The URL can be used to link to this page

79-11-19,alI CITY OF MOUND Mound~ Minnesota AGENDA CM 79-414 CM 79-415 Mound City Council WORKSHOP MEETING November 19, 1979 City Hall 7:30 P.M. 1. Water & Sewer Rate Study - Hickok & Associates will be here Pg. 3214-3216 2. Police Goals and Objectives Pg. 3213 3. Information Memorandums/Misc. Pg. 3190-3212 4. Committee Reports Page 3217 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 14, 1979 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-414 SUBJECT: Water & Sewer Rate Study The Council has established November 19th as a time to go over the Water and Sewer Rate Study. Attached is a copy of the report. Also attached is a copy of the Metropolitan charges for 1980. The charges for 1980 are $178,372. We budgeted $170,000. based on preliminary figures given prior to completion of the Waste Control Budget. Attached are copies of the worksheets sent us. Leohard L. Kopp ~ ;/ METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION STATEMENT OF 1980 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES 160 MOUND CURRENT USE CHARGES TREATMENT WORKS COSTS SEWER SERVICE AREA NO. TOTAL CHARGES 04 GALLONAGE 435 435 % OF TOTAL .004690 .086636 /LMOUNT ; $ 173,682.87 83,004.72 256,687.59 OTHER CREDITS OR CHARGES CURRENT VALUE CREDIT DEBT PAYMENT CREDIT 1978 FINAL COST ALLOCATION 10,344.00CR 48,062.00CR 19,909.56CR TOTAL CREDITS OR CHARGES 78,315.56CR TOTAL ANNUAL ESTIMATED NET PAYMENT DUE 178,372.03 Monthly Installment $14,864.34 Due on the first day of each month, Installments not received by the lOth day of each month in which due shall be regarded as delinquent and shall bear interest from the first day of such month at the rate of 6% per annum. . METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMHISSION FINAL COST ALLOCATION FOR BUDGET YEAR 1978 160 MOUND CURRENT USE CHARGES: TREATMENT WORKS COSTS SEWER SERVICE AREA NO. 04 MILLION GALLONS 431 431 '~OTAL CHARGES OTHER CREDITS OR CHARGES: CURRENT VALUE CREDIT~ DEBT PAYMENT CREDIT 1976 FINAL COST ALLOCATION AMOUNT 135,474.51 74,485.75 209,960.26 1 O, 345. OOCR 50,566.00CR 29,669.9OCR TOTAL CREDITS OR CHARGES TOTAL ANNUAL ACTUAL CHARGES 90,580.90CR 119,379.36 1978 CASH PAYMENTS NET SURPLUS OR (DEFICIT) 139,288.92 19,909.56 11-19-79 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 15, 1979 COUNCIL MEMORANUDM NO. 79-415 SUBJECT: Police Goals and Objectives At the October 9, 1979 meeting, the Council established Monday, November 19th.as the date for discussing Police Goals and Objec- tives, after the Water and Sewer Rate Study discussion. Please refer to I.M. 79-108 and attachment sent out for the Octo- ber 9th meeting. (See Page 2843 + ) 11- ~79 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 13, 1979 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 79-120 SUBJECT: Rehabilitation Funds - HUD Attached is a copy of a letter from the County relative to HUD rehabilitation funds. The City has adopted the suggestions outlined in the letter, but we have been handling the requests within the City Office. Does the Council wish to let the County administer the program? DATE: October 26, 1979 TO: . CD Parti ci pants .,~~. FROM' Mark O. Elmberg SUBJECT: Rehabilitation As part of the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program, your community has reserved funds for housing rehabilitation grants. The funds reserved for the grants have been approved by HUD. To implement the housing rehabilitation program, guidelines must'be established. ·Once the guidelines have been established, Hennepin County is willing to assist in the administration of the grant program, if so desired. The guidelines to establish the limits for the adjusted household income, the grant amount, and the method of approving applications, must be adopted by resolution of the governing body. Attached find a model resolution for your consideration. Hennepin County is recommending that the adjusted household income limit be set at $7,500 and that the grant amount be set at a maximum of $7,500. The household income before adjustments must not exceed Section 8 income limits if credit is to be given toward meeting HAP goals. The recommended limits would also allow for the coordination of the Community Development Block Grant funded rehab program with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Grant program. As applications taper off, the income limits may be raised at the discretion of the City Council. Recommended household .income limits are: Section 8 Income Limits as of August 1, 1979. Fam.i 1 ~/Size Income Limit I $11,750 2 13,450 3 15,000 4 16,800 5 17,850 6 18,900 7 19,950 8 or more 21,000 The method of approving applications Can be one of two. The City can either approve eligible applicants on a first come, first served basis, or institute a priority system which must include a grant review committee. In light of the privacy laws in effect and to ensure the prompt expenditure of the CD funds, Hennepin County recommends .that applicants be approved on a first come, first served basis. Attached is a sample letter your community may use to indicate a desire to have Hennepin County administer the CD funded rehabilitation program within its border. Mr. Robert Isaacson Office of Planning & Development C-2353 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 Dear Mr. Isaacson: The City requests that Hennepin County administer the CD funded rehabilitation program within the City. Other than occassional applicant referral, the City's responsi- bility will be limited to inspections and the payment of contractors. Under such an arrangement, Hennepin County may retain the 7% administrative costs permitted under the program. Sincerely, CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 15, 1979 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 79-121 SUBJECT: Police Schedules A Councilman has requested police schedules for a three month period. Attached are copies of the actual schedules from August 19 through November 10. The Police Chief has worked out on an hour by hour basis over the above period the number of officers on duty each hour. Also attached is a report on the month of October of the production of two sergeants relative to the work produced by the patrolmen. These figures were taken from Log sheets routinely kept by Officer Hartigan. ~o)~ard L. Kopp I TEROFFICE MEI D TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Leonard Kopp - City Manager' DATE Charles Johnson - Chief of Police Employee Work Schedules and Sergeant's Productivity Il-15 '.____19 79 At the November 6, 1979 regular city council meeting Councilman Swenson stated that he had knowledge that the police patrol sergeants spend too much time in the office, and that he believes they should work patrol related assignments. He also questioned the amount of overtime expended by the police department. He also stated or implied that manpower scheduling was less than satisfactory. The following information is being provided to accurately explain the statements regarding police work load and scheduling, to clarify any misconceptions, and to provide a clear and concise report · .of.the facts relating to the statements. The police patrol sergeants' primary responsibility is the supervision of the patrol division's day to. day. delivery of police services. Very briefly, these duties include such things as coaching and training, reviewing work, assigning.jobs, providing assistance, and seeing that departmental goals and object'ives are carried out. Additionally, sergeants deliver normal service as necessary over and above their supervisory responsibilities. The following table il~lustrates the quantity of routine services provided by police sergeants and patrolmen. The table compares the number of responses to the listed services by sergeants and patrol officers during the month of October, 1979. Average number of .re.%ponses per sergeant AveEage number of .responses per patrolman Miles Patrolled DWI arrests Accident investigations' Traffic enforcement (citations & warnings) Offense reports Medicals Animal ordinance complaints Domestic disputes Misc. * !,457.0 1,208.0 3.0 1.16 2.0 3.33 - 39.5 32.16 '10.0 11.83 3.0 2.66 4.0 3.83 ". 6.0 1.5 76.5 '84.16 Total cOntacts 144.5 153.66 * Misc. = traffic assists, criminal assists, information reports, service assists, open doors, alarms, field investigations and miscellaneous calls. The figures indicate that in all services provided the sergeants respond to about the same number of incidents as the patrol officers and i'n most areas their pro- duction exceeds patrol officers. This, of course, i's-in addition to their normal supervisory responsibilities. Memo - Leonard Kopp Page 2 Nov. 15, 1979 Attached are the work schedules utilized for the period of August 19, 1979 to November 10, 1979. Also attached is a table which breaks down by day and by hour the number of sworn, uniformed personnel on duty during this same period. This table does not include the Chief, investigator, l. ight duty officer, CSOs, reserves, or officers on special assignment. It does accurately depict the number of uniformed~' police officers on duty at all times. It should be noted that every effort is made to have the maximum available manpower on duty duri.ng busy hours and if a shift is to run short, it is scheduled duri.ng the normally slow ~eriod of the day'. As' depicted by these figures, there are many times when there is insufficient manpower available. I believe the minimum acceptable number of uniformed personnel to be on duty is as follows: , 0300-0700 - 2 07O0-O3O0 - 3 1900-0300 - 4 Meeting this minimum is not possible due to the lack of personnel. There has been a substantial amount of overtime paid during the past several weeks, :.,however, it has been kept to a minimum considering the severe shortage of manpower. The department has been operatin§ below authorized strength due to an inordinate number of injuries coupled, with the shortage brought about by sending patrolmen to required training. There is no hope for relief of the situation in the near future. Overall, the department budget is within limits, being over budget $2,001.29 (½%). This figure does not include any'adjustments for reimbursement received by the city from our insurance carrier which amounts to 70% of the salary of those officers injured on duty. This is approximately $8,900. Respectful ly, Charles ~J~hnson Chief of Police I;J: lao ~ ......... ~ - . _, ..... _ 0 ' i~l'- ~ -,.~ H. 'o ~' , I.°l, I .... ,, , ! . I ~1 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ',. .,~ : II ' i~. I;,,:~:.~t- ~] ~] '~ ~ .. ~ , I-~-~-/.~,,..~. ....:~ ~ ,~.~-..~ .,..~,, , :. , ' .$ 0 ~ C) C) O0 0 ~ 0 O0 O0 O0 L~C~ '~ 0 t . CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNEOOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 Nove~er 13~ 1979 E~ic Sorensen¢ Administrator CitY of Minnetrista 7701 County Road 110 W M0und~ MN. 55364 Dear Eric: Mound is in the process of installing storm sewer, curb and gutter ~nd blacktopped streets within the City of Mound. In 1980, construction should'be completed. Sulgrove Road~ if blacktopped, will benefit the property owners on the Minnetrista side. (See copy of letter attached.) Also the stQrm drainage in this area may benefit some of the Minne- trist~ residents, I would like to discuss this with you sometime soon. Do you think we can get together within the next two weeks? Sincerely, '~---~L?~nard L. K6p~ ; ' / ! City Manager LLK/ms Encl, cc: City Council McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS I~1 LANO SURVEYORS ~11 SITE PLANNERS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 November 8, 1979 Mr. Leonard Kopp City Manager 'City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: City of Mound 1980 Street Improvements Dear Mr. Kopp: Sulgrove Road from Warner Lane to Tuxedo Boulevard for most of it's length is on the Mound - Minnetrista border. This street has a 17.2% grade from Tuxedo, which makes main- tenance of the street very difficult. On the Warner Lane end of the street, a storm sewer should be installed,' however, the outlet of the storm sewer would have to be in Minnetrista. I would suggest that we contact the City of Minnetrista to see if they are interested in participating in the improve- ment of this street. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Lyl~?Swanson, P.E. LS:sj #5248 Minneapolis- Hutchinson - Alexandria - Granite Falls 32 7 SUPERINTENDENT DALE E. FISHER Schoo) Board/Treasurer Personnel/TiES/Insurance 472-1691 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DONALD F. BRANDENBURG Accounts Payable Budget/Food Services Payroll 472-1691 INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES WAYNE H. SMITH ¢72-!691 SPECIAL SERVICES LARRY M. L!T)~N 472-1996 CO,~IUNITY SERVICES DONALD ~. ULRICK 472-1099 TO: FROM: RE: WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRIC ,.2 .. WESTONKA PUBLIC EDUCATION CENTER 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD MOUND, MINNESOTA $5364 November 9, 1979 Mound Park Commission' Don Ulrick Summer Lifeguard Pro~iram fo; C'itYBeaches This memo is in response to your letter of October 15, 1979, that asked for information concerning the Summer Lifeguard Program. Below please find answers to the questions you posed at that time. Hopefully we are giving you complete information. In order, your questions were: Question: Where was the program in operation? Answer: Primarily the lifeguarding was done at the Mound Bay Park Beach. Mr. Kopp and Mr. Peterson agreed that during the afternoon time of beach lessons, the city would pay for lifeguards to give attention to those swimmers at Pembroke, Witchwood, and Chester Park, who were not taking swim lessons. The guard would not participate in any instruction of the students who were receiv- ing lessons. Question: What hours did lifeguards devote to the program? Answer: Mound Bay Park Witchwood, Pembroke & Chester Park 940 Hours 220 ¼ HoUrs Breaking this down into months it is: June (Inc'l May 28) 373 Hours July 460 ¼ " August 293 " Sept. 34 " 1160¼ Hours The Supervisor's time was four hours per week for twelve weeks. Supervisor 52 Hours Supervisor's mileage $55.00 Question: What criteria is used by the school district in employing lifeguards? Answer: We use all of the life guards that go through the Community Services sponsored Red Cross Advanced Life Saving Course. We also use all college age lifeguards that return to us for summer employ- ment. We check their certification and immediately do some compet- ancy review and get them into the water for a stroke/strength pro- gram. Memo to MOund Park ommission 11/9/79 pg. 2 Question: Were guards employed strictly for lifegua~ding or were their duties expanded to include other duties? Answer: A. Guards are employed in two ways: The city guards are assigned to guard the beaches wherever they work. No other duties are assigned. An exception is the Mound Bay Park beach where they report early to rake the beach, and to clear the seaweed and dead fish from the beach proper. B. They do participate on a rotating basis as employees of Community Services during swim lessons at the pool and neighborhood beaches. At the pool and on the beaches a lifeguard does not teach and life- guard at the same time; but is assigned ~ne duty or the other. Question: What performance comments have been made by citizens and/or those using beaches? Answer: No news is good news! No complaints about the lifeguards, therefore, we believe that the program of lifeguarding at Mound Bay Park and the other beaches is well received. We did receive a vociferous phone call during the summer demanding daily life guard service on one of the beaches on Island Park. We identified our service agreement role and suggested a call/letter to the city with her remarks. She assured us she would "do just that." Question: What is the cost of lifeguard services to the City? Answer: Please see attached Statement. I would like to go one step further and suggest our willingness to appear at a meeting that deals with the lifeguard program and the level of service you desire. DU:df TO: FROM: RE: The City of Mound Community Services Bill for the Summer Beaches Starting Date---May.28, 1979 25 days in June guards on duty 373 hours life guards devoted to program 373 X $3.65 : November 8, 1979 $1361.45 31 days in July guards on duty 460¼ hours, life guards devoted to program 460¼ X $3.65 : .1679.91 31 days in August guards on duty 293 hours life guards devoted to program 293 X $3.65 = 1069.45 3 days in September guards on duty 34 hours life guards devoted to program 34 X $3.65: 1160¼ Total Hours Life Guards devoted to Prog. (940 hours were for Surfside) Supervision/Training/Scheduling of Life Guards 4 hours per week; 12 weeks Mileage Total of all services 124.10 $319.80 55. O0 $4234.91 374.80 $4609.71 CLAYTON L. LI:'FEVERE HERBI:'RT P. LEFt. ER CURTIS A. PEARSON J, DENNIS O'BRIEN JOHN F'. DRAWZ DAVID J. KENNEDY JOHN B. DEAN GLENN E. PURDUE Mr. John B. Gordon Attorney at Law 1300 'Northwestern Bank Building .Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 LAW OFFICES LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O'BRIEN & DRAW~~q~ MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 ' ~ Ik [~. / TELEPHONE Re: Perron v. City of Mound City of Mound v. Aetna Casualty and. Surety Company Dear Mr. Gordon: You will recall that the Aetna Casualty has refused coverage to the City of Mound on this claim.. We then filed a Third Party Complaint against the Aetna which you are defending. I am enclosing herewith a copy of a case recently handed down by the Minnesota Supreme Court which appears to indicate that "if any part of the cause of action is arguably within the scope of coverage, the insurer must defend.. Any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the insured, and the burden is on the insurer to prove that the claim clearly falls outside the coverage afforded by the policy. If the claim is not clearly outside coverage, the insurer has a duty to defend." It .is the position, of the City of Mound that the Aetna would and does have a duty to. defend, and we hereby again make de~and upon you to .either defend or assume the costs of the City in defending this action. I might point out that the Home Insurance Company has actively participated and cooperated with the City through their attorney Richard Chadwick. The claim is clearly a liability claim against the City which would, be the responsibility of the Aetna or a workmen's compensation claim, which would be the responsibility of the Home Insurance Company. I would again request that you review your file to see if there is any change in the position of the Aetna so that.we do not have to continue to spend money in defense costs which we would ultimately hope to recover from the. Aetna Insurance Company. Very truly yours, CAP:ih cc: Mr. Len Kopp Curtis A. Pearson, City Attorney ":'"'-MURRAY COUNTY :. -: No. 30' '"' ..... . -. .... '. :, , .,. :: .... . .... ... .-:~-...~. ,. '.~:: . . WaNt, ~, -'.~ ~-. ';.; ~ :'.;'~'::~,"~, ~:,? ~S'.:"~.f:IL~ ':~,~,,..'-r . Took no part~ . , .. .......... ~ :: .... .:':'-:- otis, ~. -/ J d.b.a. Prahm Brothers Bridge , ~ ,..-~..:.'~:;[': .'~,.:,-..x-~ w-, - , Co,any,. _,- , .... (..-: . . -,_ ..:' ,.. ~-(~ . . . .. . .,~ ,... ~ , ' - -', . ' ~;,~.~:~.. ;..~:~,,"~-~ .~ ~rs~. At~o~=, New ~ , :,~' ~8863 and 49~08 vs. -, ' ' ~ 'z v .~- 'V" r,.. · ,~-- ~-.e ~ defendant and. third p~rty plaintiff,. ,., ; ,:: . ::,.. --:... :(,. - -.. : ':"" :- 'C~C'~ ?.~-Respondent. T~lor ~ M~on.~' Atto~s~ ~l~on .... %-, . ...,,.~.~( .- ~ . . ~': ..-:::~ ~,.' :.-.. ~.'- .. . .~.. .,-' .. . . . , w~' , ." "~' ''~:.'. ''" .-'s:% , ' . ,~' ,-.'~ .."."..J.:, . ,:. .'-. ' - ': ~e~t ~e~[~ X~9~ee ~om~B~, :~: ~ .'~ I:'~';-.. ?;,~. ?-;. ".)..¥. ' third party defendant, '-;. .... -' ~: ~."%:-)' '~<:; "~ .... r:-,~ ~;(, ,~,.-; -, .' .' . '~"-~... ~ ~ ',-~:' -.~ppellant. -Bundg~ard ~ J~obson~ · ~ ,.. --. .,. , :,_. :.,.., ..-- ./ -.% . ., :- -..;~I~..~Di_~ ......... ~ ... ,-. ., ....., .~e$.;'. , · ~..,.,. ,. ,. ;.....~ -.~ .~.-~, :.- .~/ ., . . ~ . ".7:~' ' "'.~:?,'~::'""?, /" '~'~ ?'/'.'-s ~ ~. ~ 'A~s 'u :s ~-'::-i,':~: '::, :.,'. ' ..-',....' ::: :'. .... ~,.~,.;~f..;%' ~ :. ' . :.... ? ..... ..... .... ~'~- ' ~'['1~ ~nsurer is:required ~6"defend a suit brough=-agains[ lts:'insu'red :' .'". ' -2' · .... . '.. ' - . - · -' ' ': ' - ...,'::~...~ .',-: · ' .. . . . . . . . ' whem the su~='~s mot clearly withim am exclusionary clause of 'the policy.' ' -" %~-~.'~in the sa~' su~, the ~nsur~r must' 'pay~' reasOnable a~torneys' 'fees f0r';its ~ .'" ~nsured rather Chan'"Conduct the defense ~=seiffi'"; .5:(-'.L~..-':?("[~, ':,. :. : .? ~.. : ......... ?k--:.,;.?.. ..... . . .~ . .....: , .~-. : .... ...;~.. _ · , ': ' ~fi~ed." ~?~.'. '.-'~' '.".'::,'..~. · :-' --" ' ,. ~:,." ;':- ."~'"?"-' "-' .';., , ' ,..-.:, , ~ . ~ .::..~&.,e.;~ ~,'.' ~t.' ~.~-..).;, /.;I'..,,t,.;,:;~;~'.F,Z.:;-'.':.:"..?.~' . ~..: - ~. - . .;..~ .,~ .,:~.~-;-...'- ~. '. ~ ,; ~ . .'_ ~,. '~ '.-~i~.,'.:: : .... ~ _ ' "' " Heard before Sheran, C.J,, RogSsheske,'~and Wahl~"J.~.~ and'eonsid~re[ , , ~.,.. , . z .... 2~ :~.~ .:':.' :F.?::. '~:~:..-,:- · ' and decided by the c6ur~ en bant:, ::':~?'~-.~'%~': ''~' :( ~'-'.' ' -' " ' ' - .... · . . - . - .-- . · ~ '.':"".~ 9:9'- :- :( ": . .';:""~' ;- :':: C( · :' ,..-.r ~- .'-: ..2~-b" -" '..,: :.-~ -'-~ · ",'~ ' ~r~' -'~: .'2. ,,; ,z~-~]J' .... '; .; :,.&: ',-..;; - -' W~L, Justice, (Hon, ~$alter H, M~aa$ District gou~ Tr1;~l-.Ju~5~) 'r ~;- ? · Plaint~ff~ ~rry and Roger Prahm, d,b,a. Prahm Brothers Bridge Com- pany, sued Rupp Const~ctfon'Company (Rupp)'for property de,ge Cb their' backhoe while ft was being transported by_:a tractor and =railer 'o~ed and operated by Rupp, Rupp tendered defense of the su~t to its ~nsurer, Great · ~erican Insurance Company (Great ~erican), and imple~ded the insurer ' after Great ~er~ean denied e~erage and refused to defend',"' Great ~eri- can appeals from the judgment of the Hurray County District Court granting Rupp's motion for s~ry Oudgmen= on the issues of coverage and the duty to defend, ~a affix, '. -, '.'. ; ~ ~'~''' ' ' ~' ' ' ~'' -~' ': . .~'~'3;('~-:I~'~d~e 19~5, plaintiffs,~wh~ ~re engaged in bridge and c~lverc"con- ~ · . ._.. -, ~.,~. ::, --,;- .:~-~.-?- ~....~.:- rve;~; ~,~:c~~~:~-~ c· .-~:, sO,etlon, 'contacted Rupp'who.agreed.to-,furn~sh a tractor, trafl'~r and'''~''' ' . ,driver to move a ~0,0007pound backhoe from Tracy, Hinnesota Co Round ..Htnnes°Ca' ~e partie~ did not have a.~tten contract, but Rupp had trafisported equipment'for plai~tiffs fn"the past, ;' Rupp*s driver, Wolfs- '-' .... ,~- ~:"' .' -' .::'..:~-~'L~.:?'/'-. ' :; ' · ~,;- . . ~: , . : 'loaded the backhoe 'ontb<the "tr~il~'a~d he and ~oZfswink~e see~ed i~-'&" '~" ~'-;.. with. chains, ~rahm advised ~olfswinkie of ~he[r'destina[ion and the 'route' to follow, Ne then followed ~olfsw[n~le, :~o miles oursC4e Cuttle, sota Prahm passed WolfswZnkZe and proceeded into to~ to .ge~ a p~ekup . "::-'.. ... truck, ~ planned to lead'NoIfsw~nkle the rest of the way to Round'Lake, ; ~[~nesota. .The, accident occurred one m~le north of Currie sfter ~rahm' :- - ~ ' ' '""~ ' '-~':' ;" ' ; ' · ~,."-'~:~ .~c~ .... · '- At the time of the accident Rupp had a polity'of i~surante ~l~h Grad! /~nerican which l~sured him for ~eneral ~odil¥ injury and property damage. ':' The Br~ad Form,P~operty Damage Endorsement of the policy excluded: - ~>..~'Y. ' _ ~ (Y)... ~ property damage . . . (~) to nronertv ..._'..-~.~.:!£~ ~ntrusrea Co the insured for stora-e .... .... · ,]."- iorl (~) Cd) [to] that particular ~art o e ".;' . - o£ the insured '-'e "' '.' .: ~ }*'.,- -? ;:.:. }~ . . .L ..... "~:if When Rupp requested Great American't0..def~nd .and lnde~f~ ~der the poll-...:- ....ti- Grea~ ~r'ican claimed the damag~ vas~excluded by ~hese provisions, . cy, ' '' "~ . . . . . ~ '.. , ~ .' ..... . ;:;ye. ,';~:'~"~e trial court granted Rupp% motion and denied-Great ~rican's }' mtton for s~ Judg~n~ becaus~ the action brought against Rup.p could ,.~;'~ involve'facts ~hich'could bring its liability ~i~htn the coverage provided -~..by ~eat American.1 ' "".'"" r A party is entitled to'summary Judgment only if there is no genuine ' i~sue of ~aterial fact and the party is entitled to Judgment as a matter of .law, Rule $6.03_~Rules of Civil Procedure. ~e sole .issue on appeal is whether Great American'is obligated-to . ~ defendthe suit against Rupp.' The obligation'to defend is" contractual ..in nature' and is determined by. the :allegations of_:the complaint ~ indemit¥'c0v~:age~ of tne"policy.'-ii any part of a cause 0t'actl0n'isand the:':- '.arguably within the scope of coverage, the insurer' must'defend.'.Any guity is resolved in favor of the"l~sured;and the burden is on the insurer I! to prove that the claim clearly'falls'outside the'coverage afforded by"the-.'" policy. If the clai~ is ~ot clearly outside'covers§e, the'insurer has a '-' ,%duty to defend. ' Bituminous Casualty Cor~. V." Bartl~tt,: 307 Minn.- 72, 240 ' -' ' -~.-;.~t "% .-:.. ~ ..... : , ' ~ . · j: . N. W. 2d 310 (1976). ~'. 31f...~ , .... '~:"?~s~:,." .'' ':.~i:L:? i -.<-~'-~-.-.v :}'~':'"7"'~:'In the present 'case ~reat'American'is Obligated''""' · ~ . .- to defend the suit .-- -....,..- ,.iii .... i'i i ;- . ;.. , , · , :,a.. ,~ . ~ ...~ . , . .. ' . ~. .., .,. - .., . .,. - against Rupp the damage to the backhoe clearly fal an exclusion to the policy. Crea~Amerlcan contends that'the policy excludes ' coverage under the Broad Form Prgperty Damage Endorsement, part (1),; be-%.i.; cause the backhoe was entrusted to Rupp for sto~aqe ~r safekeeping.' The - 'facts- available to us on the present record can be interpreted in two ways --eithe~ plaintiffs hired.. Rupp to t~ansport the backhoe,'or Rupp leased. ' "1" the equipment (including the driver) necessary to transport it., lc is not .. clear whether piatntiffs had entlusted the backhoe to Rupp..~'Even 'if they !'~. did, it was for the purpose of transporting the backhoe, 'not for storage. or 'sa~ekeeping. 'Thus, the present '~ase is.not clehrl[ within this excluo ~'! sion.. : -',- ~ Great American also'contends that the damage is excluded under parc,.~' A. (y) (2)"Of the'P~opertyDamage Endorsement because' the backhoe was property upon which operations were being performed by the insured. ?his clause is'very simzlar to a clause excluding coverage of'propert4 in the care· custody or control of the insured.such .~s we construed in Ohio Ins. Co. v. Terrace' ~nterprise~0..~nc}"~ ~0 ~. ~. 2d ~0, ~S~ I~inno In that case we refused to adopt a.~igid t'est but focused on three factors (1) whether the property was realty Or personalty; (2)'the' location,'size0' 2-' shape and other characteristics of the property;, and (3)~the insured's ''~ dutl?.wt~h respect to the property--to determine if the property was in ' the care, custody or control of. the i~sured. I~e issue rhea is who has.'-; dominion o~ control ove~ the property and is a 'question of ~act which " depends on the circumstances of each case. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.-v. Terrace - · . .. ~ [. ' (1969)..~_ "' '' '~ 5. -,;':'~-v_(. · ~. -...L'-: ....... , '~t ia not.clear from the record who had d6min£on or control.over.the backhoe at the time of the accident. PLaintiffs leased andsccureU the backhoe on Rupp's truck, determined the route, aeeompani, ed th~ flrtver and pa~d en hourly fee on a portal-to-portal basis'. On the other hand, supplied the driver, paid his wages and paid for the gasoline2 Rupp ~[ al~ay~'supplied a driver or operator when another*party u~ed.its equip- merit. From the record it £s not possible to ~etermine the nature and extent of Rupp's business and· thus, to determine who had the care, custody or centre! of the backhoe. These facts should be developed at trial.. ~e recognize that requir{ng.Great American to defend the suit against · . · ~.t · · - Rupp creates a conflict ~f interest for Great American because it wo~dTM 'De required to take opposing positions at trial:to'~efend' Ru~p!~ga~nst"'AC~. plaintiffs' claim and, at. the same time, to defeud itsell on the coveral;e question.2 This conflict of interest does not relieve Great American of 2 Such a conflict need not'occur if the insured brings a declaratory Judgment action prior to trial. ' ' its duty to defend, but rather transforms-that duty into the duty to rczm- ,' burse Rupp' for reasonable attorneys' fees 'incurred in~defending' the' law-: . . · : , . .. ...,.=..-=~-] suit. ': See; e.g., Maryland Casualty Co: v. Peppers·' 64 Ill. 24 187,"355 I~. E. 2d. 24 (1976)[ Burd v. Sussex Mutual Ins. 'Co.:'56 ~i' ~;'383, 2b? A'.' 2d 7 (1970);'Satte~hite v. Srolz,' 79 N. Me~. 320, ~42 P.''Zd ~10'(1968); . Utica Mutual Ins Co v Ci~err , 45 A D 2d 350. 35~ N Y . · · -' · · · affixed 38 N. Y. Zd 735, 381 ~.Y.S. zd 40, 343 N. E. ~d 7~8 (1975). Rupp Should retain its o~ counsel to defend against plaintiffs'-:claim..-'Orea~ ~erican Is required CO .rei~urse Rump ~or this expense and sh0uid have;~ its o~ c°unsel'presen~!;"~t%trial to establish the .facts necessary'to detemtne the coverage question. T~ i~e extenC-'~aC F. D. Chapman Const. ~' Co. ~.; Glens Falls Ins.'Co '297 Minn.Ad06, 211 N.'W.' 2d 871 ~1973)' and ' : 'Bltum[nou, Casualty Corp...vl ~artlet:.:~. hold'that'the'insure~',hould. .' defend its'insured while ~e~rving the rl~ht-to'con~e~ covera~e,'thcy are .' NR.' 3USTICE OTIS t~k nO ~rt in'the, consideration or decision '~-." :.""t 2 CHANHASSEN CHASKA EDEN PRAIRIE s,Oi WAFTA WE RN AREA FIRE TRAINING EXCELSIOR LONG LAKE MAPLE PLAIN MAYER MOUND ST. BONIFACIUS T~he October 17, 1979, meeting was called to order by chairman Jerry Schlenk at 7:40 p.m. at the WAFTA site. A motion was made by Eden Prairie and seconded by Maple Plain to approve the minutes of the September meeting as sent and not to read them at this meeting. Motion carried. Treasurer's report: Checking balance $2,130.89 Savings balance 9,518.04 Bills to pay~ John McCoy Dave Eisinger Earl Day ~'~ NSP Dura Supreme Victoria Oil Quality Builders Bryan Rock Magnuson Agency Continental Telephone John McCoy $15.00 postage 25.00 WAFTA women 1680.93 plumbing 62.99 electricity 1550.25 kitchen cabLuets 666.90 gas & fuel 4206.55 remodel kitchen 510.23 rock 293.00 insurance 195.21 phone 38.50 sec-treas fee & mowing Rod Grandstrand reported that the 100 chairs that were ordered from Aslesan's Restaurant Equipment are to be delivered to the M~ple Plain Fire Station by Aslesans. Jerry Schlenk reported that Fritz Colter, who was present at the last meeting, had recommended to the State Fire Instructors that the WAFTA site be used for a state or regional fire school in 1980. The State Instructors decided that there would be no state or regional schools in the Metro Area in 1980. A motion was made by Long Lake and seconded by Eden Prairie to give ~25.00 to WAFTA women for their next meeting. Motion carried. A motion was made by l~ple Plain and seconded by I~und to charge $50.00 for boat storage for boats up to 18' long and $3.00 per foot for each extra foot. Motion carried. A motion was made by M~ple Plain and seconded by St. Boni to send the minutes of each meeting to the mayors Of each of the member cities. These minutes to include the names of the member to~m not represented at the meeting. M~tion carried. ~er town not represented at the October meeting was Excelsior. Next meeting to be held at the ~LFTA site on November 17, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, John A. McCoy secretary-treasurer aeeociation of metropolitan munici'palitie November 8, 1979 TO: ~lember Municipalities (Chief Administrative Officials & Designate~ Delegates) FROM: Vern Peterson, Executive Director THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION' 1. BOARD OF DIRECTORS VACANCY There is a vacancy on the BOard of Directors effective January, 1980. The Board intends to fill this vacancy at the December 6, 1979 Board }:leering. The person selected to fill the position will serve the remainder of the term which .e~ires .~ay 31, 1980. The Board meets the first Thursday evening (7:30) of each month, usually in the A~.gl/LMC office conference room. 2. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD (TAB) VACANCY There is also one vacancy on the TAB. The person selected will serve the balance of the two-year term which expires October 31, 1980. The individual selected must be an elective city official. The TAB progides general advice and cQunsel to the Metropolitan Council,' ~etropoli~an Transit Commission and M~ DOT, and one of its most important f~:~ctions is'to determine the priorities for FAU project funding for the seven-county metropolitan area. The A~R,{ is allocated l0 members on this'board. The.other elected officials who will continue on this board are: Cam Anderson (Roseville), Bob Parr(Bloomington), Sam Higuchi(Minnetonka), Charlee Hoyt(Ninneapolis), Dave Hozza(St.Paul), Jim Krautkremer(Brooklyn Park), Bruce Nawrocki(Columbia Heights), Barb Savanick(ApDle Valley), and Jackie Slater(Minneapolis). The TAB normally meets the 3rd Wednesday afternoon (2:00 9~!) of each month in the Hetropolitan Council Chambers. 3. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) VACANCY 'This committee consists of prqfessional staff members (City Engineers, Public ~or~3Directors, Planning and Community Development Directors, etc.) and its major function is to provide technical a'ssistance, ad- vice, and recommendations to the TAB, including the FAU Project prior- itizing. The persons recommended should be at the Department Head level. The AMM is allocated six suburban'members on TAC.and one vacancy exists. The other five current members are: Horst Graser, Director of Planning(Prior Lake), Lowell Odland, City Engineer(Golden 300 hanover bldg. 480 cedar street, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 222-2861 (over) Valley), Bill 0ttensmann, Director of Community Development (Coon Rapids), Dwight Picha, Director of Community Development (Woodbury), and Bill Thibault, Director of Community Develop- ment(St. Louis Park). THE BOARD IS SOLICITING RECOMMENDATIONS.FOR THESE VACANCIES VIA THIS BULLETIN. YOUR RECO~IER~ATIONS SHOULD BE SENT TO THE ~TTENTION OF VERN PETERSON AND SHOULD BE RECEIVED IN THE AMM OFFICE BY NO LATER T~iN DECEMBER 1, 1979. 'EVEN 'IF YOU 'HAVE 'SUB- MITTED A: RECOM~R~ATION PREVIOUSLY, PLEASE RE-'SUBMIT THE NA~E AGAIN :SO THAT TIlE BOARD KNO~VS THAT THE PERSON :I'S STILL 'INTERESTE~ 'IN 'SERVING. IN FILLING THE ABOVE VACANCIES, TtIE BOARD WILL ~AKE EVERY EFFORT TO IlAINTA~N THE GEOGRAPHICAL, POPULATION SIZE, AND OTHER BALANCES WHICH CURRENTLY EXIST ON TH~SE BOARDS- AND COMMITTEES. OENERAL'}~EMBERSHIP }._VEETI~G' %VEDNESDAY',' U'ANUA'RY['9~''1980 Please reserve the-evening.of WedneSday, ~anuary 9, 1980 for the next AMM General ~lembership Meeting. The main business of'the -meeting will be to consider adoption of additional legislative policies, which have been developed recently by the AMM Legislative ~olicy Committee. A specific meeting notice setting forth the meeting details.will be forthcoming. 5. TWO NEW A,~:I~.~i ME~IBERS The membership of the AMH reached its highest level since'the Organization was founded with the recent addition of Burnsville and Rosemount from Dakota Cgunty. The membership, now stands at 63 cities containing approximately 90% of the total population in the seven-county metropolitan area. We welcome the officials of these cities to the AMM family. 3/97 POLICE/CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT Cities o.f.~._~4OUNDt SPRING PARK, Month October MINNETRISTA & ST. BONIFACIUS I. GENERAl, ACTIVITY SUMMARY THIS YEAR LAST YEAR ACTIVITY MONTH TO DATE TO DATE Traffic control (citations & warnings) 336 . 4229 5371 DWI 10 69 82 ,Property dannage accident 18 230 243 Personal injury accident 5 56 98 Fatal accident 0 3 3 Adult £elony & misdemeanor arrests 22 190 176 Juvenile felony & misdemeanor arrests 18 159 114 Medicals 28 208 210 Animal complaints ............ 227 .. 1496. ..... 1390 t>art I &. l~art ][I offenses i 40 950 983 Other general investigations TOTAL 1448 15860 17064 ~ROPERT'Y' LOSS/ROOVERY SUMMARY' All cities combined Bikes Boats Clothing ITEM Umrrenqy, notes, etc. [exvelry & preclous n~etals Home ]Furnishings STOLEN 936 930 1150 ! 328 97O 335 RECOVERED- 731 1189 lgadio & Electronic equipment 3458 --- Vehicles & vehicle equipment 6507 4900 Miscellaneous 11483 15 TOTAL $ 27,097 $ 6,835 ALL CITIES COMBINEB III. OFFENSE ACTIVITY SUMMARY ~ o ~1 .~ · ~ . 0 p ~'o~ c ~ e Rape ~obber,y ............ 1' ~ ~,_ ] ' , . Assault i " '1 TO~AL 76 .0 yG 0 0 1DART II CRIMtDS ' Simple Assault Arson .?or. ger~ & Counterfeiting- Fraud /grab e z z! e m e nt Stolen Prop_irjj~· Ya ndalisir~ )Vea~ons Prostitution & Commercialized Vice Sex Offenses Narcotic drug laws .Gambling Offenses a_~_~ainst family. & children Driving under the influence · Liquor Laws Public lZ'ea c e All other offenses TOTAL 10 1 2 i 64 3 22 140 3 22 City of Year HOUND Month October I. GENERAL ACTIVITY SUI~4MARY THIS YEA R LAST YEAR ACTIVITY MON TH TO DA TE TO DATE I'raffic control (citations & ~varnings) 201 2500 2834 DWI 8 40 47 Property damage accident 6 114 120 Personal injury accident I 25 49 Fatal accident ............ 0,., ! ,.,0 ~dult felony & misden~eanor arrests 16 118 100 [uvenile felony & misdemeanor arrests 14 111 "91 vledicals 14 137 132 Animal complaints 165 1094 1030 Part I & Part II'offenses . 97~ 6.07 ,., 6.52 Other general investigations 401 5192 5218 I'0 TA L 923 9,939 J 0,273 ROi°E,~TY LOSS/RFeOVERY SUMMAR.. Y IIOUND Bikes Boats . Clothing ITEM STOLEN 936 .230 · 1,150 Surrency, notes, etc. 'ewelry & precious nxetals Gl.Ills i,305. 335 Home Furnishing.'-; Radio & Electronic equipment rehicles & vehicle equipment Miscellaneous FOTAL (for individual city) GRAND TOTAL (all cities combined) 1,839 92 7,090 1'2,977. 27,097 RECOVERED 731 ' ' 15 $ 1,935 $ 6,835 t'~OUND III. OFFENSE ACTIVITY SUMMARY PART I CRIMES ~O ~ ~dp ~ ~ gX.O Adult ~omicide ..... ~o~y ., ) , ~ A s s ault ......... 1 , , 1 Yehicle ~O~ · ~. o ~9 o o PART II CRIMES Arson ~o~e~-y-~' Co~n~o~i~,,g ......... . ' ....... Fraud ~'~b~~ ........ ~na~Hsm ~Veap~ns 1 1 Sex Offenses ~- 2 2 ,1 Narcotic drug ],aw, s. , . Offenses mga{nst [a,m!~y .& children Driving under the ~nfluence., 8 ,_ 8 8 g~Quor Lmxvs 1 1 Public ~eace 5 .. 5 , 1 ? Att other offenses 2 2 2 TOTAL h'~ i h8 2. 16 10 $1~o