1992-04-28ADril 28, 1992
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 28, 1992
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, April 28, 1992, in the Council Chambers
at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea
Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present
were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark,
City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Park
Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, Fire Chief Don
Bryce, and the following interested citizens: Nancy Nordstrom,
Nancy Hoy, Jim Krenik, Phil & Eva Hasch, Marilyn Byrnes, Robert
Carlson, Gen Carlson, Dorothy Caster, Mike Mason, Jayne Hetchler,
Rich Peterson, Denny Flack, Steve Cooper, Dick Olexa, Jim Bedell,
Gene Garvais, Shirley Andersen, Cathy Bailey, Mary Motyka, Carl
Alexander, Joanne Champine, Keith Foerster, Jim Kuehn, Dean Hanus,
Sandi Effertz, Geoff Michael, Tom Casey, Charles Chase, Mark Hanus,
Archie Hanus, Fred Schmudlach, Gene Smith, Gretchen Smith, Greg
Knutson, Becky Cherne, Rodney Beystrom, John Gabos, Alan Greene,
Brian Asleson, Bill Meyer, Mike Mueller, Richard Indritz, Carole
Munson, Larry Hauskins, and Richard Saliterman.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0 MINUTES
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to approve the
Minutes of the April 14, 1992, Regular Meeting and the April
21, 1992, Committee of the Whole Meeting, as submitted. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.1 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER WEEK, MAY 4-8,
1992 IN THE CITY OF MOUND
Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following proclamation:
RESOLUTION #92-41 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING WESTONKA SENIOR
CENTER WEEK MAY 4-8, 1992
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.2
PUBLIC HEARING: CITY ATTORNEY'S SUMMARY, PROPOSED ORDINANCE
ADDING SECTION 495 RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT OF OBTAINING A
LICENSE TO RENT HOUSING, PROPOSED RENTAL HOUSING MAINTENANCE
ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 319)
The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission has been
55
April 28, 1992
working on this for a number of years. Section 495 relates to
Licensing of Rental Housing and Section 319 relates to Housing
Maintenance Regulations for Rental Housing.
The Building Official reviewed the Executive Summary of the two
proposed sections. The purpose of the ordinances is to maintain
the housing stock in the community and have people live in a
habitable home.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
JIM BEDELL, 2625 Wilshire Blvd. stated he feels that rental
homes and owner occupied homes will be treated differently if
these ordinances are adopted. He thought landlords input
should have been incorporated in these ordinances. He did not
agree with all items in these ordinances, i.e. paved driveways
and snow removal.
Councilmember Jensen stated that the City does not want to intrude
upon the accepted contractual relationship between tenant and
landlord. She further stated that the Planning Commission did
discuss items that were brought up by landlords at the June 25,
1991, public hearing. There was impasse on some of those items.
The City Attorney stated he feels there are some things that need
to be addressed before these ordinances are adopted, i.e. how the
inspection process will be implemented (providing the time and
people to carry out these ordinances), and a fee structure.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to adjourn the
public hearing until the June 23, 1992, Council Meeting, to
provide Staff the time to prepare a fee structure and a plan
for how the inspection process will be implemented. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.3
CASE NO. 92-005: FRED BCHMUDLACH, 6248 RED OAK ROAD, LOT 7,
BLOCK 1, MOUND TERRACE, PID ~14-117-24 32 0007. VARIANCE FOR
AN ADDITION
The Building Official explained the request.
Commission recommended approval unanimously.
The Planning
Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-42
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCONFORMING
SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
CONFORMING ADDITION AT 6248 RED OAK ROAD,
LOT 7, BLOCK 1, MOUND TERRACE, PID %14-
117-24 32 0007, P & Z CASE 92-005
56
57
The vote was unanimously in favor.
ADril 28, 1992
Motion carried.
1.4
CASE NO. 92-006:
PART OF LOT 22,
VARI/%NCE - DECK
NANCY NORDSTROM, 5308 THREE POINTS BLVD.,
LAFAYETTE PARKt PID~ 13-117-24 21 0041t
The Building official explained the request.
Commission recommended approval on a 5 to 2 vote.
The Planning
Councilmember Jessen asked if the applicant planned to make a turn
around space in the driveway so that people did not have to back
onto Three Points Blvd. The applicant answered yes.
Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-43
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DECKS AT 5308 THREE
POINTS BLVD., PART OF LOT 22, LAFAYETTE
PARK, PID %13-117-24 21 0041, P & Z CASE
%92-006
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.5 CASE NO. 92-007: MARK HANUS, 4446 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK
it AVALONt PID %19-117-23 24 0001, VARIANCE - ADDITION
The Building Official explained the request.
Commission recommended approval unanimously.
The Planning
Councilmember Smith questioned the first condition granting the
variance "contingent upon the removal of the existing nonconforming
detached garage by May 28, 1993". He asked that the applicant be
asked to enter into an agreement with the City that would guarantee
that the garage would be removed or the City could enter the
property, remove the garage, and assess the costs to the property
owner.
The City Attorney suggested the following language change in #1
under the Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved: " ..... contingent upon
the preparation and execution of a recordable agreement that the
City can enter the property, remove the existing nonconforming
garage and specially assess the costs against the owner if it is
not removed by May 28, 1993". The Council agreed to the amendment.
Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-44
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT
4446 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1,
57
April 28, 1992
AVALON, PID #:1.9-1:1.7-23 24 0001, P & v. CASE #92-007, AS AMENDED
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Hanus asked to comment on a Staff policy. A permit was issued
to a neighbor for reroofing. The structure is nonconforming as far
as the side setback and is also encroaching on Mr. Hanus' property.
He contacted the Building Dept. and the Building Official's opinion
is that it is a personal issue between the two property owners and
that he was not going to revoke the permit.
The Building Official stated that the carport that is encroaching
was done without a permit sometime ago. He further stated that he
has notified the neighbor, Mr. Pflug that he will have to remove
the encroachment.
The City Attorney stated that if a survey was brought to the City
showing an encroachment on another's property a permit should not
be issued, but this was not the case for Mr. Pflug. Apparently the
part Mr. Hanus is speaking about has been re-roofed and this is an
after the fact item. The Council at this point cannot establish a
policy, it will have to be on a case by case basis. If the Council
wishes, they could refer the policy matter to the staff and
attorney for review and bring it back. Otherwise it will be
between Mr. Hanus and his neighbor.
No further action was taken.
1.6
CASE NO. 92-008: CHARLES CHASE, JR., 3048 HIGHLAND BLVD.,
LOTS 13, 14, 15, BLOCK 2, THE HIGHLANDS, PID ~23-117-24 44
0005. VARIANCE - BOATHOUSE
The Building official reported that the applicant is requesting a
variance to Section 330:15 to allow construction of a boathouse
with the lowest floor 1 foot below the required minimum floor
elevation of 933.5 for Lake Minnetonka. Staff recommended denial
at the Planning Commission based on the strong wording of the Code.
The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 4 to 3 vote based
on the fact that the boat house "use" is other than "habitable" and
it is an "accessory use" versus a "principal use".
In the City Planner's report a number of communities were surveyed
to see what their minimum floor elevations are and they range from
931.5 to 934.0. Mound is currently preparing a new floodplain
ordinance and a new shoreland ordinance. The State or Federal
governments require one foot of elevation above the 100-year
contour. The Minnehaha Watershed District recommends that
communities require at least 2 feet above the 100-year contour.
The Building official further stated that in his opinion the boat
58
ADril 28, 1992
house is new construction, it is not simply the repair of an
existing facility. The contractor stated that when he started to
repair the original boathouse, the walls fell in and he proceeded
to pour a new slab and put the new blocks up. Since the building
is not complete, it is still possible to raise the existing floor
one foot to comply with the required 933.5 elevation.
By raising the minimum floor elevation above the 100-year flood, we
would be providing a measure of flood protection for the structure.
One foot seems to be a minimum, but a number of cities and the
watershed district recommend two feet which provides an additional
measure of protection.
Mr. Chase addressed the Council and stated that the same footings
are being used and the boathouse is at the same elevation it has
been at since it was originally constructed and has been that way
for at least the last 28 years. The Watershed District was out and
felt it was o.k. He stated that the boathouse has been through two
100-year storms in the last 20 years and there was no water up to
or near the structure.
Ahrens moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-45
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
SECTION 330:15, SUBD. 10 OF THE MOUND
CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO MINIMUM
FLOOR ELEVATION FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A
BOATHOUSE AT 3048 HIOHLAND BLVD., LOTS
13v 14v 15~ BLOCK 2, THE HIGHLANDS~ PID
%23-117-24 44 0005, P & Z CASE %92-008
Councilmembers Jensen and Jessen stated they would have to vote
against approval because it does not meet the required elevation
requirement.
The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Jessen voting nay.
carried.
Motion
1.7
CASE NO. 92-009 & 92-010: RICHARD OLEXA, 6607
BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 9 & W 1/2 OF LOT 10,
HALSTED HEIGHTS, PID #22-117-24 43 0012.
MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCES
The Building Official reported for the City Planner explaining that
the applicant is proposing to move a property line that was
approved previously in a minor subdivision. The Planning
Commission recommended approval on a 6 to 1 vote with conditions.
The City Attorney pointed out that there is a platted street
59
April 28, 1992
(Halsted Lane) that comes from the west in Halsted View. He
questioned whether a street easement is necessary on Mr. Olexa's
lots to extend Halsted Lane. The other question was about a water
easement that is required by the proposed resolution. The Attorney
recommended that this item be referred to the City Engineer and the
city Planner for further review.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to table this item
to the May 12th meeting after the proper easement or easements
are obtained from Mr. 01exa. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
1.8 COMMENTS AND SUOGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
Nancy Hoy, 2146 Cardinal Lane - stated she would like to see the
Council find out what the real cause is as to why people are not
getting Building Permits before doubling and tripling permit fees.
Also felt landlords should be allowed to comment on the rental
housing ordinances.
Jim Kuehn, 4633 Island View Drive - stated he would like an
improved understanding of the policies and the commitment to help
all commons users. He represents Citizens for Commons' Sense and
stated they would like to be involved in the decision making
processes of the following:
"* Commons' Policies
Translate commons' policies into simple english.
Examine the appropriateness of specific commons'
policies, administration and categories.
Make changes.
* Re-examine the Docks Program
To include fee structure, locations, and other
concerns.
* Commons' Property Tax Reform
Promote an equitable property tax system, clearly
defining differences between private lakeshore and
commons' lakeshore.
* Budget Accountability
Line item accountability as it relates to commons'
programs.
* Enhance the public image of the city of Mound."
The Council thanked the people who commented and suggested that the
Staff and the Council hold another presentation session for the
realtors in the area and inform them about commons. They also
suggested have the Citizens for Commons' Sense meet with the Staff
and Council and discuss their concerns.
60
6]4
April 2g, 1992
Alan Greene, 2645 Casco Point Road, Orono - was a resident of
Mound for 20 years and is the former Chairman of the Park
Commission in the mid 1960's to mid 1970's. He commented on the
study that was done on the common's at that time. He explained
that the study was precipitated because there were 3 groups of
people out there then:
1. Inlanders who wanted to use the commons.
2. Residents abutting the commons who felt they were being
encroached upon, particularly their privacy.
3. Residents abutting the commons who were very dissatisfied
with what people were doing on the commons, i.e. leaving
docks in all year and leaving debris on the commons.
He then gave the background of why and how the dock ordinance came
about. He explained that he was on the Park Commission when the
survey of the commons was done to determine what structures were on
the commons. At that time, the structures were grandfathered in
but it was not the intention that the structures be allowed to stay
indefinitely.
Greg Knutson, 4701 Island View Drive - asked who is responsible for
the structure on the commons abutting your property. The City
Attorney stated that if the structure is there legally, it should
have a maintenance permit, otherwise it should not be there, and if
it has a maintenance permit it runs with the land so it transfers
from one ownership to the next.
Keith Foerster, 4645 Island View Drive - feels that the City needs
to address all properties with housing maintenance, not just rental
housing.
Jayne Hetchler, 4913 Island View Drive - hopes that there will be
recognition of the different types of commons.
1.9 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE:
PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR LARRY HAUSKINS, 1749
BLUEBIRD LANE, WIOTA COMMONS, DOCK SITE #13480 - TRIMMING OF
VEGETATION
The Park Director explained that this is an after the fact permit.
The Park & Open Space Commission recommended approval on an 8 to 1
vote.
Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-46
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS -
LAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR TRIMMING OF
TREES AND VEGETATION AT WIOTA COMMONS
ABUTTING 1749 BLUEBIRD LANEv LOTS 13 &
14, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, DOCK SITE %13480
61
April 28, 1992
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.10 REQUEST FROM MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION TO
INCREASE MONTHLY PENSION BENEFIT
The City Manager explained that the Mound Fire Dept. Relief
Association has had an actuarial study done on their pension fund.
They are now requesting a $25.00 increase in their pension
benefits. This would be a raise from $395.00 per month to $425.00
per month. He further indicated that the present level of
contribution from the State, fire contract cities and pension fund
investments will cover the proposed increase.
Johnson moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-47
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RELIEF
ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST TO INCREASE PENSION
BENEFITS AS REQUESTED
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.11 REVIEW OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING (BOATHOUSE) ON PUBLIC LANDS
(DEVON COMMONS), 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, CAROLE MUNSON
The Building Official reviewed his report on the dilapidated boat
house. The Staff recommends the following:
OPTION #1 - The City Council direct staff and the City
Attorney to proceed with removal of the boathouse due to its
unsafe condition on public land. OR
OPTION #2 - Allow the applicant continued use of the boathouse
until the expiration of the current maintenance permit on
December 10, 1994, upon the condition that the structure be
restored to a safe condition by the applicant. The applicant
shall submit a detailed list of corrections that address the
concerns as listed by the Building Official in his report.
Carole Munson was present and stated she feels comfortable with the
boathouse as is. She requested that the Council stand by their
decision on December 10, 1991, and honor the 3 year maintenance
permit that was issued.
The Council discussed the boathouse; the maintenance permit; what
repairs to allow, if any; and the removal of the boathouse at the
end of the maintenance permit period.
The question is whether or not to repair the boathouse. The
Building Official recommended that the applicant get a qualified
person to review the building. The applicant stated she did
intend to do some minimal things to the building, but no major
62
ADril 28, 1992
improvements.
The Council explained that the maintenance permit was to allow use
to the extent of the useful life of the structure.
The city Attorney gave the following analogy:
1. The building Official has recommended removal
on the
basis of, it is his opinion that the building is
hazardous.
The Council is saying no, we've given a permit and we're
going to live with that permit for the balance of the
three year period. The Council is also asking the
Building Official what needs to be done to the building
to make it safe.
The Building official is saying here are some things he
can think of off the top of his head but essentially he
does not want to be responsible to redesign her building.
The City Attorney suggested that the Council defer action on this
item for 2 weeks and let the Building Official work with the
applicant and whoever her representative is to do what the Council
is basically saying, i.e. do the minimal work to protect the
health, safety and welfare of anybody who may be in or around that
building for the 3 year period. At that time, it should come back,
and an agreement be drawn between the City and Ms. Munson that:
1. There be insurance to protect she and the City.
2. It should contain language which would require its
removal at the end of the permit period, at her expense.
Another question that needs to be addressed is: Does the City want
to require people to record these permit documents on their title,
which is the only way persons buying the property would have
official notice?
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith to table this item
until the June 9th Meeting, in order to give Ms. Munson time
to have a building contractor look at the building and meet
with the Building Official to do the minimum to make the
building safe. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
1.12 REQUEST FROM RICHARD INDRITZ, ATTORNEY, ON BEHALF OF CAROLE
MUNSON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE TO RECONSIDER APPLICATION FOR
PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS
Mr. Richard Indritz, Attorney for Ms. Munson, addressed the Council
asking for reconsideration of the Council's decision of December
10, 1991, requiring the removal of the deck that was built last
year. Her contention is the same as it was back in December, the
construction of this deck was just maintenance of an existing
structure. He suggested that other people have been given after
63
April 28, 1992
the fact permits for decks on commons, i.e. the Konnads.
Ms. Munson showed an overhead of the Commons with the deck,
boathouse, stairway and playhouse. She stated she will need a
walkway between the two sets of steps and therefore will need the
deck to attach these steps to.
There was discussion on other alternatives: 1. Landscaping, terracing and leaving the area open.
2. Steps can be built without having a deck to attach it to.
Tom Casey, Park & Open Space Commission, stated that the scenic
value of the property has been diminished because something is
built on it. There is habitat that is being compromised because
trees and shrubs are not there. Erosion control may be another
item that has not been addressed.
Bill Meyer, Planning Commission stated: Since it is an accessory
building and is not on her property don't the same rules have to be
followed as someone would if building an accessory building on
their own property, i.e. setbacks, etc. He did not know when the
City ever allowed an accessory building to be built without meeting
the setbacks, etc.
Mike Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road stated: That the structures were
there before the applicant owned the property. If they are on City
property the City should maintain them or pay to remove the
structures.
The Council reminded Mr. Mueller that the issue is the deck not the
structures. The deck was added by the applicant since she
purchased the property.
MOTION made by &hrens, seconded by Smith to amend the motion
approved On December 10, 1991, to include the deck as part of
the 3 year Maintenance Permit, thus deleting the portion of
the motion which required that the deck be removed within 6
months of the date of that Meeting or June 10, 1992.
The Council clarified that the permit given to Sandra Konnad
was for Construction of Public lands, after the fact, not a
Maintenance Permit.
The vote was Z in favor with Jensen, Jessen and Johnson voting
nay. Motion fails.
Johnson moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-48
RESOLUTION TO ISSUE A CONSTRUCTION ON
PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, (FEE WAIVED), TO
64
ADril 28, 1992
CONNECT THE TWO STAIRWAYS ON THE COMMONS,
TO BE BUILT ACCORDIN~ TO CODE.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Building Official asked that the applicant submit a sketch plan
of how the two stairways will be connected and a permit will be
issued.
1.13 RESOLUTION APPROVING STAFF RECOMMENDATION - STATES SALES TAX
APPLICATION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASES
The City Manager explained that the Legislature has approved the
application of the State's 6.5% sales tax to local government
purchases. This was passed in lieu of the cuts in Local Government
Aid. This will mean the City must cover approximately $12,000-
$15,000 in sales tax for the remainder of this year. The City
Manager has proposed the following personnel changes within the
Police Department and the Parks Department to cover the amount:
1. Retirement of Sergeant Brad Roy, effective July 1, 1992,
with realize a savings of $9,000.
2. Retirement of Bob Johnson and not replacing his position
will realize a savings of $4,000.
Councilmember Ahrens disagreed with the proposal by not replacing
the position in the Parks Dept.
The Council discussed maintaining the Park services at the present
level and not replacing Mr. Johnson.
Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-49
RESOLUTION APPROVING STAFF RECQMMENDATION
TO COVER STATE'S SALES TAX APPLICATION ON
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASES
The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried.
1.14 APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
The City Clerk explained the proposed ordinance amendments.
Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following:
ORDINANCE #56-1992
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 800:10, SUBD.
6 & 7; SECTION 800:25; SECTION #810:10,
SUBD. 2, (c); SECTION 810:25; AND
REPEALING SECTION 810:30, SUBD. 4 OF THE
CITY CODE RELATING TO LIQUOR LICENSING
65
April 28, 1992
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.15 APPROVAL OF LICENSES
The City Clerk presented the following licenses for approval all
conditioned upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being
submitted.
Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. Fish Fry - June 13, 1992
Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor
Public Dance Permit - Waive Fee
Temporary Set-Up Permit - Waive Fee
Mound City Days - June 19, 20, & 21, 1992 - all fees waived
Carnival Entertainment
Concessions Fireworks
Craft Fair Merchant Sales
Parade Public Gathering
Northwest Tonka Lions - Mound City Days - June 20 & 21, 1992
Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Permit
2 locations as follows:
1. June 20 & 21, 1992 - Pond Arena
2. June 21, 1992 - Mound Bay Park
Temporary Set-Up Permit - Waive Fee
Public Dance Permit - Waive Fee
Our Lady of the Lake Church - July 25 & 26, 1992 - Incredible
Festival
Temporary On-Sal~ Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor
Public Dance Permit
Temporary Set-Up Permit - Waive Fee
Mohawk Ja¥cees Fundraiser - May 1, 1992 - American Leqion
Public Dance Permit - Waive Fee
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to authorize the
issuance of the above licenses as presented. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Jensen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-50
RESOLUTION APPROVING A GAMBLING PERMIT
APPLICATION FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE
CHURCH - INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.1~ PAYMENT OF BILLS
April 28, 1992
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-llst in the amount of
$189433.12, when funds are available. A roll ¢all vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion oarried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. March 1992 Financial Report as prepared by John Norman,
Finance Director.
Be
C.
D.
E.
LMCD mailings.
Information from Hennepin Parks on Redistricting.
REMINDER: Annual Parks Tour - Thursday, May 21, 1992.
LMC Annual
Bloomington.
attending.
Conference is scheduled for June 9-12,
Contact Fran if you are interested in
1992,
Park Minutes of April 9, 1992.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 1992.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 12:30
A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
~qa~d J. S~kIe, Jr., city Manager
AtteSt: city ~lerk
67
BILLS-
.April 28, 1992
BATCH 2042 $ 189,433.12
TOTAL BILLS $ 189,433.12