge the staff reports.
A roll call vote was performed:
Commissioner Cotter aye
Commissioner Meyer aye
Chair Goldade aye
Commissioner Blanks aye
Commissioner Smith aye
Commissioner Klepperich aye
Commissioner Sherer aye
Motion carried.
9. New Business
9.a Rules of Order
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that she provides the rules of order
each February as required in the bylaws and provided a brief overview.
Chair Goldade asked for information on attendance and how members should report an
absence.
Ms. Lawrence noted that a Commission member is allowed to have up to four excused
absences within one year. She stated that if a Commission member is not able to attend, they
should alert both herself and Chair Goldade by 4 p.m. the day before the meeting.
Commissioner Cotter commented that perhaps staff should review Section 1.3 to determine if
additional language should be added related to virtual meetings because of the current
situation.
Chair Goldade stated that he and Commissioner Klepperich have begun meeting with Ms.
Lawrence one week prior to the meeting date in order to set the agenda in attempt to make the
process efficient and more productive. He welcomed any input from Commissioners prior to
that time if they have an item they would like to appear on an agenda.
9.b Assign Commissioner Parks
Chair Goldade stated that historically each Commission member has been assigned two parks
with the task to visit the parks between meetings and express any comments or concerns. He
asked that members of the Commission choose their parks for the year.
Commissioner Blanks chose Valley Park and Mendakota Park.
Commissioner Sherer offered to swap park choices with Commissioner Smith as they live near
each other.
Commissioner Smith agreed and her assigned parks are now Friendly Hills and Kensington
parks.
Commissioner Sherer agreed to Hagstrom King and Market Square parks.
Commissioner Cotter agreed to take the Dog park and Rogers Lake park.
Commissioner Klepperich agreed to take Civic Center and Ivy Hills parks. He reminded the
Commissioners to report any safety issues to Ms. Lawrence immediately to ensure that can be
addressed by Public Works.
Commissioner Meyer agreed to keep Marie and Victoria Highlands parks.
Chair Goldade agree to take Valley View Heights and Wentworth parks.
9.c Marie Park Playground Recommendation
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that information was included in the
packet related to the Marie Park playground remodel. She stated that the subcommittee worked
with her heavily on this task. She stated that the RFP was approved by the City Council in
October and reviewed the items which were approved be included in the RFP. She stated that
the budget was $125,000 and each of the nine proposals met that budget. She stated that the
subcommittee reviewed the proposals and narrowed down the proposals to three, which were
then made available for public input and review tonight as options A (Finnegan), B (Midwest
Playscapes), and C (Northwest Recreation). She stated that each proposal has a similar cost
and is at the allowed budget. She stated that a virtual open house was hosted on January 26th
with five residents participating and preferences for options B or C. She stated that an in person
open house was also hosted on January 28th with the majority of those residents choosing
options C and A. She stated that a survey was also posted on the community’s engagement
platform, as well as other platforms, noting that those results were included in the packet with
option C gaining the most support. She stated that option C has a very large container, which
almost doubles the size of the current playground, and does not fit within the topography of the
map included in the RFP. She stated that staff met with the contractor and felt comfortable that
they could keep the same equipment in a different arrangement to better fit the space and
address any safety concerns. She stated that updated layout was included in the packet and
still encroaches further into the baseball field than planned. She asked the Commission to
consider that as there is not a fence for the outfield. She asked the Commission for a
recommendation as this will move forward to the Council next week in order to meet the
timelines within the RFP and installation.
Chair Goldade provided clarification on the business representing each brand of play equipment
as outlined in each option.
Commissioner Cotter stated that he reviewed the applicable contracts and compared those to
the RFP, noting that he has concerns with the contract language.
Commissioner Klepperich asked for information on warranties and installation.
Ms. Lawrence replied that necessary documents for each company’s warranty were included in
the RFP as required, which appear to be standard.
Commissioner Sherer stated that he reviewed the options with his children, who selected option
C as did the majority of the community that provided input. He asked for input from staff related
to the encroachment of the outfield, noting there could be a conflict depending upon the user.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that there is a marker post of 180 feet in right field
from home plate, and in left field the marker is 200 feet. He stated that staff would not want to
encroach further than that marker.
Commissioner Blanks asked how viable option C would be, noting that the footprint, features,
and cost caught his eye. He asked if that additional cost could be supported.
Ms. Lawrence clarified that option C had a bid alternate and stated that without the shade
structures the total would be $125,000 and with the shade structures the cost would be
$133,004. She provided background information noting that the City submitted the RFP before
it found out about the change in how special parks fund dollars could be used. She stated that
depending upon the size, some special parks fund dollar could be used but the majority would
need to be funded in another manner, and therefore the budget would be tight at $125,000.
Commissioner Cotter commented that in reviewing the RFP it states the contractor shall pay
sales tax and each vendor has stated that is not their responsibility and that the taxes would be
billed separately. He stated that sales tax would be a significant cost that increases the cost
above the budgeted amount. He stated that there are other issues as to who would be
responsible for different items in the process that would also need to be addressed.
Ms. Lawrence stated that the City is a tax-exempt entity and does not pay sales tax on items
purchased, with the exception of the golf course. She stated that she could look into that further
to gather additional information before this moves to the Council.
Chair Goldade asked if site prep would be funded through the $125,000 or whether there are
other options for that.
Ms. Lawrence noted that the site prep, demolition, and disposal were included in the RFP and
the only expense the City will pay for outside of the RFP was the tree and stump removal.
Commissioner Klepperich stated that option C includes a note that it has been assumed that the
site will be prepared, which would then seem to place that burden on the City.
Commissioner Cotter stated that the contract does include demolition and site work, but the
remaining language is not consistent with that and provided examples. He stated that language
would need to be addressed.
Chair Goldade confirmed that those issues could be worked out with staff prior to the City
Council meeting.
Commissioner Meyer commented that there are a few things she is concerned with. She stated
that when these were presented to the public, she was unsure that it was clear the giant tree will
be removed, as that is a source of shade, and the public would most likely want to see some
option for shade included. She stated that when presented to the public, the layout for option C
was different, noting that there were concerns with the layout. She stated that the
rearrangement that has been done is great, but it now encroaches on the outfield which would
appear to make that not a valid option. She stated that residents have asked about getting
around the pond and that was not discussed in relation to the footprint. She stated that they are
putting effort into keeping the walkway and slab, but on the other side there would be further
encroachment towards the pond that would further disturb the wildlife in that area. She noted
that option B is fairly close to the pond and was unsure how important it is to keep the walkway
and cement slab and whether there would be an option to shift to the southeast. She stated that
if the layout for option C, with the encroachment, is not viable it should simply be removed from
the table for consideration.
Mr. Ruzek commented that a buffer around a pond is not necessarily for wildlife and nesting but
is meant to help filter runoff. He stated that the City does not fertilize the park and therefore the
surface water runoff would not contain a high amount of nutrients. He stated that he has not
selected a planned trail layout between the trail and park and therefore the buffer could be
increased to the playground container and/or a fence could be added to further buffer the areas.
He did not believe the entire asphalt path needs to remain in place, but he would prefer more
than one ingress into the park. He believed that trail could be shorted by 20 or 30 feet. He
stated that the concrete pad is only one or two years old and did not believe that would need to
move. He stated that the playground could shift only slightly without impacting additional trees
or encountering additional challenges with topography.
Chair Goldade asked if the Commission could recommend option C with a smaller container.
He asked the type of flexibility the Commission would have.
Ms. Lawrence stated that staff feels comfortable with the way the RFP was written and that the
features could be moved around as residents provided input on features and not necessarily
where the features are located. She stated that the City received a good response from bidders
because some municipalities have chosen not to move forward with CIP projects. She stated
that she would like a recommendation from the Commission tonight in order to move forward
with the timeline for installation this year.
Commissioner Smith commented that when the subcommittee chose the three vendors, these
were chosen because of the equipment that was included noting that each had a unique piece
of equipment with a good distribution of equipment for both older and younger children. She
stated that it is unfortunate that option C encroaches into the field as fields are in high demand.
She stated that options A and B have similar features and provide a lot as well. She recognized
that shade was a concern but noted that trees will grow and eventually provide additional shade.
Commissioner Klepperich commented that option B specifically says that no site restoration and
extra material left on the site will be the responsibility of the City to remove, which also conflicts
with the RFP.
Commissioner Cotter agreed that there are inconsistencies in each of the contract and noted
that there would need to be additional negotiation on the terms of whichever option is selected.
He asked for input from Commissioner Smith and Meyer as to whether the footprint issue can
be fixed without substantially changing what the playground will look like. He also asked if the
Commissioners would be comfortable moving forward without the shade option. He noted that
option C seems to jump out at everyone as the number one choice for amenities and therefore if
the footprint and shade could be addressed it would seem to solve the issues.
Commissioner Meyer agreed that if the footprint issue and shade could be solved, C would be
the clear winner as that was the preferred choice by the public. She stated that if there are no
other options for the footprint, she does not believe that option could move forward.
Commissioner Blanks commented that he feels that the shade aspect is also important in the
summer months. He stated that it is easy to appear as the number one choice when you do not
meet all the requirements such as size, shade, and cost.
Ms. Lawrence stated that C did follow the requirements as the RFP allowed for a bid alternate,
which is what that vendor did with the shade. She agreed that the shape would not follow
topography, but the shade was allowed to be an alternate.
Chair Goldade asked if there is a possible solution to the encroachment of the baseball field.
Mr. Ruzek stated that the container would be slightly outside of the baseball field, with the
biggest fear being that playground users would find the area unsafe for their children if a ball
comes near the playground area. He stated that perhaps there would be a way to configure the
container and alignment, removing the walkway and shifting to the west, to better utilize that
space. He noted that perhaps the size could even be increased slightly to the east to pull
further away from the baseball field. He stated that as long as the features are included,
reorganizing the layout would not violate the RFP.
Commissioner Cotter asked if the Commission could provisionally approve that option with the
direction for staff to attempt to configure the container size and contract language. He stated
that if that could not be done to acceptance, perhaps the item come back before the
Commission.
Commissioner Klepperich stated that a recommendation needs to be done tonight in order to
meet the timing and completion for this upcoming season. He stated that the Commission could
make a recommendation of C as the preferred choice, contingent upon those items being
completed and provided a backup suggestion if those contingencies could not be met. He
stated that he would not want the playground and baseball activities to overlap.
Commissioner Sherer stated that there was a discussion on whether to use Marie or Friendly
Hills for 9- or 10-year-olds. He asked if the traveling team puts up their own fence for use.
Ms. Lawrence stated that a playground has a typical life of 15 years and therefore field use
within that time could change and it would not just be used by 9- and 10-year-olds. She stated
that she does plan to clarify the contract language for whichever choice is made, along with
assistance from the City Attorney. She confirmed that the RFP has a deadline of which the City
must take action on in order for that to remain valid. She stated that this is scheduled to go to
the City Council next week. She agreed that a fallback option would be helpful in the case that
the contingencies could not be worked out for option C.
Chair Goldade provided background on the temporary fencing, noting that it was not installed at
Marie in 2020. He stated that there could be a motion that states that the playground does not
impact the baseball field. He stated that two motions could be made identifying options one and
two.
Motion Cotter to recommend to the City Council playground C for Marie Park, if the footprint is
able to be reconfigured to not encroach on the baseball field as is and in a manner that does not
cause a safety concern for playground or baseball field users.
Further discussion: Commissioner Blanks asked if the shade option would also be addressed.
Ms. Lawrence asked for clarification on whether the bid alternate in the amount of $8,004 is
meant to be included in the recommendation or whether the recommendation was to move
forward with the bid price of $125,000.
Chair Goldade asked if Commissioner Cotter would consider including the bid alternate for the
shade.
Commissioner Cotter confirmed that he would accept that with the motion as follows.
Motion Cotter/second Blanks to recommend to the City Council playground C for Marie Park, if
the footprint is able to be reconfigured to not encroach on the baseball field as is and in a
manner that does not cause a safety concern for playground or baseball field users, and to
include the bid alternate option for shade with a total price of $133,004.
Further discussion: Commissioner Sherer stated that it would need to be decided as to what
would encroach on the baseball field.
Ms. Lawrence stated that staff measured the foul ball post near the playground, which was
measured at 180 feet, while the post on the other side of the field was marked at 200 feet. She
stated therefore there was already slightly an encroachment on that side of the field because of
the existing container.
Chair Goldade stated that perhaps the language should state that the marker for right field not
be less than 180 feet.
Commissioner Meyer asked if all the plans go past the 180-foot marker. She asked if the
Commission is asking that this plan be reduced by 20 feet. She noted that all the plans
encroach into that area to some extent.
Ms. Lawrence provided additional explanation on the containers proposed for the different
options, noting that option C would encroach.
Mr. Ruzek clarified that he would not want to see the container closer than the 200-foot mark.
He stated that closest point for the existing container is 199 feet.
Chair Goldade suggested that the additional language be added that the container never be
less than 180 feet for the distance as measured for right field rather than using as is. He
confirmed agreement with the motion maker and seconder to amend the motion as stated:
Motion Cotter/second Blanks to recommend to the City Council playground C for Marie Park, if
the footprint is able to be reconfigured to not encroach on the baseball field as is with right field
measured at 180 feet, and in a manner that does not cause a safety concern for playground or
baseball field users, and to include the bid alternate option for shade with a total price of
$133,004.
A roll call vote was performed:
Commissioner Meyer aye
Commissioner Sherer aye
Chair Goldade nay
Commissioner Cotter aye
Commissioner Smith aye
Commissioner Blanks aye
Commissioner Klepperich nay
Motion carried.
Chair Goldade asked if there is interest in putting forth a second recommendation in the case
that the contingencies for option C cannot be met.
Motion Smith/second Blanks to recommend to the City Council playground B for Marie Park as
the secondary recommendation.
Further discussion: Commissioner Blanks commented that he sees this as a great option as it
meets all the needs and includes the option for shade. He stated that the majority of discussion
focused on option C, but option B is a great option.
Commissioner Meyer asked if there would be an issue with the distance from the container to
the pond, as she received input from residents concerned about decreasing that distance. She
noted that the option for a trail around the pond would not be an option if the playground
encroaches too far in that direction.
Mr. Ruzek stated that the eastern border of the boundary would have been a minimum of 25
feet from the waterline and he would like a minimum of 25 feet for the buffer from the waterline.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the area that currently has cattails would be filled.
Mr. Ruzek replied that he will majorly destroy the pond before a buffer is installed. He stated
that he would most likely dig the pond out and then install a buffer around the edges in one or
two years. He confirmed that he would be comfortable with this plan as well.
Commissioner Klepperich asked and received confirmation that option B would take the same
footprint of the existing playground.
A roll call vote was performed:
Chair Goldade nay
Commissioner Klepperich aye
Commissioner Meyer aye
Commissioner Sherer aye
Commissioner Cotter aye
Commissioner Blanks aye
Commissioner Smith aye
Motion carried.
Chair Goldade thanked staff and everyone that participated in this process.
9.d Dakota County Big Rivers Regional Trail Improvement
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that Dakota County operates the Big Rivers Regional
Trailhead, located at the end of Mendota Heights Road to the west of Highway 13. He stated
that there are historical features within the park and the County is looking to make upgrades to
the park. He reviewed the proposed improvements that are anticipated, noting that the project
will tie into the City’s sewer and water utilities. He also provided details on the intention of the
State to turnback Old Sibley Highway to the City of Mendota Heights in the near future. He
provided details on the proposed structure which would include a restroom and picnic area. He
confirmed that this item is simply informational and does not require action from the
Commission as this is a County project. He stated that the City would be able to display
materials in one side of the new kiosk.
Chair Goldade thanked staff for teaming with the County, noting that this is a well visited park
and he looks forward to the additional trail connections.
10. Unfinished Business
10.a Park Volunteer Program Concept
Chair Goldade asked if Items A and D could be moved to the March meeting.
Recreation Program Coordinator Lawrence stated that she would like to gain input on this item
tonight but stated that if time is a constraint, she could push that item back. She provided
background information stating that there have been a lot of requests from residents, the
Commission, and other groups for a park volunteer program. She stated that other departments
within the City have shown interest in partnering on this type of program and therefore staff
would like input on the vision for this program to determine how the strengths of different
departments could be used to create a successful program for the City.
Chair Goldade welcomed input from the Commission tonight to allow staff to continue to move
forward. He asked if there are specific questions from staff or whether the intent is for general
feedback.
Ms. Lawrence stated that she used the plans of other cities in order to develop a model
program.
Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson commented that in putting this concept together
staff attempted to keep it broad in order to get the best of all worlds and not exclude different
groups that would want to sponsor an event for a park. She stated that in hearing input from the
Natural Resource Technician there are different volunteer opportunities from that department,
along with the Police Department. She stated that the attempt would be to create a unique
program for the City that is broad enough to allow for different opportunities. She asked if the
Commission agrees with keeping this broad to allow for more opportunities or whether it would
like to be more focused on an adopt a park type program.
Commissioner Cotter stated that he likes the broad concept as it is more inviting. He stated that
the point is to engage people in the parks. He stated that it could even be broadened to be a
parks and trails program.
Chair Goldade agreed that he likes the broad concept noting that it could become more specific
as time goes on if desired. He stated that volunteer programs do require staff time and
therefore that should be acknowledged as well. He believed that the benefits would outweigh
that additional staff time that would be needed.
Commissioner Smith asked if the City does any events in conjunction with Earth Day, such as a
clean-up event as that could be used to introduce the program and increase awareness.
Ms. Jacobson stated that the Natural Resources Technician has spearheaded Earth Day events
in the past and she could follow-up with her to discuss that opportunity.
Commissioner Klepperich asked if there is a volunteer coordinator staff position.
Ms. Jacobson stated that there is a staff person that designates a few hours per week towards
that duty, noting that employee has previous experience as a volunteer coordinator.
Ms. Lawrence welcomed any additional input Commissioners may have in the next few days
prior to the staff meeting.
Chair Goldade asked that the City be purposeful in how Commissioners could be involved in the
program.
10.b Student Representative Update
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that an update was included in the
packet. She stated that three applications were received, and staff is working with the Council
to review the applications and bring a Student Representative on board. She stated that they
are looking at the possibility to have three representatives rather than one.
10.c Skate Park Work Group Update
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that a memorandum was provided
in the packet as an update.
Commissioner Klepperich stated that that subcommittee is made up of five individuals that have
interest in the park along with he and Commissioner Smith. He reviewed the report he provided
in January and noted that the renderings, as directed, were presented to the subcommittee at its
last meeting with the intention of the next step to be presenting those renderings at a
presentation to the Commission, then Council with hopefully construction to occur this year. He
noted that some subcommittee members have changed direction and want to use a different
vendor and exceed the allotted budget, therefore the group has come to a stalemate. He hoped
that additional discussion and consensus could be gained at the group’s February meeting.
Commissioner Smith commented that there were two other vendors added to the contract and a
few of the subcommittee members wanted to ensure that the group looks at all options. She
hoped that a presentation could still be made to the Commission in the near future.
Ms. Lawrence confirmed that she would have final renderings available for the subcommittee to
review at its February meeting with the intention to present to the Commission at its March
meeting.
Chair Goldade thanked all members of the subcommittee and Ms. Lawrence for their continued
work on this matter.
10.d Funding of Projects - CIP
Chair Goldade asked if this item could begin the March meeting agenda.
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that she shared the information that
she had as a baseline in preparation for the next budget year. She stated that this item will
appear on the March agenda.
11. Staff Announcements
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence shared the following announcements:
• Commissioner training is scheduled for February 24th at 7:00 p.m. in conjunction with the
City Council
• Programming registration opens on March 9th at 9:00 a.m.
• Golf and tennis positions have been posted of the City website
• Other events can be found on the city’s website
12. Commission Comments and Park Updates
Commissioner Meyer
• Marie Park continues to be popular and she looks forward to the new playground
improvements
Commissioner Smith
• Friendly Hills continues to be well used during the winter months
• Market Square has not had much use with the cold weather
Commissioner Cotter
• No report
Commissioner Sherer
• It has been fun to see outdoor winter activities, such as hockey and ice skating
Commissioner Klepperich
• Marie Park has seen use from ice skaters
Commissioner Blanks
• He looks forward to being a contributing member of the team
Chair Goldade
• Congratulated the City for the wonderful news story on winter pickleball at Marie Park
• Kids are skating at Wentworth and he continues to be impressed with the beauty of that
park
• Valley Park continues to be well used during the winter months
13. Adjourn
Motion Klepperich/Second Sherer to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 PM
A roll call vote was performed:
Commissioner Smith aye
Commissioner Blanks aye
Commissioner Cotter aye
Commissioner Sherer aye
Commissioner Meyer aye
Commissioner Klepperich aye
Chair Goldade aye
Motion carried.
Minutes drafted by:
Amanda Staple
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: March 16, 2021
TO: Mayor Levine and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Approve the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor),
a Business Subsidy Policy and a TIF Agreement with Endeavor Development LLC
(Resolution No. 2021-25)
Introduction
The City Council is asked to conduct a public hearing and approve/adopt the following items necessary for
the creation of a new Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District No. 3: (1) new Mendota Heights Business
Subsidy Policy; (2) a Plan for the Modifications to the Development Program for Municipal Development
District No. 1, and establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 3; and (3) a Development
Agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and Pilot Knob BC, LLC.
Background
This TIF District is being requested as part of the proposed development of a new 75,000-sq. ft.
office/warehouse facility at 2393 Pilot Knob Road (see attached location map, site plan and building
images). The developer is requesting limited financial assistance to reconstruct and install a new
driveway/access off Pilot Knob Road, along with the necessary utilities to serve this new development site.
On October 13, 2020, the developer (Josh Budish with Endeavor Development) appeared at the scheduled
City Council Workshop, to present their proposal for requesting TIF assistance. After receiving initial
favorable support from the council, Endeavor submitted an official application for TIF Assistance to the
city, which was received on October 20, 2020, with full fee and escrow deposit.
The city’s financial consultants at Ehlers, along with TIF legal consultants with Taft Law, began the analysis
and negotiations on the TIF plan, and prepared the new Business Subsidy Policy, TIF Plan and
Development Agreement for the council to give final consideration.
Upon close of the hearing, the Commission determined the new TIF District No. 2 conforms with the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan
for the City; and thereafter adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2017-01 (by 5-0 vote), a
resolution Supporting the Modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development District
No. 1 and Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 (attached hereto).
Budget Impact
The financial impact to the community will be a partial reimbursement back to the developer from the
property taxes collected generated upon the added value of the development on the subject property. This
payment is for up to $315,000, spread out over a nine (9) year period.
The Developer has deposited a $15,000 escrow with the City to pay for any initial legal and fiscal consultant
fees in the review, analysis and creation of this TIF district, along with the preparation of all documents
related to this district creation. Once the TIF District is approved, any additional costs (exceeding the
$15,000) will be eligible for reimbursement by means of up to a 10% administration fee that may be
collected from the proceeds of the District.
Action Required
Upon the presentation from Ehlers and any follow-up discussion with city staff, the council should open
the public hearing; receive comments; close the hearing; and give final consideration of these TIF related
documents. The Council may adopt by simple motion the following resolution:
Resolution No. 2021-25,
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
FOR MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 3 (ENDEAVOR) WITHIN MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1 AND APPROVING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFORE;
APPROVING A BUSINESS SUBSIDY POLICY; AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN; AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND PILOT KNOB BC, LLC
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Levine, City Council, City Administrator Mark McNeill
FROM: Stacie Kvilvang - Ehlers
DATE: March 16, 2021
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on TIF District No. 3 (Endeavor), Business Subsidy Policy and TIF Agreement
Endeavor Development (the “Developer”) is constructing a 75,000 square foot industrial facility at 2393 Pilot
Knob Road (Lloyds BBQ site) and requires the construction of a new road/road extension to allow access
to the site (Perron Road East). In order to accomplish this and the development, the Developer requested
TIF assistance which we overviewed with the Council at their January 19, 2021 meeting. We recommended
creating an Economic Development TIF district (term of 9 years) and to provide $315,000 in the form of a
pay-as-you-go TIF Note (the “Note”) to the Developer (over 8 years). The Council provided direction to
move forward with the actions necessary to complete this transaction.
Before the Council tonight is a public hearing on creation of the TIF district, approving a business subsidy
policy and approval of the TIF agreement. Following are the details for each item:
Business Subsidy Policy:
Cities are required to have a formal Business Subsidy Policy filed with the Department of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) for projects that are being provided a business subsidy, which is typically
assistance to a commercial business in excess of $25,000. The main policy requirements are a minimum
number of jobs required and a minimum wage floor. The attached policy is the standard form of policy that
most communities have adopted. The policy requires creation of at least 1 FTE job at 150% of minimum
wage (currently $15.12/hour). It should be noted that this is a minimum and that the actual job and wage
goals that are negotiated and part of the TIF Agreement are typically higher, as is the case with Endeavor’s
project. This is the first project the City has had since the requirement came into place over 20 years ago
and why there is now a need to have a formal policy in place.
TIF District:
Establishment of TIF District No. 3 (Endeavor) which is an economic development district with a term of 9
years. It encompasses PID #27-56550-01-010 (2393 Pilot Knob Road) and adjacent roads and right-of-
way. Development will commence in 2021 with the first TIF expected in 2023. The TIF District budget is a
maximum budget of $589,314. The City will retain 10% of the TIF for administrative costs of the District
($53,574). The City is approving an interfund loan of $25,000 to cover any future administrative costs
associated with the District that are not covered by the Developer until such time there is adequate
administrative TIF (10%) generated. The City will be required to decertify the District once the Note is paid
in full.
TIF Agreement:
Based upon the above referenced project, following are the major terms of the TIF Agreement:
1. Contract is between the City and Pilot Knob BC LLC. (“the Developer”).
2. Developer will not seek a reduction in the taxable market value of the property through the term of
the TIF Note.
3. City will provide the Developer a PAYGO TIF Note for $315,000 for 8 years at the lessor of 3.75%
or the actual financing rate for construction. The Note is paid with 90% of the tax increment (City
retains 10% for administrative costs). Payment dates are expected to be August 1, 2023 through
February 1, 2031 and the Note bears simple, non-compounding interest. The Note is issued upon
issuance of a certificate of occupancy (CO), construction of Perron Road has been completed, and
the Developer providing proof of expenditure of qualified costs.
4. Commence construction by June 30, 2021 and be completed by April 30, 2022.
5. Complete construction of Perron Road by April 30, 2022.
6. Developer must rent the space to tenants who will use the space solely for manufacturing and/or
warehouse purposes and office space related to the respective tenants. They are required to report
annually to the City compliance with this commencing May 1, 2022 and every May 1st until
termination of the District.
7. Developer agrees to create at least 12 FTE jobs at 150% of the minimum wage (exclusive of benefits)
within 2 years of receiving a CO on the building. It should be noted that the first tenant in the
proposed project fulfills this requirement with the jobs and wage ranges noted below:
The Developer is required to report annually to the City that they are meeting this requirement until
the TIF Note is paid in full. They are required to continue operations of the facility for at least five (5)
years after issuance of the CO. Failure to do so will result in repayment of some of the assistance
received.
8. Developer has deposited $15,000 with the City to pay costs associated with analyzing their TIF
request, creating the TIF district and development of the TIF agreement. The Developer will
replenish the deposit as needed to pay 100% of the City’s costs.
Please contact me at 651-697-8506 with any questions.
Salary Range # of Jobs
$38,000 - $40,000 2
$43,000 - $50,000 5
$55,000 - $60,000 3
$100,000 - $120,000 2
TOTAL 12
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
HELD: MARCH 16, 2021
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of
the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall,
on March 16, 2021, at 6:00 P.M.
The following members of the Council were present:
and the following were absent:
Member ___________________ introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION 2021-25
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND
ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 3 (ENDEAVOR)
WITHIN MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND APPROVING THE
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR; APPROVING A BUSINESS
SUBSIDY POLICY; AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN; AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
A. WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the
"City") (1) modify the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1 (the
"Development District"); (2) establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) therein
(the "TIF District"); (3) approve and adopt the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor
under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended (the "Act");
(4) adopt a policy for granting business subsidies (the "Business Subsidy Policy"); (5) authorize
an Interfund Loan (hereinafter defined); and (6) authorize the execution of a development
agreement; and
B. WHEREAS, the City Council has investigated the facts and has caused to be
prepared the Modification to the Development Program for the Development District (the
"Development Program Modification"), and has caused to be prepared a proposed tax increment
financing plan for the TIF District therein (the "TIF Plan"); and
C. WHEREAS, the City has performed all actions required by law to be performed
prior to the approval of the Business Subsidy Policy, the modification of the Development District
and the establishment of the TIF District therein, and the adoption of the Development Program
Modification and TIF Plan therefor, including, but not limited to, notification of Dakota County
and Independent School District No. 197 (West St. Paul-Mendota Heights-Eagan Area Schools)
having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the TIF District, and the holding of
a public hearing upon published and mailed notice as required by law; and
D. WHEREAS, Pilot Knob BC LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, (the
"Developer") has requested the City to assist with the financing of certain costs incurred in
connection with the construction of an approximately 75,000 square foot building to be leased to
one or more tenants for manufacturing or warehouse or distribution uses in the City by the
Developer (the "Project"); and
E. WHEREAS, the Developer and the City have determined to enter into a
Development Agreement providing for the City's tax increment financing assistance for the Project
(the "Development Agreement").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights follows:
1. Development District. The City is not modifying the boundaries of the
Development District.
2. Development Program Modification. The Modification to the Development
Program for Municipal Development District No. 1, a copy of which is on file in the office of the
City Administrator, is adopted.
3. Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor). There is hereby established in
the City within the Development District, Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor), an
economic development tax increment financing district, the initial boundaries of which are
determined as described in the TIF Plan.
4. Tax Increment Financing Plan. The TIF Plan is adopted as the tax increment
financing plan for the TIF District, and the City Council makes the following findings:
(a) The TIF District is an economic development district as defined in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12, the specific basis for such determination is
set forth in Appendix C of the TIF Plan.
(b) The proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future. The reasons for such determination are set forth in Appendix C of the
TIF Plan.
(c) In the opinion of the City Council, the increased market value of the site
that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing
would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed
development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the
maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan. The reasons supporting
this finding are set forth in Appendix C of the TIF Plan.
(d) The TIF Plan for the TIF District conforms to the general plan for
development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. The reasons for supporting this
finding are set forth in Appendix C of the TIF Plan.
(e) The TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound
needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Development
District by private enterprise. The reasons supporting this finding are set forth in Appendix
C of the TIF Plan.
(f) Appendix C of the TIF Plan is incorporated herein by reference.
5. Public Purpose. The adoption of the TIF Plan for the TIF District within the
Development District conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill
a need to develop an area of the State which is already built up to provide employment
opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the State and thereby
serves a public purpose.
6. Certification. The Auditor of Dakota County is requested to certify the original net
tax capacity of the TIF District as described in TIF Plan, and to certify in each year thereafter the
amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased in accordance with the
Act; and the City Administrator is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the
County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all
properties within the TIF District for which building permits have been issued during the 18
months immediately preceding the adoption of this Resolution.
7. Filing. The City Administrator is further authorized and directed to file a copy of
the Modification and TIF Plan for the TIF District with the Commissioner of Revenue and the
Office of the State Auditor.
8. Adoption of Business Subsidy Policy; Filing. The Business Subsidy Policy is
hereby adopted. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to submit a copy of the
Business Subsidy Policy with the Department of Employment and Economic Development, along
with the next annual report in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.994, Subdivision
2.
9. Interfund Loan. The City has determined that it may pay for certain costs (the
"Qualified Costs") identified in the TIF Plan which costs may be financed on a temporary basis
from the City's general fund or any other fund from which such advances may be legally made
(the "Fund"). Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, the City is authorized to
advance or loan money from the Fund in order to finance the Qualified Costs. The City intends to
reimburse itself for the payment of the Qualified Costs, plus interest thereon, from tax increments
derived from the TIF District in accordance with the following terms (which terms are referred to
collectively as the "Interfund Loan"):
(a) The City shall repay to the Fund from which the Qualified Costs are initially
paid, the principal amount of $25,000 (or, if less, the amount actually paid from such fund)
together with interest at 4.00% per annum (which is not more than the greater of (i) the rate
specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40, or (ii) the rate specified under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 549.09) from the date of the payment.
(b) Principal and interest on the Interfund Loan ("Payments") shall be paid
annually on each December 31 commencing with the date the tax increments from the TIF
District are available and not otherwise pledged to and including the earlier of (a) the date
the principal and accrued interest of the Interfund Loan is paid in full, or (b) the date of last
receipt of tax increment from the TIF District ("Payment Dates") which Payments will be
made in the amount and only to the extent of available tax increments. Payments shall be
applied first to accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal.
(c) Payments on the Interfund Loan are payable solely from the tax increment
generated in the preceding twelve (12) months with respect to the TIF District and remitted
to the City by Dakota County, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174
to 469.1794, as amended. Payments on this Interfund Loan are subordinate to any
outstanding or future bonds, notes or contracts secured in whole or in part with tax
increment, and are on parity with any other outstanding or future interfund loans secured
in whole or in part with tax increments.
(d) The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Interfund Loan
are pre-payable in whole or in part at any time by the City without premium or penalty.
No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment
otherwise required to be made under this Interfund Loan.
(e) The Interfund Loan is evidence of an internal borrowing by the City in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, and is a limited obligation
payable solely from tax increment pledged to the payment hereof under this resolution.
The Interfund Loan and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general
obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without
limitation, the City. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof
shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Interfund Loan or other costs
incident hereto except out of tax increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the
taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to
the payment of the principal of or interest on the Interfund Loan or other costs incident
hereto. The City shall have no obligation to pay any principal amount of the Interfund
Loan or accrued interest thereon, which may remain unpaid after the termination of the TIF
District.
(f) The City may amend the terms of the Interfund Loan at any time by
resolution of the City Council, including a determination to forgive the outstanding
principal amount and accrued interest to the extent permissible under law.
10. Development Agreement.
(a) The Council hereby approves the Development Agreement in substantially
the form submitted, and the Mayor and the City Administrator are hereby authorized and
directed to execute the Development Agreement on behalf of the Council.
(b) The approval hereby given to the Development Agreement includes
approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such
modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and
appropriate and approved by the City officials authorized by this resolution to execute the
Development Agreement. The execution of the Development Agreement by the
appropriate officer or officers of the City shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of
the Development Agreement in accordance with the terms hereof.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
_________________ and, after full discussion thereof, and upon a vote being taken thereof, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against same:
Adopted this 16th day of March, 2021.
________________________________
Mayor
Attest: ______________________________
City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DAKOTA COUNTY
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Administrator of the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a
full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City, duly
called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to the establishment of
the Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) in the City, adoption of a business subsidy
policy, authorization of an interfund loan and authorizing execution of a development agreement.
WITNESS my hand as such City Administrator of the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota this ____ day of March, 2021.
________________________________
City Administrator
Mendota Heights
Business Subsidy Policy
March 2021
INTRODUCTION:
This Policy is adopted for purposes of the business subsidies act, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995 (the “Statutes”). Terms used in this Policy
are intended to have the same meanings as used in Statutes. Subdivision 3 of the
Statutes specifies forms of financial assistance that are not considered a business
subsidy. This list contains exceptions for several activities, including redevelopment,
pollution clean-up, and housing, among others. By providing a business subsidy, the City
commits to holding a public hearing, as applicable, and reporting annually to the
Department of Employment and Economic Development (“DEED”) on job and wage goal
progress.
1. PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
A. The purpose of this document is to establish criteria for the City of Mendota
Heights (“City”) for the granting of business subsidies and public financing
for private development within the City. These criteria shall be used as a
guide in processing and reviewing applications requesting business
subsidies and/or City public financing.
B. The City's ability to grant business subsidies is governed by the limitations
established in the Statutes. The City may choose to apply its Business
Subsidy Criteria to other development activities not covered under this
statute. City public financing may or may not be considered a business
subsidy as defined by the Statutes.
C. Unless specifically excluded by the Statutes, business subsidies include
grants by state or local government agencies, contributions of personal
property, real property, infrastructure, the principal amount of a loan at
rates below those commercially available to the recipient of the subsidy,
any reduction or deferral of any tax or any fee, tax increment financing
(TIF), abatement of property taxes, loans made from City funds, any
guarantee of any payment under any loan, lease, or other obligation, or any
preferential use of government facilities given to a business.
D. These criteria are to be used in conjunction with other relevant policies of
the City. Compliance with the Business Subsidy Criteria and City Public
Financing Guidelines shall not automatically mean compliance with such
separate policies.
E. The City, at its sole discretion, may deviate from the job and wage goals
criteria outlined in Sec. 5, Subd. D, E, and F below by documenting in
writing the reason(s) for the deviation. The documentation shall be
submitted to DEED with the next annual report.
F. The City may amend this document at any time. Amendments to these
criteria are subject to public hearing requirements contained in the
Statutes.
2. CITY’S OBJECTIVE FOR THE USE OF PUBLIC FINANCING
A. As a matter of adopted policy, the City may consider using public financing
which may include tax increment financing (TIF), tax abatement, bonds,
and other forms of public financing as appropriate, to assist private
development projects. Such assistance must comply with all applicable
statutory requirements and accomplish one or more of the following
objectives:
1. Remove blight, clean up polluted areas and/or encourage
development in designated development area(s) per the goals and
visions established by the City.
2. Facilitate the development process and promote development on
sites that could not be developed without this assistance
(determined as part of a But-For analysis).
3. Create local jobs and/or increase the number of diverse quality jobs
(i.e. higher paying jobs).
3. PUBLIC FINANCING PRINCIPLES
A. The guidelines and principles set forth in this document pertain to all
applications for City public financing regardless of whether they are
considered a Business Subsidy as defined by the Statutes. The following
general assumptions of development/redevelopment shall serve as a guide
for City public financing:
1. All viable requests for City public financing assistance shall be
reviewed by staff, and, if staff so designates, a third-party financial
advisor who will inform the City of its findings and
recommendations. This process, known as the “But For” analysis
is intended to establish the project would not be feasible but for the
City assistance.
2. The City shall establish mechanisms within the development
agreement to ensure that adequate checks and balances are
incorporated in the distribution of financial assistance where
feasible and appropriate, including but not limited to:
a. Third party “but for” analysis
b. Establishment of “look back provisions”
c. Establishment of minimum assessment agreements
3. TIF and abatement will be provided on a pay-as-you-go-basis. Any
request for upfront assistance will be evaluated on its own merits
and may require security to cover any risks assumed by the City.
4. Public financing will not be used to support speculative commercial
or office. In general, the developer should be able to provide market
data, tenant letters of commitment or finance statements which
support the market potential/demand for the proposed project.
5. Public financing will not be used in a project that involves a land
and/or property acquisition where the price is in excess of the fair
market value.
6. The developer shall pay all applicable application fees and pay for
the City’s fiscal and legal advisor time as stated in the City’s Public
Assistance Application.
7. The City will not consider waiving any application or development
fees.
8. The developer shall proactively attempt to minimize the amount of
public assistance needed through the pursuit of grants, innovative
solutions in structuring the deal, and other funding mechanisms.
4. PROJECTS WHICH MAY QUALIFY FOR PUBLIC FINANCING ASSISTANCE
A. All new applications for public financial assistance that are considered by
the City must meet each of the following minimum qualifications.
However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting these
qualifications will automatically be approved for assistance. Meeting the
qualifications does not imply or create contractual rights on the part of any
potential developer to have its project approved for assistance.
4.1 MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS/REQUIREMENTS:
A. In addition to meeting the applicable requirements of State law, the project
shall meet one or more of the public financing objectives outlined in Sec.
2.
B. The developer must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the
project is not financially feasible “but for” the use of tax increment, tax
abatement or other public financing.
C. The project is, or will be through the City approval processes, consistent
with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances, Design
Guidelines or any other applicable land use documents.
D. Prior to approval of a financing plan, the developer shall provide any
requested market and financial feasibility studies, appraisals, soil boring,
private lender commitment, and/or other information the City or its
financial consultants may require in order to proceed with an independent
evaluation of the proposal.
E. The developer must provide adequate financial guarantees to ensure the
repayment of any public financing and completion of the project. These
may include, but are not limited to, assessment agreements, letters of
credit, personal deficiency guarantees, guaranteed maximum cost
contract, etc.
F. Any developer requesting public financial assistance must be able to
demonstrate a previous capability for successful development, as well as
specific capability regarding the type and size of the development
proposed. Public financing shall not be used when the developer’s
credentials, in the sole judgment of the City, are inadequate due to previous
history relating to completion of projects, general reputation, and/or
bankruptcy, or other problems or issues considered relevant to the City.
G. The developer, or its contractual assigns, shall retain ownership of any
portion of the project long enough to complete it, stabilize its occupancy,
establish project management and/or needed mechanisms to ensure
successful operation.
4.2 DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS:
A. Proposals that encourage the following will receive priority consideration:
1. Implements the City’s vision and values for a City-identified
development and/or redevelopment area
2. Provides significant improvement to surrounding land uses,
neighborhoods, and/or the City
3. Attracts an employer within the City
4. Provides increased quality and higher paying jobs
5. Provides opportunity for the attraction of multi-tenant buildings,
research and development facilities, warehouse/distribution
centers, high tech or major manufacturers, medical office/facilities,
and other commercial uses that fill an unmet market need
6. Provides housing options that meet City goals
7. Offers employment opportunities for residents with safe working
conditions and access to a comprehensive benefit package
8. Redevelops a blighted, contaminated and/or challenged area
9. Preserves and/or stabilizes a major commercial or industrial node
10. Involves significant rehabilitation or expansion of an existing
property
11. Adds needed public infrastructure such as roads or broadband
expansion
5. BUSINESS SUBSIDY PUBLIC PURPOSE, JOBS AND WAGE REQUIREMENT
A. All business subsidies must meet a public purpose with measurable benefit
to the City as a whole.
B. Job retention may only be used as a public purpose in cases where job
loss is specific and demonstrable. The City shall document the information
used to determine the nature of the job loss.
C. The creation of tax base shall not be the sole public purpose of a subsidy.
D. Unless the creation of jobs is removed from a particular project pursuant to
the requirements of the Statutes, the creation of jobs is a public purpose
for granting a subsidy. Creation of at least 1 Full Time, or Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) job is a minimum requirement for consideration of
assistance. For purposes of this Policy, FTE jobs must be permanent
positions with set hours, and be eligible for benefits.
E. Part-Time Equivalent jobs may receive a partial credit and be counted
toward the job goals.
F. The wage floor for wages to be paid for the jobs created shall be not less
than 150% of the State of MN Minimum Wage. The City will seek to create
jobs with higher wages as appropriate for the overall public purpose of the
subsidy. Wage goals may also be set to enhance existing jobs through
increased wages, which increase must result in wages higher than the
minimum under this Section.
G. After a public hearing, if the creation or retention of jobs is determined not
to be a goal, the wage and job goals may be set at zero.
6. SUBSIDY AGREEMENT
A. In granting a business subsidy, the City shall enter into a subsidy
agreement with the recipient that provides the following information: wage
and job goals (if applicable), and recourse for failure to meet goals required
by the Statutes.
B. The subsidy agreement may be incorporated into a broader development
agreement for a project.
C. The subsidy agreement will commit the recipient to providing the reporting
information required by the Statutes.
7. PUBLIC FINANCING PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESS
A. The following methods of analysis for all public financing proposals will be
used:
1. Project is deemed consistent with City’s Goals and Objectives
2. Consideration of project meeting minimum qualifications
3. Consideration of project meeting desired qualifications
4. Project meets “but-for” analysis and/or statutory qualifications
Please note that the evaluation methodology is intended to provide a
balanced review. Each area will be evaluated individually and collectively
and in no case should one area outweigh another in terms of importance to
determining the level of assistance.
MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM
Municipal Development District No. 1
- AND -
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 3
(Endeavor)
(an economic development district)
City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota
Public Hearing: March 16, 2021
City of Mendota Heights
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) 2
Table of Contents
Modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1 ................... 3
Foreword ................................................................................................................................... 3
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) ................ 4
Foreword ................................................................................................................................... 4
Statutory Authority .................................................................................................................... 4
Statement of Objectives ............................................................................................................ 4
Development Program Overview .............................................................................................. 4
Description of Property in the District and Property to be Acquired .......................................... 5
Classification of the District ....................................................................................................... 5
Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ........................................................... 6
Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment
and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ....................................................................... 6
Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued .................................................................................. 8
Uses of Funds ........................................................................................................................... 8
Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ....................................................................... 9
Supporting Documentation ..................................................................................................... 11
Administration of the District ................................................................................................... 11
Appendix A: Map of Municipal Development District No. 1 and the TIF District .................... A-1
Appendix B: Estimated Cash Flow for the District .................................................................. B-1
Appendix C: Findings Including But/For Qualifications .......................................................... C-1
City of Mendota Heights
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) 3
Modification to the Development Program for
Municipal Development District No. 1
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Development Program for Municipal
Development District No. 1. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and
objectives set forth in the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1.
Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District
No. 3 (Endeavor).
For further information, a review of the Development Program for Municipal Development District
No. 1, is recommended. It is available from the Community Development Director at the City of
Mendota Heights. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans
for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within Municipal Development District No. 1.
City of Mendota Heights
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) 4
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor)
Foreword
The City of Mendota Heights (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following
information to expedite the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor)
(the "District"), an economic development tax increment financing district, located in Municipal
Development District No. 1.
Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development
or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City has certain statutory powers pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.124 - 469.133, inclusive, as amended, and M.S.,
Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF
Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other
relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Development Program for Municipal
Development District No. 1.
Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of one parcel of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The
District is being created to facilitate the construction of a 75,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse facility
in the City. The City anticipates entering into a development contract with Pilot Knob BC LLC
and development is likely to occur in spring 2021. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of
the objectives outlined in the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Development Program and the TIF Plan do
not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These
activities are anticipated to occur over the life of Municipal Development District No. 1 and the
District.
Development Program Overview
Pursuant to the Development Program and authorizing state statutes, the City is authorized to
undertake the following activities in the District:
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be
acquired by the City and is further described in this TIF Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available
pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
City of Mendota Heights
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) 5
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the
necessary legal requirements, the City may sell to a developer selected properties
that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition,
construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work
within the District.
5. The City proposes both public and private infrastructure within the District. The
proposed reuse of private property within the District will be for an office
building/manufacturing facility/retail store, and there will be continued operation of
Municipal Development District No. 1 after the capital improvements within
Municipal Development District No. 1 have been completed.
Description of Property in the District and Property to be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways
identified by the parcels listed below.
Parcel number Address Owner
27-56550-01-010 2393 Pilot Knob Rd LLOYDS BARBEQUE CO
Please also see the map in Appendix A for further information on the location of the District.
The City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of
way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed
public streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance
and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The City may
acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order
to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there
is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs.
Classification of the District
The City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, finds that the District, to be
established, is an economic development district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12.
The District is in the public interest because it will meet the statutory requirement of resulting in
increased employment in the State; and resulting in preservation and enhancement of the tax
base of the State.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c, revenue derived from tax increment from an
economic development district may not be used to provide improvements, loans, subsidies,
grants, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to developments consisting of buildings
and ancillary facilities, if more than 15 percent of the buildings and facilities (determined on the
basis of square footage) are used for a purpose other than:
City of Mendota Heights
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) 6
(1) The manufacturing or production of tangible personal property, including processing
resulting in the change in condition of the property;
(2) Warehousing, storage, and distribution of tangible personal property, excluding retail
sales;
(3) Research and development related to the activities listed in items (1) or (2);
(4) Telemarketing if that activity is the exclusive use of the property; or
(5) Tourism facilities;
(6) Space necessary for and related to the activities listed in items (1) to (5); or
(7) A workforce housing project that satisfies the requirements of M.S., Section 469.176,
Subd. 4c(d).
In meeting the statutory criteria the City relies on the following facts and findings: The facilities in
the District meet the conditions of purposes 2 and 6.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a
parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or
Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request
for certification of the District.
Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of
the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b.,
the duration of the District will be 8 years after receipt of the first increment by the City. The date
of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2023.
Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent
phases or other changes, would terminate after 2031, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. If
increment is received in 2022, the term of the District will be 2030. The City reserves the right to
decertify the District prior to the legally required date.
Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax
Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned
Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net
Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the
property by the assessor in 2020 for taxes payable 2021.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year
(beginning in the payment year 2023) the amount by which the original value has increased or
decreased as a result of:
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
City of Mendota Heights
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) 7
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the
ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2021, assuming
the request for certification is made before June 30, 2021). The ONTC and the Original Local
Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the
estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Municipal Development District
No. 1, upon completion of the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment
revenues as shown in the table below. The City requests 100 percent of the available increase
in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year
payable 2023. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects
within the District are completed.
Project estimated Tax Capacity upon completion 132,061
Original estimated Net Tax Capacity 12,174
Fiscal Disparities 42,463
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity 77,424
Original Local Tax Rate 87.6820%Pay 2021 prelim.
Estimated Annual Tax Increment $67,887
Percent Retainted by the City 100%
Project Tax Capacity
Note: Tax capacity includes a 0% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in this
chart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 9. The tax capacity of the District in year one is
estimated to be $104,250.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the City shall, after a due and diligent search,
accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District
enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the
District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen
(18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the
District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued.
The City is reviewing the area to be included in the District to determine if any building permits
have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the
City.
City of Mendota Heights
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) 8
Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued
The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below:
SOURCES
Tax Increment 535,740$
Interest 53,574
TOTAL 589,314$
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of
tax increments. The City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of
the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by pay-as-
you-go notes and interfund loans. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without
a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the City to incur debt. The City
will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best
interest of the City.
The City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax
increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $518,067. Such bonds may be in
the form of pay-as-you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund
loans. This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under
this TIF Plan as of the date of approval.
Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the construction of a 75,000
sq. ft. office/warehouse facility. The City has determined that it will be necessary to provide
assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described.
The City has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around
the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this
TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible
expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined
in the following table.
USES
Land/Building Acquisition 75,000$
Site Improvements/Preparation 250,000
Utilities 50,000
Other Qualifying Improvements 89,493
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)53,574
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL 518,067$
Interest 71,247
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL 589,314$
City of Mendota Heights
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) 9
The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed
the total projected tax increments for the District as shown in the Sources of Revenue section.
Estimated capital and administrative costs listed above are subject to change among categories
by modification of the TIF Plan without hearings and notices as required for approval of the initial
TIF Plan, so long as the total capital and administrative costs combined do not exceed the total
listed above. Further, the City may spend up to 20 percent of the tax increments from the District
for activities (described in the table above) located outside the boundaries of the District but within
the boundaries of the Project (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spend
outside the District), subject to all other terms and conditions of this TIF Plan.
Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City may elect one of two methods to calculate
fiscal disparities.
The City will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b (inside).
Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated
by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the City has determined
that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and
that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of
the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met:
Entity
Preliminary
2020/Pay
2021 Total
Net Tax
Capacity
Estimated
Captured Tax
Capacity
(CTC) upon
completion
Percent of
CTC to Entity
Total
County 567,491,938 77,424 0.0136%
City 25,879,576 77,424 0.2992%
ISD 79,821,543 77,424 0.0970%
Impact on Tax Base
City of Mendota Heights
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) 10
Entity
Preliminary
Pay 2021
Extension
Rate
Percent of
Total CTC Potential
Taxes
County 22.6520%25.83% 77,424 $ 17,538
City 39.2120%44.72% 77,424 30,360
ISD 21.8610%24.93% 77,424 16,926
Other 3.9570%4.51% 77,424 3,064
87.6820% 100.00% $ 67,887
Impact on Tax Rates
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed.
The tax rate used for calculations is the Preliminary Pay 2021 rate. The total net capacity for the
entities listed above are based on Preliminary Pay 2021 figures. The District will be certified under
the final Pay 2021 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b):
(1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment
that will be generated over the life of the District is $537,740;
(2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An
impact of the District on police protection is not expected. Typically, office/warehouse
developments do not add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to the
call load. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself,
will necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or facilities.
The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant.
Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction.
The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will
necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or facilities.
The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The
development is not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area.
The current infrastructure for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to
handle the additional volume generated from the proposed development. Based on
the development plans, there are no additional costs associated with street
maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks.
The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the
ability to issue debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not
anticipated that there will be any general obligation debt issued in relation to this
project, therefore there will be no impact on the City's ability to issue future debt or on
the City's debt limit.
City of Mendota Heights
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) 11
(3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated
that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable
to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate
for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $133,571;
(4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the
amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county
levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions
remained the same, is $138,404;
(5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware
of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax
increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school
district must request additional information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b)
within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan.
No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the
proposed development for the District have been received.
Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification
and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section
469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the
District.
(i) In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon (1) written representation
made by the developer to such effects, (2) review of the developer’s proforma; and (3)
City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site within the District,
which is further outlined in the City Council resolution approving the establishment of
the TIF District and Appendix C.
(ii) A comparative analysis of estimated market value both with and without establishment
of the TIF District and the use of tax increments has been performed. Such analysis is
included with the cashflow in Appendix B and indicates that the increase in estimated
market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds
the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the TIF District and
the use of tax increments.
Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Community Development Director.
City of Mendota Heights
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) A-1
Appendix A: Map of Municipal Development District No. 1 and the TIF
District
I-494HWY 55I-35EHWY 62HWY 13DODD RDSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYSIBLEY MEMORIAL494 RAMPI-35E RAMPI-94 RAMPDODD RD RAMPI-494 RAMPMENDOTA RD RAMPI-494 LOOPCENTRE POINTE CURNORTHLAN D DRANNAPOLIS ST W494 LOOPDODD RD LOOPCON DO N CTI-35E 494 LOOPHWY 62I-494 LOOPSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYI-494HWY 62I-35E RAMP
HWY 13I-35EI-494I-494DODD RDHWY 55DODD RDSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYI-35E RAMPI-35E
I-494HWY 62DODD RD494 RAMPI-35E RAMPDELAWARE AVELEXINGTON AVEWENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEPILOT KNOB RDLEXINGTON AVEMay 2, 2017 LegendMunicipal Development District No. 1 TIF District No. 3CIty ParclesHWY 13SIBLEY MEMORIALHWY 13PILOT KNOB RDENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT SITEPilot Knob BC, LLC / Josh Budish ADDRESS: 2393 Pilot Knob ROad Mendota Heights, MN 55120PID # 27-56550-01-0100120.5MilesTax Increment Financing District No. 3City ofMendotaHeightsMunicipal Development District No. 1 *City of Mendota HeightsDakota County, Minnesota* The boundaries of Municipal Development District No. 1are coterminous with the corporate boundaries of theCity of Mendota Heights
City of Mendota Heights
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) B-1
Appendix B: Estimated Cash Flow for the District
2/9/2021Pilot Knob Business Center - No InflationCity of Mendota Heights, MN 75,000 Sq. Ft. Office/WarehouseASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType:Economic DevelopmentDistrict Name/Number:County District #:Exempt Class Rate (Exempt) 0.00%First Year Construction or Inflation on Value 2021Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.)Existing District - Specify No. Years RemainingFirst $150,000 1.50%Inflation Rate - Every Year:3.00%Over $150,000 2.00%Interest Rate:3.00%Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I) 2.00%Present Value Date:1-Aug-22Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental) 1.25%First Period Ending 1-Feb-23Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2021First $174,000 0.75%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development: 2023 Over $174,000 0.25%Years of Tax Increment 9 Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res. 1 Unit)Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment2031First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Over $500,0001.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residential Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio35.4189%Pay 2021 prelim.First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate139.5040%Pay 2021 prelim.Over $500,0001.25%Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 87.682%Pay 2021 prelim.Agricultural Non-Homestead1.00%Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.)87.682%Pay 2021 prelim.State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes)36.0000%Pay 2021 prelim.Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)0.15424%Pay 2021 prelim.Building Total Percentage Tax Year PropertyCurrentClassAfterLand Market Market Of Value Used Original OriginalTaxOriginalAfterConversionMap ID PIDOwner Address Market ValueValueValue for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax CapacityConversion Orig. Tax Cap.127-56550-01-010OYDS BARBEQUE C2393 Pilot Knob Rd646,200646,200 100% 646,200 Pay 2021 C/I Pref. 12,174 C/I Pref.12,174 1646,2000 646,200646,20012,17412,174Note:1. Base values are for pay 2021 based upon review of County website on 11-2-2020.2. Located in SD # 197 and Lower Mississippi River WSArea/ PhaseTax Rates BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers
2/9/2021Pilot Knob Business Center - No InflationCity of Mendota Heights, MN 75,000 Sq. Ft. Office/WarehouseEstimated Taxable Total Taxable PropertyPercentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearMarket Value Market Value Total Market Tax Project Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/PhaseNew UsePer Sq. Ft./UnitPer Sq. Ft./UnitSq. Ft./UnitsValueClassTax CapacityCapacity/Unit2021202220232024Payable1Industrial70 70 75,000 5,250,000 C/I Pref. 104,2501 100%100%100%100%2023TOTAL5,250,000104,250Subtotal Residential000Subtotal Commercial/Ind.75,000 5,250,000104,250Note:1. Market values are based upon estimates received from the County Assessor's office.TotalFiscal LocalLocalFiscal State-wideMarketTax Disparities Tax PropertyDisparities PropertyValueTotal Taxes PerNew Use CapacityTax CapacityCapacityTaxes TaxesTaxesTaxesTaxes Sq. Ft./UnitIndustrial 104,250 36,924 67,326 59,033 51,511 36,9908,098 155,6312.08TOTAL104,25036,92467,32659,03351,51136,9908,098155,631Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary significantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted.2. If tax increment in received in 2022, then the district will be one year shorter.Total Property Taxes155,631Current Market Value - Est.646,200less State-wide Taxes(36,990)New Market Value - Est.5,250,000less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(51,511) Difference4,603,800less Market Value Taxes(8,098)Present Value of Tax Increment458,226less Base Value Taxes(6,894) Difference4,145,574Annual Gross TIF 52,139Value likely to occur without Tax Increment is less than:4,145,574 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?MARKET VALUE BUT / FOR ANALYSISTAX CALCULATIONSPROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers
2/9/2021Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3Pilot Knob Business Center - No InflationCity of Mendota Heights, MN 75,000 Sq. Ft. Office/WarehouseTAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject Original Fiscal CapturedLocal Annual Semi-Annual State Admin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% ofTaxTax Disparities TaxTax Gross Tax Gross Tax AuditoratNet Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC CapacityCapacityIncremental CapacityRate Increment Increment 0.36%10% IncrementValueYrs.YearDate-- -- 02/01/23100%104,250 (12,174) (32,612) 59,464 87.682%52,139 26,069 (94) (2,598) 23,37822,6920.5202308/01/23100%104,250 (12,174) (32,612) 59,464 87.682%52,139 26,069 (94) (2,598) 23,37845,0491202302/01/24100%107,378 (12,174) (33,720) 61,483 87.682%53,910 26,955 (97) (2,686) 24,17267,8241.5202408/01/24100%107,378 (12,174) (33,720) 61,483 87.682%53,910 26,955 (97) (2,686) 24,17290,2622202402/01/25100%110,599 (12,174) (34,861) 63,564 87.682%55,734 27,867 (100) (2,777) 24,990113,116 2.5202508/01/25100%110,599 (12,174) (34,861) 63,564 87.682%55,734 27,867 (100) (2,777) 24,990135,633 3202502/01/26100%113,917 (12,174) (36,036) 65,707 87.682%57,613 28,806 (104) (2,870) 25,832158,565 3.5202608/01/26100%113,917 (12,174) (36,036) 65,707 87.682%57,613 28,806 (104) (2,870) 25,832181,157 4202602/01/27100%117,334 (12,174) (37,247) 67,914 87.682%59,548 29,774 (107) (2,967) 26,700204,164 4.5202708/01/27100%117,334 (12,174) (37,247) 67,914 87.682%59,548 29,774 (107) (2,967) 26,700226,831 5202702/01/28100%120,854 (12,174) (38,493) 70,187 87.682%61,541 30,771 (111) (3,066) 27,594249,910 5.5202808/01/28100%120,854 (12,174) (38,493) 70,187 87.682%61,541 30,771 (111) (3,066) 27,594272,648 6202802/01/29100%124,480 (12,174) (39,778) 72,528 87.682%63,594 31,797 (114) (3,168) 28,514295,797 6.5202908/01/29100%124,480 (12,174) (39,778) 72,528 87.682%63,594 31,797 (114) (3,168) 28,514318,605 7202902/01/30100%128,214 (12,174) (41,100) 74,940 87.682%65,709 32,855 (118) (3,274) 29,463341,822 7.5203008/01/30100%128,214 (12,174) (41,100) 74,940 87.682%65,709 32,855 (118) (3,274) 29,463364,697 8203002/01/31100%132,061 (12,174) (42,463) 77,424 87.682%67,887 33,944 (122) (3,382) 30,439387,980 8.5203108/01/31100%132,061 (12,174) (42,463) 77,424 87.682%67,887 33,944 (122) (3,382) 30,439410,919 9203102/01/32 Total537,676 (1,936) (53,574) 482,166 Present Value From 08/01/2022Present Value Rate3.00%458,226 (1,650) (45,658) 410,919 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\Mendota Heights\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\TIF No. 3 - Endeavor\Cashflows\Copy of TIF Plan Run - FINAL
City of Mendota Heights
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) C-1
Appendix C: Findings Including But/For Qualifications
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing
Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) as required pursuant to M.S., Section
469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) is an economic development
district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12.
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) is a contiguous geographic area within
the City's Municipal Development District No. 1, delineated in the TIF Plan, for the purpose
of financing economic development in the City through the use of tax increment. The District
is in the public interest because it will facilitate the construction of a 75,000 sq. ft.
office/warehouse facility in the City which will increase employment in the State and preserve
and enhance the tax base of the state.
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase
in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the
present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to
occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding
is supported by the fact that the development proposed in this plan is office/warehouse facility
that meets the City's objectives for economic development. The cost of land acquisition, and
related road and site improvements necessary to maximize development potential, makes
development of the facility infeasible without City assistance. The developer was asked for
and provided a letter and a proforma as justification that the developer would not have gone
forward without tax increment assistance.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without
the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated
to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected
tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan: The
City supported this finding on the grounds that the project includes extension of Perron Road
in order to provide access to the property for the development and is an increased cost that
can’t be borne by this type of development. In addition, the land has been vacant for a many
years with no other development projects brought forward for development due to lack of
access. The City reasonably determines that no other development of similar scope is
anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the
development.
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a.The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will
increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
City of Mendota Heights
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) C-2
b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be
$4,603,800 (see Appendix B of the TIF Plan)
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the
district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $458,226 (see Appendix B of the
TIF Plan).
d.Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the
Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase
greater than $4,145,574 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without
tax increment assistance.
3. Finding that the TIF Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) conforms to
the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The City Council reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the general
development plan of the City.
4.Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3
(Endeavor) will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as
a whole, for the development of Municipal Development District No. 1 by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and
the State of Minnesota, increased tax base of the State, and add a high-quality development
to the City.
13136798v2
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
AND
PILOT KNOB BC LLC
This document drafted by: TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
2200 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
13136798v2
Table of Contents
Page
i
ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................. 2
Section 1.1. Definitions............................................................................................ 2
ARTICLE II REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES................................................ 4
Section 2.1. Representations and Warranties of the City ......................................... 4
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties of the Developer ............................... 4
ARTICLE III UNDERTAKINGS BY DEVELOPER AND CITY ....................................... 6
Section 3.1. Site Improvements and Legal and Administrative Expenses .............. 6
Section 3.2. Limitations on Undertaking of the City ............................................... 6
Section 3.3. Reimbursement: TIF Note ................................................................... 6
Section 3.4. Road Improvements ............................................................................. 7
Section 3.5. Rental; Compliance .............................................................................. 7
Section 3.6. Business Subsidies Act ........................................................................ 7
ARTICLE IV EVENTS OF DEFAULT ................................................................................. 9
Section 4.1. Events of Default Defined ................................................................... 9
Section 4.2. Remedies on Default ............................................................................ 9
Section 4.3. No Remedy Exclusive........................................................................ 10
Section 4.4. No Implied Waiver ............................................................................ 10
Section 4.5. Agreement to Pay Attorney's Fees and Expenses .............................. 10
Section 4.6. Indemnification of City ...................................................................... 10
ARTICLE V DEVELOPER'S OPTION TO TERMINATE AGREEMENT ..................... 12
Section 5.1. The Developer's Option to Terminate ................................................ 12
Section 5.2. Action to Terminate ........................................................................... 12
Section 5.3. Effect of Termination ......................................................................... 12
ARTICLE VI ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS ...................................................................... 13
Section 6.1. Restrictions on Use ............................................................................ 13
Section 6.2. Conflicts of Interest............................................................................ 13
Section 6.3. Titles of Articles and Sections ........................................................... 13
Section 6.4. Notices and Demands ........................................................................ 13
Section 6.5. Counterparts ....................................................................................... 14
Section 6.6. Law Governing .................................................................................. 14
Section 6.7. Expiration ........................................................................................... 14
Section 6.8. Provisions Surviving Rescission or Expiration.................................. 14
Section 6.9. Transfer of Project; Assignability of Agreement and TIF Note ........ 14
EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY ................................. A-1
EXHIBIT B FORM OF TIF NOTE ................................................................................. B-1
EXHIBIT C SITE IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................ C-1
EXHIBIT D COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE ................................................................. D-1
13136798v2
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the 1st day of March, 2021, by and between the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the "City"), a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the
State of Minnesota and Pilot Knob BC LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the
"Developer").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.124 through 469.133, the City
has heretofore established Municipal Development District No. 1 (the "Development District")
and has adopted a development program therefor (the "Development Program"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 through
469.1794, as amended (hereinafter, the "Tax Increment Act"), the City has heretofore
established, within the Development District, Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor)
(the "Tax Increment District") and has adopted a tax increment financing plan therefor (the "Tax
Increment Plan") which provides for the use of tax increment financing in connection with
certain development within the Development District; and
WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the Development Program and
particularly to make the land in the Development District available for development by private
enterprise in conformance with the Development Program, the City has determined to assist the
Developer with the financing of certain costs of a Project (as hereinafter defined) to be
constructed within the Tax Increment District as more particularly set forth in this Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, the City believes that the development and construction of the Project, and
fulfillment of this Agreement are vital and are in the best interests of the City, the health, safety,
morals and welfare of residents of the City, and in accordance with the public purpose and
provisions of the applicable state and local laws and requirements under which the Project has
been undertaken and is being assisted; and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the Business Subsidy Law, Minnesota Statutes, Section
116J.993 through 116J.995, apply to this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted criteria for awarding business subsidies that comply
with the Business Subsidy Law, after a public hearing for which notice was published; and
WHEREAS, the Council has approved this Agreement as a subsidy agreement under the
Business Subsidy Law; and
WHEREAS, the Developer will a lease the Project to one or more tenants.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
13136798v2
2
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
Section 1.1. Definitions. All capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein
shall have the following meanings unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context:
Agreement means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified,
amended or supplemented;
Business Day means any day except a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday or a day on
which banking institutions in the City are authorized by law or executive order to close;
City means the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota;
Compliance Certificate means the Compliance Certificate in substantially the form
attached hereto as Exhibit D;
County means Dakota County, Minnesota;
Developer means Pilot Knob BC LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its
successors and assigns;
Development District means Municipal Development District No. 1, including the real
property described in the Development Program;
Development Program means the Development Program approved in connection with the
Development District;
Development Property means the real property described in Exhibit A attached to this
Agreement;
Event of Default means any of the events described in Section 4.1 hereof;
Legal and Administrative Expenses means the fees and expenses incurred by the City in
connection with the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan and the preparation of this
Agreement and the issuance of the TIF Note;
Note Payment Date means August 1, 2023, and each February 1 and August 1 of each
year thereafter to and including February 1, 2031; provided, that if any such Note Payment Date
should not be a Business Day, the Note Payment Date shall be the next succeeding Business
Day;
Prime Rate means the rate of interest from time to time publicly announced by U.S. Bank
National Association in St. Paul, Minnesota, as its "prime rate" or "reference rate" or any
successor rate, which rate shall change as and when that rate or successor rate changes;
13136798v2
3
Project means the construction of an approximately 75,000 square foot building to be
leased to one or more tenants for manufacturing or warehouse distribution uses by the Developer
on the Development Property;
Road Improvements means the construction of street, water, sanitary improvements on
Perron Road in connection with the construction of the Project;
Site Improvements means the site improvements undertaken or to be undertaken on the
Development Property, more particularly described on Exhibit C attached hereto;
State means the State of Minnesota;
Tax Increments means 90% of the tax increments derived from the Development
Property which have been received and retained by the City in accordance with the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, which tax increments from the Development Property are
calculated in the sole discretion of the City;
Tax Increment Act means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1794, as
amended;
Tax Increment District means Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) located
within the Development District, a description of which is set forth in the Tax Increment
Financing Plan, which was qualified as an economic development district under the Tax
Increment Act;
Tax Increment Financing Plan means the tax increment financing plan approved for the
Tax Increment District by the City Council on March 16, 2021, and any future amendments
thereto;
Termination Date means the earlier of (i) February 1, 2031, (ii) the date the Note is paid
as provided in the Note, (iii) the date on which the Tax Increment District expires or is otherwise
terminated, or (iv) the date this Agreement is terminated or rescinded in accordance with its
terms; and
TIF Note means the Tax Increment Revenue Note (Pilot Knob BC LLC Project) to be
executed by the City and delivered to the Developer pursuant to Article III hereof, the form of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
Unavoidable Delays means delays, outside the control of the party claiming its
occurrence, which are the direct result of strikes, other labor troubles, public health emergencies,
pandemics, endemics, unusually severe or prolonged bad weather, acts of God, fire or other
casualty to the Project, wars, blockades, insurrections, riots, litigation commenced by third
parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action or by the exercise of reasonable
discretion, directly results in delays, or acts of any federal, state or local governmental unit (other
than the City) which directly result in delays.
13136798v2
4
ARTICLE II
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Section 2.1. Representations and Warranties of the City. The City makes the following
representations and warranties:
(1) The City is a municipal corporation and has the power to enter into this
Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder.
(2) The Tax Increment District is an "economic development district" within the
meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 12, and was created, adopted and
approved in accordance with the terms of the Tax Increment Act.
(3) The development contemplated by this Agreement is in conformance with the
development objectives set forth in the Development Program.
(4) To finance certain costs within the Tax Increment District, the City proposes,
subject to the further provisions of this Agreement, to apply Tax Increments to reimburse the
Developer for a portion of the costs of the construction of certain Site Improvements incurred in
connection with the Project as further provided in this Agreement.
(5) The City makes no representation or warranty, either expressed or implied, as to
the Development Property or its condition or the soil conditions thereon, or that the Development
Property shall be suitable for the Developer's purposes or needs.
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties of the Developer. The Developer makes the
following representations and warranties:
(1) The Developer is a Delaware limited liability company and has the power and
authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder and doing so will
not violate its articles of organization, member control agreement or operating agreement, or the
laws of the State and by proper action has authorized the execution and delivery of this
Agreement.
(2) The Developer shall cause the Project to be constructed in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement, the Development Program, and all applicable local, state and federal
laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning, energy conservation,
building code and public health laws and regulations).
(3) The construction of the Project would not be undertaken by the Developer, and in
the opinion of the Developer would not have been or be economically feasible within the
reasonably foreseeable future, without the assistance and benefit to the Developer provided for in
this Agreement.
(4) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of,
13136798v2
5
the terms, conditions or provision of any contractual restriction, evidence of indebtedness,
agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Developer is now a party or by which it
is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing.
(5) The Developer will cooperate fully with the City with respect to any litigation
commenced with respect to the Project.
(6) The Developer will cooperate fully with the City in resolution of any traffic,
parking, trash removal or public safety problems which may arise in connection with the
construction and operation of the Project.
(7) The construction of the Project shall commence no later than June 30, 2021 and
barring Unavoidable Delays, will be substantially completed by April 30, 2022.
(8) The Developer will obtain, or cause to be obtained, in a timely manner, all
required permits, licenses and approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of
all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before
the Project may be lawfully constructed.
(9) The Developer acknowledges that Tax Increment projections contained in the Tax
Increment Financing Plan are estimates only and the Developer acknowledges that it shall place
no reliance on the amount of projected Tax Increments and the sufficiency of such Tax
Increments to reimburse the Developer for a portion of the costs of the construction of the Site
Improvements as provided in Article III.
(10) The Developer will not seek a reduction in the market value as determined by the
County Assessor of the Project or other facilities, if any, that it constructs on the Development
Property, pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, for so long as the TIF Note remains
outstanding.
13136798v2
6
ARTICLE III
UNDERTAKINGS BY DEVELOPER AND CITY
Section 3.1. Site Improvements and Legal and Administrative Expenses.
(1) The parties agree that the construction of the Site Improvements are essential to
the successful completion of the Project. The costs of the Site Improvements shall be paid by the
Developer. The City shall reimburse the Developer for the lesser of (a) $315,000, or (b) the
actual costs of the Site Improvements actually incurred and paid by the Developer as further
provided in Section 3.3.
(2) The Developer shall pay the Legal and Administrative Expenses incurred by the
City.
Section 3.2. Limitations on Undertaking of the City. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Sections 3.1, the City shall have no obligation to the Developer under this Agreement to
reimburse the Developer for the Site Improvements, if the City, at the time or times such
payment is to be made, is entitled under Section 4.2 to exercise any of the remedies set forth
therein as a result of an Event of Default which has not been cured.
Section 3.3. Reimbursement: TIF Note. The City shall reimburse the costs identified in
Section 3.1(1) through the issuance of the City's TIF Note in substantially the form attached to
this Agreement as Exhibit B, subject to the following conditions.
(1) The TIF Note shall be dated, issued and delivered when the Developer shall have
demonstrated in writing to the reasonable satisfaction of the City that (i) the construction of the
Project has been completed; (ii) that the construction of the Road Improvements has been
completed; and (iii) that the Developer has incurred and paid all costs of construction of the Site
Improvements, as described in and limited by Section 3.1(1) and shall have submitted paid
invoices for the costs of construction of the Site Improvements in an amount not less than
$315,000 or the actual costs of the Site Improvements to be paid from the TIF Note if the actual
costs of the Site Improvements are less than $315,000.
(2) The unpaid principal of the TIF Note shall bear simple non-compounding interest
from the date of issuance of the TIF Note, at the lesser of 3.75% per annum or the interest rate on
the financing that the Developer obtains for the construction of the Project. Interest shall be
computed on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of twelve (12) 30-day months.
(3) The principal amount of the TIF Note and the interest thereon shall be payable
solely from the Tax Increments.
(4) On each Note Payment Date and subject to the provisions of the TIF Note, the
City shall pay, against the principal and interest outstanding on the TIF Note, Tax Increments
received by the City during the preceding six (6) months. All such payments shall be applied
first to accrued interest and then to reduce the principal of the TIF Note.
13136798v2
7
(5) The TIF Note shall be a special and limited obligation of the City and not a
general obligation of the City, and only Tax Increments shall be used to pay the principal and
interest on the TIF Note. If, on any Note Payment Date, the Tax Increments for the payment of
the accrued and unpaid interest on the TIF Note are insufficient for such purposes, the difference
shall be carried forward, with interest accruing thereon, and shall be paid if and to the extent that
on a future Note Payment Date there are Tax Increments in excess of the amounts needed to pay
the accrued interest then due on the TIF Note.
(6) The City's obligation to make payments on the TIF Note on any Note Payment
Date or any date thereafter shall be conditioned upon the requirements that: (A) there shall not at
that time be an Event of Default that has occurred and is continuing under this Agreement and in
such event the City’s obligation to make payments shall be suspended until such Event of
Default is cured or this Agreement has been terminated, and (B) this Agreement shall not have
been rescinded pursuant to Section 4.2.
(7) The TIF Note shall be governed by and payable pursuant to the additional terms
thereof, as set forth in Exhibit B. In the event of any conflict between the terms of the TIF Note
and the terms of this Section 3.3, the terms of the TIF Note shall govern. The issuance of the
TIF Note pursuant and subject to the terms of this Agreement, and the taking by the City of such
additional actions as bond counsel for the TIF Note may require in connection therewith, are
hereby authorized and approved by the City.
Section 3.4. Road Improvements. The Developer shall construct the Road
Improvements by April 30, 2022, in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the
City. The City may inspect the Road Improvements as the improvements are being constructed.
Section 3.5. Rental; Compliance. The Developer shall rent the Project to tenants who
will use the leased space solely for manufacturing and/or warehouse distribution purposes and
space necessary for and related to manufacturing or warehousing and distribution (the "Use
Restrictions"). The Developer shall include language in the lease agreement which requires the
tenants to comply with the Use Restrictions. The Developer shall annually submit on or before
May 1 of each year commencing May 1, 2022 a Compliance Certificate that all tenants of the
Project are in compliance with this Section.
Section 3.6. Business Subsidies Act.
(1) In order to satisfy the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993
to 116J.995 (the "Business Subsidies Act"), the Developer acknowledges and agrees that the
amount of the "Business Subsidy" granted to the Developer under this Agreement is $315,000
which is the reimbursement amount for the construction of the Site Improvements and that the
Business Subsidy is needed because the Project is not sufficiently feasible for the Developer to
undertake without the Business Subsidy. The Tax Increment District is an economic
development district and the public purpose of the Business Subsidy is to encourage the
construction of manufacturing and/or warehouse and distribution facilities. The Developer
agrees that it will cause tenants of the Project to meet the following goals (the "Goals") in
connection with the development of the Development Property: to create at least 12 full time
equivalent jobs having wage levels of at least 150% of the State of Minnesota minimum wage,
13136798v2
8
exclusive of benefits within two years from the "Benefit Date", which is the earlier of the date
the Developer completes construction of the Project or the first tenant occupies the Project. The
Developer shall include in its leases with tenants the requirement that the tenants shall provide
wage and job information to the Developer and the City so that the Developer can comply with
the provisions of this Section.
(2) If no Goals are met, the Developer agrees to repay all of the Business Subsidy to
the City, plus interest ("Interest") set at the implicit price deflator defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 275.70, Subdivision 2, accruing from and after the Benefit Date, compounded
semiannually. If the Goals are met in part, the Developer will repay a portion of the Business
Subsidy (plus Interest) determined by multiplying the Business Subsidy by a fraction, the
numerator of which is the number of jobs in the Goals which were not created at the wage level
set forth above and the denominator of which is 12 (i.e. number of jobs set forth in the Goals).
(3) The Developer agrees to (i) report on the progress of the tenants on achieving the
Goals to the City until the later of the date the Goals are met or two years from the Benefit Date,
or, if the Goals are not met, until the date the Business Subsidy is repaid, (ii) include in the report
the information required in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.994, Subdivision 7 on forms
developed by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, and (iii)
send completed reports to the City. The Developer agrees to file these reports no later than
March 1 of each year commencing March 1, 2023, and within 30 days after the deadline for
meeting the Goals. The City agrees that if it does not receive the reports, it will mail the
Developer a warning within one week of the required filing date. If within 14 days of the post
marked date of the warning the reports are not made, the Developer agrees to pay to the City a
penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed up to a maximum of $1,000.
(4) The Developer agrees to continue operations within the City for at least five (5)
years after the Benefit Date.
(5) There are no other state or local government agencies providing financial
assistance for the Project other than the City.
(6) There is no parent corporation of the Developer.
(7) The Developer certifies that it does not appear on the Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development's list of recipients that have failed to meet the terms of
a business subsidy agreement.
13136798v2
9
ARTICLE IV
EVENTS OF DEFAULT
Section 4.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be "Events of Default"
under this Agreement and the term "Event of Default" shall mean whenever it is used in this
Agreement any one or more of the following events:
(1) Failure by the Developer to timely pay any ad valorem real property taxes and
special assessments levied against the Development Property and all public utility or other City
payments due and owing with respect to the Development Property.
(2) Failure by the Developer to cause the Project to be completed pursuant to the
terms, conditions and limitations of this Agreement.
(3) Failure of the Developer to observe or perform any other covenant, condition,
obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement.
(4) The holder of any mortgage on the Development Property or any improvements
thereon, or any portion thereof, commences foreclosure proceedings as a result of any default
under the applicable mortgage documents.
(5) If the Developer shall:
(a) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement,
composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United
States Bankruptcy Act of 1978, as amended or under any similar federal or state law; or
(b) make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors; or
(c) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due;
or
(d) be adjudicated as bankrupt or insolvent; or if a petition or answer
proposing the adjudication of the Developer as bankrupt or its reorganization under any
present or future federal bankruptcy act or any similar federal or state law shall be filed in
any court and such petition or answer shall not be discharged or denied within sixty (60)
days after the filing thereof; or a receiver, liquidator or trustee of the Developer, or of the
Project, or part thereof, shall be appointed in any proceeding brought against the
Developer, and shall not be discharged within sixty (60) days after such appointment, or
if the Developer, shall consent to or acquiesce in such appointment.
Section 4.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section
4.1 occurs and is continuing, the City, as specified below, may take any one or more of the
following actions after the giving of thirty (30) days' written notice to the Developer, but only if
the Event of Default has not been cured within said thirty (30) days or, if such Event of Default
cannot reasonably be cured by the Developer within thirty (30) days, then within an additional
13136798v2
10
sixty (60) days if Developer has commenced curing the Event of Default within the initial thirty
(30) day period.:
(1) The City may suspend its performance under this Agreement and the TIF Note
until it receives assurances from the Developer, deemed adequate by the City, that the Developer
will cure its default and continue its performance under this Agreement.
(2) The City may cancel and rescind the Agreement and the TIF Note.
(3) The City may take any action, including legal or administrative action, in law or
equity, which may appear necessary or desirable to enforce performance and observance of any
obligation, agreement, or covenant of the Developer under this Agreement.
Section 4.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the
City is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every
such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this
Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to
exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or
shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from
time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient.
Section 4.4. No Implied Waiver. In the event any agreement contained in this
Agreement should be breached by any party and thereafter waived by any other party, such
waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any
other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
Section 4.5. Agreement to Pay Attorney's Fees and Expenses. Whenever any Event of
Default occurs and the City shall employ attorneys or incur other expenses for the collection of
payments due or to become due or for the enforcement or performance or observance of any
obligation or agreement on the part of the Developer herein contained, the Developer agrees that
it shall, on demand therefor, pay to the City the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other
expenses so incurred by the City.
Section 4.6. Indemnification of City.
(1) The Developer (a) releases the City and its governing body members, officers,
agents, including the independent contractors, consultants and legal counsel, servants and
employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties") from, (b) covenants and agrees that the
Indemnified Parties shall not be liable for, and (c) agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Indemnified Parties against, any claim, cause of action, suit or liability for loss or damage to
property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or resulting from any
defect in the Project or on the Development Property.
(2) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct of
the Indemnified Parties, the Developer agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified Parties, now
and forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit,
action or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly
arising from the actions or inactions of the Developer (or if other persons acting on its behalf or
13136798v2
11
under its direction or control) under this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby or
the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership, and operation of the Project; provided, that
this indemnification shall not apply to the warranties made or obligations undertaken by the City
in this Agreement or to any actions undertaken by the City which are not contemplated by this
Agreement but shall, in any event and without regard to any fault on the part of the City, apply to
any pecuniary loss or penalty (including interest thereon from the date the loss is incurred or
penalty is paid by the City at a rate equal to the Prime Rate) as a result of the Project causing the
Tax Increment District to not qualify or cease to qualify as an "economic development district"
under Section 469.174, Subdivision 12, of the Act and Section 469.176, Subdivision 4c. or to
violate limitations as to the use of Tax Increments as set forth in Section 469.176, Subdivision
4c.
(3) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City
contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and
obligations of the City and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant or
employee of the City.
13136798v2
12
ARTICLE V
DEVELOPER'S OPTION TO TERMINATE AGREEMENT
Section 5.1. The Developer's Option to Terminate. This Agreement may be terminated
by the Developer, if (i) the Developer is in compliance with all material terms of this Agreement
and no Event of Default has occurred; and (ii) the City fails to comply with any material term of
this Agreement, and, after written notice by the Developer of such failure, the City has failed to
cure such noncompliance within ninety (90) days of receipt of such notice, or, if such
noncompliance cannot reasonably be cured by the City within ninety (90) days, of receipt of such
notice, the City has not provided assurances, reasonably satisfactory to the Developer, that such
noncompliance will be cured as soon as reasonably possible.
Section 5.2. Action to Terminate. Termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 5.1
must be accomplished by written notification by the Developer to the City within sixty (60) days
after the date when such option to terminate may first be exercised. A failure by the Developer
to terminate this Agreement within such period constitutes a waiver by the Developer of its
rights to terminate this Agreement due to such occurrence or event.
Section 5.3. Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this
Article V, this Agreement shall be from such date forward null and void and of no further effect;
provided, however, the termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights of either party to
institute any action, claim or demand for damages suffered as a result of breach or default of the
terms of this Agreement by the other party, or to recover amounts which had accrued and
become due and payable as of the date of such termination. Upon termination of this Agreement
pursuant to this Article V, the Developer shall be free to proceed with the Project at its own
expense and without regard to the provisions of this Agreement; provided, however, that the City
shall have no further obligations to the Developer with respect to reimbursement of the expenses
set forth in Section 3.2; or to make any further payments on the TIF Note.
13136798v2
13
ARTICLE VI
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
Section 6.1. Restrictions on Use. Until termination of this Agreement, the Developer
agrees for itself, its successors and assigns and every successor in interest to the Development
Property, or any part thereof, that the Developer and such successors and assigns shall operate, or
cause to be operated, the Project as manufacturing and/or warehouse and distribution facilities
and/or for research and development purposes related to such manufacturing, warehouse or
distribution facilities, and/or for space necessary for and related to the above activities, and shall
devote the Development Property to, and in accordance with, the uses specified in this
Agreement.
Section 6.2. Conflicts of Interest. No member of the governing body or other official of
the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the Development
Property or the Project, or any contract, agreement or other transaction contemplated to occur or
be undertaken thereunder or with respect thereto, nor shall any such member of the governing
body or other official participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his or
her personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which he
or she is directly or indirectly interested. No member, official or employee of the City shall be
personally liable to the City in the event of any default or breach by the Developer or successor
or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement.
Section 6.3. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, articles and
sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be
disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions.
Section 6.4. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Agreement, a notice, demand or other communication under this Agreement by any party to any
other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, delivered personally or sent via email, and
(1) in the case of the Developer is addressed to or delivered personally to:
Pilot Knob BC LLC
Attention: Josh Budish
josh@endeavorshield.com
5116 Skyline Dr.
Edina, MN 55436
with a copy to:
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP
Attention: Peter Berrie
peter.berrie@faegredrinker.com
90 South 7th St., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
13136798v2
14
(2) in the case of the City is addressed to or delivered personally to the City at:
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
Attention: City Administrator
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
with a copy to:
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Attention: Mary Ippel
2200 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
or at such other address with respect to any such party as that party may, from time to time,
designate in writing and forward to the other, as provided in this Section.
Section 6.5. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 6.6. Law Governing. This Agreement will be governed and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State.
Section 6.7. Expiration. This Agreement shall expire on the Termination Date.
Section 6.8. Provisions Surviving Rescission or Expiration. Sections 4.5 and 4.6 shall
survive any rescission, termination or expiration of this Agreement with respect to or arising out
of any event, occurrence or circumstance existing prior to the date thereof.
Section 6.9. Transfer of Project; Assignability of Agreement and TIF Note. The Project
can only be transferred and the Agreement may be assigned only with the consent of the City,
which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. The TIF Note may
only be assigned pursuant to the terms of the TIF Note.
13136798v2
15
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its
name and on its behalf and the Developer has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its
name and on its behalf, on or as of the date first above written.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MINNESOTA
By__________________________________
Its Mayor
By__________________________________
Its City Administrator
This is a signature page to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota and Pilot Knob BC LLC.
13136798v2
16
PILOT KNOB BC LLC
By ____________________________________
Its ____________________________________
This is a signature page to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota and Pilot Knob BC LLC.
13136798v2
A-1
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
Property located in the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota with the
following parcel identification number:
27-56550-01-010
13136798v2
B-1
EXHIBIT B
FORM OF TIF NOTE
No. R-1 $______
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
(PILOT KNOB BC LLC PROJECT)
The City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the "City"), hereby acknowledges itself to be
indebted and, for value received, hereby promises to pay the amounts hereinafter described (the
"Payment Amounts") to Pilot Knob BC LLC (the "Developer") or its registered assigns (the
"Registered Owner"), but only in the manner, at the times, from the sources of revenue, and to
the extent hereinafter provided.
The principal amount of this Note shall equal from time to time the principal amount
stated above, as reduced to the extent that such principal installments shall have been paid in
whole or in part pursuant to the terms hereof; provided that the sum of the principal amount
listed above shall in no event exceed $315,000 as provided in that certain Development
Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2021, as the same may be amended from time to time (the
"Development Agreement"), by and between the City and the Developer. The unpaid principal
amount hereof shall bear interest from the date of this Note at the simple non-compounded rate
of ______% per annum. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of
twelve (12) 30-day months.
The amounts due under this Note shall be payable on August 1, 2023, and on each
February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including February 1, 2031, or, if the first should not
be a Business Day (as defined in the Development Agreement), the next succeeding Business
Day (the "Payment Dates"). On each Payment Date the City shall pay by check or draft mailed
to the person that was the Registered Owner of this Note at the close of the last business day of
the City preceding such Payment Date an amount equal to the sum of the Tax Increments
(hereinafter defined) received by the City during the six-month period preceding such Payment
Date. All payments made by the City under this Note shall first be applied to accrued interest
and then to principal. This Note is prepayable by the City, in whole or in part, on any date.
The Payment Amounts due hereon shall be payable solely from 90% of tax increments
(the "Tax Increments") from the Development Property (as defined in the Development
Agreement) within the City's Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Endeavor) (the "Tax
Increment District") within its Municipal Development District No. 1 which are paid to the City
and which the City is entitled to retain pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.174 through 469.1794, as the same may be amended or supplemented from time to time (the
"Tax Increment Act"). This Note shall terminate and be of no further force and effect following
13136798v2
B-2
the last Payment Date defined above, on any date upon which the City shall have terminated the
Development Agreement under Section 4.2(2) thereof or the Developer shall have terminated the
Development Agreement under Article V thereof, on the date the Tax Increment District is
terminated, or on the date that all principal and interest payable hereunder shall have been paid in
full, whichever occurs earliest.
The City makes no representation or covenant, expressed or implied, that the Tax
Increments will be sufficient to pay, in whole or in part, the amounts which are or may become
due and payable hereunder.
The City's payment obligations hereunder shall be further conditioned on the fact that no
Event of Default under the Development Agreement shall have occurred and be continuing at the
time payment is otherwise due hereunder, but such unpaid amounts shall become payable if said
Event of Default shall thereafter have been cured; and, further, if pursuant to the occurrence of
an Event of Default under the Development Agreement the City elects to cancel and rescind the
Development Agreement, the City shall have no further debt or obligation under this Note
whatsoever. Reference is hereby made to all of the provisions of the Development Agreement,
including without limitation Section 3.3 thereof, for a fuller statement of the rights and
obligations of the City to pay the principal of this Note, and said provisions are hereby
incorporated into this Note as though set out in full herein.
This Note is a special, limited revenue obligation and not a general obligation of the City
and is payable by the City only from the sources and subject to the qualifications stated or
referenced herein. This Note is not a general obligation of the City and neither the full faith and
credit nor the taxing powers of the City are pledged to the payment of the principal of this Note
and no property or other asset of the City, save and except the above-referenced Tax Increments,
is or shall be a source of payment of the City's obligations hereunder.
This Note is issued by the City in aid of financing a project pursuant to and in full
conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including the Tax
Increment Act.
This Note may be assigned only with the consent of the City which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld. In order to assign the Note, the assignee shall surrender the same to the
City either in exchange for a new fully registered note or for transfer of this Note on the
registration records for the Note maintained by the City. Each permitted assignee shall take this
Note subject to the foregoing conditions and subject to all provisions stated or referenced herein.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things
required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to have happened,
and to be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Note have been done, have
happened, and have been performed in regular and due form, time, and manner as required by
law; and that this Note, together with all other indebtedness of the City outstanding on the date
hereof and on the date of its actual issuance and delivery, does not cause the indebtedness of the
City to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation thereon.
13136798v2
B-3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, by its City Council, has
caused this Note to be executed by the manual signatures of its Mayor and City Administrator
and has caused this Note to be dated as of __________________, 20___.
_________________________________
City Administrator Mayor
DO NOT EXECUTE UNTIL PAID INVOICES FOR THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE
GIVEN TO THE CITY - REFER TO SECTION 3.3(1).
13136798v2
B-4
CERTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION
It is hereby certified that the foregoing Note was registered in the name of Pilot Knob BC
LLC, and that, at the request of the Registered Owner of this Note, the undersigned has this day
registered the Note in the name of such Registered Owner, as indicated in the registration blank
below, on the books kept by the undersigned for such purposes.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF
REGISTERED OWNER
DATE OF
REGISTRATION
SIGNATURE OF
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Pilot Knob BC LLC
Attention: Josh Budish
5116 Skyline Dr.
Edina, MN 55436
13136798v2
C-1
EXHIBIT C
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Landscaping, including irrigation
Foundations and Footings
Grading/earthwork
Engineering
Survey
Environmental Testing
Soil Borings
Site Preparation
Onsite Utilities
Storm Water/Ponding
Outdoor Lighting
Onsite Road, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, Sidewalk and Streetscape Improvements
Parking
13136798v2
D-1
EXHIBIT D
COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
The undersigned Pilot Knob BC LLC, does hereby certify that as of the date of this
Certificate and for the previous twelve (12) months prior to the execution of this Certificate as
follows:
The following are the tenants of the Project as defined in the Development Agreement
dated as of March 1, 2021 between the City of Mendota Heights and Pilot Knob BC LLC:
[insert tenant names]
and that the foregoing tenants are operating the leased space for the following purposes:
[insert tenant name and function]
Dated this ____ day of _________________, 20___.
PILOT KNOB BC LLC
By ____________________________________
Its ____________________________________
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: March 16, 2021
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-22 Approving Right-of-way license agreement for Perron Road
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council approve a license agreement for
Southview Design and Pilot Knob Business Park.
BACKGROUND
At the Council meeting of May 6, 2014, the city approved a license agreement for Southview
Design to construct and maintain a private driveway in the public Perron Road right-of-way.
DISCUSSION
The City received an application to develop the vacant parcel at 2393 Pilot Knob Road. This
property is located adjacent to Perron Road which the City had granted a license agreement to
Southview Partners I, LLC in 2014. The applicant is proposing to access the development through
a private driveway constructed within the Perron Road right-of-way along the northern property
boundary line.
The applicant is seeking approval of a new right-of-way license agreement to be jointly held by
Southview Partners I, LLC and Pilot Knob BC, LLC. The two parties have worked through issues
on the new agreement to maintain access to the existing Southview Design business while
improvements are being made in addition to relocating existing private improvements. The two
parties are also completing a separate maintenance agreement to discuss the long term operations
of the private driveway.
A copy of the proposed agreement is attached for your review.
BUDGET IMPACT
The license agreement will release the city from current and future maintenance costs of this
private driveway.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the license agreement and authorize the Mayor and Clerk
to execute the agreement.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion adopting A
RESOLUTION APPROVING RIGHT-OF-WAY LICENSE AGREEMENT. This action
requires a simple majority vote.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2021-22
RESOLUTION APPROVING A RIGHT-OF-WAY LICENSE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Southview Partners I, LLC is requesting to utilize the existing Perron Road
right-of-way to construct a private driveway in order to access the proposed development by entering
into an approved right-of-way license agreement with the City of Mendota Heights; and
WHEREAS, Southview Partners I, LLC owns property at 2383 Pilot Knob Road (SECTION
33 TWN 28 RANGE 23, PT OF SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LYING SE OF TH#13 & S OF RR EX
PARCEL 46B ON MNDOT R/W PLAT 19-94, LOT 33, BLOCK 28 & 23; PID # 27-03300-04-010)
and Pilot Knob BC, LLC owns property at 2393 Pilot Knob Road (SECTION 33 TWN 28 RANGE
23, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PABST ADDITION; PID # 27-56550-01-010).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
right-of-way license agreement for the utilization of the Perron Road right-of-way is hereby
approved and the Mayor and Clerk are authorized to execute the agreement;
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this sixteenth day of March, 2021.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_____________________________
Stephanie Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
AMENDED AND
RESTATED LICENSE
AGREEMENT
This Amended and Restated License Agreement (the "LICENSE") is made this _____
day of March, 2021, between THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal
corporation (the "CITY") and SOUTHVIEW PARTNERS I, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company ("SOUTHVIEW") and PILOT KNOB BC LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
("PKBC", and together with SOUTHVIEW, the “LICENSEES”, and either SOUTHVIEW or
PKBC individually may also be referred to as a “LICENSEE”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, SOUTHVIEW owns real property located at 2383 Pilot Knob Road,
Mendota Heights, Minnesota ("SOUTHVIEW’S PROPERTY"), as described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, PKBC owns real property located at 2393 Pilot Knob Road, Mendota Heights,
Minnesota ("PKBC'S PROPERTY"), as described in Exhibit B (PKBC'S PROPERTY and
SOUTHVIEW’S PROPERTY are sometimes collectively referred to as the “LICENSEES’
PROPERTY”); and
WHEREAS, LICENSEES’ PROPERTY is contiguous to an unimproved right-of-way
owned by the CITY (the "LICENSED PREMISES"), as described in Exhibit C and as generally
depicted in Exhibit D; and
WHEREAS, SOUTHVIEW and CITY entered into a License Agreement dated May 6,
2014 (the “ORIGINAL LICENSE AGREEMENT”), pursuant to which the CITY granted a
license to SOUTHVIEW to utilize the LICENSED PREMISES to access SOUTHVIEW’S
PROPERTY in conjunction with the construction and operation of a commercial/industrial
facility on SOUTHVIEW'S PROPERTY; and
WHEREAS, PKBC intends to build and operate a commercial/industrial facility on
PKBC'S PROPERTY, which facility must access Pilot Knob Road over the LICENSED
PREMISES; and
WHEREAS, the CITY desires to allow LICENSEES to utilize the unimproved right-of-
way for a private driveway until such time as the right-of-way is improved; and
WHEREAS, SOUTHVIEW, PKBC, and the CITY wish to amend, modify and restate
in its entirety, the ORIGINAL LICENSE AGREEMENT with this LICENSE.
LICENSE
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein,
and $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Grant of License. The CITY does hereby grant to each of the LICENSEES a
non-exclusive revocable license to construct, maintain, repair, replace and utilize a driveway,
retaining wall, security fence, security gate, utilities, lighting, signage and landscaping
(collectively, the "IMPROVEMENTS") within the unimproved right-of-way identified as Perron
Road, as such facilities currently exist, and substantially as such facilities will be modified in
accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by Sambatek and Lampert Architects, as
submitted with the building permit application of PKBC and approved by the City (the
''AMENDED PLANS"). PKBC shall be responsible for the construction of the new
improvements depicted in the AMENDED PLANS. Such license shall extend only to the
LICENSEES, their tenants, and the employees, agents, contractors, and invitees of said parties.
Except as explicitly stated in Section 6 below, the CITY shall not grant any 3rd party a license or
other rights to use or possess the LICENSED PREMISES without LICENSEES’ prior written
consent, which each LICENSEE may withhold or condition in its sole discretion.
2. No Interest Created. LICENSEES each certify, represent, and acknowledge
that they have no title in or to the LICENSED PREMISES, nor to any portion thereof, and
they each have not, do not, and will not claim any such title nor any easement by necessity or
otherwise over the LICENSED PREMISES.
3. Improvements. Other than maintenance, repairs or replacements to any of the
IMPROVEMENTS, LICENSEES shall not make any additions or improvements in or to the
LICENSED PREMISES without the CITY's prior written consent. IMPROVEMENTS are
hereby limited to those items listed in (1) above.
4. Indemnification.
a. Each LICENSEE (as “INDEMNITOR”) shall hold the CITY harmless from and
indemnify and defend the CITY against any claim or liability arising in any
manner from such INDEMNITOR’s use of the LICENSED PREMISES, or
relating to the death or bodily injury of such INDEMNITOR or such
INDEMNITOR’s employees, invitees, and guests present on the LICENSED
PREMISES, or relating to damage to any personal property of such INDEMNITOR
or such INDEMNITOR’s employees, invitees, and guests located in or upon the
LICENSED PREMISES, except as the same may be caused by the gross
negligence or willful misconduct of any employee, agent or contractor of the
CITY.
b. Each LICENSEE (as “INDEMNITOR”) shall hold the other LICENSEE (as
“INDEMNITEE”) harmless from and indemnify and defend such INDEMNITEE
against any claim or liability arising in any manner from such INDEMNITOR’s use
of the LICENSED PREMISES, or relating to the death or bodily injury of such
INDEMNITOR or such INDEMNITOR’s employees, invitees, and guests present on
the LICENSED PREMISES, or relating to damage to any personal property of such
INDEMNITOR or such INDEMNITOR’s employees, invitees, and guests located in
or upon the LICENSED PREMISES, except as the same may be (i) caused by the
gross negligence or willful misconduct of any employee, agent or contractor of the
CITY, or (ii) caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of any employee, agent
or contractor of such INDEMNITEE.
c. Each LICENSEE agrees to pay all sums of money in respect to any labor, service,
materials, supplies, or equipment furnished or alleged to have been furnished to such
LICENSEE in or about the LICENSED PREMISES, and not furnished on order of
the CITY or the other LICENSEE. Either LICENSEE may contest any lien for such
services, materials, supplies, or equipment furnished or alleged to have been
furnished to such LICENSEE, on the condition that such LICENSEE first provide to
the CITY cash, bond, letter of credit, or other security against such lien which the
CITY reasonably determines to be sufficient.
5. Assignment or Sublicensing. No LICENSEE shall sublicense any portion of the
LICENSED PREMISES or transfer or assign this LICENSE without obtaining the prior written
consent of the CITY, which consent the CITY may grant or deny at the CITY's sole discretion;
provided that the CITY hereby consents to the assignment of each LICENSEE'S rights and
obligations hereunder in the event of the sale of the LICENSEES’ PROPERTY provided the
purchasing party of the LICENSEES’ PROPERTY agrees to the terms and conditions of this
LICENSE. The CITY's consent to any assignment of this LICENSE shall not be a waiver of the
CITY's right under this Section as to any assignment.
6. Additional Access. LICENSEES shall grant unimpeded access and use of all
portions of the LICENSED PREMISES in use as of the executed date of this LICENSE to the
owner of 2401 Pilot Knob Road, their agents, tenants, customers, invitees, and guests; provided
that LICENSEES may post the IMPROVEMENTS as "no parking" and the LICENSEES may
enforce such no parking area.
7. Notices. All communications, notices, and demands of any kind that either party
may be required or desires to give to or serve on the other party shall be made in writing and
delivered personally or by certified U.S. Mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses:
To the CITY:
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Attention: City Administrator
With a copy to:
Campbell Knutson, P.A.
860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290
Eagan, MN 55121
Attention: Elliott Knetsch, Mendota
Heights City Attorney
To SOUTHVIEW:
Southview Design
2383 Pilot Knob Road
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Attention: Chris Clifton
To PKBC:
Pilot Knob BC LLC
c/o Endeavor Companies
5116 Skyline Drive
Edina, MN 55436
Attention: Joshua Budish
With a copy to:
Real Solutions, PLLC
10050 Crosstown Circle, Suite 100
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Attention: David S. Lima
8. No Reliance on CITY's Representations. Neither the CITY nor any agent or
representative of the CITY has made any warranty or other representation with respect to the
LICENSED PREMISES.
9. Termination and Surrender. The CITY reserves the right to terminate this
LICENSE upon the occurrence of either of the following: (i) the completion of the improvement
of and opening of the LICENSED PREMISES as a public right-of-way; or (ii) the LICENSEES
being in default under this Agreement, which default is not cured within thirty (30) days after
receipt of written notice of default from City. If this Agreement is to be terminated pursuant to
(i), the CITY will provide both LICENSEES access from the CITY developed Right-of-Way to
the LICENSED PREMISES. Further, the City shall give both LICENSEES not less than One
Hundred Eighty (180) days' notice, beyond any notice and cure period, prior to terminating this
Agreement under (ii). Upon termination of this LICENSE by the CITY, LICENSEES shall
peaceably surrender the LICENSED PREMISES in its then "as is" condition.
10. Miscellaneous.
a. Choice of Law. The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern the
validity, performance, and enforcement of this LICENSE.
b. Counterparts. This LICENSE may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which, when taken together will be deemed to be an original.
c. Amendment of Modification. This LICENSE may not be changed or
modified orally, but only upon written agreement signed by the party against whom
enforcement of any waiver, change, modification, or discharge is sought.
d. Severability. If any term or provision in this LICENSE is deemed to be
invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the LICENSE shall remain in effect and be
enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
e. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of all
obligations under this LICENSE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY and the LICENSEES have caused these presents
to be executed in form and manner sufficient to bind them at law as of the day and year first
written above.
CITY:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
a Minnesota municipal corporation
By: ________________________
Its: Mayor
By: ________________________
Its: City Clerk
SOUTHVIEW:
SOUTHVIEW PARTNERS I, LLC
a Minnesota limited liability company
By:
Its:
PKBC:
PILOT KNOB BC LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
By:
Its:
This instrument was drafted by:
Real Solutions, PLLC
10050 Crosstown Circle, Suite 100
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Attention: David S. Lima
EXHIBIT A
That part of the Southeast Quarter (SE l/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section Thirty-
three (33), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-three (23) lying southwesterly to the
right of way of the abandoned Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad and
southeasterly of the right- of-way of State Trunk Highway No. 13, except that part of the
Southeast Quarter (SE l/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE l/4) of Section Thirty-three (33),
Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), shown as Parcel 468 on Minnesota
Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat Number 19-94, as corrected by Land Surveyors
Certificate of Correction to plat filed May 9, 1993 as Document No. 1120494, according to the
United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Dakota County, Minnesota.
EXHIBIT B
Lot 1, Block 1, Pabst Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota,
EXCEPT Parcel 241, Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat Numbered 19-93.
EXHIBIT C
The North 35 feet of the West 425 feet of the East 485 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33,
Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota.
EXHIBIT D
DATE: March 16, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-23 Appointment to Fill Vacancy on Airports Relations Commission
COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to appoint Jeffery Hamiel to the Airport Relations Commission (ARC).
Background
At a January 27, 2021 Council Work Session, the Council appointed Sally Lorberbaum to fill a
vacancy on the Planning Commission. That action then created a vacancy on the ARC, where
Ms. Lorberbaum had held a seat for many years. The Council directed that an advertisement of
the ARC vacancy be made.
As of the close of the application period on March 3rd, five Mendota heights residents had
indicated their interest. On March 9th, an interview panel made up of Mayor Levine, Councilor
Miller, and ARC Chair David Sloan interviewed each of the candidates.
At the completion of the interviews, the panel reached a consensus that Jeffrey Hamiel would be
recommended to be appointed by the Council to fill the vacancy. Mr. Hamiel served as the
Executive Director and CEO of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission for
more than three decades, and is a nationally-recognized leader in the air industry.
The appointment would be to fill the remaining portion of the unexpired Lorberbaum term,
which will end on January 31, 2022.
Recommendation
The interview panel recommends that the Council approve a resolution appointing Jeffrey
Hamiel to fill the current vacancy on the ARC.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt:
Resolution 2021-23
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING JEFFREY W. HAMIEL TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED
TERM ON THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2021-23
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING JEFFREY W. HAMIEL TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED
TERM ON THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights benefits from the active
participation of citizens in representing the City on boards and commissions; and
WHEREAS, the Airports Relations Commission serves as an advisory body to the City
Council, and advises the Council on topics pertaining to airport noise and operations at Minneapolis-
Saint Paul International Airport; and
WHEREAS, a vacancy on the seven member Airport Relations Commission was created by
the appointment of Sally Lorberbaum to the City’s Planning Commission, whose term on the
Airports Relations Commission would have otherwise expired on January 31, 2022; and
WHEREAS, advertisements of the vacancy were made, and interviews were held of the five
individuals who made application for consideration; and,
WHEREAS, the interview panel which conducted the interviews unanimously recommended
that Jeffrey Hamiel be appointed to fill the vacancy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the excellent qualifications of Mr. Hamiel to serve
the City on the Airports Relations Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that it
hereby appoints Jeffrey W. Hamiel to the Airports Relations Commission, to fill an unexpired term to
expire on January 31, 2022.
Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 16th day of March, 2021.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ATTEST: ______________________________
Stephanie Levine, Mayor
_____________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: March 16, 2021
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request turnback of State Right-of-way over city streets
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council authorize the Public Works Director to
formally request a turnback of State right-of-way over certain city streets.
BACKGROUND
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has been in the process of releasing
excess right-of-way over roadways which are not part of the State Highway system.
The State has identified 7 locations in Mendota Heights were a turnback of right-of-way would
benefit both parties.
DISCUSSION
The proposed locations for a release of excess right-of-way is shown on the attached map. The
local streets within the excess right-of-way are Acacia Boulevard, Condon Court, Mendota
Heights Road adjacent to the 35E bridge, Mendota Heights Road east of Highway 149 (Dodd
Road), Pilot Knob Road north of Highway 13, Wagon Wheel Trail adjacent to the 35E bridge,
Water Drive, and Valencour Circle.
Upon requesting the right-of-way turnback, MnDOT estimates a 12-18 month timeframe for
execution.
BUDGET IMPACT
Mendota Heights has rehabilitated most of the streets listed and the city is receiving State Aid
funds on four of the seven streets.
Since the City is only receiving the fee title for the right-of-way, and the city already being the
owner of the streets, there is no financial obligation for the State to improve the roadways or
provide additional funds to the city.
Valencour Circle and Waters Drive would be two possible streets were funding under the current
assessment policy would be difficult to finance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Public Works Director to make a request for the
release of the excess right-of-way.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion authorizing the
Public Works Director to request a turnback of excess right-of-way. This action requires a simple
majority vote.
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
NVALENCOUR CI
RTRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55ACACIA BLVD
PILOT KNOB RDWAT
ERS DR
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDTRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 35EWAGON WHEEL TR
CONDON CTDODD RDMENDOTA HEIGHTS RD
DATE: March 16, 2021
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-24 Approve Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the
Somerset Sewer Realignment
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council approve the plans and specifications and
authorize and advertisement for bid for the Somerset Elementary Sewer Alignment.
BACKGROUND
The City of Mendota Heights installed a sanitary sewer and water main in the north end of the city in
1963. Somerset elementary was serviced by a 6 inch lateral pipe which ran under Ivy Falls Creek.
Subsequent erosion over the years has exposed this pipe which is no longer buried and is subject to
freezing in winter months.
Properties in Mendota Heights own their sewer laterals all the way to the city main. In this case, the
private lateral is functional however, the creek which runs above this pipe has resulted in this line
failing. Staff is proposing to realign the service connection to eliminate the creek crossing and
provide adequate cover over the pipe to meet design standards.
The attached report identifies options that were considered. The preferred option is to directionally
drill a new 6 inch lateral from the existing school service to an existing manhole to the west of the
school.
DISCUSSION
The Mendota Heights City Council authorized a professional services contract with TKDA at
their October 7, 2020 meeting. Staff initially proposed a schedule that would have constructed
this project before winter but was unable to get quotes due to contractor availability around the
holidays. Public Works needed to thaw the line once this winter and had placed an insulating
blanket over the service line during the extreme cold.
The plans and specifications for the project are complete and staff is proposing to bid the project
through its standard bidding process. A bid opening will be scheduled for March 30, 2021.
The plan sheet of the project is attached and the entire bid package is available for viewing by
request or visiting City Hall.
BUDGET
The Sanitary Utility Fund is proposed as a funding source for this improvement. The fund has an
adequate balance for this improvement. The estimate for this project is $92,575.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council approve the plans and specifications for the Somerset Sewer
Realignment Project, and authorize the advertisement for bids. Bids would be presented to the
Council on April 6, 2020.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion adopting A
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE SOMERSET SEWER
REALIGNMENT.
This action requires a super majority vote.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2021-24
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE SOMERSET SEWER
REALIGNMENT (PROJECT #202006)
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director reported that the proposed improvements and
construction thereof were feasible, desirable, necessary, and cost effective, and further reported
on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction thereof; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore directed the Public Works Director to
proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications thereof; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has prepared plans and specifications for said
improvements and have presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1. That the plans and specifications for said improvements be and they are hereby in all
respects approved by the City.
2. That the Clerk with the aid and assistance of the Public Works Director be and is hereby,
authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said improvements all in accordance with
the applicable Minnesota Statutes, such as bids to be received at the City Hall of the City
of Mendota Heights by 2:00 P.M., Tuesday, March 30, 2021, and at which time they will
be publicly opened in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall by the Public Works
Director, will then be tabulated, and will then be considered by the City Council at its
next regular Council meeting.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this sixteenth day of March, 2021.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Stephanie Levine, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 1, 2020
To: Ryan Ruzek, P.E.
Director of Public Works
From: Kevin P. Kielb, P.E.
Subject: Preliminary Analysis of Sewer Service at Independent School District 197
City of Mendota Heights
We have completed an analysis of the sanitary sewer service at Independent School District 197, located
near Dodd Road and Emerson Avenue. The existing sanitary sewer service is located on the south side of
the school and traverses a creek before connecting to a sanitary sewer main. The existing service is
exposed for approximately 20 feet as it crosses the creek and has experienced freezing issues over the past
several years.
We have identified three potential solutions to alleviate the freezing issue. The solutions and associated
preliminary construction cost estimates are presented below. The attached exhibit depicts the location of
the existing sanitary sewer service line and presents a graphical depiction of the alternatives considered.
Also attached is our preliminary construction cost estimate, which provides additional information related
to the alternatives analyzed.
Option 1 – Directionally Drilled Gravity Sewer (Preferred Alternative)
Existing manholes were examined as possible gravity sewer routes. Due to insufficient ground cover
when crossing the creek bottom, several of the existing manhole connections were deemed infeasible.
Connecting to existing manhole No. 2, as shown in the attached exhibit, was determined to be a feasible
gravity sewer option. Construction costs associated with this option are estimated at $89,650.
Option 2 –Lift Station (or Grinder Pump) and Directionally Drilled Forcemain
A small lift station or grinder pump could be installed on the service line prior to the creek. A
directionally drilled forcemain would then be installed to a manhole located in Dodd Road. Construction
costs associated with the lift station and forcemain are estimated at $115,145. In addition to the capital
costs, this alternative will require continual costs for power and maintenance. If power is disrupted, the
sanitary sewer system will not be functional until power was restored.
Option 3 – Creek Channel Reinforcement
The creek bottom and side slopes could be lined with concrete to allow for approximately 2 -3 feet of
cover over the sanitary sewer service. The channel lining would occur from the outlet of the existing 84”
culvert to 15 feet downstream of the sanitary sewer crossing. Construction would include insulation
around the service line, an 8” thick concrete channel bottom and sidewalls. Construction costs associated
with the reinforcement option are estimated at $97,000.
037-276970201151
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 197
037-270380020010
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 197
037-270380023010
INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DIST 197
037-273760104060
1308 LAURA
LIM KAISER G
037-273760104070
1324 LAURA
MOAN KARRING T
037-270380020020
1355 DODD
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 197
037-276970301030
1385 DODD
HOLT CAROLE J
037-276970301051
1395 DODD
HINDING CHRISTIAN
& SANDRA
037-276970301070
1399 DODD
SHULSTAD ROBERT H TSTE
037-276970301091
641 1ST
MELOM JOHN R & LYNN M
037-276970301020
644 BROOKSIDE
CARD JOSEPH D
& PAMELA B
037-276970206110
645 1ST
OKEEFE KEVIN D & MARLA
037-276970206050
646 BROOKSIDE
KRUEGER ROBERT B
& LYNN M
037-276970206090
649 1ST
NUCKLES KIMBERLY
037-276970206070
650 BROOKSIDE
ZIEBOL GERALD J
037-276970206080
651 1ST
KEMP DANIEL & NICOLE
037-276970202162
655 BROOKSIDE
MCMANUS TIMOTHY J
& AMY M
037-276970205160
657 1ST
PAGNOTTA VINCENT J & DANA M
037-276970205020
660 BROOKSIDE
TRUE PHILLIP H & LYNDA MC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>l l
l l
l l
RIPRAP & CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT
R=869.68
I=856.08
R=874.21
I=864.59
R=886.05
I=865.36
R=895.28
I=884.89
R=914.56
I=897.97
R=868.62
I=855.74
R=912
I=904.1
EX MH 1
EX MH 2
EX MH 3
EX MH 4 EX MH 5 EX MH 6 EX MH 7
EX MH 8
900
890
880
870
910
900 910920>>>>>>EX MH 9
R=922.31
I=913.48>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>S
S
S
SSS
S
S
S
S
S
l l l ll ll lH:\MHGT\R12122547\CAD\C3D\FIGR-122547-LAYOUT.dwg 8/31/2020 4:23:27 PMR
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 197
City of Mendota Heights
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE ANALYSIS
September 2020
R
FEETSCALE
0 50 100DODD RDBROOKSIDE LN
1ST AVELAURA LNINDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT 197
LEGEND
>6" DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED
GRAVITY SEWER OPTIONS
l l 2" DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED
FORCEMAIN OPTIONS
FORCEMAIN GRINDER PUMP
LIFT STATION
>EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
CREEK REINFORCEMENT OPTION
>>EXISTING STORM SEWER CULVERT
APPROXIMATE CREEK BOTTOM
EXISTING BITUMINOUS TRAIL
APPROX 0.5' OF PIPE COVER
APPROX 2' OF PIPE COVER
APPROX 4' OF PIPE COVER
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
CONFLICT
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
ISD 197 SEWER SERVICE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
BMI PROJECT NO. R12.122547 Date: 8/31/2020
OPTION 1 - DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED GRAVITY SEWER
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LUMP SUM $6,000.00 $6,000.00
2 CLEARING & GRUBBING 0.2 ACRE $15,000.00 $3,000.00
3 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 115 SQ YD $20.00 $2,300.00
4 ABANDON EXISTING SEWER SERVICE 115 LIN FT $40.00 $4,600.00
5 6" DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED SEWER 530 LIN FT $75.00 $39,750.00
6 CONNECT TO EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE (CORE)2 EACH $2,500.00 $5,000.00
7 BITUMINOUS PATCH 115 SQ YD $100.00 $11,500.00
8 TURF ESTABLISHMENT & EROSION CONTROL 700 SQ YD $25.00 $17,500.00
ESTIMATED OPTION 1 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL:$89,650.00
OPTION 2 - LIFT STATION (OR GRINDER PUMP) AND DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED FORCEMAIN
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LUMP SUM $8,000.00 $8,000.00
2 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER 20 LIN FT $12.00 $240.00
3 REMOVE SIDEWALK 165 SQ FT $5.00 $825.00
4 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 12 SQ YD $20.00 $240.00
5 ABANDON EXISTING SEWER SERVICE 60 LIN FT $40.00 $2,400.00
6 2" DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED FORCEMAIN 175 LIN FT $45.00 $7,875.00
7 GRINDER PUMP STATION 1 LUMP SUM $75,000.00 $75,000.00
8 CONNECT TO EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE (CORE)1 EACH $3,500.00 $3,500.00
9 CONNECT TO EXISTING SEWER PIPE 1 EACH $1,000.00 $1,000.00
10 CURB & GUTTER 20 LIN FT $25.00 $500.00
11 CONCRETE SIDEWALK 165 SQ FT $6.00 $990.00
12 BITUMINOUS PATCH 12 SQ YD $100.00 $1,200.00
13 TURF ESTABLISHMENT & EROSION CONTROL 225 SQ YD $15.00 $3,375.00
ELECTRIC SERVICE 1 LUMP SUM $10,000.00 $10,000.00
ESTIMATED OPTION 2 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL:$115,145.00
OPTION 3 - CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT OF CREEK
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LUMP SUM $6,800.00 $6,800.00
2 CLEARING & GRUBBING 0.2 ACRE $25,000.00 $5,000.00
3 INSULATION 75 SQ YD $40.00 $3,000.00
4 CONCRETE DITCH PAVING 1,400 SQ FT $57.00 $79,800.00
5 TURF ESTABLISHMENT & EROSION CONTROL 160 SQ YD $15.00 $2,400.00
ESTIMATED OPTION 3 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL:$97,000.00
TOTAL AMOUNTITEM NO. ITEM
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT UNIT PRICE
9/1/2020, 9:38 AM
Engineer's Estimate
Bolton & Menk, Inc.Page 1 of 1
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: March 16, 2021
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Community Organic Drop Site
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to consider adding an organic drop site at Mendakota Park.
BACKGROUND
Organics recycling participation has been increasing over the past couple years. Organics
currently make up approximately 26 percent of the waste going to the landfill. This material can
be composted and converted into a useable product.
273 Mendota Heights residents have registered for Dakota County’s drop-off program (250 at
Thompson County Park in WSP and 23 at the Holland Lake Trailhead in Eagan). This
represents about 5% of total program participation throughout the County (5,642 total registered
users). Dakota County provided additional facts for their organics program.
• Currently, there are five residential organics drop-off sites.
• Twin Cities Metro counties are required to develop plans and implement programs that
will increase our overall recycling rate (both traditional recycling and organics) to 75%
by 2030. Currently, Dakota County is around a 53% rate. Food scraps are a heavy
component of the waste stream, diverting them from landfills will help Dakota County
achieve compliance with this state statute.
• The County Environmental Resources Department is ready to partner with all Dakota
County communities to ensure as many residents have convenient access to an organics
drop-off site. Past survey’s have shown that the majority of participants live within 2
miles of a site. The more sites available, the greater the accessibility and diversion rates
become.
• The sites are intended to be short-term sites, until curbside collection of residential
organics is widely available throughout the region (which is anticipated to occur over the
next 5-10 years). The drop-sites are a wonderful way to educate the public leading up to
curbside programs.
DISCUSSION
For Mendota Heights to implement this new drop site, a Joint Powers Agreement would be
executed with Dakota County. The responsibilities are proposed as the following:
The County would provide:
• Site planning and support for elected officials, administrators, public groups and other
support needs that come up
• Reimbursements for various start-up costs (such as signage and bag distribution boxes)
• Reimbursement for ongoing program costs such as compostable bag purchases and
hauling/disposal costs
• City-wide recruitment via direct mail
• Ongoing program registration and Welcome Kit distribution
• Public training sessions and a dedicated program webpage and email address
• Ongoing communication (via site specific Listserv)
Municipalities would be requested to provide the following:
• Site location
• Staff time:
o Staff would order, store and distribute compostable bags (bags are purchased off
the state contract and county staff would provide you with detailed purchasing
instructions) (the County would reimburse the City for compostable bag costs)
o Remove snow and ice in the winter time
o Install site location sign
o Retain a licensed waste hauler (again the County would reimburse the City for
hauling costs)
o Submit reimbursement requests to the County (minimum 2 times per year)
o Collaborate with the County to plan, promote and report on the site (report
includes occasional observations for volume tracking and right-sizing)
Additional information and sample sites are shown on the attached Best Management Practices
sheets.
BUDGET IMPACT
The County would reimburse the city for the costs to implement the drop site. There would be
some staff time required as identified above.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Council approve Mendakota Park as an organic drop site. Further, the
Council should direct staff to negotiate with the City’s current hauler (Aspen) to provide two 2-
yard dumpsters to be located in the northwest corner of the parking lot at Mendakota. Those
provisions would then be put into a Joint Powers Agreement for the City Council to consider at
an upcoming meeting.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council agrees with the recommendation, it should pass a motion directing staff to work with
Dakota County to develop a Joint Powers Agreement. This would then come back to the City
Council for formal approval at a future meeting
This action requires a simple majority vote.
164
73
190
73
Mendakota Park Organic Drop Site
Date: 3/10/2021
City of
Mendota
Heights025
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
Organics Drop-Off Site Best Management Practices
Locational BMPs for Residential Organics (food scraps) Drop-Off Sites. Drop-Off Sites can be fashioned
in a variety of different ways. Local knowledge of a location comes into play:
• Area where there is existing ambient lighting from light poles or buildings (does not require
direct overhead lighting)
o If lighting is needed, recommend installing solar powered lighting
• Observable locations. Busy, well-used parking lots promotes the program to residents, reduces
the chance for illegal dumping and provides for daily site oversight.
• Participant access, good ingress and egress routes
o 1-2 dedicated parking options. Generally, participant pulls ups and gathers their
material, drops material into dumpster, grabs a couple bags and leaves within 30-60
seconds. Often people don’t use the dedicated spot, rather just pull up next to location.
• Hauling truck access
o Haulers require an area free of overhead obstruction that is 50’ long x 13’ wide x 24’
high
• Onsite Drop-Site Location Signage
o Clearly identifies what the dumpsters are to be used for and how to register for the
program
o Reduces accidental and intentional contamination
o Services as public education opportunity
• Free compostable bags for participants
o Use of these bags is promoted to participants
o Reduces odors and bugs during hot, summer months
o Reduces materials freezing to dumpsters in winter
o Reduces accidental spills in personal vehicles and at the drop-site
o Can be distributed onsite (in a covered box) or at a municipal building
• Location
o These drop-sites are meant to be short-term use sites. It is anticipated residential
curbside organics collection will commence throughout the region within the next 5-7
years. As such, keeping site development costs to a minimum is prudent.
o Use leak-proof and covered dumpsters
▪ Multiple weekly picks-up for the first couple months, monitor for right-sizing
(react as needed)
▪ Service schedules can be adjusted as needed
o Locks can be used on collection dumpsters and/or carts
▪ Many locations have found that locking containers or enclosures is not worth it
(locks freeze in winter), dumping/contamination is infrequent.
o Accessible and observable locations
▪ Stand alone dumpster or carts (see cities of Richfield, Minneapolis, Lino Lakes examples
below)
City of Richfield Wood Lake Nature Center
• One 4 cubic yard collection dumpster
• Collected 1x per week
• No screening in place
Hope Church in Richfield
• One 4 cubic yard collection dumpster
• Collected 1x per week
• No screening in place
City of Minneapolis – Folwell Park
Four (4) 96-gal carts located in parking lot
Collected 1x/week
City of Minneapolis – Pearl Park
Eight (8) 96-gal carts located in parking lot (near yellow circle)
Collected 1x/week
City of Lino Lake
• Drop-Off Sites located in four (4) separate public parks
• Using 96 gallon carts
• Collected 1x/week
• 350 households registered between the four sites (as of August 2020)
City of Bloomington - Valley View Park
• Organics Drop-Off located inside unlocked enclosure (wooden latch
• Trash and Recycling dumpsters for Park use located in adjacent bunkers