Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2022-01-04 Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tuesday, January 4, 2022 6.00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of December 21, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge the October 26, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes C. Acknowledge the November 10, 2021 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes d. Approve Appointments to Dakota Broadband Board (DBB)Technical Advisory Committee e. Approve Resolution 2022-04 Appointments to Fire Relief Association Board of Trustees f. Designation of Official Newspaper g. Designation of 2022 Acting Mayor h. Approve 2022 Financial Items • Resolution 2022-01 Establishing 2022 City Depositories of Funds • Resolution 2022-02 Accepting Pledged Securities for 2022 • Authorize Finance Director to Execute Electronic Payments and Prepay Claims i. Approve Par 3 Replacement Equipment j. Approve Professional Services Change Order for Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer and Streambank Repairs k. Approve Resolution 2022-05 Approving the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Criminal Justice Network Board I. Approve Joint Powers Agreement (YR 2022-2023) for Open to Business Program through Dakota County Community Development Agency M. Approve the November 2021 Fire Synopsis Report n. Approval of November Treasurer's Report o. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Public Hearing — none 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Review of Marie Park Recreational Light Pilot Program and Implementation for 2022 b. Update on Planning Case 2021-13 Phase III / 89-Unit Apartments by At Home Apartments, LLC c. Resolution 2022-03 Accept Feasibility and Call for a Public Hearing on the Centre Pointe Street Improvement Project d. Establish Dates for City Council Work Session and Special Closed Session Meeting 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." page 3 5a. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, December 21, 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 and Mazzitello were also present. Councilors Miller and Paper were absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. She referenced an amendment to item 5a, stating that the public comments section of the minutes has been amended and the revised version is in front of the Council. She confirmed that if a motion to adopt the agenda is made,it would include the amended minutes for item 5a. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda with the revision to 5a. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Levine presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar as presented,pulling items f, g,j, and k. for a separate discussion on each. a. Approval of December 7, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Approval of December 7, 2021 Council Closed Session Minutes c. Approval of December 13, 2021 Council Work Session Minutes d. Acknowledge the November 9, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes e. Approve Council Meeting Dates for 2022 fl. Appr-ove Resolti-fien 2021 99 Somerset Sanitafy SeWeF ReRliefiffiefit Final Payment aflA Aeeep e page 4 g. A1313FE),ve Ptff6hase 0FdeF fOF Pagel Pond Bridge Peek Re-plaeemen h. Approve Resolution 2021-102 Application for FY 2021 Dakota County Community Development Block Grant Funding i. Approve Resolution 2021-101 Memorandum of Agreement and Authorizing Participation in National Opioid Settlements 1 n,.,.,-we Deselti4ion 2021 100 Aec pt Donation forPa-ks and Deer-ea4ien 1. Approve the Designation of a Floating Holiday for Non-Union Staff m. Approve Resolution 2021-103 Adopting the 2022 Pay Classification Plan for Non-Union Employees n. Approve 2022-2023 Minnesota Public Employees Association Labor Agreement o. Approve 2022 Seasonal Pay Matrix p. Approve the November Building Activity Report q. Approval of Claims List Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS F)APPROVE RESOLUTION 2021-99 SOMERSET SANITARY SEWER REALIGNMENT— FINAL PAYMENT AND ACCEPTANCE Councilor Duggan noticed several things that were not completed and asked staff for clarification. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the table in the memorandum includes additional change orders requested for the project due to conditions and things that arose during the project. He noted that staff was able to negotiate no cost or no reimbursement to the contractor for some of the items. Mayor Levine appreciated that city staff negotiated with the contractor on the funding requests. She stated that the contractor requested $56,000 in additional costs and that was reduced to less than $17,000. Councilor Duggan moved to approve RESOLUTION 2021-99 SOMERSET SANITARY SEWER REALIGNMENT—FINAL PAYMENT AND ACCEPTANCE. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 G) APPROVE PURCHASE ORDER FOR PAGEL POND BRIDGE DECK REPLACEMENT Councilor Duggan noticed the expectation for someone to pick up planks and asked if staff could do that to save on the delivery fee of over $500. page 5 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that he is unsure of the location of the planks. He stated that it is possible that staff may not be able to get the material in one load, as the planks would be delivered on a flatbed truck. He noted that the planks would also have to be unbundled in that scenario for loading. He stated that staff could help unload the materials at the site, but staff proposes that the delivery fees remain in the quote as presented. Councilor Duggan moved to approve the PURCHASE ORDER FOR PAGEL POND BRIDGE DECK REPLACEMENT. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 J) ACKNOWLEDGE OCTOBER 2021 PAR 3 FINANCIAL REPORT Mayor Levine commented that this report comes close to the end of the season and commended the Par 3 staff for an excellent season. She stated that this is the healthiest, most profitable season for the Par 3. Councilor Duggan moved to acknowledge OCTOBER 2021 PAR 3 FINANCIAL REPORT. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 K) APPROVE RESOLUTION 2021-100 ACCEPT DONATION FOR PARKS AND RECREATION Mayor Levine commented that the Moms Club has been around for approximately 24 years in Mendota Heights and she was saddened to hear that they are folding. She stated that the club has been generous in donating funds to the city. She thanked the Moms Club and acknowledged the hard work of those volunteers. She stated that if anyone is interested in joining the club and allowing it to continue, she can provide that connection. Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve RESOLUTION 2021-100 ACCEPT DONATION FOR PARKS AND RECREATION. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. page 6 PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A)APPROVE 2022 FIELD AND FACILITY USE FEES Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence explained that the City coordinates and issues permits for the use of City fields and facilities. Fields and facilities are often used in a multi-purpose manner and are requested by a variety of sport providers and users. The City Council is being asked to set the Field and Facility Use Fees. Additionally, the City Council must consider the implementation of Dakota County Ordinance 110 which requires solid waste and recycling removal at tournaments and the impact this may have for 2022 and beyond. Councilor Duggan asked for clarification on the charge specified for waste and recycling removal. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the City's waste hauler provided an estimate for dropping off containers for waste and recycling on a Friday and picking it up on a Monday. He confirmed that charge would be about $300 for the three days. Mayor Levine commented that the Council is being asked to provide input on tournament fees and user group per player fees. Ms. Lawrence clarified that the Council was being asked to review and approve all of the fees in regards to field and facility use for 2022. She reviewed the existing fees for tournaments and noted that a fee waiver was approved for MHAA in 2021. Councilor Duggan referenced the requested actions, the second bullet point - determine changes to city services in relation to the required waste management at events with more than 300 people attending, and asked what the cost would be to the City for these added services in 2022. Mr. Ruzek stated that during the summer months, it would add $300 per week for an additional waste pickup. He stated that there would also be the cost for a second public works employee to be paid at time and a half as the second staff person is working overtime at large events. Councilor Duggan asked if another staff person could be hired. Mr. Ruzek replied that request has not been made or discussed, but that may be needed in the future. Councilor Duggan asked staff if the public would be comfortable with the recommendations as presented. Mr. Ruzek commented that he would expect a lot of uncomfortableness as we would be asking the user groups to provide their own trash and recycling at tournaments. He noted that the event sponsor would need to have dumpsters onsite and would need to have volunteers emptying the smaller bins. Councilor Duggan commented that it would be difficult to set a fee as a"not to exceed" dollar amount as the cost would be hard to predict. Mr. Ruzek commented that$300 was the quote received from the City's trash hauler. He stated that users would be asked to submit a waste collection plan to the City and noted that the user would be able solicit quotes from multiple collectors. page 7 Councilor Duggan asked if this charge would occur 24 times per year. Mr. Ruzek clarified that there were four large events in 2021 that would have triggered this requirement. Mayor Levine asked if the in-house MHAA tournaments are under 300 people. Ms. Lawrence commented that MHAA tournaments have more than 300 people, often more than 300 players. She noted that those events would fall into this category, and they would be required to provide the waste and recycling plan. Mayor Levine stated that MHAA is a volunteer run organization and under this proposal would move from no cost for in-house tournaments to at least $300 per tournament for waste removal, plus the player fees, plus the additional tournament fees. She asked for an estimate of how many tournaments MHAA hosts during a summer for all sports. Ms. Lawrence stated that in 2021 MHAA had two in-house tournaments,noting that in 2021 MHAA was not charged any fees for use of the concessions stand or field usage for those tournaments. She stated that if the waste removal becomes the responsibility of the user, it would result in a charge of around $300 for the dumpsters plus the volunteer time to bring the trash to the dumpsters. She stated that in 2021 there were three baseball tournaments and one softball tournament. She stated that without a waiver (that MHAA received in 2021), a three-day tournament would have a charge of$1,020. She stated that if the not to exceed amount of$498 were set, the user would still be responsible for the waste removal, which is estimated to be an additional $300. Mayor Levine stated that she is uncomfortable with organizations handling their own waste,recycling and organics because there is a large learning curve in recycling. She asked for additional information from a recycling coordinator on whether public volunteers would be capable of handling that task. She noted that this would also be a large increase in the cost to MHAA and she would like to hear from that organization. She noted that two members of the Council are also absent and should be part of this discussion. Councilor Duggan commented that there is a quorum present. Mayor Levine commented that she is uncomfortable making these decisions tonight. Councilor Mazzitello commented that he is not comfortable treating organizations differently. He recognized that MHAA is a community sports organization. He stated that there are organizations from other communities that use the City's fields and have no problem paying the fees. He stated that the City needs to provide the facility, regardless of who uses it. He stated that he would want to apply the field use fees equally across the board. He acknowledged that solid waste removal is a big issue and stated that public works staff has the knowledge. He also acknowledged how thin the public works budget is and how much that staff is stretched. He commented that he would like user groups of 300 or more to cover part of the cost of the overtime with public works staff doing the work. Mayor Levine stated that MHAA is inclusive of everyone and offers in-house tournaments in the community neighborhoods. She stated that they are different from a private user group or club sport. She stated that the City used to contribute$10,000 to subsidize MHAA,which is not done anymore. She would be uncomfortable treating MHAA the same as a for-profit organization that does not accept all kids. page 8 Councilor Mazzitello asked if the Parks and Recreation Commission provided a recommendation on the tournament fee. Ms. Lawrence reviewed the recommendation of the Commission that the City continue to provide waste removal for the events. She stated that the Commission did not bring forward a recommendation on the three options for fees. Councilor Mazzitello commented that he would be in favor of the tournament fees remaining the same but believed that the event sponsors should also pay for a portion of the waste collection, which could cover part of the cost for public works to continue to provide the waste removal. He confirmed that he would not recommend MHAA be treated differently for tournaments. Mayor Levine commented that she is opposed to that as she feels that MHAA is running on a small budget. She commented that she would suggest continuing the fees from 2021, allowing the waiver for MHAA for one more year. She also believed that the waste removal fee should be tapered over time with a not to exceed amount of$100 for this first year. She acknowledged that it would cost the City money and would like more details on that cost. Councilor Duggan asked if the waste removal is something new. Mr. Ruzek noted that the City adopted this Code language in December 2020. Councilor Duggan asked what comments were received this past year. Mr. Ruzek replied that the duty was not placed on the users in 2021 and staff collected the trash as normal. He stated that any event over 300 people will also need to collect organics and will work with the City to establish a plan for how the organics could be composted, noting that the Dakota County dumpster at Mendakota Park could not be used. He commented that tournaments have gotten larger and there is additional burden placed on staff. Councilor Duggan asked for feedback from staff on managing the waste removal. Mr. Ruzek stated that staff would be happy to defer this to event sponsors but noted that the City would continue to keep the parks clean in typical fashion as needed. Councilor Duggan suggested that staff continue to provide this service in 2022 in cooperation with the event's sponsor, and if there is not good cooperation,the duty would then be passed on to the event sponsor in the future. He stated that the biggest challenge is lack of education on organics and proper recycling. He stated that the City should take on that duty for this next year to gather more information on the costs involved. He stated that if it causes a lot of staff time and expense then it could then be passed onto the organization to cover those costs of at least 50 percent or more. He noted that 2022 could be a trial year and that should be communicated to the user groups. Mayor Levine summarized that Councilor Duggan would propose that the field and facility use for 2022 would remain the same as 2021. She asked if he would support the $498 waiver for MHAA. Councilor Duggan confirmed that he would support that. Mayor Levine stated that she would also support a component of education for the waste, recycling and organics collection at large events. She stated that there may be community members that understand recycling and organics that would be willing to volunteer their time, and suggested that the new Natural page 9 Resources Commission be involved. She commented that it would be helpful to have user groups involved in the discussion. She asked if this could be tabled. Councilor Mazzitello agreed and asked if this needed to be set tonight. Mr. Lawrence replied that the fee schedule was approved at the last Council meeting, but could be amended at a future meeting. She stated that based on the fee schedule, she will begin to receive tournament requests on January 3rd. She noted that she would want to inform the user groups of the current fees when the tournament requests are received in January. Mayor Levine asked if MHAA would continue to have the $498 fee if this were tabled. Ms. Lawrence replied that MHAA would be charged the full fee. She stated that in 2021 the Council issued a one year waiver to MHAA that reduced the fee to $498. She stated that if fees are going to continue to be waived, it may be best to amend the fee schedule. Mayor Levine stated that she would prefer to waiver the fees for MHAA. She stated that for the waste and recycling requirements, the city could include the educational component for the user groups and transition slowly to the event sponsor being responsible for those costs and duties. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson asked for clarification on `back of house' organics collection requirement for the concessions and whether that applies to food scraps from customers. Mr.Ruzek stated that `back of house' refers to the kitchen organics and therefore the required organics collection could be minimal depending on the food being offered. The organics recycling requirement for large events only applies to the kitchen in the concession stand. Mayor Levine asked if the $300 fee was only for trash and recycling and did not apply to organics. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that and explained that if public works staff is collecting the trash and recycling,they are putting that into the back of a truck to dispose of it at the public works facility. Otherwise, the user group would need to contract with a waste hauler to have dumpsters onsite and they would need to use volunteers to collect the trash and recycling to bring to the dumpsters. Mayor Levine stated that there is a difficult element because there is an organics collection at Mendakota Park that cannot be used by events. She stated that staff should reach out to the user groups to alert them that there are free bins available from the County for organics collection. She stated that she would like to focus on the educational component with the event sponsors. Councilor Duggan suggested that a one-page handout be provided to user groups for the different events in order to communicate the appropriate information. Mayor Levine commented that it would seem the organics requirement is quite small. She recognized that staff would like to shift the burden of waste and recycling collection to the event sponsors. She commented that she would support incremental change but would not support placing a burden of$300 on an organization for a tournament. She stated that the City has already been providing this service at the same cost and did not want to pass on that large fee in one year. page 10 Councilor Mazzitello stated that the requirements for waste,recycling and organics collection are included in the City Code, which requires the event manager to provide a plan and therefore the City eventually needs to reach that point. He stated that he likes the concept of keeping the waste and recycling collection the same for this year but put the user groups on notice of this new requirement and provide them with the educational components this year. He agreed that progress could be made slowly, but progress needs to be made. Councilor Mazzitello commented that the event sponsors could contract with the Mendota Heights Public Works department to perform the waste and recycling collection duty. He stated that an estimate would need to be provided to the event sponsor for the additional staff time, overtime, and additional dumping costs. He recognized that the event sponsor would not need to pay the entire cost but should be covering a portion of that cost in the future. Mayor Levine commented that she would like to see the waiver provided for MHAA. Councilor Mazzitello received confirmation from staff that the decision on the waiver would not need to be made tonight. He commented that he would prefer to have a discussion with MHAA before making that decision. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that in the past two years, the City has set the fees and MHAA has submitted a waiver request at a later time. Mayor Levine commented that she dislikes that option because it causes additional action and work. She noted that if the Council supports the waiver of$498, she would suggest doing it now rather than requiring a second discussion and action. Councilor Duggan stated that he would prefer to defer the decision on the waiver as well. Councilor Mazzitello stated that if the City is being requested to waive the fees set in the fee schedule, a request should be made by MHAA, and a decision can be made based on the application. Mayor Levine commented that organizations interested in a reduction of their fees for 2022 should submit the necessary application. Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve THE 2021 FIELD AND FACILITY USE FEES AS THE 2022 FEES WITHOUT IMPLEMENTING A FEE FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR 2022 AND TO IMPLEMENT AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM SO THAT THE FEES COULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN 2023. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 page 11 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that there is a vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission and noted that applications are due by December 301h for those interested. Public Works has been flooding the ice rinks and it is anticipated they could be open on December 30th, weather dependent. She reviewed other recreation opportunities and upcoming events. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Duggan commented that he is thankful to residents that continue to volunteer and assist in making Mendota Heights a great community. He thanked public works,fire, and police for the great work they do. He wished everyone happy holidays and encouraged walkers to make themselves visible to drivers. Councilor Mazzitello commented that last week was the first significant snow event of the year and believed that Mendota Heights is the best snowplowed community in the metro.He commended the public works staff for the excellent job they do. He wished everyone the happiest of holidays. Mayor Levine echoed the comments of the Council and wished everyone a happy, safe, and healthy holiday season and new year. ADJOURN Councilor Duggan moved to adjourn. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Stephanie Levine Mayor ATTEST: Lord Smith City Clerk page 12 5b. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 26,2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 26, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson,Michael Toth,Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval ofAzenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval ofAuzust 24, 2021 Minutes COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2021. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM NOTED ON PAGE SIX, THE THIRD PARAGRAPH, IT SHOULD STATE, "...THAT IS GOING TO BE AN ADDITION TO THE RESERVE." AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearin-s Chair Field noted that there has been discussion of changing the order of the agenda. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA TO CONSIDER ITEM A AFTER ITEMS B AND C. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 B) PLANNING CASE 2021-18 ERIK AND SARAH IVERSON, 2452 POND CIRCLE EAST — WETLANDS PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Iverson's are seeking approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new flag-stone fire pit and patio, a walk-out page 13 entry patio, retaining walls, steps, grading and landscaping work, along with some tree pruning and removal on their property located at 2452 Pond Circle East. This application has been deemed an "after the fact" due to work had already been commenced by the homeowners. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; one email of support from a neighboring owner and one email of concern from another neighboring owner was received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City's website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the staff report mentions that all disturbed areas shall be restored, and areas shall be replanted, noting that is not very specific. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there are not set tree replacement requirements and therefore he is relying on the input of the Commission. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Sarah and Erik Iverson, 2452 Pond Circle East, she stated that in addition to the project plan outlined by staff they would like to make a statement. She stated that they moved to the property in June, and they love being outdoors. She stated that the main goal of the backyard project is to maintain the natural landscape and also make it safe for their children and family. She stated that prior to moving in there was little upkeep in the backyard and a rotting wall. She stated that there were also erosion issues, old stumps, diseased trees, and overgrown trees that were dropping limbs on the deck and home. She believed that their landscape plan would address all the issues and would also keep the integrity of the pond. Commissioner Johnson stated that she did not see any grading plans with the landscaping plan. She stated that the material for the wall was not noted on the plan, but she did visit the property and the applicant advised her that the wall would be made of boulders. She stated that she would also be interested in detailed planting information and how the rock spill would be handled. Tim Johnson, contractor representing the applicant, stated that the retaining wall will be made of fieldstone boulders and natural cut stone steps will provide access from the existing patio to the lower parts of the yard. He stated that the current fire pit was neglected and the new fire pit would be shifted west to provide more separate between the deck and trees. He provided details on the other work that would be done to repair the deteriorating backyard elements. He stated that an arborist was retained, and they walked the property to identify the healthy trees that could remain. He stated that the box elder, ash and other unhealthy trees are/were removed. He noted that some of those trees were leaning towards homes and were removed in order to remove that liability. He commented on the work that they have done to ensure the health of the trees that are being saved as they are heritage trees, and they want them to remain healthy during construction. He provided page 14 details on the three tree species that will be planted to replace the unhealthy trees. He noted that the remainder of the yard was most likely woodchips and dirt because it had been neglected and eroded. He stated that they would be putting in turf grass, similar to the neighboring properties in order to provide ground coverage. He noted that silt fence was also installed for erosion control. Joe Slater, 2464 Pond Circle E, stated that he has been a resident of Mendota Heights for over 27 years. He hoped to know the applicants better in the future. He stated that his concern is that the City did not follow its own rules. He stated that a permit is supposed to be requested prior to work being completed. He believed the City was notified prior to the trees being cut down. He stated that the pond area is very special and home to wildlife. He believed that the City should have done abetter job visiting the site and gaining control of the process. He stated that he does not begrudge the residents for wanting to beautify their property but is concerned with the City not following its process to ensure the natural area is protected. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Corbett asked the root cause of why this is an after the fact permit and whether the City was involved before a permit was requested. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the applicant did call the City the day before the tree removal contractor was scheduled to show up. He stated that it was explained that ash and boxelders were being removed and noted that dead and diseased trees can be removed without a permit. He stated that once they received a call from a neighboring property owner,the City visited the property to see which trees were being removed. He agreed that some trees were dead and leaning over the property or were ash trees or other trees that would soon need to be removed. He explained that he told the property owners they could continue with the tree removal but then would need to stop work and apply for a permit for the remainder of the work. He stated that the applicant was instructed that absolutely no work could be completed within the 25-foot buffer area. He stated that the trees that were removed were not quality trees and/or imposed a risk to the home. Commissioner Corbett asked if staff believes that activity was within what was allowed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek confirmed that the tree removal was allowed but the stop work order was issued on the remainder of the work planned. He commented that homeowners can remove dead/diseased/dying trees without a wetland permit. Commissioner Johnson referenced the landscape plan but believes that would be more appropriately described as a hardscape plan. She stated that specific information is not provided related to the trees, grading, or vegetation. She stated that there would need to be excavation to page 15 install the boulders. She noted that she would also like more details on the rock spill. She stated that a detailed site plan identifying drainage, grading, and landscaping is required for a wetlands permit. She commented on the other items that she also believed are missing in terms of the existing drainage and grading of the site. She stated that she would prefer to table the request and extend the review by 60 days in order to gain those specific elements. She stated that the Commission needs those items in order to provide an accurate review and ensure reviews are being done consistently. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO TABLE THE REQUEST AND DIRECT STAFF TO EXTEND THE REVIEW PERIOD. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE AGREES WITH THE READING OF THE ORDINANCES BUT ALSO BELIEVES THAT THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE CODE ARE NOT GOING TO ADD MATERIAL INFORMATION TO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. HE STATED HE DID NOT BELIEVE A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP WOULD ADD TO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. HE STATED THAT HE COULD SUPPORT THE MOTION BUT NOTED THAT THIS WOULD DELAY THE PROJECT AND WOULD THEN POSTPONE WORK UNTIL THE SPRING. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE AGREES WITH WHAT HAD BEEN SAID, NOTING THAT THERE ARE ITEMS MISSING THAT ARE REQUIRED. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE DIRECTION RATHER THAN THE COMMISSION PROVIDING THE DIRECTION RELATED TO TREE PLANTING. SHE STATED THAT ABOUT 30 TREES WERE REMOVED AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THREE TREES ARE BEING REPLANTED. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE A MORE DETAILED PLAN FROM THE APPLICANT. COMMISSIONER TOTH ASKED IF IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY THAT WHEN THE HOME WAS BUILT, THE AREA WAS PROBABLY CLEAN AND THE YARD BECAME OVERGROWN BECAUSE OF NEGLECT. HE STATED THAT THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER IS ATTEMPTING TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY AND REMOVE UNDESIRED TREES. HE STATED THAT TO A POINT THE COMMISSION/CITY SHOULD BE WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT PERHAPS STAFF SHOULD PLACE AN ARTICLE IN THE CITY NEWSLETTER EDUCATING RESIDENTS ABOUT THE NEED FOR PERMITS FOR THIS TYPE OF WORK. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (FIELD) Chair Field noted that this would be scheduled to come back to the Commission at its November meeting. He asked staff to reach out to the applicant and attempt to assist them with ensuring their application is in order. page 16 C) PLANNING CASE 2021-20 STAVE AND MICHELLE MCHALE, 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE — CRITICAL AREA(MRCCA) PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the McHale's are seeking approval of a Critical Area Permit to construct a new single-family dwelling on property situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District, along with a conditional use permit (CUP)to construct an oversized garage up to 1,444 square feet in size. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site;no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City's website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Johnson stated that the plan shows four silver maples and asked if that is the extent of the planting that would be done. She asked what the soil would be covered with. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that two trees would be planted in the front yard and two in the backyard. He stated that the applicant can provide additional details but believed that turf and other landscaping would cover the soil. Commissioner Johnson referenced the description of the unkempt shrub and had some concerns. She stated that those are actually native shrubs, elderberry to be specific. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that could be included in the replacement plan as a condition if desired. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Steven McHale, 1125 Orchard Circle, stated that they began the process to acquire the property with the intent to build a home last January. He stated that since that time they found out the property was within the MRCCA and there was a moratorium on building within the corridor, which placed their plans on hold. He stated that he and his wife have attempted to design a home that would produce as much, or more energy, on the property than they plan to consume. He stated that they also take external landscaping very seriously. He recognized that anything removed would need to be replanted with native vegetation and that is their full intent. He stated that they have had discussions with three landscapers but do not yet have a plan in place as they have spoken with the neighboring property owners and are currently working with those properties in order to create a cohesive landscape over the three properties that works together. He stated that they will replace each tree removed with at least two new trees. He stated that his children like pollinator gardens and they plan to have a pollinator garden and vegetable garden on the property. He noted page 17 that they need to see how the home will lie on the property and see where sunlight hits in order to plan appropriately for those elements. He referenced the proposed four car garage, noting that they have two vehicles, and the remaining space would be used to create a space for his wife to play basketball. He stated that this has been quite an ordeal as they have been renting a home that has a lease that will expire in the summer of 2022. He stated that they would most likely need to find a second rental until the home construction is completed. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicky Lane, stated that it would seem that a recommendation for the City and Planning Commission would be to require a landscaping plan from the beginning to prevent further delays. She noted that the last case was tabled and perhaps that could have been alleviated by staff ensuring a landscape plan was provided. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Johnson stated that as with the previous case there is a checklist of what is required to review an application. She reviewed the details that would be required in order for the Commission to make its decision that are not included in the application. She stated that she would like to review applications consistently and therefore the required information should be provided. Commissioner Petschel referenced the diameters shown of the trees removed which would provide an indication of the current conditions. Commissioner Johnson stated that information is needed for proposed plantings as well. Commissioner Petschel asked if that information is dictated in the City Code. Commissioner Johnson replied that she believed it is. Commissioner Katz commented that even though some of those items related to landscaping are not shown, this is new construction therefore he would be willing to provide approval for construction and the applicant could bring back details about the landscaping. He stated that the issue he would struggle with is the necessity of the four-stall garage, other than the desire for the property owner to have a large garage. He stated that allowing a large garage for that reason would seem to set precedent for future requests. Commissioner Johnson stated that 36 feet of garage door is allowed, therefore the four nine-foot doors meet that requirement. page 18 Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that any resident in the R-1 district can ask for a garage greater than 1,200 up to 1,500 square feet with a CUP. He stated that there does not need to be a rational reason, other than ensuring the effective standards of the CUP Code are met. Commissioner Johnson noted that this would meet all the requirements for that garage size request. Commissioner Katz asked if it could be required for the applicant to come back with the landscaping plan. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the applicant indicated that he is working on a cooperative landscaping plan with the neighbors. He believed that a recommendation of approval could still move forward, and staff could work with the applicant on the landscaping plan, or it could be brought back for a cursory review. He noted that this is a vacant lot and does not have bluffs or shoreline on the property. Commissioner Johnson asked if a condition could be added that there would need to be approval of the landscaping plan and the other items on the checklist prior to moving to City Council. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that he believes the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit could be approved to allow this to move forward. He stated that staff could work with the applicant to ensure the landscaping plan is sufficient would be a part of the building permit process and bring it back for the Commission to review. He stated that the applicant is unable to provide that landscaping plan at this time as they are attempting to work cohesively with the neighbors. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the last request was tabled for lack of landscaping plan and asked how it would be justified to move ahead without a landscaping plan. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there is technically a landscaping plan showing two trees removed and four additional trees planted. He stated that an additional landscaping plan is being developed and staff will work with the applicant on that. City Attorney Elliott Knetsch commented that there is a landscape plan, it would be the decision of the Commission as to whether that plan is adequate. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the previous applicant submitted a landscape plan. City Attorney Elliott Knetsch replied that the Commission found that plan to not be sufficient. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK. page 19 2. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES. 3. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES,AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 4. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS. 5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DWELLING PROJECT IS COMPLETED. 6. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A MORE DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN AS VERBALLY MENTIONED AFTER WORKING WITH CITY STAFF. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED THE COMMISSION IF PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO DEVIATE FROM A LANDSCAPING PLAN OR WHETHER THEY ARE BOUND TO THAT. HE ASKED IF PEOPLE COULD CHANGE THEIR LANDSCAPING AFTER BEING IN THEIR HOME FOR A YEAR WHEN THEIR NEEDS OR DESIRES CHANGE. HE STATED THAT HE CAN APPRECIATE THAT THE HOMEOWNER WOULD WANT SOME FLEXIBILITY AND DID NOT BELIEVE THE COMMISSION SHOULD DICTATE OR MAKE DECISIONS ON HOW PEOPLE WANT THEIR YARDS. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BUT WOULD FIND THAT THE CONDITION REQUESTING A MORE DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN WOULD MEAN THAT THE COMMISSION FOUND THE PLAN SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT. SHE STATED THAT PERHAPS THAT CONDITION IS REMOVED AND THE APPLICANT CAN STILL WORK WITH STAFF IF THEY WANT TO ADD ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT THIS IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME AND THE FOCUS IS NOT ON THE PLANTINGS. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRE A LANDSCAPING PLAN. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT THIS PLAN IS SIMILAR TO ALL THE OTHERS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION, NOTING THAT LANDSCAPING PLANS ARE NOT THAT DETAILED FOR HOME CONSTRUCTION. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON COMMENTED THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE DETAIL AS THIS IS IN THE CRITICAL AREA. SHE STATED THAT SHE STRUGGLES BUT BELIEVES THE COMMISSION SHOULD FOLLOW THE CHECKLIST AND PROCESS OUTLINED TO ENSURE FAIRNESS TO ALL RESIDENTS. page 20 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF THE ISSUE AT HAND WAS THAT THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS ABOVE THOSE SHOWN ON THE EXISTING DRAWINGS. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT THE CHECKLIST SPECIFIES TYPE AND DIAMETER OF ALL PLANTINGS. SHE STATED THAT IN THE CRITICAL AREA, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS NOT ON THE BLUFF OR SHORELINE, THERE ARE STILL CERTAIN PLANTS AND ANIMALS FOUND IN THE AREA. SHE STATED THAT SHE STRUGGLES WITH NOT FOLLOWING THE CHECKLIST. SHE NOTED THAT PERHAPS THAT LIST NEEDS TO BE REVISED BUT THE CITY SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THE MRCCA ORDINANCE AND DID NOT BELIEVE THE CITY WOULD DO THE ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE BY NOT FOLLOWING THE CITY PROCESS. COMMISSIONER CORBETT ASKED IF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE INCLUDED WITH APPLICATIONS. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS A LIST INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION. HE STATED THAT ONCE RECEIVED, STAFF REVIEWS THE APPLICATION TO DETERMINE IF IT IS COMPLETE AND SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. HE STATED THAT STAFF FELT THAT THIS APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE AND IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER TYPICAL NEW FAMILY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A LANDSCAPING PLAN ALTHOUGH PEOPLE TYPICALLY PUT IN TREES AND LANDSCAPING. HE STATED THAT THE TREE REMOVAL WAS INDICATED, ALONG WITH REPLACEMENT PLANTING OF FOUR TWO INCH BALLED AND BURLAPPED SILVER MAPLES. HE STATED THAT IF THE TREES ARE MOVED, HE WOULD NOT REVOKE A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR THAT PURPOSE. HE STATED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THEY ARE GOING TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO CREATE A COHESIVE PLANTINGS PLAN, ALONG WITH A POLLINATOR AND VEGETABLE GARDEN. HE STATED THAT WHILE THOSE THINGS ARE GREAT, IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A PLAN WITH THOSE DETAILS. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ASKED IF COMMISSIONER KATZ WOULD BE WILLING TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION WITH THE ADDED CONDITION, AS THAT WOULD IMPLY THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS NOT COMPLETE. COMMISSIONER KATZ EXPLAINED THAT HIS MOTION IS BASED ON THE INTENT THAT HE WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PERMIT. HE STATED THAT HE ALSO UNDERSTANDS THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE THOSE ADDITIONAL DETAILS, THEREFORE THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION WAS ADDED TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN WHILE STILL ALLOWING THE HOME CONSTRUCTION TO MOVE FORWARD. CHAIR FIELD ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR INPUT. page 21 CITY ATTORNEY ELLIOT KNETSCH STATED THAT HE WOULD SUGGEST REMOVING THE CONDITION IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT THE PLAN IS ADEQUATE AND THAT STAFF WOULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THEIR MENTIONED PLAN. HE STATED THAT IF THE COMMISSION IS NOT COMFORTABLE WITHOUT SEEING THE PLAN, THE ITEM SHOULD BE TABLED. HE STATED THAT THE REQUEST COULD BE APPROVED AND THE PLAN COULD BE BROUGHT BACK ON AN INFORMATIONAL BASIS. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF IT WOULD BE PLAUSIBLE TO HAVE THE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST NOT CURRENTLY ACCOUNTED FOR, PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI REPLIED THAT WOULD BE A FAST TURNAROUND, AS THE ITEM WILL MOVE FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL THE FOLLOWING WEEK. COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT THIS SEEMS LIKE A CATCH 22 AS THE ADDITIONAL PLAN WILL NOT BE FULLY DEVELOPED UNTIL THE HOME IS CONSTRUCTED. HE STATED THAT HE FINDS THIS CASE AND THE PREVIOUS CASE DIFFERENT AS SIZES, LOCATIONS AND SPECIES ARE INCLUDED ON THIS PLAN. HE STATED THAT PERHAPS THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENT IS AN ERROR IN THE PROCESS AS IT WOULD SEEM TO FORCE SOMEONE TO CREATE A PLAN THAT WOULD PLACATE THE COMMISSION BUT WOULD THEN HAVE TO BE CHANGED DEPENDING ON THE HOME CONSTRUCTION. CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT THIS IS AN MRCCA CASE AND ASKED IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO APPROVE THIS WITH THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING PLAN. HE NOTED THAT IF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ARE MADE TO THE PLAN, WOULD THE HOMEOWNER NEED TO COME BACK FOR ADDITIONAL APPROVAL BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE MRCCA. CITY ATTORNEY ELLIOT KNETSCH COMMENTED THAT IF THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE AND IF THE ORDINANCE TRIGGERS SUCH ACTION, THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO FOLLOW THAT PROCESS. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI STATED THAT THE ORDINANCE IS MEANT TO ADDRESS DISTURBANCE WITHIN THE CORRIDOR. HE STATED THAT IF ADDITIONAL TREES WERE GOING TO BE PLANTED, HE WOULD NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT AS THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THE ENVIRONMENT. HE STATED THAT AS PART OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT, STAFF WORKS TO ENSURE THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PLANS MEET CITY CODE. HE STATED THAT IF THE APPLICANT DEVELOPED A PLAN WITH THE NEIGHBORS, STAFF WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT AND PROVIDE COMMENTS,BUT IF THERE IS A PROFESSIONAL WORKING WITH THEM, THEY WILL PROVIDE SOMETHING EFFECTIVE THAT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT. HE STATED THAT ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING SHOULD NOT NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION. page 22 COMMISSIONER KATZ WITHDREW HIS MOTION. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK. 2. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES. 3. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES,AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 4. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS. 5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DWELLING PROJECT IS COMPLETED. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT NOTED THAT THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN IS VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS CASE IN TERMS OF DETAILS. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its Wednesday, November 3, 2021 meeting. A) PLANNING CASE 2021-12 AND 2021-13 AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION ADDITION AND EXPANSION 2ND ADDITION — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND WETLAND PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the report packet contains additional information submitted by At Home Apartments,the applicant/developer of the proposed Phase II (58-unit apartment) and Phase III (89-unit apartment) development located within The Mendota Plaza development area. At the August 241h meeting,these two planning case items were presented to the Planning Commission under a public hearing process. After discussion with city staff, the applicant and listening to public comments, the Commission determined additional information was needed from the applicant/development and voted to table both cases to a future meeting date. The additional information was determined as follows: page 23 1) Provide an overall and proposed impervious surface calculation; 2) Provide a lighting plan; 3) Provide a traffic circulation plan; 4) Provide an updated parking analysis or parking data on the existing site; 5) Provide an update traffic analysis; 6) Provide more information or justification on proposed parking stalls, including handicap stalls; 7) Provide an updated landscape plan; 8) Address fire protection and safety measures. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this report also includes an update on the Wetlands Permit concerns or issues raised at the August 24th hearing; along with a legal opinion from the City Attorney addressing the PUD timeframe completion date. The Site Development and Elevation Plans for this Phase II and Phase III sites remain essentially the same as those presented at the August 24th meeting. The Commissioners should also refer to the information and analysis contained in the original August 24th Planning Reports which were included in the supplemental packet. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site;no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City's website). Staff reviewed the actions the Commission could choose to take. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission should first consider the 58-unit development and then consider the 89-unit development. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that even though the applications are being presented as one development, staff would still like to see two motions. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the childcare and restaurant uses and whether those were approved and part of the original PUD. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the approved PUD did include a childcare center use on the Phase III property. He explained that if the developer had an interested childcare business they brought forward, that could move forward without additional approvals. He also confirmed that the Phase II site was approved for a restaurant use and as such, if there was an interested restaurant, the developer could move forward on that in the same manner. He stated that those elements were never built, which is why the developer is requesting the amendment process. Chair Field reopened the public hearing. page 24 Leanna Stefaniak, At Home Apartments, stated that she is available to answer any additional questions. She stated that she believes that they addressed the requests the Commission made at its last review. Commissioner Toth stated that he was not present at the last meeting. He referenced the traffic study and noted that it was said there had been a three percent decrease on Dodd Road. Ms. Stefaniak stated that compared the projected traffic from the current approved uses to the projected traffic from the proposed new uses. She stated that if the restaurant and daycare would add 1,024 trips onto Dodd Road while the proposed uses would add 794 trips on Dodd Road. Commissioner Toth asked if there have been any current studies on Dodd Road. Ms. Stefaniak stated that since 2016 there have been several studies on Dodd Road and at the 62 intersection. She stated that the City conducted its own north/south mobility study in 2017/2018 in addition to the 2016 study they completed. She stated that they completed the analysis for the new uses and then the City's consultant reviewed those results. Commissioner Petschel appreciated the data provided related to parking. He stated that he has driven through the lot quite a bit since the last review to observe parking. He asked how many parking spaces are paid within the underground parking structure. Ms. Stefaniak replied that each unit receives one underground stall for free,which is a total of 139. She stated that there are also overflow stalls which are available for rental and 20 reserved guest stalls. Commissioner Petschel asked if tenants with two vehicles are allowed to park the second vehicle wherever they want. Ms. Stefaniak replied that tenants are told that the parking stalls out front are available for short- term basis parking only. Commissioner Johnson thanked the applicant for working with the Master Gardener and believed that many good things came out of that. She noted that in the count of native plants,not including the wildflower mix, only 48 percent are truly native for Phase 11. She commented that she appreciates that native cultivars were also used as those are also good. She stated that she has some concern with greenspace for residents. She stated that perhaps additional planting could be added. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she would have to defer back to the landscape architect, noting that they would continue to work with the Master Gardener as that plan evolves. She stated that they would want to be concerned that the roots do not impose on each other and/or utilities. Commissioner Johnson stated that she spoke with MnDOT and there is an opportunity for the developer to partner with the City and MnDOT would enter into an agreement, supplying plants. page 25 She stated that the developer would install and maintain the plants but would not be responsible for the cost of the plants. Chair Field stated that sounds like an interesting suggestion and perhaps Commissioner Johnson could discuss that with the applicant later. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she is somewhat aware of the program. She stated that she would want to review other concerns, such as vehicle safety. She noted that if a vehicle goes off road, they would go down a grass area and would be concerned with placing a tree where a vehicle could hit that. Commissioner Johnson stated that it appears the planting specs are missing from the landscaping plan. She stated that she would like to see the correction made to the planting style of the trees to ensure the planting style from Mendota Plaza does not continue, as those trees are not doing well. Commissioner Lorberbaum thanked the applicant for providing the additional information as she finds it to be a much more complete plan. She stated that a focus of the last discussion was parking. She stated that when she reviewed the additional parking information, the number of handicap accessible stalls appears to be different in the plans from what is shown in the charts. She noted that a total of eight handicap stalls are shown for Phase I. She stated that she counted the non- handicap stalls and those are also off. Ms. Stefaniak stated that there are 155 stalls and acknowledged that there was a miscount. She stated that it is possible that there is a typo or two as they have made changes since July. She stated that the numbers within the narrative are correct. Commissioner Lorberbaum reiterated that the different plans and number of stalls do not match on the different documents. She stated that she would love to see the spaces match the table. Pete Keely with Collage Architects and for the applicant, stated that there are 155 stalls as opposed to 157 stalls and 117 stalls as opposed to 118. He noted that some of the spaces that Commissioner Lorberbaum may be seeing he may be using for mechanical devices. Commissioner Lorberbaum hoped the plans and charts would match and be more accurate when presented to the City Council. Commissioner Petschel stated that he believes there is an existing parking problem that could conceivably get worse. He stated that if he is a resident and given the choice between renting an additional space or parking in the giant surface lot, he would take his chances on the surface lot. He stated that driving through the site there are sometimes 45 cars in front of the building. He noted that vehicles are also parking on the dirt, road, and demarcated spots. He stated that he also suspects that people are parking in the shopping center lot, as there are vehicles parking in front of vacant tenant space at 5:30 a.m. He stated that he cannot wrap his head around the scenario where spaces are counted towards the main allotment that would require an additional rent charge to be paid. He stated that people could, and most likely would, choose not to use those rental spaces. page 26 Ms. Stefaniak stated that most buildings charge for parking,but they provide an underground space as a service to residents. She stated that the night there were 45 vehicles there was a parent hosting a Saint Thomas homecoming dinner in the community space. Commissioner Petschel stated that from what he has observed it is typical to see 37 to 40 vehicles in the front lot. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she is not aware of residents parking in the commercial lot and has not received complaints from Pastor or their tenants. She stated that tenants are required to register their vehicles with the apartment, whether they have one or two vehicles. She reported a total of 193 registered vehicles and 223 interior stalls. She stated that some of this is a seasonal and communication issue. She noted that in the summer, some people prefer to park outdoors. She noted that in the winter,people do use the underground stalls. She stated that there was an instance where a vehicle was parked in the dirt lot for a few days, explaining that was a unique situation where a resident's parents were being treated at the Mayo Clinic and parked their vehicle to be out of the way. She stated that with the addition of Phase 11, they would have additional surface stalls that could be used by Phase I residents as well. Commissioner Petschel commented that he feels that there is a parking problem. He stated that if people are parking in the dirt or on the street,that is an issue, and those spaces cannot be used. He agreed that the applicant was very transparent with their data, but that data enforces the interpretation that there appears to be a parking problem. Ms. Stefaniak stated that people park on the dirt because it has been undeveloped since 2016. She stated that the development of the lot and providing additional striped stalls would alleviate that problem. Commissioner Petschel commented that the data the applicant provided looks accurate compared to what he observed. Lee Koppy, engineer for the applicant, referenced the impervious values that were shown in the staff report, noting that those were incorrect. He stated that for Phase II, the numbers are correct, but they did not compare those to the previous design numbers and compared that to the impervious surface that exists today. He stated that gravel is considered impervious surface and therefore the proposed development would reduce the impervious coverage for that lot. He stated that currently the overall PUD has an impervious rate of 62.4 percent and noted that if both developments are considered, the impervious percentage would then be 65.5 percent. Ms. Stefaniak commented that there was a typo in what was presented by staff related to the lot coverage and provided additional clarification. Maurice Lazarus, 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, he referenced the project for Lot 7 and stated that lot has been vacant for some time. Chair Field noted that the Commission is considering the first request at this time and noted that there would be time to provide input on the second request. page 27 Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that at the last hearing comments were permitted in respect to both sites simultaneously and asked if that pattern is being changed tonight. Chair Field confirmed that the intent is to vote separately and therefore the comments should be reflected separately. Mr. Friel stated that most of the comments would apply to both requests and asked if the Commission prefers to have residents repeat themselves. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there are two different planning applications, and the Commission could take those separately or accept public input at once. Chair Field stated that if comments apply to both requests, those could be made once. He stated that related to the last speaker, those comments were specific to the second request and should be reserved for that discussion. Mr. Friel commented that his comments apply to both requests. He noted that the comments of Mr. Hanton will apply to traffic and applies to both requests. Chair Field stated that those comments could then be made now and would apply to the second request as well. Ed Hanton, 1288 Aspen Way, stated that two months ago he spoke about traffic and the problems he believed the development may aggravate. He stated that he has since had a chance to test his theories as there was a medical emergency at his home and it took about 15 minutes for the ambulance to reach him home on a Sunday morning. He stated that because of the traffic styles of the prime and secondary accesses for the project, he would be concerned with the traffic that would be generated by this traffic and the health and safety concerns it would impose on the community. He stated that he is concerned of those north of 62. He stated that people go by that Dodd Road and 62 intersection whether they want to or not, and it is terrible. He commented on the traffic studies that have been done and noted that several different companies have been involved in the studies since 2008 and the resources those companies used. He stated that this application is using materials for a project that never happened and the projected traffic numbers mention a decrease compared to the project that never happened. He stated that the City's north/south study is not even mentioned, which showed the intersection of Dodd and 62 as an F, failing, rating at that time. He stated that the Fire Department comments mention an Opticom system but stated that system would not provide benefit because during times of traffic there is no area for vehicles to move out of the way for an emergency vehicle. Tamara Wills, 788 Hokah Avenue, stated that she shares similar concerns with the last speaker. She stated that the residents do not feel that they are being heard on this matter. She stated that the 2017 north/south mobility study is dated as many things have changed in the area since that time. She referenced areas that were above the critical crash rate within the report with failing ratings. She hoped that the City would learn from those changes, noting that there has been a lot of building and more traffic. She stated that if traffic was bad then, she was unsure why the City page 28 is not paying attention to those studies and numbers. She stated that the traffic alone should be showing that this would not work. She appreciated that people buy parcels of land for development,but that should not be at the cost of the safety and convenience of the residents. She stated that she must use Dodd Road daily and hopes that the Commission considers traffic more heavily than it has. She commented that MnDOT would not allow an exit on 62 from The Reserve because traffic moves too fast and because of the proximity to the lights, therefore that would not be allowed for these new developments. She commented that South Plaza Drive and Dodd would then be the only options and those are already bad. She referenced a neighborhood meeting that was held that had representatives from the County and MnDOT, at which time it was stated that Dodd Road was not on their radar because they have higher priorities. John Maczko, 751 Cheyenne Lane, also commented on the traffic on Dodd Road. He stated that if another 800 vehicles are added to Dodd Road, the developer should be required to make improvements. He stated that if traffic issues are caused by a development, the developer should be required to make the necessary improvements. He stated that to add 800 vehicles per day to Dodd Road without making improvements should not be allowed. He referenced the Phase II development and stated that it seems that building this building near the 110 right-of-way would change the character of 110 as there are no other buildings that close to the roadway. He stated that this would seem to be maximizing what can be put on the site to maximize returns. He stated that the Commission does not have to go along with what the developer wants and should instead continue to focus on what the residents want and overall vision for the community is. He stated that it is hard to believe this would be 51 percent impervious. He stated that at his lake place, the gravel driveway is not considered impervious because it is not bituminous or concrete. He stated that just because the site is gravel does not mean it was intended to stay gravel and therefore, he was unsure why a comparison was provided as it is a vacant lot. He stated that there is a lot of parking occurring on the street, on the vacant lot, in the parking facility, and in the commercial area from residents of The Reserve. He stated that he drives by the facility every day and it occurs daily. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for additional ideas for traffic improvement. Mr. Maczko stated that developers have been required to add traffic control, additional lanes, and other improvements that would support the proposed development. He stated that it is clear that the development would place increased stress on the issue. He stated that the improvements are typically a negotiation between the different entities. He stated that it is clear there is already a traffic problem and adding 800 vehicles would not make it better. He stated that 62 and Dodd Road already has Opticom. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that Opticom is being anticipated for 149 and 62, noting that both are controlled by MnDOT. She stated that any improvements for Dodd Road are very far down on the priority list for MnDOT. She stated that even if this would be needed, MnDOT approval would be required and is not guaranteed. She stated that the Mendota Plaza guidelines were used to support plan consistencies, but the setback set as a standard by McDonalds is not being used for Phase 11. Chair Field asked if the setback from 62 has been changed from the original review. page 29 Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it has not been changed. Chair Field asked that comments be focused on the additional information. He noted that many of the speakers had an opportunity to speak at the last public hearing and the Commission received those comments, therefore any comments tonight should focus on the new information provided since that time. Ms. Smith stated that the Fire Department previously required access behind the Phase 11 building and asked if this is no longer needed and how that would impact those residents. She stated that many of the items within the findings of fact are not facts and suggested the Commission review those carefully. She stated that this development would have an impact far beyond Mendota Plaza and asked the Commission to consider the impacts to the overall community. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicky Lane, referenced the landscaping plan and comments of the Master Gardener. She wanted to ensure that the model landscape ordinance is reviewed more carefully from the standpoint of the developer. She stated that the current ordinance is very gray, and the PUD allows the City to make additional requests. She would want to ensure that the GreenStep Cities model is followed and that the plan of the Master Gardener is followed rather than the plan proposed. Kate Christianson,2280 Ocala Court, stated that the traffic study completed in 2017 was well done with facts and data. She stated that it includes a summary and conclusion with suggested improvements. She believed that should be considered and the City should work with MnDOT and implement those improvements before additional development is added. Chair Field encouraged the residents to reach out to their State Representatives to put pressure on MnDOT. Ms. Christianson stated that the City should not make the situation more difficult for the residents. Jim Losleben 815 Hazel Court, stated that he uses Dodd Road as the main route to leave his home and the road is already overloaded. He commented that Dodd Road has serious problems with the existing traffic and adding this amount of traffic would only make the situation worse. He stated that he was a member of the City Council from 1973 through 1984, and in 1979 they had some tough times with the Metropolitan Council in attempt to keep Mendota Heights spacious and gracious. He commented that most people like to live in the community because it is an open space area. He stated that four or five years ago, the City began to lose the spacious and gracious attitude and is once again under pressure to give away that vision. He asked that the Comprehensive Plan be used as a guide for new development with a focus on keeping existing residents happy. He stated that because of the proximity to the Twin Cities, developers are attracted to Mendota Heights and there will continue to be pressure placed upon the City. He stated that Dodd Road is in trouble right now and encouraged the City to be cautious with the traffic that is added. page 30 Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that the Commission is being asked to possibly approve the revised proposal for these two buildings. He stated that the revised proposal does not deserve serious consideration as it offers very little change from the August proposal. He referenced the staff analysis and stated that he disagrees with some of the proposed findings of fact for approval. He stated that a number of years ago the traffic rating for Dodd Road and 62 was an F,which is the lowest grade you can receive. He referenced the findings of fact listed in the report supporting denial and provided additional comments. He asked what rationale there could be for the Commission to approve the revised project as there is no change from the original project. He considered it to be an insult that the developer would bring back this "revised" proposal and provides opportunity for denial. He did not believe the Commission has a choice other than denying the request. He commented that he doubts that the developer would provide a plan that would change the nature of the proposals. Mr. Friel commented that he would prefer to hold his comments until the presentation is made for the second case. Chair Field stated that the Commission would most likely vote on this request prior to Mr. Friel's comments if he chooses to make his comments in that fashion. Mr. Friel asked if the actions would be separated rather than making motions at the end of the complete presentations. Chair Field stated that he believes that is the expectation of the Commission. Mr. Friel stated that he would make his comments at this time then. He stated that the staff report mentions a five-year completion for the PUD, which was deleted and no longer governs development activities within the PUD. He clarified that the project, not the PUD needed to be completed by 2026. He noted at that time the apartment complexes were not contemplated and therefore cannot be considered. He stated that the extension allowed time for the project and not the PUD. He stated that the PUD appears no longer to be, withstanding the assertions of the applicant, a 21-acre PUD as some land was sold. He stated that the tenants within the plaza have not been made aware of the proposals, which he found unusual. He stated that he also found it troubling that staff and the Commission are not understanding the terrible difficulty people in the first section of Friendly Hills have accessing Dodd Road. He noted that those residents were also not notified of this meeting and proposed development. He commented on the issues that exist in terms of safety and traffic volumes on Dodd Road from the adjacent neighborhoods. He stated that the developer has suggested that it is important to compare the traffic generated by what was proposed in amendment six,the retail space, restaurant and childcare facility and was unsure why that would be relevant to compare something that was not with something proposed. He stated that there never was a plan for the size of the childcare facility, retail facility or restaurant and there was not a plan for the parking that would be available. He stated that the only thing that was approved by the City is amendment six, which was an agreement that those proposals could be made but nothing was ever planned for or submitted. He stated that he has not heard a word of how these projects benefit the people of Mendota Heights. He stated that it would appear that these projects would only hurt the residents by making the traffic issues worse and would make page 31 access to the shopping center even worse. He stated that he has comments with respect to the second project when that presentation is provided. Chair Field briefly recessed the meeting. Chair Field reconvened the meeting. Ms. Stefaniak stated that some residents brought up the north/south mobility study,which she also mentioned. She stated that report used assumptions and modeling available at that time which included the retail, restaurant and childcare uses as well as the Trammel-Crow project which was larger than the Linden project. She stated that report highlighted that the most significant area of concern was Dodd and Market Street, not Dodd and South Plaza Drive. She stated that using the modeling and assumptions in that study,which were the higher and more intrusive uses,the results are still valid as these would be less intensive uses. She stated that the recommendations were made for a ten-year period rather than immediate needs. She stated that the report also considered to be built scenarios that were outside of the control of the City, as the assumptions concluded that Inver Grove Heights would be built out as would Vikings Lakes and both of those have not been completed. She stated that MnDOT owns those roads and there would be time to address those concerns over time as originally planned. She stated that she visited four times per day for two weeks at peak times in order to obtain traffic counts as well as non-peak times. She stated that in terms of requiring a developer to complete improvements, that applies to City owned roadways. She stated that their plans were submitted to MnDOT and MnDOT chose not to opine on the project. She stated that it is not their purview to tell MnDOT how to operate their roads. She stated that the Opticom system exists and is located at South Plaza Drive. She stated that the Fire Chief was commenting that it would be helpful to have a trigger closer to the door to trigger the light. She stated that is not their responsibility, but they have been happy to participate in those conversations. She stated that a resident mentioned the GreenStep program, but the City has not developed its own ordinance of that manner. She stated that they have worked with the Master Gardener and have implemented some of her suggestions, but others could not be due to utility and underground water tank storage location. She noted that they would continue to work with the Master Gardener throughout this process. She commented that she lives in Mendota Heights and enjoys the community. She stated that she is not proposing to put apartments in a residential neighborhood or on park property and is instead proposing this development in a business corridor in order to complete the PUD and housing would be the best use. She stated that MnDOT objected to the right-in/right-out access which limits the development opportunity for that parcel. She stated that without that access housing becomes the highest and best use of the property. She stated that they spoke about the mixed-use designation and 75 percent of that should be housing, which this would achieve. She stated that these two parcels were identified in the Comprehensive Plan as underutilized, and this proposal matches the goals of that plan. She stated that many residents of The Reserve sent in supportive emails stating that they wanted this development and believes it would complete the vision and be better than a dirt lot. She stated that business owners within the Plaza would also like to see this development. She stated that details plan for the other proposes uses were included in the 2009 amendment. She stated that they are requesting to change those because market needs have changed. She stated that regardless of the ownership of the property there is an overlying OEA that is encumbered against the entire PUD. page 32 Commissioner Corbett provided clarification on the statement within the Comprehensive Plan which states that undeveloped land proposed to develop mixed use is at 75 percent. Ms. Stefaniak commented that these lots are undeveloped. She noted that the statement intent is that of the undeveloped land, 75 percent of that should be housing. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked and received confirmation that there would be four handicap stalls would be provided for each of the proposed buildings. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Corbett referenced the Comprehensive Plan mixed use section that was discussed along with tabled identifying the dwelling units within mixed use within the staff report. He stated that he was confused on the language used and the related 75 percent. He stated that it seems to be a discontinuity as the majority of the land is developed, and with other uses. He stated that the math seems to be convenient in making the calculations work for mixed use and has concern with the density as proposed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this method was used consistently with The Reserve. Commissioner Corbett stated that his concern would be that the convenient math would continue to compound the problem that already exists. He stated that if this is reviewed lot specifically and not under the PUD,perhaps a different calculation should be used and that would still exceed the dwelling units per acre. He commented that he does not believe that math to be appropriate. Commissioner Katz stated that the original PUD includes language related to traffic impacts and that access and exits to the mall could be adjusted if there are impacts to traffic. He stated that there were specific requirements that stated if a traffic grade of such is issued, these specific adjustments/improvements would be made. He noted that it appears those may have been lost through the multiple amendments that have been made. He noted that the primary concern from residents is related to traffic. He asked who would then pay for improvements if deemed necessary. He understood that staff may be unable to answer his question tonight. Commissioner Petschel asked staff for the best assessment of the traffic grade for Dodd and 62. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the City's north/south mobility study, completed in 2018, showed a level of service at F for that intersection. He stated that the other intersections along Dodd were identified in green. He stated that looking towards 2040, assuming other page 33 communities build out, a number of intersections will go to a poor level of service. He stated that the City continues to work with MnDOT as the study includes ideas for improvements. He stated that the City would just need to continue to work with MnDOT to install improvements. Commissioner Johnson stated that the original developer agreement dated March 31, 2008 a degrading level of service D or worse was included, but amendment six stated an overall below level of service F. She asked if an intersection could get below an F. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that F is the lowest level of service. Commissioner Johnson referenced the 2016 amendment and asked how the below level of service F would be obtained. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek clarified that the 2016 amendment mentioned the South Plaza Drive and Dodd Road intersection. He stated that the level of service for Dodd Road and 62 existed before that 2016 amendment. Commissioner Petschel stated that he commutes through this intersection twice per day and The Plaza does not get credit for the southbound traffic as that is moving right or left on 62. He asked the opinion of staff for the direction of traffic attributing to the poor level of service. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the southbound traffic for Dodd Road at 62 provides the worst level of service. Commissioner Petschel asked if there is any data determining where the northbound traffic is originating. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that there is a streetlights program that could track cell phone data, but he does not have that for Dodd Road. He stated that the City met with MnDOT in early September and MnDOT received the feedback from the City and has been watching the cameras. He provided details on the ques for northbound traffic,noting that all vehicles in the que are able to make it through the first traffic light cycle. Commissioner Toth commented that he uses Dodd Road,traveling from the south to the north and has been in traffic behind Mendakota Park,taking 11 minutes to make it through the light,therefore he questions that data. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that MnDOT has asked the Fire Department to provide additional data on their observations and MnDOT would then review the cameras on those dates/times. Commissioner Corbett stated that he struggles with how this is framed. He stated that this is a mixed-use PUD and asked how the appropriate levels of density and setbacks would be determined. He stated that within City Code, it would appear the appropriate underlying zoning standards should be applied for the use. He stated that using R-3, the square footage of units was breeching with The Reserve and therefore the developers have consumed the residential footprint page 34 for the site. He stated that when reviewing the mixed-use language within the Comprehensive Plan it appears the numbers are made to work rather than reasonable. He recognizes the input on traffic and noted that he does not experience that firsthand and therefore appreciates those comments. He stated that the traffic backs up past the park every day. He appreciated the comments of the developer comparing what could be versus what is proposed but the comments should have focused on what exists and the current circumstances versus what is proposed. He stated that traffic will increase and there was no plan to mitigate for that. He stated that this plan relies on the City going outside of its ordinances and requirements requesting additional flexibility in return for financial motivation. He believed that consideration should be put into the effort that was put into creating ordinance and guidance for development by previous Councils and residents. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF CASE 2021-12 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND FOR THE REASONS HE SPECIFIED. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH APARTMENTS OR THE DENSITY. HE STATED THAT THE ENTIRETY OF THE SITE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF DENSITY BECAUSE THIS IS PHASED DEVELOPMENT. HE STATED THAT TRAFFIC IS HIS LARGEST CONCERN AND IT IS ALREADY HORRIBLE. HE STATED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY TIMES HE HAS SAT THROUGH THREE LIGHT CYCLES. HE STATED THAT HE CANNOT IMAGINE MAKING THAT TRAFFIC WORSE AND HE CANNOT IMAGINE A WAY THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT MAKE IT WORSE. HE STATED THAT ULTIMATELY, HE BELIEVES THESE APARTMENTS SHOULD BE BUILT, BUT THE INTERSECTION HAS TO BE FIXED FIRST. COMMISSIONER TOTH AGREED THAT HE IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT BUT HE HAS TO MAKE THE DECISION ON WHAT IS BEST FOR THE RESIDENTS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. HE STATED THAT IF A BETTER PLAN CAN BE REACHED TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC, THEN THIS COULD BE CONSIDERED. HE STATED THAT THERE IS ALREADY A CONCERN WITH HOW EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN MANEUVER THROUGH THE TRAFFIC. HE STATED THAT THE GOAL SHOULD BE TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER AND HOPEFULLY PROPOSE SOMETHING TO IMPROVE THE INTERSECTION. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ECHOED THE COMMENTS MADE. SHE THANKED THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS COMMUNITY THAT HAVE SUBMITTED LETTERS AND MADE COMMENTS. SHE AGREED WITH THE CONCERNS RELATED TO SETBACKS, DENSITY, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND TRAFFIC. SHE STATED THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AND BELIEVED A SOLUTION COULD BE FOUND THAT IS LESS DENSE THAT WOULD MAKE THE DECISION MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE HEARS THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS AND SHARES THAT CONCERN. SHE STATED THAT WHEN THEY LOOKED AT SPLITTING THE TWO REQUESTS, SHE HAS CONCERNS WITH DENSITY, page 35 SETBACKS, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. SHE COMMENTED THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPTION FOR THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE THIS PHASE MORE APPEALING TO THE RESIDENTS BY USING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WORKING WITH MNDOT TO DO THAT. SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS PLEASED TO SEE A 2.0 RATIO FOR PARKING FOR THIS PHASE. SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS MUCH HAPPIER WITH THE ITEMS THAT WERE ADDRESSED BY THE DEVELOPER IN THIS PHASE. SHE STATED THAT SHE HAS MANY MORE CONCERNS WITH PHASE III. SHE COMMENTED THAT THIS PHASE WOULD ADD SOME TO THE TRAFFIC, BUT IT IS ONLY 58 UNITS. SHE BELIEVED THE CITY SHOULD WORK DILIGENTLY WITH MNDOT AND REVIEW OPTIONS WITH OPTICOM TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WITH TRAFFIC. SHE STATED THAT IN HER MIND, SHE WAS OKAY MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PHASE. CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT TO SOME EXTENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS WILL PUSH MNDOT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS. AYES: 5 NAYS: 2 (Johnson and Fields) Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that At Home Apartments, in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates, are seeking approval to amend the previously approved Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development and its final development plan, in order to provide a new multi-family residential development. City Code Section 12-1K-6:G requires City Council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. For the purposes of this combined application submittal, this development parcel is identified as Phase III (Lot 7) and is generally located south of The Mendota Plaza main mall building, or the vacant parcel located at the northwest corner of South Plaza Drive and South Plaza Way. The proposed development is an 89-unit apartment building. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site;no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City's website). Staff reviewed the actions the Commission could choose to take. Chair Field reopened the public hearing. Ms. Stefaniak stated that given the conversations they have already had, she will stand for questions. She stated that the supplemental information they provided applies to this request as well. page 36 Commissioner Johnson stated that according to the plan it appears a ratio of 1.76 for parking for a total of 155 stalls. She stated that when reviewing the traffic circulation, on the west side of the building there is no yellow or red lines, only traffic. She asked why a sidewalk was not proposed. Pete Keely - architect, stated that the reasoning is based on the connections. He stated that the access is on the east side with another access on the east and both of those would have sidewalks. He stated that those accesses would connect to the sidewalk and then to a sidewalk to the shopping center. He noted that the west side has a parking ramp. Commissioner Johnson commented on the walkability of the entire PUD and believed that would be the shortest path of resistance. She believed people would walk in that street. Mr. Keely replied that they could include a sidewalk. Commissioner Johnson asked if that could be fit in without modifying the landscaping. Mr. Keely replied that the landscaping would need to be moved in that area in order to accommodate additional sidewalk. Commissioner Johnson provided clarity on the actual percentage of native plantings,which would be 52 percent. Maurice Lazarus, 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, stated that he studied this application with friends, and they found this to be wholly noncompliant in terms of the unit square footage, density, and building and setbacks. He also commented on issues with parking and traffic. He commented that this is an excessive development and the allocation for residential development within the Plaza was already filled through The Reserve. He asked the Commission to carefully consider the lot line boundaries for Lot 7. Jill Smith,625 Hampshire Drive,referenced the area behind the Plaza building,which she assumed is for employee parking but noted that those stalls are identified and included within the apartment count. She also provided comments related to open space and greenspace,noting that the building could be smaller to accomplish that goal. John Maczko, 751 Cheyenne Lane, stated that he understands that the whole idea is to create a mixed-use PUD, but it is developed piecemeal. He stated that when he looks at this, he cannot help but think of how this is being individually rather than as a whole. He acknowledged that the market desires have changed. He referenced the development across the street that was built as a whole unit with places for people to go and with open space for recreation. He stated that this is concentrated residential development on a portion of the property,and it is not walkable. He stated that every available piece of property is being used,reducing setbacks, and decreasing greenspace. He commented that the density does not match with the vision people had to make that happen. He stated that the setbacks proposed are too tight and are dramatic compared to the original concept. He stated that this is a maximization of what can be developed rather than thinking of people that will live there or use the space. He stated that parking is an issue and employees use the parking behind the Plaza. He did not believe there is enough vision to put this in. He page 37 commented that when you continue to deviate from the plan and piecemeal development, it deviates from the original vision. He stated that people have a right to develop property,but it has to be within the vision for what the community is rather than the availability of what developers want. He stated that the longer-term vision does not play out with this proposal that puts buildings on every inch of the property, exceeding density, in order to maximize profits. He stated that there is a reason people come to Mendota Heights and want to live here, and it is not because they develop every square inch. He stated that this would take exception from every ordinance in order to make this fit and the residents deserve better than this. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, referenced the size of the parcel and property lines. He stated that it appears the two acres includes half the private drive, all of the alley,the parking on the south side of the alley, and all of South Plaza Way. He stated that it seems to utilize parts of the PUD that have already been used to support other portions of the PUD in order to provide additional size on this parcel. He stated that if the delivery access to the Plaza and employee parking would be lost to this development as presented. He stated that he also has concern with the density and parking issues already addressed. Ms. Stefaniak stated that the PUD does allow for accommodations to the underlying zoning code. She stated that the deviations from various zoning code applications are not different or uncommon from other PUD developments. She stated that the Code was written in 1980 and the size of the units was considered in 1980, while apartment trend development has changed since that time. She stated that the deviations requested are similar to The Reserve which was a collaborative process through the developer, Commission and City Council. She stated that also applies to two other recent apartment developments. She stated that she is more sensitive to greenspace because this would be for her residents. She stated that the residents at The Reserve appreciate the greenspace and amenities that are provided. She stated that they would not develop a building where they want people to live without providing the necessary amenities. She stated that the parking stalls employees currently use for the Plaza are on Lot 7. She stated that she cannot speak of how the strip mall will parks its employees when Lot 7 develops but noted there is ample parking in front of the Plaza. Howard Pastor, Pastor Properties, stated that he grew up in Mendota Heights and lived on Douglas Road prior to City Hall being constructed in this location. He stated that he has sat patiently and has not been happy with the way the night has gone. He commented on the changes and expansion of the strip mall throughout the years noting that he and his father before him working cooperatively with the City on the project during that time. He stated that he is open to the comments from the residents. He stated that he is a long-term owner of the Plaza and is not just interested in financial gain or the return on investment. He commented on his involvement in the Plaza and community which shows they are committed to the communities and neighborhoods they invest in and are interested in making more livable and enjoyable developments. He believed that this is a unique and rare opportunity to be able to look at the Plaza and have a vision they have worked with the City to create. He stated that the vision has somewhat changed, as the market conditions have changed. He stated that they took a guess in 2016 and discovered the market was not there to support that change. He stated that part of being a retail and commercial developer is that you can create unique places that bring people together and allow them to congregate. He commented on the businesses that have been a part of the development throughout the years. He page 38 commented that perhaps he should have spoken during the first review in August. He noted that positive comments that have been received via telephone and email. He stated that as a long-term owner he looks at the Plaza to determine what could be made to make the area to most attractive and bring people in. He stated that in today's world, more density adds more vibrancy and energy to an area which is critical to retail in today's world. He noted that the retail sector has been challenged even before COVID because of the introduction of Amazon into that market. He stated that Mendota Heights is much stronger as the retail node at 110 and Dodd is strong as possible, and density is required in order to make that strong. He stated that perhaps the mindset is shifted to consider that area as a downtown where people can come together. He acknowledged that many have a perspective that they do not want to see change and that the land should stay open. He stated that while everyone appreciates open space,things become denser in a first ring suburb. He believed that the PUD allows this flexibility. He stated that today is a different world than 2009 when the initial PUD was approved. He asked everyone on the Commission how they are shopping differently and visiting restaurants differently than they did in 2009. He ventured that those experiences are pretty different, and those things should be considered when thinking about the vision for Mendota Plaza and what is appropriate. He commented that they area quality developer, which is reflective in their work not only in this development but in others throughout the metro. He acknowledged that change is hard, especially in a community where things have remained the same for a long time. He believed that the proposal from At Home would increase the housing stock and provide people to come to Mendota Heights as a renters, which is a good thing and would be a good thing for the retailers in the shopping center as well. He stated that if they want to continue to maintain the existing retailers and fill the vacancy,they will need additional density to support that. He stated that he was involved with the PUD in 2009 and he thinks it was a great disservice to include the calculation related to vacant lots and should have been sorted out ahead of time to make that calculation clear. He stated that there is no question that traffic is a problem, noting that it was a problem in 2009 when they began working on the PUD and the intersection was rated a D. He stated that this development is not what is causing the traffic grade and that is an unreasonable standard. He noted that traffic is already at a level F. He noted that they are open- minded as to how that can be fixed, but it should be fair and reasonable. He believed they should be treated as an equal partner, and they should be able to make this work in a reasonable manner. He apologized if his frustration shown through but noted that this is important to him and this is important to the future of Mendota Plaza. Commissioner Corbett referenced the language that was used in terms of the previous amendments being "bad guesses" and commented that he would want to ensure that this was not another bad guess. Mr. Pastor stated that what he referred to was that in 2009 and again in 2016 they could not just leave parcels blank and therefore they planned for childcare, a restaurant and drive-thru coffee. He stated that prior to 2016 they included office and retail, which was somewhat of a guess based on the market. He stated that there is not always a retailer or proposal for those spaces. He stated that the difference is that today there is a viable proposal for viable uses on the two remaining lots rather than a guesstimate on what could be on those parcels. page 39 Commissioner Corbett commented that there have been a lot of amendments since 2009. He noted that times will change again in another two years and therefore the use has to be considered in the immediate timeframe as well as the future. Commissioner Lorberbaum recognized that Pastor Properties has been a long-term community leader hosting many public events. She hoped that Mr. Pastor heard that many of the Commissioners believe there is a way to get to the desired result,but changes would be necessary. She stated that there was not a no to the concept, but to this plan. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2021-13 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS WELL AS THE REASONS STATED IN THE PREVIOUS CASE. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT NOTED THAT THE POINTS HE MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS CASE APPLY TO A HIGHER DEGREE ON THIS PROPOSAL AS THIS IS A MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT HE APPRECIATES MR. PASTOR'S INTENSITY AND COMMITMENT TO MENDOTA HEIGHTS. HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DENSITY AND DOES NOT EXPECT THAT THE ENTIRE SITE WOULD BE RAZED TO PROVIDE A CLEAN DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE THE SAME THING WITH THE SAME DENSITY AS IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SINGLE PROJECT. HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW THE COMMISSION COULD DO SOMETHING TO MAKE THE TRAFFIC WORSE IN GOOD CONSCIOUS. HE AGREED THAT MNDOT HAS TO DO SOMETHING BUT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE"IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME"PLAN AND BELIEVES THE PROBLEM HAS TO BE SOLVED BEFORE DEVELOPMENT IS ADDED. HE STATED THAT HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE PLAN, ONLY WITH THE IMPACT THIS WOULD HAVE ON A SITUATION THAT IS ALREADY BAD IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE HAD MORE CONCERNS ON THIS PHASE DUE TO THE DENSITY AND PARKING. SHE COMMENTED THAT SHE WOULD LOVE TO SEE A COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND PASTOR. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE 2 PARKING STALLS PER UNIT WITH A SIDEWALK TO MAKE IT MORE USABLE AND WALKABLE, WHILE KEEPING THE GREENSPACE. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LOWER DENSITY WITH BETTER SETBACKS. page 40 COMMISSIONER TOTH STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR 22 YEARS AND PASTOR PROPERTIES BRINGS RESIDENTS TOGETHER THROUGH THEIR BONFIRE. HE STATED THAT HE HOPES THAT THEY COULD COME TOGETHER AND WORK TOGETHER, THE CITY, PASTOR PROPERTIES, AND MNDOT AND FIND SOMETHING THAT CAN WORK FOR EVERYONE. HE STATED THAT TRAFFIC IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE IN HIS MIND. HE THANKED MR. PASTOR FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR THE CITY. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Field) New/Unfinished Business No comments. Adiournment COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:43 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 41 5c. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 10,2021 The special meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, November 10, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson,Michael Toth,Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval ofAzenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Hearin-s A) PLANNING CASE 2021-18 ERIK AND SARAH IVERSON, 2452 POND CIRCLE EAST — WETLANDS PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Iverson's are seeking approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new flagstone fire pit and patio, a walkout entry patio, retaining walls, steps, grading and landscaping work, along with some tree pruning and removal on their property located at 2452 Pond Circle East. This application has been deemed an "after-the-fact" due to work had already been commenced by the homeowners. A public hearing notice for this planning item was held at the October 24, 2021 regular meeting, where this item was tabled to the next meeting. Hearing notices were published and re-mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City's website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Corbett asked if there is an ordinance limiting the height of a retaining wall. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there is not such guidance outside of the critical area. Commissioner Lorberbaum referenced the pollinator friendly policy which is noted in the staff report and stated that she had difficulty finding the policy. page 42 Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this policy was adopted in 2016, prior to his arrival. He was unsure if it is available on the website. He stated that any new development is encouraged to use pollinator friendly and/or native plantings. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that it would be nice if that information is made available on the website. Commissioner Petschel noted that while it is recommended, it is not required by policy. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that it is encouraged but not required. Commissioner Petschel stated that perhaps condition five should be adjusted. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that is the typical language used for that condition, but the language could be modified. Commissioner Petschel commented that the Commission cannot give the City power it does not have. Commissioner Katz referenced the silt sock and asked if those are permanent or just through construction. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it is used during construction and until the yard is established to prevent silt runoff. Commissioner Katz asked if berms are ever encouraged as a natural barrier for this type of property. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the City does not prefer berms as that can prevent the proper flow of water. He stated that the applicants have agreed not to disturb the buffer area. Commissioner Johnson stated that a double row silt fence is mentioned in the conditions, while the applicant's narrative suggests use of silt sock. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he spoke with other City staff, and they believe the socks work better than the fencing. He stated that the language in the condition could be modified to state, redundant silt protection measures. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Sarah Iverson, applicant,thanked the Commission for holding a special meeting to reconsider this application. She also thanked staff for their assistance throughout this process. She commented that the grading information has been provided. She stated that they also added three more trees to the proposed landscaping plan, although that is not required. She stated that the lot continues to be heavily wooded, and they are attempting to find balance between greenspace and the wooded page 43 area. She stated that the two rock spills will come out of the base of the north retaining wall and provided additional details. She stated that they only cleared out two dead trees from the buffer area and are committed to leaving that area be as it is. Commissioner Johnson thanked the applicants for removing the buckthorn and being good stewards. She stated that while she feels that the applicants will continue be good stewards, she still has questions on the plan. She asked the distance from the rock wall to the pond edge, that she did not notice on the plan. Tim Johnson, contractor representing the applicant, stated that distance is about 50 feet. Commissioner Johnson asked what else would happen below the rock wall in terms of ground cover or plantings. Mr. Johnson replied that area would stay as is as they are not working in that area. He stated that other than the dead tree removal, they have not done work in that area. He noted that most of that area is mulch or eroded soils. He explained how the wall would be constructed. Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant would be willing to plant a native mix from the buffer to the wall area. Mrs. Iverson stated that after the buckthorn removal they noticed additional plant growth. She stated that it would be difficult to access that area for maintenance after the wall is completed. Commissioner Johnson stated that area looked bare when she visited the site. She asked for details on the types of plant growth. Mr. Johnson commented that this is the fall season and noted that he provided photos from the summer when the area was lusher. He stated that the applicants desire a minimum landscape and do not want to add additional things that would need to be maintained in an area they are not disturbing. Commissioner Johnson stated that if some type of ground cover is not added, that will return to invasive species. Mrs. Iverson commented that buckthorn removal is a process and would feel fruitless planting something that may be overrun with buckthorn. Commissioner Johnson asked for details on the rock spill. Mr. Johnson stated that the property currently has downspout collections made from landscaping tile. He noted that one spout is pointed towards a neighboring property and that would be redirected to the proper path. He stated that the rock spills would help to slow the rate of runoff. Commissioner Johnson asked if the rate of flow would be slowed enough to hit the rock spill and then slowly move to the other areas. page 44 Mr. Johnson confirmed that is the intention. He noted that currently flows from the retaining wall towards the neighboring property,with nothing to slow it down. He stated that they need to protect the natural area of the pond, but also need to protect the retaining wall and integrity of the wall, as well as protect the neighboring home. Commissioner Johnson asked if the light grey area on the plan is trap rock. Mr. Johnson confirmed that decorative rock would be used in those areas. He stated that they are replacing that material that already exists and are attempting to protect the trees they are attempting to save. Commissioner Johnson asked if shrubs and other things will be planted. Mrs. Johnson confirmed they are intending to place additional plantings on the property. Commissioner Johnson asked if any other ground cover or trees are planned in the area shown in white. Mr. Iverson commented that area is already heavily treed. Mr. Johnson noted that area is not being worked on. Commissioner Johnson asked if the contractor is familiar with the prevention measures for invasive jumping worm. Mr. Johnson stated that he is not. Commissioner Johnson provided additional details on that process. Commissioner Corbett thanked the applicant for coming back with an updated plan. He referenced the comment of Commissioner Johnson that the plan misses the water line and asked the applicable requirement of the City that would apply to that. Commissioner Johnson stated that the wetlands permit requires a detailed plan. Commissioner Petschel stated that the Commission has typically accepted Google Earth images provided in the packet to satisfy the 500 feet. Commissioner Corbett stated that he was simply wondering where the ordinance requirement was for that element. Commissioner Johnson stated that because it is a wetlands permit, she would want to know what is being done to the wetland, in items F and H. page 45 Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she welcomes the residents to Mendota Heights and recognizes that they were not aware of the regulations when they purchased the property. She stated that sharing the requirements in the newsletter would help advise residents of the requirements. She stated that there was mention that the landscape plan is not complete, but the Commission would need the plan to be complete in order to make a recommendation. She noted that if this is the completed plan, additional items could be added in the future. She asked if the landscape plan is complete. Mr. Iverson replied that the plan is complete, and this item was added to the agenda because staff deemed the application complete. Commissioner Corbett stated that he would assume the applicants met with staff following the previous meeting and asked what was given as guidance for the updates to the application. Mrs. Iverson stated that she re-watched the meeting to use the questions and concerns as items that needed to be addressed. She stated that staff also provided assistance. Commissioner Corbett stated that he is simply attempting to find out where the gap is, which is why the Commission is holding a second meeting for an application. Jim Neuharth, 2450 Pond Circle East, commented that he was unable to attend the previous meeting. He stated that he was one of the first to move into the development and paid a premium in order to have the wooded lot near the pond. He provided background information on the work he has completed on his property, with the proper permitting, along with his work with wetlands during his retirement. He stated that he is concerned that the demolition work began before the applicable permit was received. He was also concerned with shade trees that were removed between the properties and with potential damage that could occur to trees near the property line. He stated that perhaps he should have been more proactive with the applicants about making them aware of the proper permitting that was necessary. He stated that he would also like to see a notification process that addresses new residents near wetlands along with existing residents to spread education about the protected areas. Joe Slater, 2464 Pond Circle East, stated that he and his wife love living in the City and hope the same for the Iverson's. He stated that his complaint is with the City and the process that was not followed. He believed that this process is much better than what occurred at the last meeting. He hoped that the Iverson's can make the desired improvements, following the parameters of the City's ordinances and regulations. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked the contractor to address the concern mentioned with the oak trees. Mr. Johnson stated that they brought in an arborist before the project started and have treated those trees to help them recover from the construction stress. He stated that when utilized preconstruction, the success rate is great. He stated that they would minimize any construction street over the top of the roots to the extent possible. He noted that if the wall is not replaced,that page 46 will fall and cause additional damage. He provided additional details on the construction process that would be followed. Commissioner Toth asked the distance of the equipment to the oak trees mentioned. Mr. Johnson provided additional details on how the equipment would work to replace the wall. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2452 POND CIRCLE EAST, WHICH WOULD ALLOW CERTAIN BACKYARD IMPROVEMENTS AND TREE/VEGETATION REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ANY NEW REMOVALS, EXCAVATING, GRADING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RELATED TO THE NEW BACKYARD IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE FIREPIT PATIO, RETAINING WALLS, STAIRS, AND PATHS, SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 2. FULL EROSION/SEDIMENT MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. A DOUBLE ROW OF SILT FENCE WITH SUITABLE FABRIC MATERIAL OR OTHER EROSION MEASURES APPROVED BY THE CITY'S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION OR REMOVALS. EROSION BARRIER SHALL BE PLACED ALONG THE OUTER EDGES OF THE SIDE YARDS, AND THE LOWER EDGE NEAR THE POND BUFFER. 3. THE APPLICANT/OWNER SHALL NOT REMOVE ANY TREES OR VEGETATION, NOR PERFORM ANY UNNECESSARY GRADING OR DISTURBANCE TO THE 25 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER AREA. 4. IF ANY ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION WORK, OR AREAS INSIDE OR BEYOND THIS BUFFER EDGE(FROM THE NEW BACK WALL TO THE POND EDGE)NEED TO BE DISTURBED, EXCEPT FOR THE PLANTINGS OF NEW TREES/VEGETATION, THE OWNER MUST CONTACT CITY STAFF PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK, AND REPAIR AND REPLANT ANY DISTURBED page 47 AREAS WITH SUITABLE PLANTINGS AND MATERIALS PER DIRECTION OF THE CITY'S NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICIAN. 5. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT ANY NEW TREE OR LANDSCAPING MATERIAL USED UNDER THIS APPROVED PLAN MUST MEET THE CITY'S LIST OF NATIVE PLANTINGS AND POLLINATOR FRIENDLY TREES AND VEGETATION. 6. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED, PROTECTED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE BACKYARD IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. 7. ANY NEW SITE CONSTRUCTION OR REMOVAL SHALL OCCUR ONLY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. WEEKDAYS; AND 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE HAS CONCERN WITH THE ALREADY DISTURBED AREAS AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE DISTURBED AREAS BELOW THE ROCK WALL REPLACED WITH NATIVE PLANTINGS. SHE NOTED THAT ERODED SOIL WILL GO INTO THE POND. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF VEGETATION AND THE BUFFER EXISTS. HE STATED THAT HE WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION BUT WOULD NOT MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SUGGESTED A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPLICANT WITH THE NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICIAN TO REVIEW THE OPEN GROUND AREAS AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT REVEGETATING THOSE AREAS. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AGREED THAT HE LIKES THAT AS A RECOMMENDATION. HE STATED THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE INTENT, THAT IF THAT AREA IS LEFT BLANK, SOMETHING WILL EVENTUALLY GROW THERE AND MOST LIKELY WOULD BE BUCKTHORN. HE STATED THAT IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT THOUGH. CHAIR FIELD CONFIRMED THAT THE MOTION MAKER AND SECONDER ACCEPT THAT ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION. COMMISSIONER CORBETT REFERENCED THE USE OF DISTURBED LAND AND STATED THAT IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT AREA WAS NOT TOUCHED BY THE APPLICANTS. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AGREED SHE INITIALLY USED THAT TERM BUT REPLACED THAT LANGUAGE WITH BARE GROUND. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI PROVIDED SUGGESTED LANGUAGE THE COMMISSION COULD USE. page 48 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON COMMENTED THAT SHE WANTED TO INCLUDE THE OPEN SOIL AREAS IN ADDITION TO THE DISTURBED AREAS. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD ALSO WANT REFERENCE TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICIAN BECAUSE OF HER PLANT EXPERTISE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI AGAIN REVIEWED THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED FOR THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION. IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE AN OBLIGATION. COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT HE SUPPORTS SOME DIRECTION BUT NOTED THAT THE APPLICANTS CANNOT BE FORCED TO DO ACTION ON AN AREA THEY HAVE NOT DISTURBED. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM REFERENCED THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION. CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT THOSE ARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND TRUE STATEMENTS. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORT THE MOTION. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 16, 2021 meeting. B) DISCUSSION OF CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEETINGS/EVENTS CALENDAR YEAR 2022 Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed the 2022 meetings and event calendar. Staff and the Commission discussed any dates that may vary from the typical schedule. StaffAnnouncements/Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • A ruling was made by the First Judicial Court related to the Culligan case and reported that the City did not prevail. The City is meeting with the representatives from the League of Minnesota Cities to determine the proper next steps. Adiournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:05 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 49 5d. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Weights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendo[a-heights.com CITY OF MENDOT,4 HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 4, 2022 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Dakota Broadband Board Technical Advisory Committee Appointments INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve the appointments to the Dakota Broadband Board (DBB) Technical Advisory Committee, which are two year appointments. BACKGROUND The DBB Technical Advisory Committee is part of the DBB organization and provides guidance on the technical operations and functions of the DBB. The Technical Advisory Committee is comprised of one technical representative from each member city. Each member city appointes a primary and alternate representative each even numbered year for a two year term. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION RECOMMENDED The Dakota Broadband Board Technical Advisory Committee requires City Council action to designate appointments to represent the City. Mayor Levine recommends the following to fill the positions which will expire January 31, 2024: Dakota Broadband Board Technical Advisory Committee (2 year Appointments) Primary Representative Assistant City Administrator Kelly Dumais Alternate Representative City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson ACTION REQUIRED If the City Council concurs, it should,by motion, approve the appointments as recommended for the DBB Technical Advisory Committee. page 50 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota He 5e. 651.452.1850 phone 651.452.894C www.m endota-hei g hts.com »ta, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Request for City Council Action DATE: January 4, 2022 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lord Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution 2022-04 Approving Appointments to Mendota Heights Relief Association Board of Trustees INTRODUCTION MN Statutes 424A.04 requires that the City annually appoint the three municipal trustees to the Board of Trustees for the Mendota Heights Fire Relief Association. BACKGROUND The current Mendota Heights Relief Association statutory Board of Trustees members are Mayor Stephanie Levine and City Clerk Lorri Smith, along with Fire Chief Dave Dreelan. MN State Statute 424A.04 states the three municipal trustees must be one elected municipal official and one elected or appointed municipal official who are designated as municipal representatives by the municipal governing board annually, and the fire chief. The ex-officio trustees have all of the rights and duties accorded to the other trustees, except the right to be an officer of the Association. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution 2022-04 Appointing Municipal Trustees to the Mendota Heights Fire Relief Association Board of Trustees. ACTION REQUESTED Approve Resolution 2022-04, Approving Appointments to the Board of Trustees for the Mendota Heights Fire Relief Association. page 51 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Dakota County,Minnesota Resolution 2022 - 04 APPROVING APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES for the MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights desires to make three municipal appointments to the Board of Trustees for the Mendota Heights Fire Relief Association; and WHEREAS, State Statute 424A.04 states the three municipal trustees must be one elected municipal official and one elected or appointed municipal official who are designated as municipal representatives by the municipal governing board annually; and the chief of the municipal fire department. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: Mayor Stephanie Levine, City Clerk Lord Smith, and Fire Chief Dave Dreelan are hereby appointed to serve as Municipal Trustees of the Mendota Heights Fire Relief Association for the year 2022, or until their successor has been appointed. DATED this 4th of January, 2022. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 52 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota 5f. 651.452.1850 phone 1 651. www.mendota-heights com CITY OF MEN'DC}TA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 4, 2022 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Lord Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Designation of Official Newspaper INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to designate an official newspaper for the City for 2022. BACKGROUND Minnesota Statutes §412.831 requires that the City Council designate an official newspaper at the first meeting of each year. 2018 was the first year that the City used the Pioneer Press as its official newspaper. Having the flexibility of a daily newspaper as its legal newspaper has worked to the City's advantage. The City received two quotes. Both newspapers publish seven days a week. The Pioneer Press has deadlines which are more lenient, which would make publishing our notices more convenient for staff. The notices would be due to the newspaper by 12:00 noon the prior day. Proposals Received for Official Newspaper Designation 2022 Rate Proposed 2021 Rate Pioneer Press $6.58 per column inch $6.30— per column inch Star Tribune $ 1.44 per line ($16.32 per column inch) Published legal notices in either paper would be posted on their website at no additional charge. State law requires the legal newspaper must have at least 400 paying customers in the community. The Pioneer press has approximately 3,410 paid subscribers in Mendota Heights. BUDGET IMPACT The proposal from the Twin Cities Pioneer Press is a 4.4% increase from 2021. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council designate the Pioneer Press as the official City newspaper. ACTION REQUIRED The Council should designate the St. Paul Pioneer Press as the city's official newspaper for 2022. This action requires a majority vote of the City Council. page 53 5g. 1101 victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 5�',: 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 Pax Viol www.mendota-heights.com 6 CITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: January 4,2022 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Designation of Acting Mayor INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to appoint one of its members to serve as Acting Mayor. BACKGROUND Minnesota State Statute 412.121 requires the Council to choose an acting mayor at the first City Council meeting of the year. The law provides that the acting mayor shall perform the duties of the mayor during the disability or absence of the mayor from the city or in event of vacancy in the office of the mayor, until such time a successor has been appointed. The practice in Mendota Heights has been that the Mayor has recommended a candidate, and the Council then affirms the recommendation, or comes up with an alternate candidate. In recent years, the acting mayor position for the City of Mendota Heights has been held by the following councilmembers: 2021: Joel Paper 2020: Joel Paper 2019: Joel Paper 2018: Joel Paper 2017: Joel Paper 2016: Michael Povolny 2015: Liz Petschel RECOMMENDATION: Mayor Levine recommends the reappointment of Councilor Joel Paper to be acting Mayor for 2022. ACTION REOUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should approve a motion naming Joel Paper to serve as the acting mayor for 2022. If there is a different councilor nominated, the Council should then make a decision from amongst those nominated. This action requires a majority vote. page 54 5h. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: January 4, 2022 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2022 Financial Items INTRODUCTION At its January 4 meeting, the City Council is asked to approve three routine financial actions. BACKGROUND There are three items that need to be reviewed by the council on an annual basis. Two of the items have attached resolutions and the other item need to be authorized and reviewed by the council. • Each year the city designates financial institutions that may be used as depositories for city funds. The attached resolution lists those institutions that may be used in 2022. • Minnesota statue 118A.03 requires that to the extent city funds in a financial institution exceed FDIC insurance amounts, a collateral security be pledged to cover the difference. The attached resolution states the collateral that is in place for the city at Deerwood Bank. • The council needs to authorize the finance director to execute electronic payments and prepay claims. This is not a change in process, but an acknowledgement that there are claims paid prior to your approval on the agenda. This item was recommended to be formally authorized by the city auditors. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the attached resolutions designating city depositories and accepting pledged securities. Staff further recommends that the Finance Director be given the authority to prepay claims. All of these actions requires a majority vote of the city council. page 55 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2022 - 01 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2022 CITY DEPOSITORIES OF FUNDS BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Mendota Heights that the following institutions be designated as depositories for city funds and securities for 2022: Deerwood Bank Wells Fargo Bank Cherokee State Bank Gateway Bank U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray& Co. TCF National Bank TD Ameritrade Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund Wells Fargo Advisors, Inc. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that investments of city funds be in any securities authorized by Minnesota Statutes Chapters 118A.04 and 427.02. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of January, 2022. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BY Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Lord Smith, City Clerk page 56 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2022 - 02 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PLEDGED SECURITIES FOR 2022 WHEREAS, every designated depository of city funds must provide collateral or other security to the city to protect against financial loss,pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 118A.03 and 427.01; and WHEREAS, all financial institutions designated as depositories for 2022 are members of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)which provides suitable security up to established limits; and WHEREAS, the city's depositories in financial institutions routinely exceed these established limits necessitating the provision of additional security. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following pledged securities be accepted by the city as additional collateral for calendar year 2022. Deerwood Bank $ 200,000 FHLB 2.500% due 08/01/2034 $3,240,000 FHLB 0.210% due 12/28/2023 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of January, 2022. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Lord Smith, City Clerk page 57 5i. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com * CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Reauest for City Council Action DATE: January 4, 2022 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Final Approval of Par 3 Replacement Equipment(Sand Pro, Top Dresser and Aerator) INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve the purchase of replacement maintenance equipment used at the Par 3 Golf Course. BACKGROUND As part of the FY2022 budget process, staff recommended the replacement of three pieces of equipment at the Par 3 Golf Course. Equipment included a new Sand Pro, Top Dresser and Aerator. Staff worked with MTI, a state cooperative purchasing contract holder, to recommend replacements for the three recommended pieces of equipment. Due to manufacturing and delivery delays, staff requested the preliminary purchase approval of the three pieces of equipment on October 19, 2021. By receiving preliminary approval, the City was able to be put on a waitlist to ensure the pieces are available in enough time for the 2022 season. Staff recommends the purchase of a Sand Pro 204OZ with a flex tooth rake. The Par 3's exiting Sand Pro is a 2008 Toro Sand Pro 5020. It has approximately 3,500 hours on it and has a front seal on the engine that is leaking. It needs a new motor and coupler. The costs to fix the existing equipment exceeds the value of the machine. Staff budgeted $15,000 for the replacement of this piece of equipment. The cost for the Sand Pro 204OZ replacement is $14,789.85. The City will receive $500 in trade in for the existing piece. Additionally, staff recommends the purchase of a Workman HDX-4WD and ProPass 200 Wireless to replace the Par 3's existing Top Dresser. The current Top Dresser is a 1998 Jake SV3422 with 550 hours. Staff is having issues with this machine starting and accelerating and pieces are becoming difficult to find. The costs to fix the existing equipment exceeds the value of the machine. Staff budgeted $55,000 for the replacement of this piece of equipment. The cost for the replacement Top Dresser is $56,804.30. The City will receive $1,900 for the existing equipment. page 58 The last piece of equipment staff is recommending purchasing is a Toro ProCore 648 Aerator. The Par 3's existing Aerator is a 1987 Toro Greens Aerator that does not have an hour meter. The current Aerator needs a new transmission which is obsolete. At this time the machine is inoperable. Staff borrowed an Aerator from MTI to complete Fall aeration. Staff budgeted $26,000 for the aerator replacement. The cost for the Toro ProCore 648 replacement is $26,205.88. The City will receive $100 for trade in for the existing piece. With the approval of the 2022 budget, staff is requesting the final approval of three pieces of equipment: course Aerator, Top Dresser and Sand Pro. BUDGET IMPACT The budget impact is as follows: • Sand Pro 2040Z: $14,789.85 (Trade in Amount: $500.00) _ $14,289.85 from Par 3 Fund • Top Dresser(Workman/Pro Pass): $56,804.30 (Trade in Amount: $1,900) _ $54,904.30 from Par 3 Fund • Aerator ProCore 648: $26,205.88 (Trade in Amount: $100)= $26,105.88 from General Fund Balance ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends the City Council approve the purchase of the Sand Pro, Top Dresser and Aerator replacement equipment for the Par 3 Golf Course. If approved, delivery is anticipated prior to the opening of the 2022 golf season. ACTION REQUESTED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the final approval of the purchase of the Sand Pro, Top Dresser and Aerator replacement for the Par 3 Golf Course. page 59 Toro Equipment Proposal �ltl T City of Mendota Heights Quote Date: 10.5.2021 Mendota Par 3 Quote Id# 000549 Award Price Type: Contract# n/a Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to partner with you on your equipment needs. We are pleased to submit this equipment proposal for your review. All of the proposed Toro equipment meets, or exceeds, ANSI Safety Specifications. Quantity Model # Product Name Unit Award Extended Award Price Price 1 08706 Sand Pro 204OZ $12,104.82 $12,104.82 1 08716 Flex Tooth Rake $1,669.20 $1,669.20 Award Price Subtotal $13,774.02 Sales Tax (7.375%) $1,015.83 Award Price Total $14,789.85 • New Toro Commercial Equipment includes a Two (2) Year Manufacture Warranty • Terms: For qualified credit-net 30 terms • Set-Up and Delivery at No Charge • 2.5% Service Fee to be applied to all invoices paid via Credit Card Please do not hesitate in contacting us with any questions. Bob Frank, SCPS Mandi Prinsen, SCPS Outside Sales Representative Inside Sales Representative 612-877-0837 800-492-6344 bob.frankCc�mtidistributing.com mandi.prinsenCc�mtidistributing.com MTI Distributing, Inc. • 4830 Azelia Avenue North, Suite 100 • Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 page QQ Toro Equipment Proposal �ltl T City of Mendota Heights Quote Date: 10.5.2021 Mendota Par 3 Quote Id# 000549 Award Price Type: Contract# n/a Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to partner with you on your equipment needs. We are pleased to submit this equipment proposal for your review. All of the proposed Toro equipment meets, or exceeds, ANSI Safety Specifications. Quantity Model # Product Name Unit Award Extended Award Price Price 1 07386 Workman HDX -4WD (Kubota Gas) $33,235.02 $33,235.02 1 07316 High Flow Hydraulics Kit $1,654.38 $1,654.38 1 44751 ProPass 200 Wireless $12,979.98 $12,979.98 1 44724 Propass Tow Chassis And Fender Kit $3,066.18 $3,066.18 1 44706 Tow Chasis Hose Assembly $312.78 $312.78 1 07316 High Flow Hydraulics Kit $1,654.38 $1,654.38 Award Price Subtotal $52,902.72 Sales Tax (7.375%) $3,901.58 Award Price Total $56,804.30 • New Toro Commercial Equipment includes a Two (2) Year Manufacture Warranty • Terms: For qualified credit-net 30 terms • Set-Up and Delivery at No Charge • 2.5% Service Fee to be applied to all invoices paid via Credit Card Please do not hesitate in contacting us with any questions. Bob Frank, SCPS Mandi Prinsen, SCPS Outside Sales Representative Inside Sales Representative 612-877-0837 800-492-6344 bob.frankCc�mtidistributing.com mandi.prinsenCc�mtidistributing.com MTI Distributing, Inc. • 4830 Azelia Avenue North, Suite 100 • Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 ___ ge 61 9 Toro Equipment Proposal 1 ' 1 Quote Date: 7.21.21 Mendota Par 3 Quote Id# Q81309 Award Price Type: MN State Contract Contract# 188861 Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to partner with you on your equipment needs. We are pleased to submit this equipment proposal for your review. All of the proposed Toro equipment meets, or exceeds, ANSI Safety Specifications. Quantity Model # Product Name MSRP MN State Contract Price 1 09200 ProCore 648 $31,355.65 $24,520.12 3 09796 4 Tine 3/4 Inch Head Set 2 120-1045 Guard-Turf, 4 Tine, Short 1 120-1046 Guard-Turf, 4 Tine, Long Award Price Subtotal $24,520.12 Sales Tax (6.875%) $1,685.76 Award Price Total $26,205.88 • New Toro Commercial Equipment includes a Two (2)Year Manufacture Warranty •Terms: For qualified credit-net 30 terms • Quote valid for 15 days • Set-Up and Delivery at No Charge •2.5% Service Fee to be applied to all invoices paid via Credit Card Please do not hesitate in contacting us with any questions. Bob Frank, SCPS Mandi Prinsen, SCPS Outside Sales Representative Inside Sales Representative 612-877-0837 800-492-6344 bob.frankCcDmtidistributing.com mandi.prinsenCa�mtidistributing.com MTI Distributing, Inc. • 4830 Azelia Avenue North, Suite 100 • Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 page 62 5j. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heigh 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDaTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 4, 2022 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer and Streambank Repairs —Professional Services Change Order INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a Change Order for the Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer and Streambank Repair Professional Services contract with Barr Engineering. BACKGROUND Mendota Heights awarded a contract to Barr Engineering for the design, surveying and inspection of the Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer and Streambank Repairs at their December 4, 2018 meeting. DISCUSSION Due to additional project scoping and redesign,project delays with increased billable rates, wetland delineation report and permitting assistance, bidding assistance, material testing and inspection hours needed to be increased. Barr Engineering is requesting an additional $76,510 for work performed as well as anticipated work to be completed this winter and spring. The memo to Council on December 4, 2018 contained the following paragraph: Staff anticipates a change order for wetland delineation services and a possible increase in scope of work. This increase would be needed from the other proposers as well. The other consulting proposal had a base fee of$85,830. BUDGET IMPACT The contract with Barr Engineering for the project was $37,490 resulting in a new contract amount would of$114,000. The Mendota Heights CIP identified $315,000 for the sanitary sewer repair and $120,000 for the streambank repair for a total project budget of$435,000. The project is currently estimated at$375,000 for construction for a total cost of$489,000 putting the project approximately $54,000 over the estimated cost. page 63 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the Professional Services contract Change Order with Barr Engineering. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion authorizing a Professional Services contract Change Order to Barr Engineering for the Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer and Streambank Repair project. This action requires a simple majority vote. resourceful. naturally. BAR engineering and environmental consultants December 16, 2021 Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 Re: Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer Improvement and Streambank Stabilization Project Barr Project: 23191421.00 City Project#201612 Dear Ryan: Following up on our discussions, this letter contains our request for additional compensation for the referenced project. The original scope of services and budget was provided to the city in our November 29, 2018, letter. The city delayed the project to address other needs and the project was authorized in 2020, with final design and most of the construction performed in 2021. Final restoration will be completed during the spring of 2022. The actual project scope was significantly increased from what was proposed in 2018. Noteworthy changes in the scope of work include: • The original scope and budget were provided in the November 29, 2018, letter. Final design and most of the construction work was performed during 2021 resulting in changes in proposed staff and increased billing rates. In addition, the there was a change in project leadership to Jim Herbert after Steve Klein passed away. Several hours of Jim Herbert's time was not billed to the city during the transition as Mr. Herbert "got up to speed". • The streambank repairs were designed and redesigned three times based on modifications requested by the adjacent homeowner. Based on our site meeting with City staff, the streambank was initially designed using natural stabilization techniques. The approach was rejected by the resident and the streambank was then redesigned using a hybrid approach with natural stabilization techniques and hard armoring. The approach was again rejected, and the streambank was redesigned using hard armoring consisting of riprap and rock cross vanes. • The project included a more detailed geotechnical investigation including on-site review of the native soils along the sanitary sewer alignment, during construction. This resulted in overall cost savings to the city, because, based on the detailed geotechnical investigation, it was determined that the manholes were constructed on adequate soils and did not require replacement, as originally anticipated. Also, during construction, it was determined that soil remediation was not necessary along the pipe alignment. • Preparation of technical specifications required detailed cross referencing of City standard specifications and incorporating key clauses into the contract documents. • Barr performed the wetland delineation and provided support to City staff regarding WCA coordination and preparation of the Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota.Tasks included field meetings and coordination assistance with agency personnel. Due to the increased limits of hard armoring, permitting assistance was required for United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) approval. Barr also reviewed the DNR requirements and determined a formal DNR permit was not required. Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com page 65 Ryan Ruzek December 16,2021 Page 2 • Bid administration and on-line bid opening was incorporated into the project that saved city staff time for hosting a live bid opening at the city. On-site prebid meeting was scheduled and agenda and meeting minutes were incorporated into an addendum. • An opinion of construction cost was developed and provided to the city prior to bidding. • More extensive construction observation was performed than anticipated in the original scope due to the concentrated construction schedule at the two project sites. This task included organizing and attendance at a pre-construction meeting and weekly on-site construction meetings as well as preparation and distribution of meeting agendas and minutes. It's our understanding that construction went well, and the project has been well received by the stakeholders. The budget provided in our November 29, 2018, letter was $37,490 for Barr and subcontractor fees. Based on the actual work performed and the projected 2022 work, we request authorization for the total budget provided in Table 1. Table 1 Estimated Revised Project Budget Estimated budget through Dec 31, 2021 $108,000 Estimated budget for 2022 (restoration and contract closeout): $6,000 Record Drawings (optional): $3,000 Total $117,000 Budget has been included for the following work that has not been completed: • Preparation of one change order and up to two payment applications. • Up to two final site meetings • Project closeout and preparation of record drawings (optional). We appreciated the opportunity to work on this project with you and City staff. If you have any questions regarding this request, please me directly at 952.832.2784 or iherbert@barr.com. Sincerely, Herbert, P.E. Attachment: November 29, 2018 letter resourceful. naturally. BARB engineering and environmental consultants November 29, 2018 Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 re: request for proposals—Ridge Place sanitary sewer improvement and streambank stabilization project Dear Mr. Ruzek: Barr Engineering Co. is pleased to submit our proposal to assist the City of Mendota Heights with improving the Ridge Place sanitary sewer and stabilize adjacent streambanks.We have been working with cities, wastewater and water utilities, water management organizations, and private industrial clients for more than 50 years to provide sanitary-sewer and streambank/slope design and construction oversight. We believe that Barr is the best partner for your projects because our: History of service that means you can count on getting the deliverables you need, when you need them. Barr has served the City of Mendota Heights directly or through the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization since 1988, providing a wide variety of engineering services to the city, with our role developing into a trusted-advisor capacity over the decades. Over the years,we've also provided similar work for many of the cities within the Twin Cities metropolitan area and numerous others across the state, including the cities of Eagan, Lilydale, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Burnsville, Lakeville, Apple Valley, Bloomington, Richfield, and Farmington. We'll work hard to continue earning your confidence and trust and will remain committed to solving your problems as if they are our own. We will listen carefully to you and provide regular updates.At no cost, Barr will create a client service plan to document your expectations, goals, and preferences (e.g., communications, billing, updates, report styles, etc.).You'll have easy access to your project team and, if needed, a broad bench of more than 450 other experts across all areas of engineering and environmental science—under one roof and just a short distance away in our Bloomington office. Hands-on experience with both sanitary sewer systems and streambank stabilization will result in cost-effective, long-term solutions that perform in real-world conditions. Barr has planned, designed, and overseen construction of numerous sanitary-sewer replacement and improvement projects for municipalities and utilities throughout Minnesota.As a company, we have worked for numerous clients on more than 400 sanitary sewer projects, ranging from the initial planning and design to construction and small-project maintenance of an 11-million-gallon-per-day wastewater treatment facility. Similarly, Barr has planned, designed, and overseen construction of numerous streambank stabilization projects.This diverse portfolio of projects ranges in complexity from minor stabilization projects to correction of significant erosion with major systemic issues in both urban and rural settings. Broad expertise and experience in stream and slope stabilization and restoration and sanitary sewer repairs mean that your project will be done right the first time. Your project requires a comprehensive approach that combines geotechnical, water-resources, geohydraulic, and structural expertise. Barr has more than 50 years of experience in such work. Our methods are informed by the site's geology and soil characteristics, hydrology, geomorphology, biology, water quality, and connectivity so that our engineering solutions align with the function and character of each project site.We understand why banks erode and sluff and why pipes settle and fail, and have designed hundreds of projects to correct such problems. Barr Engineering Co.4300 MarketPointe Drive,Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com page 67 Ryan Ruzek November 29,2018 Page 2 project understanding and approach sanitary sewer repair The City of Mendota Heights has decided to replace 70 feet of 27-inch sanitary-sewer interceptor pipe and MH26 due to what appears to be a sag in the system that is allowing it to plug. Barr is pleased to present our proposed scope of work and cost to design this replacement project and perform the construction oversight and project closeout. However,through our review of information included with the city's request for proposal, we have identified a number of inconsistencies and issues we would like to discuss with you in a kickoff meeting ahead of moving forward with design.These items include: ■ From the 2016 Ridge Place sanitary-sewer television report, a sag was identified in the sanitary-sewer pipe near and including MH26 (as numbered in the Foth draft memorandum), which is apparently the same as MH24 as numbered in the sewer as-built drawing 6655.The 6655 as-built drawing was not dated or signed, so it is unclear when the 27-inch reinforced-concrete pipe (RCP) sewer interceptor was constructed. We understand that it was likely built in the late 1960s. The profile drawing in the Foth memo does not show the sag; in fact, the pipe invert information in the memo indicates there may not be a sag. The pipe may have settled near MH26, but the current invert information indicates that there is a positive slope in the 27-inch interceptor pipe from MH27 to MH26 to MH25. ■ In comparing differences in elevation between the 6655 as-built drawing and the Foth memo, and based on our calculations, MH26 may have settled as much as 0.83 feet, creating only 0.2 inches of fall between MH26 and MH25—which is significantly flatter than the 6655 as-built drawing may indicate. ■ The television report indicates a sag of about 1.5 to 2 inches. It is not clear how this sag dimension was computed, how it was determined that a sag existed, or if the grease remaining in the invert of the pipe after it was mostly cleaned, along with the upstream water level, was interpreted as a sag. ■ The Foth memo suggests that 70 feet of pipe and MH26 be replaced because it is at a location where grease accumulated and created a blockage. The report does not indicate how frequently grease blockages have occurred. As your trusted advisor, Barr would like to briefly discuss these issues at a kickoff meeting. If the grease blockage has only occurred once since the system was constructed 50 years ago and the pipe appears to be in good condition, a thorough cleaning and more frequent monitoring and maintenance program (when needed) may be sufficient. In addition, the grease blockage may be occurring in this location because it has cooled to the point of congealing and may be less a result of a flatter slope or a sag. If that is the case, future blockage may occur in this location regardless of the pipe and manhole being replaced. However, if you would like to forgo this discussion and move directly into designing the replacement, that is also acceptable. The Foth memo suggests using fiberglass pipe and manhole to replace the 70 feet of pipe and MH26, presumably to lessen the likelihood of settlement in the future. However, the soil borings shown in the 6655 as-built drawing indicate that the water table is at orjust below the ground surface. Fiberglass pipe and manhole placed on lightweight may become buoyant and would need to be ballasted, strapped down, or otherwise attached to grade beams supported by piles. At this point, we have not determined which pipe material and construction procedure would be advised, as our determination will depend on what we find during the necessary soil exploration work we propose.The soil borings taken at the time the interceptor was designed did not include essential tests that are needed for our design. The soil borings shown in the as-built drawing 6655 did not include results of standard penetration (blow count) tests (SPT) to determine how compact the underlying soils are, or shear tests to determine soil strength. We propose placing three soil borings alongside the existing sewer interceptor—one approximately 40 feet upstream of MH26, one at MH26, and one approximately 40 feet downstream of page 68 Ryan Ruzek November 29,2018 Page 3 MH26. SPT will be performed, the water table will be noted, and select samples will be taken to a lab for strength testing. We will use Haugo Geotechnical Services for drilling and SET Laboratories in Bloomington for testing. Haugo indicated being able to place the borings during the week of December 3. GopherOne locates will take approximately 48 hours from the time of being called in.A Barr geotechnical staff member will prepare the soil exploration logs and take samples for laboratory testing. Our price for soil exploration and geotechnical design assumes that no snow removal will be required, that the city will provide ample access for a drill rig, and that any wheel ruts will be repaired during the construction work and not by the driller. Once the soils exploration and testing results are completed, we will advise you on our recommendation for pipe material, pipe support system, and construction procedures. For this proposal, we assume that the pipe foundation support will be performed by soil correction procedures and that our structural engineer will not be needed to design pile and grade beams.After we obtain your approval on project direction, we will begin pipe design, with the intention of completing the design by January 3, 2019, and will move into bidding by January 15, 2019. Construction support will begin when the contractor decides and permits are obtained (if any are needed). For cost considerations and speed of process, we plan to use the contract documents that we developed for Wentworth Park Pond, with modifications specific to the sanitary sewer replacement and stream stabilization project. stream stabilization The reach of stream to be stabilized is from the culvert discharge under Dodd Road to the end of the current easement on the 804 Ridge Place property. It is clear that this reach of stream was straightened years ago and that most of its natural meanders were removed. Based on a site visit, no significant systemic issues (like significant head cutting) are apparent, besides the historic straightening of the channel.The stream is now starting to cut new meanders, as evidenced by bank erosion alternating from bank to bank. The owner of 804 Ridge Place has expressed concern that increased flows from upstream development are causing the stream on his property to erode. It is Barr's understanding that,for this proposal,the city does not want to recreate a more naturally appearing meandering channel, but rather simply stabilize the stream in its current location.This is a relatively simple design that could involve reshaping the banks by minor grading where necessary, and installing techniques to armor banks or otherwise reduce erosion risk. Bank stabilization could involve either placement of riprap and filter armoring, a turf reinforcing material (TRM), or flow training techniques such as rock vanes. Cross vanes can also be used to elevate the streambed if necessary, directing flow into the center of the channel and creating pools with low velocities.We will discuss the pros and cons of each approach with you and the homeowner if you desire. If riprap and filter are the chosen approach for bank armoring, we suggest covering the riprap with topsoil and seeding it for aesthetic purposes. If TRM is chosen, seed will be placed before the TRM is installed, as well as over the top of the TRM. It is preferable to place seed and mulch hydraulically, during warm weather. A footbridge over the channel is not part of the design scope. scope of services and key delivery dates The scope of professional services Barr will provide include: ■ surveying streambank and thalweg ■ placing three soil borings and conducting lab tests on select soil samples ■ attending up to two project meetings and conducting other communications via email or telephone page 69 Ryan Ruzek November 29,2018 Page 4 ■ designing stream stabilization and restoration and sanitary-sewer replacement work ■ preparing plans, specifications, and contract documents by January 3, 2019 (this timeframe is aggressive and assumes that meetings and geotechnical data can be conducted swiftly and efficiently; if the upcoming holidays slow the schedule, we reserve the right to negotiate an extension to this deadline) ■ attending one city council meeting ■ posting the project on Quest website by January 15, 2019 ■ providing bidding support and contractor selection services ■ performing periodic on-site construction observation, contract management, and project closeout services permitting considerations The reach of Interstate Creek to be stabilized is not listed as a public water in the state's database.As such, Barr's scope of work and pricing assume that the stream stabilization and sanitary-sewer repair work will not require Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or U.S.Army Corps of Engineers permits. If such permits are necessary, we reserve the right to negotiate a change order to include added scope and cost for helping the city obtain those permits. In addition, if such permits are necessary, project construction will likely not occur during the winter months of 2019. Thank you for the opportunity to propose on this project.We appreciate your consideration and look forward to continuing to build our relationship with the City Mendota Heights. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us (sklein@barr.com, 952-832-2809;jmacejkovic@barr.com, 952-832-2693). Sincerely, Steve Klein, PE, PH Julie Macejkovic, PE Vice President, Principal in Charge Project Manager attachments: appendix A. project team bios appendix B. proposed cost attachment A project team bios project team bios Steve Klein, PE, PH Vice President, Senior Civil Engineer MBA; MS, Civil Engineering Steve has more than 40 years of experience in stormwater management;water resources management; hydrologic and hydraulic analysis;wastewater pumping, piping, and treatment; and water supply and wellhead protection for municipalities, counties, watershed districts, and water management organizations. He has served as the lead or principal in support engineer for more than 30 cities and a dozen watershed management charge, project organizations in Minnesota and South Dakota. In these roles, Steve's work has included manager urban and rural water-resources planning, feasibility studies, geomorphological assessments, natural stream and ravine stabilization and restoration, erosion control, watershed planning, water-quality enhancement, park development, and wetland mitigation. In addition, he has worked extensively on stream, high-gradient ravine, and major landslide stabilization and restoration projects. Steve has taught workshops in the design, construction, and maintenance of permanent erosion control practices for over 20 years, including aspects of stream and ravine stabilization and restoration. relevant project experience: ■ Blakeley Ravine stabilization; Scott County; principal in charge ■ State Aid Highway 1 Ravine stabilization; Scott County; principal in charge ■ Quarry Creek stabilization; Scott County; principal in charge ■ Utica Ravine stabilization; Scott County; principal in charge ■ Salisbury Hill Ravine stabilization; Scott County; principal in charge ■ pump station rehabilitation projects; cities of St. Paul and St. Louis Park; principal in charge • litigation services for sewer system and combined sewer-system backups; cities of Bettendorf, IA, and Woodville and Durand, WI; principal in charge, technical expert Julie Macejkovic, PE Senior Civil Engineer BS, Civil Engineering 7 Julie has 14 years of experience working on water, wastewater, and civil engineering projects. She designs municipal and industrial pump stations; inlet, collection, and h discharge systems; and other treatment components for stormwater and wastewater collection and treatment in addition to water supply and distribution.Julie also provides sanitary-sewer project management and construction administration, observation, inspection, and improvement permitting-related services. task lead relevant project experience: ■ Maple Island lift station improvements and Burnsville sanitary standardization; City of Burnsville; design engineer, construction observer ■ Ford Road lift station; City of St. Louis Park; project engineer(design and construction inspection) ■ Dakota Prairie Refinery site sanitary-sewer collection and pumping; Dakota Prairie Refinery (now Andeavor); planning, site layout, design engineer of record ■ Mouse River Perkett ditch pump station; Souris River Joint Board; design engineer of record Jeff Weiss, PE AaAm Senior Water Resources Engineer MS, Civil Engineering Jeff has 14 years of experience leading and assisting with natural stream restoration projects, performing one and two-dimensional hydraulic and hydrologic modeling, and -quality, stormwater-runoff, and flood-protection Ilk working on a broad range of water ='= projects. He has extensive experience in river hydraulics as well as stream classification and stream geomorphology, monitoring, and restoration. stabilization relevant project experience: task lead • Marie Creek feasibility study; Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization;task lead ■ Quarry Creek stabilization; Scott County; project manager ■ Blakeley Ravine stabilization; Scott County; project manager ■ Duluth streams assessment; City of Duluth; project manager ■ Pine Creek restoration and habitat improvement; Minnesota Trout Unlimited; technical lead ■ Nine Mile Creek geomorphic assessment, feasibility study, and design; Nine Mile Creek Watershed District; project manager ■ Purgatory Creek feasibility study and stabilization; Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District; project manager ■ Valley Creek stream restoration; Valley Creek Watershed District; technical lead • Riley Creek geomorphic assessment and feasibility study; Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District;technical lead Carl Sorensen, PE Geotechnical Engineer BS, Civil Engineering IL �, A Carl has seven years of experience working on geotechnical, environmental, and construction quality projects. He has served as project manager and project engineer for renewable-energy, mining, and other natural-resource-management clients in both the United States and Canada. Carl has provided geotechnical engineering services on geotechnical numerous wind power projects and has conducted seepage and slope stability analyses for investigation tailings basin dams. specialist relevant project experience: ■ 1-35W stormwater storage facility; Minnesota Department of Transportation; field investigation manager ■ 64th Street outfall rehabilitation; City of Inver GroveHeights;field investigation manager • infiltration pond study; City of Brooklyn Park; geotechnical engineer attachment B: proposed cost page 74 Project Name: Mendota Heights streambanK and sanitary sewer repair Client Name: City of Mendota Heights BAR R Date: 11-28-18 Approved by: SMK Subtotal Contingency Project Percentage Labor Expenses % Total of Total Job 1 Streambank design survey $ 1,930.00 $ 1,500.00 $ - $ 3,430.00 60%design $ 5,750.00 $ - $ 5,750.00 100%design $ 3,530.00 $ - $ 3,530.00 permitting $ 715.00 $ - $ 715.00 Subtotal $ 11,925.00 $ 1,500.00 $ - $ 13,425.00 36% Job 2 Geotech investigation Geotech investigation $ 2,530.00 $ 3,000.00 $ - $ 5,530.00 Subtotal $ 2,530.00 $ 3,000.00 $ - $ 5,530.00 15% Job 3 Sanitary Design 60%design $ 5,720.00 $ - $ 5,720.00 100%design $ 2,560.00 $ - $ 2,560.00 Subtotal $ 8,280.00 $ - $ - $ 8,280.00 22% Job 4-Const docs and biddin Construction docs $ 4,800.00 $ - $ 4,800.00 Bidding $ 1,395.00 $ - $ 1,395.00 Subtotal $ 6,195.00 $ - $ - $ 6,195.00 17% Job 5-Const Obs On-site observation $ 2,835.00 $ - $ 2,835.00 close-out $ 1,225.00 $ - $ 1,225.00 Subtotal $ 4,060.00 $ - $ - $ 4,060.00 11% Project Subtotal $ 32,990.00 $ 4,500.00 $ - $ 37,490.00 Contingency% Project Total $ 37,490.00 page 75 5k. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 4, 2022 TO: Mayor, Council, and City Administrator FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police/Emergency Manager SUBJECT: Criminal Justice Network(CJN) Joint Powers Agreement INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to pass a resolution 2022-05, approving the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Criminal Justice Network(CJN) Board. BACKGROUND For over twenty years, Mendota Heights has been a member of a cooperative partnership that addresses the needs of criminal justice information, technology, and data transfer between the Mendota Heights Police Department and our criminal justice partners. CJN provides criminal justice networking through products like scheduling, field based reporting, and our records management system. Additionally, CJN provides a secure rile sharing and transfer system to route data to the necessary destinations like courts,jail, probation, and social services. The products developed and implemented by CJN are well respected and there are a number of criminal justice agencies across the state that use CJN services on a fee system. Currently, CJN is under the purview of Dakota County and the staff are county employees. Operations decisions and goals are generally made by members of a board authorized through a current JPA with Dakota County. Members of the board include Dakota County Sheriff's office, police agencies from Burnsville, Farmington, Hastings,Mendota Heights, South St.Paul,West St. Paul, and Rosemount. Over the past 5 years, issues of operational efficiency made it clear that CJN needed to move from a county function to an entity run by a JPA. A workgroup was formed with members who included the Chief of Hastings PD,the County Attorney,the Chief Deputy of the Sheriff's Office,the Chief of South St. Paul PD, Burnsville City Manager, and the CJN Executive Director. The work group produced and negotiated the draft joint powers agreement attached for City Council approval. BUDGET IMPACT Costs associated with our participation in CJN are included in the 2022 budget. ATTACHED: 0 Draft Joint Powers Agreement page 76 ACTION REQUESTED If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion pass Resolution 2022-05, APPROVING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE NETWORK BOARD. page 77 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2022-05 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE NETWORK BOARD WHEREAS,pursuant to Minnesota statute 471.59,political subdivisions in the State of Minnesota are empowered to provide assistance to, and act in coordination with, other political subdivisions as deemed necessary to benefit the public; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement wish to jointly and cooperatively provide for the establishment, operations and maintenance of technology systems and services to support criminal justice agencies and information management systems for the use and benefit of the parties and others; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement wish to create and establish a joint powers entity and joint powers board referred to as the Criminal Justice Network to collaboratively accomplish their mutual goals of improving and supporting criminal justice agency information management systems and capabilities; and WHEREAS,the City of Mendota Heights has participated faithfully and successfully with criminal justice entities since 2001. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights does hereby approve the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Criminal Justice Network Board. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fourth day of January 2022. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 78 Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Criminal Justice Network Board page 79 Table of Contents Contents RECITALS................................................................................................................................................... .......4 ARTICLE 1 Statement of Purpose and Powers to be Exercised............................................................................4 ARTICLE2 Definitions............................................................................................................................................4 ARTICLE 3 Term and Effective Date ..................................................................................................... .......5 ARTICLE 4 Manner of Exercising Powers................................................................. ARTICLE5 Membership.........................................................................................................................................5 5.1 Initial Members.............................................................................................................................................5 5.2 Additional Members.....................................................................................................................................5 5.3 Requirement of Good Standing....................................................................................................................6 ARTICLE6 Joint Powers Board ..............................................................................................................................6 6.1 Establishment of the Board..........................................................................................................................6 6.2 Powers of the Board.....................................................................................................................................6 6.3 Board Representatives and Vacancies..........................................................................................................7 6.4 Board Governance—Officers............................................•...........................................................................7 6.5 Board Governance—Voting..........................................................................................................................8 6.6 Board Committees......................................................................................................................... 6.7 Board Meetings.............................................................................................................................................8 ARTICLE7 Executive Director................................................................................................................................8 ARTICLE 8 Budget And Funding.............................................................................................................................8 8.1 Fiscal Year.....................................................................................................................................................8 8.2 Recommended Annual Budget.....................................................................................................................8 8.3 Member Contributions to Adopted Budget............................................................................... 8.4 Expenditure of the Annual Budget.............................................................................................................10 8.5 Criminal Justice Network Fund Balance Transfer.......................................................................................10 8.6 In-Kind Contributions..................................................................................................................................10 8.7 Legal Services..............................................................................................................................................10 8.8 Credit or Payment to Members for Services..............................................................................................10 ARTICLE9 Audit.............................................................................I.......--.---------.--.---. ...10 ARTICLE 10 Termination And Dissolution.............................................................................................................11 10.1 Termination. ...............................................................................................................................................11 10.2 Effect of Termination..................................................................................................................................11 CJN JPA Page 2 of 22 07.14.21 page 80 10.3 Distribution of Assets................................................................................................ .............................11 ARTICLE 11 Withdrawal Of A Member.................................................................................................................11 11.1 Unilateral Withdrawal.................................................................................................................................11 11.2 Effect of Withdrawal...................................................................................................................................11 ARTICLE 12 Insurance And Indemnification .........................................................................................................12 12.1 Responsibility for Own Acts and Omissions................................................................................................12 12.2 No Waiver...............................................................................................•..............................---.--...............12 12.3 Indemnification...........................................................................................................................................12 12.4 Insurance ....................................................................................................................................................12 12.5 Uninsured Liability........................................................................... ..........................................................13 ARTICLE 13 Intellectual Property..........................................................................................................................13 ARTICLE 14 Miscellaneous Provisions.................................................................................................................134 14.1 Amendments. .............................................................................................................................................14 14.2 Governing Law and Venue..........................................................................................................................14 14.3 Counterparts...............................................................................................................................................14 CJN JPA Page 3 of 22 07.14.21 page 81 This Joint Powers Agreement(as amended from time to time,this "Agreement") is entered into between the undersigned parties (also referred to herein as "Members"), all being political subdivisions of the State of Minnesota, by and through their respective governing bodies. RECITALS WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat §471.59, political subdivisions in the State of Minnesota are empowered to provide assistance to, and act in coordination with, other political subdivisions as deemed necessary to benefit the public;and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement wish to jointly and cooperatively provide for the establishment,, operation and maintenance of technology systems and services to support criminal justice agencies and information management systems for the use and benefit of the parties and others; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement wish to create and establish a joint powers entity and joint powers board referred to as the Criminal Justice Network to collaboratively accomplish their mutual goals of improving and supporting criminal justice agency information management systems and capabilities. NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and benefits that each Party shall derive here from, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 Statement of Purpose and Powers to be Exercised The purpose of this Agreement is: (1) to establish CJN, a joint powers entity to provide information management systems and technology services to support criminal justice agencies for the use and benefit of the Members and others; (2) to provide personnel benefits for the employees of CJN; (3) to define the rights and obligations of the Members with respect to the establishment, operation and maintenance of CJN;and (4) to provide a forum for discussion, study, development and implementation of recommendations of mutual interest regarding criminal justice processes, information systems and integration of criminal justice information systems. ARTICLE 2 Definitions 2.1 "Board" means the Criminal Justice (CJN)joint powers board formed by this Agreement. 2.2 "Criminal Justice Network" or "Uhl" means the joint powers entity formed by this Agreement. 2.3 "initial Member" is a governmental unit that executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date and created the Criminal Justice Network (CJN) Board. 2.4 "Law Enforcement Agency" means a unit of state, local government, or federally-recognized tribe that is authorized by law to grant full powers of arrest and to charge a person with the duties of preventing and detecting crime and enforcing the general criminal laws of any state, and/or incarcerating individuals.This includes, without limitation: municipal police departments, ON JPA Page 4 of 22 07.14.21 page 82 county sheriff departments (both patrol and jail functions),the Minnesota Department of Corrections,the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and the Minnesota State Patrol. 2.5 "Member" means an Initial Member and each additional governmental unit satisfying the requirements of Section 5.2 after the Effective Date of this Agreement but excluding any governmental unit that has withdrawn from the Agreement pursuant to Article 11 hereof. 2.6 "Membership Fee" means the amount of the operating and capital costs of ON that is charged to an individual Member for a fiscal year. 2.7 "Supermajority" means two-thirds(66.7%) of the Board representatives. 2.8 "System Fees" means the amount of money a Member or non-Member pays to access and use the systems and applications developed or purchased by ON or services provided by ON. ON shall not charge System Fees to the County for its non-Law Enforcement Agency users during the Initial Term of this Agreement. A Member's System F, is in addition to the Member's annual Membership Fee. 2.9 "Total Membership Fees" means the total amount of the operating and capital costs of ON that is approved by the Board and charged to all Members for each fiscal year to assist in funding the total costs of ON. 2.10 "Withdrawing Member" means a Member that has given notice of its intent to withdraw from the Agreement pursuant to Section 11.1. ARTICLE 3 Term and Effective Date This Agreement is effective, and the joint powers entity is established, on January 1, 2022, referred to herein as the Effective Date, and shall continue until December 31, 2027, or until terminated as provided in Article 10 or as required by law or court order("Initial Term"). ARTICLE 4 Manner of Exercising Powers The joint powers of the Members will be exercised through the Board having the powers and duties described herein. The Board is authorized to exercise the joint powers on behalf of and in cooperation with the Members as provided herein. ARTICLE 5 Membership 5.1 Initial Members.The Initial Members are the County of Dakota ("County"), the City of Burnsville, the City of Farmington,the City of Hastings,the City of Inver Grove Heights, the City of Mendota Heights,the City of Rosemount, the City of South St. Paul, and the City of West St. Paul. 5.2 Additional Members. In addition to the Initial Members, any governmental unit as defined in Minn. Stat. §471.59 that maintains a Law Enforcement Agency is eligible to become a Member, subject to the prior approval of the Board, by: CJN JPA Page 5 of 22 07.14.21 page 83 A. Executing and delivering to the Board a counterpart signature page to this Agreement, indicating its acceptance of the terms and conditions hereof; and B. Satisfying such other conditions mandated by the Board at the time as a condition to becoming a Member, and payment of a Membership Fee. 5.3 Requirement of Good Standing. Continued membership in ON is contingent upon the payment by each Member of the annual Membership Fees as determined by the Board. After being given notice and 30 calendar days to cure any default for non-payment of fees, Members who are not in good standing may be terminated from this Agreement by a Supermajority vote of the Board. Members who are involuntarily terminated by the Board shall not act to discharge any liability incurred or chargeable to the Members before the effective date of termination,and the terminated Member is not entitled to any distribution of assets or fees paid, all as stated in Section 11.2. ARTICLE 6 Joint Powers Board 6.1 Establishment of the Board.The parties hereby establish the Board as a joint powers board, which shall jointly exercise such powers and authorities as are necessary to achieve its purposes as provided in Article 1. The Board shall be an entity separate from the parties and shall not be deemed to be an agent or partner of the parties to this Agreement. 6.2 Powers of the Board.The Board shall have the following powers and duties: A. To take actions necessary and convenient to discharge the duty to implement, maintain and operate the systems and applications necessary for the continuation of ON and its integration of information systems for criminal justice agencies; B. To adopt bylaws and rules or policies consistent with this Agreement that are required to effectively exercise the powers or accomplish the objective of ON; C. To adopt an annual operating and capital budget, including a statement of sources of funding and allocation of costs to the Members; D. To enter into contracts in its own name, including contracts to purchase materials,goods, or services and contracts to provide its Members and non-Members with access and use of systems and applications developed or purchased by ON and other services provided by CJ N; E. To establish processes for setting and charging System Fees; F. To acquire, lease, hold and dispose of property, both real and personal including transfer of property from a Member to ON; G. To arrange with one or more of the Members to incur debt or issue bonds for the benefit of CJN, as permitted by law; H. To develop, acquire,operate and maintain applications and systems for criminal justice agencies to improve operational efficiencies, integrate information between criminal justice agencies, including those systems acquired jointly and cooperatively for the benefit of the Members; I. To hire, discipline, or discharge employees required to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, including employing an Executive Director and delegating personnel authority to the Executive Director; ON JPA Page 6 of 22 07.14.21 page 84 J. To purchase any insurance or indemnity or surety bonds as necessary to carry out this Agreement and purpose of CJN; K. To seek, apply for, and accept appropriations, grants, gifts, loans of money, or other assistance as permitted by law from any person or entity, whether public or private; L. To commence any type of legal action or proceeding permitted by law to protect CJN's property and interests; M. To exercise all powers necessary and incidental to carrying out the purposes set forth in Article 1 of this Agreement; N. To contract with a Member or third party for auditing,financial, human resources, information technology, risk management, legal, and other services as needed for ON; and 0. To approve contracting and purchasing policies for ON. 6.3 Board Representatives and Vacancies. A. Board Creation and Composition. The Board shall consist of one Board representative from each of the Members who is appointed by the respective head of the Member's Law Enforcement Agency. Each Member shall also be entitled to appoint an alternate Board representative,who shall act for the Board representative during that individual's absence. In addition, for the Initial Term of this Agreement,the County's Board of Commissioners is entitled to appoint one Board representative and one alternate. This Agreement at times uses the term "Board representative"to refer to both a Board representative and that representative's alternate. B. Board Compensation. Board representatives shall serve without compensation from ON, but this shall not prevent a Member from providing compensation for a Board representative if such compensation is authorized by the Member and by law. C. Representative Terms. The terms of each Board representative will be established in the Board's bylaws. Any Board representative shall be subject to removal by the appointing Member at any time, with or without cause. If any Board representative is removed by the appointing Member,the vacancy shall be filled by that appointing Member. A Board representative's term terminates at such time as the individual ceases to be a member of the governing body of the applicable Member or an employee of the applicable Member. 6.4 Board Governance—Officers. At its first meeting, and its first regular meeting of each subsequent year, the Board shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair from among the Board representatives. The Chair and Vice Chair shall be elected by the Board for one-year terms. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Board and shall perform other duties and functions as may be determined by the Board. The Vice Chair shall preside over and act for the Board during the absence of the Chair. 6.5 Board Governance—Voting. A. Actions of the Board will be taken by vote of the Board in which each Board representative shall have one equal vote. Proxy voting is not permitted.The Board shall function by a majority of the Board representatives present at the time of the vote. B. Decisions of the Board will be made by a majority of the votes cast except where Supermajority is required. ON JPA Page 7 of 22 07,14.21 page 85 C. A Board representative shall not be entitled to vote on behalf of the Member during the time that such Member is in default on any contribution to CJN or on any contract with CJN. During the existence of such default, the vote or votes of such Member shall not be counted as eligible votes. 6.6 Board Committees.The Board may appoint standing committees, ad hoc committees and workgroups,with the powers described in the Board's bylaws or in resolutions adopted to establish the committee or workgroup. 6.7 Board Meetings.The Board shall meet as set forth in the bylaws adopted by the Board or upon a call of the Board Chair.All meetings of the Board shall comply with Minnesota Statutes Ch. 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. ARTICLE 7 Executive Director CJN shall have a chief operating officer with the title Executive Director. The Executive Director shall be the administrative head of CJN and shall report to the Board and the Executive Committee, if the Board creates one, for the administration and operation of CJN. The Executive Director shall be an employee of CJN.Any vacancy in the office of the Executive Director shall be filled as soon as possible after the effective date of such vacancy. In the case of absence or disability of the Executive Director,the Board may designate any other qualified person to carry out the duties of the Executive Director during such absence or disability. ARTICLE 8 Budget and Funding 8.1 Fiscal Year.The fiscal year for CJN shall be the calendar year. 8.2 Recommended Annual Budeet.The annual budget of CJN must be adopted in the following manner: A. The Executive Director shall prepare a proposed annual operating and capital budget for the following fiscal year for consideration by the Board no later than April 11t of each year; B. Annually, prior to April 1st the Executive Director shall deliver to each Board representative a copy of the proposed budget; C. Annually prior to May 1st, the Board will supply each Member with a proposed budget for the following fiscal year; and D. The annual budget for the following fiscal year shall be adopted at a meeting of the Board in June. If the Board fails to adopt a budget by July 1st,the budget from the current fiscal year shall be deemed approved for the next fiscal year. This requirement to adopt a budget at a regular meeting of the Board by July 1st does not apply to the calendar year in which this Agreement is first executed; however,the Board shall adopt a budget for the first fiscal year of this Agreement at its first Board meeting in 2022. ON JPA Page 8 of 22 07.14.21 page 86 8.3 Member Contributions to Adopted Budget, A. The Board shall have the authority to fix cost sharing charges for all Members in an amount sufficient to provide the funds required for CJN's operational and capital costs in the budget. B. The CJN annual budget (Total Membership Fees) will be comprised of a minimum of two funding components: Operations and Records Management System (RMS). During the Initial Term,the County will contribute a fixed annual subsidy in the amount of $472,642.00, which shall constitute the County's annual Total Membership Fees, except for Membership Fees assessed to the Dakota County Sheriff's Office pursuant to this section.There will be no annual adjustment of the subsidy amount. C. City Members and the Dakota County Sheriff's Office shall contribute to the Operations fund in proportional share based on the population of the geographical areas for which it provides law enforcement services determined as of July 1 of the previous fiscal year, except for fiscal year 2022. For purposes of this section,the geographical area for which the Sheriff's Office provides law enforcement services means that area outside the boundaries of all cities located within Dakota County, but includes the area within the boundaries of the cities of Coates, Hampton, Miesville, New Trier, Randolph and Vermillion. For fiscal year 2022,the contribution from each of those Members for the Operations fund shall be: City of Burnsville 20.0% City of Farmington 6.0% City of Hastings 7.6% City of Inver Grove Heights 8.9% City of Mendota Heights 6.2% City of South St Paul 7.0% City of West St Paul 12.4% Dakota County Sheriff's Office 25.6% City of Rosemount 6.2% County of Dakota 0.0% D. The RMS funding component of the CJN annual budget is to be utilized to pay for costs associated with the following items: (1) RMS maintenance and support of ProPhoenix; (2) the development fund; (3) escrow to maintain ProPhoenix RMS code in a secure location; and (4) staff support. The City Members and the Dakota County Sheriff's Office shall contribute equally to the RMS fund for the costs associated with items (1)through (3). For costs associated with staff support, the City Members and the Dakota County Sheriff's Office shall contribute to the RMS fund based on their proportional total number of users determined as of July 1 of the previous fiscal year, except for fiscal year 2022. For fiscal year 2022, the contribution from each of those Members for the RMS fund shall be as follows: City of Burnsville 29% City of Farmington 10% City of Hastings 10% City of Inver Grove Heights 16% City of Mendota Heights 5% City of South St Paul 10% City of West St Paul 10% CJN JPA Page 9 of 22 07.14.21 page 87 Dakota County Sheriff's Office 10% City of Rosemount 9% County of Dakota 0% The Board may authorize an additional funding component as necessary to generate reserve funds in the event the Members amend the term of this Agreement beyond the Initial Term. F. Upon adoption of the budget by the Board, each Member is obligated to make payments to CJN for the Member's Membership Fees for the following fiscal year in accordance with this Article, except as adjusted to account for withdrawal of a Member consistent with Article 11. 8.4 Expenditure of the Annual Budget. A. The Board may establish procedures and limitations as may be necessary to preserve the integrity and purpose of the approved operating and capital budget (Total Membership Fees). After adoption of the annual operating and capital budget by the Board, the Executive Director shall make all expenditures in accordance with such budget. Purchases and letting contracts shall be done in accordance with procedural guidelines established by resolution of the Board, consistent with Minnesota law. B. The Executive Director shall have the power to transfer funds within the total annual operating budget in order to meet unanticipated needs or changed situations. The Executive Director shall not transfer funds within the total annual capital budget or between the operating budget and capital budget. The Executive Director shall report any transfer of funds within the annual operating budget to the Board in the next report. 8.5 Criminal Justice Network Fund Balance Transfer. The County will transfer to CJN all funds in the County's CJN Operations (C)N-OPS) account and in the County's CJN Records Management System (CJN-RMS) account. 8.6 In-Kind Contributions.The Board may accept in-kind contributions from any Member_The County will provide CJN with certain in-kind contributions,which will be subject to, and governed by, the terms of one or more contracts with CJN. 8.7 Legal Services.The Dakota County Attorney's Office ("DCAO") will provide CJN with general legal advice on issues such asJPA governance, data practices, and contract and policy review at no cost during the Initial Term, except that during the Initial Term, CJN shall pay the DCAO for the costs of litigation at the DCAO's current hourly rate for paralegals and attorneys,and for actual costs incurred associated with litigation.The DCAO's provision of legal services to CJN will be subject to the terms of a separate legal services agreement. 8.8 Credit or Payment to Members for Services.The Board may approve annual fee payment or cost allocation credits to any Member that provides in-kind contributions to CJN. ARTICLE 9 Audit The Board shall call for an annual audit of the financial affairs of CJN,to be performed by an independent Certified Public Accountant and completed in accordance with generally accepted auditing CJN JPA Page 10 of 22 07.14.21 page 88 principles. The Board shall provide a copy of the audit report to the Members. CJN's books, reports and records shall be available for and open to inspection by the Members at all reasonable times. ARTICLE 14 Termination and Dissolution 10.1 Termination. This Agreement shall terminate upon the occurrence of any one of the following events: A. When Members withdraw pursuant to Article 11 so that in the judgment of the Board it becomes impractical or uneconomical to continue to operate under this Agreement; a. When necessitated by operation of law or as a result of a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction;or C. When a Supermajority agrees, pursuant to a resolution of the governing bodies of the Members, to terminate this Agreement. 10.2 Effect of Termination. Termination shall not discharge any liability incurred by the Board or by the Members during the term of this Agreement. Each Member shall be liable for its own acts and for the acts of the Board to the extent provided by law. Property or surplus money acquired by the Board shall be distributed to the Members in proportion to their contributions. The Board shall approve a final report of its activities and affairs. 10.3 Distribution of Assets. Prior to termination of this Agreement or if ON is otherwise disbanded, the Board shall first adopt a plan providing for the orderly disposition of assets and unwinding of agreements of the Board. Such plan shall provide that following the disposition of any assets owned by the Board and the payment of all obligations of the Board, any funds remaining shall be distributed to the remaining Members who have not previously withdrawn consistent with the approved plan. ARTICLE 11 Withdrawal of a Member 11.1 Unilateral Withdrawal. A. No Member may withdraw from this Agreement during the Initial Term. If the term of the Agreement is extended, a Member may withdraw by providing notice to withdraw to the Board Chair at least eighteen (18) months prior to the withdrawal date, with a copy of a resolution of its governing body indicating its intent to withdraw from this Agreement. B. Upon receipt of the notice to withdraw and the resolution of the governing body of a Member authorizing withdrawal,the Board Chair shall forward a copy of the resolution to all other Members. C. The notice to withdraw shall be made by Registered or Certified Mail to CJN's primary office, in each case, return receipt requested and postage prepaid, which is deemed to have been provided upon receipt as indicated by the date on the signed receipt, certification, or affidavit.The Board Chair may accept notice of withdrawal by more informal means, only if authorized in writing signed by the Board Chair. 11.2 Effect of Withdrawal. Withdrawal of any Member shall not terminate this Agreement except as provided in Section 10.1. Withdrawal shall not act to discharge any liability incurred or CJN JPA Page 11 of 22 07,14.21 page 89 chargeable to any withdrawing Member before the effective date of withdrawal. Such liability shall continue until appropriately discharged by law or agreement. No withdrawing Member shall be entitled to a refund or distribution of Membership Fees, administrative or operating fees or funds paid, reimbursement or repayment of in-kind contributions, or forgiveness of fees owed to the Board. ARTICLE 12 insurance and Indemnification 12.1 Responsibility for Own Acts and Omissions. No Member shall be liable for the acts or omissions of another Member, unless it has specifically agreed in writing to be responsible for the same. 'Each Member acknowledges and agrees that it is insured or self-insured consistent with the limits established in Minnesota State Statutes. Each Member agrees to promptly notify all Members if it becomes aware of any potential Board-related claims or facts that are likely to give rise to such claims. Neither the Board nor any Member shall have the power to do any act or thing the effect of which is to create a charge or lien against the property or revenues of the Board or another Member,except as expressly provided herein or in any of the documents authorized herein. 12.2 No Waiver. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the terms of this Agreement are not to be construed as, nor operate as,waivers of a Member's statutory or common law immunities or limitations on liability, including but not limited to, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. Further,the Members' obligations set forth in this Agreement are expressly limited by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and Minnesota Statutes section 471.59, and any other applicable law or regulation providing limitations, defenses or immunities to the Members and the Board. For purposes of determining total liability for tort damages, each Member and the Board are considered a single governmental unit and the total liability for all of the Members and the Board shall not exceed the limits on governmental liability for a single governmental unit as specified under Minnesota Statutes Section 466.04, Subd. 1, or as waived or extended by the Board or all Members under Minnesota Statutes Sections 466.06 or 471.981. 12.3 Indemnification.The Board shall be considered a separate and distinct government joint powers entity to which the Members have transferred all responsibility and control for actions taken pursuant to this Agreement. The Board shall comply with all laws and rules that govern a public entity in the State of Minnesota and shall be entitled to the protections of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. Without limiting the application of Section 12.1, to the extent of any liability insurance carried by the Board and available for such purpose, and any tail coverage carried by the Board,the Board shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless each Member from any and all liability arising from or as a result of: (i) any accident, injury to or death of any person or loss or damage to tangible or intangible property that may be directly or indirectly caused by the acts or omissions of the Board; (ii) any act of the Board in the observation or performance of any of its responsibilities, or any failure by the Board to perform any such responsibilities;and/or(iii) any actions or inactions of Members taken as a result of their membership on the Board. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to provide liability coverage or indemnification to an officer, employee, or volunteer of any Member for any act or omission for which the officer, employee, or volunteer is guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith. ON JPA Page 12 of 22 07.14.21 page 90 12.4 Insurance.The Board shall provide for worker's compensation benefits for all CJN employees in the amount consistent with state statutes. The Board may also carry additional policies of insurance as it deems appropriate. 12.5 Uninsured Liability. If the Board incurs liability that is in excess of the insurance obtained by the Board, or incurs liability that is outside the coverage of such insurance,the liability shall be distributed among the Members on the basis of each Member's proportional Membership in the year in which the action or inaction giving rise to the liability occurred. ARTICLE 13 Intellectual Property A. The County, through its existing Criminal Justice Network Department, has developed and owns all right,title and interest to software (hereafter"Software") enabling web-based information sharing and tracking between authorized criminal justice agencies. These criminal justice agencies include law enforcement agencies, the Dakota County Attorney's Office, Dakota County Community Corrections, Dakota Communications Center,judicial organizations and related agencies as well as their authorized users. The Software is accessed and implemented through a number of applications including, but not limited to: Administration Case Management eBriefing • eForms • Gun Permits Integration Services Jail Transportation Management System • Scheduling Search Subscription B. Concurrent with the execution of the Agreement and formation of the new CJN,the County, acknowledging that it has received sufficient consideration from CIN, agrees to assign all rights,title and interest in the Software to CJN. This assignment specifically includes all intellectual property (hereafter"IP") related to the Software including, but not limited to, any copyrights, source code, proprietary databases, online forms, user interfaces, user lists, fee sheets,trade secrets and trademarks, presently owned by the County that are related to and exclusive to implementation and use of the Software. This IP includes any registered or unregistered IP and includes IP arising out of state or federal law. The assignment specifically excludes any third-party databases and non- transferrable licenses to which the County lacks sole ownership or the ability to transfer ownership. The assignment also excludes any County owned databases that are non- exclusive to the implementation and use of the Software. C. Following execution of the Agreement, CJN shall be responsible for entering into any third-party agreements including licensing or other related agreements related to third- party databases and related third-party tools necessary for full implementation and use of the Software. ON JPA Page 13 of 22 07.14.21 page 91 D. CJN acknowledges its familiarity with the Software and that as of the execution of the Agreement,the Software is in usable condition, satisfies all operational conditions and accomplishes its intended purpose. Upon assignment of the Software to CJN, CJN will assume responsibility for all future costs and expenses related to maintenance, revisions, updates and future developments of the Software as well as any on-going support of third-party users of the Software. F. Upon assignment of the Software, CJN will assume responsibility for any and all costs related to ensuring and monitoring compliance and proper use of the Software by the Members, authorized third parties and their designated users. C. CJN agrees to establish and implement policies and procedures so as to ensure that use of the Software by the Members, third-party users and their authorized users complies with all applicable Federal, State and Local laws. H. Upon assignment of the Software to CJN, CJN will assume all liabilities and responsibilities, both criminal and civil, regarding use of the Software by the Members, third-party users and all of their authorized users. I. CJN agrees to utilize best industry practices in maintaining the on-going confidentiality and security of the Software so as to prevent unreasonable access to all portions of the Software by non-authorized users. J. In the event that CJN is otherwise disbanded or terminated during the Initial Term, CJN agrees, absent any other agreement,to reassign all rights, title and interest in the Software to the County. ARTICLE 14 Miscellaneous Provisions 14.1 Amendments. This Agreement may be amended at any time and from time to time by agreement of all Members that have not previously withdrawn pursuant to Article 11. 14.2 Governing Law and Venue. The laws of the State of Minnesota govern all matters related to this Agreement, without giving effect to the principles of conflict of law.Venue and jurisdiction for any litigation related to this Agreement must be in those courts located within Dakota County, State of Minnesota or U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. 14.3 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the Members in any number of counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Members has caused this agreement to be executed on its behalf as of the date(s) written below. COUNTY OF DAKOTA, MIN SOTA p R Oy Its County Manager AppFave s to form (7�isi ounty Attorn Date File No. KS-21-16 CJN SPA Page 14 of 22 07.14.21 page 92 D. CJN acknowledges its familiarity with the Software and that as of the execution of the Agreement, the Software is in usable condition, satisfies all operational conditions and accomplishes its intended purpose. Upon assignment of the Software to CJN, CJN will assume responsibility for all future costs and expenses related to maintenance, revisions, updates and future developments of the Software as well as any on-going support of third-party users of the Software. F. Upon assignment of the Software, CJN will assume responsibility for any and all costs related to ensuring and monitoring compliance and proper use of the Software by the Members, authorized third parties and their designated users. G. CJN agrees to establish and implement policies and procedures so as to ensure that use of the Software by the Members,third-party users and their authorized users complies with all applicable Federal, State and Local laws. H. Upon assignment of the Software to CJN, CJN will assume all liabilities and responsibilities, both criminal and civil, regarding use of the Software by the Members, third-party users and all of their authorized users. 1. CJN agrees to utilize best industry practices in maintaining the on-going confidentiality and security of the Software so as to prevent unreasonable access to all portions of the Software by non-authorized users. J. In the event that CJN is otherwise disbanded or terminated during the Initial Term, CJN agrees, absent any other agreement;to reassign all rights, title and interest in the Software to the County. ARTICLE 14 Miscellaneous Provisions 14.1 Amendments. This Agreement may be amended at any time and from time to time by agreement of all Members that have not previously withdrawn pursuant to Article 11. 14.2 Governing Law and Venue. The laws of the State of Minnesota govern all matters related to this Agreement, without giving effect to the principles of conflict of law.Venue and jurisdiction for any litigation related to this Agreement must be in those courts located within Dakota County, State of Minnesota or U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. 14.3 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the Members in any number of counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Members has caused this agreement to be executed on its behalf as of the dates)written below. COUNTY OF DAKOTA, MINNESOTA By Its Approved as to form Assistant County Attorney Date File No. KS-21-16 CJN JPA Page 14 of 22 07.14.21 page 93 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA Its: Date: ON!PA Page 19 of 22 07.14.21 page 94 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota 51. 651.452.1850 phone � 651. www.mendota-heights.com of If W CITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS Request for City Council Action DATE: January 4,2022 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council, City Administrator Jacobson FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Joint Powers Agreement for Open to Business Program thru Dakota County Community Development Agency—Years 2022 and 2023 INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to consider approving a Joint Powers Agreement with the Dakota County Community Development Agency ("CDA"), as part of the "Open to Business Program", which is sponsored by the CDA and the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers("MCCD"). BACKGROUND The CDA and the 11 largest cities in Dakota County launched Open to Business ("OTB") in 2013, a program that provides business advisory services and access to capital for entrepreneurs and small businesses in Dakota County. The participating cities and CDA share the cost of the program. The CDA enters into a Joint Powers Agreement with the 11 participating cities to act as the fiduciary agent and to administer the contract with the MCCD,the OTB's non-profit service provider. The OTB Program offers a professional business consultant (through the MCCD), who is available for walk-in appointments and can help plan and work through small business challenges. This service is free to any Mendota Heights business or resident. Natalie Mouilso is the full-time OTB business advisor who works exclusively in Dakota County. Ms. Mouilso provides one-on-one technical assistance to local business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs on a wide range of topics including: business plan development, strategic planning, feasibility analysis, marketing,networking,licensing, and cash flow and other financial projection development. Last year, OTB provided professional assistance with one dairy technology start-up venture; and assisted with strategic planning,financial consultation and marketing strategies to three existing businesses(a music academy, a martial arts studio, and a real estate office)in the community. BUDGETIMPACT The cost for the Open to Business program for 2022 is$150,000,per year,which fee is spread out between the 11 consortium cities and based on the size of the community. For the City of Mendota Heights,the FY 2022 fee (and 2023 fee) is calculated at$5,600, of which the city pays only one-half($2,800), while the CDA provides the other $2,800 half with matching county funds. This OTB contract funds are allotted under the Community Development budget. page 95 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council adopt a motion APPROVING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE 2022 — 2023 OPEN TO BUSINESS PROGRAM; authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to enter into the joint powers agreement with Dakota County; and authorize shared funding of this program not to exceed$2,800 per contract year. ACTION REQUESTED No resolution is required. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 96 o z p.E y ti o 0 0 0 0 C c S 3 0 a o 0 0 x a o 0 0 d C n 0 v c ao o d - _ a E 0 a a E F t2 Y Y m C m r w O w O w O t 0 « - z - - o"s - E.- page 97 Contract for Services for the Open To Business Program THIS AGREEMENT is dated , and is between the Dakota County Community Development Agency ("CDA") and Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation ("MCCD"). WHEREAS, the CDA, on behalf of itself and the 11 political subdivisions of the State of Minnesota listed on Exhibit A here to (the "Local Government Entities"), which each have powers with respect to a city with a population over 10,000 (collectively the "Municipalities"), wishes to engage MCCD to render services under the model known as "Open To Business," an initiative providing small business technical assistance and capital to existing businesses and residents and other parties interested in opening a business within Dakota County (the"County") (the"Initiative"); and WHEREAS, MCCD has successfully provided the services required to administer and carry out the Initiative in Dakota County from 2013 —2021; and WHEREAS,pursuant to CDA Resolution No. 21-6500, adopted on December 14, 2021 (the "Resolution"), the CDA is authorized to enter into this agreement with MCCD for the Initiative; and WHEREAS,pursuant to the Resolution and certain joint powers agreements to be entered into between the CDA and the Local Government Entities"the "Joint Powers Agreements"), the CDA will act as fiscal agent for the Local Government Entities in connection with this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the CDA will pay from its own funds 50% of the fee charged by MCCD for the Initiative in the Municipalities and 100% of the fee charged by MCCD for the Initiative in the small cities and townships within the County with populations less than 10,000 residents ("Small Cities and Townships"), as further described herein and in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Joint Powers Agreements, the Local Government Entities will be required to pay a Participation Fee to the CDA in accordance with the schedule in Exhibit A, representing the remaining 50% of the fee charged by MCCD for the Initiative in the Municipalities. Now therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows" TIME OF PERFORMANCE The term of this Agreement and the period during which MCCD will provide services hereunder will commence upon the first day of January 2022, and automatically renew January 1, 2023. This agreement will terminate on December 31, 2023, subject to earlier 1 page 98 termination as provided herein. MCCD will perform services necessary to carry out the Initiative as promptly as possible, and with the fullest due diligence. COMPENSATION The CDA will compensate MCCD for its services hereunder an amount equal to One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) ("Contract Amount"). The CDA will pay such amount in two equal installments, the first no earlier than March 1st and the second no earlier than September 301h, upon receipt of invoices from MCCD. Subject to the limits above,payments will be due within 15 days of receipt of the respective invoices. The portion of the Contract Amount payable from Participation Fees will be payable by the CDA only from and to the extent such Participation Fees are paid by the respective Local Government Entities. In the event a Local Government Entity does not pay the CDA its Participation Fee in amounts and by deadline described in Exhibit A, the CDA will notify MCCD, and MCCD will immediately cease the Initiative in that Municipality. Upon such termination, the Contract Amount will be reduced by an amount equal to the Participation Fee which such Local Government Entity did not pay and the amount the CDA would have paid as a matching payment. SCOPE OF SEVICES MCCD will provide technical assistance and access to capital to existing businesses, residents and those parties interested in starting a business in any of the Municipalities, Small Cities, and Townships within Dakota County as further described on Exhibit B and Exhibit C hereto, which sets forth the Dakota Open To Business Program Scope of Services. REPORTING MCCD will submit quarterly reports to the CDA in form and substance acceptable to the CDA. Reports will provide information in the agreement for County and will include a sub-report for each Municipality and each of the Small Cities and Townships Reports will include the following information: ➢ Number of inquiries, entrepreneurs, and businesses served ➢ Hours of technical assistance provided ➢ Hours of dedicated program (including but not limited to—city initiatives,program outreach,public events, city meetings, research, client follow-up, general inquiries) ➢ Type of business/industry ➢ Annual sales revenue ➢ Number of businesses opened 2 page 99 ➢ Number of businesses expanded/stabilized ➢ Number and amount of financing packages ➢ Demographic information on entrepreneurs ➢ Business city and/or resident city The required reporting schedule is as follows: 1st quarter January —March, report due April 30th 2nd quarter April—June, report due July 31 st 3rd quarter July— September, report due October 31 st 4th quarter October—December, report due January 31 st In addition to the foregoing, MCCD will provide additional reports as reasonably requested by the CDA or Local Government Entities. Client confidentiality being a core component of the service model, MCCD will not typically report specific client/business information in its regular reporting, However, where permission from the client, MCCD will produce profiles of successful clients for publication dissemination and media release. PERSONNEL MCCD represents that it has, or will employ or contract for, at its own expense, all personnel required to perform the services necessary to carry out the Initiative. Such personnel will not be employees of, or have any contractual relationship with, the County, the CDA, or any of the Local Government Entities. No tenure or any other rights or benefits, including worker's compensation, unemployment insurance, medical care, sick leave, vacation pay, severance pay, or any other benefits available to County, CDA, or any of the Local Government Entities' employees shall accrue to MCCD or employees of MCCD performing services under this Agreement. MCCD is an independent contractor. All of the services required to carry out the Initiative will be performed by MCCD and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized or permitted under State and local law to perform such work. Natalie Mouislo shall be the dedicated MCCD Initiative advisor for the County, CDA, and Local Government Entities for the duration of this Agreement. If there are material' changes to Ms. Mouilso's position with MCCD during the time of this Agreement, the CDA will be informed by MCCD immediately. 'Material is defined as any event or events that would prohibit Ms.Mouislo from being the full-time Initiative Advisor for Dakota County. 3 page 100 USE OF CDA OFFICE SPACE The CDA will make available a cubicle space for MCCD personnel at the CDA office building for use by MCCD in carrying out the Initiative. MCCD personnel will have access to the CDA meeting rooms, wireless internet services, copy machines, and printers. MCCD personnel shall comply with all CDA office rules and policies regarding the use of CDA office space, equipment, and internet access. If the CDA, in its sole direction, determines that MCCD personnel has failed to comply with CDA office rules and policies, MCCD personnel will be required to vacate the CDA office and the CDA will cease to provide MCCD office space to carry out the Initiative. INTEREST OF MEMBERS OF THE CDA AND OTHERS No officer, member, or employee of the CDA and no member of its governing body, and no other public official or governing body of any locality in which the Initiative is situated or being carried out, who exercises any functions or responsibilities in the review or approval of the undertaking or carrying out of the Initiative, will participate in the decision relating to this Agreement which affects he/she is, directly or indirectly, interested or has any personal or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement. ASSIGNABILITY MCCD will not assign any interest in this Agreement and will not transfer any interest in the same without the prior written approval of the CDA. COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LAWS MCCD agrees to comply with all federal laws, statutes, and applicable regulations of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the Local Government Entities. INSURANCE General Terms. In order to protect itself and to protect the CDA under the indemnity provisions set forth above Contractor shall, at Contractor's expense, procure and maintain a policy of Professional Liability (PL) insurance covering the term of this Contract. Such policy of PL insurance shall apply to the extent of, but not as a limitation upon or in satisfaction of,the indemnity provisions herein. All retentions and deductibles under such policies of insurance shall be paid by Contractor. Each such policy of insurance shall contain a clause providing that such policy shall not be cancelled by the issuing insurance company without at least 30 days' written notice to the CDA of intent to cancel. Certificates. Prior to or concurrent with execution of this Contract, Contractor shall file certificates of such policies of insurance with the CDA. Failure to Provide Proof of Insurance. The CDA may withhold payments or immediately terminate this Contract for failure of Contractor to furnish proof of insurance coverage or to comply with the insurance requirements as stated above. INDEMINFICATION MCCD agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, the CDA, the Local Government Entities, and each of their respective officials, agents, volunteers and 4 page 101 employees from any liability, claims, causes of action,judgements, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of MCCD, its subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by MCCD or any if its subcontractors, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions MCCD may be liable in the performance of the services required by this Agreement, and against all loss by reason of failure of MCCD to perform any obligation under this Agreement. NOTICES A notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by mail,portage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and (a) In the case of MCCD is addressed or delivered personally to: Tyler Hilsabeck Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers 3137 Chicago Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55407 (b) In the case of the CDA is addressed or delivered personally to: Lisa Alfson, Director of Community and Economic Development Dakota County Community Development Agency 1228 Town Centre Drive Eagan, MN 55123 Or at such other address with respect to any party as that party may designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section. MODIFICATION This Agreement may not be modified, changed, or amended in any manner whatsoever without the prior written approval of all the parties hereto. NON-DISCRIMATION In connection with its activities under this Agreement, MCCD will not violate any Federal or State laws against discrimination. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION Failure of the MCCD to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement to the satisfaction of the CDA will constitute in a default hereunder. If a default occurs, MCCD will have 60 days to cure any and all defaults and come into compliance with this Agreement. MCCD will immediately notify the CDA of any default. MCCD and the CDA will develop agreed upon milestones that must be met within the 60-day period to avoid cancellation of this Agreement. 5 page 102 The primary default would be the loss of Ms. Mouilso as the dedicated MCCD Initiative advisor. If Ms. Mouilso is no longer the dedicated MCCD Initiative advisor, MCCD will be expected to meet the following milestones within the 60-day period— 1. MCCD will inform the CDA within 48 hours of Ms. Mouilso's employment departure notice. 2. The name and contact information of the interim MCCD Initiative advisor for Dakota County will be shared with CDA and Local Government Entities within three business days of Ms. Mouilso's departure notice. 3. MCCD will continue to actively work with Dakota County clients on a full-time basis in the event of a default and respond to client communication in a timely manner as defined elsewhere in this Agreement. 4. MCCD will continue to track and input client data to ensure the quarterly report is accurate when generated (see REPORTING section,page 2, for details). 5. MCCD staff, including the interim MCCD Initiative advisor, will meet with CDA staff weekly (at a minimum)to provide updates on clients, Initiative work in Dakota County, etc. Local Government Entities will be invited to these meetings. 6. MCCD will continue to actively market the MCCD Initiative in the same capacity as prior to the default. 7. Hiring a new dedicated MCCD Initiative advisor for Dakota County is not expected within 60 days of the default; however, steps to securing a new, qualified, full-time MCCD Initiative advisor will occur within the 60 days. Steps taken to secure a new advisor will be regularly communicated to CDA. If a default is not remedied in 60 days, and/or the agreed upon milestones are not met within the 60 days, the CDA may cancel this Agreement in its entirety by five additional days' written notice to MCCD. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations between the parties and their performance. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation will be those courts located within the County. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the parties will be in the appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be affected. 6 page 103 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: Tony Schertler, Executive Director Date: MCCD By: Printed Name: Elena Gaarder Printed Title: Chief Executive Officer Date: page 104 Exhibit A 2022 & 2023 Local Government Entity Annual Participation Fee Schedule Municipality Local Government Total CDA Local Government Entity Fee Share of Entity Participation Fee Fee Lakeville City of Lakeville $18,900 $9,450 $9,450 Eagan Eagan Economic Development $18 900 $9,450 Authority $9,450 Burnsville Burnsville Economic $18,650 $9,325 $9,325 Development Authority Apple Valley Apple Valley Economic $16 200 $8 100 Development Authority $8,100 Inver Grove Inver Grove Heights Economic Heights Development Authority $13 000 $6 500 $6,500 Rosemount Rosemount Port Authority $10,400 $5,200 $5,200 Farmington Farmington Economic $10,300 $5,150 $5,150 Development Authority Hastings Economic Hastings Development and $10,300 $5,150 $5,150 Redevelopment Authority South St. Paul South St. Paul Economic $10,100 $5,050 $5,050 Development Authority West St. Paul West St. Paul Economic $10,100 $5,050 $5,050 Development Authority Mendota City of Mendota Heights $5,600 $2,800 $2,800 Heights Small Cities n/a $7,550 $7,550 $0 and Townships Total $150,000 $78,775 $71,225 8 page 105 Exhibit B Dakota Open To Business Program Scope of Services Open To Business ("OTB") Technical Assistance Services MCCD will provide intensive one-on-one technical assistance to Municipalities' and Small Cities' and Townships' businesses, residents and aspiring entrepreneurs intending to establish, purchase, or improve a business in Municipalities and Small Cities and Townships within Dakota County. MCCD will dedicate one full time staff person based in Dakota County to provide the Technical Assistance Services ("Dakota OTB Staff'). In addition, MCCD will make available the expertise of all MCCD technical and support staff in the delivery of services to Dakota Open to Business Program. Technical assistance includes, but is not limited to, the following: ➢ Business plan development ➢ Feasibility analysis ➢ Marketing ➢ Cash flow and other financial projection development ➢ Operational analysis ➢ City and State licensing and regulatory assistance ➢ Loan packaging, and other assistance in obtaining financing ➢ Help in obtaining competent legal advice MCCD Dakota OTB Staff will be available to meet clients at the CDA office building, various Municipality city halls or at the client's place of business. During the COVID-19 pandemic, MCCD Dakota OTB staff will only meeting clients in-person if the MCCD Dakota OTB staff are comfortable; otherwise, client meetings will be held virtually and/or on the phone. Open To Business Access to Capital Access to capital will be provided to qualifying businesses through MCCD's Emerging Small Business Loan Program (see Exhibit C Small Business Loan Program Guidelines below). MCCD also provides it's financing in partnership with other community lenders, banks or Local Government Entities interested in making capital available to residents and/or businesses in their community. 9 page 106 EXHIBIT C Small Business Loan Program Guidelines Loan Amounts: • Up to $25,000 for start-up businesses • Larger financing packages for established businesses • Designed to leverage other financing programs as well as private financing provided by the commercial banking community. Eligible Proiects: • Borrowers must be a"for-profit" business. • Business must be complimentary to existing business community. • Borrowers must have equity injection as determined by fund management. Allowable Use of Proceeds: • Loan proceeds can be used for working capital, inventory, building and equipment and general business operations. Interest Rates: • Loan interest rate is dependent on use, term and other factors, not to exceed 7%. Loan Term Length: • Loan repayment terms will generally range from three to five years, but may be substantially longer for major asset financing such as commercial property. Fees and Charges: • Borrowers are responsible for paying all customary legal and other loan closing costs. 10 page 107 5m. Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: January 4, 2022 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein,Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: November 2021 Fire Synopsis COMMENT: Fire Calls: In November the Fire Department was paged for service a total of 23 times. Mendota Heights 17 calls Lilydale 2 calls Mendota 1 call(s) Sunfish Lake 1 call(s) Other 2 calls Types of calls: Fires: 1 In November, the Fire Department responded to a vehicle fire in the parking lot of the Plaza shopping center. Upon arrival, a vehicle with its engine compartment fully involved was found. Engine 10's crew extinguished the fire. The tender was also used for traffic control. Medical/Extrication: 3 The department responded to two medical calls. Another call was for assistance to help a person out of an elevator that was stuck. Hazardous Situations: 4 The MHFD was paged to a carbon monoxide call in a residence where it was confirmed that there was carbon monoxide present. One call was for a tree that had blown into the power lines causing arcing. There was a power outage in the area as well. The other two calls were to investigate the smell of natural gas inside a building. False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 8 In November, the department responded to eight calls that were false calls due to varying reasons. One call was deemed to be malicious in intent where a standpipe in a stairwell was opened up allowing water to pour out and to cause a fire alarm in an apartment building. In the other cases, there were three calls deemed to be system malfunctions, two unintentional trips, a fire suppression system that had developed a leak causing water to "charge" the normally dry system, and an additional call due to an air page 108 compressor not working (due to a power outage) causing it's dry system to "charge" with water. Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 5 Five times the department was cancelled before we arrived on scene. (These numbers do not include any mutual/auto aid requests that cancelled pre-arrival). Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 2 Tender 10 was requested to assist the Hastings Fire Department with a fire in a field but later the request was cancelled before the Tender was able to leave the station. The MHFD was also paged to an auto-aid request to South Metro Fire (in West St Paul) for a possible fire in an apartment building that ended up being burnt food at which Mendota Heights units were quickly cleared. Training: November 10 18:30 Forcible Entry Mandatory 3 (Option 1) This mandatory drill is dedicated to knowing forcible entry procedures and hands on practice with making forcible entry into different types of structures. Different types of door props and different equipment was utilized. November 11 07:00 Forcible Entry Mandatory 3 (Option 2) This mandatory drill is dedicated to knowing forcible entry procedures and hands on practice with making forcible entry into different types of structures. Different types of door props and different equipment was utilized. November 17 18:30 SCBA Mandatory 4 (Option 1) This mandatory drill had several stations going over the use, care, and donning of our SCBA (airpac's). In addition, it also had a team drill with no visibility where firefighters must locate SCBA pieces, assemble them, share air supplies amongst the group, and then complete their escape from the structure. November 22 18:30 Ice/ Cold Water Rescue This drill was done on Rogers Lake utilizing our new Rapid Deployment Craft that can be carried onto a lake and inflated where needed. This year the ice had just begun to form allowing for ideal ice rescue scenarios. November 23 07:00 Ice/ Cold Water Rescue This drill was done on Rogers Lake utilizing our new Rapid Deployment Craft that can be carried onto a lake and inflated where needed. This year the ice had just begun to form allowing for ideal ice rescue scenarios. MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 2021 MONTHLY REPORT page 109 Number of Calls 23 Total Calls for Year 311 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED: NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC. TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure-MH Commercial $73,000 Structure-MH Residential $0 Structure-Contract Areas $0 Cooking Fire-confined $200 Vehicle-MH 1 $9,000 $500 $113,000 Vehicle-Contract Areas $250 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $9,000 $500 $0 Excessive heat,scorch burns MEDICAL FIRE LOSS TOTALS Emergency Medical/Assist 2 Vehicle accident w/injuries Extrication 1 ALL FIRES,ALL AREAS (MONTH) $9,500 Medical, other HAZARDOUS SITUATION Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents $200 Spills/Leaks Carbon Monoxide Incident 1 Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous $113,000 Power line down Arcing,shorting 1 Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date $186,200 Hazardous, Other 2 SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal Contract Areas Loss to Date $250 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other GOOD INTENT LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Good Intent Dispatched &Cancelled 5 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare Mendota Heights 17 235 234 HazMat release investigation Lilydale 2 17 14 Good Intent, Other Mendota 1 8 13 FALSE ALARMS Sunfish Lake 1 13 17 False Alarm Other 2 38 35 Malfunction 3 Unintentional 2 Total: 23 311 313 False Alarm, other 3 MUTUAL AID 2 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH Total Calls 23 Inspections Investigations WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year Re-Inspection Fire Calls 284 4785 4867.75 Meetings 27 338.5 690 Meetings Training 482.5 4023.8 2449 Special Activity 12 909.5 717.75 Administration Fire Marshal 0 508 47 Plan Review/Training TOTALS 805.5 10565 8771.5 TOTAL: 0 page110 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 5n. TREASURER'S REPORT NOVEMBER 2021 BALANCE COLLATERAL Deerwood Bank Checking Account .03% $36,594.72 Collateral - Bonds $3,240,000.00 Gov't Guar. $200,000.00 Investments Cost PV Saving Cert 7/27/2020 @ 1.50% Cherokee $14,064.33 $14,064.33 FHLMC 0.32% 11/24/23 $225,000.00 $223,843.50 Federal Farm Credit Bank Bond 0.31% 11/30/23 $490,000.00 $486,246.60 FHLB 0.25% 10/14/25 $500,000.00 $492,575.00 FHLB 0.40% 2/25/26 $340,000.00 $333,992.20 FHLB 0.50% 3/16/26 $505,000.00 $498,955.15 FHLB 0.65% 6/30/26 $300,000.00 $295,947.00 FHLB .50% 8/26/26 $250,000.00 $246,925.00 Morgan Stanley Bank 1.70% 12/27/21 $245,000.00 $245,284.20 Wells Fargo Bank 1.80% 1/18/22 $125,000.00 $125,275.00 Ally Bank 1.70% 1/24/22 $245,000.00 $245,578.20 Axos Bank 1.55% 3/28/22 $245,000.00 $246,119.65 Comenity Bank 2,25% 07/18/22 $200,000.00 $202,094.00 Capital One Bank 2.05% 8/15/22 $245,000.00 $248,199.70 Capital One 2.05% 8/15122 $245,000.00 $248,199,70 Bank Hapoalim BM NY 0.20% 11/17/22 $200,000.00 $199,826.00 Eaglemark Savings Bank .20%4/28/23 $245,000.00 $244,343.40 BMW Bank America 0.40%a 9/26/23 $245,000.00 $244,637.40 Webbank 0.55% 11/29/23 $110,000.00 $110,063.80 Bank United .45% 4115/24 $245,000.00 $243,770.10 UBS Bank USA 0.35%6/24/24 $245,000.00 $242,599.00 Texas Exchange Bank 0.50% 7/9/24 $247,000.00 $245,399,44 Toyota Financial Savings Bank ,55%0 8/5/24 $245,000.00 $243,510.40 Morgan Stanley Private Bank 0.40% 3/20/25 $245,000.00 $242,270.70 JP Morgan Chase Bank 0.50% 7/30/25 $245,000.00 $245,110.25 Sallie Mae Bank 1.00% 7/8126 $144,000.00 $142,953.12 Goldman Sachs Bank 1.05% 9/22/26 $160,000.00 $158,934.40 State Bank of India 1.10% 9/28/26 $245,000.00 $243,909.75 Fidelity Institutional Government Portfolio (Piper) $10,484,748.12 $10,484,748.12 Gov't. Securities Fund 28% Sold 6/4 $433,187.00 MMkt Fd (WF) $3,011.40 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 11/30/2021 $17,952,605.57 Funds Available 1/1/2021 $19,834,685.05 Rates Monet/ Market November Bank 0.03%a 5 Yr. Tr. 1.14% 10 Yr, Tr. 1.43% page111 TD Ameritrade Account Equipment Certificates Bond Proceeds) Cash $940,002.05 Total for TD Ameritrade Account $940,002.05 page 112 50. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com m{ CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: January 4, 2022 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: Claims List Summary BACKGROUND SilZnificant Claims ,. Condon Court Exchange—Settlement 2535 Condon Coma $ 45,129.18 Met Council Environmental Services—SAC & Sewer Charges $ 129,993.75 US Bank—Monthly Purchases $ 5,883.75 Great River Greening—Invasive Species Services $ 6,878.00 Minify Energy—Public Works Lighting Project $ 4,980.00 Northfield Solar—Utilites $ 5,561.05 Pioneer Engineering—Wentworth Warming House Services $ 5,000.00 Savatree—Tree Services $ 4,155.00 TKDA—Ivy Falls/Centre Pointe Street Project Work $ 31,783.42 Manual Checks Total $ 219,911.45 System Checks Total $ 124,929.04 Total for the list of claims for the January 4,2022 city council meeting $ 344,840.49 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the list of claims for January 4, 2022. page113 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 12/29/21 12:54 PM Page 1 Claims List MANUAL CHECKS 12/28/21 MAN Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name B C A-BTS E 01-4490-070-70 BACKGROUND CHECKS Parks&Recreation $45.00 E 01-4490-070-70 BACKGROUND CHECKS Parks&Recreation $120.00 Search Name B C A-BTS $165.00 Search Name CONDON COURT EXCHANGE R 15-3320 SETTLEMENT 2535 CONDON C $2,485.00 E 15-4490-060-60 SETTLEMENT 2535 CONDON C Utility Enterprise $42,644.18 Search Name CONDON COURT EXCHANGE $45,129.18 Search Name I C M A RETIREMENT 457 G 01-2072 12/24/21 PAYROLL $1,650.00 G 01-2073 12/24/21 PAYROLL $150.00 Search Name I C M A RETIREMENT 457 $1,800.00 Search Name METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT SVC R 15-3615 NOV SAC -$74.55 R 15-3320 NOV SAC $7,455.00 G 15-1215 JAN SEWER SERVICE $122,613.30 Search Name METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT SVC $129,993.75 Search Name NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION G 01-2072 12/24/21 PAYROLL $50.00 Search Name NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION $50.00 Search Name PUBLIC EMPL INS PROGRAM G 08-1215 JAN 2022 HEALTH INSURANCE $549.20 G 01-1215 JAN 2022 HEALTH INSURANCE $36,155.26 Search Name PUBLIC EMPL INS PROGRAM $36,704.46 Search Name U. S. BANK E 01-4421-050-50 SALT MIXER-STREET Road&Bridges $8.38 E 01-4306-020-20 NATIONAL PEN CO-PD Police $416.11 E 01-4421-050-50 SALT MIXER-STREET Road&Bridges $47.74 E 01-4306-020-20 HOLSTER SUPPLIES-PD Police $264.70 E 01-4330-440-20 EQUIP REPAIR-PD Police $105.35 E 01-4421-050-50 SALT MIXER-STREET Road&Bridges $21.34 E 01-4490-109-09 MTG SUPPLIES-CITY COUNCI City Council $40.96 E 01-4421-050-50 SALT MIXER-STREET Road&Bridges $33.31 E 01-4300-105-15 OFFICE SUPPLIES-ENGINEERI Engineering Enterprise $34.99 E 01-4421-050-50 SALT MIXER-STREET Road&Bridges $9.49 E 01-4421-050-50 SALT MIXER-STREET Road&Bridges $66.44 E 01-4402-030-30 ZOOM -FIRE Fire $16.06 E 01-4421-050-50 SALT MIXER-STREET Road&Bridges $32.90 E 01-4305-020-20 EVIDENCE ROOM SUPPLIES-P Police $35.95 E 01-4421-050-50 SALT MIXER-STREET Road&Bridges $69.71 E 01-4421-050-50 SALT MIXER-STREET Road&Bridges $14.98 G 01-1215 IACP NET SUBSCRIPTION SERV $825.00 E 01-4421-050-50 SALT MIXER-STREET Road&Bridges $38.78 E 01-4410-020-20 UNIFORM-PD Police $364.99 E 01-4421-050-50 SALT MIXER-STREET Road&Bridges $17.60 E 01-4330-215-70 NATIONAL REGISTER PLAQUES Parks&Recreation $558.47 E 01-4421-050-50 SALT MIXER-STREET Road&Bridges $3.23 E 01-4421-050-50 SALT MIXER-STREET Road&Bridges $9.70 page 114 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 12/29/21 12:54 PM Page 2 Claims List MANUAL CHECKS 12/28/21 MAN Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01-4300-020-20 OFFICE SUPPLIES-PD Police $42.99 E 01-4300-110-10 HR POSTERS-ADMIN Administration $70.90 E 08-4280-000-00 WASTE DISPOSAL-CITY HALL Spec Fds $13.84 E 01-4421-050-50 SALT MIXER-STREET Road&Bridges $9.70 E 45-4330-490-45 EQUIP REPAIR-PAR 3 Golf Course $567.75 E 01-4435-200-70 CAMERA-RECREATION Parks&Recreation $53.51 E 08-4335-000-00 FACE MASKS-CITY HALL Spec Fds $99.90 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $18.84 E 01-4300-105-15 OFFICE SUPPLIES-ENGINEERI Engineering Enterprise $17.64 E 01-4305-070-70 SUPPLIES-PW Parks&Recreation $129.98 E 01-4305-020-20 EVIDENCE ROOM SUPPLIES-P Police $126.50 E 15-4305-060-60 SUPPLIES-PW Utility Enterprise $129.98 E 04-4610-000-00 SQUAD EQUIPMENT-PD Spec Fds $399.99 E 01-4330-215-70 SIGNS-PARKS Parks&Recreation $29.71 E 45-4305-045-45 PENCILS- PAR 3 Golf Course $256.89 E 01-4223-020-20 NOV 2021 TRANSUNION SERVI Police $75.00 E 01-4305-050-50 SUPPLIES- PW Road&Bridges $129.98 E 04-4610-000-00 SQUAD EQUIPMENT-PD Spec Fds $94.26 E 01-4490-110-10 MTG SUPPLIES-ADMIN Administration $14.99 E 01-4410-020-20 UNIFORM-PD Police $139.98 E 01-4490-020-20 PARKING- PD Police $8.63 E 01-4305-024-20 SUPPLIES-PD Police $57.96 E 01-4490-020-20 TITLE FEES-PD Police $21.01 E 01-4400-020-20 BCA TRAINING-E. HAGELEE Police $25.00 E 01-4400-070-70 TREE INSPECTOR CERTIFICATI Parks&Recreation $50.00 E 01-4300-020-20 OFFICE SUPPLIES-PD Police $213.37 E 04-4610-000-00 SQUAD EQUIPMENT-PD Spec Fds $49.27 Search Name U. S. BANK $5,883.75 Search Name XCEL ENERGY E 45-4211-047-45 UTILITIES Golf Course $30.04 E 45-4212-046-45 UTILITIES Golf Course $74.82 E 45-4211-046-45 UTILITIES Golf Course -$20.57 E 01-4211-320-70 UTILITIES Parks&Recreation $56.23 E 01-4211-320-70 UTILITIES Parks&Recreation $12.62 E 01-4211-320-70 UTILITIES Parks&Recreation $17.55 E 01-4211-320-70 UTILITIES Parks&Recreation $14.62 Search Name XCEL ENERGY $185.31 $219,911.45 page115 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 12/29/21 12:52 PM Page 1 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 01/04/22 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name ALLEGRA PRINT&IMAGING G 01-2010 BUSINESS CARDS-PD $61.97 Search Name ALLEGRA PRINT&IMAGING $61.97 Search Name ALLSTREAM G 01-2010 12/15/21-1/14/22 TELEPHONE $52.18 G 01-2010 12/15/21-1/14/22 TELEPHONE $52.18 G 15-2010 12/15/21-1/14/22 TELEPHONE $343.58 G 01-2010 12/15/21-1/14/22 TELEPHONE $210.01 Search Name ALLSTREAM $657.95 Search Name ARAMARK(AMERIPRIDE SERVICES) G 15-2010 MAT SERVICE-PW $10.00 G 01-2010 MAT SERVICE-PW $10.00 G 01-2010 MAT SERVICE-PW $10.00 G 01-2010 UNIFORM-PW $10.82 G 01-2010 MAT SERVICE-PW $11.87 G 15-2010 MAT SERVICE-PW $11.88 G 01-2010 MAT SERVICE-PW $11.87 G 01-2010 UNIFORM- PW $10.82 Search Name ARAMARK(AMERIPRIDE SERVICES) $87.26 Search Name ASPEN MILLS G 01-2010 UNIFORMS-PW $469.05 G 01-2010 UNIFORMS-FIRE $103.90 G 01-2010 UNIFORMS-FIRE $62.93 G 01-2010 UNIFORMS-FIRE $52.95 Search Name ASPEN MILLS $688.83 Search Name BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD E 01-4131-050-50 2021 HEALTH INSURANCE PRE Road&Bridges $4,472.71 E 01-4131-070-70 2021 HEALTH INSURANCE PRE Parks&Recreation $3,022.19 G 01-2071 2021 HEALTH INSURANCE PRE $535.20 Search Name BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD $8,030.10 Search Name CENTRAL IRRIGATION SUPPLY G 01-2010 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET $3.36 Search Name CENTRAL IRRIGATION SUPPLY $3.36 Search Name CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQ G 15-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-UTILIT $1,232.00 Search Name CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQ $1,232.00 Search Name CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS G 01-2010 EQUIP REPAIR-FIRE $1,097.51 Search Name CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS $1,097.51 Search Name DAKOTA COMMUNICATIONS CENTER E 01-4275-030-30 JANUARY 2022 DISPATCH Fire $758.99 E 01-4275-020-20 JANUARY 2022 DISPATCH Police $22,523.01 Search Name DAKOTA COMMUNICATIONS CENTER $23,282.00 Search Name DELTA DENTAL E 08-4131-000-00 ]AN 2022 DENTAL PREMIUM Spec Fds $44.60 page 116 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 12/29/21 12:52 PM Page 2 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 01/04/22 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01-4131-105-15 JAN 2022 DENTAL PREMIUM Engineering Enterprise $133.80 E 01-4131-070-70 JAN 2022 DENTAL PREMIUM Parks&Recreation $294.70 E 01-4131-050-50 JAN 2022 DENTAL PREMIUM Road&Bridges $393.50 E 01-4131-020-20 JAN 2022 DENTAL PREMIUM Police $1,000.40 E 01-4131-110-10 JAN 2022 DENTAL PREMIUM Administration $482.70 G 01-2071 JAN 2022 DENTAL PREMIUM $348.90 G 01-2074 JAN 2022 DENTAL PREMIUM $920.80 E 15-4131-060-60 JAN 2022 DENTAL PREMIUM Utility Enterprise $232.60 Search Name DELTA DENTAL $3,852.00 Search Name EYE MED E 01-4131-020-20 JAN 2022 PREMIUM Police $60.75 G 01-2071 JAN 2022 PREMIUM $20.22 E 01-4131-050-50 JAN 2022 PREMIUM Road&Bridges $20.22 E 01-4131-105-15 JAN 2022 PREMIUM Engineering Enterprise $5.13 E 01-4131-070-70 JAN 2022 PREMIUM Parks&Recreation $5.13 E 01-4131-110-10 JAN 2022 PREMIUM Administration $34.59 E 15-4131-060-60 JAN 2022 PREMIUM Utility Enterprise $24.84 Search Name EYE MED $170.88 Search Name FISHING FOR ALL LLC E 01-4435-200-70 2/6/22 INTRO ICE FISHING-W Parks&Recreation $400.00 Search Name FISHING FOR ALL LLC $400.00 Search Name FLEET SERVICES G 01-2010 NOV 2021 SQUAD LEASES- PD $5,276.61 Search Name FLEET SERVICES $5,276.61 Search Name FLEETPRIDE G 01-2010 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET $39.50 G 01-2010 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET $84.88 G 01-2010 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET $40.44 G 01-2010 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET $219.79 Search Name FLEETPRIDE $384.61 Search Name FOTH INFRASTRUCTURE&ENVIRON G 29-2010 STORM WATER UTILITY $1,150.00 Search Name FOTH INFRASTRUCTURE&ENVIRON $1,150.00 Search Name FURTHER(SELECT ACCOUNT) G 01-2010 DEC 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE $4.50 G 01-2010 DEC 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE $40.10 G 01-2010 DEC 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE $6.75 G 01-2010 DEC 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE $9.00 G 08-2010 DEC 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE $2.25 G 01-2010 DEC 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE $19.45 Search Name FURTHER(SELECT ACCOUNT) $82.05 Search Name GRAINGER G 08-2010 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL $98.76 Search Name GRAINGER $98.76 Search Name GREAT RIVER GREENING G 01-2010 INVASIVE SPECIES- PARKS $6,878.00 page117 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 12/29/21 12:52 PM Page 3 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 01/04/22 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name GREAT RIVER GREENING $6,878.00 Search Name GREEN2 SOLAR LEASING, LLC E 01-4213-050-50 JAN 2022 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Road&Bridges $115.50 E 01-4213-030-30 JAN 2022 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Fire $149.96 E 01-4213-030-30 JAN 2022 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Fire $173.26 E 45-4213-045-45 JAN 2022 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Golf Course $159.52 E 01-4213-070-70 JAN 2022 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Parks&Recreation $57.75 E 01-4213-050-50 JAN 2022 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Road&Bridges $57.75 E 15-4213-060-60 JAN 2022 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Utility Enterprise $57.75 E 01-4213-070-70 JAN 2022 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Parks&Recreation $115.50 E 08-4213-000-00 JAN 2022 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Spec Fds $362.28 E 15-4213-060-60 JAN 2022 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Utility Enterprise $115.50 Search Name GREEN2 SOLAR LEASING, LLC $1,364.77 Search Name HANCO CORPORATION G 01-2010 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS $129.40 Search Name HANCO CORPORATION $129.40 Search Name HEINES FLOOR COVERING INC G 08-2010 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL $275.00 Search Name HEINES FLOOR COVERING INC $275.00 Search Name HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES G 08-2010 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL $13.96 G 15-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-UTILIT $148.00 Search Name HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES $161.96 Search Name HOSE INC G 01-2010 SALT MIXER-STREET $95.57 Search Name HOSE INC $95.57 Search Name I A F C E 01-4404-030-30 2022 MEMBERSHIP-D. DREEL Fire $215.00 Search Name I A F C $215.00 Search Name INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS G 01-2010 OFFICE SUPPLIES-ADMIN $26.37 G 01-2010 SUPPLIES-REC $9.98 G 01-2010 OFFICE SUPPLIES-ADMIN -$14.24 G 01-2010 OFFICE SUPPLIES-ADMIN $163.88 G 01-2010 OFFICE SUPPLIES-PD $73.06 Search Name INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS $259.05 Search Name IRON MOUNTAIN RECORDS MGMT G 01-2010 DEC 2021 SHREDDING-ADMI $45.70 G 01-2010 DEC 2021 SHREDDING-PD $84.78 Search Name IRON MOUNTAIN RECORDS MGMT $130.48 Search Name J.J. KELLER&ASSOCIATES, INC. G 01-2010 SAFETY PUBLICATIONS-ADMI $13.44 G 01-2010 SAFETY PUBLICATIONS-ADMI $1,008.00 Search Name J.J. KELLER&ASSOCIATES,INC. $1,021.44 Search Name KATZENMAIER RON page118 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 12/29/21 12:52 PM Page 4 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 01/04/22 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount G 01-2010 FIRE PREVENTION-FIRE $206.01 Search Name KATZENMAIER RON $206.01 Search Name L E L S G 01-2075 JAN 2022 UNION DUES $910.00 Search Name L E L S $910.00 Search Name LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC G 01-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-PARKS $52.78 G 01-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-STREE $52.78 G 15-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-UTILIT $52.78 Search Name LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC $158.34 Search Name LIBERTY TIRE RECYCLING SVCS G 15-2010 TIRE DISPOSAL-PW $68.45 G 01-2010 TIRE DISPOSAL-PW $68.45 G 01-2010 TIRE DISPOSAL-PW $68.45 Search Name LIBERTY TIRE RECYCLING SVCS $205.35 Search Name LOCAL UNION NO. 70 G 01-2075 JAN 2022 UNION DUES $71.26 Search Name LOCAL UNION NO. 70 $71.26 Search Name LUBE-TECH G 15-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-UTILIT $24.16 G 01-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-STREE $24.16 G 01-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-PARKS $24.16 Search Name LUBE-TECH $72.48 Search Name M R P A E 01-4400-070-70 MRPA ANNUAL GENERAL MEET Parks&Recreation $55.00 Search Name M R P A $55.00 Search Name M T I DISTRIBUTING COMPANY G 45-2010 REEL SHARPENING-PAR 3 $745.52 Search Name M T I DISTRIBUTING COMPANY $745.52 Search Name MACQUEEN EMERGENCY G 01-2010 BOOTS/BUNKER PANTS-FIRE $1,481.70 Search Name MACQUEEN EMERGENCY $1,481.70 Search Name MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY G 01-2010 FUEL $2,975.94 Search Name MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY $2,975.94 Search Name MENARDS G 15-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-UTILIT $26.13 G 01-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-STREE $26.14 G 08-2010 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL $20.22 G 01-2010 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET $8.44 G 01-2010 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET $31.27 G 01-2010 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS $37.65 G 01-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-PARKS $26.14 G 01-2010 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS $19.88 G 15-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-UTILIT $3.88 page119 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 12/29/21 12:52 PM Page 5 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 01/04/22 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount G 01-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-PARKS $3.89 G 01-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-STREE $3.89 Search Name MENARDS $207.53 Search Name MIDWAY SEWER SERVICE CO. G 45-2010 BLDG MAINT-PAR 3 -$13.30 G 45-2010 BLDG MAINT-PAR 3 $206.80 G 08-2010 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL $258.00 Search Name MIDWAY SEWER SERVICE CO. $451.50 Search Name MINIFY ENERGY G 01-2010 LIGHTING PROJECT-STREET $2,490.25 G 01-2010 LIGHTING PROJECT-PARKS $2,490.25 Search Name MINIFY ENERGY $4,980.50 Search Name MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION G 01-2010 RECERTIFICATION-FIRE $250.00 Search Name MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION $250.00 Search Name MN STATE FIRE CHIEFS ASSN E 01-4404-030-30 2022 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL- Fire $400.00 Search Name MN STATE FIRE CHIEFS ASSN $400.00 Search Name MNPEA G 01-2075 ]AN 2022 UNION DUES $117.00 Search Name MNPEA $117.00 Search Name NARDINI FIRE EQ G 01-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-FIRE $370.56 Search Name NARDINI FIRE EQ $370.56 Search Name NORTHFIELD SOLAR LLC G 01-2010 NOV 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIES $646.32 G 01-2010 NOV 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIES $137.46 G 45-2010 NOV 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIES $41.44 G 45-2010 NOV 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIES $29.44 G 28-2010 NOV 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIES $1,115.42 G 15-2010 NOV 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIES $657.06 G 01-2010 NOV 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIES $225.07 G 08-2010 NOV 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIES $2,019.75 G 01-2010 NOV 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIES $238.96 G 01-2010 NOV 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIES $225.07 G 15-2010 NOV 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIES $225.06 Search Name NORTHFIELD SOLAR LLC $5,561.05 Search Name NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY E 01-4400-020-20 SCHOOL POLICE STAFF&COM Police $470.00 Search Name NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY $470.00 Search Name NUSS TRUCK&EQUIPMENT G 01-2010 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET $202.80 Search Name NUSS TRUCK&EQUIPMENT $202.80 Search Name OREILLY AUTO/FIRST CALL G 01-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-STREE $20.53 page120 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 12/29/21 12:52 PM Page 6 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 01/04/22 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount G 01-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-PARKS $20.53 G 01-2010 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET $26.98 G 15-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES-UTILIT $20.54 Search Name OREILLY AUTO/FIRST CALL $88.58 Search Name PIONEER ENGINEERING G 10-2010 WENTWORTH WARMING HOUS $5,000.00 Search Name PIONEER ENGINEERING $5,000.00 Search Name R D 0 EQ CO G 01-2010 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS $40.29 Search Name R D 0 EQ CO $40.29 Search Name SAFE-FAST, INC. G 01-2010 UNIFORMS-STREET $429.72 G 15-2010 UNIFORMS-UTILITY $67.33 G 01-2010 UNIFORMS-PARKS $182.36 Search Name SAFE-FAST,INC. $679.41 Search Name SAKATAH CARVERS E 01-4435-200-70 2/5/21 ICE CARVING-WINTER Parks&Recreation $1,000.00 Search Name SAKATAH CARVERS $1,000.00 Search Name SAVATREE G 01-2010 TREE SERVICES-STREET $3,552.00 G 01-2010 TREE SERVICES-STREET $603.00 Search Name SAVATREE $4,155.00 Search Name SCHLOMKA SERVICES, LLC G 29-2010 PUMP AND CLEAN -STORM UT $500.00 Search Name SCHLOMKA SERVICES, LLC $500.00 Search Name SOUTH ST PAUL GUN CLUB G 01-2010 11/8/21 RANGE USE-PD $150.00 Search Name SOUTH ST PAUL GUN CLUB $150.00 Search Name STANDARD INSURANCE E 01-4131-070-70 JAN 2022 PREMIUM- LIFE/DIS Parks&Recreation $238.27 E 01-4131-110-10 JAN 2022 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS Administration $281.50 E 01-4131-050-50 JAN 2022 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS Road&Bridges $275.62 E 01-4131-105-15 JAN 2022 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS Engineering Enterprise $181.17 E 08-4131-000-00 JAN 2022 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS Spec Fds $130.33 E 15-4131-060-60 JAN 2022 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS Utility Enterprise $147.30 G 01-2074 JAN 2022 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS $1.82 G 01-2071 JAN 2022 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS $1,793.17 E 01-4131-020-20 JAN 2022 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS Police $788.40 Search Name STANDARD INSURANCE $3,837.58 Search Name STREICHERS G 01-2010 UNIFORMS-PD $286.98 Search Name STREICHERS $286.98 Search Name SUN LIFE(ASSURANT BENEFITS) E 01-4132-031-30 JAN 2022 PREMIUM Fire $163.95 Search Name SUN LIFE(ASSURANT BENEFITS) $163.95 page 121 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 12/29/21 12:52 PM Page 7 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 01/04/22 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEC. SVC. G 01-2010 12/7/21 CITY COUNCIL MINUT $226.75 Search Name TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEC. SVC. $226.75 Search Name TKDA G 27-2010 IVY FALLS IMPROVEMENTS $8,936.69 G 27-2010 CENTRE POINTE STREET IMPR $22,846.73 Search Name TKDA $31,783.42 Search Name TRACTOR SUPPLY G 01-2010 SALT MIXER-STREET $18.99 G 01-2010 SALT MIXER-STREET $18.99 Search Name TRACTOR SUPPLY $37.98 $124,929.04 page 122 8a. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heig s,I-IN MIS 651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com * CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Reauest for City Council Action DATE: January 4, 2022 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Review of Marie Park Light Pilot Program INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to evaluate the 2021 recreational light usage at Marie Park and consider approval of the continuation of use for 2022. BACKGROUND Last spring, the Parks and Recreation Commission considered a resident request for the use of Marie Park rink lights to allow for night time pickleball play during the summer until 10:00 p.m. After discussion and community engagement, the Commission recommended the creation of a pilot program, testing the use of lights during the months of September and October, when days are shorter. Upon City Council approval,the City provided for evening pickleball and basketball play at Marie Park from September 15 to October 31 by utilizing the rink lights until 8:00 p.m. The use of evening lights was launched as a pilot program for the 2021 season. The Commission and City Council agreed to review the light use at the end of the season for implementation in 2022. Throughout the Marie Park pilot program, staff did not receive any complaints with the addition of lights in the fall evening hours. The City received many compliments regarding the program. Additionally, the City received several inquiries in regards to implementing the same program at Friendly Hills Park for 2022. Staff reviewed the 2021 pilot program with the Parks and Recreation Commission at their meeting on November 9. The Commission discussed making the Marie Park light usage permanent and increasing the number of days the lights are turned on for evening recreational use. The Commission has recommended the permanent seasonal use of lights at Marie Park to begin when the pickleball nets are installed, typically sometime in late March/early April depending on the weather with lights on daily until 9:00pm. To account for sunset times and longer daylight hours, city staff would adjust the timing of the lights on or around April 30 when the sunset times reach approximately 8:15pm. page123 As part of the permanent program recommendation, the Commission recommended that the use of evening lights would commence on or around August 18 when sunset times would again be at approximately 8:15pm and natural light would not suffice for recreational play. The lights would remain on until 9:OOpm daily until the pickleball nets were removed for the season which is typically mid-to-late November depending on the weather. Included in the packet are comments received regarding the Marie Park recreational light pilot program since it began on September 15. Also included are the sunrise/sunset times for 2022 for reference if the City Council would like to continue the program into the next year. Attachments: Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes from 11/09/2021 Emails from Residents 2022 Calendars BUDGET IMPACT The Finance Director estimates the cost to utilize the lights is approximately $30 per month per park. ACTION RECOMMENDED The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends the City Council approve the continued use of rink lights at Marie Park for evening pickleball and basketball play during the 2022 season, with the timeline discussed above. The Parks and Recreation Commission also recommends that the same process that was used to institute the pilot program at Marie Park be used for consideration of evening pickleball play at Friendly Hills Park in 2022. ACTION REQUESTED If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the use of lights for evening pickleball and basketball play at Marie Park as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission and direct staff to begin community engagement to consider instituting a pilot program for night time pickleball play at Friendly Hills Park in 2022. page 124 Excerpt from 1110912021 Park Rec Commission Meeting Minutes AYES 7: NAYS 0 8.b Review of Marie Park Light Trial Program Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that the packet included background information on the pilot program for fall light use to allow nighttime pickleball play at Marie Park. She stated that the program ran through September and October in the trial format agreed upon by the Commission and City Council. She stated that she received five comments in support of continuing the program. She stated that throughout the entire program she did not receive any complaints about the lights. She asked the Commission to review the program and determine if they would like to continue a program for 2022. She stated that if the Commission would like to implement a similar program at Friendly Hills, she would recommend following a similar process to engage the residents adjacent to the park. Commissioner Sherer asked if the hockey rink lights turn off at 8:00 p.m. during the winter months. Ms. Lawrence replied that hockey lights are on until 9:00 p.m. with the exception of Sundays when lights turn off at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Sherer asked if there are complaints about the hockey lights. Ms. Lawrence replied that she is not aware of any such complaints. Commissioner Klepperich asked if there were any complaints related to lighting of the basketball court. Ms. Lawrence replied that she was not aware of any complaints and actually received positive input from youth users on the ability to use the courts later. Chair Goldade stated that it has been referenced that Council members stated that Marie Park was busier. He noted that some citizens are concerned with the amount of use at Marie Park in general. Ms. Lawrence commented that some residents are concerned with the amount of traffic at Marie Park. She commented that there are a lot of new facilities at Marie Park and people tend to go where things are new. She stated that there are also only two parks with pickleball courts in the community. Chair Goldade asked if the discussion should focus on Marie Park and whether a trial could be discussed for Friendly Hills in the spring. Ms. Lawrence stated that if a trial is going to be done at Friendly Hills, she would recommend following the same process they did for Marie Park, first engaging residents within 500 feet. She stated that community engagement is very important and therefore she would want to continue to follow that format. She stated that if the Commission is interested, she would like the recommendation on that tonight in order to bring that forward to the Council and begin engaging residents. She commented that this is a hot topic, and she has received calls from residents, mostly related to Marie Park. Chair Goldade asked if Commissioner Sherer was suggesting a shift from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. or whether that was just something he was asking. page125 Commissioner Sherer confirmed that if there have been no issues for hockey, he would suggest the same time for pickleball. Commissioner Smith stated that in reviewing sunset times, that would only be an additional hour after sunset in April and May. Commissioner Blanks stated that he would support continuing the program with the hours of 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Ms. Lawrence noted that in the trial program the lights were on seven days per week. Student Representative Hess asked if the program would include lighting of the pickleball and basketball court areas. He asked if the same would be done if the program is expanded to Friendly Hills. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that the Commission would need to make that determination for Marie Park. She was unsure that the lighting would assist in basketball at Friendly Hills because of the location of the lights. Chair Goldade suggested removing the specific date for the springtime and instead using the stipulation of when the ice and snow is gone, allowing lights to remain on until 9:00 p.m. He stated that would end on June 141" and the program would begin again September 151" until there is an accumulation of snow. He asked for input from staff on that suggestion. Ms. Lawrence stated that there could be snow in October as well. She stated that she is fine with that language as it provides flexibility. She stated that she would also like the authority for staff to make the decision on when the program would end. Commissioner Sherer asked if it would be fair to say that the nets are not installed until the snow and ice has melted and therefore perhaps the lights could occur with net installation. Commissioner Meyer commented that it seems there is support from residents to keep the lights on until 9 p.m. Commissioner Blanks noted that staff would also have discretion. Motion Cotter/second Blanks to recommend to the City Council that the same process used for Marie Park be used for Friendly Hills to determine if a pilot light project should be completed for the pickleball courts. AYES 7: NAYS 0 Motion Goldade/second Blanks to recommend to the City Council that the pilot light program at Marie Park continue in the spring to align with net installation and remain on until 9:00 p.m. until sunset surpasses that time in the summer months and commence again in the fall until the nets are removed. AYES 7: NAYS 0 8.c Winter Fest Ideas Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that based on input from the Commission and City Council, staff is planning for a Winter Fest event. She stated that the preliminary budget includes an expenditure of$5,000 and if adopted as the final budget, staff would proceed with plans to host the event in early 2022. She asked for input from the page126 From: Kim Smith To: Meredith Lawrence Subject: Lights at Marie Park Date: Friday,October 29,2021 7:17:51 PM Hi Meredith It's been fun to play nighttime PB.I would hope you could extend a few more weeks since the weather can still be mild In November. I also really like how well lit that comer is when walk my dog at night.Much safer for us We love the lights Kim Smith Sent from my iPad page127 From: Nissa To: Meredith Lawrence;Stephanie Levine Subject: Marie Park Lights Date: Friday,October 29,2021 1:53:03 PM Hi Meredith and Stephanie, Just wanted to let you know that my family and several of our friends have really enjoyed having the nighttime lighting in Marie Park. It's allowed us to meet up and play pickleball several times with friends and we've also seen a lot of activity on the basketball courts. It's a great way to allow residents to get the most out of the weather as the sunlight hours decrease - we hope it continues in the following years! Thanks, Nissa ------------------------------------------ NISSA TUPPER page128 From: Janet Leavitt To: Stephanie Levine Cc: Joel Paper;duaaan.ultan(@amail.com;John Mazzitello;Jay Miller; Meredith Lawrence Subject: Pickelball at Marie Park Date: Monday,October 25,2021 8:29:38 AM I am following up on the email that I sent last July when the council voted to keep the lights on at Marie Park. So far, so good! As a close neighbor to the park,I have not experienced any problems. There is no disturbing noise. In fact,I quite enjoy watching the players. If you would like any additional input as you begin your evaluation process, feel free to contact me. On Jul 21, 2021, at 9:55 AM, Janet Leavitt wrote: To the members of the Mendota Heights City Council: I am pleased that you voted for the trial to turn the lights on at Marie Park for evening pickleball in the fall. I live on Walsh Lane and am in close proximity to the park. I think it is encouraging to see the park in use. I am not bothered by the constant tick of pickleball; I am encouraged by the sounds of the players being social. I don't believe the courts are close enough to the neighboring residences to truly pose a problem. By allowing the lights to remain on, we are providing better access to the park. I believe that evening recreation opportunities that offer a safe place to play leads to healthy lifestyles for people of all ages! When people have better access to a park, they will exercise more, which increases life expectancy and decreases stress (so important these days). It could also reduce crime. If there are many people using the park at night, there are more eyes on the street, therefore creating a safter environment for everyone. page 129 Thank you for providing the opportunity to determine the effectiveness and the impact on our entire community. I will be happy to provide an evaluation in the fall so you can conduct your assessment. page 130 Meredith Lawrence From: Meredith Lawrence Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 11:23 AM To: 'Mary McCrory-Usset' Cc: Steve Goldade; Bob Klepperich; Jaffrey Blanks; Steph Meyer; Daniel Sherer; Amy M Smith Subject: RE: Marie Park - Pickleball Lights I am happy to do so! Meredith From: Mary McGrory-Usset Sent:Tuesday, November 9, 2021 10:03 AM To: Meredith Lawrence<MLawrence@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Cc: Steve Goldade<gold14@iphouse.com>; Bob Klepperich <bklepperich@msn.com>;Jaffrey Blanks <jblanks@horizontal.com>; Steph Meyer<steph.d.meyer@gmail.com>; Daniel Sherer<daniel.a.sherer@gmail.com>; Amy M Smith <amysmith1124@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Marie Park- Pickleball Lights Hi Meredith, Thanks. I hope they decide to continue with lights. It is absolutely great to have access to evening pickle ball for those of us with daytime obligations. Playing pickle ball in the evening was my favorite activity this fall. Can you pass on this comment to the Commission? Thank you, Mary From: Meredith Lawrence [ma i Ito:MLawrence(�i)mend otaheiahtsmn.aov] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2021 9:56 AM To: Mary McGrory-Usset Subject: RE: Marie Park - Pickleball Lights Hi Mary— The light trial period at Marie Park ended on October 31. The Parks and Recreation Commission is reviewing the program tonight and will be making a recommendation to the City Council if the lights should be utilized in the future. Meredith Lawrence, CPRP, CPSI Recreation Program Coordinator 1 page 131 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Direct: 651-255-1354 City Offices: 651-452-1850 email: mlawrence@mendotaheightsmn.gov From: Mary McGrory-Usset Sent:Tuesday, November 9, 2021 9:39 AM To: Meredith Lawrence<MLawrence@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: Marie Park- Pickleball Lights Hi Meredith, I live across from Marie Park and play pickleball many evenings. The lights were not on at the pickleball courts last night. Should they be on? I don't know when the lights will no longer be on. If you could let me know that would be great. I am supposed to meet some people to play this evening, and we need to know if the lights will be on. Thank you, Mary 2 11/3/21,2:41 PM St. Paul, Minnesota, USA-Sunrise Sunset Calendar page 132 March 2022 St. Paul, Minnesota, USA Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 Sunrise:6:51 am Sunrise:6:49am Sunrise:6:47am Sunrise:6:46am Sunrise:6:44am Sunset:5:59pm Sunset:6:00pm Sunset:6:01 pm Sunset:6:03pm Sunset:6:04pm 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sunrise:6:42am Sunrise:6:40am Sunrise:6:39am Sunrise:6:37am Sunrise:6:35am Sunrise:6:33am Sunrise:6:31 am Sunset:6:05pm Sunset:6:07pm Sunset:6:08pm Sunset:6:09pm Sunset:6:11 pm Sunset:6:12pm Sunset:6:13pm 13 DST Begins 14 15 16 17 18 19 Sunrise:7:29am Sunrise:7:28am Sunrise:7:26am Sunrise:7:24am Sunrise:7:22am Sunrise:7:20am Sunrise:7:18am Sunset:7:15pm Sunset:7:16pm Sunset:7:17pm Sunset:7:19pm Sunset:7:20pm Sunset:7:21 pm Sunset:7:22pm 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Sunrise:7:16am Sunrise:7:14am Sunrise:7:13am Sunrise:7:11 am Sunrise:7:09am Sunrise:7:07am Sunrise:7:05am Sunset:7:24pm Sunset:7:25pm Sunset:7:26pm Sunset:7:28pm Sunset:7:29pm Sunset:7:30pm Sunset:7:31 pm 27 28 29 30 31 Sunrise:7:03am Sunrise:7:01 am Sunrise:6:59am Sunrise:6:58am Sunrise:6:56am Sunset:7:33pm Sunset:7:34pm Sunset:7:35pm 1 Sunset:7:36pm 1 Sunset:7:38pm ©2021 Edwards Apps,Inc. —SunriseSunset.com https://www.sunrisesunset.com/calendar.asp?comb_city_info=St%2E+Paul%2C+Minnesota%2C+USA;93.1037;44.9477;-6;1&month=3&year=2022&b... 1/1 11/3/21,2:41 PM St. Paul, Minnesota, USA-Sunrise Sunset Calendar page 133 April 2022 St. Paul, Minnesota, USA Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 Sunrise:6:54am Sunrise:6:52am Sunset:7:39pm Sunset:7:40pm 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sunrise:6:50am Sunrise:6:48am Sunrise:6:46am Sunrise:6:45am Sunrise:6:43am Sunrise:6:41 am Sunrise:6:39am Sunset:7:42pm Sunset:7:43pm Sunset:7:44pm Sunset:7:45pm Sunset:7:47pm Sunset:7:48pm Sunset:7:49pm 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Sunrise:6:37am Sunrise:6:36am Sunrise:6:34am Sunrise:6:32am Sunrise:6:30am Sunrise:6:28am Sunrise:6:27am Sunset:7:50pm Sunset:7:52pm Sunset:7:53pm Sunset:7:54pm Sunset:7:55pm Sunset:7:57pm Sunset:7:58pm 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Sunrise:6:25am Sunrise:6:23am Sunrise:6:22am Sunrise:6:20am Sunrise:6:18am Sunrise:6:17am Sunrise:6:15am Sunset:7:59pm Sunset:8:00pm Sunset:8:02pm Sunset:8:03pm Sunset:8:04pm Sunset:8:05pm Sunset:8:07pm 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Sunrise:6:13am Sunrise:6:12am Sunrise:6:10am Sunrise:6:09am Sunrise:6:07am Sunrise:6:05am Sunrise:6:04am Sunset:8:08pm Sunset:8:09pm Sunset:8:10pm Sunset:8:12pm Sunset:8:13pm Sunset:8:14pm Sunset:8:15pm DST/Summer Time for the entire month. ©2021 Edwards Apps,Inc. —SunriseSunset.com https://www.sunrisesunset.com/calendar.asp?comb_city_info=St%2E+Paul%2C+Minnesota%2C+USA;93.1037;44.9477;-6;1&month=4&year=2022&b... 1/1 11/3/21,2:42 PM St. Paul, Minnesota, USA-Sunrise Sunset Calendar page 134 May 2022 St. Paul, Minnesota, USA Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sunrise:6:02am Sunrise:6:01am Sunrise:5:59am Sunrise:5:58am Sunrise:5:57am Sunrise:5:55am Sunrise:5:54am Sunset:8:17pm Sunset:8:18pm Sunset:8:19pm Sunset:8:20pm Sunset:8:22pm Sunset:8:23pm Sunset:8:24pm 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Sunrise:5:53am Sunrise:5:51 am Sunrise:5:50am Sunrise:5:49am Sunrise:5:47am Sunrise:5:46am Sunrise:5:45am Sunset:8:25pm Sunset:8:27pm Sunset:8:28pm Sunset:8:29pm Sunset:8:30pm Sunset:8:31 pm Sunset:8:32pm 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Sunrise:5:44am Sunrise:5:43am Sunrise:5:42am Sunrise:5:41 am Sunrise:5:40am Sunrise:5:39am Sunrise:5:38am Sunset:8:34pm Sunset:8:35pm Sunset:8:36pm Sunset:8:37pm Sunset:8:38pm Sunset:8:39pm Sunset:8:40pm 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sunrise:5:37am Sunrise:5:36am Sunrise:5:35am Sunrise:5:34am Sunrise:5:33am Sunrise:5:33am Sunrise:5:32am Sunset:8:41 pm Sunset:8:42pm Sunset:8:43pm Sunset:8:44pm Sunset:8:45pm Sunset:8:46pm Sunset:8:47pm 29 30 31 Sunrise:5:31 am Sunrise:5:31 am Sunrise:5:30am Sunset:8:48pm Sunset:8:49pm Sunset:8:50pm DST/Summer Time for the entire month. ©2021 Edwards Apps,Inc. —SunriseSunset.com https://www.sunrisesunset.com/calendar.asp?comb_city_info=St%2E+Paul%2C+Minnesota%2C+USA;93.1037;44.9477;-6;1&month=5&year=2022&b... 1/1 11/3/21,2:42 PM St. Paul, Minnesota, USA-Sunrise Sunset Calendar page 135 June 2022 St. Paul, Minnesota, USA Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 Sunrise:5:29am Sunrise:5:29am Sunrise:5:28am Sunrise:5:28am Sunset:8:51 pm Sunset:8:52pm Sunset:8:53pm Sunset:8:53pm 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Sunrise:5:27am Sunrise:5:27am Sunrise:5:27am Sunrise:5:26am Sunrise:5:26am Sunrise:5:26am Sunrise:5:26am Sunset:8:54pm Sunset:8:55pm Sunset:8:56pm Sunset:8:56pm Sunset:8:57pm Sunset:8:58pm Sunset:8:58pm 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Sunrise:5:25am Sunrise:5:25am Sunrise:5:25am Sunrise:5:25am Sunrise:5:25am Sunrise:5:25am Sunrise:5:25am Sunset:8:59pm Sunset:8:59pm Sunset:9:00pm Sunset:9:00pm Sunset:9:01 pm Sunset:9:01 pm Sunset:9:02pm 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sunrise:5:25am Sunrise:5:26am Sunrise:5:26am Sunrise:5:26am Sunrise:5:26am Sunrise:5:27am Sunrise:5:27am Sunset:9:02pm Sunset:9:02pm Sunset:9:02pm Sunset:9:03pm Sunset:9:03pm Sunset:9:03pm Sunset:9:03pm 26 27 28 29 30 Sunrise:5:27am Sunrise:5:28am Sunrise:5:28am Sunrise:5:29am Sunrise:5:29am Sunset:9:03pm Sunset:9:03pm Sunset:9:03pm Sunset:9:03pm Sunset:9:03pm DST/Summer Time for the entire month. ©2021 Edwards Apps,Inc. —SunriseSunset.com https://www.sunrisesunset.com/calendar.asp?comb_city_info=St%2E+Paul%2C+Minnesota%2C+USA;93.1037;44.9477;-6;1&month=6&year=2022&b... 1/1 11/3/21,2:42 PM St. Paul, Minnesota, USA-Sunrise Sunset Calendar page 136 July 2022 St. Paul, Minnesota, USA Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 Sunrise:5:30am Sunrise:5:30am Sunset:9:03pm Sunset:9:03pm 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sunrise:5:31 am Sunrise:5:31 am Sunrise:5:32am Sunrise:5:33am Sunrise:5:33am Sunrise:5:34am Sunrise:5:35am Sunset:9:02pm Sunset:9:02pm Sunset:9:02pm Sunset:9:02pm Sunset:9:01 pm Sunset:9:01 pm Sunset:9:00pm 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Sunrise:5:36am Sunrise:5:36am Sunrise:5:37am Sunrise:5:38am Sunrise:5:39am Sunrise:5:40am Sunrise:5:41 am Sunset:9:00pm Sunset:8:59pm Sunset:8:59pm Sunset:8:58pm Sunset:8:57pm Sunset:8:57pm Sunset:8:56pm 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Sunrise:5:42am Sunrise:5:43am Sunrise:5:44am Sunrise:5:45am Sunrise:5:46am Sunrise:5:47am Sunrise:5:48am Sunset:8:55pm Sunset:8:55pm Sunset:8:54pm Sunset:8:53pm Sunset:8:52pm Sunset:8:51 pm Sunset:8:50pm 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Sunrise:5:49am Sunrise:5:50am Sunrise:5:51 am Sunrise:5:52am Sunrise:5:53am Sunrise:5:54am Sunrise:5:55am Sunset:8:49pm Sunset:8:48pm Sunset:8:47pm Sunset:8:46pm Sunset:8:45pm Sunset:8:44pm Sunset:8:43pm 31 Sunrise:5:56am Sunset:8:41 pm DST/Summer Time for the entire month. ©2021 Edwards Apps,Inc. —SunriseSunset.com https://www.sunrisesunset.com/calendar.asp?comb_city_info=St%2E+Paul%2C+Minnesota%2C+USA;93.1037;44.9477;-6;1&month=7&year=2022&b... 1/1 11/3/21,2:43 PM St. Paul, Minnesota, USA-Sunrise Sunset Calendar page 137 August 2022 St. Paul, Minnesota, USA Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sunrise:5:57am Sunrise:5:59am Sunrise:6:00am Sunrise:6:01 am Sunrise:6:02am Sunrise:6:03am Sunset:8:40pm Sunset:8:39pm Sunset:8:38pm Sunset:8:36pm Sunset:8:35pm Sunset:8:34pm 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Sunrise:6:04am Sunrise:6:06am Sunrise:6:07am Sunrise:6:08am Sunrise:6:09am Sunrise:6:10am Sunrise:6:11 am Sunset:8:32pm Sunset:8:31 pm Sunset:8:29pm Sunset:8:28pm Sunset:8:26pm Sunset:8:25pm Sunset:8:23pm 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Sunrise:6:13am Sunrise:6:14am Sunrise:6:15am Sunrise:6:16am Sunrise:6:17am Sunrise:6:19am Sunrise:6:20am Sunset:8:22pm Sunset:8:20pm Sunset:8:19pm Sunset:8:17pm Sunset:8:15pm Sunset:8:14pm Sunset:8:12pm 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Sunrise:6:21 am Sunrise:6:22am Sunrise:6:23am Sunrise:6:25am Sunrise:6:26am Sunrise:6:27am Sunrise:6:28am Sunset:8:10pm Sunset:8:09pm Sunset:8:07pm Sunset:8:05pm Sunset:8:04pm Sunset:8:02pm Sunset:8:00pm 28 29 30 31 Sunrise:6:29am Sunrise:6:30am Sunrise:6:32am Sunrise:6:33am Sunset:7:58pm Sunset:7:57pm Sunset:7:55pm Sunset:7:53pm DST/Summer Time for the entire month. ©2021 Edwards Apps,Inc. —SunriseSunset.com https://www.sunrisesunset.com/calendar.asp?comb_city_info=St%2E+Paul%2C+Minnesota%2C+USA;93.1037;44.9477;-6;1&month=8&year=2022&b... 1/1 11/3/21,2:43 PM St. Paul, Minnesota, USA-Sunrise Sunset Calendar page 138 September 2022 St. Paul, Minnesota, USA Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 Sunrise:6:34am Sunrise:6:35am Sunrise:6:36am Sunset:7:51 pm Sunset:7:49pm Sunset:7:47pm 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sunrise:6:38am Sunrise:6:39am Sunrise:6:40am Sunrise:6:41 am Sunrise:6:42am Sunrise:6:43am Sunrise:6:45am Sunset:7:46pm Sunset:7:44pm Sunset:7:42pm Sunset:7:40pm Sunset:7:38pm Sunset:7:36pm Sunset:7:34pm 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Sunrise:6:46am Sunrise:6:47am Sunrise:6:48am Sunrise:6:49am Sunrise:6:51 am Sunrise:6:52am Sunrise:6:53am Sunset:7:33pm Sunset:7:31 pm Sunset:7:29pm Sunset:7:27pm Sunset:7:25pm Sunset:7:23pm Sunset:7:21 pm 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Sunrise:6:54am Sunrise:6:55am Sunrise:6:57am Sunrise:6:58am Sunrise:6:59am Sunrise:7:00am Sunrise:7:01 am Sunset:7:19pm Sunset:7:17pm Sunset:7:15pm Sunset:7:14pm Sunset:7:12pm Sunset:7:10pm Sunset:7:08pm 25 26 27 28 29 30 Sunrise:7:03am Sunrise:7:04am Sunrise:7:05am Sunrise:7:06am Sunrise:7:07am Sunrise:7:09am Sunset:7:06pm Sunset:7:04pm Sunset:7:02pm Sunset:7:00pm Sunset:6:58pm Sunset:6:56pm DST/Summer Time for the entire month. ©2021 Edwards Apps,Inc. —SunriseSunset.com https://www.sunrisesunset.com/calendar.asp?comb_city_info=St%2E+Paul%2C+Minnesota%2C+USA;93.1037;44.9477;-6;1&month=9&year=2022&b... 1/1 11/3/21,2:43 PM St. Paul, Minnesota, USA-Sunrise Sunset Calendar page 139 October 2022 St. Paul, Minnesota, USA Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 Sunrise:7:10am Sunset:6:55pm 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sunrise:7:11 am Sunrise:7:12am Sunrise:7:14am Sunrise:7:15am Sunrise:7:16am Sunrise:7:17am Sunrise:7:19am Sunset:6:53pm Sunset:6:51 pm Sunset:6:49pm Sunset:6:47pm Sunset:6:45pm Sunset:6:43pm Sunset:6:42pm 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Sunrise:7:20am Sunrise:7:21 am Sunrise:7:22am Sunrise:7:24am Sunrise:7:25am Sunrise:7:26am Sunrise:7:28am Sunset:6:40pm Sunset:6:38pm Sunset:6:36pm Sunset:6:34pm Sunset:6:33pm Sunset:6:31 pm Sunset:6:29pm 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Sunrise:7:29am Sunrise:7:30am Sunrise:7:31 am Sunrise:7:33am Sunrise:7:34am Sunrise:7:35am Sunrise:7:37am Sunset:6:27pm Sunset:6:26pm Sunset:6:24pm Sunset:6:22pm Sunset:6:21 pm Sunset:6:19pm Sunset:6:17pm 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Sunrise:7:38am Sunrise:7:39am Sunrise:7:41 am Sunrise:7:42am Sunrise:7:43am Sunrise:7:45am Sunrise:7:46am Sunset:6:16pm Sunset:6:14pm Sunset:6:12pm Sunset:6:11 pm Sunset:6:09pm Sunset:6:08pm Sunset:6:06pm 30 31 Sunrise:7:47am Sunrise:7:49am Sunset:6:05pm Sunset:6:03pm DST/Summer Time for the entire month. ©2021 Edwards Apps,Inc. —SunriseSunset.com https://www.sunrisesunset.com/calendar.asp?comb_city_info=St%2E+Paul%2C+Minnesota%2C+USA;93.1037;44.9477;-6;1&month=10&year=2022&... 1/1 11/3/21,2:44 PM St. Paul, Minnesota, USA-Sunrise Sunset Calendar page140 November 2022 St. Paul, Minnesota, USA Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 Sunrise:7:50am Sunrise:7:52am Sunrise:7:53am Sunrise:7:54am Sunrise:7:56am Sunset:6:02pm Sunset:6:00pm Sunset:5:59pm Sunset:5:58pm Sunset:5:56pm 6 DST Ends 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sunrise:6:57am Sunrise:6:58am Sunrise:7:00am Sunrise:7:01 am Sunrise:7:03am Sunrise:7:04am Sunrise:7:05am Sunset:4:55pm Sunset:4:54pm Sunset:4:52pm Sunset:4:51 pm Sunset:4:50pm Sunset:4:49pm Sunset:4:48pm 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Sunrise:7:07am Sunrise:7:08am Sunrise:7:09am Sunrise:7:11 am Sunrise:7:12am Sunrise:7:13am Sunrise:7:15am Sunset:4:47pm Sunset:4:46pm Sunset:4:44pm Sunset:4:43pm Sunset:4:43pm Sunset:4:42pm Sunset:4:41 pm 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Sunrise:7:16am Sunrise:7:17am Sunrise:7:19am Sunrise:7:20am Sunrise:7:21 am Sunrise:7:22am Sunrise:7:24am Sunset:4:40pm Sunset:4:39pm Sunset:4:38pm Sunset:4:37pm Sunset:4:37pm Sunset:4:36pm Sunset:4:35pm 27 28 29 30 Sunrise:7:25am Sunrise:7:26am Sunrise:7:27am Sunrise:7:28am Sunset:4:35pm Sunset:4:34pm Sunset:4:34pm Sunset:4:33pm ©2021 Edwards Apps,Inc. —SunriseSunset.com https://www.sunrisesunset.com/calendar.asp?comb_city_info=St%2E+Paul%2C+Minnesota%2C+USA;93.1037;44.9477;-6;1&month=11&year=2022&... 1/1 page 141 8b. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com * CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 4, 2022 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-13 At Home Apartments Phase II1/89-Unit Apartments INTRODUCTION The City Council tabled Planning Case 2021-13, a proposal from At Home Apartments LLC for the development of 89 apartment units on Lot 7 of the Mendota.Plaza MU-PUD to its meeting on January 4, 2022. BACKGROUND At the November 16, 2021 City Council meeting, At Homes Apartments LLC (the Applicant) requested that the City Council table the vote on their Phase II1/89-unit apartment proposal (Planning Case 2021-13) to a meeting in January. Additionally, they provided a letter which requested a 60-day extension to the review period deadline from December 25, 2021 to February 23, 2022. The City Council granted the tabling and extension by unanimous vote and formed a council workgroup comprised of Councilors Duggan and Mazzitello to work with the applicant to discuss size and scope of the proposed Phase III apartment project. Prior to meeting with the applicant, a facilitated community conversation regarding the proposed development and the overall Mendota Plaza area was held on December 13. Approximately 40 residents were in attendance. Several suggestions for the At Home Apartments Phase III proposal and for the Mendota Plaza area were shared by the public. A summary of the public's suggestions are included in the minutes from that City Council work session. Councilors Duggan and Mazzitello met with Leanna Stefaniak and Mike Cashill of At Home Apartments, Pete Keely of Collage Architects, Mike Sturdivant and Howard Paster of Paster Properties, and City staff on December 16. The Councilors discussed the suggestions from the community conversation for the apartment proposal and suggestions for future improvements to the Mendota Plaza area. At Home Apartments is reviewing the suggestions provided by the Council and considering potential changes to their Phase III proposal. Given the holidays and available time between December 16 and the January 4 meeting, the Applicant has not had sufficient time to consider the suggestions and is not yet prepared to provide an updated proposal for City Council consideration. page 142 The developer is amenable to tabling the project request to the February 2, 2022 City Council Meeting. Attachments: • City Council December 13, 2021 Work Session Minutes ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends tabling the consideration of Planning Case 2021-13 Phase III At Home Apartments LLC proposal to February 2, 2022. ACTION REQUESTED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, table the consideration of Planning Case 2021-13 Phase III At Home Apartments LLC proposal to February 2, 2022. page143 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Work Session Held December 13, 2021 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at the City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Councilmembers Paper, Duggan, and Mazzitello were present. Meeting facilitator Jeffrey Hamiel was present. Councilor Miller was absent. City staff present included City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Kelly Dumais, Community Development Director Tim Benetti, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, and City Clerk Lorri Smith. COMMUNITY CONVERSATION REGARDING PHASE III DEVELOPMENT OF AT HOMES APARTMENTS AT MENDOTA PLAZA Mayor Levine welcomed members of the community to the meeting for a community conversation regarding the Phase III development of At Homes Apartments. The Council was looking for specific ideas which would improve the development plans for Lot 7, proposed to be a multi-family residential development proposed by At Homes Apartments LLC. Additionally, the Council was seeking specific ideas for improving the Mendota Heights Plaza area. The Council was looking for ideas that could be passed along to the developer of Lot 7 and the owner of The Plaza. Councilors Mazzitello and Duggan informed the audience that they are working with the developer At Homes Apartments LLC to come up with a revised development plan for Lot 7. They are looking for ideas of what the public wants to see on that site. Councilor Mazzitello gave a description of the current proposal. The building is proposed to be a four story, 89 unit apartment building. Meeting facilitator Jeffery Hamiel asked for comments from the audience members. Comments received from the public included the following: Lot 7 -prefer a restaurant on this site -prefer more open green space - set the building back 25 feet from the curb -reduce the overall size of the building -lower the building height to three stories - apartments do not create a pleasant feeling for the area -this site has a lot of potential for expansion -find something that is a good fit page 144 The Plaza site - create a more holistic experience - add a public gathering space - need a reason to go there - add more green space - add new dining opportunities - add bike parking and bike paths leading to the trail - add electric vehicle charging stations - create one way direction of travel around the site for a better traffic flow - improve the pedestrian crossing at Dodd Road - create a warm and inviting feel to the site Councilors Mazzitello and Duggan thanked the community members for attending and for the input. They will be meeting with the developer to propose amendments to the development plan for Lot 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m. Stephanie Levine Mayor ATTEST: Lord Smith, City Clerk page145 8c. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDaTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 4, 2022 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2022-03 Accepting Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing for the Centre Pointe Street Improvements COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council approve the feasibility report and schedule a public hearing for the Centre Pointe Street Improvements. BACKGROUND The preparation of a feasibility report for Centre Pointe Street Improvements was authorized by the Mendota Heights City Council by adopting Resolution 2021-78 at the City Council meeting held on September 23, 2021. The proposed streets to be rehabilitated are Acacia Boulevard, Carmen Lane, Centre Pointe Boulevard, Centre Pointe Curve, Centre Pointe Drive, Commerce Drive, Dakota Drive, Lemay Avenue, Pilot Knob Road, and Waters Drive. Based on our observations, as well as our pavement management system, a majority of these streets have deteriorated to the point where it is no longer cost effective to patch the street and rehabilitation is necessary. DISCUSSION The feasibility report indicates the estimated costs for the project, along with preliminary assessment estimates. At the end of the feasibility report, a project financing summary is included to show project cost splits and funding sources to be utilized. The total estimated cost of the project is $3,736,910 including indirect costs. The largest contributor to the increased costs is due to the wide streets constructed. A portion of the feasibility report is attached and the entire report is available for review at city hall or via request. Staff is proposing to hold an informational meeting on January 10, 2022. BUDGET IMPACT Street improvement projects are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners. Pursuant to the City's Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy, the benefiting properties should be assessed 50% of the street reconstruction and rehabilitation costs. The following tables show the estimated unit assessments based on the City policy. page 146 Project Total Mill and Overlay Reclamation Reconstruction Total Estimated Costs Street Improvements $ 610,390 $ 1,807,790 $ 234,030 $ 2,652,210 Indirect Costs for Street Improvements $ 122,080 $ 361,560 $ 46,810 $ 530,450 20% Total Costs for Street Improvements $ 732,470 $ 2,169,350 $ 280,830 $ 3,182,650 Trail Improvements $ 130,090 $ 96,510 $ 16,180 $ 242,780 Indirect Costs Trail Improvements(20%)* $ 26,020 $ 19,310 $ 3,240 $ 48,570 Total Costs for Trail Improvements $ 156,110 $ 115,810 $ 19,420 $ 291,340 Storm Sewer Improvements $ 16,800 $ 93,380 $ 40,330 $ 150,510 Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 3,000 $ 31,200 $ - $ 34,200 Water Improvements $ 8,100 $ 27,000 $ 1,000 $ 36,100 Total Cost for Utility Improvements $ 27,900 $ 151,580 $ 41,330 $ 220,810 St Paul Regional Water Improvements $ 4,500 $ 9,750 $ 22,340 $ 36,590 Total Indirect Costs for City(15%)* $ 680 $ 1,470 $ 3,350 $ 5,500 Total Cost for St Paul Regional Water $ 5,180 $ 11,220 $ 25,690 $ 42,090 Total Improvement Cost $ 772,880 $ 2,065,630 $ 313,880 $ 3,152,390 Total Indirect Costs for City* $ 148,780 $ 382,340 $ 53,400 $ 584,520 Total Cost $ 921,660 $ 2,447,970 $ 367,280 $ 3,736,910 Assessment Calculation Mill and Overlay Reclaim Reconstruction Total Total Project Cost $ 921,660 $ 2,447,970 $ 367,280 $ 3,736,910 Assessable Amount $ 732,470 $ 2,169,350 $ 280,830 $ 3,182,650 Assessment Amount 50%of Assessable Amount $ 366,235 $ 1,084,675 $ 140,415 $ 1,591,325 Total Units-Residential" 5 3 9 17 Total Units-CitV of Mendota Heights* 8 8 Unit Assessment Assessable amount/XX Units $ 3,000 $ 6,005 $ 8,260 Total Linear Feet-Business" 4,078 12,601 16,679 Total Linear Feet-Residential" 500 300 800 Total Linear Feet-City of Mendota Heights* 3,391 5,163 8,554 Total Linear Feet* 7,969 18,064 26,033 Linear Foot Assessment(Assessable amount/ $ 30.00 $ 60.05 $ Total Business Assessment $ 122,340 $ 756,642 $ $ 878,982 Total Residential Assessment $ 15,000 $ 18,014 $ 74,335 $ 107,354 Total of Residential and Business Assessments $ 137,340 $ 774,655 $ 74 335 $ 986 335 Total City of Mendota Heights Assessment(Munocorml Levy) $ 101,730 $ 310,020 $ 66,080 $ 477,830 Total Assessment $ 239,070 $ 1,084,675 $ 140,415 $ 1,464,165 "1 unit=100 frontage feet ""Mill&overlay rate capped at$30.00/linear foot Many of the streets abut TH 62 or TH 55 within this area and therefore only provide access to one side of the street. This reduces the assessable front footage or number of units. In these areas, a frontage or unit count was added and assigned to the City. This normalized the assessment rates. However, even after this was completed, the mill and overlay rates were still larger than should be expected. The main reason for this is the wider width of the roadways for the mill and overlay area. For mill and overlay the assessment rate was capped at $30.00 per front foot or $3,000 for each residential unit. Residential assessments for the project are calculated to be $3,000 for the mill & overlay (Pilot Knob Road), $6,005 for the reclaimed streets (Dakota Drive), and $8,260 for the reconstruction of Carmen Lane. Business properties within the project area are proposed to be assessed using a front footage assessment as shown in the attached assessment maps. The front footage assessment for the mill& overlay area is $30.00 per foot(Commerce Drive, Lemay Avenue, Waters Drive, Pilot Knob Road, Acacia Boulevard), and is proposed to be $60.00 per foot for the reclaimed streets (Centre Point streets, Dakota Drive). page147 Funding Source Mill&Overlay Reclamation Reconstruction Project Total Municipal Levy $ 549,510 $ 800,495 $ 159,840 $ 1,509,845 City Assessment(Municipal Levy) $ 101,730 $ 310,020 $ 66,080 $ 477,830 Total Municipal Levy $ 651,240 $ 1,110,515 $ 225,920 $ 1,987,675 Resident and Business Assessment(50%) $ 137,340 $ 774,655 $ 74,335 $ 986,330 State Aid Funding $ 100,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ 500,000 Utility Fund-Storm Sewer $ 16,800 $ 93,380 $ 40,330 $ 150,510 Utility Fund-Sanitary Sewer Fund $ 3,000 $ 31,200 $ - $ 34,200 Utility Fund-Water Fund $ 8,100 $ 27,000 $ 1,000 $ 36,100 St Paul Regional Water Fund $ 5,180 $ 11,220 $ 25,690 $ 42,090 Total $ 921,660 $ 2,447,970 $ 367,280 $ 3,736,910 The project is showing a Municipal Levy of$1,987,675. There is also $500,000 funding from the Municipal State Aid account. The total project cost is estimated at$3,736,910.It is presumed that the City would secure bonding for the Municipal Levy and Assessment portions of the project ($2,974,010). The assessment amount of$986,330 is equivalent to 33.2% of the bond amount. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 Special Assessment Bond Issue requires that a minimum of 20% of the total bond issue amount be recovered through special assessments. As the project is designed and competitively bid,the calculated assessment amount will be updated leading up to the adoption of the assessment roll. The improvements are necessary to allow for safe and reliable street and utility services within the City of Mendota Heights. The project will be competitively bid to allow for a cost effective improvement. The feasibility study has provided an overall analysis of the feasible improvements for consideration within this project area. Therefore, the proposed improvements within the areas outlined in this report are necessary, cost effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that council accept the feasibility report and schedule the public hearing for February 2, 2022. A neighborhood informational meeting will be scheduled to be held on January 10, 2022. ACTION REQUIRED If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CENTRE POINTE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #202107. This action requires a simple majority vote. page148 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2022-03 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CENTRE POINTE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT#202107) WHEREAS,pursuant to Resolution 2021-78,the City Council,on September 23,2021,ordered a feasibility report to be prepared by the Public Works Director with reference to the improvement of Acacia Boulevard, Carmen Lane, Centre Pointe Boulevard, Centre Pointe Curve, Centre Pointe Drive, Commerce Drive,Dakota Drive,Lemay Avenue,Pilot Knob Road, and Waters Drive; and WHEREAS,the Public Works Director has submitted a report to the City Council with respect to Acacia Boulevard, Carmen Lane, Centre Pointe Boulevard, Centre Pointe Curve, Centre Pointe Drive, Commerce Drive,Dakota Drive,Lemay Avenue,Pilot Knob Road, and Waters Drive improvements which include: reclaimed aggregate base,concrete curb and gutter,bituminous surfacing,trail improvements, storm sewer repair and improvements,ADA improvements and appurtenant work, and appurtenant work; and WHEREAS,in said report the Public Works Director reported that the proposed improvements and construction thereof are desirable and necessary,technically and economically feasible,cost effective, and further reported on the estimated cost of the proposed improvements; and NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED,by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows: 1. The City Council hereby accepts the Feasibility Report as submitted. 2. The Council will consider the improvement of such streets and areas in accordance with the report and the assessment of property as described in the report for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvements of$3,736,910. 3. A Public Hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 2"d day of February, 2022 at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, City of Mendota Heights,Minnesota at 6:00 p.m. Statutory notice and publication requirements shall be followed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fourth day of January,2022. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine,Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 149 PointeFeasibility Report Centre 1 • City of Mendota Heights, e • f City r r ylli 4 - .,,Lam`--Y" ta y s, {• �. ... h - -.,r ...►_,.riw..r. Project • Project . MH-202107 TKDA • 18334.000 December Feasibility Report DA Project No. 18334.000 City of •• • a•- page 150 Centre Pointe Street Improvements Feasibility Report City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota City Project No. MH-202107 TKDA No. 18334.000 December 28, 2021 1 hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. /—;7 rL_� Larry Poppler Professional Engineer Date; December 28, 2021 License Number: 41005 TKDA 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 TKDA,, saint Paul, MN 55101 Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334,000 City of Mendota Heights Page 2 page 151 Summary Centre Pointe Street Improvements: Pavement rehabilitation, walking trail rehabilitation, concrete curb and gutter repair, manhole and catch basin adjustment, storm sewer improvement, and appurtenant work on the following areas: • Acacia Boulevard (from TH 55 Bridge to Pilot Knob Road) • Carmen Lane (from TH 62 to the end of the cul-de-sac) • Centre Pointe Boulevard (from Centre Pointe Curve to Centre Pointe Drive) • Centre Pointe Curve (from TH 13 to Lexington Avenue) • Centre Pointe Drive (from Lexington Avenue to Centre Pointe Boulevard) • Commerce Drive (from Pilot Knob Road to Lemay Avenue) • Dakota Drive (from Lexington Avenue to the end of the cul-de-sac) • Lemay Avenue (from Commerce Drive to Pilot Knob Road) • Pilot Knob Road (from TH 13 to Acacia Boulevard) • Waters Drive (from TH 55 to the end of the cul-de-sac) .o°c oc� Centre Pointe Street Improvements ' a�w4 Qcp O° GJto �¢ Q40 Syr W�o �s ��• Acacia Boulevard X X X X X Careen Lane X X X X X Centre Pointe Boulevard X X Centre Pointe Curve X X X X Centre Pointe Drive X X Commerce Drive X X X Dakota Drive x x Lemay Avenue X X Pilot Knob Road X X X X Waters Drive X X Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 3 page 152 Table of Contents CertificationPage..................................................................................................................................2 Summary............................................................................................................. ...3 Tableof Contents..................................................................................................................................4 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 5-6 Background........................................................................................................................................6-7 ExistingConditions.......................................................................................................................... 7-15 Proposed Improvements ............................................................................................................... 16-23 Resident and Business Input...............................................................................................................23 ProjectFunding—.......... ........ ............... ....................................... ................................. ......-23-24 EstimatedCosts......... ................... ...............--... ........... ..................... .............................24 AssessmentPolicy............................................................................................................. 24-25 Assessment Calculation and Estimation............................................................................ 25-26 FundingSources........... ...................... ....... ................ ................—...........26 Preliminary Project Schedule ....... --..................................................................................................27 Conclusion and Recommendation.......................................................................................................27 List of Tables Table1 Boring and Coring Log............................................................................................................16 Table 2 Pavement Improvement Reccomendation ............................................................................19 Table 3 Curb Replacement Percentage..............................................................................................21 Table4 Ponding Cost..........................................................................................................................23 Table5 Project Cost............................................................................................................................24 Table 6 Assessment Calculation.........................................................................................................26 Table7 Project Funding ......................................................................................................................26 Table8 Project Schedule ....................................................................................................................27 List of Exhibits Street Improvement Plan (SIP)..................................................................................................Exhibit 1 Resident and Business Input.....................................................................................................Exhibit 2 Typical Cross Sections..............................................................................................................Exhibit 3 Engineer's Estimate...................................................................................................................Exhibit 4 Preliminary Assessment Rolls........................................................ ...Exhibit 5 ...................... AssessmentMap.......................................................................................................................Exhibit 6 Geotechnical Report and Soil Borings ......................................................................................Exhibit 7 ........... ....... ......... _.._..... .... ....._ Feasibility Report TKIDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 4 page 153 Feasibility Report Centre Pointe Street Improvements Prepared for City of Mendota Heights,Minnesota Introduction: On October 5, 2021, the Mendota Heights Council adopted Resolution 2021-78 which ordered the preparation of a Feasibility Report for improvements to the project areas listed below: • Acacia Boulevard (from TH 55 Bridge to Pilot Knob Road) • Carmen Lane (from TH 62 to the end of the cul-de-sac) • Centre Pointe Boulevard (from Centre Pointe Curve to Centre Pointe Drive) • Centre Pointe Curve (from TH 13 to Lexington Avenue) • Centre Pointe Drive (from Lexington Avenue to Centre Pointe Boulevard) • Commerce Drive (from Pilot Knob Road to Lemay Avenue) • Dakota Drive (from Lexington Avenue to the end of the cul-de-sac) • Lemay Avenue (from Commerce Drive to Pilot Knob Road) • Pilot Knob Road (from TH 13 to Acacia Boulevard) • Waters Drive (from TH 55 to the end of the cul-de-sac) Improvements are located within the following section, township, and range: • S26 T28N R23W (Dakota Drive, Carmen Lane) • S27 T28N R23W (Acacia Boulevard, Centre Pointe Curve, Centre Pointe Drive, Centre Pointe Boulevard, Pilot Knob Road) • S28 T28N R23W (Pilot Knob Road) • S33 T28N R23W (Pilot Knob Road, Commerce Drive, Lemay Avenue) • S34 T28N R23W (Pilot Knob Road, Waters Drive) These areas are described on the following plats: • Carmen Lane o Tuminelly's Carmen Court ID Carmen Court Replat ID Crown Point • Lemay Avenue, Commerce Drive, Pilot Knob Road, Acacia Boulevard, Waters Drive o Gardenville Re-Arrangement (old) o Perron Place o Mendota Heights Business Park o Mendota Heights Business Park, 1 st Addition o Mendota Heights Business Park, 2nd Addition o Mendota Heights Business Park, 3rd Addition o Mendota Heights Business Park, 4th Addition o Mendota Heights Business Park, 5th Addition o Waters Drive Business Park o Le May's Rear of Lots 8-11-12-13&14 Le May's Addition • Centre Pointe Drive, Centre Pointe Curve, Centre Pointe Boulevard, Dakota Drive o Curley's Valley View o Dakota Valley View Addition o Yorkton Centre Pointe South o Auditor's Subdivision No. 34 Mendota o First Addition to Resurrection Cemetery Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 5 page 154 This report evaluates the feasible street improvements for all project areas listed above.All existing infrastructure elements were evaluated, improvements recommended, cost estimates of the proposed improvements prepared and funding strategies developed in this report. Based on the analysis of the existing conditions, the following improvements are recommended: c` cs5 °c Centre Pointe Street m U�a0. ':P � Q��G a�0���"�4��°c °,eke improveents °r ,e a eQ� .�° ��o °,m z� C3 Acacia Boulevard X X X X X Carmen Lane X X X X X Centre Pointe Boulevard X X Centre Pointe Curve X X X X Centre Pointe Drive X X Commerce Drive X X X Dakota Drive X X Lemay Avenue X X Pilot Knob Road X X X X Waters Drive X X Figure 1:Street improvement Matrix Background:. The City of Mendota Heights utilizes a multi-year pavement management plan to prioritize the infrastructure improvement needs within the city. Street improvement needs are summarized within the Street Improvement Plan (SIP). The Street Improvement Plan suggests improvements to the following streets in 2022: Acacia Boulevard, Carmen Lane, Centre Pointe Boulevard, Centre Pointe Curve, Centre Pointe Drive, Commerce Drive, Dakota Drive, Lemay Avenue, Pilot Knob Road, and Waters Drive. The proposed improvement areas can be divided into three classifications of street improvements: reconstruction, reclamation, and mill and overlay. The following streets will be recommended for reconstruction: • Carmen Lane The following streets will be recommended for mill and overlay: • Pilot Knob Road • Acacia Drive • Waters Drive Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 6 page 155 The following streets will be recommended for reclamation: • Centre Pointe Boulevard • Centre Pointe Curve • Centre Pointe drive • Dakota Drive • Lemay Avenue • Commerce Drive Existing Conditions: According to the City's SIP and City records, all IL_LM aforementioned streets are subject for improvements. Over time the City of Mendota --. Heights Public Works Department has maintained . 3 - j.----`- streets with chip seals, crack seals, hot patching, _ and partial overlays several times in the years since construction. � � k Many factors have accounted for roadway deterioration including the following: , A „ • Age • Weather (freeze/thaw cycle) Figure 2:Acacia Boulevard(east)pavement • Salt and chemical ice/snow treatment conditions • Traffic volume and heavy vehicle loading • Underlying soil conditions • Roadway pavement section • Surface and subsurface water drainage • Traffic volumes Below is all the observations and measurements taken on the streets proposed for improvements: Carmen Lane Carmen Lane was created as an extension of the Crown Pointe development that was platted in the late 1970's. Carmen Lane was extended in 1994 and subdivided in 1996. The right-of-way for Carmen Lane was turned over to the City of Mendota Heights from MnDOT during the 1996 plat subdivision with a right-of-way that lays approximately 3 feet south of the bituminous curb on the south side of the road. There are a total of 9 residential properties on Carmen Lane with both bituminous and concrete driveways. Street:The road widths vary from approximately 16.5' to 20.0' from edge of bituminous to back of curb (BOC). The radius of the cul-de-sac is approximately 35'. The approach from TH 62 has a width of approximately 40.0' BOC to BOC. The intersection of Crown Point Drive measures approximately 34.2' BOC to BOC. At the time of inspection, the pavement appeared to have been previously hot patched, chip sealed, and joint sealed in failing areas.The pavement was observed to have wide spread fatigue cracking and signs of frost cracking indicated by the large longitudinal cracking seen along the alignment. Trail: The walking trail adjacent to Carmen Lane is a 10' bituminous walking trail that connects to the Dakota County trail system approximately 425'to the north and east. The trail connects to the Dakota County River to River Greenway and the recently rehabilitated Marie Avenue tunnel crossing. The bituminous of the trail is currently in poor condition and has slopes in excess of 10%for extended lengths and short lengths as great as 20%slope. Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 7 page 156 The trail passes along the drainage ravine in the area and has little boulevard before steep embankment slopes. Drainage:The street section MAN currently sheet drains at 1.0%to 3.0% from north to south to the el J ditch along TH 62. There is a localized highpoint " approximately 600 feet from the _ TH 62 approach. Drainage east of the high point runs down the south bituminous curb into a ��� Ii catch basin located at the TH 62 . approach. Drainage west of the x a.� high point flows to a catch basins that drains into the ditch of TH 62. East of ther�t intersection of Carmen Lane } and TH 62, there is a concrete ditch approximately 100' long Figure 3:Carmen Lane(west)curb, utilities, and that concludes at a stacked pavement conditions stone head wall. The ditch is currently overgrown with vegetation and flows from west to east adjacent to the walking trail to the small creek north of TH 62 and east of Carmen Lane. Beyond the head wall, the drainage continues north and east through wooded area. The ravine in the drainage path appeared to be eroded and rip rap was displaced at the flared end sections. Curb and Gutter: Carmen Lane currently utilizes bituminous, B618 and B624 concrete curb and gutter. The south curb line is mostly comprised of bituminous curb in generally poor condition with noted deficiencies along approximately 75%of the length.The concrete curb on the TH 62 approach and the cul-de-sac appeared to be in fair condition and was proficient along 80% of the length. Utilities: Carmen Lane has water service provided from SPRVVS. There is currently a 16" ductile iron main and two hydrants on the street. The hydrants appear to be older in style but functional. Other utilities in the area include overhead and underground power, power transmission lines, gas, pipeline, underground cable and communication, MnDOT storm sewer and City of Mendota Heights storm sewer. Some power poles and communication boxes are prevalent along the north edge of the road approximately 3'-4'. Carmen Lane currently is currently served by sanitary sewer on the north via easement side of the residential properties. The sanitary flows east eventually crossing Valley Park on the east side of the Crown Point subdivision. Dakota Drive Dakota Drive was originally platted and established as a frontage road in 1954. Dakota Drive was then reconstructed in 1969 and reconfigured in 1996 to its current configuration as a frontage road to TH 62 terminating at Lexington Avenue. There are a total of 4 residential properties and 4 business properties with both bituminous and concrete driveways. Street: Dakota Drive can be divided into two street sections that are divided by the curb section approximately 800' west of the center of the cul-de-sac at the catch basins at the end of the urban section. The road width of the west section is consistent at approximately 34.5' BOC to BOC. The road width of the east section varies ranging from 34.0' to 26.5' BOC to edge of bituminous. The radius of the cul-de-sac is approximately 27'. At the time Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 8 page 157 of inspection, the pavement appeared to have been recently chip sealed and joint sealed from Lexington to the cul-de-sac. The pavement was observed to have fatigue cracking and minor settling along curb lines. Additionally, the edge of bituminous was failing around the cul-de-sac and some shouldering had settled along the edge of bituminous. Along TH 62 near the middle of the alignment, there is an emergency access made from anti- erosion matting. Drainage:The street section is currently crowned with slopes ranging from 1.7%to 4.1%. There is a localized highpoint approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Lexington Avenue and a localized low point approximately 550 feet from the intersection of Lexington located at the catch basins. The surface water in this area drains into the ditch along TH 62 flowing west; it eventually crosses TH 62 and is discharged into a retention pond on the northwest quadrant of the Lexington TH 62 intersection. East of the catch basins and approximately 450 feet from the cul-de-sac lays another localized high point. Beginning at this point,water flows east in the ditch into the MnDOT TH 62/TH 35E interchange system. Curb and Gutter: Dakota Drive I begins at Lexington Avenue with a I full urban street section (curb and gutter)for approximately 600 feet to a the north and east before transitioning to curb on only the ` south side of the road. The curb in the urban section is in acceptable condition but in need of improvement primarily across driveway accesses. Approximately 40% of the curb is deficient in this area. From the end of the north curb line, the road tapers in width but Figure 4:Driveway apron(north)on Dakota Drive maintains a crown until reaching the cul-de-sac where the curb wraps around to a catch basin on the northeast side of the circle. The curb in this stretch of Dakota Drive is generally in excellent condition with exception to the cul-de-sac and across some driveways. 10-20% curb is deficient due to cracking or settling. Utilities: Dakota Drive has water service provided from SPRWS. The east end of the road is served from a tee off of Lexington and the west end is served from the south edge of the parcels. Some gate valve boxes were observed to be broken in the roadway. Other utilities in the area include underground power, gas, underground cable and communication, MnDOT storm sewer and City of Mendota Heights storm sewer. Settlement of the storm sewer was observed near the intersection of Lexington as well as in the green space near the north catch basin south of the gas station. This settlement should be further investigated for pipe failure. Dakota Drive is served by sanitary sewer that runs adjacent to Lexington Avenue and then turns east paralleling Dakota Drive on the south side. The flow is collected at a manhole in front of 1040 Dakota Drive where it flows south to William Court via easements. Centre Pointe Curve Centre Pointe Curve was originally platted and established as a frontage road in 1987 (Minnesota State Aid (MSA) route 120). The average annual daily traffic (AADT) was approximately 1000 measured by a 2018 MnDOT traffic study. There are a total of 2 business properties with frontage on Centre Pointe Curve as well as a portion of Resurrection Cemetery Property. Additionally, there Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 9 page 158 is an empty lot that is situated north and west of the Mendota Corporate Centre with potential to develop. Street: Centre Pointe Curve can be divided into three primary sections. Originating at TH 13, Centre Pointe Curve varies from 35.7'-34.6' from edge of bit to BOC crowned at 2-4%. Located at approximately 600' from TH 13, Centre Pointe Curve switches to an urban section with curb on both sides. This section of Centre Pointe Curve is bordered by a retaining wall on the north side of the road approximately 5'from BOC.The retaining wall appears to be original to the construction of the road and to be in excellent condition. The street is consistently 35.0' from BOC to BOC with a 2-3% crown. This section continues east for approximately 1150' until switching back to a hybrid rural/urban section. The section continues without curb until terminated at Lexington. Avenue at a varying width of 34'-36.4' from edge of bit to BOC at a 2-3% crown. The shouldering along Centre Pointe Curve is in fair condition with the exception to the northerly 300'west of Lexington Avenue. The pavement on Centre Pointe Curve appears to be in fair condition with some recent maintenance work completed including hot patching. The maintenance work appeared to be fairly extensive over the length of the road. Trail:The bituminous walking trail on ; Centre Pointe Curve is approximately 8'wide with a consistent 5' grass boulevard. It appears that the trail has been subjected to some frost cracking and attempted hot patching as recent as this year. Cracks that were hot '"'' s patched over appear to be reflecting through the new patch in the same locations. There are a total of 6 pedestrian ramps on Centre Pointe Curve. The pedestrian ramps on Centre Pointe Curve appear to be out of compliance at the intersections of Lexington and Centre Pointe Figure 5:Existing trail conditions(east) Centre Boulevard while potentially compliant Pointe Curve near TH 13 at the intersection of TH 13. More investigation will be need to determine the compliance of the pedestrian ramps at TH 13. Drainage: The north half of Centre Pointe Curve currently drains to the TH 62 ditch. Portions of the south curb line on the east end of the alignment near the Lexington intersection also drain to the TH 62 ditch. South of 1150 Centre Pointe Curve, surface drainage from the ditch exiting the parking lot of 1110 Centre Pointe Curve is collected into an 18" storm pipe that travels north to the south side of Centre Pointe Curve. The City of Mendota Heights and property owners have made mention that this pipe is often overwhelmed. The pipe remains 18" for approximately 420' until the pipe upsizes to 24" and then 36" 225' downstream. The storm sewer then collects the drainage from Centre Pointe Business Park and drains to a retention pond south of 1200 Centre Pointe Curve and eventually to Augusta Lake. Curb and Gutter:The curb and gutter on Centre Pointe Curve appears to be in excellent condition with little cracking or settlement. Some vegetation is beginning to grow in the cracks, however, the curb is still in excellent condition with only 10-20% deficiency along the entire alignment in all three street sections. Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 10 page 159 Utilities:Centre Pointe Curve has water service provided from SPRWS and sewer service from Lexington Avenue to 1200 Centre Pointe Curve. At the intersection of Centre Pointe Boulevard, there is a lift station that discharges to Hunter Lane north of TH 62. Several of the business water service boxes were observed to be in acceptable condition in the walking trail. Other utilities in the area include underground and overhead power, gas, underground and overhead cable and communication, MnDOT storm sewer, and City of Mendota Heights storm sewer. Centre Pointe Drive and Centre Pointe Boulevard Centre Pointe Drive and Centre Pointe Boulevard were constructed in 1987 in several phases of subdivision. There are a total of 11 business centers with frontage on Centre Pointe Curve and Boulevard. Street: Centre Pointe Drive originates at Lexington Avenue and has a consistent width of approximately 35.3' BOC to BOC and crown of 1-3%. Approximately 1460' to the west the alignment turns north and the street becomes Centre Pointe Boulevard. Centre Pointe Boulevard is a divided boulevard with 3 center driveway crossings (one at lift station near Centre Pointe Curve) that continues for approximately 800' to the north before intersecting with Centre Pointe Curve. Centre Pointe Boulevard has a consistent width of 27.3' BOC to BOC in each direction while the center boulevard that is 18.6' BOC to BOC for a total width of 73.2. The boulevard is sloped at approximately 1.5% away from the center divider. The pavement appears to be in fair condition with minimal fatigue cracking and settlement. It appears that the streets have been chip sealed and joint sealed. Drainage: Centre Pointe Boulevard and Drive Figure 6: Curb andpavement condition utilize curb and gutter with storm sewer for (south) Centre Pointe Boulevard drainage. On Centre Pointe Boulevard, water drains away from the center island to the outside curb. At the time of inspection, some evidence of sedimentation was found in localized areas of settled curb and at the intersection of Centre Pointe Boulevard and Centre Pointe Curve. Curb and Gutter: The curb and gutter appears to be in excellent condition. Some settlement in localized areas and cracking at driveways was noted but overall the curb appeared to only have 10-20% deficiency along the entire alignment on both Centre Pointe Drive and Centre Pointe Boulevard. Utilities: Centre Pointe Drive and Boulevard have water service provided from SPRWS. Several water service boxes are prevalent in the area. As previously stated, there is a lift station that discharges to Hunter Lane north of TH 62 at the intersection of Centre Pointe Boulevard and Centre Pointe Curve. Other utilities in the area include underground power, gas, underground cable and communication, and City of Mendota Heights storm sewer. Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 11 page 160 Acacia Boulevard and Pilot Knob Road Acacia Boulevard (previously MSAS 113) was originally platted and established in the 1920's as a tree lined two-lane boulevard leading to historic Acacia Cemetery, In 1993 with the reconstruction of TH 55, Acacia Boulevard was reconstructed into its current configuration to accommodate the TH 55 Bridge (Bridge No. 19090). A walking trail was also added with the reconfiguration. The AADT was approximately 1150 according to a 2018 MnDOT traffic study. Acacia Boulevard is bordered by City of Mendota Heights own parcels(dog park and Pilot KnoblOheyawahe area). Pilot Knob Road was also originally platted and established in the 1920's. The road terminates just north of Acacia Bou&evard to an open space known as Oheyawahe (Pilot Knob). The area is rich with Native American history, specifically the Dakota Tribe. An extensive study of the area was conducted by SRF in 2018 and the park is currently undergoing restoration and improvements, Bordering Pilot Knob Road is Acacia Cemetery, 2 residential properties, and 2 business properties. Street:Acacia Boulevard measured A consistently 45.3' BOC to BOC from the bridge to the intersection of Pilot Knob Road. The crown of Acacia Boulevard varies from 1-3%. Near the middle of the alignment there is q - a small curb cut for access to the dog park. At the time of inspection, several cars were utilizing the wide shoulders for parking to access the dog park and Oheyawahe area. The pavement appears to be in fair condition overall, however,. s r widespread fatigue cracking was Figure 7:Pilot Knob Road(south)near Acacia present. Cemetery Pilot Knob Road is consistently 45.3' BOC to BOC in width from Acacia Boulevard until tapering out to 77.3' BOC to BOC at the intersection of TH 13. The crown varies along the alignment between 2.54%. At the intersection of TH 13, Pilot Knob Road contains 2 thru lanes in each direction and a south bound left and right turn lane. Pilot Knob Road remains bituminous to the edge of the travel lane of west bound TH 13 (concrete construction). The bituminous on Pilot Knob Road appeared to be in fair condition with minimal fatigue cracking and settlement. Trail: On Acacia Boulevard, the 8' wide walking trail north of the street is in fair condition with some longitudinal cracking present. The boulevard between the trail and curb is consistently 5' along the entire alignment. The pedestrian ramps both at the bridge (Valencour Circle) and at Pilot Knob Road appeared to be non-compliant and in poor condition. It appears that the south curb line is potentially used as a walking path to the dog park area based on observed pedestrian activity. The gravel entrance to the dog park appeared to be heavily used. Feasibility Report TKDA Project No, 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 12 page 161 The walking trails on Pilot Knob Road are mostly 8' wide with 5'+ boulevard south of Commerce Drive. North of _ = Commerce Drive, the trail is $ wide with 3' boulevard with exception to _ some areas on the north end where the trail encroaches the curb to presumably avoid conflict with large maple tree s. In these areas the � y _ boulevard is eliminated and the trail is paved to the BOC at a width of 10'. ' Portions of the trail appear to be i* heavily degraded and patched over. Along the walking trail, there are Figure 8: Trail at commercial driveway on Pilot several concrete driveway aprons that Knob Road(north) appear to be non-compliant with the current MnDOT standards of driveway aprons with sidewalk crossings. At the intersection of TH 13, the pedestrian ramps appear to be more modern and potentially compliant. More investigation is needed to determine adequacy. At the time of inspection, it appeared that some recent trail improvements had been made on the Big Rivers Regional Trail on the northwest quadrant of the intersection. Drainage: Acacia Boulevard utilizes curb and gutter for drainage and all surface water from the trail and the street flows from west to east towards the bridge. The water is collected in storm sewer and routed to the ditch of TH 55 flowing south. On the south side of Acacia bordering the dog park is a graded section that appears to be an old ditch. Upon investigation, it did not appear that the ditch served any useful purpose or had any significant intake of water.There did not appear to be a culvert under the driveway crossing the ditch to the dog park. Pilot Knob Road utilizes curb and gutter drainage, and all surface water drains towards TH 13. Water is collected in a storm sewer and discharged to a pond on the southwest quadrant of Commerce Drive and Pilot Knob Road. From the pond, water is discharged south into the TH 13 storm water system. Curb and Gutter: The curb and gutter on both Pilot Knob Road and Acacia Boulevard appears to be in excellent condition. Some settlement in localized areas and cracking at driveways was noted, but overall the curb appeared to only have 10-20% deficiency along each of the alignments. Utilities:Pilot Knob Road and Acacia have water service provided from SPRWS. Sanitary sewer extends to the intersection of Pilot Knob Road and Acacia. Other utilities in the area include underground and overhead power, gas, underground and overhead cable and communication, MnDOT storm sewer, and City of Mendota Heights storm sewer. Lemay Avenue and Commerce Drive Lemay Avenue and Commerce Drive were originally platted in the 1940's as a subdivision called Gardenville. Over time the area was eventually consolidated and re-platted in 1983 to a business park and expanded several times in the 1990's. The area is home to 6 properties which include construction, state road maintenance, and distribution businesses. Street: Lemay Avenue and Commerce Drive are consistently 45.3' BOC to BOC in width. The crown varies from 1.5-3% along the alignment but flattens at the corner bumpouts. The corner bumpout in the south west corner of the business park has a radius of Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 13 page 162 approximately 37'. The pavement in the area appears to be in poor condition with large areas settling and fatigue cracking indicating potential subgrade issues, specifically the southern portion of Commerce Drive, Drainage: Lemay Avenue and Commerce Drive utilize curb and gutter and drain to a Pow point on Commerce Drive approximately 350' northwest of the cul-de-sac in the southwest corner. This water is directed to the pond behind the property at 1520 Commerce Drive. Surface drainage on Commerce Drive is directed to the pond on the southwest quadrant of the Commerce Drive Pilot Knob Road intersection and the pond south of the cul-de-sac in the southwest corner. Curb and Gutter:The curb oi and gutter in the business park is in fair condition with some exceptions.Along the south curb line of Commerce Drive a � = large stretch of curb (Pilot Knob to bumpout) is deteriorated to — r' a unacceptable condition. Other ��- areas appeared to have settled portions and normal cracking for the age of the curb. With the larger sections of replacementf it was estimated that r` - approximately 50-60% of the ' . Y curb on Commerce Drive was deficient while only 20-30% of the curb on Lemay Avenue was Figure 9:Failing curb and gutter and pavement in poor condition. Many of the Commerce Drive(south west) concrete aprons to the business were substandard and in poor condition. Utilities: Lemay Avenue and Commerce Drive have water service from SPRWS that is looped off of Pilot Knob Road. Sanitary sewer connects to Pilot Knob on the north and exits the development on the west side. Several of the business water service boxes were observed to be in acceptable condition. Other utilities in the area include underground power, gas, underground cable and communication, private storm sewer and City of Mendota Heights storm sewer. Some storm sewer castings on Commerce Drive were broken upon initial inspection. Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 14 page 163 Waters Drive Waters Drive was originally platted and settled in 1938. The area was eventually re-platted 1999 and extended in 2004 with the reconstruction of TH 55. Waters Drive is home to 4 building complexes with a variety of businesses including manufacturing, distribution, and small business. Street: Waters Drive varies in i width along the majority of the alignment ranging from 36.0' to 37.0' BOC to edge of bituminous. Near TH 55, Waters <b. Drive tapers out to a width of 50.0' BOC to edge of bit at the PC and continues around the radius south into the intersection. Some shouldering blowout and settling was observed on the inside of the radius. At the north end of the road, the radius of the cul-de-sac is approximately 25'. The road is Figure 90: Wafers Drive(south east)pavement condition. crowned from TH 55 at varying slopes from 1-3%; at the cut-de- sac the surface sheet drains to the northwest. The pavement appears to be in fair condition with the exception of some frost cracking and surface degradation in localized areas. Drainage: The east portion of Waters Drive drains to the ditch of TH 55 and runs to the south, The west half of the road drains to curb and gutter and is collected at the south end of the road near the intersection of TH 55. The water from both areas collects into a retention pond on the south end of the road. Some sediment can be seen on aerial photographs in the pond. The pond should be investigated for cleanout. Curb and Gutter. The curb and gutter on Waters Drive appears to be in acceptable condition with some cracking and settlement. It was estimated that approximately 30%curb was in poor condition, functionally or aesthetically. Some commercial driveways appeared to be subject to deterioration cracking (corner cracking/edge cracking). Utilities:Waters Drive has water service provided from SPRWS behind the west curb Tine and sewer service served from the west stemming from Pilot Knob Road. Several of the business water service boxes were observed to be in acceptable condition in the pavement. Other utilities in the area include underground power, gas, underground cable and communication, MnDOT storm sewer, and City of Mendota Heights storm sewer. Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334,000 City of Mendota Heights Page 15 page 164 Proposed improvements: Proposed pavement improvements provided in this section of the report were developed in conjunction with our geotechnical engineering partners Braun Intertec (Braun). Braun took a total of 21 soil borings and 10 pavement corings to investigate the proposed improvement areas. Braun found that pavement depths ranged from 3 to 11.75 inches and aggregate depths ranged from 1 to 17.75 inches depending on the street. Below, displayed on Table 1, are the depths of bituminous and aggregate measured from the soil borings and pavement corings. A copy of the geotechnical report and soil borings is available in Exhibit 7 in the appendix. Table 1: Boring and Coring Logs Bituminous Aggregate Total Street Cure (in) Base(in) (in) Suhgrade Soil Type ST-1 4,5 7 11.5 Silty Sand(SM) ST-2 5 5 10 Poorly Graded Sand with Commerce Drive Silt(SP-SM) ST-3 6 5 8.5 15 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt(SP-SM) Lemay Avenue ST-4 3 8.5 11.5 Poorly Graded Sand 5P) ST-5 6 4 10 poorly Graded Sand with Silt(Sp-Sivi) ST-6 10 6 16 Silty Sand (SM) ST-7 9 7 16 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt(SP-SM) ST-8 9 8 17 Silty Sand(SM) Centre Pointe Curve ST-9 3 6.5 9.5 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt(SP-SM) ST-10 3 7 10 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt(SP-SM) ST-11 2.5 7 9.5 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt(SP-SM) ST-12 4 1 7 11 Silty Sand(SM) ST-13 5 12 17 Silty Sand(SM) Dakota Drive ST-14 4.5 6 10.5 Siity Sand(SM) ST-15 8.5 9 17.5 Silty Sand(SM) ST-16 5 7.5 12.5 Silty Sand(SM) Centre Pointe ST-17 4.5 8 12.5 Poorly Graded Sand with Boulevard Silt(SP-SM) ST-18 l 5 7 12 Silty Sand(SM) STA9 5 7 12 Silty Sand(S M) ST-20 3 6 9 Silty Sand(SM) Carmen Lane ST-21 4.5 6 10.5 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt(SP-SM) C-1 11.75 10 21.75 - C-2 9 18 27 - Waters Drive C-3 4.5 6 10.5 - C-4 9.5 17.5 27 - C-5 9.25 21 30.25 - C-6 9.5 1 10.5 - Pilot Knob Road C-7 9.375 17.75 27.125 - C-8 9.375 1.5 10.875 - C-9 9.75 13.5 23.25 - Acacia Boulevard C-10 9.5 11 20.5 - Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 16 page 165 Streets: On Acacia Boulevard, Pilot Knob Road, and Waters Drive, the existing pavement conditions and geotechnical investigation indicated that a mill and overlay type improvement would be the most practical and cost effective street improvement. The streets mentioned above have a thicker bituminous section on average and are currently in better condition than streets proposed for reclamation. As recommended by the eotechnical report, areas with widespread fatigue or longitudinal cracking may need to be milled at full pavement depth to Y remove deteriorated bituminous from the section and improve the ,• mill and overlay longevity. Additionally, areas where pavement coring indicated thinner bituminous r j _ sections may need to be excavated r ? �Y to a deeper bituminous depth if the section indicates lacking structural �l �I integrity after initial milling. The proposed milling depth is 2" for r �N5 p g p � Y. Waters Drive and Pilot Knob Road 9 and 4" for Acacia Boulevard due to � � �� M widespread fatigue cracking and thicker bituminous section. Milling and overlaying will provide the `~ street with clean aesthetics, a fresh Figure 11:Reclaim and curb replacement(City of Mendota and smooth riding surface, and Heights Marie Avenue Project 2020) improved surface drainage. This improvement will provide a smooth surface that should last 10 to 15 years (with future routine maintenance). A proposed typical section for the proposed mill and overlay is shown in Exhibit 3. Considering the existing condition, deterioration factors, and geotechnical investigation, a 13" pavement reclamation is proposed for the following streets within the project area: Centre Pointe Drive, Centre Pointe Curve, Centre Pointe Boulevard, Commerce Drive, Dakota Drive and Lemay Avenue. As recommended by the geotechnical report some areas of Centre Pointe Curve may need to be pre-milled at a depth of 4 inches to remove bituminous from the section to improve the reclaim material composition and gradation. Mill and overlay improvements and full reconstruction were investigated, but with the current pavement conditions, the proposed improvements offer better long tenor value. Full depth reclamation will provide a new structural aggregate base and disrupt the existing frost heaving that has breached the existing aggregate base and bituminous surface. This improvement will provide a new paving surface that should last 30 to 40 years (with future routine maintenance and mill and overlay improvements). Considering that the underlying base and pavement materials have deteriorated, cracking would immediately reflect to the new bituminous if a mill and overlay was completed. Full reconstruction was also evaluated, but because the majority of utilities and concrete curb is in fair condition this option is not economically feasible. A 13" depth reclamation emerged as the recommended street improvement to provide the aforementioned streets with a uniform street section and longer lasting results with a lower cost than full reconstruction. To make room fcr the new bituminous section, the reclaimed material will be graded and compacted to a depth of 5"belcw finish grade after reclamation and excess material is removed. A proposed typical section for the proposed reclamation is shown in Exhibit 3. Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 17 page 166 Due to the existing street section and width, Carmen Lane is being recommended for widening and full x, section reconstruction. The proposed layout of Carmen Lane is recommended to be 22' BOC to BOC with surmountable curb from the cul-de-sac to Crown Point Drive. From Crown Point Drive to TH 62 Carmen Lane is — proposed to be widened to 25.3' BOC to Figure f2:Street widening project(White Bear BOC with B618 curb and gutter. By Township 2020) widening Carmen Lane, safety and ease of maintenance will be improved substantially. Full section reconstruction will provide Carmen Lane with new structural aggregate base and bituminous surface and urbanize the street section closer to modern standards of safety and accessibility. This improvement will provide a new paving surface that should last 30 to 40 years (with future maintenance and mill and overlay improvements). A proposed typical section for the proposed section reconstruction and street widening on Carmen Lane is shown in Exhibit 3 of the appendix. Table 2 provides geotechnical recommendations gathered from the geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) and collaboration with Braun. Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 18 page167 Table 2: Pavement Improvement Recommendations Street Core Pre Treatment Depth Excavation Non-wearing Wearing course (in) (in) Course ST-1 13 5 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C Commerce ST-2 13 5 2 5"SPVVEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C Drive ST-3 13 5 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C Lemay Avenue ST-4 13 5 2.5"SPVVEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C ST-5 13 5 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPVVEA340C ST-6 4"pre-mill 13 1 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C ST-7 4"pre-mill 13 1 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C Centre Pointe ST-8 4"pre-mill 13 1 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C o Curve ST-9 13 5 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C i� E ST-10 13 5 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C a STA1 13 5 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C ST-12 13 5 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C ST-13 13 5 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C Dakota Drive ST-14 13 5 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C STA5 13 5 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWFA340C ST-16 13 5 2,5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C Centre Pointe ST-17 13 5 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C Boulevard STA8 13 5 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWEA340C ST-19 13 5 2.5"SPWEA340C 2.5"SPWFA340C ST-20 Remove 6 2.5"SPWEA340C 1.5"SPWEA340C Carmen Lane pavement (Reconstruction) Remove ST-21 6 2.5"SPWEA340C 1.5"SPWEA340C pavement C 1 Mill and patch 2 _ 2.0"SPWEA340B select areas C 2 Mill and patch 2 2.0"SPWEA340B select areas Waters Drive C-3 Mill and patch 2 - 2.0"SPWEA340B select areas C-4 Mill and patch 2 _ 2.0"SPWEA340B select areas C 5 Mill and patch 2 2.0"SPWEA340B o select areas ee Mill and patch C-6 select areas 2 _ 2.0"SPWEA340B Pilot Knob Road Mill and patch C-7 2 _ 2.0"SPWEA3406 select areas C-8 Mill and patch 2 _ 2.0"SPWEA340B select areas C 9 Mill and patch 4 - _ 4.0"SPWEA340B Acacia select areas Boulevard Mill and patch C-10 4 - 4.0"SPWEA340B select areas Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 19 page 168 Trails: Proposed improvements to the existing bituminous walking trails in the i project area would proceed with the following sequencer identify, saw cut and remove unsuitable portions of walking trail including cracking, '� � n- , heaving and settling; patch removed areas matching existing depth of walking trail (assumed to be 3"); pave ....Ar bituminous leveling course to correct "" grade and improve smoothness; pave 2"bituminous overlay.This method will ensure that existing cracking in the trail44 does not reflect through the surface of 1° the overlay as seen in recent hot patching. Because the majority pedestrian ramps in the area appear to Figure 13:Reclaim and curb replacement(City of Mendota be non-compliant, it is our Heights Marie Avenue Project 2020) recommendation that all pedestrian ramps be reconstructed to comply with the most current ADA standards. Where the walking trail approaches an existing pedestrian crossing the trail will be removed 15-30' back to allow for smooth low slope grade transition from the overlay to the pedestrian ramp elevation. Each ramp will be assessed on an individual basis to ensure compliance. Along the south side of the trail east of Carmen Lane lies a steep embankment down to the drainage from TH 62. With the resurfacing of the trail, bicycle and pedestrian traffic will likely travel faster and with steep grades in the area this particular area could become unsafe due to the small shoulder(short recovery area) and the steep drop. Realigning the alignment and profile of the trail would have major impacts to the surrounding wooded area and private property. To improve safety, this area would benefit from a fence or guardrail (approximately 100' long) along the top of the embankment. Additionally, the trail may benefit from advisory signs (steep grade or reduce speed signs) along the alignment. A new 8' bituminous walking trail on Acacia Boulevard originating at Pilot Knob Road due east to the dog park is proposed to improve pedestrian safety and mobility in the area. This area would highly benefit from a pedestrian trail in this area because of the adjacent dog park and the Oheyawahe area nearby. The proposed trail would be offset 5' from the BOC and terminate at a concrete driveway apron at the dog park entrance. The existing swale would be partially fulled by the trail embankment. The trail and boulevard would drain towards the street at 1.5% and 2.0% respectively. Because no detectable flow could be identified entering the ditch, no improvements will need to be made to the drainage adjacent to the trail. Curb and Gutter: Existing curb and gutter will remain in place except for curb that is damaged, settled, or not draining properly. The existing curb will be inspected and marked for removal prior to construction. It is typical to see between 20% to 30% curb replacement for residential and light commercial roadways of this age due to settlement or cracking, however many of the streets appeared to have curb that was in excellent condition. The curb replacement quantities were estimated during a field inspection in November of 2021. For the purposes of this report and estimates, the Table 3 describes the curb replacement percentages used for calculation of project costs and scope. Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 20 page169 Table 3: Curb Replacement Percentage Curb Replacement Percentage Acacia Boulevard 20% Carmen Lane(Reconstruction) 100% Centre Pointe Bouievard 20% s Centre Pointe Curve 22% Centre Pointe Drive 20% _ Commerce Drive(long stretch defective) 45!° Dakota Drive 35% ''' ` - Lemay Avenue 20% Pilot Knob Road 20% x Waters Drive 30°I° Figure 14:Spot curb replacement(City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls Project 2021) One portion of curb, approximately 600 feet in length on Commerce Drive (south curb line) extending from Pilot Knob Road to the cul-de-sac was in poor condition and should be replaced in its entirety. In addition to the curb replacement, drain tile should be considered to improve subsurface drainage. In addition to curb and gutter replacement, deficient residential and commercial driveways will be spot repaired on an as needed basis. Concrete commercial driveways will be replaced with 8" concrete over 6" aggregate base, residential concrete driveways will be replaced with 6" concrete over 6" aggregate base. Commercial bituminous driveways will be replaced with 4" of bituminous over 6" of aggregate base (same bituminous mix as roadway). Residential bituminous driveways will be replaced with 3" of bituminous over 6" of aggregate base. Turf disturbed as a part of the curb and driveway replacement process will be restored with 6" topsoil and commercial turf grade hydroseed in commercial areas and 6 of topsoil and sod in residential areas. Utilities: It is recommended that all the manhole and catch basin rings be replaced as a part of the pavement project. It is typical to re-set all manhole and catch basin grades to match the new grades of the roadway to improve drivability and drainage. . .4 k In addition to the adjustment rings, outdated and damaged manhole and catch basin casting assemblies will be replaced with modern castings. Storm sewer manholes and catch basins and sanitary manholes will be adjusted with all new concrete rings. Sanitary sewer manholes will be recast with all new concrete rings and infiltration prevention products to limit inflow and infiltration rr - into the sanitary system. Gate valve boxes and curb stop boxes within the project limits will be adjusted under the direction of Figure 15:SPRWS hydrant replacement(City SPRWS. Damaged valve and curb stop boxes will of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls Project 2021) be repaired with new parts according to SPRWS standard. Additionally 2 hydrants on Carmen Lane will be relocated as part of the street widening. Conflicting private utilities will be coordinated with the utility owner once design has been finalized. It is expected on Carmen lane that some communication pedestals and power poles that may conflict with the desired street layout. Drainage: While the majority of the project area drains effectively and efficiently, some specific areas are recommended to be improved. Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 21 page 170 On Carmen Lane with the addition of curb and gutter, storm sewer should be added to drain the new street. With the proposed configuration of Carmen Lane, a total of 6 drainage structures are proposed (3 sumped structures). The drainage structures on the south side will contain sumps to reduce pollutant discharge into the TH 62 ditch. Drainage from the new structures will follow the existing grade of the ditch from west to east. Additional drainage improvements on Carmen Lane will include ditch cleaning east of the TH 62 / Carmen Lane intersection as well as rip rap at the eroded end sections adjacent to the walking trail. Another proposed improvement is the storm sewer that collects the runoff from 1110 Centre Pointe Curve. As noted by the City and the property owners, this pipe is overwhelmed at times with stormwater runoff. As built records indicate the existing storm sewer is 15" from the flared end section (FES) to 1150 Centre Pointe Curve (225 LF @ 3.25% and 0'-7' depth) and 18" from 1150 Centre Pointe Curve to the east downstream catch basin manhole (415 LF @ 3.12% and 7`-10' depth). After the catch basin manhole the pipe upsizes to 24"and eventually 36" at the intersection of Centre Pointe Boulevard. Due to the smaller diameter of pipe from the FES, it is recommended that the 15" and 18" pipe be upsized. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that a 24" pipe would accommodate the drainage. Further analysis would be conducted during design. The improvement cost of upsizing the 640 feet of pipe and all restoration costs was added to the Centre Pointe Curve improvement casts at a total of$103,810.75. Another option to help improve storm water quality, rate control and promote development would be the construction of a storm water pond to collect the water from the lots at 1110 Centre Pointe Curve. It appears from satellite imagery and contours that the 9.67 acre lot drains to the north and west through the rip rap ditch. On this parcel there is approximately 5.51 acres of impervious surface. North of this property is an empty lot to be developed at a later date. This lot is approximately 2,07 acres in size. Assuming that the lot will contain 70% impervious surface upon development, it can be expected that there will be 1.45 acres of added impervious surface. Between the two lots there is 11,74 acres of total area and 6.96 acres of assumed impervious surface. According to the Minnesota storm water manual the ponding volume must contain 1800 cubic feet per acre of total area for dead storage and 0.5"to 1.0" per acre of impervious area for live storage. Below is a calculation showing the approximate pond volume necessary for both the developed lot and existing developed lot. [Dead Storage]+[Live Storage]=Total Storage [11.74 AC x(1900 CFIAC)1(27 CFICY)]+[{(6.96 AC x(43560 ACIFT))x(1 IN/(12 INIFT)))/(27 CFICY)1-total storage 782.E CY(dead storage)+935.7 CY(live storage)= 1718.4 CY total storage, rounded to 1750 CY I i] 0' rc it Figure 15a: 1110 Centre Pointe Curve parcel Figure 16b:Ponding option for 1110 Centre Pointe and impervious area(red) Curve Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 22 page 171 More pond volume may change depending on pollutants present, reduction goals,subsurface soils, and future development plans. Additionally, permanent and temporary easements, maintenance agreements, storm sewer and surface water collection improvements may be needed on the existing and proposed developments. Below is a preliminary cost estimate for the ponding improvements, for purposes of this report the cost of the ponding was not included in the total improvement costs.Additional hydraulic analysis would be needed to find exact pond dimensions and depth. Below on Table 4 is the approximate cost for the pond construction and overflow structure. Table 4: Ponding Cost Pond Improvements Unit Quantity Cost Total 72"Overflow Structure EA 1 $10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 24"RCP Pipe Culvert Class III LF 24 $ 85,00 $ 2,040.00 18"RCP Pipe Culvert Class III LF 24 $ 75.00 $ 1,800.00 24"RC Safety Apron EA 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 18"RC Safety Apron EA 1 $ 1,150.00 $ 1,150.00 Rip Rap Class 3 TON 20 $ 75.00 $ 1,500.00 Common Excavation CY 1750 $ 20.00 $ 35,000.00 Common Topsoil Borrow CY 57 $ 40.00 $ 2,280.00 Fertilizer Type 3 LBS 30 $ 0.85 $ 25.50 Seed Mixture 25-151 LBS 12 $ 1.25 $ 15.00 Seeding AC 0_09 $ 5,000.00 $ 450.00 Hydraulic Stabilized Fiber Matrix LBS 210 $ 1,00 $ 210.00 Total Pond Improvements $ 56,670.50 Resident and Business Input: On November 9,2021, an informational letter and questionnaire were sent to the 124 business and residential property owners in the Centre Pointe Street Improvements project area to inform them of the project.The questionnaires asked several questions including drainage issues, rain gardens, tree removal, parking issues, traffic complaints, and preferred street configurations. Of the 124 questionnaires sent out, 23 were returned for a rate of 19%. However, 21 letters and questionnaires were returned by the post office and some returned letters contained responses for multiple addresses in the same complex. After adjusting for the returned and multiple questionnaires,the return rate was 27%(23 out of 84).The key issues noted from the questionnaire were localized drainage concerns,traffic issues (safety and congestion) near and around the state highways,tree removal and disruption of business during construction. The letters, questionnaires, and responses (and summary) are shown in Exhibit 2. Of particular importance will be maintaining access during construction to serve these local businesses. Project Funding: Estimated costs: The following costs were prepared for the recommended mill and overlay, full depth reclamation and reconstruction improvements. An Engineer's Estimates (Exhibit 4) was prepared and is subject to change depending on the final design of the project, required easements and/or right-of-way, soil conditions, bids received, and actual work performed. The cost estimate includes indirect cost for City administration, design engineering, construction engineering, legal support,fiscal support, interest during construction,assessment roll preparation, and contingencies encountered during design and construction. Table 5 provides a summary of the estimated project construction and indirect costs for the mill and overlay improvements, reclamation improvements and the reconstruction improvements. Feasibility Report TKDA Project No, 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 23 page 172 Table 5: Project Cost Project Total Mill and Overlay Reclamation Reconstruction Total Estimated Costs Street Improvements $ 610,390 $ 1,807,790 5 234,030 $ 2,662,210 Indirect Costs for Street Improvements 20% $ 122,080 $ 361,560 $ 46,810 $ 530,450 Total Costs for Street Improvements $ 732,470 $ 2,169,350 $ 280,830 $ 3,182,650 Trail Improvements $ 130,090 $ 96,510 $ 16,180 $ 242,780 Indirect Costs Trail Improvements(20%)* $ 26,020 $ 19,310 $ 3,240 $ 48,570 Total Costs for Trail Improvements $ 156,110 $ 115,810 $ 19,420 $ 291,340 Storm Sewer Improvements $ 16,800 $ 93,380 $ 40,330 $ 150,510 Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 3,000 $ 31,200 $ - $ 34,200 Water Improvements $ 8,100 $ 27,000 $ 1,000 $ 36,100 Total Cast for Utility Improvements $ 27,900 $ 151,580 $ 41,330 $ 220,810 St Paul Regional Water Improvements $ 4,500 $ 9,750 $ 22,340 $ 36.590 Total Indirect Costs for City(15%)* $ 680 $ 1,470 $ 3,350 $ 5,500 Total Cost for St Paul Re tonal Water $ 5,180 $ 11,220 $ 25,690 $ 42,090 Total Improvement Cost $ 772,880 $ 2,065,630 $ 313,880 $ 3,152,390 Total Indirect Costs for City` $ 148,780 $ 382,340 $ 53,400 $ 584,520 Total Cost $ 921,660 $ 2,447,970 $ 367,280 $ 3,736,910 *Indirect costs include lega#,engineering,administration,and finance Assessment Policy: Per the City's Assessment Policy, benefiting properties shall be assessed 50% of the street improvement costs. The remaining 50% shall be paid through the Street Capital Improvement Fund.The term of the assessment is proposed to be 10 years for mill and overlay and reclamation projects and 20 years for reconstruction projects. The interest rate for the term has not yet been set and will be provided as the process moves forward.The interest rate was assumed to be 3.25% for the purpose of this report. The improvements are proposed to be assessed on a frontage foot basis for commercial properties and unit basis for residential property. Assessments would be levied to the benefiting properties as per the Assessment Policy adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council on June 16, 1992, and as amended. See Exhibit 5 for the preliminary assessment roll and Exhibit 6 for the preliminary assessment map. Private streets are considered access points or driveways within the improvement area and are therefore assessed as a part of the project. These properties benefit from the improvement because the property owners use the improved roadways to access their property. Mill and Overlay The area proposed to be assessed is every lot, piece, and parcel within the City limits benefiting from the Pilot Knob Road, Waters Drive, Acacia Boulevard mill and overlay street improvements, whether abutting or not, within the following described areas located within Sections 27, 28, 33, and 34, Township 28N, Range 23W, as described on the following plats: • Gardenville Re-Arrangement(old) • Perron Place • Waters Drive Business Park • Le May's Rear of Lots 8-11-12-13&14 Le May's Addition Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 24 page 173 Reclamation The reclamation improvement area proposed to be assessed is every lot, piece, and parcel within the City limits benefiting from the Centre Pointe Boulevard, Centre Pointe Drive, Centre Pointe Curve, Dakota Drive, Lemay Avenue, and Commerce Drive reclamation street improvements, whether abutting or not, within the following described areas located within Sections 26, 27, and 33, Township 28N, Range 23W, as described on the following plats: • Curley's Valley View • Dakota Valley View Addition • Yorkton Centre Pointe South • Auditor's Subdivision No. 34 Mendota • First Addition to Resurrection Cemetery • Mendota Heights Business Park • Mendota Heights Business Park, 1 st Addition • Mendota Heights Business Park, 2nd Addition • Mendota Heights Business Park, 3rd Addition • Mendota Heights Business Park, 4th Addition • Mendota Heights Business Park, 5th Addition Reconstruction The street reconstruction area proposed to be assessed is every lot, piece, and parcel within the City limits benefiting from the Carmen Lane reconstruction street improvements, whether abutting or not,within the following described areas located within Sections 26,Township 28N, Range 23W, as described on the following plats: • Tuminelly's Carmen Court • Carmen Court Replat • Crown Point Assessment Calculation and Estimation: Assessments were calculated for each improvement type (mill and overlay, reclamation, and reconstruction). The assessable amount is divided by front footage or the number of units within each improvement type. Business and commercial lots are proposed to be assessed on frontage length. Residential properties are assessed on a unit basis. For those properties that are sub- dividable,more units maybe assigned based on the City Land Use Code(100 linear feet of frontage and 15,000 square feet of area). The preliminary assessment calculation is derived from taking the overall assessable project costs,multiplying by 50%, and then dividing by the number of units within the project area or the front footage. The units and frontage feet are shown in the preliminary assessment roll and include a total of 6068 linear feet of frontage and 5 residential units for mill and overlay, 14452 linear feet of frontage and 3 residential units for reclamation, and 9 residential units for reconstruction. Table 6 displays the assessment calculation and estimation. Many of the streets abut TH 62 or TH 55 within this area and therefore only provide access to one side of the street. This reduces the assessable front footage or number of units. In these areas, a frontage or unit count was added and assigned to the City. This normalized the assessment rates. However, even after this was completed, the mill and overlay rates were still larger than should be expected. The main reason for this is the wider width of the roadways for the mill and overlay area. For mill and overlay the assessment rate was capped at $30.00 per front foot or$3,000 for each residential unit. Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 25 page 174 Table 6: Assessment Calculation Assessment Calculation Mill and Overlay Reclaim Reconstruction Total Total Project Cost $ 921,660 $ 2,447,970 $ 367,280 $ 3,736,910 Assessable Amount $ 732,470 $ 2.169,350 $ 280,830 $ 3,182,650 Assessment Amount(50%of Assessable Amount) $ 366,235 $ 1,084,675 $ 140,415 $ 1,591,325 Total Units-Residential* 5 3 9 17 Total Units-City of Mendota Heights* 8 8 Unit Assessment(Assessable amount/XX Units) $ 3,000 $ 6,005 $ 8,260 Total Linear Feet-Business* 4,078 12,601 16,879 Total Linear Feet-Residential* 500 300 800 Total Linear Feet-City of Mendota He€ hts* 3,391 5,163 8,554 Total Linear Feet* 7,969 18,064 26,033 Linear Foot Assessment(Assessable amount/XX Linear Feet)** $ 30.00 $ 60.05 $ - Total Business Assessment $ 122„340 $ 7561642 $ - $ 878,982 Total Residential Assessment $ 15,000 $ 18,014 $ 74,335 $ 107,354 Total of Residential and Business Assessments $ 137,340 $ 774,655 $ 74,335 $ 986,335 Total City of Mendota Heights Assessment(Municipal Le $ 101,730 $ 310,020 $ 66,080 $ 477,830 Total Assessment Amount $ 239,070 $ 1,084,675 $ 140,415 $ 1,464,165 *1 unit=100 frontage feet "Mill&overlay rate capped at$30.00/linear foot Funding Sources: Funding sources for this project are proposed to come from municipal levy, assessments, and utility funds. Table 7 summarizes the funding sources for the two project options. Table 7: Project Funding Funding Source MITI&Overlay Reclamation Reconstruction Project Total Municipal Levy $ 549,510 $ 800,495 $ 159,840 $ 1,509,845 Cl Assessment(Municipal Le $ 101.730 $ 310.020 $ 66,080 $ 477,830 Total Municipal Lev $ 651,240 $ 1,110,515 $ 225,920 $ 1,987,675 Resident and Business Assessment 50% $ 137,340 $ 774,655 $ 74,335 S 986,330 State Aid Funding $ 100,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ 500,000 Utility Fund-StonfnSewer $ 16,800 $ 93,38Q $ 40,330 $ 150,510 Utility Fund-Sanitary Sewer Fund $ 3,000 $ 31,200 $ - $ 34,200 Utility Fund--Water Fund $ 8,100 $ 27,000 $ 1,000 $ 36,100 St Paul Regional Water Fund $ 6,180 $ 11,220 $ 25,690 $ 42,090 Total $ 921,660 $ 2,447,970 $ 367,280 $ 3,736,910 The total project cost is estimated at$3,736,910. It is presumed that the City would secure bonding for the Municipal Levy and Assessment portions of the project ($2,974,010), The assessment amount of$986,330 is equivalent to 33.2% of the bond amount. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 Special Assessment Bond Issue requires that a minimum of 20% of the total bond issue amount be recovered through special assessments. Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 26 page 175 Preliminary Project Schedule: Table 8 outlines a project schedule to substantially complete the assessable project in 2022. Table 8: Preliminary Project Schedule Activity Date Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Report October 5,2021 Accept Feasibility Report January 4,2022 Neighborhood Meeting January,2022 Public Hearing 1 Order improvements February 1,2022 Accept Plans and Specifications and Authorize Bidding March,2022 Assessment Hearing/Adopt Assessment Roll/Award Contract April,2022 Commencement of Construction MaylJune,2022 Substantial Completion of Construction September,2022 Certify Assessments to County September,2022 Warranty Inspection June, 2023 Conclusion and Recommendation: The recommended street improvements will produce a uniform stable long lasting roadway for the residents and businesses of Mendota Heights as well as reduce maintenance time and cost while also increasing roadway longevity. The total estimated cost of the recommended improvements is $3,736,910, A portion of this project is proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners and the remainder through other funding sources. In accordance with the City's Assessment policy, the preliminary assessment for the recommended improvement is calculated at$3,000 per unit and $30.00 per linear foot for mill and overlay improvements, $6,005 per unit and $60.05 per linear foot for reclamation improvements, and $8,260 per unit for reconstruction improvements. As the project is designed and competitively bid, the calculated assessment amount will be updated leading up to the adoption of the assessment roll. The improvements are necessary to allow for safe and reliable street and utility services within the City of Mendota Heights. The project will be competitively bid to allow for a cost effective improvement. The feasibility study has provided an overall analysis of the feasible improvements for consideration within this project area. Therefore, the proposed improvements within the areas outlined in this report are necessary, cost effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint. Feasibility Report TKDA Project No. 18334.000 City of Mendota Heights Page 27 page 176 III, mil TKDA. EXHIBIT 6- ASSESSMENT MAPS TKDA 1 444 Cedar Street Suite 1500 1 Saint Paul, MN 55101 651.292.4400 • tkda.com An employee-owned company promoting affirmative action and equal opportunity, N page) —1 m 9t LO " O N W Q � Z L LU �- > C� � = W Cl) 04 a ,z N zco o Q �co o� 1 M in as P- LO N N w m / t /l tll m 07 N pz�»'L-IlBb luaws=_assN�Q vale,r��sdP�q luawssassy Aieulu�IlaidS',51!y14�34N<xfag Rilliy!seud�spaiadj,6luo!I'supe•�d 60W06tEEPlI�!a-s,yfi!a�{elupuayrw-t}t_N_ujed luawnocq N IXpaai'7$ rZZ ro a T co oo w W Z a ca Z cm W a` a CJ a ti Go 0 cc� CD I- z Im 0 m 0 u m T 0 T O Gh n H O w N T 2 M T rn tB T � a c N N J P Z-4uawssassq uawie��sday.��uawssassy weww,P�d S,siniy,,3,y:otla}�f..ii ai ea�,,tF,o�,N :��u qn poi,j yip[Cb-_�ntd7.,.aq F+�,c..u�"I >1 gi4d 7uewnanp N hpage 9 u" 0 O N 0 0 a N � O m o ` X o F p uat � p r a LL 2 lr M LL N u Li TTP t0 Itl O O W ih 0 X: U c r r3, m T n � cnv ggf� tlO Q S Y mlo 0 _ N N � 9z9 ,69Z O 9 31NIOd 3N1N33 0 m m ,904 ,69E u n ti LL LL Z Q LL � b � G O S r i tla O N N f0 R N f /O lu LL C N � uz d01 w Pzw E-luewssassy aiwapysdeyy luawssassy Yuaulwll�d-81si!N4%3U�Ou3d N1114jsns�s. uyd-;q,u�ianc��,;vet��eaEea'.'�N�.�-6jgL-[;.jDPlasVIm-G1LX:419dluawn3Od N O ^fie,aaj o T. a - r 2 Co CD� t" T ERcle DR 00MM ��1 d N C ~ 4 r vO N an C7 � M � r 0 4f"i5 ,05L z 3na Adw3-1 N O Gz m N N cV Tc �N � CN fl l�l! O 4 N �e N LL b _ z h U !LJ ti w ` t- r ° [v _ c+t N a rn om ¢�¢ 4LU aL Q/118-Y11 J tl'l�i/ U o EO M u� H 2 0w x o z w IL 12 ..........A r N N psim'4-lalll Aewa-Asdeyy t4VIgpBaj%=Voda8—SMuoponpoid luawnooa page 181 8d. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota HeigntS,MN bbilb 651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com * CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 4, 2022 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Establish Date(s) for City Council Work Session and Special Closed Session Meeting INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to schedule one or more work sessions and a special city council closed session meeting to discuss a variety of topics. BACKGROUND There are a number of topics which the City Council needs to discuss in a work setting, including: • Parks and Recreation Commission Candidate Interviews • (Strategic Priority) Conversation on Bourne Lane property future • A joint session with the Parks and Recreation Commission—Parks Strategic Plan • Personnel policy updates and proposed benefit changes City Council work sessions would be in-person and open to the public. Additionally, the city council is needing to set a date for a special city council meeting pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 13D.04, subd. 2. This meeting would be closed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 13D.05, subd. 3(b). ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff is asking Council to identify one or more meeting dates and time(s) during the month of January and/or early part of February for council work sessions. Ideally,a work session to conduct Parks and Recreation Commission candidate interviews would be best held prior to the February 2 City Council meeting so that the selected candidate could attend the February 8 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting. Staff is also asking Council to identify a meeting date and time prior to the week of January 17 to hold a special closed session meeting to engage in confidential attorney-client communications and litigation strategy related to the appeal of a determination by the Public Employees Retirement Association. page 182 Calendar pages are provided indicating available/open dates. ACTION REQUESTED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, establish meeting dates and times for one or more city council work session meetings and a date and time for a special closed session meeting. 00 Ln N 01 Q ra r-I N N o N Oz N n R* r-I 00 > w v o 06 u 0 zu en O r-I N N Ln N M Ln r-I r-I 0 N f6 0 v ._ Ln Ln t o E `- o Q V R* E r-I 00 E Ln E Q r-I r-I Q N 0- 0 r c •V •++ Ln •V O O Ln 7 4J ° 7 C Ln V d E t.O V E V a E O V V V 2 r-I r-I r-I v v CLn N M +s+ >. o � a D O U o L m N a1 r0-I N M v 00 Ln N Q r-I r-I N N - O N 00 Ln r-I r-I N M O N N E M Q r-I N C 7 O V V ri 00 LA E N E 41 o o `O c Ln �' Q oii ..p In o d 7 Q i Y M 7 C t�if *' V Z d O 0 � V a E r V _� t O o +' V V Ln in � o LIL a u