Loading...
2012-06-05 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 5, 2012 — 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Acknowledgement of May 15, 2012 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledgement of May 22, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes c. Revised NDC4 Web Streaming Agreement d. Approval of Sign Permit, 760 Highway 110 — BC2 Artisan Bakery e. Receipt of April 2012 Fire Department Activity Report f. Receipt of Pay Equity Report Compliance Letter g. Approval of Pharmaceutical Drop -Off Program Joint Powers Agreement h. Approval of 2011 Year -End Auditor's Recommendations i. Planning Case 2012 -12, Conditional Use Permit for a Fence at 917 Chippewa Avenue j. Planning Case 2012 -17, Critical Area Permit for a Storage Shed at 1008 James Court k. Approval of Massage Therapy License Renewals I. Approval of 2012 Election Judges m. Approve Completion of Probationary Employment Period for Terry Sullivan n. Approval of Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program (CAMP) Annual Agreement o. Approval of One -Stop Right -of -Way Permitting System with Dakota County p. Approval of Pilot Knob Use Permit q. Receipt of May 2012 Building Activity Report r. Approval of April 2012 Treasurer's Report s. Approval of Contractors List t. Approval of Claims List 6. Public Comments 7. Presentations a. Donation of Tree from Mendota Heights Mom's Club 8. Public Hearings a. Liquor License Renewals 9. Unfinished and New Business a. Appeal of Fire Marshal Decision, Hudson Refrigerated Logistics — 1460 Sibley Memorial Highway b. Sanitary Sewer Auto -Pay Billing Option Incentive Program 10. Council Comments 11.Adjourn to Closed Session to Discuss Potential Acquisition of Real Property at 2454 Lemay Lake Road Mendota Heights City Council CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, May 15, 2012 ITEM 5A May 15, 2012 P 1 Page 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Councilmembers Duggan, Povolny, Petschel and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Krebsbach presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the agenda. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Krebsbach presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein; pulling items D) Approval of Joint Powers Agreement for Road Names and Address Database; F) Recognition of National Public Works Week; H) Revised Public Purpose Expenditure Policy; I) Authorize Appointment of City Clerk; and K) Dakota County Capital Improvements Program Request a. Acknowledgement of April 24, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes b. Acknowledgement of April 10, 2012 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes c. Approval of Sign Permit for 1200 Centre Pointe Drive d. Approval of Joint Powers Agreement for Road Names and Address Database e. Award of Professional Services Contract for Geotecluzical Services on 2012 Public Improvement Proj ects f. Recognition of National Public Works Week g. Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Advertise for Bids for Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood Improvements P 2Mendota Heights City Council h. Revised Public Purpose Expenditure Policy i. Authorize Appointment of City Clerk, j. Approve Hiring of Seasonal Public Works Employee k. Dakota County Capital Improvements Program Request 1. Authorization to Complete the Wagon Wheel Trail Pedestrian Facility m. Approval of Critical Atea Permit, Planning Case 2012 -13; 1145 Kingsley Court n. April Par 3 Report o. Approve the Contractors List p. Approve the Claims List q. Acknowledgement of May 1, 2012 City Council Minutes Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA TOPIC D APPROVAL OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR ROAD NAMES AND ADDRESS DATABASE May 15, 2012 Page 2 Councilmember Duggan explained that he asked for this to be pulled from the Consent Agenda to make a cominent. St. Peter's had a bit of a challenge recently when a 90 -year resident fell and it took the ambulance approxiunately fourteen to sixteen minutes to arrive. Thankfully it was nothing catastrophic. After this incident, Councilmember Duggan had requested that DCC [Dakota Communications Center] ask all of the cities in Dakota County to identify odd naives, locations, or commonplace names in their areas that the people at DCC might not know. Chief of Police Michael Aschenbrener, at the request of Mayor Krebsbach, stated that DCC was on top of this situation well before it came to his or anyone else's attention. The new CAD system that was implemented and then removed in December had commonplace names and several hundred hours of time committed by local and DCC staff. Hopefully when that is resurrected and up and running, all of those commonplace names will automatically populate and be tied in with the GIS. The portion before the Council specifically dealt with the technical side of this system. Councilmember Duggan moved Approval of Joint Powers Agreement for Road Names and Address Database Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA TOPIC F RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK Mayor Krebsbach explained that this is to dedicate the week of May 21 through May 25 to recognize the Public Works employees. The Public Works employees take care of the parks, plow the snow, clean the gutters, clean the sewer systems, and everything that is the physical dimension of the city. Mendota Heights City Council May 15, 2012 P 3 Page 3 Public Works Director Johii Mazzitello stated that, day in and day out, the work of the Public Works employees typically goes unnoticed and almost for granted. As long as the water comes out of the tap and the toilet flushes and there are no potholes in front of the house, people go about their daily lives and do not really think about what Public Works does for them day to day and how they impact lives. The American Public Works Association, the national professional organization for public works employees, advocates for one week every May to be dedicated to the recognition and appreciation of the Public Works employee; from jet cleaning the sewers to filling pot holes to plowing snow to patching curb, they are out there every day making the quality of life of our city and every city that much better. Mayor Krebsbach mentioned that, as the resolution states, the city streets, sanitary sewers, stone sewers, trails, and parks are considered the backbone of the city. Councilmember Vitelli mentioned that in his 12 years of being on the council he has never received a complaint about any of the duties that the Public Works Department is responsible for. However, he has received notes that were complimentary. Councilmember Duggan moved Adoption of A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK AS THE WEEK OF MAY 21, 2012 THROUGH MAY 25, 2012 Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA TOPIC H REVISED PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURE POLICY City Administrator Justin Miller explained that staff has been reviewing several of the policies that the Council has adopted over the past several years just to make sure they are still accurate and reflecting current practices. This policy is one of those that the city was required to approve in 2006, at the request of the state auditor at the time, reflecting what can and cannot be used for an appropriate public expenditure. Basically what this item does is reflect current practice. The changes include: 1. Recognizes that the annual all - employee event with city staff, council, and the conmmissions is a recognition event and not a social event 2. Clarifies what is current practice in that city funds will be used for the City Council, staff and commission members, and that any guest or spouse will need to pay out of their own pocket Councilmember Petschel moved Approval of the Revised Public Purpose Expenditure Policy. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 P 4Mendota Heights City Council PULLED CONSENT AGENDA TOPIC I AUTHORIZE APPOINTMENT OF CITY CLERK May 15, 2012 Page 4 City Administrator Justin Miller explained that this is a request to hire Lorri Smith as the new City Clerk. City Administrator Miller, Chief of Police Michael Aschenbrener, and HR Coordinator Tamara Schutta interviewed candidates and brought Ms. Smith back as the sole finalist. Ms. Smith has spent the last fifteen years as the Deputy City Clerk for the City of Faribault; she has handled elections, document management, records retention, licensing, and everything that Mendota Heights is asking for in their City Clerk. She is familiar with the Laserfiche system that the city is getting up and running so that is very important. Councilmember Vitelli moved to Appoint Lorri Smith as City Clerk effective Monday, June 11, 2012. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA TOPIC K DAKOTA COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM REQUEST Councilmember Duggan noted that on page forty -five that there seemed to be an alternative #1 and #2; cannot have an alternative #1 and #2 — there should only be an alternative. There was also a difference in dollars $32,000 and $39,000 and he was not sure which one was being promoted or recommended. Mayor Krebsbach asked for an explanation of what the cost saving is and what the amount the City receives. Mr. Mazzitello replied that the chart in the council packet was produced by the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization as a calculation of Allowable Flow. It figures the portion of the stormwater that is being drained through the area in question. The improvement alternative #1 is a less extensive drainage improvement than alternative #2; the cost difference is approximately $7,000. This is to be implemented in 2015 in conjunction with a Department of Transportation reconstruction of Highway 13. That design process is largely going to drive which alternative is chosen. The dollar figures that are in the table are in 2010 dollars. Under the Dakota County program, the city is requesting inclusion with this resolution; the county would contribute that portion of the Mendota Heights cost that comes from county right -of -way; which could be up to one -half of the total cost in 2015 dollar figures. Councilmember Duggan moved Adoption of a Resolution Formally Requesting Project Inclusion in the Dakota County 2013 -2017 Capital Improvement Plan Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mendota Heights City Council PUBLIC COMMENTS May 15, 2012 P 5 Page 5 Mayor Krebsbach asked Public Works Director John Mazzitello to share a map and explain where all of the construction zones are. Mr. Mazzitello shared the following road construction projects: 1. Diane Road Neighborhood Rehabilitation — currently wzderway — anticipated completion date at the end of May 2. Marie Avenue Rehabilitation with Watermain Replacement — from Delaware to Dodd — anticipated start the first week of June and anticipated completion by the end of August 3. Highway 110 Resurfacing by the Department of Transportation — was to be done a week ago but is behind schedule 4. Lexington Avenue Resurfacing by the County — from Vail Drive down to Mendota Heights Road — scheduled to start any day and anticipated completion by mid -June 5. Highway 13 Resurfacing — MnDOT project — from Highway 55, through downtown Mendota, to Second Street near the Post Office — currently underway — anticipated completion date by the end of May 6. Lemay Lake Road Reconstruction — authorization for bid was just completed — anticipated start date in July and ending in October 7. Completion of Wagon Wheel Trail Reconstruction — running from Lexington over to Dodd — final wear course of asphalt is scheduled to be put in within the next couple of weeks along with the trail segment from Lexington Avenue over to 35 -E that was approved on the Consent Agenda 3. Mendota Heights Road Rehabilitation — currently underway — scheduled to end by the end of May and is the same contractor as the Diane Road Rehabilitation Project 9. Highway 13 Resurfacing / Reconstruction — MnDOT Project — from Wachtl.er to Aimapolis — scheduled to start in the first week of June and be completed by the end of July — there will be a full closure of Highway 13 between Wachtler and Sylvandale during this project Councilmember Petsclhel asked what was the final outcome on the Marie Avenue Rehabilitation Project in terms of the curbs. Mr. Mazzitello replied that the final resolution to that project was to leave the curbs as they are, stripe for narrower lanes to help with speed control, and use the newly acquired speed - sensing cart to assess how well the narrower lanes are working as a method of reducing the speed. PRESENTATIONS A) ST. THOMAS ACADEMY ROGERS LAKE WATER QUALITY REPORT Mr. Tony Kinzley, Teacher of AP Environmental Science, introduced four students frorn the Class of 2013 who are representing a much larger group of approximately forty students who spent the last year collecting and analyzing data. The students who made the presentation were Drew Applebaum, Comzor Bonk, Daruiy Baer, and Parker Chapman. The students tested six different sites on Rogers Lake over a span of ten weeks in the fall, performed twenty sets of nine tests at each site, tests were run twice a day every Wednesday by two different groups in two different hours to obtain a nice variation. They have over a thousand pieces of data that P 6Mendota Heights City Council May 15, 2012 Page 6 they average and analyze at the end of each test and at the end of the testing period in the fall. Where they see a need, the students find solutions, and then come before the Council to propose those solutions. The majority of the test results were good and the few that were high were still within the acceptable range. Recommended solutions to change the borderline ratings to good were: ® Replace road salt with beet juice products, which is a sugar based product that is organic and has been used successfully in other cities and counties in Minnesota Collect leaves and grass clippings to prevent them from washing into the lake ® Sweep driveways and sidewalks of leaves, grass clippings, and fertilizers ® Collect pet waste ® Minimize fertilizer use and use wisely ® Maintain proper buffer zones Councilmember Duggan asked if the students use the same locations on the lake each year as the testing sites or do they vary. The response was that they have continuously used the same sites each year. They believe that the number of testing sites and the total number of tests run gives a good indication of the overall health of the entire lake. Councilmember Vitelli stated that it appeared to him that the three borderline parameters were really a result of residential activities taking place in the Rogers Lake neighborhood to the east. The students concurred and believe it is because most of the residents live on the east side of the lake. Councilmember Petschel asked if land on the lake is considered a wetland. Mr. Mazzitello replied that Rogers Lake is classified by the DNR as a shallow lake. The properties that are around Rogers Lake are subject to the city's wetland ordinance. Councilmember Petschel then asked if there is an ordinance on the books where the city requires a buffer in the wetlands and is there any penalty for clear cutting to the wetlands. Mr. Mazzitello replied that currently there is no enforcement action for clear cutting right to the water's edge. The ordinance calls for a buffer area but it does not define a specific distance because each property has its own unique characteristics. The general rule of thumb staff recommends is at least a twenty -five foot buffer from the water's edge. Mayor Krebsbach stated that she would be interested in is the difference where it is clear -cut and where it is not. She then asked, since the city has contributed towards DNR herbicide killing of the weeds in the lake, if they see that as having any effect on the results. Councilmember Petschel added that she was really impressed with the oxygen level in the lake and what could possibly be contributing to that. The students replied that they could contribute the good oxygen rating to 1) there is healthy plant life and not a lot of bacteria in the lake; 2) there are not a lot of pathogens which is why the fecal coliforrn was low; and 3) lower temperatures. Councilmember Vitelli asked if the city could make the switch to beet juice products instead of road salt. Mr. Mazzitello replied that the idea of using organic juices as deicers has been tossed around in the professional societies for quite a while. There are a number of initial costs that would be incurred by Mendota Heights City Council May 15, 2012 P 7 Page 7 switching (i.e. machinery upgrades) and there is one side effect, particularly with the beet juice product, and that is the aroma that it leaves behind. It is an organic product so it is put on the road and it decomposes; so there is the smell of beets and rotten beets afterwards. However, there are other products like salt brine and other organic liquid products that are being experimented with around the country. Councilmembers asked other questions in regards to incentives to encourage residents to comply with the suggested solutions; why the fecal coliform level is higher in the fall than in the spring (migrating birds using Rogers Lake as a stopping point); and expressed their appreciation and compliments of the students' efforts and presentations. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A) ROGERS LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WEED CONTROL REQUEST Mr. Tun Carlson from Rogers Lake Homeowners Association explained that he wished to follow -up on the request made at the May 1, 2012 council meeting for the council to put forward the funding to apply weed treatment. The association has the funding in place to snatch the city's contribution. Councilmember Duggan moved to Approve a Single Weed Removal Treatment, as Proposed by Midwest Aquacare, for the Total Cost of $3,035; with the City paying $1,517.50 and the Rogers Lake Homeowners Association Paying $1,517.50. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) PLANNING CASE 2012 -03, ZONING AMENDMENT, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek explained that this is an item that was carried over from the April 3, 2012 City Council Meeting. The city issued a planning application to snake a zoning amendment pertaining to accessory structures in residentially zoned properties. The changes only pertain to properties that are zoned residential, are larger than four acres, and that are being used for something other than residential; such as churches, schools, golf courses, etc. Under these circumstances the property owner would be allowed to have a larger amount of accessory structure space than a standard residential use would have. Following discussion with the Planning Commission, the planner drafted Ordinance 443, which makes some minor changes to the existing accessory structure language for residential properties. It does not change the content of that; it just brings the language up to date. However, it adds new language for a four -acre or larger parcel, zoned residential but not used as residential, allowing for up to one -half of one percent of the parcel size to be used as accessory structure space. The reason this issue carne up was the request from Convent of Visitation for an accessory structure that was an outdoor classroom with restrooms and a storage area in it. Under the current ordinance, both a variance and a conditional use permit were necessary. This language is intended to focus on these large non - residential uses and to allow there to have more structures without having to request a variance P8 Mendota Heights City Council May 15, 2012 Page 8 every time. They would still need to go through the conditional use permit process but it would not require the variance. At the last meeting there was concern about the setbacks on some of these larger parcels. Three parcels were selected for review; Somerset Elementary School, Convent of Visitation, and Mendakota Country Club and determined that requiring a thirty -foot setback the entire way around the parcel would not be a hindrance to any of these particular users. The Planning Commission held their public hearing on this matter in January 2012 and there were no public comments at that time. The Planning Commission did recommend. adoption of the changes to the zoning amendment as is illustrated in Ordinance 443 with one exception, that being in regards to property setbacks. Instead of stating that the accessory building shall meet all setbacks applicable to the principal building, it was changed to say accessory buildings must be located at least thirty feet f oin lot lines. This would insure a thirty -foot buffer the entire way around the property. Mayor Krebsbach asked for clarification on what this is allowing in terms of accessory structures. Mr. Sedlacek stated, for instance the Convent of Visitation is a sixty -acre parcel. If one -half of one percent were applied, that would allow them to have nearly 13,000 square feet of accessory structure available under this particular application. This would be the collective of all accessory structures put together. Under what staff is proposing, Convent of Visitation could apply for a structure, which would use up all of that eligible accessory structure space. Mayor Krebsbach commented that the intention was not to limit what could be done and asked if Convent of Visitation would be limited in the number of accessory structures. Mr. Sedlacek replied that under the current application they would be allowed to have up to three accessory structures with no single structure being larger than 1,000 square feet. This code, which would apply to eleven different parcels in the City of Mendota Heights, allows them to have a larger accessory structure than they would under the current ordinance. Mr. Sedlacek then cited Mendakota Country Club as an example. They have a principal structure but then they also have a comfort station, shelters all over the course, and a maintenance building. To try to put a reasonable number of structures when anything with a roof over it is a structure, really can be a hindrance to some property owners. Staff, when it comes to identifying a number believes that is why they have a conditional use permit process; to determine if it would be an appropriate request or not. But they believe it is an appropriate number when it comes to the total area of accessory structures. Councilmember Duggan commented that the line in the new ordinance stating that accessory buildings must be at least thirty feet from the lot lines conflicts with an ordinance that already exists stating that accessory buildings must be fifty feet from the lot lines. Ivlr. Sedlacek replied that this new language only applies to the conditional use permit; the conditions that are listed in this proposed ordinance are specific to this type of request for an institutional use of a residentially zoned property. Councilmember Duggan stated that he would be much more comfortable with a larger setback for a larger parcel than a smaller setback and requested that, at some point, this setback number be looked at and possibly changed to fifty feet rather than thirty feet. Councilmember Petschel asked if a property owner of one of these large parcels would still be able to ask for a variance to construct a structure that would allow them to exceed the one -half of one percent Mendota Heights City Council May 15, 2012 P9 Page 9 limitation on the allowable area of accessory. Mr. Sedlacelc replied that if an applicant would want to build something tbat would cause them to exceed this limitation they would need to request a variance. Mayor Krebsbach stated that it was not the intent of the council to restrict the larger parcels to a series of small structures. She was hopeful that the ordinance would recognize that each of these organizations is a steward of their property. She thought the term `accessory structure' would have been defined differently for these larger parcels. She was not sure that was the intent of this ordinance but that did not mean that the council could not approve it. Councilmember Povolny asked at what square footage does staff consider a building as an accessory structure versus a building. Mr. Sedlacelc replied that the principal structure is the primary use of the site and anything that is another detached structure on the site that would support that use is an accessory structure. Councilmember Petschel asked if the new addition at St. Thomas Academy is an accessory structure. Mr. Sedlacelc replied that, because it is attached to the principal structure, it is an addition to their current building and not an accessory structure. Councilmember Duggan reiterated his concerns about the setbacks and his wish to view snaps of all of the areas, what are the possibilities, and what are the appropriate setbacks for each. Mayor Krebsbach commented that, although she is sure that the Planning Commission did a very detailed job, she would like to see a chart that would show what they had and what is proposed in this ordinance. She then asked to have this topic brought back to the next council meeting with the chart of what was in the ordinance and what is proposed in this coming ordinance. Mr. Sedlacek commented that he and staff spoke about this topic and it appears that there are a lot of questions in regards to it. His recommendation is to simply withdraw the application and bring it up at a work session, as it appears to be a lot of moving parts to the councils concerns. This is not a pressing matter, it was something that the Planning Commission brought forward at the request of the council, but the current property owners are able to get structures that they need. The council was in agreement that this topic would be brought back to a workshop session. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Duggan: ® Requested that the construction project maps be available in the front of city hall and sent to the schools and churches in the area Commented that the city is working with the county in trying to move forward in regards to abandoned residences and garages by trying to determine who actually owns the sites Celebrate Mendota Heights Parks 25"' Anniversary is June 1, 2 and 3 Rededication of the Civic Center Field to the Mertensotto Field is on Sunday, June 3 ® Comrnernted on the noise from 9:40 p.m. to 10:05 p.m. on May 14 by the fifteen planes flying over his home P 1 Aendota Heights City Council May 15, 2012 Page 10 Expressed appreciation to Councilmembers and the Mayor for their assistance and work on various topics May 19 & 20 — Dodge Nature Center celebrating their 45t" anniversary Councihnember Vitelli: ® Commented on the Mendoberri Restaurant, gave it high praise, and recommended that the residents give it a try Saw a play at the Children's Theatre (Pippy Longstocking) which he thought was tremendous and highly recommended it Councilmember Petschel: ® Caught on Town Square Television their segment "Insight 7" on the 50t" anniversary of the Mendota Heights Police Department which was very informative and entertaining Was at Minnetonka High School to see the MIAC Baseball Playoffs and saw Mendota Heights residents Sam Nord of Henry Sibley and Vince Lulic who went to Cretin- Derham Hall playing in the game. Thanked Danielle for assisting her in setting up a blog on The Patch to comment on her experiences during her training at the Citizens FBI Academy ® Joint ARC meeting took place on May 8 and the discussions were wonderful and affirming ® Assured the residents that flights leaving on Runway 12L that have been taking a northerly heading and have been tunung before Delaware Avenue were mainly due to weather related issues Assistant to City Administrator Jake Sedlacek outlined the upcoming events: ® June 1 — 3 — 25"' Amiiversary of the Mendota Heights Parks Celebration June 1 — 3 — Mendota Heights Athletic Association is hosting an invitational baseball tournament, most being at Mendakota Park and some at the Civic Center Ball Field June 3 — Live music at Market Square Park in The Village o June 1 starting at 8:00 p.m. — Night Golf at Mendota Heights Par 3, $15 to play and includes glow - in- the -dark necklaces, bracelets, and glow golf balls; pre- registration recommended ® June 2 — 5k Ruii/Walk benefiting Special Olympics; 9:00 a.m. start; pre - registration recommended June 3 — Police Department Open House celebrating 50 years of service; 12:00 — 4:00 June 3 — Free tour of Pilot Knob at 1:00 p.m. June 3 — Dedication ceremony for Mertensotto Field beginning at 4:30 p.m. at City Hall with a reception and then walk to the field for the dedication ceremony ADJOURI\T Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 8:41 p.m. Sandra Krebsbach Mayor Mendota Heights City Council AT T ELLS T: Justin Miller Acting City Clerk May 15, 201T 1 1 Page 11 P1annnrg Commission Akin NS Afay 22, 2012 CITY OF MENDOTA 1TL+ 1GHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 22, 2012 ITEM 5B P12 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 22, 2012, in tine Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan, and Roston. Commissioner Viksnins was an excused absence. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director /City Engineer John Mazzitell.o, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval ofAiZen.rla The agenda was approved as submitted. .Approval ofApril 74 2012 illinutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 2012, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (CHAIR NORTON) Hearin.km PLANNING CASE 92012 -12 Carol Strojny 917 Chippewa Avenue Conditional Use Permit for a fence within 30 feet of a right of way. Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Carol Strojny for approval of conditional use permit to allow a fence within 30 feet of a right of way along tine west and south end of the property. The property is located at 917 Chippewa Avenue and is zoned R -1, One Family Residential. Mr. Grittman noted that fences are allowed to be 36 inches tall unless a conditional use pen-nit was requested, which would allow a fence to then be up to six feet in height. The fence was consistent with the neighborhood and development of the property. The proposed design meets the City's 30% openness requirement. Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and recommended approval of the Conditional Use Pen-nit for the proposed fence within the interior and rear yard. Carol Strojny, 917 Chippewa Avenue, thanked the Commission for considering her request this evening and for the report presented by staff. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. P 13 Plmmfng Commission MhMfOS May 22, 2012 AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT SHALL RECEIVE A FENCE PERMIT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE FENCE; AND 2. THE FENCE SHALL MEET THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 12 -1D -6, INCLUDING THE SIX FOOT (6') HEIGHT MAXIMUM AND THE 30% OPEN DESIGN REQUIREMENT. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 5, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012 -13 City of Mendota Heights Zoning Amendment pertaining to new property maintenance code for commercial /industrial properties. Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of the City for approval of a zoning code amendment pertaining to new property maintenance code for commercial/industrial properties. Mr. Grittman noted that the Council initiated the amendment to the property maintenance code last summer. He commented the Ordinance was not meant to replace City Code but would assist with general maintenance of properties throughout the City. Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and recoimnended adoption of the Code as presented. Commissioner Roston questioned if the special tax language had been reviewed by the City Attorney. He requested she review this paragraph in particular. Mr. Grittman indicated the amendment had been reviewed by the City Attorney. Commissioner Roston suggested the storm water and drainage language be further reviewed as it was handled by other City Code and Statutes. Mr. Grittman explained staff would review this further. Chair Norton asked how this code differed from the existing property maintenance code. Mr. Grittman commented the City did not have a property commercial code that handled commercial and industrial properties. The City only had Code to address residential properties. The point would be to add depth to the nuisance code addressing maintenance and aesthetic issues. Commissioner Noonan inquired if the code had been brought to the business community for comments. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek explained this information was brought up in the winter edition of the Heights Highlights, was posted on the web and sent out through a public hearing notice. Staff intended to get this specific information to business owners, but was surprised to have no feedback to date from the business community. Commissioner Norton questioned if the amendment should be postponed to allow for comments from the local business owners. Mr. Sedlacek indicated that staff agrees with the Planning Commission's wishes to have feedback from businesses. Commissioner Field stated in his opinion, the nuisance ordinance worked well to address maintenance issues and expressed concern with the fact the new Ordinance would be complaint based. 0) Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2012 Commissioner Roston expressed concern with the specificity of the proposed language, noting that one provision states there shall be no weeds, which was not feasible for every commercial and industrial property in the City. He had a number of concerns with how this new code would be enforced. He recommended the Commission seek additional feedback from the business community before proceeding with this code amendment. Commissioner Hennes questioned if the item could be delayed for several weeks to allow for connnent from the local business owners. Mr. Sedlacek stated there was no pressing issue. Commissioner Field commented the information was posted for a public hearing and no comments were received. He questioned how staff would make contact with the business owners. Mr. Sedlacek stated the Chamber of Commerce could be contacted along with major land owners and major businesses within the community. This would assure that they have received the information. Conunissioner Roston asked how much time would be needed to pass along this information. Mr. Sedlacek noted staff would have this information to the industrial /commercial property owners yet this week and the item could be discussed again in June. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to continue the public hearing to the June meeting. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE JUNE MEETING. AYES NAYS Chair Norton advised the Planning Commission would consider this application at its June 26, 2012, meeting. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE 92012 -10 Joe Igo Variance to the Side Yard Setback 0 The City Council approved a one -foot side yard setback for the driveway. PLANNING CASE #2012 -11 Convent of the Visitation School Conditional Use Permit/Variances O Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012 -7 Michael Bader Variance to the Right of Way Width C The City Council denied the request for the variance. PLANNING CASE 9201.2 -3 City of Mendota Heights Accessory Structures in R -1 ® The City Council tabled this matter and requested further information from staff. Commissioner Hennes questioned the Council's rationale for approving the variance for Mr. Igo and denying the variance for Mr. Bader. Mr. Sedlacek explained the Council indicated the six foot pad was sufficient for parking a vehicle and the one additional foot was reasonable for proper access in and out of vehicles. For this reason the variance was approved. He commented the Council did not feel there was enough infonnation to approve a variance for Mr. Bader. This was drafted into a finding for denial. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:24 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 P14 P 1 5 Pla1717i7g Commission Minutes May 22, 2012 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary ITEM 50 P16 1101 Victoria Curve I t�iendota Heights, 1 N 55116 657.452.1650 ph0lie 1 65i,452.8n90 Fax twp,Y,m2ndo'a- heights.com CITY OF VIENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: Jun 5, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator SUBJECT: Revised NDC4 Web Streaming Agreement BACKGROUND L-i 2008, the cities of Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, and West St. Paul entered into an agreement with the Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission (NDC4) to stream our city meetings online. As part of the web streaming project with Granicus, the third party provider of this service, NDC4 extended the contract on November 1., 2011. The extended contract remains very similar to the original contract, with a change u7 the "term" section eight to allow for annual automatic renewal, unless either party gives 60 days' notice by April 30th for June 30th termination each year. NDC4 continues to manage the web streaming files and the many various tasks associated with it. The City of South St. Paul is now partnering with NDC4, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights and West St. Paul by web streaming their meetings. In. turn this means that the costs will now be shared among five parties instead of four. The City of South St. Paul will be paying their fair share of the start-up costs as stated on the original June 4, 2008 NDC4 Web Streaming Agreement. Each of the original three cities and NDC4 that started Web Streaming in 2008 will see a credit for a portion of the start-up costs due to the addition of South St. Paul. This will be seen on the request for reimbursement sent out in March of 2013. As part of the extension and with the addition of another member city, each city is being asked to approve the attached revised NDC4 Web Streaming Agreement. B UDGET IMPACT A roughly $1300 credit will be applied to our next web streaming payment due to up -front costs being reimbursed by the City of South St. Paul. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the attached NDC4 Web Streaming Agreement. Approval of this item requires a majority vote of the city council. tD P17 NDC4 WEB STREAMING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") date , ( "Effective Date ") is made by and between the Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission, a municipal joint powers cooperative ( "NDC4 ") and the City of Inver Grove Heights, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota (" Inver Grove Heights "), the City of West St. Paul., a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota ( "West St. Paul "), the City of Mendota Heights, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota ( "Mendota Heights "), and the City of South St Paul a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota ( 'South St. Paul "), sometimes referred to separately as a "City," and collectively as the "Cities. NDC4 and the Cities shall sometimes be referred to separately as a "Party," and collectively as the "Parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, NDC4 is comprised of the cities of Inver Grove Heights, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, South St. Paul, Sunfish Lake, and West St. Paul ( "Members "); and WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that a need exists to broadcast city meetings and other local programming over the Internet; and WHEREAS, Granicus, Inc., a California Corporation ( "Granicus "), has specifically developed a streaming media solution, specific hardware and media management software that facilitates Internet broadcasting and web streaming ( "Streaming Services "); and WHEREAS, NDC4 and the Cities have determined that the technical abilities of Granicus are reasonably sufficient to meet the needs of NDC4 and the Cities regarding the provision of Streaming Services; and WHEREAS, NDC4 and the Cities have determined that it is more efficient for one entity to procure the services of Granicus and thereafter administer the contract with Granicus; and WHEREAS, in addition to the costs incurred for the services and hardware provided by Granicus, NDC4 will incur certain additional costs for staff, hardware and software at NDC4's facility to accomplish the Streaming Services on behalf of the Parties; and WHEREAS, the Cities desire to enter into this Agreement with NDC4, which will allow NDC4 to procure the services of Granicus on behalf of the Cities and to thereafter administer the contract with Granicus on behalf of the Cities as set forth herein. Page 1 of 6 . L NOW, FY111 I EF OIRE, in consideration of and reliance upon the respective representations, promises, concessions, terms and conditions contained herein, the Parties agree as follows. 1. NDC4 Obli!ations. 1.1 NDC4 will procure the Streaming Services and become the "client" in the services agreement with Granicus attached as Exhibit A ( "Granicus Contract "). NDC4 will pay Granicus all fees and costs required under the Granicus Contract. 1.2 NDC4 will also pay for other costs required to accomplish the Streaming Services including, but not limited to, costs for hardware, staff, web site creation, additional broadband capacity and related issues ( "Other Costs "). NDC4 will calculate the total costs of the Granicus Contract and Other Costs ( "Total Costs ") each year at approximately the same time the Cities are sent their annual cable franchise fee checks from NDC4 as mandated under the Joint Powers Agreement by and among the Cities. NDC4 will send each City an invoice or request for reimbursement for their respective share of the Total Costs from the previous time period, as estimated on the attached spreadsheet Exhibit B. 1.3 NDC4 will be the primary point of contact and liaison for communications between the Parties and Granicus except in situations where Granicus needs to work directly with the staff or officials of the Cities. NDC4 will coordinate the initial set up and ongoing execution of Streaming Services, 1.4 NDC4 will add a high -speed cable modem connection at the NDC4 facility master control location to ensure sufficient bandwidth to upload web streaming files to Granicus. 1.5 NDC4 will revise and upgrade its web site, along with Granicus integration, to provide a user- friendly entry point to city meetings on NDC4's web site home page. 1.6 NDC4 will hire an employee, whose duties will include, but are not limited to: coordinating and training city employees and cablecasters on web streaming related tasks, fine tuning the indexing of meetings after the conclusion of the meetings, helping with the management of web streaming related electronic files, serving as a qualified back -up cablecaster when and if the need arises, and posting additional non - meeting related content on the website. 1.7 NDC4 cablecasters covering governmental meetings will perform additional technical tasks necessary to prepare the web streaming electronic files as directed by NDC4. 1.8 NDC4 will develop a policy on cable TV and Internet media retention, archiving, and public access, to be reviewed and adopted by the Cities. 2. Cities Obligations. 2.1 Each City will reimburse NDC4 for its share of the Total Costs, as calculated and invoiced by NDC4 annually. (As estimated on attached spreadsheet Exhibit B.) 2.2 The Cities will send relevant staff to attend training at a location within NDC4's seven -city area, coordinated by NDC4, in order to receive training from Granicus and /or NDC4 Page 2 of 6 P19 staff regarding the Streaming Services. G-rafi cus'tFairiefs � t-a',t_i:­b 2.3 Each Cities' staff will post the agenda and any additional supporting documents on the Granicus website for each meeting, utilizing Granicus software. 2.4 Each City will provide, at the City's sole cost, a high -speed Internet connection at each city hall in the cablecasting control room. 2.5 Each City will provide a highly visible link to the NDC4 /Granicus web streaming service visible on each City's home page. 2.6 The Cities will provide reasonable access, as needed for Granicus and NDC4 staff to install and train in the Cities' facilities. 2.7 Cities will communicate closely with NDC4 staff regarding service problems or technical issues, and generally NDC4 staff will be the liaison to Granicus. 2.8 The Cities will provide NDC4 and Granicus a communications list with current contact information for their staff or officials who are involved with web streaming tasks and physical access to the Cities' facilities. 3. Term. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall run concurrently with the Granicus Contract attached as Exhibit A. 4. Addition of Member. If Members wish to participate in web streaming after this Agreement is executed, each Member will be required to sign a Web Streaming Agreement for Additional Cities, and will be required to fulfill the same city obligations set forth in Section 2 of this agreement, and will receive the same services from NDC4 and Granicus as Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights, South St. Paul and West St. Paul. Members executing a Web Streaming Agreement for Additional Cities will be required to pay for the following costs: 1) Reimburse NDC4 for Member's respective share of initial set -up and installation costs incurred previously; 2) Reimburse NDC4 for hardware, set -up and installation, training, and other new costs relating to setting up Streaming Services for the Member; 3) Reimburse NDC4 annually for respective share of Total Costs. The Cities will receive credits on annual invoice /request for reimbursement from NDC4 to reflect reductions in initial set -up costs and going - forward annual costs caused by increasing the number of Parties sharing respective costs. Going- forward annual Total Costs, as estifn4ed will be divided between the Cities, including any additional Members that executed a Web Streaming Agreement for Additional Cities. 5. Non - Member Users. If Non - Member entities wish to web stream meetings or other programs (i.e. school board meetings), Non - Member entities must enter a Web Streaming Agreement with NDC4. Parties to a Web Streaming Agreement may not "sub- lease" or "sub- contract" for web streaming services. Parties to a Web Streaming Agreement with NDC4 that wish to web stream occasional individual meetings or other programs may request NDC4 staff resources, which may be provided based on availability. Page 3 of 6 P20 6. Indem- nificatio.A. Each Party shall, indemnify and hold the other harmless against any claim of liability or loss from personal injury or property damage resulting from or arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of the indemnifying Party, its employees or agents, except to the extent such claims or damages may be due to or caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the other Party, or its employees or agents. 7. Modification. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by a written instrument executed by all Parties. 8. Integration. It is agreed and understood that this Agreement contains all agreements, promises and understandings between the Parties and that no verbal or oral agreements, promises or understandings shall be binding upon either Party in any dispute, controversy or proceeding at law, and any addition, variation or modification to this Agreement shall be void and ineffective unless made in writing signed by the Parties. In the event any provision of the Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, such finding shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement. The failure of either Party to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement or to exercise any of its rights under the Agreement shall not waive such rights and such Party shall have the right to enforce such rights at any time and take such action as may be lawful and authorized under this Agreement, in law or in equity. 9. Notices. Any notice to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and may be delivered either personally, by facsimile or by certified or registered mail with postage prepaid and return receipt requested, addressed as follows: If to NDC4: Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission 5845 Blaine Avenue Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 -1.401 If to the City of Inver Grove Heights: City of Inver Grove Heights 8150 Barbara Avenue Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota 55077 If to the City of Mendota Heights: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 If to the City of West St. Paul: City of West St. Paul 1616 Humboldt Avenue Page 4of6 P21 West St. Paul, Minnesota 5511° If to the City of South St. Paul: City of South St. Paul 125 P Avenue North South St. Paul Minnesota 55075 10. Miscellaneous. a. NDC4 and the Cities each hereby warrant that each has the requisite power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform according to the terms hereof. b. The headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience or reference only and are not intended to define, limit or affect the interpretation of any term or provision hereof. The singular shall include the plural; the masculine gender shall include the feminine and neutral gender. C. NDC4 and the Cities shall cooperate fully with one another in the execution of any and all other documents and in the completion of any additional actions necessary or appropriate to give full force and effect to the terms and intent of this Agreement. d. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed as creating or conferring any rights, benefits or remedies upon, or creating any obligations of the Parties hereto toward any person or entity not a Party to this Agreement, unless otherwise expressly set forth herein. C. To the extent the provisions of this Agreement conflict with any other agreements the provisions of this Agreement shall control. 11. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and for the benefit of each of the Parties and their respective present and future city council members, officers, employees, agents, attorneys, successors, assigns, and any assigned entities, as applicable. 12. Default and Remedies. Any unresolved complaints or concerns about NDC4 or Granicus performance should be communicated in writing to NDC4 through the following levels: 1) NDC4 Web Streaming employees, 2) NDC4 Executive Director, 3) NDC4 Cable Commission Chair. Any unresolved complaints or concerns about City performance should be communicated in writing to City through the following levels: 1) City Web Streaming employees, 2) City Administrator /Manager, 3) City Council or Mayor. Provisions of Granicus Contract and NDC4 Joint Powers Agreement will be referenced for major default or remedy issues if necessary. 13. Choice of Laws. This Agreement and the performance thereof shall be governed, interpreted, construed and regulated by the Laws of the State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, by their duly authorized representatives, have executed this Agreement and made the same effective as of the Effective Date. Page 5 of 6 NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION S84S Blaine Avenue Inver Grove heights, MN SS076 -1401 By: _ Name: Title: CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL 1616 Humboldt Avenue West St. Paul, Minnesota SS118 By: _ Name: Title: CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS CITY OF SOUTH ST. PAUL 8150 Barbara Avenue 12S 3 "d Avenue North Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota SS077 South St. Paul Minnesota S507S By_ BY: Name: Name: Title: Title: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota SS118 By: _ Name: Title: Paged of 6 P22 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 11g,1 vicl'oria Curve [ plenctota Heights, N; -4 D18 �5t�152.t6�C1 IJI'ict�? I G5isa2.8940 iax w.gv--.merdc't:; heictt is.ccri R CITY OF MENDQTA HE[GHTS June 5, 2012 Mayor, City Council and City Administrator Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer Sign permit approval 760 Highway 110 ITEN4 5D P23 BACKOROUNB Signart has submitted a complete application packet for Council review and approval for two (2) signs. The first sign is shown to contain sixty - three (63) square feet of signage. This sign. is proposed to be illuminated. This sign is a wall sign. The second sign is a blade type sign which will contain nine (9) square feet of signage. The blade sign will be two (2) sided. The blade sign will not be illuminated. Paster Enterpri ses have approved both signs. Please see attatched documents. BI7BCET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATIOI`d Staff recommends approval of the signs as proposed. ACTION REQUIRE JD If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation of approval it should pass a motion and grant staff the authority to issue the requested sign pen-nits. ,, r �'! APPUCATION FOR SIGN PERMIT 't City of Mendota Heiahts 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 (651)452-1850(651)452-8940 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Mendota Heights to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Mendota Heights the State of M'nnesota, and rulings of the Building Department. SIGNATURE APPROVED PERMIT FEE SITE ADDRESS (Y'W�wI CACA 5V--1(96 DATE OFAPPLICATION �Atgpq lt\bGa°Dc&-k R-6 me,, -4 RftrAh4s OWNER (Name) (Address) (Tel. No., Including Area Code) ee� z>` ou(_ ?(N 2�0)( -15 % 'Sk V eve b �`� ( ) CONTRACTOR (Name) (Address)2. 1-10 00 a" y tZCA (Tel. No., Including Area Code) Q tr9 i �O° Mc. rntfV% �kicjw s (Wi k ) uffr 0--1A-3 5512 -0 Type of Building Used As Building Estimated Cost Contractor's City License Building Permit No. No. TYPE OF SIGN WALL ❑ ROOF ❑ PROJECTING ❑ GROUND ❑ MARQUEE ❑ TEMPORARY ❑ OTHERS 5 ° 0 FT, MAX. DIMENSION VERTICAL FT. HORIZONTAL 1 AY SIGN AREA SQ. FT. NO. OF SIDES I DISTANCE FROM GROUND TO SIGN BASE FT. HEIGHT OF SIGN FT. SETBACK OF SIGN FROM PROPERTY LINE FT. ILLUMINATED `UYES ❑ NO ALLOWABLE SIGN ARE ON PROMISES FT. SKETCH OF SIGN DTOILAJ 'S I no pn C�t��l� 'Sign) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Mendota Heights to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Mendota Heights the State of M'nnesota, and rulings of the Building Department. SIGNATURE APPROVED JR APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMIT City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 (651)452-1850(651)452-8940 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Mendota Heights to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Mendota Heights, the State of Min and rulings of the ilding Department. tl SIGNATURE APPROVED PERMIT FEE SITE ADDRESS DATE OFAPPLICATION OWNER (Name) (Address) (Tel. No., Including Area Code) CONTRACTOR (Name) (Address) (Tel. No., Including Area Code) Type of Building Used As Building Estimated Cost Contractor's City License Building Permit No. No. TYPE OF SIGN ❑ WALL ❑ ROOF PROJECTING ❑ GROUND MAX. DIMENSION ❑ MARQUEE ❑ TEMPORARY ❑ OTHER 1Q VERTICAL1 ' FT. HORIZONTAL FT. SIGN AREA q SQ. FT. NO. OF SIDES DISTANCE FROM GROUND TO SIGN BASE FT. HEIGHT OF SIGN FT, SETBACK OF SIGN FROM PROPERTY LINE FT. ILLUMINATED ❑ YES ❑ NO ALLOWABLE SIGN ARE ON PROMISES FT. SKETCH OF SIGN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Mendota Heights to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Mendota Heights, the State of Min and rulings of the ilding Department. tl SIGNATURE APPROVED 0) 0 m O v a, tr 0 z -a o CL w 3 m 0 tr c an = Z F = CD .0 CD rL M rn , Y5211 ON N (A rm ar C13 a Z a3 M 00 -n 0 In 6x In I' LhLhg 0 cp mwz > C/) cr m m =r > m w E CD 3 0 0 a) co a) w C/) M cr CL CL F- Cl) r— a. 0 T-O V-7 r–;-- 0' -9 1l2" , Y5211 ON N (A rm ar C13 a Z a3 M 00 -n 0 In 6x In I' LhLhg 0 cp mwz cr =r > w E CD 3 0 0 a) 42 a) w cr CL CL F itt , Y5211 ON N (A rm ar C13 a Z a3 M 00 -n 0 In 6x In I' LhLhg 0 cp mwz ITEIA 5E P24 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 11 ,01 Vi6tarld Curve I Mendoh Hei7h s, M11 5511=. 651.452.185G iihoi;e ( u51,452. "c9;D f:,% ^,�sv.mendota -heigh sxom CITY Or MEMO ©TA HEIGHTS June 5, 2012 Mayor, City Council and City Administrator Dave Dreelan, Assistant Fire Chief April Monthly Synopsis Fire Calls The department responded to only six calls for the month. Five of the calls were classified as false alarms or as good intent calls and one was an EMS call. Monthly Department Training The department training for the month was dedicated to testing all of the department's fire supply lines. Each of the major pieces of apparatus carries approximately 600' of supply line. In accordance with NFPA guidelines, all the hose must be pressure tested each year. The hose is tested as part of a relay pumping drill where we try to supply a pumper with water from a hydrant that is over 1000' away. Monthly Squad Training The squad training for the month focused on maintaining our proficiency in auto extrication. Training Officer Stein made arrangements to have a towing company drop off two vehicles that tD could be used for the training. One vehicle was placed on its side and resting on the other to simulate an accident. Firefighters had to stabilize the vehicle, provide EMS to the victims and use the hydraulic rescue tools to remove the doors to extricate the victims. MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT P25 APRIL 2012 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE CALLS NO. 12049 - 12054 NUMBER OF CALLS: 6 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED: NUMBER I STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISG. i U i Aga i v UH i c ACTUAL FIRES INSPECTIONS Structure - MH Commercial INVESTIGATIONS Structure - MH Residential Structure - Contract Areas 10 Vehicle - MH MEETINGS Vehicle - Contract Areas Grass /Brush /No Value MH 12 Grass /Brush /No Value Contract SPECIAL PROJECTS MEDICAL TOTAL Assist 1 Extrication HAZARDOUS SITUATION Spills /Leaks Arcing /Shorting Chemical Power Line Down FALSE ALARM Residential Malfunction Commercial Malfunction Unintentional - Commercial Unintentional - Residential Criminal GOOD INTENT Smoke Scare Steam Mistaken for Smoke Other 5 MUTUAL AID TOTAL CALLS 6 LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS: TO DATE MENDOTA HEIGHTS 4 49 MENDOTA 0 0 SUNFISH LAKE 2 3 LILYDALE 0 2 OTHER 0 0 TOTAL 6 54 WORK PERFORMED HOURS TO DATE FIRE CALLS 89 1003 MEETINGS 51 162 DRILLS 175 635 WEEKLY CLEAN -UP 37 152 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 267.5 681.5 ADMINISTATIVE 0 0 FIRE MARSHAL 210 TOTALS 619.5 2843.5 $3,000 $10,000 $16,000 $0 $0 TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES $0 $0 FIRE LOSS TOTALS MENDOTA HEIGHTS ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH) $0 $29,000 MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT /CONTENTS $13,000 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $0 MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $13,000 LAST YEAR 44 0 10 9 2 LAST YEAR 156.5 593.5 139 722.5 0 104 2882.5 BILLING FOR SERVICES AGENCY THIS MONTH TO DATE MN /DOT $0 MILW. RR $0 CNR RR $0 OTHERS: $0 TOTALS: $0 $0 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH INSPECTIONS 25 INVESTIGATIONS 0 RE- INSPECTION 10 MEETINGS 6 ADMINISTRATION 12 SPECIAL PROJECTS 10 TOTAL 63 REMARKS: SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS ITEM 5F P26 11011 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, 1,04 55116 651.452.1B50 phone I G51,9:52.8640 fax 4ti ^.v;•a.merdeta•hai�bis.::om CtTY.OF MEN.DOTA HEIGHTS DATE: June 5, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator PROM: Tamara Schutta, HR Coordinator SUBJECT: 2012 Pay Equity Report BACKGROUND State law requires all public jurisdictions such as cities, counties, and school districts to eliminate any sex -based wage inequities in compensation. Every three years the City of Mendota Heights is required by state law to complete a Pay Equity Report to submit to the department of Minnesota Management & Budget. The City of Mendota Heights Pay Equity Implementation report was submitted January 8, 2009. The report reflected pay equity data in place as of December 31, 2011. Please see attached notification of compliance and results of the tests for pay equity compliance. On May 15, 2012 the City of Mendota Heights received notification of successfully meeting the. requirements of the Local Government Pay Equity Act M.S. 471.991- 471.999 and Minnesota rules Chapter 3920. The notice is a result of an official review by Minnesota Management & Budget and our 2012 pay equity report. BUIDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact. RECOMMENDATION No action required. For information purposes only. WIN �TY9'diRUKi3:A4A'L�i'4'. - A� May 15, 2012 Local Government Official Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 Dear Local Government Official: Congratulations! I am very pleased to send you the enclosed notification of compliance with the Local Government Pay Equity Act. Since the law was passed in 1984, jurisdictions have worked diligently to meet compliance requirements and your work is to be commended. As you know, Minnesota Rules Chapter 3920 specifies the procedure and criteria for measuring compliance and information about your situation is enclosed. In an effort to conserve resources, we are no longer enclosing the "Guide to Understanding Pay Equity Compliance and Computer Reports." Instead, we are directing you to our web site http• / /www mmb state mn us /reporting- forms - instructions - software for this publication or we will send you a copy in the mail upon request. If you have any questions about the materials or about pay equity in general, please contact me at (651) 259 -3761. Also, this notice and results of the compliance review are public information and must be supplied upon request to any interested party. Again, congratulations on your achievement! Sincerely, Faith Zwelnke State Pay Equity Coordinator 400 Centennial Building a 653 Cedar Street a St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Voice: (651) 201 -5000 o Fax: (65 1) 296 -8685 o TTY: 1- 300 -627 -3529 An Equal Opportunity Employer ,--1 Ol Ol fB L Cf) Q u ```�` O 'CE U C JQ O CT, i L LU co p Q �C 4-J - 4-J � W E 1__f_ QQ q, C �y ,VII L `/O � 4-- 1__lf_ Qj ^ l W W ® O U � co 0 C J U) D- Lili N _r_ I- CD 4-J , O O pl N 4- O N L M ul Co p O 4J 4J E Q C: 4-' LL 4J M co � 4 CT,U Cj) 4J CD 4J m �` N a--' ru dS a T--1 o C1 O � p m � E t O Q (7 O U Ql In U U r O 1 G 1 P29 Results ®f 'Pests f ®r Pay Equity Compliance Date: May 15, 2012 Jurisdiction: Mendota Heights ID# : 765 1. Completeness and Accuracy Test ❑ X Passed. Required information was submitted accurately and on time. 2. Statistical Analysis Test ❑ X Passed. Jurisdiction had more than three finale classes and an underpayment ratio of 80% or snore. Passed. Jurisdiction had at least six finale classes, at least one class with a salary range, an underpayment ratio below 80% but a t -test that was not statistically significant. 3. Salary Range Test 0 Passed. Too few classes had an established number of years to move through a salary range. Passed. Salary range test showed a score of 80% or snore. 4. Exceptional Service Pay Test 0 Passed. Too few classes received exceptional service pay. Passed. Exceptional service pay test showed a score of 80% or more. The enclosed material describes compliance requirments in more detail. If you have questions, contact Faith Zwemke, Pay Equity Coordinator, at (651) 259 -3761. ITEM 5G P30 11C11'ictoria Curve I Mendota Heights, IIN 55113 551.�152i350 r�hvne 1 551,457._9940 ia;: Vi: i ';�i,nl "cl':C�Ct7-h21gi1ts.CU(l `,. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: June 5, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and Administrator FROM: Mike Aschenbrener SUBJECT: A Resolution to Approve a Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for Pharmaceutical Drug Disposal Program BACKGROUND In 2010 the Dakota County Sheriff s started working with the Drug Enforcement Administration to sponsor prescription drug drop off events at the Dakota County Service Centers. These events were extremely successful and have led to joint powers agreements with West Saint Paul and Burnsville Police Departments to collect unwanted medications. The success of these collection points underscores the need for each community to have a collection point. Attached you will find a picture of the collection box. Since the box needs to be accessible to the public 24 hours per day, it is proposed to be placed in the police entrance vestibule. The county is responsible for installation and associated costs. A sworn police officer i.s responsible for emptying, weighing and logging in the materials collected and placing them into secure storage. Any non - acceptable material, see attached sheet, will be transported by Mendota Heights personnel to the Dakota County Eco Site. The attached joint powers agreement (JPA) will be presented to the Dakota County Board on June 19th, 2012 for their consideration. (Not included in your packet are the updated JPA's for West Saint Paul and Burnsville) After County Board approval an original document will be forwarded to Mendota Heights for signature. The JPA has been reviewed by City Attorney Dichm. Attachments: Mendota Heights Resolution, Collection box information and Dakota County JPA. BUDGET IMPACT This is not a budgeted item but costs should be very minimal other than the on -duty time of a licensed officer who will be assigned the responsibility of emptying the receptacle. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution authorizing staff to sign the JPA with Dakota County for Pharmaceutical Drug Disposal Program. P31 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2012- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH DAKOTA COUNTY FOR PHARMACEUTICAL DRUG DISPOSAL PROGRAM WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 471.59 authorizes local governmental units to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights ( "City ") is a governmental and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Dakota County ( "County ") is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the nonmedical use of and disposal of prescription drugs are growing problems in the United States; and WHEREAS, expired or unwanted prescriptions or over - the - counter medications from households have traditionally been disposed of by flushing them down the toilet or drain, which can cause pollution in wastewater and which has been demonstrated to cause adverse effects to fish and other aquatic life; and WHEREAS, prescription drugs are highly susceptible to diversion, misuse and abuse; and WHEREAS, according to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more Americans currently abuse prescription drugs than the number of those using cocaine, hallucinogens, and heroin combined; and WI EEREAS, studies show that people who abuse prescription drugs often obtain them from family and friends, including from the home medicine cabinet; and WHEREAS, medications are also a significant cause of accidental poisoning and death; and WHEREAS, removing expired or unwanted prescriptions or over - the - counter medications (collectively referred to herein as "pharmaceutical drugs ") from the possibility of potential abuse and keeping them out of the enviroiunent are important goals; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to establish a phannaceutical drug disposal program to facilitate the collection and proper disposal of unused, unwanted, or expired pharmaceutical drugs, including controlled substances, by installing a secure drop box at the Mendota Heights Police Department (Program). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Mendota Heights hereby authorizes Chief Aschenbrener to execute: A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH DAKOTA COUNTY FOR PHARMACEUTICAL DRUG DISPOSAL PROGRAM. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fifth day of June 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS LIZ ATTEST: sy Justus Miller, Administrator / City Clerk Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor Page 1 of 2 P32 Tla1r,.Ota Co ii- nty Sh_PrifFS Office .,.r ? Print this Page ww i.d!ad.ata;cdtJrity'.us Prescription Drug Drop -Off Program The Dakota County Sheriff, Attorney, and Environmental Management Offices, along with our law enforcement partners, have teamed together to offer the public a place to safely and anonymously dispose of prescription drugs. Drop boxes have been placed in the following locations: (651) 552 -4200 Burnsville Police Department 100 Civic Center Parkway, Burnsville (952) 895 -4600 Hastings Sheriff's Office (Drive -Up Location in Front of Law Enforcement Center) 1580 Highway 55, Hastings (651) 438 -4710 West St. Paul Police Department 1616 Humboldt Avenue, West St. Paul How to Drop Off Your Medicine: • Drop -off is safe and anonymous. No ID is required and no questions will be asked. ills can remain • Keep medicines in their original container and place them in a sealed, clear plastic bag (p in their blister packs). Use a marker to cross out your name on the medicine containers. Place medicine that is no longer in its original container in a clear plastic bag and write the name of the medicine on the bag. Medicines Accepted from Households: Medicines from households are accepted in any form, including prescription, over - the - counter, and pet medications. No medicines from businesses, including health care facilities, long -term care facilities, pharmacies, doctors' offices, and veterinary clinics can be accepted. List of What is Not Accepted: m Needles; ® Sharps; or Fever thermometers. The above items can be brought The Recycling Zone, 3365 Dodd Road, Eagan, Phone 651 - 905 -4520, for free, http: / /www.co.dakota. inn. usI PublicWeb /TemplatesIPrintFriendly.aspx? {CE2D4BD9- 5AB... 5/29/2012 P33 Page 2 of 2 environmentally safe disposal. For questions after 4:30 p.m. and on weekends, please call the Dakota Communications Center at (651) or (952) 322 -2323. Click here for a list of frequently asked questions! Access to Dakota County prevention materials about this issue are available by clicking here, or a prevention kit can be obtained by contacting Monica Jensen of the Dakota County Attorney's Office at 651- 438 -4440. More prescription drug resources are available at www.drugfree.org. Copyright 2006 Dakota County, Minnesota httn:// www. co. da. lmta. mn. us/ Publi cWeb /Temolates /PrintFriendly.asUY? f CE2D4BD9- 5AB... 5/29/2012 ITEM 5H P34 1101 Vict lria Curve I Miendcta Heights, Mid 55119 651452.1B50 phuile 1 651452.5940 Fax r,rtacmendota- heights.tom �. CITY Or MENDO T A HEIGHTS DATE: June 5, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2011 Audit Items BACKGROUND In 2011, the park bonds that were issued in 1992 and refunded in 2003 were paid off. This fund will no longer have any activity with the retirement of these bonds. At this time, we can close out this fiord into the consolidated debt service fund. I am recommending that council close out the park and recreation bonds fund into the consolidated debt service fund. In 2011, we have analyzed the engineering fund to determine why this fund has been running in a deficit. One of the charges for service that has not been made was a percentage charge for plans and specifications and assessment roll preparation. For each project, there is 7% of the contract amount that should be charged for plans and specs by the engineering department. There is also 1% of the contract amount that should be charged for the assessment roll preparation. Only a portion of this amount has been charged to the projects. In 2011, we went back to the 2008 projects and calculated the amounts that had not been charged. In 2011, there was a transfer of $135,119.02 that was made from the specific projects to the engineering fund. BUDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact for closing out the park and recreation bond fund into the consolidated debt service fund. The budget impact for the engineering transfer is that the projects will be charged the correct percentage of costs for plans and specifications and assessment roll preparation. All projects funds had sufficient funds to cover the costs. The engineering fiord will receive the correct amount of revenue for the services provided for the street projects the city performs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that council pass a motion to close out the parks and recreation bond fW-1d to the consolidated debt service fund in 2011_ Staff further recommends that the council authorize the year end transfer to the engineering fund from past project funds for the charges due for plans and specifications and assessment roll preparation. ITEM 51 P35 IIG� �tICCe, 13 t,ll:'rc'1 � i lerA�O;Z fjelgl1:5, 1`S!t J9 �� 65ir::2,1850phorne I 651,%152.69101aX ;w,w nendota hei5hts,con't K CITY of MEI`JIDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: June 5, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Planning Case 2012 -12, Conditional Use Permit BACKGROUND A planning application was presented to the planning commission on May 22, 2012 for a conditional use perniit to install a fence taller than three (3) feet within 30 feet of a right of way. The affected parcel is zoned residential, guided for low density residential and is used as a single family home. The planning application was deemed complete April 30, 2012. The 60 day review period is set to expire on June 29, 2012. Public notice was published in the city's legal newspaper and mailed to property owners within 100 feet of the parcel. Planner Grittman reviewed his report on the request. The commission had no questions for the planner. There were no comments at the public hearing. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION At their May 22, 2012 meeting, the planning commission voted 6:0 to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the findings provided by the city planner. If city council wishes to implement this recommendation, pass a motion adopting the attached resolution, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERIT FOR A FIVE FOOT TALL FENCE WITHIN THIRTY FEET OF A RIGHT OF `J`dAY AT 917 CHIPEWA AVE, making any changes the city council deems necessary. This action requires a simple majority vote. P36 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIVE FOOT TALL FENCE WITHIN THIRTY FEET OF A RIGHT OF WAY AT 917 CHIPPEWA AVE. WHEREAS, Carol Strojny has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a five (5) foot tall fence within 30 feet of a right of way at 917 Chippewa Avenue. (PID 27- 57500 -02 -030, Lot 3, Block 2 C.D. Pierce's Addition) as shown in planning case 2012- 12; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 22, 2012; and WHEREAS, the city council discussed the matter at their regular meeting June 5, 2012 and found conditions were present to approve the conditional use permit. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a conditional use permit as proposed in planning case 2012 -12 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed project will not impact traffic visibility in the area since the tallest portion of the fence is located approximately 15 feet from the alleyway at its closest point. 2. The proposed fence type and height continue an existing fence line along the north property line of the subject property, consistent with the established character of the area. 3. The propose fence encloses a small back yard on a relatively small lot, increasing privacy and security for the property owner. 4. The fence will not negatively impact any neighboring properties. 5. The fence complies with both the general zoning ordinance requirement for fencing as well as the specific conditional use permit provision of the ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a conditional use permit as proposed in planning case 2012 -12 his hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall receive a fence permit prior to installation of the fence. 2. The fence shall meet the regulations established in Section 12 -1D -6, including the six (6) foot height maximum and 30% open design requirement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fifth day of June, 2012. ATTEST Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor P37 i 4306 Olson Wem,onai 'Highway; .:Suite 204, :6n►den Vailey„ Mf4 55412 Telephone! 7:5 23 f,`:2555 Fac' ilrrile` :76 ;231 2581 planners @nacp,101 n rig cot7i MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: May 17, 2012 MEETING DATE: May 22, 2012 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for Construction of a Fence CASE NO: Planning Case No. 2012 -12; NAC Case 254.04 -12.10 APPLICANT(S): Carol Strojny LOCATION: 917 Chippewa Avenue ZONING: R -1 — One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR — Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction of a fence along the West and South end of the property. The property is located at 917 Chippewa Avenue, and is zoned R -1, One Family Residential. The Zoning Ordinance allows for fences up to six feet in height to encroach into rear yard and interior yard setbacks abutting a public right -of -way upon approval of a CUP (Section 12 -1 D -6D). Analysis: The purpose of the CUP is to ensure that the proposed fence will not interfere with the character of the neighborhood or with the general public's health, safety, or welfare. While a three -foot high fence is permitted without approval of a CUP, the City has established the CUP process to accommodate requests where property owners have lots adjacent to public roadways and who prefer taller fences to allow for added privacy and security. P39 The applicant is proposing to construct a fence to finish surrounding the west and south ends of the property in continuance of the existing fencing already in place on the north side of the property. The applicant has also proposed to replace the existing fence on the north side of the property from a 4 foot fence to a 6 foot fence. Because the applicant's property has frontage on Chippewa and a public alleyway, the height restrictions for fencing come into play in the rear yard of this parcel. The ordinance section in question reads as follows: D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways: Notwithstanding the other requirements of subsection A or B of this section to the contrary, fences greater than thirty six inches (36 ") in height but no greater than six feet (6') in height and no less than thirty percent (30 %) open may be allowed to encroach into rear yards of corner and through lots or side yards of corner lots by conditional use permit when said yard abuts a public street; provided, however, that in no event shall such fence be allowed to be constructed on a public easement for street, utility, or drainage purposes. The applicant is proposing to place a wooden plank style fence extending west from the northeast corner of the rear yard, then turning south and south east and running to the north east corner of the existing garage. At the southeast corner of the garage, the fence will continue and run east, adjacent to the south property line. At that point, the fence will turn north and meet up with the south side of the home. The height of the fencing materials has been proposed between 5 and 6 feet and it is not allowed to be greater than six feet (6'). In addition, the fence is proposed to be comprised of cedar planks with gaps between boards that will comply with the City's 30% "openness" requirement applicable to all fences. These proposed materials and construction specifications have been noted by the applicant however they should still be a condition of approval because the submitted plan does not show exact fence construction plans. In previous applications of this type, the City has approved fence designs that are aesthetically pleasing in nature or fence designs that created more of a screening effect for the rear yard areas. The proposed fence appears to be visually appealing in nature. The cedar privacy fence along the west facing will provide a screening effect for the applicant's rear yard from the public alley way. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit as requested based upon a finding that the proposed fence meets all of the Zoning Ordinance requirements and is consistent with the intent of the Conditional Use Permit criteria allowing such fences, subject to the following conditions: 2 WE a. The applicant shall receive a fence permit prior to installation of the fence; and b. The fence shall meet the regulations established in Section 12 -1 D- 6, including the six foot (6') height maximum and the 30% open design requirement. 2. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on a finding that the applicant can meet the height and /or setback requirernents with a standard fence design. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed fence within the interior and rear yard setback of 917 Chippewa Avenue. The Ordinance was written to accommodate these types of requests and the proposed fence is consistent with others that have been previously approved by the City. Supplementary Materials: 1. Site Location Map 2. Application materials dated April 20, 2012 P41 Draft Findings of' Fact for Approval Strojny Conditional Use Permit 917 Chippewa Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Permit: 1. The proposed project will not impact traffic visibility in the area since the tallest portion of the fence is located approximately 15 feet from the alleyway at its closest point. 2. The proposed fence type and height continue and existing fence line along the north property line of the subject property, consistent with the established character in the area 3. The proposed fence encloses a small back yard on a relatively small lot, increasing privacy and security for the property owner. 4. The fence will not negatively impact any neighboring properties. 5. The fence complies with both the general zoning ordinance requirements for fencing as well as the specific Conditional Use Permit provisions of the ordinance. 11 917 Chippewa Avenue f i P P .� "-4L'FfbiTT =JAV AM , h N + 0 923 o _ 18Watha e _ _ �' e f r � 919 ` ' '"i P{• it �a - � .,,, I h c i + , x tas ,,, ( + �✓ F 0 t 938 r 1 � 940 �+ i941t 1 950 1 cu 9 � 9 E +` r ' 952 +- ( r '•' � � ° e� + ; r � jti, ' '� ` 959 ,. ; 1 956 � � ' 959 Y 962it , ✓ ,� )i Q 7 977 541 t a�! 969 s 975 S i r 980, fi t 1537 = rj t: 91711 i ` {t /4/.,� i , ,�,� , � � s , , U , ' + 0 , ✓ , { .885 t �1 t986 }, , 981 r rx �� 985 X991' N1�r �; 984 988 m , to ` 'may 987 988 `s f > ; 992 t 5 987 r 9 4 993 X994`. , 993 a 94` , W i r N 1 i 997 } i 998 , � a i m 003 �: 1 ri, 1002�° r �1007 1098 �� 1015 r, 3 44 1 , A v, ., 990 990 1005 @ t 102,1, 95 000 023 1018 X023 6 -- r1031— �.r. Site Locati ®n Map City Limits Major Roads Parcels City Roads Water/Wetiands 917Chippewa mi Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN s04 3 651.452.1850 phone I 651.452.8940 fax Www.mendota- heights.com CITY OF ME,-',,IDOTA HEIs i T S May 1, 2012 Carol Strojny 917 Chippewa Ave Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Ms. Strojny: City Staff has received your application for a conditional use permit to construct a fence at 917 Chippewa Avenue and has determined that the application is complete. Your application has been assigned planning case #2012 -12. You application was deemed complete on April 30, 2012, starting the 60 day review period, which will expire on June 29, 2012. The public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 22, 2012, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. It is important to have a representative in attendance to describe your request. I will provide you a copy of the planner's report in the week prior to the planning commission meeting — please let me know if you have any questions before then. Sincerely, Jake Sedlacek Assistant to the City Administrator cc: Planning Case File #2012 -12 mix p es .rF 1� r .rom po7" f�c�bio sourcec FSC FSC' CD09042 P44 ilra'victori:� Curar. J Fian:SuUi lieinh *._ =, t4M SliB 351452 ;950 phon= I 651,452,3940 f X vp...,wynHIdatz -iirir ht;.r 0 M crry ar" IvIr=NC]OTA HEIGHTS APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. 1,3j 7- -1 2 Fee Paid Zeo cwe -K i23� Date of Application II1�It'L Staff Initials ,wS Applicant Name: /kot 51-20_i1 ✓v PH: 99/2 E -Mail Address: (2a co_ i "I cd Address: G, �n " Owner Name: &I&L SF,19,?`N Address: 1 Street Location of Property in Question: 1711 11 rr e,_ Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete) Legal fro(m� Title or Deed must be/provided) > A) k -9 �� 1� P! t� r�'/� S &,, 'h TJn 'i'P 1n n•-0' i�icc.c i ..' \o Igo TCt. C 'o ca,i.11. it u% .� /_ - S _ Dc7 - Oa - 0-70 Type of Request: Rezoning Variance __Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Critical Area Permit Comprehensive Plan Amendment Other (attach explanation) I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. Date Received (Signature•of Own4r) P45 Carol Strojny 917 Chippewa Ave Mendota Heights, MN 55118 April 20 "', 2012 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit Dear Planning Commission and Council Members: I would like to enclose my back yard with a 6 -foot fence. Since my back yard is adjacent to a public alley, a portion of the fence would encroach into the 30 -foot setback from a public access route (see attached plan map); therefore, I am requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for constructing a fence that exceeds 36 inches in height. Someday, I hope to acquire a dog and I would like a fence that prevents the dog from easily escaping the yard. I have considered moving the fence in 18 feet, but there are two major drawbacks. I would prefer not to have to go through a gate to access my garage every day (especially in winter), and it would be aesthetically displeasing to interrupt the flow of my back yard by bisecting it with a fence rather than enclosing it. The fence design will be a 5 -6 foot picket fence, with 3 horizontal rails, constructed of cedar. Pickets wi(I be approximately 5 %Z inches in width, spaced approximately 2 %Z - 3 inches apart to provide for the minimal 30% open plane requirement. added for support. Two gates will be constructed, which will be 60 inches or less in height, along the south side and north side of the fence. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Carol Strojny Enclosures: 2 P46 A .4- Af 8�fl use to P4 Pzl,jr,v Al El 9 ! I • � i w ; Io m � 120 -- -- -1 j--------------------- - - - - -- - - -- -- -- - -L. - i 120 ------------- ------------- --- -- --- - - - --� f� D � N O_ N C� �4 r Al Al, r CF u 47 NM %i, 1 V OF IYIENDOTA HEI GHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE AT 917 CHIPPEWA AVENUE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Carol Strojny for a conditional use permit. The applicant is seeking to construct a six foot tall fence within the 30 foot setback to a right of way. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Justin Miller Acting City Clerk ITEM 5J P49 iGl :'i.ta;ia Curvy { ti =rdofe Haig :s'V11\1 53118 55i 4s2.1�r =� G!}cRe { G3L45'1.S�AQ idX =;t}wr,mendctahei�f�ts,coni �, CITY of MEIVOOTA HEIGHTS ]DATE: June 5, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Planning Case 2012 -17, Critical Area Permit BACKGROUND Tim and Angela Gallant are seeking permission to construct a storage shed on their property, located at 1008 James Court. The shed is 144 square feet in area and would not be subject to city council review if not for the location of the parcel within the critical area. City Code allows for an expedited process for minor projects. A recent amendment to code, Ordinance 442, provided further detail to which cases can be brought directly to city council. This request has no discernible impact upon the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area. The structure will be finished with siding, painted to match the existing home. BUJDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request. This matter requires a simple majority vote by the council. If the city council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1008 JAMES COURT, making any revisions the council deems necessary. If council feels that the application requires full public hearing, pass a motion directing staff to add this item to the June 2012 planning commission meeting. P50 CITY OF MENDDOTA HE1GHIT S DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1008 JAMES COURT. WHEREAS, Tim and Angela Gallant have applied for a critical area permit to construct an accessory structure at 1008 James Court (PID 27- 76402 - 030 -170, Lot 17, Block 3 Tilsens Highland Heights Plat 3) as proposed in planning case 2012 -17; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights City Code Title 12, Chapter 3 allows minor developments for single - family dwellings to be forwarded to city council without planning commission review; and WHEREAS, the city staff recognizes the plamling application to be a minor development and /or change to a single family dwelling; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of the critical area permit as outlined in the planning application. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a critical area permit as proposed in planning case 2012 -17 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed accessory structure creates no new no visual impact on the river. 2. The project includes no changes site grading and erosion control. 3. The property is not in proximity to any bluff line. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fifth day of June 2012- ATTEST Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor nt)1 Victoria Curve I mendota Heights. MiN 5511". 651.452.1B50Phone 1 651.452.89 <o fa','. _ v�svw.merdcta•he.�hts.com `rt CiTY OF F ' MENDO I A HEIGHTS APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. 2e�tti ��► Fee Paid_ Date of Application �`' Staff Initials Applicant Name: �i�e �i �; -���' l� �A, PH: 6U-_205-46652t E -Mail Address: Address: k&5C� Owner Name: _.-1 I Address: k06S zVr.1, -? t'- He--I 4 °v9�t � o l &5I — �� r�t>�f Street Location of Property in Question: ��� �ts�� �N�� � o Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Tale or Deed must be provided) c, Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number 1'Z- Present Zoning of Property L_ Present Use Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) Section Proposed Zoning of Property t Proposed Use _ice I herebv declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the�a6�roper` dup ing daylight dour\ Date Received � «- (Signat6ye Owner) P51 1008 James Gourt May 16, 2012 r City of . Mendota 14eirlhts P53 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CI T'kir C 11 1 111+ 11 A !3 IN A June 5, 2012 — 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Acknowledgement of May 15, 2012 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledgement of May 22, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes c. Revised NDC4 Web Streaming Agreement d. Approval of Sign Permit, 760 Highway 110 — BC2 Artisan Bakery e. Receipt of April 2012 Fire Department Activity Report f. Receipt of Pay Equity Report Compliance Letter g. Approval of Pharmaceutical Drop -Off Program Joint Powers Agreement h. Approval of 2011 Year -End Auditor's Recommendations i. Planning Case 2012 -12, Conditional Use Permit for a Fence at 917 Chippewa Avenue j. Planning Case 2012 -17, Critical Area Permit for a Storage Shed at 1008 James Court k. Approval of Massage Therapy License Renewals I. Approval of 2012 Election Judges m. Approve Completion of Probationary Employment Period for Terry Sullivan n. Approval of Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program (CAMP) Annual Agreement o. Approval of One -Stop Right -of -Way Permitting System with Dakota County p. Approval of Pilot Knob Use Permit q. Receipt of May 2012 Building Activity Report r. Approval of April 2012 Treasurer's Report s. Approval of Contractors List t. Approval of Claims List 6. Public Comments 7. Presentations a. Donation of Tree from Mendota Heights Mom's Club 8. Public Hearings a. Liquor License Renewals ITEM 5K P54 1i01 Victoria CUrje I Mendota Heights,1 *4 55118 551.4521850 pi'ione 1 651,452:5940 Fax V1. "r%"'Mendota• heights com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: June 5, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator Sharon Hinze, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Massage Enterprise and Therapist License Approvals INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Mendota Heights City Code 3 -6 -2: No person shall provide massage services or engage in the business of operating an enterprise defined in section 3 -6 -1 of this chapter, either exclusively, or in connection with any other city business enterprise, without first obtaining a license issued by the city. A therapeutic massage enterprise must meet all of the requirements of chapter 12 of this code. An applicant having an establishment within the city must apply for a license for the premises. Each individual who provides massage must obtain an individual license. DISCUSSION Massage Elements, LLC located at 770 Highway 110, Mendota Heights, NIN 55120 has successfully submitted the required documentation, license fees and investigation fees required per City Code for a massage therapy enterprise license. Massage Elements, LLC business owner., Ann Freyberger Short of 1210 Charles Avenue of Saint Paul, MN 55104 has successfully submitted the required docurentation, license fees and investigation fees required per City Code for a massage therapist licenseEl ent O therapist LLC employees have Lotus cegsfullyd Healing Center and the following Massag e submitted the required renewal application, license fees and investigation fees required per City Code for a massage therapist license: Jane Louise Gilbert of 3 Isabel Street West, Saint Paul, MN 55107 Sheri Ruth Bongaarts of 340 E Street, Mendota, MN 55150 Georgina Alfrida Potgieter of 448 4th Avenue South, South Saint Paul, MN 55075 Michael Scott Taulinan of 1070 Humboldt Avenue, West Saint Paul, MN 55118 Kay Louise Reich of 1711 Morgan Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55116 Gayle Amy Aspenson of 650 9"' Avenue North, South Saint Paul, MN 55075 Pamela Jean Latterell, 6703 Falstaff Road, Woodbury, MN 55125 Amie Marie Lustig, 6703 Falstaff Road, Woodbury, MN 55125 Warren Scott Winsness, 4.350 Trenton Lane #306, Plymouth, MN 55442 P 5 5 The Mendota Heights Police Department has successfully completed background investigations for all of the above business licensee and therapist licensees with favorable results. In addition, the establishi-nent meets all requirements set forth in chapter 12 of the City Code. The applicant is aware that City Code 3 -6 -5 allows for Inspection: An applicant or licensee shall permit appropriate city personnel or its authorized representatives and agents to inspect the licensed premises for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the law, at any time the business is occupied or open for business. Upon request of the city administrator, police chief or other city personnel, any applicant or licensee shall promptly provide evidence of compliance with the requirements outlined in this chapter. Per City Code 3 -6 -913 Hours of Operation are limited to the hours between eight o'clock (8:00 a.m.) and ten o'clock (10:00 p.m.). ACTION REQUIRED If city council agrees, council should approve a Massage Enterprise License for Massage Elements, LLC located at 770 Highway 110, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 and Massage Therapist Licenses to the following business owner and employees of Massage Elements, LLC and one employee for Green Lotus Yoga and Healing Center for the period effective July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013: Ann Freyberger Short of 1210 Charles Avenue of Saint Paul, MN 55104 Jane Louise Gilbert of 3 Isabel Street West, Saint Paul, MN 55107 Sheri Ruth Bongaarts of 340 E Street, Mendota, MN 55150 Georgina Alfrida Potgieter of 448 4"' Avenue South, South Saint Paul, MN 55075 Michael Scott Taulman of 1070 Hurnboldt Avenue, West Saint Paul, MN 55118 Kay Louise Reich of 1711 Morgan Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55116 Gayle Arun Aspenson of 650 9"' Avenue North, South Saint Paul, MN 55075 Pamela Jean Latterell, 6703 Falstaff Road, Woodbury, MN 55125 Anne Marie Lustig, 6703 Falstaff Road, Woodbury, MN 55125 Warren Scott Winsness, 4350 Trenton Lane #306, Plymouth, MN 55442 ITEM 5L P56 1101 Victoria Curve I IviendGta Heights, Fit! 55118 = .•.._ rrs e�- "fir" r me r 5 ,454.18 6 1 tS.0 M 0 051'' 50 phone 5 4 _,,,�,.;,,1�j� —' '-:�.'�- :;•s„�.,.__ W' 1 .'k4.nlEnt�Oi:yt121C�tlTS.CUfi1 CITY of MENDOTA HEIGHTS DA'C'E: June 5, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council w FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution Designating Election Judges BACKGROUND The City of Mendota Heights will be conducting both a primary and general election this fall. As with all of our elections, the city relies on numerous individuals to serve as election judges to ensure that the voting and tabulation processes go smoothly. The City is required to identify the individuals serving as our election judges for the upcoming election. The attached resolution indicates those who have agreed to serve as election judges for either or both of this year's elections. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the attached resolution identifying election judges for the 2012 primary and general elections and the absentee ballot board. Approval of this item requires a majority vote of the city council. P57 City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 12- RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE 2012 PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20413.21 of the Minnesota Election Laws, election judges shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality; and WHEREAS, the appointments shall be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve; and WHEREAS, election judges shall receive at least the prevailing Minnesota minimum wage for each hour spent carrying out duties at the polling place and in attending training sessions. Election judges who travel to pick up election supplies or deliver election returns shall receive, in addition to other compensation, a sum not less than the prevailing Minnesota minimum wage for each hour spent performing these duties, plus mileage in the same amount as allowed pursuant to M.S. 471.665, subdivision 1.; and WHEREAS, election judge trainees shall receive the prevailing Minnesota minimum wage for each hour spent carrying out duties at the polling place and in attending training sessions. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the individuals listed on the attached Exhibit A are appointed to serve as election judges for the August 14, 2012 State Primary Election and November 6 General and City Election at the hourly rate of $9.30 for election judges and $10.30 for head judges. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is authorized to appoint additional judges as needed for the conduct of this election. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fifth day of June, 2012. ATTEST: Justin Miller Acting City Clerk City Council City of Mendota Heights Wd Sandra Krebsbach Mayor Im EXHIBIT A 2012 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ELECTION JUDGES Mary Ann Adrian Jim Leahy Bonnie Anderson Helen Lifson Robert Anderson Dr. Yelva Lynfield Nancy Bauer Deidre Madden Peter Beagan Justin Miller Alice Beihl Deidre Madden Roland Beihl Kathleen Miller Julia Blissenbach Rosemary Mossberg Pat Burow Carol Mullen Janice Chasman Sharon Nelson Joe Coopersmith Nancy Nelson Susan Davis Phillip Nelson Pam Deeb Joe Noeker Carole Dietz Jolene Novak- Haverka Jeanne Dill Mary Ann Novotny Linda Distad Kathy Packer Susan Doffing Michelle Parker Kathryn Doyle Donna Pedota David Eckert Becky Pentel Cathy Edwards Jacqueline Peterson Sally Ehlers Jeanne Poepl Pam Ehrlich Connie Powell Mary Kay Enders John Price Cecilia Exner Nancy Price Linda Feist Annabel Randolph Harold Fotsch Ryan Ruzek C. Leigh Gerber Donna Samelian Debbie Goldberger Kristen Schabacker Marilyn Gonsowski Ceil Schommer John Greving Tarmara Schutta Dorothy Haffely Jake Sedlacek Jean Haskell Joan Shapiro Char Henry Mary Shaughnessy David Hierseman Marsha Skogheim Sharon Hinze Ellen Slone Sue Holman- Sutich Lorrie Smith Patricia Huberty George Sonnen Linda Irey Evelyn Sunness James Johnson Carol Tunell Roger Junnila Marjorie Turner Stacy Kaiser Ardys Walsh Barb Kasal Laurie Weinzettel Susan Kilian Laurita Weinzettel Michael Kluznik Kathie Woods Alice IColinski Michelle Zarrnbinski Jean Kosowski Elizabeth Zilen ITEM 5M P59 lioi vi,:tcria Curve 1 hienciota Heights, HN 55113 351:152.18510 phorne 1 651452.8990 tax wwt�,mendot —heig11ts.00M CITY OF MENOOTA HEIGHTS DATE: June 5, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Tamara Schutta, HR Coordinator SUBJECT: Successful Completion of Probationary Period BACKGROUND Effective June 20, 2012, Terry Sullivan will have successfully completed his one -year probationary period as Facilities Manager. Terry has been a great asset to the City. Terry has a great attitude and demonstrates professional expertise in all that he does. This past year, Terry was instrumental in managing the carpet replacement project within City Hall and the Public Works re -roof project. BUDGET IMPACT Terry Sullivan's position is a Grade Level 16 in the City's position and pay classification plan. On June 20, 2012, Mr. Sullivan will be at Grade Level 16, Step D with a current hourly rate of $25.21. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends that the City Council officially appoint Terry Sullivan to the position of regular, full -time, Facilities Manager, effective June 20, 2012. If the council agrees with the recommendation, approve tile, official appointment of Terry Sullivan to the position of regular, full -time Facilities Manager effective June 20, 2012. This action requires a simple majority vote. ITEM 5N P60 1101 Victoria curvy I I,tenaola Heigh ts,1.Itl 55113 n'51.452,1650 ('lone 1 651.452.8940 (•a'r. �ti w •,iJ'nellcic;tfiItelgl�ls.ton� _,, CITY OF NIENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: ,tune 5, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP — Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: Citizen - Assisted Lake Monitoring Program (CAMP) Annual Agreement BACKGROUND Each year the City of Mendota Heights partners with the Metropolitan Council to collect and analyze water samples from Rogers Lake and LeMay Lake in an effort to monitor water quality in the two lakes. The Citizen- Assisted Lake Monitoring Program (CAMP) is designed to provide a relatively inexpensive way to complete this water sample analysis and water quality monitoring. CAMP also allows for the opportunity for area residents to get involved in water quality monitoring as the program encourages resident volunteers to collect the samples. Once the samples are collected, they are sent to the Metropolitan Council labs for testing. A report of the sample results is published annually. The attached agreement outlines the program and specific responsibilities of all parties involved. BUDGET IMPACT The annual cost for the program is outlines in the attached agreement and consists of up to $550.00 for sample analysis per lake with a $150.00 fee for the sampling equipment per lake. The total cost of the 2012 CAMP program is up to $1,400.00 and is budgeted for out of the Stoinn7 Sewer Utility. The Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) recently adopted a lake monitoring program wherM Under this program n the fees for Rogers L Lake are the analysis data is shared with the LMRWMO. reimbursable from the LMRWMO. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the 2012 CAMP agreement. If Council agrees with the staff oving the attached agreement by a simple majority vote. reco>rumendation, pass a motion appr • P61 Contract No.12RO27 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Metropolitan Council (the "Council ") and the City of Mendota Heights (the "City "), each acting by and through its duly authorized officers. THE ABOVE -NAMED PARTIES hereby agree as follows: I. GENERAL SCOPE OF AGREEMENT The Council and the City agree to undertake a volunteer lake sampling study in order to provide an economical method-of broadening the water quality database on lakes in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. II. SPECIFIC SCOPE OF SERVICES 2.01 Lake-Monitoring Program. The City and the Council agree to jointly undertake a volunteer lake monitoring program as specified below: a. General Purposes of Program. The volunteer lake monitoring program involves the use of citizen volunteers to monitor lakes in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The volunteers will collect surface water samples to be analyzed for total phosphorus (TP), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and chlorophyll -a (CLA). In addition, the volunteers will measure surface water temperature, water transparency, and fill out a lake sampling form to help describe the lake and weather conditions at the time of the sampling event. Lakes will be visited biweekly from April through October of 2012 (the "Monitoring Period ") for the number of times and at the approximate intervals specified in paragraph (b) below. Each lake will be sampled over the deepest open water location. After each sampling date, the Council will arrange for chemical analysis of the samples either through its own laboratory or an outside - laboratory. b. Specific Lakes Involved. The following lakes and specific lake site(s) listed below will be involved in the Council's Citizen - Assisted Lake Monitoring Program (CAMP) in 2012. Page 1 �aaa ar. yyFF__�e LeMay Rogers for: Met Council Contract No. 12R027 2.02 City Responsibilities. The City agrees that it will have sole responsibility a. Recruiting volunteers (who have access to a boat) to monitor the lakes the City wishes to involve in the program as listed iii section 2.01(b) above. b. Providing the Council and/or volunteers with needed lake information such as lake bathymetric maps and access locations. C. Paying for the laboratory analysis cost of the samples collected by volunteers which cost is included in the amounts specified in Article III below. d. Ensuring that the volunteers participate in the training program. e. Ensuring that the volunteers fill out sampling forms during each sampling event, and collect and store samples until picked up by a Council representative. 2.03 Council Responsibilities. The Council agrees that it will: a. Organize the survey and train volunteers, pick up and deliver samples to the laboratory, and analyze the results of the lake and City data collection program. b. Prepare a final report containing the physical, chemical, and biological data obtained during the Monitoring Period and a brief analysis of the data. C. Provide quality control by collecting lake samples Rom random lakes involved in the volunteer program. The resulting parameter values will then be compared to determine if any problems exist involving the volunteer's sampling methods and what should be done to correct the problem. d. Provide the sample bottles and labels, and filters for chlorophyll filtration. Page 2 P62 - •.:.: f�jltC i, .ant�+� ., .,saga 19 -0082 14 Biweekly 19 -0080 14 Biweekly 2.02 City Responsibilities. The City agrees that it will have sole responsibility a. Recruiting volunteers (who have access to a boat) to monitor the lakes the City wishes to involve in the program as listed iii section 2.01(b) above. b. Providing the Council and/or volunteers with needed lake information such as lake bathymetric maps and access locations. C. Paying for the laboratory analysis cost of the samples collected by volunteers which cost is included in the amounts specified in Article III below. d. Ensuring that the volunteers participate in the training program. e. Ensuring that the volunteers fill out sampling forms during each sampling event, and collect and store samples until picked up by a Council representative. 2.03 Council Responsibilities. The Council agrees that it will: a. Organize the survey and train volunteers, pick up and deliver samples to the laboratory, and analyze the results of the lake and City data collection program. b. Prepare a final report containing the physical, chemical, and biological data obtained during the Monitoring Period and a brief analysis of the data. C. Provide quality control by collecting lake samples Rom random lakes involved in the volunteer program. The resulting parameter values will then be compared to determine if any problems exist involving the volunteer's sampling methods and what should be done to correct the problem. d. Provide the sample bottles and labels, and filters for chlorophyll filtration. Page 2 P62 P63 Met Council Contract No. 12RO27 M. COMPENSATION; METHOD OF PAYYIEI NT 3.01 Payment to Council. For all labor performed and reimbursable expenses incurred by the Council under this agreement during the Monitoring Period, the City agrees to pay the Council the following amounts per lake site listed in section 2.01(b). ;:Nur�abep:ofSami Ltn� = �Jiates .: �, - JPayzne� .t�amoiiint��:(e��c�uciessa� 7� .e as� �.ea�t - ,�i�,''�; 8 to 14 $550 6 to 7 $280 1 to 5 $200 For lake sites requiring sampling equipment, the cost for a kit of sampling equipment is $150 per kit. 3.02 Payment Schedule. Payment of the total amount owing to the Council by the City shall be made within 30 days following the end of the Monitoring Period. An invoice specifying the amount owed by the City will be sent under separate cover. 3.03 Additional Analyses. The total amount specified in the previous paragraph does not include the cost of any additional analyses requested by the City, such as analysis of bottom samples. The Council will carry out any such additional analyses at the request of the City and subject to the availability of Council resources for carrying out such analyses. The Council will bill the City after the end of the Monitoring Period for any such additional analyses at the Council's actual cost, and the City will promptly reimburse the Council for any such costs billed. IV. GENERAL CONDITIONS 4.01 Period of Performance. The services of the Council will commence on April 1, 2012, and will terminate on December 31, 2012, or following work completion and payment, whichever occurs first. 4.02 Amendments. The terms of this agreement may be changed only by mutual agreement of the parties. Such changes will be effective only on the execution of written amendment(s) signed by duly authorized officers of the parties to this agreement. 4.03 City Personnel. John Mazzitello, or such other person as may be designated in writing by the City, will serve as the City's representative and will assume primary responsibility for coordinating all services with the Council. 4.04 Council's Contract Manager. The Council's Contract Manager for purposes of administration of this agreement is Kent Johnson, or such other person as may be designated in writing by the Council's Regional Administrator. The Council's Contract Manager will be responsible for coordinating services under this agreement. Page 3 WE Met Council Contract No. 12RO27 However, nnf ing ;n this agreement will. be deemed to authorize the Contract Manager to execute amendments to this agreement on behalf of the Council. 4.05 Equal Employment opportunity; Affirmative Action. The Council and the City agree to comply with all applicable laws relating to nondiscrimination and affirmative action. In particular, the Council and the City agree not to discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment, or participant in this study because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a local commission, disability, sexual orientation, or age; and further agree to take action to assure that applicants and employees are treated equally with respect to all aspects of employment, including rates of pay, selection for training, and other forms of compensation. 4.06 Liability. Each party to this agreement shall be liable for the acts and omissions of itself and its officers, employees, and agents, to the extent authorized by law. Neither party shall be liable for the acts or omissions of the other party or the other party's officers, employees or agents. Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver by either party of any applicable immunities or limits of liability including, without limitation, Minnesota Statutes, sections 3.736 (State Tort Claims) and chapter 466 (Municipal Tort Claims). 4.07 Copyright. No reports or documents produced in whole or in part under this agreement will be the subject of an application for copyright by or on behalf of the Council or City. 4.08 Termination of Agreement. The Council and the City will both have the right to terminate this agreement at any time and for any reason by submitting written notice of the intention to do so to the other party at least thirty (30) days prior to the specified effective date of such termination. In the event of such termination, the Council shall retain a pro -rata portion of the amounts provided for in Article III, based on the number of sampling events occurring for each lake before termination versus the total sampling events specified for each lake. The balance of the amounts will be refunded by the Council to the City. Page 4 P65 Met Council Contract No. 12RO27 IN WITNESS WIM' RE ®E, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the dates set forth below. This agreement is effective upon final execution by, and delivery to, both parties. CITY OF 1VIEND ®TA IIEIGHTS Date By Name Its Date METR ®P®LITAN COUNCIL, By Name EMA Section Manager Page 5 ITEM 50 i10i Victoria Curve I h1etl:lota Heights, 14N 55113 651,452.1950 phone 1 651 452.3940 hV ;;;ractnendcia- lieighfsccm �, :PTY Of- MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: ,tune 5, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator ;FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP — Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: Approval of a Service Agreement with Dakota County for One -Stop Right- of-Way Permitting System BACKGROUND Dakota County has proposed the establishment of a One -Stop Right -of Way Permitting System for the County and member cities within the County. The purpose of this program is to give utility and construction contractors the convenience of only having to fill out one permit application. Currently contractors are required to obtain Right-of-Way permits from each individual municipality that owns the Right -of- -Way impacted by their project. This system would allow, as its name states, a one -stop permit for the contractors. Each municipality would still review construction plans before the permit is issued, and each municipality would still collect fees for the Right -of -Way permit through Dakota County. BUDGETIMPACT The One -Stop Right -of -Way Permitting System will cost each of the member cities $2,000.00 as a one -time set up fee, and a monthly service charge based upon the number of permits processed. The initial estimated monthly charge for the program is $39.58 ($475.00 annually). The initial set -up fee of $2,000.00 is not currently budgeted, but could be paid for out of the Code Enforcement Department from revenues generated by building permit and Right -of -Way permit fees. The monthly charge will be paid for out of collected Right -of- -Way permit fees. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached Service Agreement for One -Stop Permit System. If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, pass a motion approving the attached agreement by a simple majority vote. 'A P67 DAKOTA COUNTY SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF FOR ONE -STOP PERMIT SYSTEM THIS DAKOTA COUNTY SERVICE AGREEMENT. FOR ONE -STOP PERMIT SYSTEM ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the County of Dakota, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota ( "County "), and the City of , a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota ( "City "). County and City are each sometimes referred to herein as a "Party" and collectively as th'e "Parties." WHEREAS, Dakota County's One -Stop Permit System brings together the permitting processes of the County and participating cities into one, easy to use permitting application process where the public can easily apply for permits that apply to one or more entities within the County; and WHEREAS, Dakota County and the City of desire to partner with each other to offer the One -Stop Permit System to the public as part of their mission to provide efficient, effective and responsive government to their citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements made herein the Parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions. (a) "System Software" means County's proprietary computer software program(s) described in Exhibit A (the "System Overview "), in object code form only, including all Updates. . (b) "Permit System" means the One -Stop Permit System Internet site operated by the County, accessible by the City and the general public as applicable, through secure access points, with a specific Uniform Resource Locator to be "provided to the City (or any successor URL). (c) "City Data" means the data collected by the Permit System issued on behalf of the City relating to the Permits issued. (d) "Documentation" means any Permit System user manuals, training or education materials, technical manuals, and specifications describing the System Software and Services created by the County relating to the Permit System, in printed and /or electronic form, including all Updates. (e) •'Permitted User" means the City's employees and the general public who are provided access to the Permit System in accordance with the procedures in Section 10 of this Agreement. Page 1 of 14 '.: (f) "Provider Content" means County's reports, information; and data other than City Data made available to the City and its Permitted Users as part of the Services. (g) "Renewal Term" has the meaning set forth in Section 16. (h) "Services" means operating. the System Software and utilities in County's host computer system, providing Provider Content to the City, storing City Data, and making the System Software, Provider Content and City Data available to Permitted Users via the Permit System, as more fully described in Exhibit A. Services do not include integrating the Permit System or City Data with any application or computer system other than email notification that a permit has been issued and the standard reports included in the Permit System. (i) "Update" means, as applicable, any update, modification, or new release of the System Software, Documentation, or Provider Content that the County makes generally available to the .City at no additional cost. 2 Provision of On -line Services. (a) The City hereby engages the County, and the County hereby agrees (subject to the terms and conditions herein) to provide the Services more fully described in this Agreement and in the system overview attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "System Overview") and giants to the City a non- exclusive, non - assignable and non - transferable license to use the Permit System for its intended purpose during the term of this Agreement. (b) The City acknowledges and agrees that the County's provision and performance of the Services is dependent and conditioned upon the City's full performance of its duties, obligations and responsibilities hereunder. (c) Each party shall at all times during the term of this Agreement designate an individual to serve as its primary point of contact regarding the Services provided and the rights or obligations of each Party under this Agreement. 3. Additional County Responsibilities. During the Term of this Agreement, the County shall be responsible for the following: (a) The County shall provide all required hosting and operations support for the Permit System. (b) The County may, from time to time, in its sole discretion, install Updates, modify the Services or any component thereof provided that such Updates shall perform and contain functionality that is equal to or better then the current version of the Services. The County will complete such installations and modifications in accordance with the County's normal application implementation plan and will, Where possible, minimize any impact on the City's or general public's use of the Permit System and its Services. The County will notify the City by standard methods of notification such as email, system generated messages on the Permit System home page or similar communication methods, in advance of the installation of an Update or modification to the Services. (c) The County will provide support and system maintenance to the Permit System as more fully described in this Agreement and the System Overview. Page 2 of 14 (d) The County will provide the computer servers that will run the Permit System, providing secured (SSL Certificate) access to the City and the general public. (e) The County will provide technical support for the servers that are hosting the Permit System and for the Permit System code and the databases that hold the information collected and used to run the Permit System. (f) The County will provide timely email notification to the City prior to any scheduled maintenance outages that could make the Permit System unavailable. (g) The County will provide help desk support for the Permit System during the hours of 7:00 am to 4:30 pm (CST) on County business days. (h) The County shall have in place a Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan and will utilize industry standard back -up and archival procedures. (h) The County will configure and maintain the Permit System to provide reasonable system response time for the City's Permitted Users and the general public that is within the control of the County. (k) The County will provide training on the use of Permit System for City staff as set forth in Section 9 of this Agreement. 4. The City Responsibilities. During the Term of this Agreement, the City shall be responsible for the following: (a) The City will pay the initial "sign on fee" and monthly fee as set out in the Payments section below. (b) The City shall be responsible for providing, at no cost to the County, the necessary personnel and information needed to configure and run the Permit System for the City. (c) The City shall identify the City's staff that need to have access to the Permit System so that the security access can be setup for them. (e) The City shall be responsible for ensuring that the City's use of the Permit System complies with this Agreement and all laws applicable to the City. (f) As between the Parties, the City shall be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of all records and data provided by the City in connection with this Agreement. 5. System Features and Configuration. The City acknowledges and agrees that it will be using the Permit System that is also utilized by other Cities and agencies in Dakota County and potentially elsewhere in Minnesota. The capabilities and functions of the Permit System will be determined by County. County will consult with the County Permits Collaborative Users Group (the User Group), which is comprised of the member cities who have met and continue to meet the payment responsibilities described in the Payments section of this agreement. When settings or features have been added to the Permit System that are designed by the County in conjunction with the Users Group, the Parties shall work cooperatively to identify System features or functionality (common practices, processes, and procedures conducted by the Page 3 of 14 P70 City in day -to -day operations as they relate to utilizing the Permit System) that are configurable 'to best fit the City's business practices. The County shall set available configurations in the Permit System for the City. 6. Ownership, Protection and Security. (a) The County shall own the intellectual property and all other proprietary rights and interests associated with the Permit System and Services and all components thereof and associated documentation, except as expressly provided herein. The City acknowledges and agrees'that nothing in this Agreement or any other agreement grants the City any licenses or other rights with respect to the Permit System (source code or object code) or Services other than the right to receive Services as expressly provided herein. (b) Ownership of any data, text; graphics or other information or content materials and all records and databases supplied or furnished or entered into the System by the City hereunder for incorporation into or delivery through the application(s) described in the System Overview shall remain with the City, and the County shall cease use of all such material upon termination of this Agreement. (c) The County grants to the City a limited license during the term of this Agreement to use and reproduce the County's trademarks and logos pertaining to the Permit System for purposes of including such trademarks and logos in City materials and links relating to the Permit System. All uses of such trademarks and logos shall conform to the County's guidelines and requirements for use of such trademarks and logos. (d) By storing City Data on the County's equipment and System, the County does not obtain any ownership interest in the City Data except to the extent that the County is obligated to _keep said data intact and secure and to regularly backup the data"for redundancy and disaster recovery purposes. As between the City and the County, City Data is and shall remain the sole and.exclusive property of the City, including all applicable rights to copyrights, trademarks or other proprietary or intellectual property rights thereto. (e) The City shall be responsible for responding to any data practices requests related to any City Data the City or its Permitted Users have entered into the System. 7. Implementation. The County agrees that upon execution of the Agreement and payment of the required funds as set forth in the Payments section, the County will work with the City to setup and configure the Permit System so that City permits can be requested and paid for by the general public in accordance to the City's schedule of fees. The time table for implementation is provided in Exhibit D. 8. Training and Acceptance Testing. The County will hold a half day training session for all Cities that are going live when the Permit System initially goes live. An Administration User's Guide will be provided to all people attending the training session. A second half day training session will be provided for the Cities that are coming online in the second batch of Cities. The Cities will be asked by the County to participate in the Acceptance Testing of the Permit System, which will take 10 (ten) days. Any defects found by the Cities will be communicated to the County giving full details of the situation, that caused the defect and screen shots where possible to assist in the troubleshooting process. Dates for the Training Sessions Page 4 of 14 P71 and the Acceptance Test period will be communicated to the Cities by the County's Project Manager. The County will undertake to have, wherever possible, all defect corrections made prior to going live. If a defect is found that cannot be resolved prior to the go live date, and if the Cities agree to go live anyway, the County will communicate the date on which the final defect resolutions will be implemented. 10. User Access Restrictions. The Parties acknowledge and agree that access to the Permit System will be restricted to those employees or agents of the City having a business need to enter and view City Data or Provider Content. The City will request access to the Permit System by filling out a Permit System Access Request form and emailing it to the County Help Desk at help desk(cDco.dakota.mn.us. The Permit System Access Request form can be obtained from the County's Help Desk by emailing the above email address or by contacting the County's Help Desk on (651) 438 4346. The Permit System Access Request form will be included in the Permit System Administration User's Guide given out in the training sessions. The City shall promptly notify the County's Help Desk whenever an Authorized User ceases to be an employee or agent of the-City or no longer has a position that requires access to the Permit System. Authorization to access to the System by all City Approved Users will expire on the date this Service Agreement terminates. 11. County Representations and Warranties. (a) The County shall provide the Provider Content and Services to City for the Permit System to be accessible to the City and the General Public without interruption, except for scheduled maintenance and required repairs, and except for any interruption due to causes beyond the reasonable control of the County including, but not limited to, any Force Majeure Event (as defined in Section 19). (b) The County warrants that the Permit System and Services will operate in conformance with the criteria set forth in this Agreement, its Schedules and Exhibits, and the applicable specifications and Documentation, not including any post- Acceptance modifications or alterations to the Documentation which represent a material diminishment of the functionality of the Permit System, Service, or Provider Content; when used in accordance with the Documentation and all of the terms and conditions hereof. (c) The County warranties that the Permit System is compatible with and will operate successfully with the following internet browsers: Microsoft Internet Explorer version 7 and up, Firefox version 10 and up, Google Chrome version 17 and above and Apple's Safari version 5 and above. (d) In the event that the City discovers a non - conformance with any of the County's warranties or representations as stated in this Agreement, the City shall promptly inform the County of such fact in writing, and, upon receipt of such notice the County shall correct the non - conformity within a reasonable period of time not to exceed thirty (30) days without any additional charge to the City. THE SERVICE N O PE MIT SY TEM PROVI PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY AND O APPLY AND OES NOTAPPLYTO (AO ANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES; (B) ANY SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES; (C) ANY SERVICE(S) THAT EXPRESSLY EXCLUDE THIS SERVICE LEVEL WARRANTY (AS STATED IN THE SYSTEM OVERVIEW FOR SUCH SERVICES). THIS SECTION STATES THE CITY'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY FAILURE BY THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE SERVICE(S). Page 5 of 14 P72' (f) Ownership of Services and System Sothyare. The County warrants that it is the sole owner and developer of the Permit System and has the right and authority to provide access and use of the Permit System software, Provider Content and Services to the City and authorized users as set forth in this Agreement. If the County's ownership rights are successfully challenged to the extent that the City must cease using the Services, the County shall refund a prorated portion of the annual fees paid by the City (should the fees be paid annually) for the current term of this Agreement as measured from the date the City must cease using the Services. (g) No Other WarrantV. EXCEPT FOR THE EXPRESS WARRANTIES SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND THE CITY'S USE OF THE SERVICES IS AT ITS OWN RISK. THE COUNTY DOES NOT MAKE, AND HEREBY DISCLAIMS, ANY AND ALL OTHER EXPRESS AND /OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES,. INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT AND TITLE, AND ANY WARRANTIES ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE, OR TRADE PRACTICE. THE COUNTY DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, ERROR -FREE, OR COMPLETELY SECURE. COUNTY DOES NOT AND CANNOT WARRANT THE RESULTS OBTAINED BY USE OF THE SERVICES. COUNTY DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE COUNTY SOFTWARE WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OR GENERAL PUBLIC. (h) Disclaimer of Actions Caused by and /or Under the Control of Third Parties. THE COUNTY DOES NOT AND CANNOT CONTROL THE FLOW OF DATA BETWEEN THE POINT THAT THE PERMIT SYSTEM CONNECTS TO THE INTERNET (WHETHER SECURE OR NOT) AND THE CITY'S FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. SUCH FLOW DEPENDS IN LARGE PART ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE INTERNET SERVICES PROVIDED OR CONTROLLED BY THIRD PARTIES. ACTIONS OR INACTIONS OF SUCH THIRD PARTIES CAN IMPAIR OR DISRUPT THE CITY'S CONNECTIONS TO THE COUNTY'S PERMIT SYSTEM. ALTHOUGH THE COUNTY WILL USE REASONABLE EFFORTS IT DEEMS APPROPRIATE TO REMEDY AND AVOID SUCH EVENTS, THE COUNTY CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT SUCH EVENTS WILL NOT OCCUR. ACCORDINGLY, THE COUNTY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY RESULTING FROM OR RELATED TO SUCH EVENTS. 12. Nondisclosure. Through exercise of each Party's rights under this Agreement, each Party may be exposed to the other party's technical and financial information and data, in electronic, magnetic, photographic and other forms that is confidential or private information ( "Confidential Information"). In recognition of the other Party's need to protect its legitimate business interests and legal obligations, each party agrees that it shall regard and treat each item of information or data constituting Confidential Information of the other Party as confidential or private and that, except as required by law including the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, it will not redistribute or disclose to any other person, firm or entity, or use or modify for-use, directly or indirectly in any way for any person or entity any of the other Party's Confidential Information. If Confidential Information is required by subpoena, court order or government requirement to be disclosed, each Party shall give the other Party prompt written notice of such subpoena, court order or government requirement to allow the other Party an opportunity to obtain a protective order to prohibit or restrict such disclosure. Page 6 of 14 P73 13. Data Security. During the term of this Agreement, the County shall, at a minimum, implement the following procedures designed to protect the security of City Data: (a) User identification and access controls designed to limit access to City Data to Authorized Users; (b) Industry standard firewalls regulating data entering the County's internal data network from an external source, which will enforce valid secure connections between internal and external systems; (c) The County will maintain and follow a disaster recovery plan designed to maintain access to the System Software and Services and to prevent the unintended destruction of City Data; 14. Liability Limitations. (a) THE COUNTY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO THE CITY OR TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE OR DUE TO ANY EVENT WHATSOEVER, FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INDIRECT DAMAGES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOSS OF PROFIT, LOSS OF USE OR BUSINESS STOPPAGE. '(b) Under'no circumstances shall the County's total liability to the City related to the System Software, Provider Content, or performance of Services under this Agreement exceed the aggregate amount of fees and revenue received by the County hereunder for the prior twelve (12) month period. 15. Parties Liable for Own Acts. Each party to this agreement shall be liable for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party, its agents, volunteers or employees. The Municipal Tort Claims Act, MN Stat. Ch. 466, and other applicable laws shall govern the County and City's liability. 16. Term and Termination. (a) This Agreement shall commence as of the date executed by both Parties and shall remain in effect unless terminated by either party as set forth herein ( "Initial Term "). After three years and every three years after that, the County may revise the cost associated with this agreement, by creating an amendment to this agreement which would then be agreed to and signed by both parties. (b) Each Party reserves the right to terminate this Agreement immediately if the Services provided hereunder become illegal or contrary to any applicable law, rule, regulation or public policy. Each Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon ninety (90) days prior written notice to the other party. Termination of this Agreement by either party does not entitle the City to a refund of any annual fees the City has paid to the County. (c) Within sixty (90) days of termination of this Agreement, the County shall provide the City with a copy of all of the City Data contained in the Permit System. Within a reasonable time after providing Page 7 of 14 P74 the City Data, the County shall delete and remove all of the City Data from the County's servers and data storage. 17. Payments. (a) Initial Buy In Payment and Monthly Fees. The City will pay the County an Initial Buy -In Fee of $2,000 as the Cities share of the development costs. The City will also pay the County a monthly fee to cover the hosting and support costs. The monthly fee is calculated using the average count of the last three years permits multiplied by $3.50, divided by 12 months, plus $25. The 'city may pay this fee on an annual basis, calculated as the Monthly Fee multiplied by 12 months. The details of, this calculation are set out in Exhibit C. Based on these calculations the monthly fee to be paid by the City (b) The Permit System will allow the public to apply for a permit in a '.one stop shop" portal that is accessed from the internet. For example, if the mernber of the public requires a permit from the County, the City of Apple Valley and the City of Lakeville, the Permit System will allow the member of the public to apply for all three permits at once. If the permits are paid for by credit card, the County will collect the money paid for the permits and will distribute the permit fees to the Cities according to the Cities permit fees structure. Credit card fees applied to the County by the credit card companies will be subtracted from the permit fees distributed to the Cities by the County, proportioned according to the ratios of the County's and City's fee structures. (c) if the permits are paid for with a check instead of by credit card, the person applying for the permits will pay the check directly to each, the County and Cities involved. (d) Fees for any extra services provided by the County that are outside the services that the County must provide under this Agreement shall be at pay for by a rate of $65.00 per hour. 18. Participation on the Permit System User Group. The Permit System Use Group provides input to the County's Information Technology staff as to upgrades and enhancements that need to be made to the Permit System. The User Group consists of representatives from the County and cities who have committed to using the Permit System by paying the above mentioned fees and by signing this Agreement. The County will take the Cities requests into consideration when planning work on the Permit System. The County retains the right to make the final decision on what new functionality will be included in future releases. 19. Force Maieure. Neither Party shall be liable to the other Party for any damages, costs, expenses or other consequences incurred by a Party or by any other person or entity as a result of delay in or inability to deliver any Services or comply with other obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement due to circumstances or events beyond the Party's reasonable control, including, without limitation: (i) acts of God; (ii) changes in or in the interpretation of any law, rule, regulation or ordinance; (iii) strikes, lockouts or other labor problems; (iv) transportation delays; (v) unavailability of supplies or materials; (vi) fire or explosion; (vii) riot, military action or usurped power; or (viii) actions or failures to act on the part of a governmental authority. Page 8 of 14 P75 20. Miscellaneous. Assigi7ment. The Parties shall not assign its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. SeverabilitV. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such provision shall be changed and interpreted so as to best accomplish the objectives of the original provision to the fullest extent allowed by law and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Waiver and Amendment. No modification, amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by the Parties. No failure or delay by either Party in exercising any right, power, or remedy under this Agreement shall operate as a waiver of any such right, power or remedy. Goveminq Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of Minnesota, and the Parties hereby submit to exclusive jurisdiction in the federal and state courts located in Dakota County, Minnesota for all disputes in connection with this Agreement or the transaction contemplated hereby. Notices. All notices and other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be mailed by United States first class mail, postage prepaid, sent by facsimile or delivered personally by hand or nationally recognized courier. All such notices and other written communications shall be effective one business day after the date of mailing, receipt of confirmed facsimile transmittal or delivery. All notices shall be addressed to the applicable Party at its respective address first set forth above or such other address as may be designated on notice to the other Party pursuant hereto. Independent Contractors. The County and its personnel or agents, in performance of this Agreement, are acting as independent contractors and not as an employees or agents of the City. Under no circumstances will either Party have the right or authority to enter into any contracts or assume any obligations for the other or to give any warranty to or make any representation on behalf of the other. INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 9 of 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Service Agreement for One -Stop Permit System to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the date set forth above. This Agreement shall be effective only when executed below by both Parties. Approved As To Form: City Attorney /Date Approved As To Form: County Attorney /Date CITY OF By Mayor Date Attest: City Clerk Date COUNTY OF DAKOTA By Anita Scott, Director Information Technology Department Date Dakota County Board Resolution No. Contract No. Page 10 of 14 P76 (1 P77 EXHIBIT A SYSTEM OVERVIEW Dakota County's one stop Permit System brings together the permitting processes of the County and the Cities within the County into one, easy to use permitting application where the public can apply for permits that apply to one or more entities within the County. Customers will have an online web user in where they will be able to:. 1) Create and update their profile 2) Purchase multiple permits in a shopping cart environment 3) Make one payment via Credit Card for all permits 4) Be able to view purchased permits and reprint permit copies 5) Be able to view pending permits and update as needed Cities will be able to: 1) View all permits at a glance 2) Create user profiles or update. user profiles 3) View reports of purchased permits, be able to see who has not paid for a permit and suspend their purchase abilities until payment has been made 4) Update permits that have been purchased and accept or reject their status for further review. 5) Add /Update /Delete documents to permits as needed 6) Create permits for customers as needed Procedure: A member of the public can become a customer by creating a user or company profile to do business with the Permit System. A customer can go to their "work place" where they have options to purchase a permit or print existing permit copies. Once they request to purchase a permit a customer will be. given an option to select a permit type. Once that type is selected the customer will be prompted to select a city or cities in which they need a permit. If multiple cities are selected the permit system will loop through the process creating permits for the customer for each city that is selected and place the completed permit(s) into a shopping cart for further review or purchase. Upon the completion of the purchase the customer will receive verification of the purchase and notification that a representative will be in contact with them regarding their purchase. The city can accept or reject the permit. If accepted the customer is notified by email that the permit was approved and a copy of their permit will be included in the email to them. If the city rejects the permit, the city will contact the customer and tell them why and allow them to update and supplement the permit request as needed. Page 1 1 of 14 EXHIBIT B MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT SERVICES The County shall maintain the Permit System including related hardware and software hosted by the County according to the separate Service Level Agreement (SLA) between Dakota County Information Technology and the Dakota' County Cities. Page 12 of 14 !i P79 EXHIBIT C PERMIT SYSTEM FEE CALCULATIONS summer summer 2012 2012 W Apple , • Valley .. :. Burnsville Eagan. Farmington Hastings Inver ' Grove • Hts. Lakeville ; Rosemount West St. Paul Mendota Ht's South St. Paul 2009 149. . ';° i i110 .: ;, . :17.4 ;' 60, 73 : 0 140 68 .. 50 50 Not 2010 156;:•; 116 'Z09 - 75 •..75 :' =`76 150.'i 47° 50 50 At 2011 158 100: 202 65 70 .134 130^ 53 50 50 This 2012 . ,.. •, ...�_ Annual $840.17 Time $982.50 $533.33 $554.33 $667.50 $790.00 $496.00 $475.00 $475.00 Charge: Start Up Fee: $2000. $2000. $2000. $2000. $2000. $2000. $2000. $2000. $2000. $2000. ROW /Utility W W.:.' ,`., _ W. :';W: W W. W W.'.. Registration ;,W :," W ,.; W W' W W W W •. c,. Obstruction iW . ;W. W :.... W �. Special Events _ Excay. /Grade W W. W Oversize loud W Access (New Dr) Landscaping W W .' W W W Permitit#Avg. 154 109 195 67 73 105 140 56 50 50 Monthly $70.01 $56.69 $81.88 $44.44 $46.19 $55.63 $65.83 $41.33 $39.58 $39.58 charge: Annual $840.17 $680.33 $982.50 $533.33 $554.33 $667.50 $790.00 $496.00 $475.00 $475.00 Charge: Start Up Fee: $2000. $2000. $2000. $2000. $2000. $2000. $2000. $2000. $2000. $2000. The County will charge $ 65. per hour for consulting services that are outside the scope of this Agreement. This hourly rate may be increased by the County every three years when the other fees of the agreement are reassessed. Page 13 of 14 M EXHIBIT D IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Permit Date Comment Utility Right of Way Permit Week of testing in test environment Week training in production environment Training for Utility Right Of Way & Registration Dakota County Northern Service Center for all City staff affected Release to the public Registration Form Week of testing in test environment Week trialing in production environment Release to the public General Excavation Permit Release to the public Obstruction Permit Release to the public Special Event Permit Release to the Public Oversized Load Permit Release to the Public Access (New Driveway) Release to the Public — New Permit Landscaping Release to the Public — New Permit Page 14 of 14 DATE: TO: (FROM: SUBJECT: ITEM 5P P81 1101 Victoria Curve I C iendota Hefgf t5, Pik! 55118 651.452,1850 phone I CG51,452.8940 Fax :�;v;w;.nicnJota-lleights.coi� C[TY OF NIENOOT.A HEIGHTS June 5, 2012 Mayor, City Council and City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator Pilot Knob Use Permit Discussion Attached you will find a Request for Group Gathering at Pilot Kn1ob Open Space. This topic was discussed at the city council workshop earlier this year as a part of the ongoing management of the open space. As restoration of the site progresses, Pilot Knob is being recognized as a good location for cultural, historical and group gatherings. The attached permit limits group gatherings, recognizing that the Pilot Knob Open Space is not the same as a city park. Group gatherings are to be well - planned, sensitive to the uniqueness of the site and should not exclude other visitors to the site for the duration of the event. Budget Impact Staff anticipates receiving requests for use whether the permit exists or not. The attached permit form will reduce staff time by making site users responsible for planning their event prior to approaching staff. No new budget impact is anticipated. Recommendation Staff recommends approving the attached permit. If city council wishes to implement this recommendation, pass a motion approving the permit, making any changes the city council deems necessary. Page 1 of 1 Im 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55116 651,4521850 phone 1 651.6.52.6940 fix ;evd;v,lnendota- heights.cer;i _,, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Request for Group Gathering at Pilot Knob Open Space Please describe your event: Date(s) of event: Event sponsor: _ Primary Contact:_ Street address of Primary Contact: 1 st contact #: ( ) Type of event: Description of event: Anticipated size of group: Starting time: Ending time: 2nd contact #: ( E -mail: 3rd contact #: ( Historic Pilot Knob is an open space intended for passive use, with an emphasis on the environment, the site's history and vegetation. Each visitor to Pilot Knob must be mindful of their impact on other visitors to the site. The site is not conducive to large gatherings, but may be used under the following parameters: 1. Groups are responsible for cleanup of trash and debris 2. Use of the site is not exclusive — please be respectful of other visitors 3. Pilot Knob hours are 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. or sundown, whichever comes earlier 4. All motor vehicles must be parked in designated parking areas 5. Any group over 20 must provide restroom facilities — a minimum of two — one must be handicap accessible 6. The maximum capacity gathering size for Pilot Knob is 150 people 7. Gambling, alcoholic beverages, fireworks, profane /indecent language or conduct is prohibited on Pilot Knob 8. Fires are not allowed on Pilot Knob 9. Transient merchants are not allowed in Mendota Heights 10. Audio devices are generally discouraged, but may be allowed on a case -by -case basis 11. Certificate of liability is required 12.All dogs must be leashed, please clean up and properly dispose of any droppings left by your animals 13. Damage deposit of $500 per event Page 1 of 2 Please describe: Any tent or membrane structure (size, location): Any audio devices (powered and non - powered): Any plans for food service: Plan to address fire /medical needs: Plan to address traffic /parking impacts: MR Please attach a site plan Your site plan should show areas requested for your gathering. Be sure to include: gathering area, any temporary structures, ingress /egress, trash collections and portable restroom facilities. Each request to utilize the Pilot Knob open space for a gathering is reviewed on a case -by- case basis. Requests to use Pilot Knob will be carefully considered in regards to the current conditions of vegetation management on site in consultation with our contracted vendor for site restoration. Applicant Signature: Date: Approved By: Date: Conditions: Page 2 of 2 ads LU NIIII� O m Y 0 LL U) N LO m L' 64 'd} Vry m W C) I O r j p O O - N Z O N IS, O C' 0 ''O 3 z M Lo I� O r Q1 O ch M N D O U O. L17 p U U I� O 01 LD E � 11 r N h U D co O O O r O O 1 D LL Y M ct co U Y O O O U � b4 vi co r N O V m O O 6ccq N iv � Y d} 64 64 64 Vry N NI tL Y Y LL O o 0 0 0 64 tft O 64 (fl� CAI V). O Y ON C) ON O O o O co N m M (C0 10 C o. o O v M QJ N j r 7 Y a) r�CO m ro m r } e/} L' 64 'd} Vry m W C) I O r j p D - N Z O N IS, o y a v E V) n 3 z M z No m r U 0 p p O O M N D w i O O Q LO I— c U N N V7 N E c N O O N M v7 cnacn¢.� —U�U(n U I—d O O O N O 1 11 LL 69 64 CP, LD LD N I'll Y O O O Y O O o O vi co r N O V m O o 6ccq r M to iv O to N O co u LO O N1 r Q N LO O co M p O M U 'r m co LL 69 H} (Pr 64 la4 Y O O O N Y cC O d .O M 7 O) O 0 c`ro n� m m y o M co Z N Ln U 9 u, Q ♦— c c fa— u 3 m u n u c v O S co U' N '.� U .1 i- 0 00 0 o v O 0 O O N O m N U cn N I� LD U1 r r r C m LL Ot AA, b9 t N rY-+ C, J W W 69. 6 } Fft ePr 69 iA, O r m N N e M 0 O � � co z M z U 0 ° w J J w i N m 0 d d I— c c c c cv O m u E c N O O SA(� . cnacn¢.� —U�U(n I—d O O O O 1 11 LD LD N I'll a N N u O N M (O U N U7 M I� tp N .0 (n o 6ccq m LL LL d} 64 64 64 Vry N NI Y Y O o 0 0 0 O to N O co u LO O N1 r Q N LO O co M p O M U 'r m co LL 69 H} (Pr 64 la4 Y O O O N Y cC O d .O M 7 O) O 0 c`ro n� m m y o M co Z N Ln U 9 u, Q ♦— c c fa— u 3 m u n u c v O S co U' N '.� U .1 i- 0 00 0 o v O 0 O O N O m N U cn N I� LD U1 r r r C m LL Ot AA, b9 t N rY-+ C, J W W O N N z M 0 07 co N z M LIi U 0 ° w J J 0 ° N m 0 d d I— c c c c cv O m u u c c N O O SA(� . .JUJ f f O O O O 1 11 N rY-+ CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TREASURER'S REPORT APRIL 2012 BALANCE COLLATERAL American Bank Checking Account .02% $74,436.5 i Savings Account .02% $640.10 $75,076.61 Collateral - Bonds $873,432.00 Gov't. Guar. $250,000.00 Investments Cost PV Saving Cert 2/10/04 @0.65% Cherokee $13,952.59 $13,952.59 FHLB 0.75% 5/10/17 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 FNMA 1.50% 11/23/18 $200,000.00 $200,032.00 FHLB 1.25% 11/23/18 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 FNMA 2.00% 9/30/21 $200,000.00 $200,250.00 FHLMC 2.375% 12/1/21 $450,000.00 $450,436.50 FHLMC 1.5% 12/29/21 $200,000.00 $200,084.00 FHLB 1.00% 4/25/22 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,020.00 FHLB 1.25% 4/27/22 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,620.00 Sovereign Bank 0.4% 2/7/13 $245,000.00 $245,516.95 Bank of India .35% 7/25/12 $100,000.00 $100,032.00 Bank of Baroda 0.45% 12/12/12 $100,000.00 $100,184.00 Barclays Bank 0.45% 12/14/12 $100,000.00 $100,185.00 Wright Exp Financial Svcs 0.50% 12/21/12 $100,000.00 $100,226.00 Sallie Mae Bank 0.75% 06/14/13 $100,000.00 $100,537.00 Ally Bank 0.80% 06/14/13 $100,000.00 $100,593.00 Goldman Sachs Bank 1.50% 12/08/14 $245,000.00 $246,019.20 GE Capital Financial Inc 2.05% 11/4/16 $245,000.00 $247,981.65 American Express Cent Bank 2.05% 12/1/16 $245,000.00 $247,952.25 Fidelity Institutional Government Portfolio (Piper) $1,906,623.36 $1,906,623.36 Gov't. Securities Fund 28% Sold 6/4 $433,187.00 $1,031,000.00 MMkt Fd (WF) $442,390.10 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 4130112 $8,501,229.66 Funds Available 1/1/2012 $12,489,847.87 Rates Money Market APR Bank 0.02% APR Piper 0.10% 5Yr. Tr. 0.82% 10Yr. Tr. 1.95% ITEM 5R P85 ITEM 5S P86 Type Contractor Name Asphalt Buck Blacktop, Inc Excavating Latterner Enterprises, Inc Gas Piping General HVAC Masonry Above & Beyond Plumbing, Inc Airtech Thermex, LLC Architect Mechanical Artic Mechanical, LLC Riverside Mechanical Demo Unlimited Plan Concrete AirTech Heating & Cooling Airtech Thermex, LLC Architect Mechanical Corporate Mechanical Axel H. Ohman, Inc Hartigan Concrete & Masonry, Inc Wednesday, Dfay 30, 2012 Page X of la 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights. 144 5511.9 551.452.1950 pbone 1 05i 452.5940 fax 4 °;xt•,,mardota- haigl;ts:com CITY of MENDC7 T A HEIGHTS DATE: June 5, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: Claims List Summary BACKGROUND Significant Claims Banyon Data Systems — Software Support $ 2,539.48 Camp Ripley Mess Fund — SWAT Week Billing $ 4,658.28 Dermco Lavine Construction — Skate Park Crack Repairs $ 2,400.00 KDV — 2011 Partial Audit Billing $ 20,000.00 McNamara Construction — Mendota Heights Road /Diane Road Project $745,544.97 Metro Council Environmental Services — June Sewer Service $ 83,410.02 Troje's Trash — Spring Clean Up Costs $ 2,505.18 Yokum Oil Company — Fuel $ 20,424.83 Manual Checks Total $ 141,393.93 System Checks Total $ 861,059.56 Total for the list of claims for the June 5, 2012 city council meeting $1,002,453.49 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the list of claims for June 5, 2012. ITEM 5T P87 P88 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 05/31/1210:53 AM Page 1 Claims List MANUAL CHECKS 5/31112MAN Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name AFFINITY PLUS G 01 -2073 05/25/2012 PAYROLL $1,040.00 Search Name AFFINITY PLUS $1,040.00 Search Name ASSURANT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS E 01- 4132- 031 -30 MAY 2012 LTD PREMIUM Fire $185.00 Search Name ASSURANT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $185.00 Search Name CAMP RIPLEY MESS FUND G 01 -1145 SWAT WEEK BILL $4,658.28 Search Name CAMP RIPLEY MESS FUND $4,658.28 Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY ENVIRONMENT MGMT E 01- 4490 - 050 -50 LICENSE RENEWAL FEE Road & Bridges $150.00 Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY ENVIRONMENT MGMT $150.00 Search Name HARTFORD LIFE E 01 -4131- 020 -20 MAY 2012 PREMIUM Police $636.90 E 08- 4131 - 000 -00 MAY 2012 PREMIUM Spec Fds $101.97 E 05- 4131 - 105 -15 MAY 2012 PREMIUM Engineering Enterprise $96.88 E 01- 4131 - 050 -50 MAY 2012 PREMIUM Road & Bridges $106.57 E 01- 4131 - 110 -10 MAY 2012 PREMIUM Administration $257.51 E 15 -4131- 060 -60 MAY 2012 PREMIUM Utility Enterprise $21.08 G 01 -2071 MAY 2012 PREMIUM $535.63 E 01- 4131 - 070 -70 MAY 2012 PREMIUM Parks & Recreation $286.63 Search Name HARTFORD LIFE $2,043.17 Search Name HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES E 01- 4330 - 460 -30 REPAIR SUPPLIES - FIRE DEPT Fire $7.08 E 01- 4305 - 070 -70 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS Parks & Recreation $92.59 E 01- 4305 - 030 -30 OPERATING SUPPLIES - FIRE D Fire $119.76 E 15- 4305 - 060 -60 OPERATING SUPPLIES - SEWE Utility Enterprise $38.44 E 15- 4305 - 060 -60 OPERATING SUPPLIES - SEWE Utility Enterprise $8.51 E 01 -4335- 310 -50 REPAIR SUPPLIES - PW Road & Bridges $7.76 E 01- 4305 - 070 -70 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS Parks & Recreation $145.08 E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 REPAIR SUPPLIES - CITY HALL Spec Fds $16.02 E 01- 4305 - 030 -30 OPERATING SUPPLIES - FIRE D Fire $2.50 E 01- 4305 - 070 -70 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS Parks & Recreation $265.12 E 08 -4335- 000 -00 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CITY H Spec Fds $7.01 E 01- 4305 - 070 -70 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS Parks & Recreation $164.15 E 01- 4336 - 050 -50 SNOW REMOVAL DAMAGE REP Road & Bridges $13.94 E 01 -4305- 070 -70 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS Parks & Recreation $28.95 E 01- 4305 - 070 -70 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS Parks & Recreation $82.21 Search Name HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES $999.12 Search Name I C M A RETIREMENT 457 G 01 -2072 05/11/2012 PAYROLL $463.29 G 01 -2072 05/25/2012 PAYROLL $463.29 Search Name I C M A RETIREMENT 457 $926.58 Search Name MENDOTA, CITY OF R 15 -3400 1ST QTR SEWER BILLING $566.00 Search Name MENDOTA, CITY OF $566.00 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 05/31/1210:53F,89 Page 2 Claims List MANUALCHECKS 5/31/12MAN Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTSVC E 15- 4449-060 -60 JUNE 2012 SEWER SERVICES Search Name METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTSVC Search Name MN BENEFIT ASSN G 01 -2073 MAY 2012 PREMIUM G 01 -2071 MAY 2012 PREMIUM E 01- 4131 - 050 -50 MAY 2012 PREMIUM Search Name MN BENEFIT ASSN Search Name NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION G 01 -2072 05/25/2012 PAYROLL G 01 -2072 05/11/2012 PAYROLL Search Name NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION Search Name NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS. G 01 -2071 MAY 2012 PREMIUM Search Name NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS. Search Name SAM S CLUB E 01- 4305 - 070 -70 E 45- 4310 - 210 -45 E 01- 4220 - 085 -85 E 01- 4305-050 -50 E 15- 4305 - 060 -60 E 45- 4310 - 210 -45 E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 Search Name SAM S CLUB Search Name SELECT ACCOUNT G 01 -2071 E 01- 4131 - 110 -10 E 05- 4131 - 105 -15 E 01- 4131 - 020 -20 Search Name SELECT ACCOUNT Search Name SPRWS E 08- 4425- 000 -00 E 01- 4425 - 315 -30 E 01 -4425- 070 -70 E 01- 4425 - 070 -70 E 01- 4425 - 310 -50 E 01 -4425- 310 -70 E 15- 4425 - 310 -60 Search Name SPRWS CONCESSIONS - PAR3 CLEAN -UP DAY SUPPLIES MAY 2012 H S A CONTRIBUTI MAY 2012 H S A CONTRIBUTI MAY 2012 H S A CONTRIBUTI MAY 2012 H S A CONTRIBUTI WATER SERVICE - CITY HALL WATER SERVICE - FIRE HALL WATER SERVICE - 2171 DODD WATER SERVICE - 2627 CONC WATER SERVICE - PW WATER SERVICE - PW WATER SERVICE - PW Search Name SW /WC SERVICE COOPERATIVES E 15 -4131- 060 -60 E 01- 4131 - 110 -10 E 01- 4131 - 020 -20 E 01- 4131 - 040 -40 E 01- 4131 - 050 -50 E 05- 4131 - 105 -15 G 01 -2071 JUNE 2012 HEALTH INS PREMI JUNE 2012 HEALTH INS PREMI JUNE 2012 HEALTH INS PREMI JUNE 2012 HEALTH INS PREMI JUNE 2012 HEALTH INS PREMI JUNE 2012 HEALTH INS PREMI JUNE 2012 HEALTH INS PREMI Utility Enterprise Road & Bridges Parks & Recreation Golf Course Recycling Road & Bridges Utility Enterprise Golf Course Spec Fds Administration Engineering Enterprise Police Spec Fds Fire Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Road & Bridges Parks & Recreation Utility Enterprise Utility Enterprise Administration Police Code Enforcement/Inspe Road & Bridges Engineering Enterprise $83.410.02 �b_i 4lu.uz $14.95 $46.34 $11.82 $73.11 $650.00 $650.00 $1,300.00 $80.00 $80.00 $4.13 $138.83 $59.68 $4.13 $4.13 $27.98 $10.07 $248.95 $2,291.52 $238.46 $238.46 $715.38 $3,483.82 $ 28.41 $ 28.41 $ 21.30 $169.93 $8.29 $8.28 $8.28 $272.90 $1,320.00 $2,468.00 $16,010.50 $1,320.00 $5,374.00 $3,835.00 $5,315.50 P90 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 05/31/12 10:53 AM Page 3 Claims List MANUALCHECKS 5131112MAN Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount G 01 -2074 JUNE 2012 HEALTH INS PREMI $683.50 E 01- 4131 - 070 -70 JUNE 2012 HEALTH INS PREMI Parks & Recreation $1,367.00 Search Name SW /WC SERVICE COOPERATIVES $37,693.50 Search Name U. S. BANK E 01- 4330 - 440 -20 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT - PD Police $634.62 E 01 -4400- 030 -30 CONFERENCE LODGING - D. ST Fire $552.24 E 05- 4400 - 105 -15 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION - Engineering Enterprise $250.00 E 01 -4220- 085 -85 SPRING CLEAN -UP SUPPLIES Recycling $48.20 E 01 -4400- 020 -20 CONFERENCE LODGING - M. A Police $300.03 E 05 -4404- 105 -15 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL - M. A Engineering Enterprise $135.50 Search Name U. S. BANK $1,920.59 Search Name UNITED WAY OF ST. PAUL G 01 -2070 05/25/2012 PAYROLL $53.00 G 01 -2070 05/11/2012 PAYROLL $53.00 Search Name UNITED WAY OF ST. PAUL $106.00 Search Name US BANK E 01- 4223 - 020 -20 JUNE 2012 DCC PAYMENT Police $1,816.67 Search Name US BANK $1,816.67 Search Name XCEL ENERGY E 45- 4211- 047 -45 UTILITIES Golf Course $289.24 E 45- 4212- 046 -45 UTILITIES Golf Course $43.64 E 01- 4211- 320 -70 UTILITIES Parks & Recreation $9.00 E 01 -4212- 320 -70 UTILITIES Parks & Recreation $10.19 E 45- 4211 - 046 -45 UTILITIES Golf Course $68.15 Search Name XCEL ENERGY $420.22 _T1`t1,.J7J.7J CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 05/31/12 10:56PJ91 Parks & Recreation $8.27 Page 1 Claims List $550.32 SYSTEM CHECKS ENVELOPES 06/05/12PAY $29.48 Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount $98.28 E 01- 4300 - 070 -70 ENVELOPES Search Name A.J. ALBERTS PLUMBING $88.44 E 01- 4300 - 080 -80 R 01 -3254 REFUND - PERMIT #6763 Planning $20.00 R 01 -3315 REFUND - PERMIT #6763 ENVELOPES $5.00 Search Name A.J. ALBERTS PLUMBING E 05- 4300 - 105 -15 $25.00 Search Name ADVANTAGE SIGNS & GRAPHICS $88.44 E 01 -4300- 110 -10 E 01- 4420 - 050 -50 PORTABLE SIGNS Road & Bridges $576.80 Search Name ADVANTAGE SIGNS & GRAPHICS $576.80 Search Name ALBERS, MIKE E 05- 4305 - 105 -15 ENG. SUPPLIES Engineering Enterprise $69.33 Search Name ALBERS, MIKE $69.33 Search Name AMERICAN FLEET SUPPLY E 01- 4330 - 440 -20 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Police $97.53 Search Name AMERICAN FLEET SUPPLY $97.53 Search Name AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL INCENTIVE E 01- 4490 - 085 -85 CLEAN -UP DAY SUPPLIES Recycling $438.19 Search Name AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL INCENTIVE $438.19 Search Name ASCHENBRENER, MICHAEL E 07- 4330 - 000 -00 EMERG. MGMT EQUIPMENT Spec Fds $86.00 E 01- 4490 - 020 -20 50TH ANNIV. SUPPLIES Police $59.00 Search Name ASCHENBRENER, MICHAEL $145.00 Search Name ASSURANT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS E 01- 4132 - 031 -30 JUNE 2012 LTD PREMIUM Fire $185.00 Search Name ASSURANT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $185.00 Search Name B C A - TRAINING & EDUCATION E 01- 4400 - 020 -20 CONFERENCE CHARGES Police $200.00 Search Name B C A - TRAINING & EDUCATION $200.00 Search Name BANYON DATA SYSTEMS E 01 -4330- 490 -10 BDS SYSTEM SUPPORT Administration $1,760.86 E 15- 4330 - 490 -60 BDS SYSTEM SUPPORT Utility Enterprise $778.62 Search Name BANYON DATA SYSTEMS $2,539.48 Search Name BATTERIES PLUS E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Road & Bridges $49.06 Search Name BATTERIES PLUS $49.06 Search Name BERTELSON TOTAL OFFICE SOLUTNS E 01- 4300 - 070 -70 OFFICE SUPPLIES Parks & Recreation $8.27 E 01- 4300 - 110 -10 ENVELOPES Administration $550.32 E 01- 4300 - 030 -30 ENVELOPES Fire $29.48 E 01- 4300 - 040 -40 ENVELOPES Code Enforcement/Inspe $98.28 E 01- 4300 - 070 -70 ENVELOPES Parks & Recreation $88.44 E 01- 4300 - 080 -80 ENVELOPES Planning $78.62 E 15- 4300 - 060 -60 ENVELOPES Utility Enterprise $49.14 E 05- 4300 - 105 -15 ENVELOPES Engineering Enterprise $88.44 E 01 -4300- 110 -10 OFFICE SUPPLIES Administration $59.79 Search Name BERTELSON TOTAL OFFICE SOLUTNS $1,050.78 P92 CITY OF MEN® ®TA HEIGHTS 05/31/1210:56 AM Page 2 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 06/05112PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name BLUE CHIP TREE CO. E O1- 4500 - 050 -50 TREE REMOVAL Road & Bridges $1,656.57 Search Name BLUE CHIP TREE CO. $1,656.57 Search Name BOYER TRUCK PARTS E O1- 4330 - 460 -30 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Fire $60.77 Search Name BOYER TRUCK PARTS $60.77 Search Name C. DARLENE OEHLKE, CAP E O1- 4220- 110 -10 5/1/2012 CITY COUNCIL MEEfI Administration $141.60 E 01 -4220- 110 -10 5/15/2012 CITY COUNCIL MEE Administration $164.60 Search Name C. DARLENE OEHLKE, CAP $306.20 Search Name CAMELOT CLEANERS E 01- 4410- 020 -20 UNIFORMS CLEANING - PD Police $63.43 Search Name CAMELOT CLEANERS $63.43 Search Name CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES E 45- 4310 - 205 -45 BEVERAGES - PAR3 Golf Course $207.78 Search Name CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES $207.78 Search Name CENTRAL IRRIGATION SUPPLY E 01- 4330 - 215 -70 PARKS IRRIGATION REPAIRS Parks & Recreation $940.31 E 01- 4330 - 215 -70 PARKS IRRIGATION REPAIRS Parks & Recreation $84.12 Search Name CENTRAL IRRIGATION SUPPLY $1,024.43 Search Name CENTURY LINK E 45- 4210- 045 -45 MAY -JUNE 2012 SERVICE Golf Course $52.44 Search Name CENTURY LINK $52.44 Search Name COCA -COLA REFRESHMENTS E 45- 4310 - 210 -45 BEVERAGES - PAR3 Golf Course $204.96 Search Name COCA -COLA REFRESHMENTS $204.96 Search Name COLLINS TREE CARE, INC. E 45- 4500 - 045-45 TREE REMOVAL - PAR3 Golf Course $961.88 Search Name COLLINS TREE CARE, INC. $961.88 Search Name CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQ E O1- 4305 - 050 -50 SAFETY SUPPLIES Road & Bridges $95.05 E 15- 4305 - 060 -60 SAFETY SUPPLIES Utility Enterprise $90.52 Search Name CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQ $185.57 Search Name CRABTREE COMPANIES, INC. E 01- 4301 - 020 -20 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT - PD Police $2,045.28 Search Name CRABTREE COMPANIES, INC. $2,045.28 Search Name CREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING, INC G O1 -2035 DARE SUPPLIES - $40.07 E 01- 4305 - 220 -20 DARE SUPPLIES Police $622.92 Search Name CREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING, INC $582.85 Search Name DAKOTA COMMUNICATIONS CENTER E O1- 4275 - 020 -20 JUNE 2012 DCC FEE Police $14,520.75 E O1 -4275- 030 -30 JUNE 2012 DCC FEE Fire $764.25 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 05/31/12 10:56P,93 Page 3 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 06 /05 /12PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name DAKOTA COMMUNICATIONS CENTER $15,285.00 Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY ENVIRONMENT MGMT E 01- 4490 - 050 -50 LICENSE FEE Road & Bridges Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY ENVIRONMENT MGMT Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY FINANCIAL SERVIC E 01- 4275 - 020 -20 APR 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER Police E 01- 4268 - 030 -30 APR 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER Fire E 01- 4200 - 610 -50 APR 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER Road & Bridges E 01 -4200- 610 -70 APR 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER Parks & Recreation E 15 -4200- 610 -60 APR 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER Utility Enterprise E 05 -4200- 610 -15 APR 2012 RADIO SUBSCRIBER Engineering Enterprise Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY FINANCIAL SERVIC Search Name DAVE NELSON PLUMBING E 45- 4335 - 045 -45 PLUMBING REPAIRS - CLUBHO Golf Course Search Name DAVE NELSON PLUMBING Search Name DELTA DENTAL G 01 -2071 E 05- 4131 - 105 -15 G 01 -2074 E 15- 4131 - 060 -60 E 08 -4131- 000 -00 E 01- 4131 - 050 -50 E 01- 4131 - 020 -20 E 01- 4131 - 110 -10 E 01- 4131 - 070 -70 Search Name DELTA DENTAL JUNE 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM JUNE 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM JUNE 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM JUNE 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM JUNE 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM JUNE 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM JUNE 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM JUNE 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM JUNE 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM Search Name DERMCO - LAVINE CONSTRUCTION E 01- 4330 - 215 -70 SKATEPARK CRACK REPAIRS Search Name DERMCO - LAVINE CONSTRUCTION Search Name EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC E 01- 4420 - 050 -50 STREET SIGNS Search Name EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC Search Name ELECTRO WATCHMAN G 45 -1215 E 45- 4335 - 045 -45 E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 E 15 -4210- 060 -60 Search Name ELECTRO WATCHMAN Search Name FACTORY MOTOR PARTS ANNUAL SERVICE - 2013 - PAR ANNUAL SERVICE - 2012 - PAR QUARTERLY CHARGE - CITY H QUARTERLY CHARGE - LIFT ST Engineering Enterprise Utility Enterprise Spec Fds Road & Bridges Police Administration Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Road & Bridges Golf Course Spec Fds Utility Enterprise $53.00 $53.00 $860.62 $651.28 $162.82 $93.04 $69.78 $23.26 $1,860.80 $156.50 $156.50 $1,435.40 $77.70 $116.55 $101.45 $38.85 $280.60 $522.35 $140.30 $280.60 $2,993.80 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $61.36 $61.36 $347.35 $486.30 $272.54 $529.00 $1,635.19 E 01 -4330- 490 -70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Parks & Recreation $88.74 E 01 -4330- 445 -40 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Code Enforcement/Inspe $269.02 E 01- 4330 - 490 -70 BATTERY CORE RETURN Parks & Recreation - $25.65 Search Name FACTORY MOTOR PARTS $332.11 Search Name FLEET SERVICES E 01- 4200 - 610 -20 APRIL 2012 SQUAD LEASES Police Search Name FLEET SERVICES $4,561.20 $4,561.20 P94 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 05/31/1210:56 AM Page 4 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 06/05/12PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name G &K SERVICES E 01- 4335 - 310 -50 MAT SERVICE - PW Road & Bridges $34.69 E 01- 4335 - 310 -70 MAT SERVICE - PW Parks & Recreation $34.69 E 15 -4335- 310 -60 MAT SERVICE - PW Utility Enterprise $34.68 Search Name G &K SERVICES $104.06 Search Name GERLACH SERVICE INC. E 01- 4330 - 490 -70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Parks & Recreation $194.53 Search Name GERLACH SERVICE INC. $194.53 Search Name GERTENS GREENHOUSE E 01- 4330 - 215 -70 PARK MAINTENANCE Parks & Recreation $121.13 E 01- 4330 - 215 -70 PARK MAINTENANCE Parks & Recreation $279.57 Search Name GERTENS GREENHOUSE $400.70 Search Name GLOWING HEARTH & HOME R 01 -3250 REFUND - PERMIT #20604 $66.60 R 01 -3315 REFUND - PERMIT #20604 $1.50 Search Name GLOWING HEARTH & HOME $68.10 Search Name GM MANAGEMENT E 45 -4268- 045 -45 5/7- 5/21/2012 MAINT. LABOR Golf Course $1,066.40 Search Name GM MANAGEMENT $1,066.40 Search Name HARTFORD LIFE E 15- 4131 - 060 -60 JUNE 2012 LTD PREMIUM Utility Enterprise $21.08 E 05- 4131 - 105 -15 JUNE 2012 LTD PREMIUM Engineering Enterprise $96.88 G 01 -2071 JUNE 2012 LTD PREMIUM $535.63 E 08- 4131 - 000 -00 JUNE 2012 LTD PREMIUM Spec Fds $101.97 E 01- 4131 - 050 -50 JUNE 2012 LTD PREMIUM Road & Bridges $286.59 E 01- 4131 - 020 -20 JUNE 2012 LTD PREMIUM Police $636.90 E 01- 4131 - 110 -10 JUNE 2012 LTD PREMIUM Administration $257.51 E 01- 4131 - 070 -70 JUNE 2012 LTD PREMIUM Parks & Recreation $286.63 Search Name HARTFORD LIFE $2,223.19 Search Name HELENA CHEMICAL CO E 45- 4334 - 045 -45 PAR 3 MAINTENANCE Golf Course $115.86 Search Name HELENA CHEMICAL CO $115.86 Search Name HINZE, SHARON E 01- 4400 - 110 -10 MILEAGE REIMB. - TRAINING Administration $99.25 Search Name HINZE, SHARON $99.25 Search Name HOME ENERGY CENTER R 01 -3253 REFUND - PERMIT #9033 $88.76 R 01 -3315 REFUND - PERMIT #9033 $5.00 Search Name HOME ENERGY CENTER $93.76 Search Name HUEBSCH E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 MAT SERVICE - CITY HALL Spec Fds $184.50 Search Name HUEBSCH $184.50 Search Name INTEGRA TELECOM E 01 -4210- 070 -70 MAY -JUNE 2012 TELEPHONE S Parks & Recreation $46.46 E 15- 4210- 060 -60 MAY -JUNE 2012 TELEPHONE S Utility Enterprise $267.31 Search Name INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM E 01- 4330 - 460 -30 BATTERIES - FIRE DEPT E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 BATTERIES - STREETS Search Name INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM Search Name JJ TAYLOR DIST OF MINN E 45- 4310 - 205 -45 BEVERAGES - PAR3 Search Name JJ TAYLOR DIST OF MINN Search Name IRS ADVANCED RECYCLERS E 01- 4220- 085 -85 RECYCLING E 01- 4220- 085 -85 RECYCLING Search Name IRS ADVANCED RECYCLERS Search Name K D V E 01- 4220- 130 -10 E 45- 4220- 130 -45 E 29- 4220- 130 -00 E 21- 4220- 130 -00 E 15- 4220- 130 -60 E 10- 4220- 130 -00 E 03- 4220- 130 -00 E 05- 4220- 130 -15 Search Name K D V Search Name KATZENMAIER, JIM R 01 -3306 Search Name KATZENMAIER, JIM Search Name KREMER SERVICES, LLC PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING REFUND - PARK PERMIT E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 DOT INSPECTION E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 DOT INSPECTION Search Name KREMER SERVICES, LLC Search Name KUSfOM SIGNALS INC E 01- 4330 - 440 -20 Search Name KUSfOM SIGNALS INC Search Name L E L S G 01 -2075 Search Name L E L S EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE JUNE 2012 UNION DUES Search Name LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES E 01- 4223- 020 -20 INTERPRETER SERVICES Search Name LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES Search Name LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC Fire Road & Bridges Golf Course Recycling Recycling Administration Golf Course Spec Fds Spec Fds Utility Enterprise Spec Fds Spec Fds Engineering Enterprise Road & Bridges Road & Bridges Police Police $101.48 $305.56 $407.04 $73.40 $73.40 $216.00 $384.00 $600.00 $11,600.95 $1,498.02 $601.74 $503.56 $1,599.37 $699.92 $1,599.37 $1,897.07 $20,000.00 $50.00 $50.00 $83.15 $83.15 $166.30 $64.13 $64.13 $546.00 $546.00 $17.36 $17.36 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 05/31/12 10:56PI95 Page 5 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 06/05/12PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01- 4210- 050 -50 MAY -JUNE 2012 TELEPHONE S Road & Bridges $46.47 E 01- 4210- 020 -20 MAY -JUNE 2012 TELEPHONE S Police $149.43 E 01- 4210- 040 -40 MAY -JUNE 2012 TELEPHONE S Code Enforcement/Inspe $74.58 E 01- 4210- 020 -20 MAY -JUNE 2012 TELEPHONE S Police $298.32 E 01- 4210- 110 -10 MAY -JUNE 2012 TELEPHONE S Administration $372.91 E 05- 4210-105 -15 MAY -JUNE 2012 TELEPHONE S Engineering Enterprise $186.45 Search Name INTEGRA TELECOM $1,441.93 Search Name INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM E 01- 4330 - 460 -30 BATTERIES - FIRE DEPT E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 BATTERIES - STREETS Search Name INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM Search Name JJ TAYLOR DIST OF MINN E 45- 4310 - 205 -45 BEVERAGES - PAR3 Search Name JJ TAYLOR DIST OF MINN Search Name IRS ADVANCED RECYCLERS E 01- 4220- 085 -85 RECYCLING E 01- 4220- 085 -85 RECYCLING Search Name IRS ADVANCED RECYCLERS Search Name K D V E 01- 4220- 130 -10 E 45- 4220- 130 -45 E 29- 4220- 130 -00 E 21- 4220- 130 -00 E 15- 4220- 130 -60 E 10- 4220- 130 -00 E 03- 4220- 130 -00 E 05- 4220- 130 -15 Search Name K D V Search Name KATZENMAIER, JIM R 01 -3306 Search Name KATZENMAIER, JIM Search Name KREMER SERVICES, LLC PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING PARTIAL 2011 AUDIT BILLING REFUND - PARK PERMIT E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 DOT INSPECTION E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 DOT INSPECTION Search Name KREMER SERVICES, LLC Search Name KUSfOM SIGNALS INC E 01- 4330 - 440 -20 Search Name KUSfOM SIGNALS INC Search Name L E L S G 01 -2075 Search Name L E L S EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE JUNE 2012 UNION DUES Search Name LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES E 01- 4223- 020 -20 INTERPRETER SERVICES Search Name LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES Search Name LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC Fire Road & Bridges Golf Course Recycling Recycling Administration Golf Course Spec Fds Spec Fds Utility Enterprise Spec Fds Spec Fds Engineering Enterprise Road & Bridges Road & Bridges Police Police $101.48 $305.56 $407.04 $73.40 $73.40 $216.00 $384.00 $600.00 $11,600.95 $1,498.02 $601.74 $503.56 $1,599.37 $699.92 $1,599.37 $1,897.07 $20,000.00 $50.00 $50.00 $83.15 $83.15 $166.30 $64.13 $64.13 $546.00 $546.00 $17.36 $17.36 P96 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 05/31/1210:56 AM Page 6 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 06/05/12PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01- 4330 - 490 -70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Parks & Recreation $44.60 Search Name LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC $44.60 Search Name LIBERTY TIRE RECYCLING SVCS E 01- 4220- 085 -85 SPRING CLEAN UP Recycling $739.05 E 01- 4220- 085 -85 RECYCLING Recycling $72.00 Search Name LIBERTY TIRE RECYCLING SVCS $811.05 Search Name LOGIS E 01- 4223- 020 -20 NETWORK SERVICE Police $72.00 Search Name LOGIS $72.00 Search Name LUBE -TECH G 01 -1210 MOTOR OIL $669.74 Search Name LUBE -TECH $669.74 Search Name MAZZITELLO, JOHN E 05- 4415 - 105 -15 APR -MAY 2012 MILEAGE Engineering Enterprise $82.18 Search Name MAZZITELLO, JOHN $82.18 Search Name MCNAMARA CONTRACTING, INC. E 27 -4460- 783 -00 DIANE ROAD PROJECT WORK Spec Fds $530,693.78 E 27 -4460- 784 -00 MH ROAD PROJECT WORK Spec Fds $214,851.19 Search Name MCNAMARA CONTRACTING, INC. $745,544.97 Search Name MENARDS E 01- 4305 - 070 -70 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS Parks & Recreation $104.58 G 08 -2035 SUPPLIES - CITY HALL -$2.13 G 01 -2035 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS -$6.73 G 45 -2035 MAINT. SUPPLIES - PAR3 -$1.22 E 45- 4335 - 045 -45 MAINT. SUPPLIES - PAR3 Golf Course $18.98 E 08 -4335- 000 -00 MAINT. SUPPLIES - CITY HALL Spec Fds - $26.30 E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 MAINT. SUPPLIES - CITY HALL Spec Fds $47.63 E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 SUPPLIES - CITY HALL Spec Fds $10.99 E 08 -4335- 000 -00 SUPPLIES - CITY HALL Spec Fds $33.11 Search Name MENARDS $178.91 Search Name MENDOTA HEIGHTS BP E 01 -4330- 490 -70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR Parks & Recreation $115.47 Search Name MENDOTA HEIGHTS BP $115.47 Search Name METRO FIRE E 01- 4330 - 460 -30 EQUIPMENT PARTS Fire $346.91 Search Name METRO FIRE $346.91 Search Name METRO SALES E 01- 4300 - 640 -12 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Elections $3.90 E 01- 4330 - 440 -20 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Police $3.90 E 01- 4300 - 110 -10 PRINTER CARTRIGES Administration $783.12 E 01- 4330 - 440 -20 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Police $268.94 E 15- 4330 - 490 -60 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Utility Enterprise $7.80 E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Road & Bridges $3.90 E 45- 4305 - 045 -45 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Golf Course $3.90 E 01- 4300 - 080 -80 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Planning $19.50 E 01- 4330 - 490 -70 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Parks & Recreation $70.20 Search Name MN BENEFIT ASSN E 01- 4131 - 050 -50 MAY 2012 PREMIUM CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 05/31/1210:56RO7 G 01 -2071 MAY 2012 PREMIUM E 01- 4210- 030 -30 Page 7 G 01 -2073 MAY 2012 PREMIUM Claims List $14.95 Search Name MN BENEFIT ASSN SYSTEM CHECKS $73.11 Search Name MN CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSN 06/05/12PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01- 4330 - 030 -30 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Fire $50.70 E 01- 4330 - 445 -40 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Code Enforcement/Inspe $50.70 E 01- 4330 - 490 -10 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Administration $522.60 E 05- 4330 - 490 -15 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Engineering Enterprise $42.90 Search Name METRO SALES E 01- 4400 - 020 -20 $1,832.06 Search Name MN BENEFIT ASSN E 01- 4131 - 050 -50 MAY 2012 PREMIUM Road & Bridges $11.82 G 01 -2071 MAY 2012 PREMIUM E 01- 4210- 030 -30 $46.34 G 01 -2073 MAY 2012 PREMIUM $85.29 $14.95 Search Name MN BENEFIT ASSN $171.00 $73.11 Search Name MN CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSN E 01- 4400 - 020 -20 ACADEMY - E. PETERSEN Police $485.00 Search Name MN CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSN E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 $485.00 Search Name MN CITY /COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSN $116.55 Search Name MN WANNER COMPANY E 01- 4404 - 110 -10 MEMBERSHIP - J. SEDLACEK Administration $100.00 E 01- 4404 - 110 -10 MEMBERSHIP - J. MILLER Administration $126.00 Search Name MN CITY /COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSN E 01- 4400 - 020 -20 $226.00 Search Name MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION $50.00 Search Name MOCIC E 01- 4403 - 030 -30 FF I CERT. EXAM Fire $75.00 Search Name MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION $75.00 Search Name MN ST ADMIN ITG TELECOM SRVCE E 01- 4210- 030 -30 MAR 2012 SERVICE Fire $85.71 E 01- 4210- 030 -30 APR 2012 SERVICE Fire $85.29 Search Name MN ST ADMIN ITG TELECOM SRVCE $171.00 Search Name MN WANNER COMPANY E 01- 4330 - 490 -70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Parks & Recreation $70.49 E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS Road & Bridges $116.55 Search Name MN WANNER COMPANY $187.04 Search Name MOCIC E 01- 4400 - 020 -20 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION Police $50.00 Search Name MOCIC $50.00 Search Name N O I S E E 01- 4220- 080 -80 2012 MEMBERSHIP Planning $706.11 Search Name N O I S E $706.11 Search Name NATURE CALLS, INC E 09- 4490 - 000 -00 PILOT KNOB EVENT RENTAL Spec Fds $50.69 Search Name NATURE CALLS, INC $50.69 Search Name NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS. G 01 -2071 JUNE 2012 PREMIUM $80.00 Search Name NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS. $80.00 Search Name NITTI SANITATION INC E 45- 4280 - 045 -45 ON -CALL SERVICE Golf Course _ $49.80 Search Name NITTI SANITATION INC $49.80 Search Name OFFICE DEPOT P98 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 05/31/1210:56 AM Page 8 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 06/05/12PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01- 4300 - 050 -50 OFFICE SUPPLIES - PD Road & Bridges $26.58 E 01- 4300 - 030 -30 OFFICE SUPPLIES - PD Fire $13.27 E 01- 4300 - 020 -20 OFFICE SUPPLIES - PD Police $49.04 E 01- 4300 - 020 -20 OFFICE SUPPLIES - PD Police $4.84 Search Name OFFICE DEPOT $93.73 Search Name PENTEL, REBECCA E 01- 4130 - 021 -20 TEMP HELP - PD Police $940.00 E 01- 4260 - 640 -12 TEMP HELP - ELECTIONS Elections $70.00 Search Name PENTEL, REBECCA $1,010.00 Search Name PETERBILT NORTH E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 EQUIPMENT MAINT. PARTS - S Road & Bridges $16.59 E 01- 4330 - 440 -20 EQUIPMENT MAINT. PARTS - P Police $29.56 E 01 -4330- 490 -70 EQUIPMENT MAINT. PARTS - P Parks & Recreation $40.90 Search Name PETERBILT NORTH $87.05 Search Name R D 0 EQ CO E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 EQUIPMENT MAINT. PARTS Road & Bridges $35.94 E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 EQUIPMENT MAINT. PARTS Road & Bridges $141.57 Search Name R D 0 EQ CO $177.51 Search Name RATWIK,ROSZAK & MALONEY, P.A. E 01- 4220- 120 -10 APR 2012 LEGAL SERVICES Administration $720.50 E 01- 4481 - 110 -10 APR 2012 LEGAL SERVICES Administration $1,210.16 Search Name RATWIK,ROSZAK & MALONEY, P.A. $1,930.66 Search Name RIBA, JANE R 45 -3305 REFUND - GOLF LESSONS $65.00 Search Name RIBA, JANE $65.00 Search Name RICHARD ALAN PRODUCTIONS E 01- 4435 - 200 -70 TRUCK'N TRAVEL EVENT Parks & Recreation $500.00 Search Name RICHARD ALAN PRODUCTIONS $500.00 Search Name RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED E 01- 4330 - 440 -20 EQUIPMENT PARTS - PD Police $150.06 Search Name RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED $150.06 Search Name RUZEK, RYAN E 05 -4400- 105 -15 TRAVEL E)(PENSE REIMBURSE Engineering Enterprise $353.80 Search Name RUZEK, RYAN $353.80 Search Name SEDLACEK, JAKE E 01- 4490 - 065 -85 SUPPLIES - CLEAN -UP DAY Recycling $526.55 E 01 -4415- 085 -85 MILEAGE REIMB. - MAR -MAY20 Recycling $41.62 E 01- 4415 - 080 -80 MILEAGE REIMB. - MAR -MAY20 Planning $4.16 E 01- 4415 - 070 -70 MILEAGE REIMB. - MAR -MAY20 Parks & Recreation $2.22 E 45 -4415- 045 -45 MILEAGE REIMB. - MAR -MAY20 Golf Course $33.86 E 45- 4335 - 045 -45 CLUBHOUSE SUPPLIES & EQUI Golf Course $415.39 Search Name SEDLACEK, JAKE $1,023.80 Search Name SHEL S AUTO ELECTRIC E 01- 4330 - 490 -70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR - PARKS Parks & Recreation $110.54 E 01- 4330 - 460 -30 EQUIPMENT REPAIR -FIRE DEP Fire $167.18 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 05/31/1210:56P199 Page 9 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 06/05/12PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name SHEL S AUTO ELECTRIC * $277.72 Search Name SOUTH CENTRAL TECH COLLEGE E 01- 4400 - 030 -30 FIRE SCHOOL Fire $680.00 Search Name SOUTH CENTRAL TECH COLLEGE $680.00 Search Name SOUTH EAST TOWING E 01- 4305 - 020 -20 TOWING CHARGE - PD Police $101.53 Search Name SOUTH EAST TOWING $101.53 Search Name SOUTHVIEW GARDEN CENTER E 01- 4330 - 215 -70 PARK MAINTENANCE Parks & Recreation $59.61 Search Name SOUTHVIEW GARDEN CENTER $59.61 Search Name SPICER, TANNER E 01- 4331 - 020 -20 EQUIPMENT - PD Police $139.25 Search Name SPICER, TANNER $139.25 Search Name STANDARD INSURANCE G 01 -2074 JUNE 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DI $203.82 E 01- 4131 - 110 -10 JUNE 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DI Administration $248.08 E 01- 4131 - 020 -20 JUNE 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DI Police $418.49 E 01- 4131 - 050 -50 JUNE 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DI Road & Bridges $198.09 E 01- 4131 - 070 -70 JUNE 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DI Parks & Recreation $110.39 E 05- 4131 - 105 -15 JUNE 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DI Engineering Enterprise $95.17 E 08- 4131 - 000 -00 JUNE 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DI Spec Fds $49.87 E 15- 4131 - 060 -60 JUNE 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DI Utility Enterprise $36.04 G 01 -2071 JUNE 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DI $1,390.37 Search Name STANDARD INSURANCE $2,750.32 Search Name STREICHERS E 01- 4410 - 020 -20 UNIFORMS - PD Police $74.99 Search Name STREICHERS $74.99 Search Name T MOBILE E 01- 4210- 070 -70 CELL SERVICE - PARKS Parks & Recreation $181.65 Search Name T MOBILE $181.65 Search Name TOTAL TOOL E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 TOOLS & SUPPLIES Road & Bridges $223.80 Search Name TOTAL TOOL $223.80 Search Name TRI STATE BOBCAT E 01- 4330 - 490 -80 EQUIPMENT MAINT. PARTS Planning $239.06 Search Name TRI STATE BOBCAT $239.06 Search Name TROJE S TRASH PICK -UP SERVICE E 01- 4220- 085 -85 RECYCLING - SPRING CLEAN-U Recycling $2,505.18 Search Name TROJE S TRASH PICK-UP SERVICE $2,505.18 Search Name TWIN CITIES OCCUPATIONAL HLTH E 01- 4306 - 110 -10 PRE - EMPLOYMENT SCREENING Administration $55.00 E 01- 4220- 070 -70 RANDOM TESTING Parks & Recreation $55.00 E 01- 4244- 030 -30 IMMUNIZATION - FIRE DEPT Fire $80.00 E 01- 4244- 030 -30 TEST- FIRE DEPT Fire $10.00 P100 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 05/31/1210:56 AM Page 10 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 06/05/12PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name TWIN CITIES OCCUPATIONAL HLTH $200.00 Search Name TWIN CITY CONTAINER E 01- 4330 - 215 -70 PARKS EQUIPMENT Parks & Recreation $244.21 Search Name TWIN CITY CONTAINER $244.21 Search Name TWIN CITY SAW CO E 01- 4330 - 490 -70 EQUIPMENT MAINT. PARTS Parks & Recreation $350.35 Search Name TWIN CITY SAW CO $350.35 Search Name TWIN CITY TELEPHONE E 01- 4335 - 310 -50 PHONE LINE REPAIR - PW Road & Bridges $43.00 E 01- 4335 - 310 -70 PHONE LINE REPAIR - PW Parks & Recreation $43.00 E 15- 4335 - 310 -60 PHONE LINE REPAIR - PW Utility Enterprise $43.00 Search Name TWIN CITY TELEPHONE $129.00 Search Name UNIFORMS UNLIMITED E 01- 4305 - 024 -20 EQUIPMENT - RESERVES Police $460.99 Search Name UNIFORMS UNLIMITED $460.99 Search Name URMANN, DENISE E 01 -4400- 020 -20 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT- D Police $1,880.00 Search Name URMANN, DENISE $1,880.00 Search Name W S & D PERMIT SERVICE R 01 -3315 REFUND - PERMIT #20644 $6.08 R 01 -3250 REFUND - PERMIT #20644 $178.60 Search Name W S & D PERMIT SERVICE $184.68 Search Name WACONIA FARM SUPPLY E 01- 4330 - 490 -70 EQUIPMENT PARTS - PARKS Parks & Recreation $140.97 Search Name WACONIA FARM SUPPLY $140.97 Search Name WAGNER SOD COMPANY INC E 01- 4336 - 050 -50 SOD - REPAIRS Road & Bridges $33.60 Search Name WAGNER SOD COMPANY INC $33.60 Search Name WASTE MANAGEMENT E 01- 4280- 310 -50 MAY 2012 SERVICE - PW Road & Bridges $176.35 E 01- 4280- 310 -70 MAY 2012 SERVICE - PW Parks & Recreation $176.35 E 15- 4280 - 310 -60 MAY 2012 SERVICE - PW Utility Enterprise $176.34 Search Name WASTE MANAGEMENT $529.04 Search Name WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE SUPPLY E 01- 4330 - 490 -50 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE - T Road & Bridges $1,517.71 Search Name WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE SUPPLY $1,517.71 Search Name WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA E 45- 4310 - 205 -45 BEVERAGES - PAR3 Golf Course $129.00 Search Name WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA $129.00 Search Name YOCUM OIL COMPANY, INC. G 01 -1210 FUEL - GASOLINE $13,635.20 G 01 -1210 FUEL - DIESEL $6,789.63 Search Name YOCUM OIL COMPANY, INC. $20,424.83 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 05/31/1210:E1101 Page 11 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 06105/12PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name ZEROREZ E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 CARPET CLEANING - PD Spec Fds $375.02 Search Name ZEROREZ $375.02 $861,059.56 ITEM 8A P102 1101 Victoria Curare I Mendota Heights, MN 55119 551.45-1?50 phone I G51412:5940 fax wwa,.mando :;- helnhts.00M CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: June 5, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator Sharon Hinze, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Liquor License Renewals INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Mendota Heights City Code Section 3, Chapter 1, no person except wholesalers and manufacturers to the extent authorized by law, shall directly or indirectly deal in, sell, or dispose of by gift, sale or otherwise, or keep or offer for sale, any intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 percent malt liquor within the city without first having received a license to do so under this chapter. Public hearings have been scheduled for Tuesday evening, June 5, 2012 for renewal of the following existing liquor licenses. Public hearing notices were published in the city's legal newspaper. City Council may conduct a single hearing and act on all licenses conclu ently at this meeting provided there are no negative public comments or council concerns about the licenses. DISCUSSION Renewal license applications have been received from the following businesses: On -Sale Liquor License including Special Sunday License: Teresa's Mexican Restaurant located at 762 Highway 110, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Courtyard by Marriott located at 1352 Northland Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 On -Sale Club Liquor License and Special Sunday License: Mendakota Country Club located at 2075 Mendakota Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Somerset Country Club located at 1416 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 On -Sale Wine License: Mendoberri located at 730 Main Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tommy Chicago's Pizzeria located at 730 Main Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 LeCordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts located at 1315 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 P103 Off -Sale Liquor License: The Wine Market located at 720 Main Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Mendota Liquor located at 766 Highway 110, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 The applications were successfully submitted complete and in order and contained all required documentation, all applicable fees and signatures required per Mendota Heights City Code and in compliance with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division. Background investigations have been conducted resulting in no negative findings on the above applicants. ACTION REOUIRED If city council agrees, council should conduct the public hearing and approve the issuance of the following: On -Sale Liquor License including Special Sunday License: Teresa's Mexican Restaurant located at 762 Highway 110, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Courtyard by Marriott located at 1352 Northland Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 On -Sale Club Liquor License and Special Sunday License: Mendakota Country Club located at 2075 Mendakota Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Somerset Country Club located at 1416 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 On -Sale Wine License: Mendoberri located at 730 Main Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tommy Chicago's Pizzeria located at 730 Main Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 LeCordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts located at 1315 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Off -Sale Liquor License: The Wine Market located at 720 Main Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Mendota Liquor located at 766 Highway 110, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 1101 Victoria Curve I trendota Heights.1AM 55118 551,452.1650 plicAle 1 651.452.8940 Fix etw vv, maP. do`a- haight5.ccm CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: June 5, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council ]FROM[: Justin Miller, City Administrator Jim Lee, Fire Marshal ITEM 9A P104 SUBJECT: Appeal of Fire Marshal Correction Order — Hudson Refrigerated Logistics BACKGROUND On April 10th, staff received a letter from Hudson Refrigerated Logistics asking for an opportunity to appeal the Fire Marshal's order that they be required to replace recalled sprinkler heads at their 1460 Sibley Memorial Highway location. Attached to this report are the following: Timeline of events Minnesota State Fire Code Section 901.9 — Recall of fire protection components Minnesota State Fire Code Section 108.1 — Appeals to state fire marshal Summit Fire Protection Inspection Reports, 2002 — 2011 (note last line designating knowledge of recalled heads). In some cases, the original reports clo not copy well, so staff has clarifiedlreinforced the inspector's marks on the report. Original reports are on file at city hall if there is a desire to confirm staff's interpretation of tine original inarks. ® May 7th letter from City to Hudson setting date of hearing April 10th letter from Hudson to City requesting hearing February 28ti' letter from Hudson November 5, 2010 letter /packet from Hudson As can be seen from the packet materials there is quite an extensive history on this case. On March 15, 2012, City Administrator Miller and Fire Marshal Lee met with Mr. Hudson in an attempt to reach a resolution on this matter. We explained that the fire code was rather clear in this matter, but we did offer some potential compromise solutions. Those suggestions included Hudson providing documentation that their system was tested and approved by afire sprinkler engineer and that their insurance underwriter acknowledges their willingness to provide coverage with the presence of a recalled system. As their April 10th letter indicates, Hudson is not accepting those recorrunendations and is instead asking for a hearing with the city council, as city code allows. Pi 05 BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Due to the fact that the fire code is clear on this issue, and that allowing the current system to remain in place creates a potential liability for the city, staff is recommending that the city council affirm the fire marshal's decision. If Hudson wishes to further contest this decision, the state fire code allows for appeals to be heard by the state fire marshal. 1. Timeline for Hudson Trucking 1460 Sibley Memorial highway Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Re: Recalled Fire Sprinkler Heads A brief background of the recalled fire sprinkler head problem. July 19, 2001 Central Sprinkler Company recalled a certain type of fire sprinkler heads because of an o -ring problem. This was a voluntary recall that allowed affected buildings to file a claim for free replacement. Property owners had to submit a Proof of Claim form and Waiver Release of Claims to Central Sprinkler Company postmarked by August 31, 2007 in order to receive free replacement heads and installation. In the previous fire codes before Minnesota adopted the 2006 International Fire Code on July 10, 2007 there was no mention of recalled fire sprinkler heads. July 19, 2001 Central Sprinkler Company an affiliate of Tyco Fire Products announced a voluntary replacement program for certain Central Sprinkler, Gem and Star O -Ring sprinklers. May 8, 2002 Merit Fire Protection Fire Sprinkler Inspection Report: No mention of recalled heads on report. December 13, 2002 Summit Fire Protection Report of Inspection number 8 g states: Are any sprinklers on a recall list. No was indicated on the report. 2003 No documents on file of fire sprinkler inspection. February 3, 2004 Summit Fire Protection Report of Inspection number 8 g states: Are any sprinklers on a recall list. No documents on file of fire sprinkler inspection... December 6, 2004 Summit Fire Protection Report of Inspection number 8 g states: Are any sprinklers on a recall list. Yes was indicated on the report. P107 December 7, 2005 Summit Fire Protection Report of Inspection number 8 g states: Are any sprinklers on a recall list. Yes was indicated on the report. 2006 No documents on file of fire sprinkler inspection. January 26, 2007 Summit Fire Protection Report of Inspection number 8 g states: Are any sprinklers on a recall list. Yes was indicated on the report. * ** *July 10, 2007 * * ** The State of Minnesota Adopts the International Fire Code to be referred to as Minnesota State Fire Code. The section below was new to the fire code in this addition: MSFC 901.9 Recall of fire protection components. Any fire protection system component regulated by this code that is the subject of a voluntary or mandatory recall under federal law shall be replaced with approved, listed components in compliance with the referenced standards of this code. The fire code official shall be notified in writing by the building owner when the recalled component parts have been replaced. August 31, 2007 Proof of Claim and Waiver and Release Forms to Central Sprinkler Company had to be post marked before this date to apply for free recalled fire sprinkler head replacement January 9, 2008 Summit Fire Protection Report of Inspection number 8 g states: Are any sprinklers on a recall list. Yes was indicated on the report. January 6, 2010 Summit Fire Protection Report of Inspection number 8 g states: Are any sprinklers on a recall list. Yes was indicated on the report. UM-0 February 26, 2010 Email from Paul Kaiser to Brian Jackson at Hudson Trucking regarding recalled fire sprinkler heads. The email indicated the recalled heads were discussed with Chris, Randy and Brian all from Hudson Trucking. Copy of email in file February 26, 2010 Many emails from Paul Kaiser to the State Fire Marshal's office. Copies of emails in file. March 17, 2010 A letter from Paul Kaiser to Jim Hudson regarding recalled fire sprinkler heads. Paul explained to Jim Hudson "You must take action to remedy this deficiency ", "There are significant legal and liability issues if you fail to act. Doing nothing is not an option" A copy of the letter in file. April 28, 2010 Fire permit to replace 3 recalled dry heads. July 2, 2010 Letter from Summit Fire Protection to Jim Hudson regarding : Replacement of Fire Sprinklers Included in Central Sprinkler Recall. The letter from Summit Fire Protection states in part `To be in strict compliance with the code, all recalled sprinklers should be replaced ". Included with this letter from Summit Fire Protection was an attachment from the National Fire Sprinkler Association, 180th Issue of e- Bulletin referring to "Dry Sprinklers to Retain 10- Year Sample Test Requirement" Published on June 8, 2010. This document states in part National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 25 section 5.3.1.1.5 "Dry sprinklers that have been in service for 10 years shall be replaced, or representative sample shall be test. They shall be retested at 10 -year intervals. P109 September 27, 2010 Copies of emails from Paul Kaiser to the State fire Marshal's office Jon Nisja and Ralph Peterson. Jon Nisja email states in part "The manufactures solution is to replace the sprinklers ". Ralph Peterson states in part "The fire code is not very forgiving when it comes to recalled heads and devices ". Copies of the email are on file. October 1, 2010 Letter to Jim Hudson from Paul Kaiser regarding the letter he sent to Jim Hudson on March 17, 2010. This letter also requested a plan for replacement from Hudson Trucking by December 1, 2010. November 5, 2010 Letter to City Administrator David McKnight requesting an appeal to the city council. December 20, 2010 Summit Fire Protection Report of Inspection number 8 g states: Are any sprinklers on a recall list. Yes was indicated on the report. December 15, 2011 Summit Fire Protection Report of Inspection number 8 g states: Are any sprinklers on a recall list. Yes was indicated on the report. February 21, 2012 Fire inspection report to Hudson Trucking requiring the replacement of recalled fire sprinkler heads. February 28, 2012 Letter from James Hudson regarding fire inspection report dated February 21, 2012. Mr. Hudson's letter states they have no intention of complying until the City deals with pending appeal. March 15, 2012 Meeting with Jim Hudson, Chris from Hudson Trucking, Justin Miller and Jim Lee to discuss the recalled fire sprinkler heads. P110 April 10, 2012 Letter from James Hudson requesting an appeal hearing with the city council. P111 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS maintained on the premises for a minimum of three years and shall be copied to the fire code official upon request. 901.6.2.1 Records information. Initial records shall include the name of the installation contractor, type of com- ponents installed, manufacturer of the components, location and number of components installed per floor. Records shall also include the manufacturers' operation and mainte- nance instruction manuals. Such records shall be main- tained on the premises. 901.7 Systems out of service. Where a required fire protection system is out of service, the fire department and the fire code official shall be notified immediately and, where required by the fire code official, the building shall either be evacuated or an approved fire watch shall be provided for all occupants left unprotected by the shut down until the fire protection system has been returned to service. Where utilized, fire watches shall be provided with at least one approved means for notification of the fire department and their only duty shall be to perform constant patrols of the pro- tected premises and keep watch for fires. 901.7.1 Impairment coordinator. The building owner shall assign an impairment coordinator to comply with the requirements of this section. In the absence of a specific designee, the owner shall be considered the impairment coordinator. 901.7.2 Tag required. A tag shall be used to indicate that a system, or portion thereof, has been removed from service. 901.7.3 Placement of tag. The tag shall be posted at each fire department connection, system control valve, fire alarm control unit, fire alarm annunciator and fire command cen- ter, indicating which system, or part thereof, has been removed from service. The fire code official shall specify where the tag is to be placed. 901.7.4 Preplanned impairment programs. Preplanned impairments shall be authorized by the impairment coordi- nator. Before authorization is given, a designated individual shall be responsible for verifying that all of the following procedures have been implemented: 1. The extent and expected duration of the impairment have been determined. 2. The areas or buildings involved have been inspected and the increased risks determined. 3. Recommendations have been submitted to manage- ment or building owner/manager. 4. The fire department has been notified. 5. The insurance carrier, the alarm company, building owner /manager, and other authorities having juris- diction have been notified. 6. The supervisors in the areas to be affected have been notified. 7. A tag impairment system has been implemented. 8. Necessary tools and materials have been assembled on the impairment site. 901.7.5 Emergency impairments. When unplanned impairments occur, appropriate emergency action shall be taken to minimize potential injury and damage. The impair- ment coordinator shall implement the steps outlined in Sec- tion 901.7.4. 901.7.6 Restoring systems to service. When impaired equipment is restored to normal working order, the impair- ment coordinator shall verify that all of the following proce- dures have been implemented: 1. Necessary inspections and tests have been conducted to verify that affected systems are operational. 2. Supervisors have been advised that protection is restored. 3. The fire department has been advised that protection is restored. 4. The building owner/ manager, insurance carrier, alarm company and other involved parties have been advised that protection is restored. 5. The impairment tag has been removed. 901.8 Removal of or tampering with equipment. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove, tamper with or otherwise disturb any fire hydrant, fire detection and alarm system, fire suppression system, or other fire appliance required by this code except for the purpose of extinguishing fire, training pur- poses, recharging or making necessary repairs, or when approved by the fire code official. 901.8.1 Removal of or tampering with appurtenances. Locks, gates, doors, barricades, chains, enclosures, signs, tags or seals which have been installed by or at the direction of the fire code official shall not be removed, unlocked, destroyed, tampered with or otherwise vandalized in any manner. 901.9 Recall of fire protection components. Any fire protec- tion system component regulated by this code that is the subject of a voluntary or mandatory recall under federal law shall be replaced with approved, listed components in compliance with the referenced standards of this code. The fire code official shall be notified in writing by the building owner when the recalled component parts have been replaced. 901.10 Fire sprinklers and fire detectors - ceilings. In build- ings protected by automatic sprinklers or automatic fire detec- tors, suspended or removable ceiling tiles shall be maintained in place to prevent the delay in sprinkler or detector activation. Exception: When additional sprinklers or detectors are installed in the space above the suspended ceiling. 901.10.1 Open -grid ceilings. Open -grid ceilings shall not be installed beneath sprinklers. Exception: Open -grid ceilings are allowed when the requirements of NFPA 13 for open -grid ceilings are met. 901.10.2 Drop -out ceilings. Drop -out ceilings shall be per- mitted to be installed beneath sprinklers when all require- ments of NFPA 13 for drop -out ceilings have been met. 70 2007 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CODE ADMINISTRATION 107.3 Supervision. Maintenance and testing shall be under the supervision of a responsible person who shall ensure that such maintenance and testing are conducted at specified intervals in accordance with this code. 107.4 Rendering equipment inoperable. Portable or fixed fire - extinguishing systems or devices and fire- warning sys- tems shall not be rendered inoperative or inaccessible except as necessary during emergencies, maintenance, repairs, alter- ations, drills or prescribed testing. 107.5 Owner /occupant responsibility. Correction and abate- ment of violations of this code shall be the responsibility of the owner. If an occupant creates, or allows to be created, hazard- ous conditions in violation of this code, the occupant shall be held responsible for the abatement of such hazardous condi- tions. 107.6 Overcrowding. Overcrowding or admittance of any person beyond the approved capacity of a building or a portion thereof shall not be allowed. The fire code official, upon find- ing any overcrowding conditions or obstructions in aisles, pas- sageways or other means of egress, or upon finding any condition which constitutes a life safety hazard, shall be autho- rized to cause the event to be stopped until such condition or obstruction is corrected. SECTION 108 BOARD OF APPEALS 108.1 Appeals to state fire marshal. As outlined in Minnesota Statutes, section 299F.011, subdivisions 5 and 5b, any person may appeal an order issued to them by the state fire marshal or action taken by the local governing body on issues regulated by this code. Appeals can be made to determine the suitability of alternate materials and types of construction, to provide for reasonable interpretations of the provisions of this code, and to grant variances from orders issued by representatives of the state fire marshal. Persons wishing to present matters for appeal shall do so in writing and, in the case of persons who have received written orders, applications for variances shall be made prior to the expiration of the orders. Orders shall not be considered to be expired until any time extensions granted by the state fire marshal have elapsed. The state fire marshal shall not accept applications for variances after criminal action for noncompliance has been initiated pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 299F.011, subdivision 6. 108.2 Limitations on authority. Deleted. 108.3 Qualifications. Deleted. SECTION 109 VIOLATIONS 109.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for a person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, alter, repair, remove, demolish or utilize a building, occupancy, premises or system regulated by this code, or cause same to be done, in conflict with or in vio- lation of any of the provisions of this code. 109.2 Notice of violation. When the fire code official finds a building, premises, vehicle, storage facility or outdoor area that is in violation of this code, the fire code official is authorized to 12 prepare a written notice of violation describing the conditions deemed unsafe and, when compliance is not immediate, speci- fying a time for reinspection. 109.2.1 Service. A notice of violation issued pursuant to this code shall be served upon the owner, operator, occu- pant, or other person responsible for the condition or viola- tion, either by personal service, mail, or by delivering the same to, and leaving it with, some person of responsibility upon the premises. For unattended or abandoned locations, a copy of such notice of violation shall be posted on the pre- mises in a conspicuous place at or near the entrance to such premises and the notice of violation shall be mailed by certi- fied mail with return receipt requested or a certificate of mailing, to the last known address of the owner, occupant or both. 109.2.2 Compliance with orders and notices. A notice of violation issued or served as provided by this code shall be complied with by the owner, operator, occupant or other person responsible for the condition or violation to which the notice of violation pertains. 109.2.3 Prosecution of violations. If the notice of violation is not complied with promptly, the fire code official is authorized to request the legal counsel of the jurisdiction to institute the appropriate legal proceedings at law or in equity to restrain, correct or abate such violation or to require removal or termination of the unlawful occupancy of the structure in violation of the provisions of this code or of the order or direction made pursuant hereto. 109.2.4 Unauthorized tampering. Signs, tags or seals posted or affixed by the fire code official shall not be muti- lated, destroyed or tampered with or removed without authorization from the fire code official. 109.3 Violation penalties. A person who violates a provision of this code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 109.3.1 Abatement of violation. In addition to the imposi- tion of the penalties herein described, the fire code official is authorized to institute appropriate action to prevent unlaw- ful construction or to restrain, correct or abate a violation; or to prevent illegal occupancy of a structure or premises; or to stop an illegal act, conduct of business or occupancy of a structure on or about any premises. SECTION 110 UNSAFE BUILDINGS 110.1 General. If during the inspection of a premises, a build- ing or structure or any building system, in whole or in part, con- stitutes a clear and inimical threat to human life, safety or health, the fire code official shall issue such notice or orders to remove or remedy the conditions as shall be deemed necessary in accordance with this section and shall refer the building to the building department for any repairs, alterations, remodel- ing, removing or demolition required. 110.1.1 Unsafe conditions. Structures or existing equip- ment that are or hereafter become unsafe or deficient because of inadequate means of egress or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare, or which involve illegal or improper occu- 2007 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CODE P112 SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION P1 13 7301 APOLLO COURT ° LINO LAKES, MN 55014 ° (651) 251 -1880 6301 BANDEL ROAD NW #503 o ROCHESTER, MN 55901 ° (507) 280 -0622 1617 FIRST AVE. N. #B o FARGO, ND 58102 - (701) 293 -0138 418 GREAT OAK DR., WAITE PARK, MN 56387 - (320) 257 -6390 SHFEC I OF 2 - Use separate sheet for each building inspection REPORT OF INSPECTION MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. C0075 JOB NUMBER INSPECTION NAME ' `�;` vi% i> :I' J. BUILDING/LOCATION "'' ' ,,4 '4 ' '- STREET '' °�...'r3 , h� c ,: ,;i,i t I a. _ .+,:.:i • INSPECTOR L f ' :,.., ,' a,- ::b CITY &STATE:- �s ya.. ,° DATE. Owner's Section (to be answered by Owner or Occupant) A. Explain any occupancy hazard changes since the previous inspection: B. Describe fire protection modifications made since last inspection: C. Describe any fires since last inspection: D. When was the system piping last checked for stoppage, corrision of foreign material? E. When was the dry - piping system last checked for proper pitch? F. Are dry valves adequately protected from freezing? Signature Title Date Inspector's Section (All responses reference current inspection) NA =NOT APPLICABLE 1. General a. Is the building occupied? 'AYes El No b. Are all systems in service? „ DYes El No c. Is there a minimum of 18 in. (457 mm) clearance between the top of the storage and the sprinkler deflectors? QYes ❑ No d. Does all electrical heat tape appear to be satisfactory? .DYes ❑ No ❑.NA e. Does the hand hose or standpipe on the sprinkler system(s) appear to be satisfactory? QYes ❑ No ❑ NA 2. Control Valves (See Item 15.) a. Are all sprinkler system control valves and all other valves in the appropriate open or closed position? «Yes ❑ No b. Are all control valves in the open position locked, sealed or equipped with a tamper switch? ElYes ❑ No 3. Tanks, Pumps, Fire Department Connections a. When was fire pump last tested for performance? b. Are fire pumps, gravity tanks, reservoirs and pressure tanks in good condition and properly maintained? ❑Yes ❑ No EI NA c. Are fire department connections in satisfactory condition, couplings free, caps in place, and check valves tight? DYes ❑ No ❑ NA Are they accessible and visible? DYes ❑ No ❑ NA 4. Wet Systems a. Are cold weather valves (O.S. & Y.) in the appropriate open or closed position? ❑Yes ❑ No .RNA b. Have antifreeze system solutions been tested? ❑Yes ❑ No Ed NA c. What temp is antifreeze? d. In areas protected by wet sysfem(s), does the building appear to be properly heated in all areas, including blind attics and perimeter areas where accessible? `DYes El No F1 NA S. Dry System (See Items 11 to 13) a. Are dry valve(s) in service? ❑Yes ❑ No El NA b. Are the air pressures and priming water levels in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions? ❑Yes ❑ No '0 NA c. Has the operation of the air or nitrogen supplies been tested? ❑Yes ❑ No CI NA Are they in service? ❑Yes ❑ No 'Q. NA d. Were low points drained during this inspection? ❑Yes ❑ No (A`NA How many? e. Did quick- opening devices operate satisfactorily? ❑Yes ❑ No '.R NA f. Did the dry valve(s) trip properly during the trip pressure test? ❑Yes ❑ No El NA g. Did the heating equipment in the dry-pipe value room(s) operate at time of inspection ? ❑Yes ❑ No 0. NA 6. Special Systems (See Item 14.) a. Did the deluge or pre- action valves operate properly during testing? DYes ❑ No ❑ NA b. Did the heat - responsive devices operate properly during testing? DYes ❑ No ❑ NA'°' !' '1.. ` '% i "Y t '• ''`''''`'''' =' c. Did supervisory devices operate during testing? DYes ❑ No ❑ NA d. Did flow for kitchen hood system shut off gas or electric? ❑Yes ❑ No Ej NA 7. Alarms a. Did water motor(s) and gong(s) test satisfactorily? ❑Yes ❑ No .D NA b. Did electric alarm(s) test satisfactory? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA c. Did supervisory alarm service test satisfactory? :)]Yes ❑ No ❑ NA d. Did tamper swithces test satisfactory? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 8. Sprinklers a. Are all sprinklers free from corrosion, loading or obstruction to spray discharge? ElYes ❑ No b. Are sprinklers less than 50 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) Mes ❑ No c. Are quick response and residential sprinklers less than 20 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) _Dyes ❑ No d. Is stock of spare sprinklers available? f3yes ❑ No e. Does the exterior condition of sprinkler system appear to be satisfactory? E]:Yes ❑ No F. Are sprinklers of proper temperature rating for their locations? 'Wes El No ..Are any sprinkler heads on a recall list? ❑Yes their 12-110_2_ SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 7301 APOLLO COURT ° LINO LAKES, MN 55014 ^ (651) 251 -1880 P1 14 6301 BANDEL ROAD NW #503 ° ROCHESTER, MN 55901 - (507) 280 -0622 1617 FIRST AVE. N. #B ^ FARGO, ND 58102 ^ (701) 293 -0138 418 GREAT OAK DR., WAITE PARK, MN 56387 0 (320) 257 -6390 SHEET 1 OF 2 - Use sepantle sheet for each building inspection REPORT OF INSPECTION MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. C0075 JOB NUMBER _ INSPECTION NAME ' `' ' ' BUILDINGILOCATION STREET '' INSPECTOR ' CITY & STATE DATE Owner's Section (to be answered by Owner or Occupant) A. Explain any occupancy hazard changes since the previous inspection: B. Describe fire protection modifications made since last inspection: C. Describe any fires since last inspection: D. F. R When was the system piping last checked for stoppage, corrision of foreign material? When was the dry- piping system last checked for proper pitch? Are-dry valves adequately protected from freezing? Signature Title Date Inspector's Section (All responses reference current inspection) NA =NOT APPLICABLE 1. General a. Is the building occupied? ❑Yes ❑ No b. Are all systems in service? ❑Yes ❑ No c. Is there a minimum of 18 in. (457 mm) clearance between the top of the storage and the sprinkler deflectors? [Dyes ❑ No d. Does all electrical heat tape appear to be satisfactory'? ❑Yes ❑ No [].NA e. Does the hand hose or standpipe on the sprinkler system(s) appear to be satisfactory? [].Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 2. Control Valves (See Item 15.) a. Are all sprinkler system control valves and all other valves in the appropriate open or closed position? 0-Yes ❑ No b. Are all control valves in the open position locked, sealed or equipped with a tamper switch? ,EJYes ❑ No 3. Tanks, Pumps, Fire Department Connections a. When was fire pump last tested for performance? ; ?.•:.' b. Are (ire pumps, gravity tanks, reservoirs and pressure tanks in good condition and properly maintained? ❑Yes ❑ No ,0'NA c. Are fire department connections in satisfactory condition, couplings free, caps in place, and check valves tight? • ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Are they accessible and visible? EJYes ❑ No ❑ NA 4. Wet Systems a. Are cold weather valves (O.S. & Y.) in the appropriate open or closed position? ❑Yes ❑ No ED NA b. Have antifreeze system solutions been tested? ❑Yes ❑ No O NA c. What temp is antifreeze? r' :'' d. In areas protected by wet system(s), does the building appear to be properly heated in all areas, including blind attics and perimeter areas where accessible? ,NYes ❑ No ❑ NA 5. Dry System (See Items 11 to 13) a. Are dry valve(s) in service? ❑Yes ❑ No I] NA b. Are the air pressures and priming water levels in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions? ❑Yes ❑ No O NA c. Has the operation of the air or nitrogen supplies been tested? Oyes ❑ No 0 NA Are they in service? Oyes ❑ No •O NA d. Were low points drained during this inspection? ❑Yes ❑ No :B NA How many? , e. Did quick- opening devices operate satisfactorily? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA f. Did the dry valve(s) trip properly during the trip pressure test? ❑Yes ❑ No Q NA -.Did the heating equipment in the dry -pipe value room(s) operate at time of inspection? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑'NA 6. Special Systems (See Item 14.) a. Did the deluge or pre - action valves operate properly during testing? ;DYes ❑ No ❑ NA b. Did the heat - responsive devices operate properly during testing? Oyes ❑ No D.NA c. Did supervisory devices operate during testing? ;(].Yes ❑ No ❑ NA d. Did flow for kitchen hood system shut off gas or electric? ❑Yes ❑ No 'M,NA 7. Alarms a. Did water motor(s) and gong(s) test satisfactorily? ❑Yes El No O NA b. Did electric alarm(s) test satisfactory? dYes ❑ No ❑ NA c. Did supervisory alarm service test satisfactory? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA d. Did tamper swithces test satisfactory? DYes ❑ No ❑ NA S. Sprinklers a. Are all sprinklers free from corrosion, loading or obstruction to spray discharge? Oyes ❑ No b. Are sprinklers less than 50 years old'? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) ]Yes ❑ No C. Are quick response and residential sprinklers less than 20 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) DYes ❑ No d, is stock of spare sprinklers available? DYes ❑ No e. Does the exterior condition of sprinkler system appear to be satisfactory? DYes ❑ No f. Are sprinklers of proper temperature rating for their locations? DYes ❑ No* g. Are any sprinkler heads on a recall list? Oyes IZNo Signature: '` Date: 3_ 1� ----------- J SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION Pi 15 730 L APOLLO COURT, ^ LINO:LAKES, MN 55014 ° (651) 251 -1880 3026 40TH AVE. NW ° ROCHESTER, MN 55901 ° (507) 280 -0622 418 GREAT OAK DR., WAITE PARK, MN 56387 ° (320) 257 -6390 760 LIBERTY WAY, NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 ° (319) 665 -4330 SHEET 1 OF 2- Use separate sheet for each building inspection REPORT OF INSPECTION MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. C0075 JOB NUMBER INSPECTION NAME BUILDING/LOCATION ': INSPECTOR ' CITY & STATE Owner's Section (to be answered by Owner or Occupant) A. Explain any occupancy hazard changes since the previous inspection: B. I C. I DATE D. When was the system piping last checked for stoppage, corrision of foreign material? R. When was the dry - piping system last checked for proper pitch? F'. Are dry valves adequately protected from freezing? Signature Title Date Inspector's Section (All responses reference current inspection) NA =NOT APPLICABLE 1. General a: Is•the building occupied? Yes ❑ No b. Are all systems in service ?' ❑Yes ❑ No c. Is there a minimum of 18 in. (457 mm) clearance between the top of the storage and the sprinkler deflectors? ❑Yes ❑ No d. Does all electrical heat tape appear to be satisfactory? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA e. Does the hand hose or standpipe on the sprinkler system(s) appear to be satisfactory? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 2. Control Valves (See Item 15.) a. Are all sprinkler system control valves and all other valves in the appropriate open or closed position? ❑Yes ❑ No b. Are all control valves in the open position locked, sealed or equipped with a tamper switch? ❑Yes ❑ No 3. Tanks, Pumps, Fire Department Connections a. When was fire pump last tested for performance? b. Are fire pumps, gravity tanks, reservoirs and pressure tanks in good condition and properly maintained? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA c. Are fire department connections in satisfactory condition, couplings free, caps in place, and check valves tight? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Are they accessible and visible'? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 4. Wet Systems a. Are cold weather valves (O.S. & Y) in the appropriate open or closed position? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑'NA b. Have antifreeze system solutions been tested? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA c. What temp is antifreeze ? - * ^" d. In areas protected by wet system(s), does the building appear to be properly heated in all areas, including blind attics and perimeter areas where accessible? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA S. Dry System (See Items 11 to 13) a. Are dry valve(s) in service? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA b. Are the air pressures and priming water levels in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA c. Has the operation of the air or nitrogen supplies been tested'? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Are they in service? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA d. Were low points drained during''this inspection? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA How many? e. Did quick- opening devices operate satisfactorily? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA f. Did the dry valve(s) trip properly dtiririg the trip pressure test'? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA g. Did the heating equipment in the dry -pipe value room(s) operate at time of inspection ? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 6. Special Systems (See Item 14:) a. Did the deluge or pre - action valves operate properly during testing'? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA b. Did the heat - responsive devices operate properly during testing? ❑Yes ❑ No E) NA c. Did supervisory devices operate during testing? .E]Yes ❑ No ❑ NA d. Did flow for kitchen hood system shut off gas or electric? ❑Yes ❑ No O NA 7. Alarms a. Did water motor(s) and gong(s) test satisfactorily? ❑Yes ❑ No F1 NA b. Did electric alarm(s) test satisfactory'? E]Yes ❑ No ❑ NP. c. Did supervisory alarm service test satisfactory? ❑Yes ❑'No ❑ NA d. Did tamper swithces test satisfactory? ❑Yes E] No ❑ NA 8. Sprinklers a. Are all sprinklers free from corrosion, loading or obstruction to spray discharge? ❑Yes ❑ No b• Are sprinklers less than 50 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) ❑Yes ❑ No c. Are quick response and residential sprinklers less than 20 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) ❑Yes ❑ No d. Is stock of spare sprinklers available'? ❑Yes ❑ No e. Does the exterior condition of sprinkler system appear to be satisfactory'? ❑Yes ❑ No f. Are sprinklers of proper temperature rat' �� g for t rr locations'? ❑1'es El No g. Are any sprinkler heads on a recall lisp? ❑Yes ❑ No Signature: l Date: �_r� �� ®11 -- SUMAI-10-F-V&E PROTECTION 7301 APOLLO COURT ° LINO LAKES, MN 55014 ° (651) 251 -1880 P 1 1 6 3026 40TH AVE. NW ° ROCH- ESTER, MN 55901 ° (507) 280 -0622 418 GREAT OAK DR., WAITE PARK, MN 56387 ° (320) 257 -6390 760 LIBERTY WAY, NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 ° (319) 665 -4330 SHECT I Of 2 - Use separate sheet for each building inspection REPORT OF INSPECTION MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. C0075 JOB NUMBER _ INSPECTION NAME _ :�� ', ! ; ' BUILDING/LOCATION STREET INSPECTOR CITY & STATE DATE Owner's Section (to be answered by Owner or Occupant) A. Explain any occupancy hazard changes since the previous inspection: B. Describe fire protection modifications made since last inspection: C Describe any fires since last inspection: a D. When was the system piping last checked for stoppage, corrision of foreign material? E. When was the dry- piping system last checked for proper pitch? _ F. Are dry valves adequately protected from freezing? Signature, Title Date Inspector's Section (All responses reference current inspection) NA =NOT APPLICABLE 1. ' General a. is the building occupied? . F-1 es b. Are all systems in service? ❑Yes ❑ No c. Is there a minimum of 18 in. (457 mm) clearance between the top of the storage and the sprinkler deflectors? E]Yes ❑ No d. Does all electrical heat tape appear to be satisfactory? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA e. Does the hand hose or standpipe on the sprinkler system(s) appear to be satisfactory? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 2. Control Valves (See bent 15.) a. Are all sprinkler system control valves and all other valves in the appropriate open pr closed position? ❑Yes ❑ No b. Are all control valves in the open position locked, sealed or equipped with a tamper switch'? ❑Yes ❑ No 3. Tanks, Pumps, lire Department Connections a. When was fire pump last tested for performance? b. Are fire pumps, gravity tanks, reservoirs and pressure tanks in good condition and properly maintained? ❑Yes El No El c. Are fire department connections in satisfactory condition, couplings free, caps in place, and check valves tight? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Are they accessible and visible? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 4. Wet Systems a. Are cold weather valves (O.S. & Y.) in the appropriate open or closed position? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA b. Have antifreeze system solutions been tested? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑.NA c. What temp is antifreeze? d. in areas protected by wet system(s), does the building appear to be properly heated in all areas, including blind attics and perimeter areas where accessible? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 5. Dry System (See Items 11 to 13) a. Are dry valve(s) in service'? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA b. Are [lie air pressures and priming water levels in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA c. Has the operation of the air or nitrogen 'supplies been tested? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Are they in service? []Yes ❑ No ❑ NA d. Were low points drained during this inspection? []Yes ❑ No ❑ NA How many? e. Did quick- opening devices operate satisfactorily? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA f. Did the dry valve(s) trip properly during the trip pressure test? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA a. Did the heating equipment in the dry•pipe value room(s) operate at time of inspection ? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 6. Special Systems (See Item 14.) a. Did the deluge or pre- action valves operate properly during testing'? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA b. Did the heat - responsive devices operate properly during testing'? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA c. Did supervisory devices operate during testing? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA d. Did flow for kitchen hood system shat Off gas or electric'? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 7. Alarms a. Did water motors) and gong(s) test satisfactorily'? ❑Yes ❑ No 0 NA b. Did electric alarm(s) test satisfactory? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA c. Did supervisory alarm service test satisfactory? ❑Yes ❑ No CO�NA d. Did tamper swithces test satisfactory? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 8. Sprinklers a. Are all sprinklers free from corrosion, loading or obstruction to spray discharge? ❑Yes ❑ No b. Are sprinklers less than 50 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) ❑Yes ❑ No c. Are quick response and residential sprinklers less than 20 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) ❑Yes ❑ No d. Is stock of spare sprinklers available? ❑Yes ❑ No e. Does the exterior condition of sprinkler system appear to be satisfactory? ❑Yes ❑ No f. Are sprinklers of proper temperature ratiA or t elr locations? ❑Yes ❑ No g. Are any sprinkler heads on a recall list? ( E]Yc;V ❑ No �p Date: Si_ >naturc: '� - , P 1 17 SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 575 MINNEHAHA AVE. W - ST. PAUL, MN 55103 , (651) 251 -1880 3026 40TH AVE. NW - ROCHESTER, MN 55901 ^ (507) 280 -0622 418 GREAT OAK DR., WAITE PARK, MN 56387 (320) 257 -6390 760 LIBERTY WAY, NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 (319) 665 -4330 SHEET 1 OF 2- Use separate sheet for each building inspection It;I�POaca Or aNSPECTiON MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. C0075 JOB NUMBER INSPECTION NAME - ,;,' BUILDING /LOCATION STREET !• INSPECTOR CITY & STATE­-? a r Owner's Section (to be answered by Owner or Occupant) A. Explain any occupancy hazard changes since the previous inspection: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. B. Describe fire protection modifications made since last inspection: �...:t C. Describe any fires since last inspection: D. When was the system piping last checked for stoppage, corrision of foreign material E, When was the dry - piping system last checked for proper pitch? F. `,Are dry valves adequately protected from freezing? Title Date spector':'s Section (All responses reference current inspection) NA =NOT APPLICABLE General a: Is`the building occupied? ❑Yes ❑ No b. Are all systems in service? DYes ❑ No c. Is there a minimum of 18 in. (457 mm) clearance between the top of the storage and the sprinkler deflectors? ❑Yes ❑ No d. Does all electrical heat tape appear to be satisfactory? ❑Yes ❑ No O NA e. Does the hand hose or standpipe on the sprinkler system(s) appear to be satisfactory? DYes ❑ No ❑ NA Control Valves *(See Item I5.) a. Are all sprinkler system control valves and all other valves in the appropriate open'or closed position? DYes 11 No b. Are all control valves in the open position locked,'sealed or equipped with a tamper switch ?,, ❑Yes ❑ No Tanks, Pumps, Fire Department Connections a. When was fire pump last tested for performance? r. b. Are fire pumps, gravity tanks, reservoirs and pressure tanks in good condition and properly maintained? ❑Yes ❑ No O NA c. Are fire department connections. in satisfactory condition, couplings free, caps in place, and check valves tight? DYes ❑ No ❑ NA Are they accessible and visible ?,: OYes ❑ No ❑ NA Wet Systems a. Are cold weather valves (O.S. & Y.) in the appropriate open or closed position? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA b. Have antifreeze system solutions been tested? ❑Yes ❑ No 1 NA c. What temp is antifreeze ?" ` ° ` .... d. In areas protected by wet system(s), does the building appear to be properly heated in all areas, including blind attics and perimeter areas where accessible? ❑Yes'❑,No ❑ NA Dry System (See Items 11 to 13) a. Are dry valve(s) in service? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA b. Are the air pressures and priming water levels in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA c. Has the operation of the air or nitrogen supplies been tested? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Are they in service? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA d. Were low points drained during this inspection? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA How many? e. Did quick- open ing'dev ices 'operate satisfactorily? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA f. Did the dry valve(s) hip properly during the trip pressure test? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA g. Did the heating equipment in the dry -pipe value room(s) operate at time of inspection ? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Special Systems (See Item 14.) a. Did the deluge or pre - action valves operate properly during testing?. ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA b. Did the heat - responsive devices operate properly during testing? LiYes ❑ No ❑NA c. Did supervisory devices operate during testing? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA d. Did flow for kitchen hood system shut off gas or electric? ❑Yes ❑ No .❑:NA Alarms a. Did water motor(s) and gong(s) test satisfactorily? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA b. Did electric alarm(s) test satisfactory ?, OYes ❑ No ❑ NA c. Did supervisory alarm service test satisfactory? • ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA-'7-:':1,­%.,, d. Did tamper swithces test satisfactory? .❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Sprinklers a. Are all sprinklers free fro n corrosion, loading or obstruction to spray discharge ?; ❑Yes ❑ No b. Are sprinklers less than 50 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) •❑1'es ❑No c. Are quick response and residential sprinklers less than 20 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) , ❑Yes ❑ No d. Is stock: of spare sprinklers available? ElYes ❑ No e. Does the exterior condition of sprinkler system appear to be satisfactory? ❑Yes 11 No f. Are sprinklers of. proper.temperature rating fo` their locations? ❑Yes ❑ No g. Are any sprinkler heads on a recall lift? ❑Ye ,. ❑ No !! Signatuie: Date: SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 3026 40TH AVE. NW ° ROCHESTER, MN 55901 ° (507) PTVA22 760 LIBERTY WAY, NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 ` (319) 665 -4330 _ 75 MINNEHAHAAVE. W -ST. PAUL, MN 55103 ° (651) 251 -1880 418 GREAT OAK DR., WAITE PARK, MN 56387 - (320) 257 -6390 4208 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE ° DULUTH, MN 55811 ° (22 18) 740- -4412 SHEET I OF 2 - Use separate sheet for each building inspection MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. C0075 INSPECTION NAME QTRFRT REiPO]kT OF INSPECTION JOB NUMBER BUILDING /LOCATION INSPECTOR - CITY &STATE ! y DATE Owner's Section (to be answered by Owner or Occupant) A. Explain any occupancy hazard changes since the previous inspection:' f. B. Describe fire protection modifications made since last C. Describe any fires since last inspection: D. When was the system piping last checked for stoppage, corrision of foreign material? E. When was the dry- piping system last checked for proper pitch? f. j. -.Are dry valves,adequately po+ tn ected om freezing .. " Date i "7 Signature 'inspector's Section (All responses reference current inspection) NA =NOT APPLICABLE 1. General a. Is the building occupied? DYes D No b. Are all systems in service? DYes D No c. Is there a minimum of 18 in. (457 n) clearance between the top c the storage and the sprinkler deflectors? DYes D No nu d. Does all electrical heat tape appear to be satisfactory? DYes D No dNA v 'DYes D No ®NA C. Does the'hand*hose -or standpipe on the sprinkler system(s) appear to be satisfactory. 2. Control Valves (See Item 15.) a. Are all sprinkler system control valves and all other valves in the appropriate_opetur closed position? DYes D No b. Are all control valves in the open position locke.¢,.sealed or equipped with 'a tamper switch ?.-ZYes D No 3. Tanks, Pumps, Fire Department Connections a. When was fire pump last tested for performance? - N b. Are fire pumps, gravity tanks, reservoirs and pressure tanks in good condition and properly maintained? DYes D No CI A c. Are fire department connections in satisfactory condition, couplings free, caps in place, and check valves tight? 01'es D No DNA Are they accessible and visible? ,C]Yes D No D NA 4. Wet Systems a. Are cold weather valves (O.S. & Y.) in the appropriate open or closed position? DYes D No O=NA b. Have antifreeze system solutions been tested? DYes D No ..O-NA c. What temp is antifreeze? - ' ' ::: - l"' d. In areas protected by wet system(s), does the buildi`"appear to' be properly heated in all areas, including blind attics and perimeter areas where accessible? QYes D No D NA 5. Dry System (See Items 11 to 13) a. Are dry valve(s) in service? DYes D No D NA b. Are the air pressures and ,priming; water levels in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions? DYes D No D NA c. Has the operation of the :atr or nitrogedlsupplies been tested? DYes D No D NA Are they in service? DYes D No NA d. Were low points drained "Aurittgithis 'inspection? DYes D No D NA How many? e. Did quick - opening devices opeiatersati',�fictorily? DYes D No D NA f. Did the dry valve(s) trip p opeLtly r3urihb the trip pressure test? DYes D No D NA g. Did the heating equipinent in the dry -pipe value room(s) operate at time of inspection ? DYes ®No DNA 6. Special Systems (See Item 14.) a. Did the deluge or pre- action valves operate properly during testing? DYes D No D NA b. Did the heat- responsive devices operate properly, during testing? DYes D No DNA c. Did supervisory devices operate during testing? 0"fes D No D NA ".11 d. Did flow for kitchen hood system shut off gas or electric? DYes D No ; DNA 7. Alarms " a. Did water motor(s) and gong(s) test satisfactorily? DYes D No DNA b. Did electric alarm(s) test satisfactory? 'dYes D No D NA c. Did supervisory alarm service test satisfactory? DYes D No D NA d. Did tamper swithces test satisfactory? ®Yes D No D NA 8. Sprinklers a. Are all sprinklers free from corrosion, loading or obstruction to spray discharge? CPYes D No b. Are sprinklers less than 50 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) P•Yes DNo C. Are quick response and residential sprinklers less than 20 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) DYes D No d. Is stock of spare sprinklers available? DYes D No e. Does the exterior condition of sprinkler system appear to be satisfactory? DYes D No f. Are sprinklers of'pr;oper temperature rati�ig 'o their locations? DYes D No g. Are any sprinkler heads on a recall lis ? DY r.Y D No Signature: : - Date: SUMMIT ME PROTECTION 575 Mj1 HAHA AVE. W - ST. PAUL, MN 55103 - (65 1) 251 -1880 3026 40TH AVE. NW - ROCHESTER, MN 55901 - (507) 280-0622 4 1 �8/' k - (319) 665-4330 .SEAT OAK DR., WAITE PARK, MN 56387 - (320) 257-6390 760 LIBERTY WAY, NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 008 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE - DULUTH, MN 55811 - (218) 740-4412 SHEET I OF 2 - Use separate sheet for each building inspection REPORT OF INSPECTION MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. C0075 JOB NUMBER BUILDING/LOCATION INSPECTION NAME INSPECTOR STREET CITY&STATEZ.. DATE Owner's Section (to be answered by Owner or Occupant) A. Explain any occupancy hazard changes since the previous inspection: B. Describe fire protection modifications made since last inspection: C. Describe any fires since last inspection: D, When was the system piping last checked for stoppage, corrosion of foreign material? #,. When was the dry-piping system last checked for proper pitch? ]k Are dry valves adequately protected from freezing? Signature Title at or '?s Section (All responses reference current inspection) NA =NOT APPLICABLE 1. Gerieral, a. Is . die , building occupied? DYes D No b. Are all; Lf ' systems in service? Oyes D No C. Is tliere'M minimum of 18 in. (457 mm) clearance between the top of the storage and the sprinkler deflectors? .,DYes D No d. Does all,plectlrical heat tape appear to be satisfactory? DYes D No O".N'A e. Does the'lia'nd hose.; .6r standpipe on the sprinkler system(s) appear to be satisfactory? .DYes D No D NA 2. Control Val V�6s-(See"Item,15.) a. Are all spririkler system control valves and all other valves in the appropriate open or closed position? - ' .[DYes D No b. Are all control valves in the open position locked, scaled or equipped with a tamper switch? I-DY-es D No 3. Tanks, Pumps, Fire Department Connections a. When was fire pump last tested for performance? b. Are fire pumps, gravity tanks, reservoirs and pressure tanks in good condition and properly maintained? DYes D No DNA c. Are fire department connections in satisfactory condition, couplings free, caps in place, and check valves tight? DYes D No DNA Are they accessible and visible?,*D fes D No D NA 4. Wet Systems . 0 6� D No 0 "N" A a. Are cold weather valves (O.S. & Y) in the appropriate open or closed position? Y b. Have antifreeze system solutions been tested? DYes D No DNA c. What temp is antifreeze? d. In areas protected by wet system(s), does the building appear.t9.b-e' properly heated in all areas, including blind attics and perimeter areas where accessible? DYes D No 13 NA S. Dry System (See Items 11 to 13) a. Are dry valve(s) in service? DYes D No D NA b. Are the air pressures and priming water levels in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions? DYes Q No D NA C. Has the operation of the air o.'r nitrogen supplies been tested? DYes 11 No D NA Are they in service? DYes Q No 0 NA d. Were low points drained during ing t1h;is inspection? Dyes D No 0 NA How many? e. Did quick-opening devices;operate i 9 atisf9c t orily9. Dyes D No D NA f. Did the dry valve(s) trip proPerlydiuring the trip pressure test? DYes 0 No 0 NA g. Did the heating equipment in'tHe dry-pipe valve room(s) operate at time of inspection 9 DYes D No D NA I 6. Special Systems (See Item 14.) a. Did the deluge or pre-action valves operate properly during testing? DYes D No D NA b. Did the heat- responsive devices operate properly during testing? DYes D No DNA c. Did supervisory devices operate during testing? DYes D No 0 NA d. Did flow for kitchen hood system shut off gas or electric? DYes 0 No 0 -NA 7. Alarms a. Did water motor(s) and gong(s) test satisfactorily? DYes 0 No LY�i4A b. Did electric alarm(s) test satisfactorily? DYes ❑ No DNA c. Did supervisory alarm service test satisfactorily? .DYes Q No 0 NA d. Did tamper switches test satisfactorily? Oyes 13 No D NA S. Sprinklers a. Are all sprinklers free from corrosion, loading or obstruction to spray discharge? Wes D No b. Are sprinklers less than 50 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) O- Yes 0No c. Are quick response and residential sprinklers less than 20 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) :Oyes D No d. Is stock of spare sprinklers available? ffy'es Q No C. Does the exterior condition of sprinkler system appear to be satisfactory? difes 0 No f. Are sprinklers of proper temperature pt;iiirg or their locations? DYes D No g. Are any sprinkler heads.on.a recall Q DYeg,,Q No Date: Sjgnature: V t. ..• ..._..� •.`.S iii <'r• F ..- - 302640TH AVE. I\TtF1 ° ROCHESTER, MN 55401 ° (507) 2 760 LIBERTY WAY NORTH LIBERT Y IA 52317 - (314) 665 t53$3 err 575 MINNEHAHA AVE. W ST. PAUL, IV1N 55103 0 (651) 251 -1880 r 418 GREAT OAK DR., WAITE PARK, MN 56387 c (320) 257 -6390 j; 4.208 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE o DULUTH, MN 55811 - (218) 740 -4412 SHEET 1 OF 2 - Usc separate sheet for each building inspection ][�);EOTiyT �l INSPECTION i[LDiad MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. C0075 INSPECTION NAME STREET JOB NUMBER BUILDING /LOCATION INSPECTOR ` DATE CITY & STATE_ -- _ Owner's Section (to be answered by Owner or OcCuPant) .A. Explain any occupancy hazard changes since the previous inspection: B. Describe fire protection modifications made since last inspection: C. Describe any fires since last inspection: D. When v vas the system piping last checked for stoppage, corrosion of E. When was (lie dry- piping system last checked for proper pitch? _ 1F.:-, Pae dry valves-adequately protected from freezing? Title :.: r' ... Signature an material V ate, I[anspeetor's Section (Ali responses reference current inspection) NA = I`4011' A P'PLIICABLF 1. General a. Is the building occupied? DYes D No b. Are all systems in service? DYes D No c. Is there a minimum of 18 in. (457 mm) clearance between the top of the storage and the sprinkler deflectors? QYes D No cl. Does all electrical heat tape appear to be satisfactory? DYes D No UNA e. Does the hand hose or standpipe on the sprinkler system(s) appear to be satisfactory? ®Yes D No,D'NA 2. Control Valves (See Item IS.) a. Are all sprinkler system control valves and all other valves in the appropriate open or closed position? WYes D No b. Are all control valves in the open position locked, sealed o'i equipped with .a tamper switch? DYes 0 No 3. Tanks, Pumps, Fire Department Connections a. When was fire pump last tested for performance?—, b. Are fire pumps, gravity tanks, reservoirs and pressure tanks in good condition and properly maintained? DYes 13 No Q. NA c. Are fire department connections in satisfactory condition, couplings free, caps in place, and check valves tight? DYes D No 0 NA Are they accessible and visible? DYes 0 No; D NA 4. Wet Systems a. Are cold weather valves (O.S. & Y) in the appropriate open or closed position? ®Yes D No D' NA b. Have antifreeze system solutions, been tested? DYes 0 No D`NA c. What temp is antifreeze In areas protected by wet systern(s), does the building: appear to'be properly heated in all areas, including blind attics and perimeter areas where accessible? DYes D No D NA S. Dry System (See Iterws 11 to 13) a. Are dry valve(s) in service? ®Yes D No 0 NA b. Are the air pressures and priming,watei levels in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions? ®Yes D No D NA c. Has the operation of the airj or nitrogen supplies been tested? DYes 0 No D NA Are they in service? C Yes D No D NA d. Were low points drained dU'ing! ;this inspection? DYes 0 No D NA How many? e. Did quick- opening devices operate s'afisfactorily? DYes D No D NA f. Did the dry valves) trip props rlydurmg the trip pressure test? DYes ®No D NA g. Did the heating equipment in the dry -pipe valve room(s) operate at time of inspection? DYes D No DNA 6. Special Systems (See Item 14.) a. Did the deluge or pre- action valves operate properly, during testing? DYes 0 No D NA b. Did the heat - responsive devices operate properly during testing? DYes D No DNA c. Did supervisory devices operate during testing? DYes D No D NA d. Did flow for kitchen hood system shut off gas or electric? DYes D No D-NA 7. Alarms a. Did water motor(s) and gong(s) test satisfactorily? DYes D No D'NA b. Did electric alarm(s) test satisfactorily? ClYes D No D NA c. Did supervisory alarm service test satisfactorily? DYes D No D NA d. Did tamper switches test satisfactorily? DYes D No 0 NA S. Sprinklers a. Are all sprinklers free from corrosion, loading or obstruction to spray discharge? DYes 0 No b. Are sprinklers less than 50 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) DYes DNo c. Are quick response and residential sprinklers less tha D n 20 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) DYes D No d. Is stock of spare sprinklers available? Yes D No e. Does the exterior condition of sprinkler system appear to be satisfactory? DYes D No f. Are sprinklers of proper.temperature rati their locations? dYes 0 No g. Are any sprinkler heads on a recall lis 00 e O No Date: Signature: SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 57P111741 MHAHA AVE. W ° ST. PAUL, MN 55103 - (651) 251 -1880 3026 40TH AVE: NW o ROCHESTER, MN 55901 0 (507) 280 -0622 418 GREAT OAK DR., WAITE PARK, MN 56387 0 (320) 257 -6390 760 LIBERTY WAY, NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 - (319) 665 -4330 4208 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE o DULUTH, MN 55811 0 (218) 740 -4412 SHEET J OF 2 - Use separate sheet for each building inspection REPORT OF INSPECTION RIINNESOTA LICENSE NO. C0075 JOB NUMBER INSPECTION NAME BUILDING/LOCATION STREET " 7' INSPECTOR• CITY &STATE DATE Owner's Section (to be answered by Owner or Occupant) . A. Explain any occupancy hazard changes since the previous inspection: B. Describe fire protection modifications made since last inspection: C. Describe any fires since last inspection: D. When was the system piping last checked for stoppage, corrosion of foreign material? E. When was the dry - piping system last checked for proper pitch? 1 F. Are dry valves adequately protected from freezing? Signature z,, Title Date iinspector's Section (Ali responses reference current inspection) NA =NOT APPLICABLE 1. '`General a. Is the building occupied? (DYes D No b. Are all systems in service? DYes D No c. Is there a minimum of 18 in. (457 mm) clearance between the top of the_storage and the sprinkler deflectors ?; OYes D No d. Does all electrical heat tape appear to be satisfactory? ®Yes D No O*IVA e. Does the hand hose or standpipe on the sprinkler system(s) appear to be satisfactory? DYes D No,.Q NA 2. Control Valves (See Item 15.) a. Are all sprinkler system control valves and all other vah!es in the appropriate open or closed position? DYes D No b. Are all control valves in the open position locked, sealed ;or equiplzed with a.tar iper switcji ?. -0Yes ❑ No 3. Tanks, Pumps, Fire Department Connections a. When was fire pump last tested for performance? b. Are fire pumps, gravity tanks, reservoirs and pressure tanks in good condition and properly maintained? ®Yes D No. U NA c. Are fire department connections in satisfactory condition, couplings free, caps in place, and check valves tight ?. DYes 13 No 0 NA Are they accessible and visible?.-DYes 0 No 0 NA 4. Wet Systems a. Are cold weather valves (O.S. & Y.) in the appropriate open or closed position? DYes D No, D -NA b. Have antifreeze system solutions been tested? DYes 0 No'0 -NA c. What temp is antifreeze?; .P;j d. In areas protected by wet system(s), does the building.•appcar to be properly heated in all areas, including blind attics and perimeter areas where accessible.7'®Yes D No ® NA S. Dry System (See Items 11 to 13) a. Are dry valve(s) in service? ®Yes D No D NA b. Are the air pressures and priming water levels in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions? DYes D No D NA c. Has the operation of the air or nitrogensupplies been tested? DYes D No 0 NA Are they in service? UYes 0 No D NA d- Were low points drained during this inspection ?.DYes 0 No 0 NA How many? e. Did quick- opening devices operate satisfactorily? DYes D No D NA f. Did the dry valve(s) trip properly during the Trip pressure test? DYes D No D NA g. Did the heating equipment in the dry-pipe valve room(s) operate at time of inspection ? DYes D No DNA 6. Special Systems (See Item 14.) a. Did the deluge or pre- action valves operate properly during testing? DYes D No D NA b. Did the heat - responsive devices operate properly during testing? Wes D No DNA c. Did supervisory devices operate during testing? Gates 0 No D NA d. Did flow for kitchen hood system shut off gas or electric? DYes D No 0 NA 7. Alarms a. Did water motor(s) and gong(s) test satisfactorily? DYes D No DANA b. Did electric alarm(s) test satisfactorily? C7Yes D No 0 NA c. Did supervisory alarm service test satisfactorily ?, OYes D No D NA .`; ?;; d. Did tamper switches test satisfactorily? El Yes D No D NA S. Sprinklers a. Are all sprinklers free from corrosion, loading or obstruction to spray discharge? ,UYes 0 No b. Are sprinklers less than 50 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) Wes DNo c. Are quick response and residential sprinklers less than 20 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing),'OYes D No d. Is stock of spate spririklers available? * ?DYes 0 No e. Does the exterior condition of sprinller system appear to be satisfactory ?: CBI'es 0 No f. Are sprinklers bf proper temperature rat'ng r their locations? ,DYes D No g. Are any sprinkler heads'on a recall 1' t? s.0 No Signature:.. Date: SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 575 MINNEHAHA AVE. W ° ST. PAUL, MN 55103 0 (651) 251 -188Q 3026 40TH AVE. NW ° ROCHESTER, MN 55901 ^ (507) 2ROT222 418 GREAT OAK DR., WAITE PARK, MN 56387 0 (320) 257 -6390 760 LIBERTY WAY, NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 - (319) 665 -4330 4208 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE ° DULUTH, MN 55811 - (218) 740 - 4412. SHEET t OF 2 - Use separate sheet for each building inspection REPORT OF INSPECTION MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. C0075 30B NUMBER INSPECTION NAME ':r;` 7 t ! :';a` =:E BUILDING /LOCATION STREET ```r' a Y r _+, L._,, INSPECTOR CITY &STATE _ �; `: .r; ! DATE f` Owner's Section (to be answered by Owner or Occupant) A. Explain any occupancy hazard changes since the previous inspection: B. Describe fire protection modifications made since last inspection: C. Describe any fires since last inspection: D. When was the system piping last cliecked for stoppage, corrosion of foreign material? E ".When was the dry - piping systern.last checked for proper pitch? ,I1ie diy valves adequately protected from freecirig. Date Inspector's Section (All responses reference current inspection) Nei =NOT APPLICABLE 1. General a. Is the building occupied? 'CJ'Yes D No b. Are all systems in service? bYes D No c. Is there a minimum of 1.8 in. (457 mm) clearance between the top of the storage and the sprinkler deflectors? Wes D No d. Does all electrical heat tape appear to be satisfactory? DYes D No Q f4A e. Does the hand hose or,staindl .ipe`on the sprinkler systems) appear to be satisfactory? 0 IFe9' D No aD qA 2. Control Valves (See Item 15.) a. Are all sprinkler system control valves and all other valves in the appropriate open or closed position? DYes D No b. Are all control valves in the open position locked; sealed,or equipped with.a tuiiper switch'?,!. DYes D No 3. Tanks, Pumps, Fire Department Connections a. When was fire pump last tested for performance? b. Are fire pumps, gravity tanks, reservoirs and pressure tanks in good condition and properly maintained? DYes D No U —NA c. Are fire department connections in satisfactory condition, couplings .free, caps in place, and check valves tight ?les D No DNA Are they accessible and visible? DYes D No D NA 4. Wet Systems a. Are cold weather valves (O.S. & Y.) in the appropriate open or closed position? DYes D No 0-'-RA b. Have antifreeze system solutions, been tested? DYes D No.,-;Q-NA C. What temp is antifreeze? d. In areas protected by wet system(s), does the building'appear to.be properly heated in all areas, including blind attics and perimeter areas where accessible? D'Yes D No D NA 5. Dry System (See Items 11 to 13) a. Are dry valve(s) in service? DYes D No D NA b. Are the air pressures and priming water levels in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions? DYes D No D NA c. Has the operation of the air or nitfoge q!supplies been tested? DYes D No D NA Are they in service? DYes D No D NA d. Were low points drained ddring this,; n §pection7.DYes D. D NA How,many? . e. Did quick- opening devices •.o.Peratelgdihsfactorily? DYes D No DNA f. Did the dry valve(s) trip properly diuink the trip pressure test? QYes D No D NA g. Did the heating equipment in the dry -pipe valve room(s) operate at time of inspection ? ®Yes D No D NA 6. Special Systems (See Item. 14.) a. Did the deluge or pre- action valves operate properly during testing? DYes D No D NA b. Did the heat - responsive devices operate properly during testing? DYes D No DNA c. Did supervisory devices operate during testing? C-:' %s D No D NA d. Did flow for kitchen hood system shut off gas or electric? DYes D No Q-NA 7. Alarms a. Did water motor(s) and gong(s) test satisfactorily? DYes D No a NA b. Did electric alarm(s) test satisfactorily? .dyes D No D NA c. Did supervisory alarm service test satisfactorily? ,DYes D No D NA d. Did tamper switches test satisfactorily? OY- es D No D NA 3. Sprinklers a. Are all sprinklers free from corrosion, loading or obstruction to spray discharge? 11-Yes D No b. Are sprinklers less than 50 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing) DYes UNo . c. Are quick response and residential sprinklers less than 20 years old? (Older sprinklers require sample testing),•'D•Yes D No d. Is stock of spare sprinklers available ? =O'Yes D No e. Does the exterior condition of sprinkler system appear to be satisfactory?. D11es D No f. Are sprinklers.of proper ?rtemperature rathig for their locations? Yes D No g. Are any sprinkler heads on a recall list? DYes D No Signature: _ Date: P123 CITY OF [\/IENQ0 I A HEIGHTS S May 7, 2012 James Hudson Hudson Refrigerated Logistics 1460 Sibley Memorial Highway Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Hudson: 1101 Victoria Curve ( Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota- heights.coni We are in receipt of your letter dated April 10, 2012 in which you request a hearing with the Mendota Heights City Council to appeal the determination by the fire marshal that your recalled sprinkler heads need to be replaced. We have scheduled that hearing for June 5, 2012 at 7:00 pin in the Mendota Heights City Council chambers. We will send you a copy of the materials provided to the city council once they are prepared. You may also find them on the city's website at wwvr.tn,ndota- heights.com beginning the Friday before the city council meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (651) 255 -1153 or justinm@rnendota-heights.co Sincerely, Justin Miller City Administrator cc: Jim Lee, Fire Marshal C MIS -I C51, Paper from responsible sources N SC FSCe C0090 -'2 P124 HUDSON CO., INC. Hudson 1460 Sibley Memorial Highway Mendota Heights, MN 55120 63dwhwgg,nt Wd Laga'ah 9 Local: 651.688.8880 • Fax: 651.688.9501 • 800.247.1368 April 10, 2012 Justin Miller, City Administrator Jim Lee, Fire Marshall City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Hudson Co., Inc. Replacement of Recalled Spin kler Heads Gentlemen: Thank you for meeting with me on March 15, 2012. After considering your remarks and suggestions made at our meeting, Hudson has decided that nothing further we can do at this point will alter your conclusion that Hudson must replace these sprinkler heads. Your suggestions that we contact our insurance company and our fire protection consultants for their opinions merely demonstrates that neither of you have apparently bothered to read my letter memorandum of November 5, 2010 to the former City Administrator, David McKnight, in which I spelled out the information provided to us both by Summit Fire Protection and General Casualty Insurance Company, neither of which have advised us to replace these sprinklers. Hudson sees no reason to continue to spend money on further reports that will obviously be ignored as inconsistent with the Fire Marshall's erroneous interpretation of the State Fire Code. In my letter memorandum of November 5, 2010 we appealed Mr. Kaiser's determination and requested a review and determination of this matter by the Mendota Heights City Council. We have never received a response of any kind to this letter memorandum and request for an appeal. It has now been nearly 1 %Z years since we first requested that the City Council review this determination, a review that Mr. Kaiser assured us we were entitled to receive (See Paul Kaiser letter of March 17, 2010). Please schedule this appellate review at the earliest convenient City Council meeting and advise me of the date scheduled so that Hudson can fully prepare its presentation to the City Council. If you are unable to locate our written presentation of November 5, 2010 or have any questions about it after you do read it, please feel free to contact me. Otherwise, I will look forward to hearing when the City Council will hear this matter. Sincerely, I /j 2328426.1-RSL Delivering fresh ideas in food logistics 'Hudson February 28, 2012 Mr. Jim Lee Fire Marshall, City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Lee, HUDSON CO., INC. 1460 Sibley Memorial Highway Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Local: 651.688.8880 • Fax: 651.688.9501 • 800.247.1368 We have received your fire inspection report dated February 21, 2012. With respect to your demand that we replace certain recalled sprinkler heads, please be advised that we have no intention of complying with this demand until the City deals with our pending appeal of the former fire marshal that we be required to make these replacements. Quite frankly, I am appalled that your report does not even address the facts and arguments that we made on appeal to the City Council set forth in my letter of November 5, 2010, none of which have yet been addressed by the City. Have you even bothered to review this material? Inasmuch as: (1) we have already appealed the ruling of your predecessor on this subject to the Mendota Heights City Council, (2) that you fail to address any of the facts or arguments submitted in that appeal, and(3) that your notice of violation appears to be nothing more than a reiteration of this longstanding erroneous position by Mr. Kaiser on these sprinklers, I see no reason why Hudson should take any further action at this time and we intend to do nothing until our appeal is addressed and determined and we have been accorded due process on this dispute. The other minor issues raised in your report will promptly be addressed by the Company. Very truly yours, gmesHudson, President and CEO Hudson Co., Inc. Cc: David Mc Knight City Attorney Mayor Krebsbach Delivering fresh ideas in food logistics R November 5, 2010 David J. McKnight City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1100 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 HUDSON CO., INC. P126 1460 Sibley Memorial Highway Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Local: 651.688.8880 - Fax: 651.688.9501 • 800.247.1368 Re: Hudson Co., Inc. Required Replacement of Recalled Sprinkler Heads Dear Mr. McKnight: This letter is in response to your oral request at the time of our last meeting that I summarize, in writing, Hudson's version of the facts of this case as well as our arguments as to why Hudson should not be required to replace a total of 376 sprinkler heads as ordered by the City Fire Marshall, Mr. Paul Kaiser in his letter dated March 17, 2010. As I have previously explained to you, we believe that Mr. Kaiser's demand is not supported by either the facts or the relevant rules and regulations, and that this order will subject Hudson Co., Inc. to at least $150,000 of retrofit expense which is totally unjustified in the circumstances and is completely inconsistent with the sprinkler installations that our competitors have been required to implement here in the Twin Cities area. The Suildin- I am attaching to this letter as Exhibit A, a schematic drawing of our building, an approximately 60,000 square foot refrigerated warehouse and truck terminal facility. As should be apparent from the shaded areas of this drawing, the areas where recalled sprinkler heads exist are confined to the back half of the LTL loading dock area and the freezer area of the building. The maximum number of persons working in these areas at any one time is three, and typically there is only one person moving shrink wrapped and palletized frozen or refrigerated food products to and from storage racks on an electric forklift. No one lives or sleeps in this area (the temperature is held at 340 in the refrigerated loading dock area and 00 in the freezer area!), and, of course, no smoking is permitted in the entire building. The areas covered by the recalled heads consists of: (1) a dock area where loads of refrigerated and frozen foodstuffs are temporarily staged, either immediately before loading onto trucks for distribution or immediately after the unloading of inbound trucks; (2) concrete floored forklift access hallways through the staging and rack areas; and (3) rack storage areas which are also covered by an in -rack sprinkler system as I will explain more fully below. None of the office, garage, shop, or utilities areas of the building is protected by sprinklers with recalled heads. Page I of 5 Delivering fresh ideas in food logistics P127 The refrigerated loading dock area has 64 sprinklers in the front half that are not recalled, and 78 sprinklers in the back half that are recalled. In addition to these ceiling sprinklers, the area above the ceiling of the LTL loading dock is also covered by an additional 142 sprinklers that are not recalled. These above - ceiling sprinklers are present to protect the building in the event that a fire was to spread to the ceiling itself The front (dock) area in the freezer portion of the building has 124 recalled ceiling sprinklers in it as well as 174 sprinklers in the racking which are not recalled. In each of the freezer rooms 1 through 4 there are 36 ceiling sprinklers on recall and 80 unrecalled rack sprinklers. In freezer room 5 there are 30 ceiling sprinklers on recall and 56 unrecalled rack sprinklers. Like in the refrigerated loading dock area there are above ceiling sprinklers as well. This portion of the building is covered with 248 above - ceiling sprinkler heads, none of which are recalled. The ]recall. Insofar as we now know, the recall of the particular Central Fire Sprinkler heads used in our building began in July of 2001. See Exhibit B, the announcement of the recall. However, the existence of a recall was not communicated to us until December of 2004 when Summit Fire Protection Co., our sprinkler system testing company, reported to us that there was a voluntary recall of some of our sprinkler heads. Summit did not tell us that we were required to replace any heads, nor did they inform us of any free replacement program. No information was provided to us by Summit that suggested that the existence of the recall indicated there was a hazard in our sprinkler installation or that the risks leading to the voluntary recall were applicable in our particular fact situation. Summit just noted the existence of a voluntary sprinkler head recall on their annual report. We provided this Summit Report to Mr. Kaiser in the normal course in late 2004 or early 2005, assuming that if the Fire Marshall thought that we needed to take any action on the recall, he would advise us to do so in his deficiency report. Subsequently, Mr. Kaiser reviewed Summit's report, as he does each year, and made his own annual inspection of our facility in early 2005. On February 21, 2005 Mr. Kaiser issued his annual report of inspection, listing various deficiencies that he wanted corrected and additional items that he wanted to see us address. See attached Exhibit C, which is a copy of that report. Nowhere in the report is there any mention of the existence of the recall, or any requirement or suggestion that we were required to comply with the "voluntary" recall. In all subsequent years Summit's report merely referenced the recall and referred back to the 2004 report. In each succeeding year Mr. Kaiser likewise ignored the existence of the recall notation, and mentioned nothing about the existence of the recall or the need to replace any heads in his report or list of deficiencies to be corrected. This situation continued until early in 2010 when, at the time of his annual inspection, Mr. Kaiser orally advised us that we were re uired to replace all recalled heads. He then consulted with the State Fire Marshall (see Exhibit D) and followed up with a letter to us dated March 17, 2010 in which he ordered us to replace all of the recalled sprinklers. This letter is attached as Exhibit E. Subsequent investigation by us determined that the voluntary replacement program had ended August 31, 2007. Thus, if we were required to replace heads, it would be at our sole cost and expense. Position of Our Insurance Carrier. After receiving Mr. Kaiser's letter, we consulted with our insurance agent, Corporate 4 Insurance Agency, and asked them to contact our carrier, General Casualty Insurance Company, to confirm Page 2 of 5 P128 that they were aware of the Central Sprinkler recall and to detennine whether our failure to replace heads subject to the voluntary recall impacted upon our insurance coverage or our ability to obtain renewal of our insurance coverage in the future. They responded that they were aware of the presence of the recalled heads, but that the existing sprinkler system is adequate for the intended purpose, and that our property is rated with a sprinkler credit. They further indicated that they would expect to renew the policy on 1/1/2011. See Exhibit F. A key item discussed in their report is the fact that although the system requires only 1157 gpm at 65 psi at the base of the riser, their testing indicated a much better water pressure of 1519 gpm at 98 psi. This is a critical piece of information, because the facts leading to the voluntary recall were that laboratory testing of these heads had indicated that most of the heads would operate in a fire situation, but that in a certain percentage of the heads low water pressure that might be present in some particular buildings could lead to a failure to activate the heads. See Exhibit B. In essence, our insurance carrier has assured us that the existence of two sprinkler systems (see discussion below) and the absence of conditions in our building like those identified in the head recall makes head replacement un iecessary. Misstatements and Omissions by the Fire Marshall in Seeking Guidance. We are concerned that there are a number of false assumptions, misstatements, and erroneous conclusions contained in the e-mail correspondence Mr. Kaiser sent to the State Fire Marshall (Exhibit D) which specifically are as follows: ® "The above company was notified in December of 2004 that all of the sprinklers in the 100, 000 square foot building were on recall." This statement is inaccurate and highly misleading. As was detailed above, the information we received on the recall iii 2004 was vague, incomplete, and not followed by any recornmendation from either Summit or Mr. Kaiser that we should replace the heads. This led us to reasonably believe that this voluntary recall did not impact on our fact situation. Even more importantly, and contrary to Mr. Kaiser's assertion, the entire building is clearly not impacted by the recall. By making this assertion, Mr. Kaiser was misleading the State Fire Marshall into believing that some of these recalled heads were in "rooms that are small (have only one sprinkler), involve sleeping, involve high life safety risk, or contain high fuel loads." None of the areas with recalled heads are in areas that fit any of these criteria. Indeed, those areas that are impacted are all storage areas, the vast majority of which are already covered by a completely redundant in -rack sprinkler system, a system which Mr. Kaiser totally omits mentioning in his letter. Indeed, one of the comments in the State Fire Marshall's response makes clear that the misinformation and omissions provided by Mr. Kaiser would have made a significant difference in their recommendations to him. That conunent was that "if this is a large, wide open space, there are other sprinklers 12 -15 feet away, and it involves property loss risks only (no life safety risk) you could probably be a little less concerned." In fact, the situation here is far more compelling than the example given by the State Fire Marshall for "less concern." Not only are additional non- recalled sprinkler heads located within 12 -15 feet of the recalled heads in nearly all areas, the storage areas are large and open, and there is a risk of property loss only; the entire racking system in this space (the only area where there is any real potential for fire) is completely protected with a wholly separate sprinkler system that contains significantly more heads than are located in the cerhna sprinkler heads that are not involved in the recall. Page 3 of 5 P129 "They (Hudson) complain that the cost will exceed $70, 000. " This statement is also misleading. Indeed, buying new heads will cost rrlore than $70,000, but installing them would involve removal of the foamed insulation in the ceiling in order to get to the top of the riser pipes, the removal and replacement of the head and riser, and the re- insulation of the ceilings. Although we do not have a definitive bid on this proposed project, we believe that the total cost will exceed $150,000 and could well be significantly higher. "They acknowledge that afire will put them out of business and they know an insurance company will not reimburse them for any losses traced back to the non - complying system. " This statement is a total fabrication on Mr. Kaiser's part. Indeed, it is directly contrary to what we have been told by our own insurance carrier as is demonstrated by Exhibit F. Some of Mr. Kaiser's errors are repeated in his letter to Hudson (Exhibit E) including: "The extent of the recall was not known at the time, but subsequently it became kno "m that many, and perhaps all, of the fire sprinkler heads protecting your building were on the recall list. " This statement is at odds with the facts and is inconsistent with information provided to Mr. Kaiser by both Hudson and Summit. The fact is that only 7,250 square feet of space in the LTL dock and 31, 300 feet in the freezer are impacted by the recalled heads. This recall involves only a fraction of the total heads even in these areas of the building. "Section 901.9 of the Minnesota State Fire Code provides the authority to require that the fire sprinkler heads in question be replaced with approved, listed components that are in compliance with the referenced standards of this code. " With all due respect to Mr. Kaiser, Hudson does not agree with this conclusion and does not believe that the State Fire Marshall's communications with Mr. Kaiser support his assertion. We find absolutely nothing in the referenced provisions of the Code that mandate the replacement of these sprinklers. As we understand it, these sprinkler heads were never ruled to be non - compliant with the Code and noddrig that indicates that their use in our circumstances violates any provision of the Code. The manufacturer voluntarily agreed to recall these heads and replace- them at their own cost based on evidence that a small fraction of the heads (perhaps 5 % -15% according to the State Fire Marshall) would not activate properly at very low water pressure, especially if they were corroded. Our heads have been regularly inspected. They are not corroded. Even more significantly, the measured water pressure in our system far exceeds the low levels used in the referenced laboratory testing. Thus, we believe there is simply no evidence that our installation is non - compliant. More importantly, we find no support in the Code for the proposition that our warehouse is required to have two redundant systems as ordered by Mr. Kaiser. At the time of our last expansion, he required Hudson to install a second sprinkler system in the pallet racks as described earlier. These sprinklers cover the entire rack storage system and cost approximately $200,000 to install. Hudson has recently conducted a telephone survey of all of our cold storage warehouse competitors in the Twin Cities Area. To our shock we learned that none of these warehouses have been required to install in -rack sprinkler systems in addition to the ceiling mounted fixtures. This includes Hopkins Cold Storage in Hopkins, Versa Cold Storage in St. Paul and Brooklyn Park, Newport Cold Storage in Newport, Cloverleaf Cold Storage in Lakeville, Midway Cold Storage in St. Page 4 of 5 Paul, Shakopee Cold Storage in Shakopee, and Able Cold Storage in St. Paul Park and Newport. All of these facilities have only a single, ceiling mounted, sprinkler system. Thus, even if there were some real risk of head failure at our demonstrated high water pressure, we would still be protected by the in -rack system. Conclusion. Mr. Kaiser has already forced Hudson to install far more extensive and redundant sprinkler equipment than any other similar facility in the metropolitan area. To now contend that the extremely unlikely possibility of some failures on heads on one of those two systems where the water pressure is very high and there is no evidence of corrosion of the heads, puts us in violation of the State Fire Code seems totally illogical and unfair. Mr. Kaiser seems more concerned about the potential liability for his actions than he is concerned about fairly and impartially administering the State Fie Code. No expert who we have consulted, including our insurance carrier which has the most to lose in this situation, believes that Mr. Kaiser's conclusions are reasonable in these fact circumstances. Given the facts as outlined above, we request that the Mendota Heights City Council reverse the decision of the City Fire Marshall. If it refuses to do so, we feel we will have no alternative but to pursue all of our legal options for avoiding yet another substantial expenditure for what we believe to be unnecessary additional fire protection apparatus. We made the mistake once of meekly accepting Mr. Kaiser's demand for an in -rack system, an expensive system that obviously was not deemed necessary by any other City Fire Marshall in the Twin Cities in similar circumstances. We do not intend to give in again to his unreasonable demands without fully ekhausting our administrative and judicial remedies. We need to be competitive in the industry in the Twin Cities in order to survive in the current marketplace. Mr. Kaiser seems detennined to ensure that we will not be. We are confident that the City Council will take a more reasoned approach, one based on the real facts, not imagined ones. Respectfully submitted, es Hudson, resident and CEO udson Co., Inc. Page 5 of 5 P130 Pl 31 Fay Update of O -Rinj Fire Sprinklers Recalled by Central Sprialder Company -C I of P132 U.S. Consumer Product S fa x CMFUni siO61- ' of information and Public Affairs Washington, DC 20207 Office..._.... _.____�.�.� ...:.............a FOR i€ili��EDEATE RELEASE Central Media Horflne`. (866) 836-392 FOR 28,'2003 IMMEDIATE CPS �r�Ga��- .hotline: (800) 638 -2772 Release 2Y 03-133 CPSC Me -ia Contact: Ken Q%iles, (30 1) 504 -7908 ., 1 ate. regpiaacerl ant pr oc, �. r 1. ;! r S 5 Gent M Sprinklile WASHINGTON, D.C. -The U.S. Cossum2 r P_nd" k Safety Commission (CPSC) and Central Spriner Company, an affiliate of Tyco Fire Prod uct�P o-f Lansdale, Pa., are announcing a modification to the voluntary replacer•rent program annourr'ced on u_uy 10. 2001. The�ompany is replacing 35 million Central fire sprinklers that have 0 -ring seals. -he program also includes a limited number of O -ring models sold by Gem Sprinkler Company and Star, p� kler, In . otaling about `67 -,1500 sprinkler heads. Under the original recall program, consumers were rquired to use Cen �'a# eancr'ctors. IoW, after notifying Central in advance and completing certain forms, consumers also can hire their own contractors and be reimbursed for all or some of the labor charges. Central initiated the voluntary replacement program in 2001 because it-discovered the performance of these 0- Ting sprinklers can degrade overtime. These sprinkler heads can corrode or minerals, salts and other contaminants in hater can a iectthe rubber O -ring seals. These factors could cause the sprinker heads not to activate in a fire. Central is providing newer fire sprinklers that do not use O -ring seals. Central is providing free of charge replacement sprinkler heads and the labor needed to replace the sprinklers. As before, Central will arrange for the installation by using either its own Central Field Service crews or by contracting with professional sprinkler contractors. (how, consumers can arrange to have the free replacement sprinklers installed themselves rather than waiting for Central to arrange for installation. Subject to certain conditions, including advance notice to Central, verification of the replacements and return of the removed sprinklers, Central will provide either full or partial reimbursement for labor charges., Building and homeowners should check their fire sprinklers immediately to see if they are part of this voluntary replacement program. For more information on how to identify sprinklers subject to this program and to learn how all the Jgot!ce Packet Request Line at 1 -800 -871 -3492 24 hours a day, 7 days a to participate in this program, c week or access the program's web site at ✓:w�N�r.SE= rinlilef eulacement.cot S °nC! Lh�' link for this Page to fr!enc!! The U.S. Consumer Product Safely Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, rates, power tools, and cigarette associated with household consumer products over the pasdt 30 years�Iy to the decline in To report a dangerous.product or .a product- related injury, call CPSC's hotline at (800) 638-2772 or CPSC's teletypewriter at (800) 63II -8270, or visit CPS C's web site at ?n�n�n�.cc:sc.�oy11talk.l tiJl: To join a CPSC email subscription list, please go v hit sa/' v? w✓ t +v,Gr,SC,u ^vv /cJSC!!sf,85:7,;. Consumers can obtain this release and recall 3/2/200° ocpscpuhttp: / /wCAna.cpsc.t , b /prerel /prltiil03 /03I33htnal P133 i ,f­y };� 4"W7 Ir Alta V, February 21, 2005 Mr. Jim Hudson Hudson Trucking 1460 Sibley Merriorial Highway Mendota Heights, IAN 55118 Annual inspection Dear jim and Randy, Thanks for purchasing the Knox security box. It is installed on the wall by the main entry with an entry door key inside the box -for Fire Department use y During my annual inspection of February 16", 2005 the following deficiencies were noted and are being brought to your attention for correction: 1. The only hydrant available for Fire Department use was obstructed with ser_ii- trailers. On r!iy return to secure the Knox box- this wa corrected. Please I install J foot clearance around this hydrant. As per u previous. posts in front of this hydrant to protect from damage. 2 There is an outdated fire extinguisher in the electrical room. 3. Employees were smoking in front of a "no smolcing" sign - garage area. 4. A required 2" exit from the garage was padlocked. Exits are to remain open during business hours. There can be no pallet storage on 5. Pallet storage has been an on -going concern. =•��a { a €PQ¢ ;n. _ 71l L ._ -. Packs and adaiti€rna.Ily, all . -A, ve ca�c erg the E i�va3r � ancnGa �_� � e u height. it is requested that pallet storage be relocated to the outside or to an empty semi - trailer outside the building. Thank you far your expected cooperation on the ove items. If you need more information or if 1 can be of assistance, please call me at 452-1850. Sinc ,e y Paul I\/ Kaiser, Fire Marshal Cc: Randy Schrnidt 1101 e/ietona cunle o mc-, nd©ta Heiexia s, rgjj 55118 A.A December 1, 2004 Hudson Trucking 1460 Sibley Memorial Highway Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Annual Inspection To Whom it May Concern: y�� s:i P 13 4 M otial H , The purpose of this letter is to inform you that an annual inspection of your building is due within the next six to eight weeks, The Minnesota Uniform Fire Code requires annual testing and maintenance of fire protection systems which includes automatic water based fire protection systems (sprinklers) and fire alarm systems. Inspections and maintenance of other systems may require more frequent inspections. It would be most helpful if the required tests, as circled below, would be completed prior to my annual inspection. This would allow us time to examine the completed form during the initial inspection and discuss any corrections that might be necessary. When the test has been completed, please send the form to me. Water -based Fire Protection System - (Annual) 2. Fire Alarm System - (Annual) 3. Fire Extinguishing Equipment for Kitchen Hoods or Ducts - (Semi - Annual) 4. Hood Cleaning - (Semi - Annual) Letter on Apartment (Condo) Smoke Detectors - (Annual) Smoke - Removal Systems - (Annual) 7 Private Service Watermains (Annual Maintenance) Thank you. Sincerely, .c Paul M. Kaiser Fire Marshal ;: Pis F `Uic�Qe�� �'�erEie r�s�maai�. �����;L =, i�ni� �� � E� ��5• � 4 Page 2 of 2 P1 35 Jon iVisja, Supervisor _ Minnesota State Fire Marshal Division 444 Ced-4- Sfr6et, Suite 1415 St. Paul, MN 55101 -5145 (651) 201 -7204 (651) 215 -0525 (fax) jon,nisja@state.mn.us From: Paul Kaiser [mailto :Paull( @mendota- heigFits.com] Sent- Friday, February 26, 2010 9:41 AM Tex: Jon.Nisja @state.mn.us Subject: Hudson Trucking Company, Mendota Heights 2/26/10 .... ._.......... >_.... -- Good morning Jon, Help._' The above company was notified in December of 2004 that all of the sprinklers in the 100,000 sq ft building were on recall. I did receive an annual inspection report that indicated the heads were on recall. My thought was that the Hudson Company was proactive on this problem and they were waiting for the claim to be approved. I know this isn't done overnight, sometimes as long as three or four years before some adjustments take place. , -- Now, the year 2010 and I just finished my annual inspection and was told that they neve�� lcl a claim aid as a result they have missed the opportunity to have the sprinkler heads replaced, courtesy /6f( Tyco. They complain that the cost will exceed $70 000.00. They acknowledge that a fire w ll put them me nooftb sineIs g - L ey know the insurance company will not reimburse them for any losses I am in a quandary about my next move. I could order this done and have them appeal my orders to the city council or proceed to the City Attorney, and /or rely on whatever experience you have in situation like this. r I do not want the City or myself to be personally liable for damages that might occur if sprinkler head /s fail to operate. Any suggestions? Thanks for your help. Paul Kaiser (paulk @mendota- heights.com) ,, iii ,)nln Page 1 of 2 P136 Ghxis Hughes 1�-rorn: Bryan Jackson Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:51 AM To: Chris Hughes Subject: FVV: Hudson Trucking Company, Mendota Heights From: Paul Kaiser [mailto:PaulK @Mendota- Heights.com] Sent:: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:41 AM To: Bryan Jackson Subject: FW: Hudson Trucking Company, Mendota Heights Brian, This is the response from the State Fire Marshal's office. Please share with Chris, Randy, and Jim. I will be writing a letter shortly. Paulk - - -- Original Message---- - Frorn: Nisja, Jon [mailto:Jon.Nisja @state.mn.us] Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 1:16 PM To: Paul Kaiser Subject., RE: Hudson Trucking Company, Mendota Heights Paul, This is a tough situation. Tyco's voluntary recall program expired a couple of years ago. That means that they will no longer pay for the replacement. If the company knew about the recall, why didn't they Till out the necessary forms (or have the contractor doing their annual inspections fill out the forms)? This sounds like a bad decision on their part that they are now trying to make your problem. The Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) in Section 901:9 grth authority omewhr te e 15 % order these to e replaced. From what I have heard, there was a fairly high rate of failure range. This means that about 10% ( + / -) of the sprinklers will not operate. This causes great concern in ` rooms that are small (have only one sprinkler), involve sleeping r , involve high life safety isk, or contain high fuel Ioads.� Advice: I think you are morally obligated to make them aware of this by giving them something in writing. Of course, once you identify a code problem you now own part of the liability should something bad happen. After that point, what enforcement action you take is probably up to you. I offer the following comments: If.you order.them replaced, give as much time as possible. You can have them petition the city to pay for this and then assess it back on taxes"(sometime "s there are business and economic advantages to doing it this way). This functions much like a street or sewer improvement. -"" _ s e - If this is a Large, wide open space, there are other sprinklers 12 -15 feet a�r�a� and it involves ), ro ert loss risks only (no life safety risk), you could probably be a little less concerned. In this t /I ,.� P P Y situation, one or more adjacent sprinklers will probably operate but their ability to control the N 'fire will likely be diminished.�� � ® Our office has een ordering replacement when we find that recalled sprinklers are still installed. If it was appealed to us, we would likely'order their re (aceme�. P137 . - Pl `vJ Z' 1 ! d b Jt• 3 e l a`.� G'� '�`';'= d`f.AL�r.`Si - .s'l+i�_•�'� � .. !.°`mot. 9�i..sc� _: �x4'+Y ESN! J•' f' �''. �Y^. t24�' y' �rrnf�. �" ��.: i�Y.f.:••�_.•n- :r.r..- �- _.�:... (!March !17,2010 Tvlr..Tim Hudson LU son Tracking.iompany 1460 Sibley IVfernorial Highway Mendota Heights, I\CNI 55118 Re: Recalled Fire Sprinklers Dear Mr. Hudson: In December of 2004, you were made aware of a fire sprinkler recall by Summit Fire Protection, a company that was lured to do the annual fire sprinkler test on the Hudson Trucking building. The extent of the recall was not known at the time, but subsequently it became known that many, and perhaps all of the fire sprinkler heads protecting your building were on the recall list. The responsibility for correcting this problem is yours. The Central Fire Spril-Ader heads were recalled because they might fail to operate during a fire situation. Annual fire sprinkler tests from 2006, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 reiterated the recall problem. You must now take action to remedy this deficiency. Section 901.9 of the Minnesota State Fire Code provides the authority to require that the fire sprinkler heads in question be replaced with approved, listed components that are in compliance with the referenced standards of this code. 'There are significant legal and liability issues if you fail to act. Doing nothing is not an option. You do have certain options in determining the best way to address the fire suppression deficiency. One option would be to appeal to my orders to the Mendota Heights City Council that acts as the Board of Appeals (see enclosed for the appeals procedure). If the City Council upholds my orders, you have the right to appeal to the State Fire Marshal's Office. Following denial from the State Fire Marshal's office, you have the right to bring action in District Court, knoth.er option available to you.is to petition the City of Mendota Heights for a loan to cover the cost of the fire sprinkler head replacement. This is possible through Mimlesota Statute 429, a statue that gives cities the authority to fund fire related improvements, provided certain conditions are met. One thing is for certain, you must act on this problem in a timely manner. Please respond at your earliest convenience. 1 ,r ts, I-LPI 55118• 52- inn FA 5 ) _s��a ��ae��>•ca C�e�Jc- �iterr����4 ��Eg� eaccJwJ_�ue4ad��a- �e��€� ��.easrs P138 Sincerely, 71- Paul Kaiser Fire Marshal Enclosure cc: City Administrator Fire Chief City Attorney State Fire, Marshal -,j P 13 9 A A-� L or All, insurance a-cv:-;;nc)4 ino. 7220 metro boulevard edina, minnesota 554,39 952-893-9218 FACSML� COVER SHEET Fax 4-!(952} 893-9402 6-A DA 71E/ COMPANY. C% FAX FR 0 M: (M � kin ofpagesin-.Iuo'ingcovei-sha;.--t: C, 15 PtlDv1-- A a A4 L 1-44 A � 0- A+ A J- .-j b This massage may contain confidentia and/or proprietary information, and is in-,LE 'or the pL-,rson/entLRy to whorn it was orginally addressed. Any'usa by others fs Groh ibited. mirir,r AIA7 '� I I /-,, A inded L victly Dv-,fig1;n1' Lewis From. Evans Mark [)vark,Evans @us.nbe.com] �aed> =: iUASd2) /, OCtbt7 °r I9, -20103:35 FM To: Dwight Lewis CC: Cathy eunkholt SubjeeF=: Hudson Company, Inc. / CC10241039 f Eff 1- 12011 Dwight, Our records show that General Casualty has provided the prope location since 1997. We have conducted loss control inspection aware of the presence of sprinklers manufactured by Central Sp the "0 ring" P140 tr coverage for Hudson Co, (nc, at their Mendota Heights at that location on several occasions. General Casualty is Sklar (CSC) and the recall program due to the performance, of The property coverage is rated with a sprinkler credit, coverage h�s been continuous and the expzctation is that a renewal will be oiiereo again effective 1 -1- 20'(1. I mark D, Evans, CIC,, ARM Senior Underwriter - Large Accounts General Casualty Insurance Co - Eden Prairie, MN Phone: 952-0'33-5U2 Fax: 952- 833 -5099 E -mail: mark.evans@us.gbe.com Visit us on the web at generalcasualty.com This electronic imes,:age from nPBEE khc r' m6ricas and any att eatity to which A, is addressed_ It may contain irixormati.on th undcr applicable laiv. Any unauthmized disclosure, copying attach -aent is prohibited. F.f 3rot1 have received this mtssag =c is original fxom your systetil, 10/19/2010 ;I�mcnt to it is intondcd excrasively car the ;K dividual or is privileged, confidential and excerpt from disclos :.ern listriiiution or use of :his electrord,. raessag� or any errar, please Tetum it to the sender and delete this u i i n r - r A l 11 7'[ I ' i n n 110i Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, NIJ 55113 651.452.1350 phone I 651.9�152:9940fax : W ',•'i.Ill ^clil±Cta-helghts,corn CtTY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: June 5, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council ]FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator SUBJECT: Utility Bill Auto -Pay Incentive Program ITEM 9B P141 BACKGROUND Each quarter residents in Mendota Heights are billed a sanitary sewer and storm sewer fee. The minimum amount is $60 /quarter, but could be higher based on the amount of water used. Instead. of being sent a bill through the mail and then having to mail or drop off payment back to city hall, we offer an auto -pay system where the amount due is automatically deducted from a designated bank account. Currently just over 400 of our 3720 residential accounts have signed up for this program (roughly 11%). Signing up for this program is beneficial not only to residents but also the city. Residents avoid having to write out a check and are guaranteed to not be late in their payment, while the city avoids the cost of mailing out a bill and processing the paper payment as it comes back through the mail. In order to encourage more residents to enroll in this program, staff is recommending an incentive program. If a resident is signed up for the auto -pay system before the next billing cycle concludes (July 1st), we will enter that account into a drawing for a free quarter of sanitary sewer fee (up to $150). Those who have already registered for the program will also be eligible. If approved by the city council, staff will publicize the program and provide easy -to -find links on our city webpage to make it easy for residents to sign -up. BUDGETIMPACT The maximum bill proposed to be paid for through this drawing is $150. Postage alone for these bills is $.29 each, and when accounting for paper and staff time, this amount will be paid for with just a few hundred more residents signing up for the program. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve a utility billing auto -pay incentive program and to authorize a drawing award of not to exceed $150. Direct Answers To Questions About Electronic Payment Q. What is electronic payment? A, Electronic payment is automatic bill payment whereby your payment is deducted automatically from your checking or savings account. Q. What is the advantage of electronic payment? A. It saves time! It saves work! It simplifies Your life! You can avoid the hassle of writing; or mailing checks! Q. I-low can you transfer money from my account? A. Only with your authorization. O. When is the electronic payment transferred from my account? A. On its due date. You never have to worry about forgetting a payment or mailing it on time! City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota ul rr fo Q. If I do not write checks, how do I keep my checkbook balance straight? A. Since your payment is made at a pre - established time, you simply record it in vnur check reeister on the appropriate date. Q. Without a canceled check how can l prove I made my payment? A. Your bank statement gives you an itemized list of electronic payments. It is your proof of navment Q. Is electronic payment risky.? A. Electronic payment is less risky than check payment. It can not be lost, stolen or destroyed in the mail. It has an extremely high rate of accuracy. Q. What if 1 change bank accounts? A. Notify us and we will give you a new authorization form to complete Q. How much does electronic payment cost? A. It costs you nothing. Plus. You save the cost of stamps, checks and envelopes. O. What if 1 try electronic payment and don't like it? A. You can cancel Your authorization by notifying us any time. But, once you've enjoyed the convenience, time and money savings of electronic payment, we doubt vnu will want to en hack to paying bills the way you did before. Q. How do 1 sign up for electronic payment? A. Complete and sign the authorization form below and return it to us along with a voided check or savings deposit slip. ❑ Yes! I'd like to sign up for Electronic Payment! P142 ;itT!c -tires ^.'(:' :f•. • Jii;• a : xa xTli �l ., fit ;.�. .r 4 _ �>ta - to>rrl. , rt, t..., F. d' ..t FT ' ....::. :. ... ... >;, ;as: •;,. 'err, -;, i•i i. Y Y .t_.. }....: .. i .ti.r..-- _........ ,I..i,. ...;, r;'•.; -. '1'... +.i. :L.{" :Ir. - `�:1.: :-. .t .. ....,.. ...,�. ... ,..., _.. ,. ,.....__, <... f ,..,. ., . >r. ,. ....... , k._-� .,. _. . -, . . .. ....t....i ,,,. ., •:., . ,,u . :....: ... ry .. n -... ... ....c {. ":1 -yFa. - `c:SS' A4�' .:f". JI. r ,. ,. �, : �..i... • :...� ., o- t.o.•�..,. Y:, t� -',�:.. rs._ =C,: i+i. .r .,u:..:..b ,. , .. .Cr ... .. ., lt.,s. � •�;. j:tirti. _. . t ,:'..: !:•. _ t ?' h�,., .zip •..,. . � � �': +'i!'J` 'iii : :n,• . 4. t' isiz: .r .i , - •E- - tvS::a - ,• ...; -�!e.. ..,.;:F,.y n.- ,- ys�•:,. '''_,I..t- .. h��t. ']�.. ' tr ,,i,.••: ,,: h .,:.. ., f .:.. -. .. .., ... ro.. �.,... ..n .. c.. i'L•a . , ..r...... a... -.. . ,1L..._ ...y ... .. ,_.,..,1 ...r., ...,y• ,J' rl! Fla- ill,';: Sib .•,• >1:;.:..;...7:;a5 ;c4:c'.: � : 3 n ..ds. eat �,, _ ,.�::.�' , �,,:, ;'::�,:.. r .,�- _;�:: -;; •. , ., 1. +,,J+ .. i:. ..7 iii: `y •:. D i:}i- `cY.'au. � +l -'! ' ":t'.'!l': r :F i i •�t. e ._3 _ .:i: :t� - �" ,s r 9i "� mow:.•:,"„'= i_. =:;. -:rr - ,,Zc- .�. .'I. GtI1 �. JIY:':: [a:... J.... `f» - •:-11 � %; .t O - .3:• .t. I - C s ,.- :,.rri•:;,,,t.:.r.;.,,. :.... .,�;��;�....,. °.. �� ca •_�..,: '��,,..,�a. ?JJ.:J:.' •- r:= :;:z'::i.•:,. :.c:_:..s `-rta- r..4 +(r:]:u;`��ra•a%„ .1 't:�- si =' - •t_r•Ra:4,LraiF.yM t• Y._: hurt >t. - 4 ,);':riS:;,yrfrr•,r..L.,..;,.. . °a 22 °a �Ct 22-0 Jan 22 Apr 22 Jul Payment dates are: Name on Account (Please print): Address State: Zip: City: Please transfer payments directly from my: ❑ Checking account (Attach a voided check) (Attach a savings deposit slip) Savin s account Account 91 Routing # (between these symbols 1:1:): debit entries from my account. This authority will remain in effect until 1 give 1 authorize City of Mendota Heights to process the is subject to change each July, and that 1 will notification to terminate this authorization. 1 understand that rate for reasonable any 1 there Will be a $20.00 fee automatically charged to my account receive notification prior to any rate change. understand insufficient funds (NSF) transactions. 1 have attached a voided check or savings deposit slip. Authorized signature on my account: ° Please attach voided check or savings deposit slip ° ES3542