2000-10-10PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2000, 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and
will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the
Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
1. OPEN MEF:.TING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PAGE
2. APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AME~~S
o
*CONSENT AGENDA
*A. APPROVE MINUTF3: SEPTEMBER 26 REGULAR MEETING. 4130-4152
*B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS ................... 41534171
*C.
APPROVE A RESOLLrTION APPROVING THE INSTALLATION
OF A STREETLIGHT IN THE 6200 BLOCK OF WEST EDGE
BOULEVARD ................................ 41724174
*D.
APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TAX RATE
INCREASE FOR THE 2000 TAX LEVY,
COLLECTABLE IN 2001 ......................... 4175-4180-
*E.
APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF
THE LICENSE AGREEM~NT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY
REGARDING ELECTRONIC PROPRIETARY GEOGRAPHICAL
DIGITIZED DATA BASE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO SIGN THE EXTENSION AGREEMENT .....
41814198
, *F.
PROCLAIM OCT 16-22 AS MOUND
MANUFAC~S WEEK ........................... 4199
COMME~S & SUGGESTIONS FROM crFIZENS PRESENT ON ANY
ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTF3 PER SPEAKER.)
DISCUSSION/ACTION ON STAFF RECOlVIMENDATION FOR
ORDINANCE REVISION EXEMlrFING CERTAIN SIGNS FROM
THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 365 OF THE MOUND CODE . .
4200-4201
6. STAFF REPORT: MEETING WITH CITY OF MINNETRISTA ON
4128
PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
WEST EDGE BOULEVARD AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEM~NTS
REQUIRED BY LANGDON BAY SUBDMSION .............. 4202-4205
7. DISCUSSION/ACTION ON PROPOSED AMENDMI=.NTS TO THE
ADMINISTRATWE CODE PERTAINING TO PERSONN~.I ........ 420(:~222
8. DISCUSSION OF WETLANDS FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
ASSESSMF. NT UPDATE ............................. 4223-4224
9. DISCUSSION OF LMCD PROPOSAL FOR FUNDING ADDITIOINAL
WATER PATROL FOR LAKE MINNETONKA ............... 4225-4240
10. DISCUSSION OF NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER MEETING
DATES.
11. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. The Ehlers Advisor ............................. 4241-4246
B. Notice from Hennepin County Sheriff ending transport service ...... 4247
C. Mound Fire Department investment account review through 8/00. 4248-4253
D. Letter of thanks to Mound Police Department staff .............. 4254
E. Article: Council-Manager Relations in Small Communities ..... 4255.4257
F. Planning Commission minutes: Sept 25, 2000 ............. 4258.4263
G. Mound Police Department monthly report: September 2000 .... 4264-4265
H. LMCD Correspondence ........................... 4266-4279
This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the
meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web
site: www. cityofrnound, com.
4129
COUNCIL BRIEFING
October 10, 2000
Reminder
Budget meeting: October 16, 6:00 p.m. Food provided.
City Manager Performance Evaluation
Mayor Meisel is working with the City Manager to select an appropriate tool and process for her
review.
#6. Meeting with City of Minnetrista
Kandis Hanson, Loren Gordon, and John Cameron will meet in a workshop with Minnetrista
Council and Staff on Mon, Oct 9, at 5:00 p.m. A report of that meeting will be provided at the
Oct 10 Council Meeting. Information contained in packets resulted from a pre-meeting between
the staffs of the two cities and Chuck Alcon of Wara. Negotiations seem to be moving along
nicely thus far. Mound Council is encouraged to stay in a negotiable mode, which will enable the
closing between Rex Alwyn and his buyer.
#7. Administrative Code
The Council Committee of Meisel and Ahrens has concluded the negotiations with the non-union
staff regarding housekeeping issues connected to the Administrative Code. As a follow-up, the
City Attorney has recommendations for additional State and Federal policy additions that need to
occur.
#9. Patrol for Lake Minnetonka
Council Member Ahrens would like to report on the proposal of LMCD for funding additional
patrol on Lake Minnetonka.
Kandis
~NUTES - CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, September 26, 2000, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Council Members: Andrea Altrens, Bob Brown,
Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, City
Manager Kandis Hanson, Building Official Jori Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron,
City Planner Loren Gordon, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. The following
interested citizens were also present: Dorothy and Bill Netka, Orv Burma, John McKinley,
Peter Meyer, Betty Hoy, John Bergerman, Tom Casey, Greg Petrich, Kay Hudstrom, Lorrie
Ham, Lowell Olson.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and welcomed the people in attendance. The
pledge of allegiance was recited.
SWEARING IN OF POLICE OFFICIER MICHAEL BUETOW.
Michael Buetow read the statement of Public Trust to the Council and was then sworn in by
Mayor Meisel.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
The City Manager amended the agenda to hold items 6 and 7 until 8:00 and to move forward
with item 8, if necessary in order to wait for the City Planner's arrival.
Council Member Weycker pulled item D from the Consent Agenda.
MOTION by Hsnus, seconded by Brown, to approve the agenda and consent
agenda with the above amendments. The roll call vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried. 5-0.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$ - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0 APPROVE MINUTES:
A. AUGUST 29, 2000 BUDGET WORKSHOP.
B. SEFIT3iBER 6, 2000 BUDGET WORKSHOP.
C. SF_aWlT-NIBER 13, 2000, RESCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING.
Motion - Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
*1.1 APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS.
Motion - Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
'1.2 APPROVE PAYMENT OF PAYMF~NT RF~UESTS.
A. KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION AUDITOR'S ROAD.
B. MACHTEMES STREET & ULTILTY IMPROVEMENT.
Motion - Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
*PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.
'1.3 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT: DOCK SITE #41824, DEVON COMMONS -
MARK SMITH - 4665 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE.
Council Member Weycker stated that she recalled previously approving a permit for
electrical work on this site and she was not aware that the final electrical inspection had been
clone.
Council Member Hanus stated that the electrical work was part of this request.
Council Member Ahrens stated that she was present when the electrical work was approved
on this site.
The City Building Official stated that the final inspection was not on file with the City and
that Staff would work with the applicant to get this completed.
2
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
Council Member Hanus stated that all the electrical was being worked on and would need
approval for this project. Mayor Meisel pointed out that inspection is a condition of
approval.
Council Member Ahrens, in reference to standard procedure, asked who gets the proof of
inspection. The City Building Official stated that the proof is given to the applicant and that
the City is not always sent a copy.
Council Member Hanus stated that the applicant could have assumed that the copy was
automatically sent to the City and the City Building Official agreed that this could have been
an honest mistake.
The City Building Official stated that the system would work the way the Resolution is laid
out with Staff follow- up or that a condition could be added that the permit would expire if
the electrical inspection was not filed with the City by a certain date. He also pointed out
that recent changes require an annual report be made to Council on the stares of such cases
and that this would insure Staff follow-up.
Mayor Meisel pointed out that applicants should be made aware that it is their responsibility
to file the inspection report.
Brownmoved and Weycker seconded the following resolution with Staff follow-up on
the filing of the electrical inspection:
RESOL~ON g00-86
RESOLU~ON TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT
TO INSTALL ELECTRICAL SERVICE, AN
UNDERGROUND SPRINKLER SYSTEM, AND ATTACH
A LIGHT AND ELECTRICAL OUTLET TO AN
EXISTING LIGHT POLE ON PUBLIC LANDS KNOWN
AS DEVON COMMONS DOCK SITE//41824.
The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens ab~nlning. Motion c_n_rried.
1.4
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT
SUBJECTS NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER
SUBJECT.~
Betty Hoy, 1809 Resthaven Lane, thanked the City Manager for her quick response to her
concern over the granting of a private driveway in lake access property. Ms. Hoy stated that
she felt this was wrong in that it takes away from the public use of the property. She further
3
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTES- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
stated that she did not feel that citizens read the public notices and felt they were probably
unaware of this. She stated that the driveway that has been allowed on Resthaven Lane is
dangerous and she wondered what the process would be to stop these type of driveway
easements.
Council Member Hanus stated that the City Council cannot deny people the opportunity to
make such a request.
Ms. Hoy stated that she could understand allowing people to make the request, but felt that
an ordinance should be passed not to allow variances in these cases. She stated that the
situation on Resthaven occurred because two lots were divided and that the property could
have been divided differently to avoid this.
John Bergerman, 1821 Resthaven Lane, stated that the access Ms. Hoy was discussing is
very busy and is currently full of construction vehicles, which has restricted public use.
Council Member Hanus stated that it was not acceptable for the construction vehicles to be
parked in the access. Council Member Brown stated that the City should be called to
enforce the law when this occurs.
Council Member Ahrens stated that the problem with construction sites exists in areas other
than the public access and that she has called the City to enforce the law when necessary.
Mr. Bergerman stated that his point was that it is wrong to take public property for the
driveway.
Council Member Ahrens stated that she felt that the construction parking would have been a
problem even without the easement.
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, asked where the Council was in the process of filling the
vacancy on the Park Commission.
The City Manager stated that the ad has nm in the paper and that a new form was created to
take the applicants' information more uniformly. The prior applicants for the position were
sent the new form and asked to reapply. Applications will be brought back to the Park
Commission and the City Council will be notified when the interviews are scheduled. She
stated that the Park Director, Jim Fac/der, could provide details on the timeline.
4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTES - SEP1EMBER 26, 2000
1.5 PRF~A~ON OF FEASHSILITY REPORT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF
WEST EDGE BOULEVARD.
The City Engineer, John Cameron, stated that a feasibility study has been done on Westedge
Boulevard that is located % in Mound and ~h in Minnetrista. He stated that there are a total
of 6 properties developed on the east side (Mound) and that the current roadway is gravel.
The survey indicated that the road basically follows the dividing line. The City Engineer
showed photos of the area indicating the high rise of the grade and the heavily wooded area.
He showed photos of retaining walls and hedges that are within the City right of way and
further stated that there are wetlands on the Minnetrista side.
The City Engineer stated that this was classified as a collector street and would normally be
32 feet wide, but because of the topography issues, he is recommending 30 feet in width with
a full 6 inch curb (29 feet of surface), which is well above the Minnesota standard for a 30
mph design.
The City Engineer stated that it was a possibility to have curb only on the Mound side, but
that there would need to be about 300 feet of curb on the Minnetrista side where there was
no room for a ditch. Council Member Brown asked if this was necessary because of erosion
and the City Engineer stated that the curb was necessary to carry water and to help the
roadbed.
The City Engineer stated that the proposal was to stop short of Minnetrista's Wood Edge
Road intersection. He stated that the pond would need to be resized t allow for wetland
discharge and storm sewer drainage in addition to the needs of the Rottland development.
He has given this information to the Rottland engineers. Staff has suggested to Rottland to
carry the pond discharge to the railroad track.
In reference to grading on West Edge, the City Engineer stated that the hill leading to
County Road 15 would be raised as much as possible but that there is a driveway in that
location that will somewhat impede the grading.
The City Engineer gave the following cost estimates:
1. Based on curb and gutter on both sides
2. Curb on the Mound side only (alternative A)
$209,900
$192,800
In reference to the assessments, he stated that in the past, the City has assessed most of the
cost to the property owners, but these were residential streets.
5
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTES- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
Contribution from Hennepin County (estimate)
10% City share for a collector street
$3,000
$21,000
Curb and Gutter on Both Sides
Assessment to property owners
1/4 to 6 Mound residents
Developer
Alternative A
Assessment to property owners
1/4 to 6 Mound residents
Developer
$186,000
$40,675
$140,000
$135,100
$7,100
$128,000
Council Member Ahl'ens asked if the properties were being assessed evenly rather than by
lineal frontage. The City Engineer stated that the amount was simply divided, but that may
need to be looked at.
Mayor Meisel stated that she was concerned about the entry area of the first house on County
Road 15. The City Engineer stated that they would be limited in how much the grade could
be changed by this driveway and that the driveway would have to come down to the level of
West Edge.
Council Member Hanus asked whether Alternative A included the 300 feet of curb deemed
necessary on the Minnetrista side. The City Engineer confirmed that this cost was included.
Council Member Hanus questioned how much of the cost involved the roadbed and whether
borings were taken. The City Engineer stated that these costs assumed starting the road from
scratch and if the roadbed could be reused, it would lower the cost.
Council Member Hanus asked how this model compared with a typical collector road model.
The City Engineer stated that only residential roads had been assessed in the past and the 10
percent share to the City is meant to include the cost of the extra width and strength of the
street.
The City Engineer stated that it was now necessary to meet with Minnetrista regarding this
and that they are now showing an interest in having curb and gutter on their side, but are not
willing to pay for it.
6
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTES- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
Council Member Ahrens pointed out that Minnetrista would normally tie the cost of the road
to the developer and wondered if they would be willing to reimburse Mound when a future
development went in.
The City Engineer stated that homes are planned south of the intersection and that the
developer will be improving that stretch along with a section that is in Mound. Council
Member Ahrens wondered if it would be possible to swap improvements on this road.
Council Member Hanus pointed out that Mound could not force the Minnetrista developer to
do anything.
Council Member Weycker suggested recommending Alternative A as the priority plan and
getting a reaction from Minnetrista.
Council Member Hanus asked about the section of road with wetland on one side and
wondered how much wider the road would be in that area. The City Engineer stated it
would be 6 feet and would impact the wetlands. He stated that he hoped this would fall
under an exemption, but otherwise it would be necessary to do mitigation.
Council Member Weycker stated that because Mound would be working with Minnetrista on
their development, it could be presented to them that the cities need to work together on this
road.
The City Engineer asked for confir afion that the City Council preferred to go with
Alternative A. The City Attorney stated that this was still in the early stages and a general
direction from Council was all that was necessary at this point.
The City Manager clarified that the next meeting with Minnetrista on October 9 would be for
Staff only and Council would not need to attend.
Council Member Ahrens asked when exemption status for the wetland would be known.
City Engineer stated that Staff is working with Rottland on this as they are already doing
mitigation.
The
Council Member Hanus suggested looking at the City land south of the railroad tressel for
mitigation. The City Engineer stated this would be a possibility and that there is an
exemption up to 400 square feet that may work out.
7
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTES- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
1.6 DISCUSSION/ACTION ON AME~ED OUTDOOR STORAGE
AGREEMENT.
Greg Skinner, Public Works Department, addressed the Council and stated that this
Agreement did not affect operations, but was for eliminating duplicate sections of the original
Agreement.
Council Member Hanus wondered if it would be wise to cover Mound in the event that
Minnetrista did merge with St. Bonifacius in the future. The City Attorney stated that this
would be overkill, because when mergers are done underlying obligations are addressed.
Council Member Hanus wondered if the statement regarding the splitting of equipment would
also involve trucks, etc. Mr. Skinner stated that the City of Mound does not leave
equipment in the area being discussed. Council Member Hanus stated that he thought the
original agreement contained composting and wondered if this had intentionally been
removed. Council Member Ahrens stated that the composting had never been in writing.
Brown moved and Ahms seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g87-00
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ~
MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE A JOINT AND
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH
THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA TO
OPERATE AN OUTDOOR STORAGE
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.7
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: CASE//00-48:
VARIANCE - GREG PETRICH - 4856 DONALD DRIVE.
The City Planner stated that it was Staff recommendation to deny the garage as requested and
to require the setback to be not less than 6 feet from the property line.
Orv Burma, from the Planning Commission, addressed the Council stating that he wished to
explain his vote at the Planning Commission discussion of the this item. He stated that he
missed the setback because he was concerned about the hardcover issue. He would have
voted nay on the issue causing a 4-4 vote and the issue would have stayed at the Planning
Commission for further discussion. Commissioner Burma stated that the land next door is
8
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTES- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
unlikely to be developed and that the intent of setbacks is to ensure privacy, fire safety, etc.
Allowing the applicant to build as proposed would not interfere with this intent.
Council Member Brown stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Burma on this
issue.
Council Member Hanus asked whether other options were discussed. The City :Planner
stated that it was suggested to push the garage back, or to keep one comer at the required
setback.
Council Member Ahrens pointed out that no hardship was shown.
Greg Petrich, the applicant in this case, explained his building plans to the Council stating
that he wished to add a 12 foot dining room, move the garage over, add an addition on the
back to extend the bedrooms, and also add a screen porch. He stated that he initially
received land from Hennepin County to make the lot 10,000 square feet and that he would
like to get the variance or acquire additional land to make his current plans possible.
Mayor Meisel asked whether the applicant had applied to the City for the additional land.
Mr. Petrich stated that he had talked to the City Building Official about this.
Mayor Meisel asked where Staff was on the issue. The City Building Official stated that
Staff recommendations were consistent with the City Planner in maintaining the 6-foot
setback and that the request to purchase the land is being routed through the City
departments.
Council Member Weycker wondered if the issue should be tabled until the next meeting.
The City Building Official stated that would push the project into the spring and that even if
a variance were granted, the applicant would still pursue the purchase of the land.
Council Member Ahrens explained the rule regarding variances and hardship to the applicant.
Mr. Petrich stated that he was willing to wait until spring to move forward with his plans as
he would prefer to acquire the additional land. He was in favor of tabling the issue.
MOTION, by Ahrens, seconded by Brown subject to receiving a written request
from the Applicant to waive the 60-day period, to table this case. An amendment
was added by Brown to direct Staff to pursue alternatives in this case and was
accepted by Ahrens. The vote was nnanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
9
1.8
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$ - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
1.8
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: CASE g00-58:
VARIANCE - TED OARE - 1801 RESTHAVEN LANE.
The City Planner stated that the house has been gutted by fire and the applicant is requesting
a variance to recognize nonconforming setbacks including a low floor elevation that is
7/10tbs of a foot below the requirements. He stated that the variances were necessary
because the fire damage to the building was greater than 50 percent of the assessed value
which required it to be rebuilt to the current code or variances granted.
The City Planner stated that in reference to the low floor elevation, the Flood Plain standards
do not allow variances to be granted and doing so would jeopardize the City's participation
in the Flood Insurance Program. He stated that it is Staff's position not to allow a variance
for the floor elevation. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the setback
variance in an unanimous vote. He further stated that the Planning Commission discussed
the current flood elevation standard, and wished to discuss this further at another time as it
was quite involved.
Ted Oare, the applicant in this case, stated that only the interior of the house was destroyed
and that the outside would only need a coat of paint. He stated that the highest Lake
Minnetonka has been is 930.5 and he feels that he will never have a flood issue and has
never had any moisture in his basement. He checked with FEMA and stated that they told
him they do not have a problem with a variance being granted for the low floor elevation.
He further stated that it will cost him $40,000 to raise the house. Because his house does
not qualify for flood insurance, he does not feel it is in a flood zone.
Council Member Brown stated that he also called FEMA and that while the City Planner
gives the level at 931.5, the FEMA flood map states 931. He stated that going back to 1910
the highest flood level was 930.5 and that the dam controls the water level. Council
Member Brown also questioned why the City of Mound had set this at 933 when the FEMA
regulation is 931 and the state requires 932. He also pointed out that the house is not in a
flood area, but possibly some of the shoreline would be.
Mayor Meisel confirmed that the point is that the City has set the high water mark at 933.
The City Planner stated that Council Member Brown's points are correct, but that the
Watershed added the half-foot to the 931 making the level 931.5. He stated that the history
is being checked and at this point he is unsure why the City added the additional 1.5 feet, but
that it has been in place for a long time.
10
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIU'IE$- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
Council Member Ahrens stated that she remembered investigating the surrounding cities and
that none of them were at 933. The Mayor of Spring Park was present and stated that his
city was at 932.
Council Member Hanus stated that he was on the Planning Commission when this was
redone and that it was the Commission's impression that the 933 would be the least
restrictive, but perhaps that was the wrong impression. He further stated that the Council
could not change the code tonight and that this case would have to be dealt with as the code
is currently written.
Council Member Brown agreed that this code needed to be dealt with, but did not feel a
citizen should suffer.
The City Attorney pointed out that there is a provision in the statute requiring DNR approval
to changes. He further stated that the City may want technical advice on what the proper
level should be.
Mayor Meisel stated that the process could take several months and wondered if the applicant
wanted to table the issue or go forward with the code as it is written.
Council Member Ahrens wondered if the damage was less than 50 percent of the value,
would the City be able to ignore the variances. The City Attorney stated that an assessor has
valued the property and there is no way around the issue.
Council Member Brown stated that the applicant would not be doing any work in the
basement and so would not be affecting the variance. The City Attorney pointed out that the
ordinance referred to the whole structure.
The applicant agreed to tabling this issue.
Council Member Hanus pointed out that this case is a good example of why a nonconforming
property is not desirable.
~)'~MOeOeOe~lTlut~oNl~ bYR Brown, seconded by Weycker, to direct Staff to draw upa
approving side yard variance request. The vote was -nanimously in
.Q.~, favor. Motion carried. 50.
MOTION, by Brown, to table the applicant's request for a variance to the flood
plain subject to a written agreement with the applicant. Motion died for lack of
a second.
11
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$ - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
The City Building Official pointed out that the applicant was advised from the onset that the
flood plain was not variancable and that this is not something that can be tabled.
The City Attorney stated that it may be necessary to deny the variance request made on the
application.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker, for denial of the request for a flood
plain variance. The vote was nnanlmously in favor. Motion carded. 5-0.
The City Building Official stated that in regard to the levels of flood plains required in other
cities, Mound had issues regarding hardcover. The DNR has raised the issue that the flood
plain issues differ on Lake Minnetonka. The Watershed is attempting to make this consistent
at 932.5.
Council Member Brown stated that Staff should pursue changing the code to follow the state
guidelines.
Mayor Meisel called a break at 9:50 p.m.
Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 10:05 p.m.
1.9 SENIOR CENTER: DISCUSSION/ACTION ON AGREEMENT FOR STORM
WATER PONDING ON CITY PROPERTY.
The City Planner stated that he had prepared the requested documents including the
Declaration for a Storm Pond, the Declaration for Phosphorus Free Fertilizer, and the
Consent form. The forms are now ready for signature.
The City Planner stated that there is a surety item of $1,000 outstanding that was not
addressed by Staff. He thought that this was a construction item and was not enough to
cover any potential problems. He wondered if the City could put up the surety.
The City Engineer stated the surety was for erosion control during the construction of the
pond. The City Attorney stated that this would need to be explored further because if it was
for ongoing maintenance, it is the City's responsibility.
The City Attorney stated that if the applicant was willing, a provision stating that no
Certificate of Occupancy would be issued until the pond was complete and that would be a
way around the surety bond. He did not feel the City Council should take a position on this
at this time.
12
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTES- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
Lowell Olson, Yanick Company, stated that the documents met their expectations other than
the surety bond, which was a surprise to them. He stated that the provision for the
Certificate of Occupancy was agreeable and would certainly carry more clout than the
$1,000.
Mayor Meisel asked that the issue of the surety bond would be left alone for now and the
City Planner stated that Staff would contact the Watershed for clarification. The City
Attorney stated that this should be left for now and that he did not feel the Watershed would
require the City to put up the surety once the situation was clarified.
Mr. Olson stated that he has equipment on site and needs to start the pond. He wondered if
this would hold up the permit. The City Attorney stated that the hold up was with the
Watershed and could be resolved quickly, but that the developer could deposit the $1,000 in
the meantime, if necessary.
Ahrens moved and Brown seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//88-00
RESOL~ON AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR
STORM WATER PONDING ON CITY
PROPERTY FOR THE GILLESPIE
SENIOR CENTER
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.10 GILLESPIE SENIOR CENTER: DISCUSSION/ACTION ON SENIOR CENTER
Council Member Ahrens referred to the Council briefing distributed by the City Manager and
asked whether item 4 referencing the cost of burning the structures was a City contribution.
The City Manager confirmed that it was.
Council Member Ahrens stated that assuming the Senior Center requests tax free status, the
City's portion would be approximately 17 percent.
The City Attorney stated that under statute, the City has the authority to make the Center
exempt for all other tax authorities including the county, state and school and in effect,
would be contributing other people's money to the Senior Center.
13
MOUND CITY COUNCIL M1NIUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
Council Member Ahrens pointed out that the other taxing authorities would not be losing
money they already had; just not receiving new money. She further pointed out that the
potential costs for snow removal at the Senior Center lot is $3,780.
Council Member Hanus stated that the intention of the CBD program is help with parking in
the downtown area. If the Senior request is approved, Council could expect to get more
requests from others not in the core downtown area..
Council Member Weycker stated that she has spoken with the Senior Center and snow
removal is their intention, not membership in the CBD.
Council Member Ahrens asked whether a private snow plower would be eligible for a
charitable contribution. The Mayor confirmed that it would be eligible with a receipt.
Council Member Hanus pointed out that the City's finances are tight at this time. Council
Member Ahrens suggested responding to the Seniors with a list of what the City is already
contributing.
Council Member Ahrens questioned whether the City Building Department could afford to
lose the $10,000 in permit fees. The City Manger stated that the Finance Director has stated
that this would be a substantial amount for that department to absorb.
Council Member Weycker asked whether saying no to the presumed request for tax
exemption was a possibility. The City Attorney stated that the Center can be a 501C3, but
that does not include taxable property. Under new statutes, the City could say no to the
property tax exemption.
Council Member Hanus stated that the oppommity to say no was when the final plat was
approved. He further stated that the City Council did not want to say no to the request, and
wanted to help the Senior Center.
Council Member Ahrens asked whether the ongoing maintenance for the pond could be
charged to other users in the future. The City Attorney confu'med that future users could be
assessed the cost.
Council Member Ahrens pointed out that the Senior Center has already benefited from not
having to buy the land for the pond and not having to pay for the ongoing maintenance.
The City Manager stated that the City cannot make dollar donations, but could do in-kind
14
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$- SEPTEMBER 2~, 2000
services. She felt it was important to point out where the City has partnered with the Senior
Center in this project. She asked Staff who was designing the pond.
The City Engineer stated the engineer for the Senior Center was doing the design work. The
City Manager asked whether the reimbursement requested was for the creation of the pond.
The City Attorney stated that it was felt the request referred to the construction portion of the
cost and that the City Engineer has been unsuccessful to date in obtaining the costs for this.
The City Manager asked whether there would be room to oversize the pond for future
revenue. The City Engineer stated there would not be room and Council Member Weycker
pointed out that the area may already be too tight for the Wail.
The City Planner pointed out that City land abuts this and could be used for the trail.
Council Member Weycker stated that it is necessary to reconfirm the location of the trail as
the buffer zones were 16 feet.
Council Member Itanus stated that the City Manager should be instructed to write a letter to
the Senior Center stating thc City's position and outlining thc current savings, including the
potential tax savings. He further stated that he would like to accommodate the Senior
Center's requests, but the money is not available.
The Council agreed with Council Member Hanus' statement.
The City Manager stated that she would also clarify that the City was funding the
maintenance of the pond. Council Member Ahrens pointed out that the City had given the
Senior Center the land for the pond.
1.11
DISCUSSION/ACTION ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDINANCE
REVISION REGARDING VEHICLES FOR SALE IN CITY-MAINTAINF~D
lARKING LOTS.
Council Member Brown moved the ordinance as recommended by Staff. The motion died
for a loack of second.
Council Member Iq_anus stated that he felt this ordinance was too far reaching. Council
Member Ahrens stated that she felt there was a problem with the language involving the
streets.
15
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
Council Member Hanus stated that if this ordinance was adopted, it would need to be
enforced and this would keep the police force very busy.
Council Member Ahrens stated that the parking lot of Bayview Apartments was full of cars
for sale. Council Member Hanus suggested making the ordinance apply to the downtown
area only. Council Member Ahrens pointed out that a person taking the bus from downtown
who was also selling their car, would create confusion.
Council Member Weyeker suggested removing the words "any street." Council Member
Hanus stated that all streets are public property.
The City Attorney suggested modifying the ordinance to read "in downtown areas", taking
out "any street," and adding ", except streets."
Council Member Hanus stated that if this was not a problem elsewhere, the ordinance should
only apply to downtown. Council Member Ahrens felt that enforcement dollars should be
spent downtown and would like to see this as part of a nuisance ordinance.
Council Member Hanus asked what would constitute a car lot and wondered if the code
stated 3 cars. The City Attorney stated this was more of an institutional violation and would
be hard to prove.
The City Manager stated that she had a discussion with the Police Chief who wanted to know
if there was City Council support to clean up the neighborhoods.
Council Member Ahrens stated this would allow one car to be for sale. The City Attorney
pointed out that it could not be one car and one snowmobile.
Council Member Ahrens stated that she did not want to see cars for sale downtown, but one
in a yard was okay. She suggested adding "Staff will use reasonable common sense in
enforcing" to the bottom of the ordinance.
Council Member Hanus asked if removing "any street" would allow a single car in front of a
house to be for sale. The City Attorney stating that removing that phrase would allow any
number of cars to be in the street.
Council Member Weycker wondered if a purpose or intent clause could be added. The City
Attorney stated that the problem would be that the person enforcing the ordinance might not
be clear on the intent.
16
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
Council Member Brown suggested tabling this item and directing Staff to go back and work
out the issues. The City Attorney stated that he felt the ordinance was clear as written.
Weycker moved and Brown seconded the following resolution:
ORDINANCE 112-2000
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 700:30 OF THE CITY CODE
BY ADDING ORDINANCE
PROHIBITING THE DISPLAY OF
VEHICLES AND CONTENTS FOR
SALE AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS.
Discussion:
The City Attorney pointed out that the words ', except streets" should also be added to the
third line of the ordinance.
Amendment by Weycker to add the words ", except streets" to the third line of
the ordinance. Brown accepted this amendment.
Mayor Meisel called the question.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.12 DISCUSSION/ACTION ON MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION.
The City Manager asked if there was any interest in volunteering for the position. Council
Member Weycker asked whether this would be appropriate for a Staff member. Council
Member Hanus stated he did not want Staff holding this position.
MOTION, by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to take no action on this request.
Discussion:
Council Member Weycker stated that she disagreed and felt this would be an inside track on
what was happening with the Watershed. Council Member I-Ianus stated that it did not sound
to him like the volunteer would have much technical input.
17
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIU~$- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
Mayor Meisel called the question.
AYES: 4
NAY: 1 (Weycker)
Motion carried.
Tom Casey addressed the Council and stated that he felt people in the community could help
with this and suggested advertising in the Laker. He felt that this could provide information
and cooperative links between the Watershed and the City.
Council Member Brown stated that he disagreed with this.
The City Manager stated that the volunteer would need to give a report to Council after each
meeting in order for there to be a benefit. Mayor Meisel pointed out that there are four
meetings annually.
1.13 WORKSHOP: DISCUSSION ON GUIDELINF.~ FOR AN ETHICS POLICY.
The City Manager stated that ethics policies are common for cities in order to establish
principles for a positive image of elected officials.
Council Member Brown stated that he felt this should include all of the Commissions and
Council Member I-Ianus stated that it should include all applicants also.
The City Manager stated that in her prior positions, the auditors required this annually.
Council Member Weycker asked whether this information would be available to the public.
The City Attorney confirmed that it would be.
Council Member Weycker asked the City Manager whether in her previous positions, the
policy covered Commissions. The City Manager stated that it did not.
Mayor Meisel pointed out that the policy requested the sources of income, but not the actual
amount. Council Member Hanus questioned what income would be included citing examples
of child support and alimony.
The City Attorney pointed out that this was constructed using the statues and documents used
by other cities.
18
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
Council Member Hanus questioned why Disclosure A was open-ended. The City Attorney
stated that it would be possible to have dealings with a business that was not located in the
city.
Council Member Hanus questioned why Disclosure B was 50%. The City Attorney stated
this was meant to define a controlling interest. Council Member Hanus stated that this was
wrong at any percent.
Council Member Hanus stated that item 8A would not allow discussion of cases with citizens
if 3 council members were present. The City Attorney stated that the language may need to
be modified to read "as a group." He also stated that the Council Members really should not
be discussing cases as this could cause a misperception on the part of the public.
Council Member Hanus asked what the purpose of this ethics policy would be. The City
Manager stated that it would put all the information in one place to use as a training piece
for new members.
Council Member Hanus stated that he did not believe this would stop allegations from being
made. Council Member Weycker stated that she thought the policy would help. The City
Attorney added that it would give the perception that ethics are important to the Council.
Council Member Hanus stated that the guidelines would be picked apart and interpreted.
Council Member Brown stated that he agrees with this.
Council Member Hanus suggested a set of guidelines as a policy without disclosure. Mayor
Meisel stated that she did not feel the disclosure was a big deal and Council Member Ahrens
stated that she felt it was generic enough.
Council Member Ahrens stated that she did not want this to become an ordinance and
Council Members Brown and I-lanus agreed with that. The City Attorney suggested finding
language that could be agreed on and calling it a policy.
Council Member Weycker pointed out that if this was not made an ordinance, the next City
Council might not even see it. Council Member Ahrens stated that there was no guarantee
that a new Council would read the ordinance.
Council Member Hanus asked how honest mistakes in disclosure would be dealt with if this
were made an ordinance. Council Member Weycker stated the intent of the disclosure was
19
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
to bring the conffict to the council member's attention so that they could abstain from voting
when necessary.
Mayor Meisel stated that she had no problem with the disclosure and that the ethics should
be left as guidelines.
MOTION, by Brown to accept the ethics policy as guidelines only and not as an
ordinance.
Discussion:
Council Member Ahrens asked whether it would be policy to have the disclosure completed
when a council member was elected.
The City Attorney stated that the last section under the heading of 'Hearing" would go away
if this became a guideline.
Council Member Brown withdrew his motion at this time.
Council Member Hanus asked what ~beneficial interest" in Disclosures E was referring to.
The City Attorney stated this was the opportunity to receive income.
MOTION, by Ahrens, seconded by Mayor Meisel for discussion, to adopt the
policy and begin disclosure.
Mayor Meisel suggested amending the Motion to include the Commi~ions and to
direct the City Attorney draw up a disclosure form. Council Member Ahrens
accepted this amendment.
Discussion:
Council Member Weycker stated that she felt this should be an ordinance in order to give it
more impact. Council Member Hanus stated he was against this as he felt it needed more
work.
Council Member Ahrens pointed out if this was left as a policy it could be changed as
needed.
Mayor Meisel called the question.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MIN1UTES- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
AYES: 2
NAYS: 3 (Hanus, Brown, Weycker)
Motion failed. 2-3.
MOTION, by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to table this issue.
AYES: 4
NAYS: I (Weycker)
Motion carried. 4-1.
1.14 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Advisory Park and Open Space Commi~ion meeting minutes: Sept. 14
Council Member Weycker stated that the Park Commission would like to meet with the
Council and discuss the working relationship between the two groups. Mayor Meisel asked
Council for their interest level on this.
Council Member Hanus confirmed that the last meeting between the two groups was last
spring. The City Manager confirmed it was in April or May when the capital plan was
discussed.
Council Member Brown stated that he did not think it was beneficial to meet until after the
election because the Council could change.
Council Member Ahrens stated that the City normally has a holiday time get together, but
because there was no City Manager last year, the get together was not held. She asked the
City Manager whether she was the one who raised the issue of the appreciation night for this
year. The City Manager stated that Commission members requested the appreciation night.
Council Member Ahrens confirmed that this idea was brought to the City Council by the City
Manager who felt that the lack of a party had been an oversight.
Tom Casey addressed the Council and stated that the Park Commission was suggesting the
meeting for the sake of good government.
Council Member Brown stated that he had no problem with such a meeting, but felt it should
be held after the Council was set.
21
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINI-ITES - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
Mr. Casey stated that this was an emergency situation and this was a good time to get
started.
Council Member Ahrens stated that finding time for such a meeting would be difficult.
Mr. Casey suggested the meeting take place at 6:30 on a Thursday Park Commission meeting
night.
B. LMCD Correspondence.
C. Memo on Hennepin County Member At-Large Appointments.
D. Notice of public hearing from Hennepin County Board of
Commi~ioners.
E. Letter from Metropolitan Council on appointment.
F. Letter from Metropolitan Council on Town Hall Meetings.
G. Letter from Hennepin County on Fair Housing.
H. Communication from Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative.
I. Financial Reports through August 2000.
J. Notice of new compost location.
K. AMM Fax News.
L. Notice of new web site address.
M. Westonka Senior Center President's Message.
N. Planning Commk~ion lVIinutes: September 11, 2000.
AD.IOURNMENT:
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn the meeting at 12:00 a.m. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
22
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$ - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
Kandis Hanson, City Manager
Attest: Mayor Meisel
23
I'AYMi;,NT BILLS
DATE: OCTOBER 1_0~ _2000_.-
IllI,I,S A¢_C_OIJlqT S PAYABLE
BATCI 1 tt
~0092
t0093 .
TOTAL BILLS $469,653.91
AMOUNT
$237,225.79
$232,428.12
AP-C0~-01
YEN~JR I',V,qI CE .BuE HOLD
NO. l~'OICt H*-SR DATE DAlE STATUS
231091
A~SI£RDA~I PRIN1];~G
A0363 29~166
10/10/00 i0/I0/00
VEI. DO~t TOTAL
1~/10100 lO)lO/O0
APF EMERGENCY REPAIR
VE~<DOR TOTAL
A047U I14295
AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO VENDDP TOTAL
19742500
lt/lO/30 10/10/00
10/10/00 10/10/00
32o313~0
32631100
~oELLbOY CORPdRAT i ON
900750o9
91025277
lb/lO/Or lO/lb/OO
lo/lO/O0
lo/IO/O0
V£NuOV TOTAL
1: Ii0/0~ lGIlOlO~
10/10/00 lO/lO/O0
~O~BLK SLATES LLLCIRlC So~ VELP{;P TOTAL
56520 uODgl~
lt/iC/OO iC/1~/00
;IkERSH£LL dO~:ES VE~DOF. TOTAL
C0~5,
P U
g.b6
5.06
g.~5
2.75
4.42
59.04
59.04
2t9.00
219.00
219.00
23u.00
230.00
230.00
1,O54.55
1,~5~.55
2,1&0.~5
2,180.$5
32.41
32.41
174.28
17~.25
c.J5
4046.44
117.92
117.~
3S.i6
i51.0~
lO0.OO
~.77
3.72
P C H A S E J 0 U k'~
CITY OF MOoND
DE SC,~ I PT
E,<PLOY~fkT F3F:;5
FMPLOY~IF';T FC)nMS
[,~PLDYMFt:T FORMS
EMPLOYMEKT FUPMS
E'KPLOYMEhT FOPuS
EMPLOYMENT
E~'PLOY~:NT .FJPMS
EhPLOYMEhl FORMS
E~IPLJYMFNT FOP~!S
JRNL-CD
VEHICLE I"'SPL CT IOW
JRNL-CD
REPAIR WELLHUUSE #5
JR NL-CD
LI ~lJOP
JF, NL-CD
LI,~UOR
JRNL-CD
MISCELL$:q--_OU5
JRNL-CU
BAGS
JRNL-CD
JRHL-CD
FLOUHSCENT BdL:,S
J:!NL-CD
FL UU,k'S C E NT 5uLSS
JPNL-CD
REFUND VARiAKCE FEE
d~V,~LI.,~F !)iX CqOL, EIC
MAVOL!,~F hex C JOt, ETC
m~VGLIN~. r.,LX C&OL, ETC
A L
ACCOUNT
Ol-~OAO-21OC
01-~090-2109
01-4140-2100
01-4190-2100
01-4340-2100
Ol-42t, o-21oo
71-7100-2106
73-7300-2100
7~-7g00-2100
i0!0
22-4170-3820
1010
73-7300-4200
101o
71-7100-9510
!Gl0
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-2200
lOlo
71-7100-2200
lOlO
01-4320-2300
1010
70-7~00-230U
1010
01-3510-900~
01-~2o0-225~
73-7300-2~5(,
70-7800-2250
AP-CC2-Gi
Fi N'.., u F I '.JVh ] CE DUE dOL?)
Nb.. I:,,,'OiCL k!m',:_,R F,$T.:- DAlE ~TATUS
35Wilg
ib/lO/O~
ChAMPiO,'; AuTu VE.t:DOr~ TOTAL
CU~i
lo/10,~00 lO/~ C,/O0
CF;]EF SUPPLY V[NDOF' ~OTAL
C0920 O00g15
1C/lO/O0 lO/tO/O0
CITY OF ~O~NU VENDgP TOTAL
C09bO ~59.59
COAST TO C~AST
C09?U 61351100
01356110
COCA COLA
Cl104 001003
tbA;~ ICK AhD
ClilO 000'{25
lO/1C/OO 10/i6/00
VF NbOF. TOTAL
lO/iO/OC i0/} 0/00
1J/tO/O0 10/10/00
:;91TLI:,G-?ID.,,,.~T VE~,[)OR TOl AL
lO/lO/O;) 10/10/o0
~[kTZ, c.A V[t,'uOF: TOTAL
lU/iO/O0 10/1(;/00
V EK D,gL' TOTAL
P b R C n ~ S E J O U F: N A t
C] TY OF "?O~,L)
A~.~OU,,T DESCRIPT 13:,
11.15 JRNL-C['
21.28 CO/i~O LAMP DOU!.LE
21.22
32.44
44.21 '3LUV[ 5TR~P
44.21 JR:iL-cD
44.21
10.~6 oB-go ~TEK At<D S£~ER
16.46 JRNL-CD
16.46
G2.44 Og~O0 '<ISCELLA'~EOLI5 SI. IPPLI~.-,~c
177.37 0~]-00 F, ISCF_LLANEOUS S rePLIES
A4.47 O,k-O0 ?:ISF[LLA':FOU$ SUPPLIES
' 3.79 ' OE-O0 MISCEL[A:;EOUS SUPPLIES
~4.94 08-00 ~qlSCELLA~EO']S SUPPLIES
2~.10 06-00 ~ISCiLLA;~EOU5 SUPPLIES
100.46 ~';-OO ~IbCr ' :~
~ .... L~A .OL'5 SUPPLIES
20.73 O8-OU F!SC[LLAhEOUS SUPPLIES
Z~.70 0~-00 ~']SC[LLAN{OUS SUPPLIES
26.iS 05-00 ~,ISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES
33.73 0~-00 fqISC~LL~NFOU5 SIImPLIES
17.0Z O~;-O0 '~]SCELLA~;EOUS SUPPLIES
7~.55 69-00 ';iSCELL~'{EOUS SUUPLIES
7C.5S O~-eO ~SCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES
7o.5~ OS-PO ~ISC[LLA~EOUS SUPPLIES
b4.96 ;iix
04.9,t JP!,t-CP
90.96 JRI,L-CD
3,6~o.00 0o-00 PF(OFESSIONAL SE;~vICFS
3,o~0.00 JRNL-C~
3~9o.00
~2b.OO CLI,~: Al tY;..:WJOh A'~r~ $OL'THVIE~
820.U0 J~'NL-Cu
lOlO
01-4280-23!0
lolO
22-417n-2260
71-7100-3740
1010
01-4340-2200
01-4340-2300
01-4340-2330
01-4020-411t
01-4280-375~
01-4340-5110
22-4170-2200
73-7300-2300
73-7300-2310
73-7300-2230-
78-7800-2200
7~-7800-230(;
01-~2~0-2250
73-7300-2250
73-7800-2250
lO10
71-7100-9540
71-7100-954~
01-,110-3120
!ulO
01-42~0-4200
]u1u
AF -C & 2-,',)1
'¢ENDUR INVO).CE t.)U,[~ HOLD
N{i. IqVOlCE k~'~P DATE DATE STATUS
,)/',~,/kb E~,!:.:<uE,,CY ECblr"q, Lhl
D1200 1!~530
i1~542
111251
111203
V[kbOL T~T,~ L
iJ/iO/OL 1G/Ic/o0
lO/lO/O0 lO/lO/O0
iC/lO/O0 lC/lO/O0
iO/1C/O0 lO/IC/O0
DAY mIST;<I:DLII ING COHPA:,Y
.)1300 0330O5
DIxCO E:~,SRAV I NG
~420 ~85738
667316
0B~551
11472 iOVlO
n~:[{i,,DEL, DYEIEKS
C1490 000906
:cc_~ O;,'OS AmD Sobs
::1 515 1376
E-Z r<ECYCLINb
,31750 41=170
V E h' DO F, TOTAL
13/10/00 iC/10/PO
' VEUDOF TOTAL
13/1£/00 ZC'/IO/uO
iu/lO/O0
] ~/i(,/0o lO/lO/OD
1¢/t0/00 1C/lb/O0
li!/!O/OS lO/1C/OO
=.,U. k TOIAL
10/10/03 lO/lO/OO
IbC. vLkoO~ TOTAL
13/10/00 iO/!C/O0
I',C '¢'7t.~Dq~- TC')TAL
1t;/l¢/Od lO/IL, lO0
VE kDOi-? TOTAL
P U
AMDU:,~T
2V.49
516.35
51~.35
7~a.~O
2.559.25
2.559.25
13.75
!3.75
3B70.i5
5.81
5.61
5.dl
34~.00
7,077.L;0
7,077;80
S.OO
$.00
321.30
321.30
424.45
4~4.45
817§.55
894.60
g94.6~
b9~.60
2gE.Ol
295.61
295.01
0.779.35
&.779.35
6779.35
26.74
26.74
k C H A S [- J 'd U R '4 A
DESCq ! PT I9i~
SEER
JRt;L-Cb
DEir,
JR:~L-CD
oEER
J~'NL-Ch
;~I$CSELLA~,!FOdS ,'~O'q-TAXA~LE
J~,,L-C~
TWO LI:~E ~<AME PLATE
JP t,'L- C D
5EE~ KEGS
JKKL-CL
bEEr.,
JRNL-CD
BEE? KEGS
Jq',L-CU
BEER
JRNL-CD
BEER
JRNL-CD
SIREN bOARD
jr~ t~L -C O
HA:,,HOLE ADJUST:~Et;T PII:GS
Jn~,~L-CD
09-00 CLJ;<;SIU!- SERVICE
JR~L-CD
3o-05-0¢ ~AT5
00-05-00 ~AT5
ACC OUr~T N IJ t'~ u, E R
71-7100-9530
l~lu
71-7100-9530
lulO
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9550
1610
01-4020-2200
1010
71-7100-g530
10.
71-7100-9530
lOlO
71-7100-9530
1GlO
71-7100-9530
lOlO
71-7100-9530
lOlO
01-4150-5000
1010
75-7g00-2300
lulO
7u-q27n-4200
1010
01-42~0-225C
73-7300-2250
AP-C02-0i
V£N00R ] ,~V(', [ CE DUE HC, LD
427242
431749
42/240
427239
43767~
431748
G ~ N SERVICES
,S]77U 046537
S150O 49235/4&959
GARY'S [>IESEL
,3]030 OOiOu4
GINO huS]NARu
S189U gOd930-A
lo/10/00 10/10/00
1.$/1u/0G
10/10/00 10/10/00
10/10/00 i0/10/00
1d/10/00 1D/iO/O0
13/!~/06 iO/!C/O0
1O/10/0,~ LO/io/O0
V--~b0F, T,~IAL
10/10/P5 iO/l$/Oq
V£RDSR I r.)T AL
lu/iO/06 10/] O/OP
SERVICE v E;~DOf-, I~IAL
lt/i0/0C 10/1C,/OO
V E ;~bO~-' IOTAL
1G/1D/OO ]GIlD/GO
P U
20.74
24.76
24.76
24.76
130.50
19.64
!9.04
99.78
99.78
36.i4
3B.14
20.11
20.11
20.12
24.76
24.76
24.76
i34.62
21.I~
21.1~
10.44
!0.4~
10.45
24.76
24.76
24.76
105.ol
555.~7
94o.41
w4~.41
946.41
17,317.97
]7,%17.97
17317.97
131.12
5o.0fi
lg7.12
1F7.12
31.o5
31.05
62.10
R C n ~ S :- J 0
DE scr', I PT lOr,
09-05-00 '~AT5
0~-05-00 U": I FOR MS
09-05-00 Ui*IFOqNS
09-05-06 Ut;IFOKPS
J;,: ~';L-C L:
09-19-00 '" A T 5
JR NL -C D
09-26-00 "~ * TS
JRNL-CD
09-19-00 qATS
JRqL-CD
09-19-00 ~ATS
09-19-00 NATS
09-19-00 ?ATS
00-19-00 UN IF 0;i ~,S
09-19-00 Ui.,I FORMS
'09-19-00 UNIFORMS
JRNL-CD
10 03-()0 HATS
J~:: JL -CJ
09-26-00 "ATS
09-26-00 WATS
09-26-00 HATS
09-26-00 UNIFORMS
09-26-00 ti;; I FOqttS
JR~L-CD
PLAY6ROUND E(;Ui
JFNL-CD
REPAIRS
J-R'~L-CD
C9,~FERENC[ S
;.i[ KT I ~,~G EXPENSSS
JRNL-Ci)
Wt. TEq .'515S500 09-00
wAIER ~515,~'500 09-00
jo ~4 L - C D
A L
ACCOUNT t.]UML~ER
7b-TBOO-2ZSO
01-~2~0-2240
73-7300-2240
75-7800-2240
10!0
71-7100-421o
lO10
01-4320-4210
1010
01-4340-2330
1010
01-4250-2250
73-7309-2250
78-7800-2250
01-4280-2240
73-7300-2240
78-7800-2240
10
71-7100-4210
lO1O
01-4260-2~50
73-7300-2250
7~-7800-2259
01-4250-2240
73-7300-2240
78-7800-2240
1010
01-4340-2310
1010
73-7300-3&]0
1(;10
01-4090-4110
01-4090-412b
1010
01-4020-2200
C1-414r'-410d
? A GE 5
AP-CoS-0i
VEND'dR
NC:. INVOIEE i,~h:¢R
INVOICE DuE HOLD
DATE DAlE STATUS
10/10/06
1U/iO/O0 10/10/00
P u R C H A S L J C; u
CIlY 0f !¢3dN'O
GLEk~OOD
,31~05 80502
GOPHER STALE
31912 063247
O000YEAR TIRL
INGL E;IOOD ........ v Ef!DO.R TOT'AL- 127
!0/!0/00 !0/10/00
ONE-CAL[;-INC-VENDO'k TOTAL -' '
'' I0/10/00 iO/lO/O0
DISTRISUltOH VEkDOk TOTAL
AKOUr, T dESCRIPTION
39.40 WAT[~ ~5158501 09-30
39.40 JENL-CD
14.36 wATEP ~5155502 09-00
5.57 WATER ¢515o502 09-00
5.57 ~ATER ¢515~502 09-00
26.10 JPNL-CD
.60
i05.o0 0~-00 LOCATE5
i05.60 O%-O0 LOCATES
2Ii.FO JRNL-CD
211.20
127.40 TIRES (2)
I27.40 JRNL-CD
127.40
~37 000907
S:~AI~GER3
31970 000920
44.37
10/10/00 lO/lO/O0 44.37
3PE,$ SKI,N/R
~]~72 270371
270372
271271
273648
275649
274455
SHAFT COUPLER, ETC
JRNL-CD
V E .",; D 9 F~ TOTAL
1U/lO/GO 10/!0/09
V£f,DOF TOTAL
10/i0/00 i0/10/00
10/10/00 lO/lo/O0
10/i0/00 lO/lO/O0
10/10/00 10/!0/00
1~/10/00 lO/lO/O0
~kIGjS C'50t'Ef: '~
'31977 OOU919-A
lu/lO/OU ie/lO/O0
COF~DA~,Y VEt~DOP TOTAL
44.37
95,66'
95.66
95.60
403.31
403.31
29.50
29.50
975.95
976.95
1,359.98
1,359.98
140.40
140.40
1,461.78
i,461.78
4371.92
ii&.93
.52
4.55
AW,,,'A CONFFREHCE REIFBUP, SEMENT
JRNL-CD
THRU
THRU
IHRU
T H i,'. U
09-19-00
09-19-00
09-1~-00
09-19-0,)
pc-lo-O(:
PHONE
LONG
L OqO
LOt,5
L 2,',f:
SERVICE
DISTANCE
DISTANCE
D I ST ANCE
[)!SI A',C[
ACCUUi,T :;UHbER
01-4320-2200
lOlU
01-4280-220o
73-7300-2200
7~-7~U0-2200
lulO
73-7300-3125
7~-7500-3125
1010
78-7800-2310
101o
01-4280-2310
101
0i-4200%4110
!olO
71-7100-9520
lolO
71-71oo-952o
lOlO
71-71~0-951D
1010
71-7100-9~20
1~10
71-7100-9520
1010
71-7100-9510
IUIO
01-4320-3220
O1-4!Dn-322u
01-40~0-322u
01-~04C-322~
AP-C~2-O1
v E i¢D'.)k Ir,,v$] CE DuE HOLD
NC'. Ik,/'glCE ~':PbF~ DATL DATE STATUS
UOU915-B
OOu 9.i9-C
3 T ~. H]:~N£SUTA
H2003' 2458 '
d A K,A :,~S ON ANDERSOH
· 4206]. D~4 5541
29~2~9
~21hu 00~872
~FNR CU TREASUKEk
i23U9 2375~6q7
] K UN
2375i635
23752632
J.C. PEr,,,Y
10/1C/Og iC/lO/O0
]C/lO/Ou lO/l'c/oO
lO/lO/O0 i0/10/00
VEUDOR TOIAL
lO/1C/O0 10/10/00
10/10/00 lO/lO/O0
1D/iO/Ou i0/]6/00
IREATtIil;T VEl. bO;. IOTAL
lb/iO/OO 10/10/00
TLCH VENDO[: TOTAL
10/10/00 lO/lOlO0
vE~D:)P TnTAL
1G/IO/O0 IO/lu/O0
10/10/00
i'J/IO/OD iO/]O/O0
OFFICE bOLUTIONS VENDOR TOTAL
000920
10/lO/0o tO/lO/OD
v ;._ tJbO k TOTAL
]
12.15
i42.al
11~ .o3
114.03
AT.oS
47.05
47.a5
142.95
400.i9
I9~.75
i9~.75
19C.75
25 .o0
25.00
~76.&2
90i.~2
35.76
35.76
35.76
3,805 .uO
3,805.00
3~05.00
120.74
120.74
665.07
o65.07
9v.79
09.79
19.99
19.99
20.OD
59.95
5~.VF
~ C fl A S F J 0 U R ,-, A L
CITY DF ~DUNb
OE SC P, 1 PT tON
IHRU O~-iO-O~, LO:,3 PISTA;;CE
THr<U Cv-lC~-O0 LO;;G DISTAKCE
JRHL-CD
THRU 09-19-00 PHC)'~E SERVICE
TH:<U 09-19-00 PHONE SERVICE
THR'U 09-19-00 PHONE'SERVICE
THRU 09-1~-00 PHONE SERVICE
JRNL-CD
~4-01-00 THRU 08-31-00 ADMINIS
JRNL-CD
CONTA!NER DE~I.!RRAGE
JR f~L-CL,
HYDROFLUO ACID/CHLORINE
JRNL-CD
08-00 NFTI,'ORk CHARGES
JD, NL-CD
08-00 kCO,~' ANr3 BOARD
JR NL -C D
0o- 1 U-C P, THRU
JR,'~L-CD
09-10-00 THRU
JR~L-C~)
0g-24-g0 THRU
JP, F~L-C L,
I£,-10-00 COPIER
lO-lO-O0 COPIER
i0-24-00 CODIER
CL C, Tit! ,~d
CLDTHIt:G
CL U T H I ~','G
J:: NL-CU
ALLDW&NCE
ALLUV/,NCE
ALLOWANCE
ACCOU";T NU"'{~ E R
01-4340-322~
01-4190-322C
1013
01-.140-3220
01-,280-3220
73-7300-3220'
78-7800-3229
1010
30-5615-3100
1610
73-7300-2260
73-7300-2256
lOlu
01-,095-3800
1010
01-411024250
1OlO
01-4320-3300
1010
01-4320-3800
1310
01-4140-2140
01-~23C~-22~0
73-7300-22~0
76-7~00-2240
1910
PAGE 7
~P-Co2-01
VE ND 3R
NO. INvOiCE
It;VOICE DUE HOLD
DATE DATE 3TATUS
1103554
1~/10/00 ]0/i0/00
11o3~95
19/10700
1103596
lf./lO/O6 10/!0/00
11o62~o
10/t0/00 I0/10/00
JOHRSON 5ROIHE~S L]~UO~ VFNDO-R TOIAL
K2099 3443i-A
la/lO/O0 1C/lO/O0
34431-~
.... 10/i'0/00~i02i0/00
34431-C
-' 10/10/00 !0/10/00
34,31-5
.... lO/lO/O0 10/10/00
34,-, 31-£
10/I¢/00 lO/lt/O0
3443!-F
- 10/10/00 lO/lO/O0-
34431-6
10/i0/00 i0/10/60
34040-A
10110/06 I0/10/00
34640-b
lu/10/00 i0/10/00
34o40-C
]0/10/00 10110/00
34~46-D
lu/lO/O0 iO/1u/O0
34~46-i
1~/1(:/00 I0/!0/00
3464o-F
lu/16/00 10/!0/00
P d :, C d ;, 5 F J 0 U R :; A L
CITY OF ttrUN3
A~ L) UI,,T
2,361.45
73.20
75.20
189.00
lg~.UO
17g.05
176.05
1,02V.5i
1,629.51
4431.Z1
467.50
467.50
3,53~.96
3,539~9~
55.00
55.00
253.00
253.00
120.34
126.34
204.07
204.07
I10.GO
ll3.Ufl
30.00
30.00
~6.00
96.0~
~O.uO
30 .oo
242.00
242.00
375.00
375.00
2,494.63
2,494.03
jO,;L-CD
J~JL-CD
L ! ,;) LJ 0 R
JnqL-CD
~I ;~E
J~NL-£D
JRr-,L-CD
OE-OO ~';ISCELLA;;EOUS bILLABLE
JRNL-CD
o~-no [~._p~VELOPHENT AP;:A ,~1
JRNL-C~
05-00 EALRC, A PROPERTY AC~UISIT
J~ i,~L -C b
0~-00 ,50t)t~U ;iAI NoT .... T COP
JR'~L-CD
Ot-O0 IKUF VALdE HARDWARE
JP
0~-00 POSI OFFIE[ F',ELOCATION
JRkL-CD
OE-O0 HETP6 PL4IN$ DEViLOPMENI
JO. ~L-C~
0.~-00 b~ILEY V5 CITY
JP NE-C D
05-00 VORTuN LANE VACATION
J~XL-Cb
0F-3"~ Cr)H'~ CT~. BO~',) fLECT]ON
JRNL-CD
0F-00 ~Ft:FF: PER~]I REDUES~
JF-' NL -C u
Og-O0 RAY,AP
J;'. NL-C D
OB-O0 EXECUTIVE
JR ,L-C.~
O~-OO AD~'I' I T:;4T]VF
ACCOLh~T
]010
71-7100-9520
71-7100-9510
lP!O
71-7100-9520
lOlO
7i-7100-9520
55-5880-3100
lulO
55-58~0-3100
10t0
55-5f78-3100
101~
55-5892-3100
1010
55-5gB1-3100
1010
55-5879-3100
1010
55-5894-3100
l~lu
01-4110-3100
1010
01-2300-1099
1010
01-4110-3100
16!0
01-2300-109~
1010
55-5~gl-3i00
1010
01-4110-3100
!OlU
01-4110-%106
AP-C02-O1
f U R C H A S E J 0 U R ~( A L
CITY OF ~19L, ND
v£ krL~oR INVOICE DUE
hq. ]'~,,J]CL N~'SR hATE
HOLD
STATUS
PRE,
At'OUNT DFSC2IPTInh ACCuU:'T NdM~ER A
1,059.~5 J:< NL-C ~; lOiO
34,.~40-m
15/1G/Ob i0/15/00
150.00 05'00 PUBLIC SAFELY 01-41,~0-3100
150.00 JOhL-CL, 10!0
3404~-]
10116/00
2,171.40 g&-O0 PLI~iL1C WORKS 01-42o0-3100
2,171.40 JPWL-CP 1010
34~40~ - . .
iO/1C/O0 lO/lo/O0
!2,00
12.00
OF-O0 -PPOF£S'$ i O~AL SE°VICES' 0i~'23 oo--'i~ 0 ~
JPNL-CD
34046-K
lO/lO/f)O 10/!0/00
45U.,~0" {Jg-O0 FISC PLA:(NI'!6 g INSPECTI 01-41'w0-3100
45[}.40 J°NL-CD 1010
..............................34~46-L ~2.00
!0/10/00 lO/lO/O0 42.00
'OggOO'-PPOFESSIONA[ SERVICES'
JRNL-CD
01-2300-1008
1010
34046-~ ........... 15~.0Q
lO/iO/CO !0/10/00
'05-'00 PRoFESSIoNAL SERvICFS 01-2300-1080
J~NL-CD !OlO
34045-N
10/10/00 LO/lO/O0
120.00
120.00
08-0'0 PmO~ESSIONAE SERVICES
JRNL-CD
'- 0i'23-~0-i103-
101
lb/lO/OC lf,/iU/O0
12.00 - 0~-00 PARK ~i.~D RECREATION
1;'.00 J:,.,L-CD
01-4340-3100
1010
VENDOR TOTAL
121o1'15
12m22 136414i
1Li/lC;/OO lq/10/gO
!4~.45
143.45
t4~.46
~45.3~
MI SCELLAE~,'OUS EQUIPMENT
MI 3CLLLAEhOUS EeUIPME~'T
MI $CELLAEUOUS E(~UIPM£NT
J=! NL -C [;
01-4250-231C
73-73u0-2310
7~-7800-2310
lOlO
13V5179
10/10/00 lO/lC/00
18~.03 KON-FLAM PENETRATING OIL
lg&.03 JRNL-Cb
73-7300-2310
1010
LSWSU~ P,:ObUCTS. IbC.
V:- ~,DOk TOTAL
633.3~
12920 01o909
10/10/00 i0/10/00
28.16 FUEL PU~P
2~.16 JRKL-CD
01-4340-3~20
1010
LONG LAKE PU.EF: £CUIPZENl V,--t;DUE IF~TAL
26.16
L293~ 5-301773
10110/00 i0/10/00
5.i] STOPLIbt~T SWIT,C~
5.11 J~NL-CD
O1-42bO-3tlO
1010
LOWELL'S AUIOHOTIVE/ZITCON: vL~:D0k TOTAL
5 .I1
"! 297 u ~;Od 920
1~/10/00 i5/lu/O0
2,792.5o PAYMERT REC~HFST ."-5 FINAL
2,bEi.55 PAY'4ENT RC[~UEST ~5 FI~:AL
v6J.52 PAYMENT RE'~UEST ~5 FI~;AL
960.51 P4YMENT RE'.~UEST ~"5 FINAL
7,5o5.14 J~WL-CD
30-5650-5000
01-4250-5000
73-7300-5000
78-7800-5000
lO10
~'AC-IE!:E5 CCJqST[ JCl IJN ]NC V£':D(:r, T~TAL
75o5.14
;~ A 6 E 9
AP-Cb2-01
CENDOR INVOICE DuE ~OLD
r~Go INVO1CE N!<:',P, D,~TE D^'fE STATUS
81/5
~214
~235
· ~At~L I N' S TRUCKINC
~,303 O 200024
12110/00 Zt'/10ZG0
10/10/00 !0/iC/00
10/10/09 i0/10/00
P U E C H A S E J 0 ',J R N A L
CITY OF ~4F, LI,,'D
lO/lO/O0 i0/10/00
APUUNT
!4.00
14.00
~.70
04.70
11.90
ll.VO
DE 5CR! PT
09-17-00 ')[LIVERY CHARGE
JP I-,L-C:)
C9-21-00 ,"):iLIVERY CHAR,SE
J~NL-CD
07-25-00 ~[LIVLRY CMAPGE
JkNL-C~:,
112.00
112.00
VLNDOR IOTAL 222.00
09-2g-00 DELIVERY CHADGE
JRNL-CO
3,104.00 6ELR
lO/lO/OO 10/10/00 3,104.00 JRNL-CD
92.u0 ~]NE " '
92.00 JRNL-CD
200025
lO/lO/O0 iO/lO/O0
2000574 ............... 5L~. 60--- -bE ER
!O/10/O6 i0/10/00 54.60 JRNL-CD
13/10/00 10/10100
lb/iO/OO
~'3204 547
uuiOul
24~
3,019.25 BEER
3,019.25 JWNL-CD
7.92 SHEARS
7.~2
?.~2
8.o~, PER,lIT TO CARRY HA'~DGU~!S
g.o6 JqNL-CD
3~.00 I:CP D, kEAKF4ST 11-13-00 (2)
34.00 JqNL-CD
1~0.00 WEH MOhTHLY KAINTENANEE 2000
l~0.d0 JRNL-CO
J22.~6
72.50 WAT~C TESTS (10)
72.50 JRNL-£D
72.50
5,D23.50 0C-0O SALARIES
o30.~0 09-00 DRILL5
i,250.00 0~-00
6,903.50 JRNL-CD
1~/10/00 i0/10/00
CHIEFS oF POLICE V£~:JeK lOTAL
'-1347U 55013
VALLEY TELTING LA:;OnA[O \'F~DOh TOIAL
'~349U 00u930
10/1O/0b i0/10/00
nOON~ F]2E DEDAR'IMENI VE::gOi: TOTAL
ACCOUNT NuMSER
71-7100-9o00
71-7100-~&00
1~10
71-7100-9o00
1010
71-7100-9000
1010
7i-7100-9~0'-
1010
71-7160 9520
1010
71-7100-P550
1010
7i-7i00-9530
101
22-4170-2270
10!0
01-4140-2100
lO!O
01-4140-4110
1olo
01-4140-3500
10!0
78-7g00-4215
lOlO
22-4170-1390
22-~170-13~0
22-4170-138U
1~1o
YE NDoR
hlO. I ~;',',D I CE
~750~ OP13v2
P b r, C ti A S E J G d R N A L
CITY OF
INVOICE
F~ATE
DUE HOLD
DATE STATUS
A"' UUr,T L,[SC~ IFT]ON
lb/lO/06 10110100
6c,,?~b. O0 2gao SLATE Fire /,ID
6~,79~.02 J~NL-CL)
mgONm FIRE RELIEF ASSN VE;4DON TOTAL
10/10/00
,IF'LS" DE~T UF HEALTh'-,.'-SUP~: VE~DOd TOTAL
~3660 2742V0
12&.se O~-nO LSh ANALfSIS SUPSTANCES
124.~'0
24.81 MISCELLAN~OU5 FILTERS
~4.~i '~ISCELLAN~uUS FILTERS
24.~I HI$C~LLANSUUS FILTERS
10/10/00 lO/1u/O0 74.~3
:~APAWATLRTOwN PA~TS £ENTE VE~:DOR TOTAL
143737 '00091~
10/10/00 I0/10/00
r~FXTLL CJN.qU,,ICAI IGN~, INC VENDui.: TOTAL
N E W~ Ah' SIGNS
~3~1C 3035v]6
JqNL-CD
7~.43
2~.13 09-i~-~0 FLEET Oi SKINNER GREG
26.13 09-i~-00 FLEET O1 SKINNER 6REG
2~.13 09-I~-00 ~LEET O1 SKINNER GREG
77.46-' 0~'i'8'00 FLEET 02 FACKER JA~ES
lo/1C/Ou LC'/]O/uO
VEhDOP TOTAL
77.46
3V.O0
39.~0
39.00
39.~0
3¥.00
39.00
39.00
3~.00
13.oO
13.00
13.0~
3~.~6
39.00
76.~
O9-1&-O0 FLEET 03 MCCAFFREY TO
09-18-00 FLEET 04 HETIZ DONALD
09-1~-00 ~LEET 05 JOtt~JSON TtMO
09-1~-00 FLEET 06 ~ENK£ JERRY
OO-lS-OO FLEET 07 AL
09-1E.-O0 FLEET 05 tiAR~INA DAMO
O~-lg-O0 FLEET 09 KIV!bTO SCOT
09-18-00 FLEEI 10 GRADY DANIEL
09-1~-00 :LEET 11 HETIZ FPANK
09-1~-OC FLEET 12 '~ELSON JOYCE
09-15-oC FLEET 12 NELSON JOYCE
00-16-00 FLEET 12 ~ELSON JOYCE
O~-i8-O0 ~LEET 13 JAYCD 5RAD
O~-i~-O0 FLEET ~4 RAHN JODI
u~-16-O0 FLEE~ !5 SUTHERLAND J
39.00 09-1&-oO :LE[~ lo JOHNSON TIM
39.00 OO-l~-O0 FLEET ]7 dENKE JEARY
3~.00 09-18-00 FLEET 18 HARDINA DAMO
3~.00 09-18-00 FLEET 19 KIVISTO SCOT
39.00 OC-18-O0 FLEET 20 6RADY DANIEL
39.00 09-1~-00 FLFET 21 HETIZ FRANK
39.00 O~-l~-OC FLEET 22 HEIETZ DONAL
39.00 O?rlc-90 ~LEET 23 AL
1,051.21 JkwL-CD
2051.21
66.07 DC' "JOT EhTER SI G';S
t~.O7 JqNL-CL
F, 6.07
3F2.,-,5 !~FT~rk, GAC, KET, ETC
ACCOU:JT N U"I ~ ER
95-3350-0000
lO]O
01-~ 140-3i4~,
1010
01-4280-2310
73-7300-2310
78-7800-2310
lclO
01-~280-3220
73-7300-3220
70-7800-3220
01-4340-32'2-0
81-4350-3220
01-4280-3950
01-42B0-3950
73-7300-3950
73-7300-3950
78-7800-3950
76-7~00-3950
01-4260-3950
01-42~g-3950
01-4280-3950
73-7300-3950
76-7800-3950
01-4340-3950
01-4040-~950
01-4190-3220
C1-42b0-3956
73-7300-3750
7B-7800-3950
7O-TEOO-395U
01-4280-3950
01-4280-3950
01-4280-3950
73-7300-3950
10!0
01-42a0-2560
1010
73-7300-23P~
~P-£02-01
VENDOR ]hvrdl CE DdE HOLD
ND. IN,/OICF_ N?bR [)ATE DA'I'E STATUS
~OP, TfiERN
?3950 0009~7u44
WORK5 SdPPL VEhDOF. T~bTAL
1§/I0/00
VENDOR"TOTAL
lO/lC/O0 10114/00
PAGENET dF ff]hhESOlA V£~:DDR TOT$L
P4000 53200186
10/10/00 I0/10/00
53Z002~6
10/10/00 lO/lO/O0
PEPSi-COLA COMPSNY VENDOR TOTAL
647767
10/10/00 lO/lO/OO
647788
10110/00 1C/lO/O0
0477~9
04~921
04~922
P4030 35093
:NNACLE
ld/1C/OC, 10/10/00
lo/lO/OO 10/10/00
10/10/00 I0/!0/00
SPIRITS, ~: VENDOR TOTAL
35394
35380
3570~
35714
lO/lO/OO I0/10/00
lU/iO/O0 iG/lO/O0
!O/l~/O0 16116/00
lO/lC/O0 i0/10/00
lo/lO/O0 10/10/00
DISTPIBdTING VENDOR TDIAL
P b R C H ~ S E J 0 d R
CIIY OF ~OuNL
A~OUNT
1,032.~4
1.032.94
1415.79
21.75
21.75
21.75
162.99
162.~9
i62.~
124.56
124.56
77.36
77.36
DE SCF: I PT 1 ON
,':ETEi,: CF~UPLINGS, TlC
JRNL-CD
CAT I
JRNL-C3
09-14-00 THRu
JR NL - C ;)
JP, NL-CD
MIX
JR :iL - C D
JRNL-CD
~,I
JRNL-CD
H! X
JRNL-Cb
LIGUOR ' '
JRNL-Cb
~ I hE
Jr~ NL-CD
CIGARETTES
JRNL-CD
CIGARS
JRNL-CD
CIGARETTES
JmNL-CD
C]bAR~TTES
JR NL-CD
CIGARS
J R :'~ L - C L)
201.92
572.~0
572.80
476.60
476.80
00.00
90.UO
341.35
341.35
240.30
2~0.30
1721.25
904.57
994.57
5~.70
58.70
924.27
924.27
9§6.U7
966.07
137.05
137.~5
30~1.26
h ~, L
12-13-00 PAGERS
ACCOUNT fAdMbEE
73-7300-2300
101o
Ol-414,"-417o
I010
01-4140-395u
71-7100-9540
1~10
71-7100-9540
1010
71-7100-o54o
71-71oo-9520
1{110
71-71u0-9540
lO10
71-71o0-95i0
1010
71-7100-9520
1010
71-7100-o550
1010
71-71o0-9550
1010
71-7100-9550
101o
71-?100-955~
1010
71-7100-9550
lOlo
AGE 12
AP-CO2-01
vEND3FI INVOICE SUE HOLD
NO. I:q';91CE N~'i~R [;ATE DATE STATUS
R C H A S E J L)'d R ~,' 4 L
CITY OF ~':PJNg;
AEOUNT DE SCP, I PT I gt-~
ACC UU~T Nd Y B Ei-:
,4171 37':~ 3o0- O 0
16/lO/OO I¢710/00
g~1~46-00
10/10700 I0/16/00
6g1856-00
10110100 lO/IGlOO
582158-00
10/16/00 10/16/00 '"
b82230-00
10210100 10/!0/00' - -
~UALITY ~I~E g SPIRITS VERDOR TOTAL
24209 2070
lO/lC/O0 10/10/00
RANDY'S SANITATION VENDOR TOTAL
~423~ 000925
lO/lO/Ob lO/lO/O0
~<ECYCL]N6 ASSOCIATION OF M VENDOR TOTAL
515529
51~.546
10/10/00
10/10/00 !O/lt/O0
iL~/IO/O0 iO/!C/O0
.)A. :,.-~;N£R Tr:A:;SPRGIAIIO:,,::: VE':DOF, TOTAL
~<429U 76426
77160
RON'b IC£ COI.;PALY
3L34~ 022017215
02Z017405
02~0i7452
10/16/00 i0/10/00
1O/10/0b 10/lb/G0
VEf:DOF: IOTAL
!O/lO/O0
lu/lO/OO 10/10/00
] {,/16/00 i ,9/1 C'/O0
3,211.58 L!
3,211.5°, J:i;,~L-CD
60.71 .~I 3CELLAENOUS
60.71 JRi,~L-CD
3-9c~0.30 LI,JUOR
3,~0.30 aR;iL-CD
40.4g
40.4% JRNL-CO
o40.84 JRqL%CD
7949.91
106.52 09-00 TRASH SERVICE
10o.52 JP;JL-CD
i0o.52
125.00 i1-02-00
125.00 J- ~L-CS
125.00
23.9I 09-13-00 DELIViRY CHARGES
23.91 JRNL-CD
1~.13 09-27-00 nELIV~Ry CHAPGES
19.13 J~L-C~
23.91 09-15-00 ~ELIVERY CHAPSES
23.91
6~.95
74.~2 ICE
74.~2 JRNL-CD
106.60
lOb.oO J~L-CD
ig3.42
75.22 Pg~ER TRI,!,
~.0.~2 Jq~L-Cb
ig~.56 OIL F~LI[~, HLAD[, ETC
109.56 J~L-CD
~ ~ ET
202.5S U~I VERSt, L CqO. ~, C
202.58 J;~,L-Cu
71-7100-95!0
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
7i-71oo-951o
1~10
71-7100-9S20
1010
71-7100-9520
iOiO
01-4320-3750
lOlO
70-4270-4110
1010
55-58~0-3100
lOlO
55-557e-3100
]010
01-4020-4120
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
7i-71U0-9550
01-4280-2310
1910
01-4340-3~20
1010
01-4340-3~P0
m
rag_
AP-Cg2-Oi
VENDOR 1NVOiCE DUE mOLD
NO. I~:VCiCE N!-;DR [:ATE D~TE STATdS
_~CH~!<i,ER S S,)KS v'_''hr'':- .. ~.,,, TfiT~L
S435S C310o0
6CmW~A5~ INC.
~391 2973
2974
2975
2976
lO/lOlO0 10/10/00
VELD:)R TOTAL
lO/lO/OD t0/10/00
10/10/00 i0710/00
10/iC/00 lO/IO/O0
S~OREWOOD TREE SiF. VICE VEKDOL TOTAL
54415 000929
10710/00 10/10/00
ER
S4430 62212
)CS PRINI
~LS&O 5905
STERNE EL[CTR1C CO
~z, 60 ~ i~,5750.1
ST RE 1 C HEh' ' 5
34605 20~-~ 415
SIS CONSoLTA4IS LTD
V= ~'~p9 R TOTAL
]O/]O/O6 !0/10/00
VEt, DOb TOTAL
lo/iO/OO 10/i0200
V£NDOR IOTAL
ia/lC/OD iO/lO/O0
VEt;DOR TOTAL
:]3/.i. 0/03 10/10/00
VE!CD:') k TOTAL
T4703 000825
000926
T-CHLK SYSTEMS LLC
T4723 0009:2
i~/it/OG 1C/lO/O~
10/10/00 10/10/00
VENDOR TOTAL
1'~/10/00,, lO/lO/O0
p b R C ,~ A 5 E
CITY OF ~qb'F3
J rd U R N A L
A~OUNT DE ~C!~,I Pl l g:;
4F5.36
55.25 STt..~iP wITu ADD~5SS
55.25 JPNL-CD
55.25
191.70 507~ GU~w3UD PEMOVE TR~E
191 .?0 JR{L-CD
5~0.43 DPU~OHD/IUXEbO DAMAGED TREE
580.~3 JRt:L-CD
290.21 DOVE CD~MONS D[MOVE TREE
~290.2I J~NL-CD
495.54 5053 6P. ANDVIEV REMPVE TREE
405~54 J~NL-CD
!557.U8
252.00 PLI~L ICAT]9N5
252.G0 JRNL-CD
252.00
187~.17 ::~U S I NE SS ENVELOPES
187.17 JPNL-CD
187.17
752.39 REPLACE LIGHT POLE
752.39 JRNL-CD
752.39
157.~3 ~IN! 5Ar, ~'~D FILTEF
157.03 J~ ;,iL-C 7.;
157.03
1,850.00 THRtl 09-0~-00 F'ROFESSI'.)NAL 5ER
1,55~.00 JP~L-CD
1850 .O0
140.00 0Q-O0 WE~SITE & REGISTRAIION
140.00
25.00 10-00 ~BSiTE
25.00 JPNL-CD
165 .~0
350.~0 RSYCnOLnG][~L qIrF BUFTOw
350.00
ACCUUNT NuM¢ER
0i-4i40-2100
1010
01-4340-5110
1010
01-4340-5110
1~10
81-4350-5110
01-4340-5110
22-4170-4130
101'
01-4140-2120
1010
01-4280-3710
]010
73-7300-2310
1010
55-5878-3100
lolO
01-4320-3100
lUlO
01-4320-3106
1010
01-4140-3100
1OlO
-~AG~ I¢ P U ~ C ~ A S E J D U q a i L
AP-C~2-C1 CITY OF
?ENDOR 1 ~ ¥(',, ] C [ DUE HDLD
ND. INVDICz NY.::,R DATr D~TE 5T~TdS A~DU~T DfSCkIPTI~
ACCOUNT NUHJER
ILST]T. FO< FO~,£;,S]C PDYC;:: V:-hDGR lnTAL 350.Ue
1473u 224 4i,.o9 09-23-00 PARkI',G ,.:!~]/',TEfJA~,'CE 01-4020-351~,
1U/]{,/6G iOI!'ulO0 4~.69 JRNL-CD lOlO
225 157.29 00-23-00 P!iOPOSES Ac-~..,.~_..,-,~_NTScum
. 157.29 09-23-00 P!;:OPOSES ASS£RS~ENTS
10/10/00 l¢/1G/O0 314:58 JRNL-Ci)
234 26.22 09-23-00 O,~D! NANCE
10/lC/O0 i0/10/OC, ' 2~.22 JRr~L-C L,
THE LAKE~ VEkDOR TOTAL 389.49
T4731 000927 430.40 THRU 09-23-00 HELP WA~TED AD
1O/lO/OG 10/10/00 430.40 JRNL-CD
THE LAKEi~/PION~ER V{t,'DOR TOTAL 430.40
T4770
17~69~ ................... 28~,b0 SEER KEGS
10110100 10/10/00 2R3.00 JENL-CD
205~26 ....
1O/lO/O0
73-7300-3516
78-7200-3510
1010
205g27
01-4020-3510
1010
200475
71-7100-3500
1010
71-7100-9530
10:
24.20 ,';I SCELL/,NE Otis T'AXA~L[
2~ .20 JRNL-CD
4,~92.25 6EER '-
iO/IO/OC 10/10/00 4,692.25 JRNL-CD
lC/i0/00
71-7100-9550
71-7100-9530
lOlO
]Z.iO '! I SC.{L L,L N'[ OUST A>:ARLE 71-7100-9553
12.10 JPNL-CD i010
205476 9,690.95 BEER 71-7100-953o
lO/!O/OO 10/10/00 9,~90.05 JRNL-CP 1010
177075 235.00 BEER rEGS 71-7100-9530
10/10/00 10/10/00 235.00 JRNL-CD
206461 769.~5 SEER
lO/lO/Ou 10/10/00 769.85 JRNL-CD
207142 24.20 P, IX TAXABLE
10/10/00 iO/lO/O0 24.20 JRNL-CD
1b/lO/O0 iC/lO/O0
207143
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9540
1010
3,951.45 B[£R 7i-7100-9530
3,951.45 JFNL-C[~ 1010
THOqP£ r ISTRI~UTIr,'g CO:'fi, PAh N,'£ ;bO~: TF:TAL 20082.10
T4790 41094
10/10/06 i0/10/00
41081
lu/lO/O0 lO/lO/OD
i&U.O8 GRILL, LA'.:P, EIC 01-4340-3~10
lgO.Og JRNL-CD 1010
52.72 LA%P 01-4280-2300
52.72 JRNL-CD 1~10
PA~ 15
AF-Cu2-01
VENDOR IqVOICE DUE ~lOLq
NS. iNVOICE NI~6R DATE PATE STATUS
P U [< C H A S E ,J O U R ~; A L
CITY OF .~;~U'h)
A~oUNT DE S C~-( I P T I ,'5 I,
T460o i2)g2-A
12'~92-5
13007-A
13~07-~
TIME_ SAVER ~FF
361.13 09-13-0(! CUUNCJL § HRA MEETING
361.13 JRNL-CD
~l.O0 0g-14-00 POSC M£ET!N$
%1.~0 J~NL-CD
132.25 09-20-0~ ~ACM
132~2~- JR~L-CD
94.03 0~-25-00 PLANNING hEETINS
~4.6B JRNL-C[,
Ia930 W018434 48
lO/lO/O0 lO/lO/O0 4~
IPENCHERSPLUS, INC ~.~r,
~,~k TOTAL 4~
T4940 19i8C ............... 1'315
10/10/00 10/!0/00 1~15
o69.01
.40 KNIFE SHAPPEN
.4O JDNL-CD
-STATE PUqP
55 25~03
I~YSSEN LAGEROUIST
l&9~5 271425-0
270066-0
271103-0
27216V-0
270749-0
.4O
:57 SEAL'; TRA~NSFOO!tER, ETC
.57 JRNL-CD
CONTROL I V-'_NDOk TOT/~L 1315.57
10/i0/00 I0/i0/00
ELEV~IO VEhDOR TOTAL
lg7.92 i0-00 ELEVATOR SEPFICE
147,92 JRNL-CD
147.92
~3.93 ~;IbCELLAHEOUS ,}FFICE SJPPLIES
43.93 MISCELLANEOUS jFFICE SUPPLIES
43.93 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
43.93 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
43.93 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
2~.04 MISCELLANEOUS ,)FFICE SUPPLIES
14.o4 nlSCELLANEDUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
21.9~ MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
21.97 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
2~2.~8 JRNL-CD
39.69 DIVIDERS/PEmORI COVE~S
3~.69 JRNL-CD
130.95 CALCULATOP, iTC
130.v5 JRNL-CD
1 .~0 HANDSET
1.bO J~NL-CD
143.~3 ~IISCELLANEOU5 OFFICE SUPPLIES
143.g3 JRNL-CD
5.2g MISCELLANFOtlS oFF]CE SdPPLIES
5.25 HISC£LLAN:OU5 oFFICE qUPPL]ES
5.28 MISCELLANE~$HS OFFICE SJPPLIES
269504-0
lO/lO/OO 10/16/00
l:_~/lO/OO 1C/lC/DO
lO/lO/OD iO/IO/O0
lu/lO/O0 lO/iD/U0
lU/iC/OG 1C/1C/O0
ACCuUhT NUMb
01-4020-4200
1010
01-4340-420o
lOlO
g1-~350-4200
1010
01-4190-4200
lOlU
01-42~0-4200
1010
7~-78'00-3~00 '-
1010
0i-4320-4200
lOlO
01-4040-2100
01-4090-2100
01-4140-2i00
01-4190-2100
01-4340-210(I
01-~2~0-2i00
71-7100-2100
73-7300-2100
7~-7~00-2100
1010
01-4140-2100
lolO
01-4090-2100
1010
01-4040-2100
1~10
22-4170-2100
lolO
01-4040-2100
01-40~0-2100
01-4140-210J
P~
16
AP-C02-Cl
P U f< C H A S F_ J 0 U Fi ,',' A L
CITY OF HOUt;D
VEND,JR IHvoicE ,hUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE h"<BR DATE DATE STATUS A,~OLINT DESCRIPTION
5.2~'~
1.76 ~I
i. 76
2 .o4
2.63 ~',I
2.06 PL
67.97
2;'.U5
lu/lO/OU 10/10/00 127.b7 JR
SCELLAHEdU5 :oFFICE SUPPLIES
3C£LLF~,E:}US L, FFICE SUPPLIES
aCELLANFSUS :,FF]CE SUPPLIES
SCELLAN~()LIS ~FFICE SUPPLIES
SCELLANEOUS oFFICE SUPPLIES
~CELLAN~OUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
ASTIC SPuONS
SC~LLAN~(JUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
SCELLXNEOUS oFFICE SdPPLIES
NL-CD
27O862-0 '
lO/lO/Oo iO/lO/O0
u.32 ~ISCELL~NEOU3 OFFICE SUPPLIES
49.96 NISCELLANEOUS OFF!CE SUPPLIES
12.61 HISCELLANFOUS DFFICE SUPPLIES
71.~9 JRNL-CD'
272419-0
lO/iO/O0 lO/!V/O0
19.56 MISCELLANEOLIS OFFICE SUPPLIES
19.56 HISCELLANEUUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
19.56 HISCFLL~N[OUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
19.56 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
19.56- MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
6.52 MISCELL~.NEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
6.52 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
9.7R ;<ISCELLANFjIJS oFFICE SUPPLIES
9.77 ,'.ISCELLANEOIlS OFFICE SLiPPLIES
130.39 JRNL-CD
273277-0
lO/lO/CC lO/lO/O0
1P, S.a2 COPY PAPER, IK't~JET
iP 5. ,~2
1' 110/06 iO/1O/OO
]o.7& :"iISCELL~,NEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
1&.7~: MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
1~.78 F. ISCELLAN[OUS oFFICE SUPPLIES
1~.78 HISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
lb.78 HISCELLANEUUS oFFICE SUPPLIES
0.26 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
0.1c ;,iISCELL~NEOJ]S :,~FFICE SUPPLIES
9.39 HISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
9.39 FIISCELL~N:-UUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
70.24 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
10.23 CALCULATOR
20o.27 JRqL-CI;
T~i;, CIIY uFFICE SuPPLN' CC VE:,DUR TOTAL 1331.39
d5050 3g560
ACCOUNT
01-4190-2100
O1-AS40-21eC
01-4280-2100
71-7100-2100
73-7300-2100
75-7800-2100
0i-4020-22~0
0!-4060-2iOG
01'4040U2100'
1010
01-4090-2100
01-~0~0-2100
01-4040-2100
1010
01-4040-2100
01-4090-2100
01-4140-21~0
01-4190-2100
0i-43~0-2100
01-42g0-2100
71-7100-2100
73-7300-'2100
78-7800-2100
1015
22-4170-2100
1OlO
0i-4040-2100
01-4090-2100
01-4140-2100
01-4190-2100
01-4~40-2100
01-~2~0-2100
71-7100-2100
73-7300-2100
76-7500-2i00
01-4040-2100
01-4190-2100
1010
31016
33327
33622
46.50 DUTY PA~:TS, SWENSON, JASON 01-4140-2240
lO/lO/Ou iO/lO/O0 4~.50 JRNL-CD lOlO
49~.u4 I'ITIAL ISSUE, SALTER, MICHELL 01-4140-1100
lt/lO/eO lO/lO/g0 A 9,~,. 04 JRNL-CD lClO
235.50 INITIAL ISSUE, SALTER, NIC~ELL
lU/lO/O0 i0/10/00 2~5.50 J~NL-CD 1010
~:i.9[) ]'~ITIAL ISSUE, SALTER, ~]CHELL 01-4140-110u
.o ~,3f 17
AP-C02-01
vEr4[]oR I I.;VO I £E [)LIE HOLD
NO. INVOIC£ N~t6R DATF DATE STATUS
:.Jh 1F,JRd5 UNL1MITLD
.'5492 001031
P u k C H A S h J C U R ~: A L
CITY OF p:OIJND
A~:JU:,T DESCRIPTIO;, ACCOUNT NUFSER
VE~iDOr TOT ,a,L
10/1O/00 10/10/00
.~ES1 METRO BUILDING F, AIHT. VENDO~ TOTAL ]399.41
~'5~25 00.10'~4 ....... 600.00
10/10/00 i0/10/00 600.00
-~HITE-BEAR f,WKE-POI._-~CE D~ vEr~DbF' IOTAL -
~'5630 3575 768.00
.......... lrJ/16/O0 10710/30 ~ 76&.00
3579 1,igo.oo
........................... 1O-/l-O/oo~ i0/16~00 - - t,190.'00
3534 630.00
....... 1u/iO/O0 %0710/b0 - '
lO/lo/o'o lO/tO/D0
3555
3556
10110160 iP/1C/O0
VEKDOK TOI4L
,.,. 690 00003111
00003110
27404
27760
2&020
lO/iO/GO iq/lO/U0
10/i(. /0C i0/10/00
10/10/00 10/10/00
lt/lO/O£, 10/!0/$0
lO/lO/OO
10/10/00 lO/1o/O0
VENDOk TOTAL
lo/lO/OO 10/10/00
,~", MOELLER g SONS
Zo724 00U925
!,leT.u0 i0-00 CLEANI4G 01-4320-4210
97.27 lO-O0 CLEANING 0i-42~0-4200
P7.g7 10-00 CLEAr, ING 73-7300-4200
97.27 10-00 {L~ANIN6 7~-7800-4200
1,399.41 JRNL-CD 101o
SE~'INAk T~CTICAL RISK ~ANAGEME 01-~140-4110
JRNL-CD 1010
08-02-00 DOVE LANE WATER MAIN 73-7300-3800
JNNL-CD 1010
08-07-00 REPLACE HYD ~ PIPE 73-7300-3&0U
J~NL-CD 1010
OS-11-O0 PEPAIR STAND PIPES 73-7300-3800
030.00 JR!,,L-CD
420.00 UF!-09-09 REPLtCF _qTA';-~ PlPES
~20.o0 JR;JLLCD
910.00 0~-06-00 RLPLACF CURe 3TOP/STA
91u.~0 JR,~L-C5
60.00 Og-Oo-O0 HAUL ASPHALT
ON.CO OO-06-OO HAUL ASPHALT
gg.O0 JPWL-CD
1,612.56 O9-Oa-O0
1,~12.56 JRNL-CD
1,02o.51
1,620.51 JR:;L-CD
2,g20.55
2,02o.55 JRNL-CD
2~$0.17 09-2O-Ofi nLACFTOP
2,930.i7 JRNL-Cb
9153.7~
500.uO 2S00-2031 AN'~UAL DUES
tblg
73-7300-3600
lO!0
73-7300-3~0o
lOlO
27-5800-2340
lO10
27-5800-2340
1010
27-5800-2340
1010
27-5~O0-2340
]GlO
27-5g09-2343
27-5800-2340
1010
71-7100-41Z0
lolb
F'AG[ Z~ P L: k C ~ A S E J 0 U R N f, L
AP-C,,2-O1 CiTY OF MOUND
,/ENhdk INvoIcE DUE ~OLD
ND. INVOICE NML~R DATE DATE STATUS A~OUNT ~5CR]PTI9~
'"1 ,I;,LSUTA :';U,;ICiLPAL F, EVL~ V2t;,~r')P TOTt~L 500.00
1,000.00 kEFU!iD gONL) TO MOVEu. OUS:_' "
10/16100 lO/lO/U0 1,000.00 JRNL-CD
ST d!~S FJdlLDI NO
;'E NDOi. TOT ~,L 1000.00
TOTAL ALL CENDORS 232,42g.12
ACCOUNT
01-3262-0003
lC, lO
October 10, 2000
RF_.~OLUTION NO. 00- ~
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A REQUF~T FOR THE INSTALLATION
OF A STREET LIGHT IN THE 6200 BLOCK OF
WESTEDGE BLVD.
WHEREAS, the City received a request from a resident for the installation of a
street light in the 6200 block of Westedge Bvd.; and
WI:I~RE&S, the request was researched by the Staff and was found to be a
legitimate request.
NOW, TIZIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize Northern States Power to install a street light in the
6200 Block of Westedge Blvd.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember
and seconded by
The following Councilmembers voted in the affu'mative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
1
MOUlqD POLICE DEP/~~NT - INTEROFFICE 1~O
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
10-01-00
CHIEF H3LRRELL
]LMY CHRISTENSON
STREETLIGHT IN THE 6200 BLOCK OF WESTEDGE BLVD.
CHIEF,
THERE IS DEFINITELY A NEED FOR A STREETLIGHT IN THE 6200
BLOCK OF WESTEDGE BLVD.
I TALKED WITH THE MORRISSEY'S AT 2601 SETTER CIRCLE /LND THE
SCHWA_RTZMAN'S AT 2600 SETTER CIRCLE, WHICH IS AT THE
INTERSECTION OF SETTER CIRCLE AND WESTEDGE BLVD. THE
PARTIES STATE SEVERAL PEOPLE WALK ALONG WESTEDGE BLVD. WHEN
IT IS DARK OUT AND THEY FEEL A STREET LIGHT WOULD BE VERY
BENEFICIAL FOR THE SAFETY OF PERSONS WALKING IN THE A_REA.
I HAVE DRIVEN DOWN THIS STREET DURING THE NIGHT HOURS AND
IT IS VERY DARK. iN MY OPINION, A STREET LIGHT SHOULD BE
PLACED JUST TO THE WEST OF THE FIRE HYDRANT AT 6251
WESTEDGE BLVD.
THERE A_RE NO OTHER HOUSES ALONG WESTEDGE BLVD THAT WOULD BE
AFFECTED IN A NEGATIVE WAY. THE HOUSE AT 6251 WESTEDGE
BLVD. SITS WAY BACK OFF THE ROADWAY.
A/~Y
KandisHanson
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Joe:
"KandisHanson"
<KandisHanson@msn.com>
<Joe_Bruns@cargill.com>
Thursday, September 21, 2000 11:32 AM
Re: Street Light
Someone from the City will contact you about how to procede in order to get
a street light added. Thanks for alerting us to a "dark spot."
Kandis Hanson
City Manager
..... Original Message .....
From: <Joe Bruns~.cargil_l,_c_om>
To: < kandishan son ~.msn_,_C_O..m. >
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 10:28 AM
Subject: Street Light
Page 1 of 1
> Hello Kandis.
> The following might have been forwarded on by Pat so forgive
> me if I am repeating myself.
>
> I currently reside on Setter Circle and I wanted to bring to your
> attention a need we have in our area for a new street light.
> The Schwartzman's on the end of Setter Circle brought it up
> to me once and I thought it would be a good idea too.
> Westedge Blvd before the water treatment plant gets pretty
> dark at night and alot of people take walks on that road at
> all hours.
> Can you look into what it would take to have a street light
> installed on Westedge where it is the darkest at night ?
> Thanks.
> Sincerely,
> Joe Bruns
09~21 ~2000
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Mayor, Council and City Manager
Gino Businaro, Finance Director
Resolution on Tax Rate Increase
October 2, 2000
Our City Council needs to take action at their next meeting on a resolution authorizing a tax rate
increase for the year 2001. The League of Minnesota Cities has published an explanation and the
reason for such a resolution.
Attached please find a copy of the resolution, the League of Cities' explanation and the State
Law on the authorization requirement for a tax rate increase,,
Although the law calls for a "public hearing", we have been informed by the League of Cities
that regular action during a council meeting will be sufficient to meet the intent of this law.
If you or the council need more information, please let me know.
prlnte~ on recycled paper
October 10, 2000
RESOLUTION gOO-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TAX RATE INCREASE FOR THE
2000 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 2001
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, County of
Hennepin, Minnesota, that the County Auditor is authorized to fix a property'tax rate for
taxes payable in the year 2001 that is higher than the tax rate calculated pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes § 275.078 for the city for taxes levied in 1999, collectible in 2000.
Adoption of this resolution does not prohibit the city from certifying a final levy that will
result in no tax rate increase or a tax rate decrease.
The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the
County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
seconded by Councilmember .
and
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
FROH THE LEAGUE OF I~NI~IESO~A C~TIES
Tax rate certification
A law passed in 1999 requires that all cities over 500 population and all
counties must pass a resolution if the levy for the subsequent year will result in a
tax rate increase. The provision is based on a Missouri law and was pa~sed by
the Minnesota Legislature in response to concerns that cities and counties were
claiming they were freezing taxes when, in fact, the levy was increasing but
being offset by tax base growth.
Under the law, the county auditor is required to provide information to affected
cities and the county board that will allow the local government to calculate
what its tax rate would be in the coming year ifthe levy was held constant.
Essentially, a baseline tax rate is computed based on the prior year's levy and
the current year tax base. The county auditor is required to provide this
information by October 1 of each year.
The city council or county board must adopt a resolution at a public hearing if its
levy will result in an increase in the tax rate over the baseline tax rate. The
resolution must be filed with the county auditor by October 20 of each year. If a
city or county fails to file this resolution by October 20, the county auditor is
prokibited from spreading a levy that would result in a hi~er tax rate, unless the
increased rate is due to either a change in the general obligation debt levy or a
reduction in tax capacity due to a classification change, property exemption,
court judgment, or county error. The levy and tax rate are adjusted to exclude
levy for general obligation bonds and fiscal disparities, if applicable.
If a city files the resolution, it may still certify a final levy that results in a
constant or decreased tax rate. It may therefore be prudent to file the resolution
by the October 20 deadline if your preliminary levy would cause a tax rate
'increase even if you plan to certify a lower final levy in December.
275.078 Authorization; tax rate increase.
On or before October 1, 1999, and each subsequent year, the
county auditor shall certify to the governing body of each home
rule charter or statutory city with a population greater than
500 in the county and to the county board, the following
information for the taxing jurisdiction:
(1) the taxing jurisdiction's certified levy under section
275.08 for the previous year, taxes payable in the current year,
excluding any amount levied to pay general obligation bonds,
less (i) the areawide portion of the levy under section 276A.06,
subdivision 3, or 473F.08, subdivision 3, if any, for taxes
payable in the following year; and (ii) the sum of the net tax
capacity adjustment amount and the fiscal disparities adjustment
amount under section 273.1398, subdivision 2, if any, for aids
payable in the following year;
(2) the taxing jurisdiction's taxable net tax capacity for
the current assessment year, for taxes payable in the following
year; and
(3) the tax rate obtained by dividing the amount in clause
(1) by the amount in clause (2), rounded to the nearest
hundredth percent.
In order to impose a tax rate for purposes other than to
pay general obligation bonds for taxes payable in the following
year that is higher than the tax rate certified by the county
auditor under clause (3), the governing body of the city with a
population greater than 500 or the county board must adopt a
resolution, after holding a public hearing, authorizing a higher
tax rate and file a copy of the resolution with the county
auditor on or before October 20, 1999, and each year
thereafter. A county auditor is prohibited from fixing a tax
rate for purposes other than to pay general obligation bonds for
taxes payable in the following year that is higher than the rate
certified under clause (3) if a resolution has not been filed,
unless the higher rate is due solely to a reduction in the
taxing jurisdicsion's net tax capacity certified under clause
(2) resulting from classification changes, exemptions, tax court
judgmenss, or clerical or administrative errors made by the
county. For purposes of this section, "public hearing"
includes, but is not limited To, regularly scheduled city
council hearings and county board meetings.
HIST: 1999 c 243 art 6 s 2; 1999 c 249 s 21
Copyright 1999 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
Hennepin County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
September 29, 2000
City Clerk and/or Finance Director
City of Mound
To Whom It May Concern,
· The levy certified by the City of Mound (hereto called the "DISTRICT"), for taxes payable in 2000, less the
amounts, known to our office, levied to pay general obligation bonds, is $1,410,835.00.
· The DISTRICT's area-wide portion of the leW under Minnesota Statutes, section 276A.06, subdivision 3, or
section 473F.08, subdivision 3, for taxes payable in 2001, is $193,843.00.
· The sum of the net tax capacity adjustment amount and the fiscal disparities adjustment amount under
Minnesota Statutes, section 273.1398, subdivision 2, for aids payable to the DISTRICT in 2001, as reported to
this office by the MN Department of Revenue, is $-.
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.078 the Hennepin County Auditor certifies the following:
1. The "levy certification tax levy" of the DISTRICT for taxes payable in 2000 is $1,216,992.00.
2. The taxable net tax capacity used to determine the proposed tax rates of the DISTRICT for taxes payable
in 2001 is 7,742,487.
3. The "2000 levy certification tax rate" for the DISTRICT is 15.72%.
Based upon the proposed levy for taxes payable in 2001 certified by the DISTRICT on or before
September 15, 2000:
· The proposed levy for taxes payable in 2001, less the amounts, known to our office, levied to pay general
obligation bonds and less the fiscal disparity area wide levy is $1,305,044.00.
· The taxable net tax capacity used to determine the proposed tax rates of the DISTRICT for taxes payable in
2001 is 7,742,487.
· The estimated "2001 levy certification tax rate" is 16.86%.
Taxpayer Services Department
A-600 Hennepin County Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0060
Recycled Pap.
Page 2, LCTR Certification for Pay 2001, 09/29/00
In order for the County Auditor to fix a tax rate based upon the proposed tax levy certified by the DISTRICT, a
resolution authorizing a higher levy certification tax rate must be filed with our office on or before
October 20, 2000.
Sincerely,
Deputy County Auditor
Tax Accounting Supervisor
October I0, 2000
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF THE LICENSE
AGI~EEMENT (#A14.569) WITH YfENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING
E~-F~CTRONIC PROPRIETARY GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED
DATA BASE (EPDB) AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO SIGN ~ EXTENSION AGRE~
wm~'REAS, Hennepin County has developed a proprietary geographical digitized data
base (EPDB); and
W]iEREAS, the City of Mound desires to use the County's EPDB in the course of
conducting the City's business; and
WI]FR~AS, the City of Mound approved the license agreement on April 13, 1999, by
Resolution ~)9-31; and
WlrlERE~, Hennepin County is now asking that we extend the EPDB Conditional Use
License Agreement through December 31, 2001.
NOW, TltEREFORE BE IT RESOL~ that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota does hereby authorize the Acting City Manager to execute the extension of Hennepin
County's EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement (#14569) through December 31, 2001.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
seconded by Councilmember
and
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
March 29, 1999
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Mr. Robert Molder
Hennepin County Survey Division
A-703 Government Center
Minneapolis, MN. 55487
RE: Third Party Agreements for EPDB
Dear Mr. Molder:
This letter is to confirm our conversation of today. The following are our City Engineer and
City Planner respectively and the persons authorized to enter into a Third Party Agreement
with Hennepin County for the EPDB.
CITY OF MOUND ENGINEER
Gregory J. Frank
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Ave. North
Plymouth, MN. 55447 Phone//612-476-6010
CITY OF MOUND PLANNER
Mark Koegler
Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.
123 N. Third Street
Minneapolis, MN. 55401 Phone #612-338-0800
I hope this is sufficient.
Sincerely,
Fran Clark, CMC
City Clerk
printed on recycled paper
Hennepin County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
October 3, 2000
Francene C. Clark
Acting City Manager
City of Mound
534i Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687
Agreement # A14569
Dear Mr. Clark:
Hennepin County desires to extend the above referenced EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement
through December 31,2001. If you as a Government Unit, Consultant/Third Party, or Private Corporation,
desire to extend the above-referenced Agreement, the following requirements must be satisfied as they
pertain to your entity: Please return the required information to Hennepin County, Attention: Eleanor Drey
(at the address stated on the bottom of this page).
A.)
GOVERNMENTAL UNIT MUST FURNISH TO THE COUNTY A COPY OF THE ACTION
OF USER'S GOVERNING BODY AUTHORIZING THIS AGREEMENT EXTENSION.
HOWEVER, IF AN OFFICIAL OF USER IS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE OR CHARTER TO
APPROVE AN AGREEMENT OF THIS NATURE THEN THIS ORIGINAL LETTER SIGNED
BY SUCH OFFICIAL AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION MUST BE RETURNED TO THE
COUNTY. NOTE: SUCH OFFICIAL MUST A TTA CH TO THIS LETTER .,1 COPY OF THEIR STATUTORY OR
CHARTER AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENTS.
B.)
CONSULTANT/THIRD PARTY MUST PROVIDE THE COUNTY A COPY OF
AFFIRMATION BY GOVERNMENTAL UNIT THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE AS
CONSULTANT AS STATED IN AGREEMENT NO. THROUGH THE YEAR
2001. IN ADDITION,CONSULTANT/THIRD PARTY MUST SIGN THE ATTACHED
SIGNATURE PAGE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND RETURN ORIGINALS OF BOTH
TO THE COUNTY.
c.)
PRIVATE CORPORATION MUST SIGN THE ATTACHED SIGNATURE PAGE AND
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND RETURN ORIGINALS OF BOTH TO THE COUNTY.
Taxpayer Services Department
Survey Division
Suite A-703
Hennepin County Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0073
(612) 348-3131
Recycled Paper
As authorized by the Agreement and noting the above requirements, which pertain to you specifically,
please indicate below your intention to extend or not to extend this agreement through the year 2001.
Please return the originals of this page and the acknowledgement page and a copy of affu-mation as
Consultant/Third Party, as required, to the attention of Eleanor Drey at the address shown on page 1 as
soon as possible.
Please check (X) appropriate box.
__ It IS our intention to extend this agreement through the year 2001.
~ It is NOT our intention to extend this agreement through the year 2001.
We no longer require this information.
Signature: Date:
Authorized Signature
Title:
If you have any questions about this notice, please call Eleanor Drey at 348-3131 for assistance.
Sincerely,
Attachment
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
January 26, 2000
Ms. Eleanor Drey
Hennepin County
Survey Division
Suite A-703
Hennepin County Government Center
Minneapolis, MN. 55487-0073
RE: AGREEMENT #A-24569
Dear Ms. Dray:
Enclosed is a Certified copy of Resolution g00-12, entitled, RESOLUTION APPROVING
AN EXTENSION OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT (#A14569) WITH HENNEPIN
COUNTY REGARDING ELECTRONIC PROPRIETARY GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED
DATA BASE 0EPDB) AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO SIGN
THE AGREEMENT.
I have by copy of this letter notified Loren Gordon of Hoisington Koegler, our Planning
Consultant and John Cameron, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, our Engineering
Consultant of this extension.
Sincerely,
Francene C. Clark, CMC
Acting City Manager
enc.
CC:
Loren Gordon
John Cameron
printe~l on recycled paper
January 25, 2000
P~_SOLUTION ~)- 12
RESOL~ON APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF THE LICENSE
AGREEM'ENT (#A14569) WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING
ELECTRONIC PROPRIETARY GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED
DATABASE (EPDB) AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has developed a proprietary geographical digitized data
base (EPDB); and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound desires to use the County's EPDB in the course of
conducting the City's business; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County is authorizing the City of Mound's use of the EPDB
pursuant to a conditional use license agreement (EXHIBIT "A") attached hereto and made a part
thereof; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound approved the license agreement on April 13, 1999, by
Resolution//99-31; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County is now asking that we extend the EPDB Conditional Use
License Agreement through December 31, 2000.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota does hereby authorize the Acting City Manager to execute the extension of Hennepin
County's EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement (//14569) through December 31, 2000.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and
seconded by Councilmember Hanus
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Brown Hanus, Meisel a Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
: ::
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
x x,.nnepin oun
An Equal Opportunity Employer
October 22, 1999
Fran Clark, Clerk
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Agreement # A 14569
Dear Ms. Clark:
Hennepin County desires to extend the above referenced EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement
through December 31, 2000. If you as a Governmental Unit, ConsultandThird Pan3.'. or Private
Corporation desire to extend the above-referenced Agreement, the following requirements must be satisfied
as they pertain to your entib': Please return the required information to Hennepin County. Attention:
Eleanor Drey (at the address stated on the bottom of this page).
,4.)
B.)
GOVERNMENTAL UNIT MUST FURNISH TO THE COUNTY A COPY OF THE AC'I ION OF
USER'S GOVERNING BODY AUTHORIZING THIS AGREEMENT EXTENSION.
HOWEVER, IF AN OFFICIAL OF USER IS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE OR CHARTER TO
APPROVE AN AGREEMENT OF THIS NATURE THEN THIS ORIGINAL LETTER SIGNED
BY SUCH OFFICIAL AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION MUST BE RETURNED TO THE
COUNTY. ,VOTE: SUCH OFFICIAL MUST A TTACH TO THIS LETTER A COP Y OF THEIR STATUTORY OR CHARTER
AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENTS.
CONSULTANT/THIRD PARTY MUST PROVIDE THE COUNTY WITH A COPY OF
AFFIRMATION BY GOVERNMENTAL UNIT THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE AS
CONSULTANT AS STATED IN AGREEMENT NO. n/a THROUGH THE YEAR 2000.
IN ADDITION, CONSULTANT/THIRD PARTY MUST SIGN THE ATTACHED SIGNATURE
PAGE AND ACKNOWLEDMENT AND RETURN ORIGINALS OF BOTH TO THE COUNTY.
C.) PRIVATE CORPORATION MUST SIGN THE ATTACHED SIGNATURE PAGE AND
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND RETURN ORIGINALS OF BOTH TO THE
Taxpayer Services Department
Survey Division
Suite A-703
Hennepin County Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0073
(612) 348-3131
Recycled Paoe~
Hennepin County
OCT 2,o 5
An Equal Opportunity Employer
October 22, 1999
Fran Clark, Clerk
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Agreement # A 14569
Dear Ms. Clark:
Hennepin County desires to extend the above referenced EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement
through December 31, 2000. If you as a Governmental Unit, Consultant/Third Party, or Private
Corporation desire to extend the above-referenced Agreement, the following requirements must be satisfied
as they pertain to your entity: Please return the required information to Hennepin County, Attention:
Eleanor Drey (at the address stated on the bottom of this page).
GOVERNMENTAL UNIT MUST FURNISH TO THE COUNTY A COPY OF THE ACTION OF
USER'S GOVERNING BODY AUTHORIZING THIS AGREEMENT EXTENSION.
HOWEVER, IF AN OFFICIAL OF USER IS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE OR CHARTER TO
APPROVE AN AGREEMENT OF THIS NATURE THEN THIS ORIGINAL LETTER SIGNED
BY SUCH OFFICIAL AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION MUST BE RETURNED TO THE
COUNTY. NOTE: SUCH OFFICIAL MUST ATTACH TO THIS LETTER A COPY OF THEIR STATUTORY OR CHARTER
AUTHORITY TO A PPRO VE THE AGREEMENTS.
CONSULTANT/THIRD PARTY MUST PROVIDE THE COUNTY WITH A COPY OF
AFFIRMATION BY GOVERNMENTAL UNIT THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE AS
CONSULTANT AS STATED IN AGREEMENT NO. n/a THROUGH THE YEAR 2000.
IN ADDITION, CONSULTANT/THIRD PARTY MUST SIGN THE ATTACHED SIGNATURE
PAGE AND ACKNOWLEDMENT AND RETURN ORIGINALS OF BOTH TO THE COUNTY.
C.) PRIVATE CORPORATION MUST SIGN THE ATTACHED SIGNATURE PAGE AND
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND RETURN ORIGINALS OFBOTH TO THE COUNTY.
Taxpayer Services Department
Survey Division
Suite A-703
Hennepin County Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0073
(612) 348-3131
Recycled Paper
Page 2
As authorized by the Agreement and noting the above requirements, which pertain to you specifically,
please indicate below your intention to extend or not m extend this agreement through the year 2000.
Please return originals of this page and the acknowledgement page and a copy of affirmation as
Consultant/Third Parry., as required, to the attention of Eleanor Drey at the address shown on page 1 as
soon as possible.
Please check (X) appropriate box.
~ It IS our intention to extend this agreement through the year 2000.
[~ It is NOT our intention to extend this agreement through the year 2000.
We no longer require this information.
Signature: %x~._2Y~_t~ ~.~ Date:
Authorized Signature
If you have any questions about this notice, please call Eleanor Drey at (612) 348-3131 for assistance.
Sincerely,
County ~dminismto/~
Attachment
Apr/1 13, 1999
RESOLUTION g99-31
REgOLUTION APPROVINg A CONDITIONAL Ugg LICENgE
AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING
ELECTRONIC PROPRIETARY GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED
DATE BASE (EPDB) AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has developed a proprietary geographical digitized data
base (EPDB); and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound desires to use the County's EPDB in the course of
conducting the City's business; and
WItEREAS, Hennepin County is authorizing the City of Mound's use of the EPDB
pursuant to a conditional use license agreement (EXHIBIT "A") attached hereto and made a pan
thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound, Minnesota, enters
into a conditional use license agreement with Hennepin County pursuant to the attached
agreement and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to sign the agreement on behalf of the
City of Mound.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Meisel, and seconded by
Councilmember Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens,Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none.
"'Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
42
HENNEPIN COUNTY
Agreement No. A14569
CONDITIONAL USE LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, Taxpayer
Services Department, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Mound, hereinafter referred to as the
"Entity". For purposes of this Agreement, the address of the County is A703 Government
Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0073 and the address of Entity is 5341 Maywood Road,
Mound, Minnesota 55364.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the County has developed electronic forms of certain data bases and an
electronic proprietary geographical digitized data base hereinafter referred to as "EPDB"; and
WHEREAS, the Entity desires to use the County's EPDB in the course of conducting the
Entity's business; and
WHEREAS, in acknowledgment of the Entity's above-stated purpose, the County is
agreeable to provide to the Entity the EPDB, and
WHEREAS, the parties agree that the execution of this Agreement is necessary in order
to adequately protect said EPDB; and
WHEREAS, the County exclusively owns the EDPB which is the subject of this
Agreement and has the authority and legal right to grant Entity a license to have and use the
EPDB as provided in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the EPDB is trade secret or confidential information under the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act and is governed by Minnesota Statutes sections 375.86 and
13.03 as well as other applicable state and federal law.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, as well as the obligations herein
made and undertaken, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:
Form 1 (10 / 98)
1.1
Section 1
SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
This License Agreement shall apply to the EPDB, which Hennepin County will provide
to Entity, after a specific request has been made to County.
2.1
Section 2
GRANT OF LIMITED LICENSE
The County hereby grants the Entity a non-exclusive, nontransferable and nonassignable
limited use license to use the EPDB which includes self developed computer software
under Minn. Stat. § 375.86. Said license shall commence on the date of approval of this
Agreement by the County and shall extend throughout the term of the Agreement unless
terminated sooner, in accordance with the provisions hereof.
3.1
Section 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
RESERVATION OF TITLE
The Entity acknowledges and agrees that the EPDB is the exclusive property of the
County, including, but not limited to, any and all indexes, and includes commercially
valuable information which reflect the efforts of skilled development experts and required
the investment of considerable amounts of time and money, and that the County has
treated the EPDB as trade secret and confidential information, which County entrusts to
the Entity in confidence to use in the conduct of the Entity's business. The Entity further
acknowledges and agrees the EPDB is a creative selection, coordination, arrangement and
method of arrangement of data which is identified as being subject to copyright
protection; is self-developed computer software under Minn. Stat. § 375.86 and is an
entire or substantial and discrete portion of a pattern, compilation, method, technique,
process, data base or system developed with significant expenditure of funds by County
under Minn. Stat. § 13.03. The Entity agrees that the County owns and reserves all
rights, protection and benefits afforded under federal copyright law in all EPDB furnished
to the Entity as unpublished works, as well as all rights, protection and benefits afforded
under any other law relating to confidential and/or trade secret information respecting
said EPDB, and that the Entity will abide by all relevant laws, rules, regulations and
decisions which afford protection to the County for its confidential and trade secret
information and said copyright. This Agreement does not effect any transfer of title in or
to any EPDB of the County. The Entity acknowledges that it is granted only a limited
fight of use of such EPDB, which fight is not coupled with an interest, and the Entity
shall not assert nor cause or cooperate with others to assert any right, title, or interest in
any EPDB of the County.
2
4.1
4.2
4.3
Section 4
PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
Obligations of Confidentiality, Limitations of Use. The Entity shall neither disclose,
furnish, sell, resell, transfer, duplicate, reproduce nor disseminate, in whole or in part, the
EPDB of the County and its unique design, arrangement or method of arrangement in its
electronic form furnished to the Entity to (1) any other person, firm, entity, organization,
or subsidiary, except as expressly authorized hereunder; or (2) any employee of the Entity
who does not need to obtain access thereto in connection with the Entity's exercise of its
rights under this Agreement. The Entity may have and use the EPDB on a corporate-wide
basis and shall have the rights to use the EPDB on a limited number of sites, provided the
equipment on which the EPDB is maintained supports only equipment operated by the
Entity and the EPDB is used only for the conduct of the Entity's own internal business by
Entity employees. All employees having access to the EPDB shall be informed of the
requirements contained in Section 4 herein. The Entity shall not otherwise copy or
reproduce any EPDB of the County. Under no circumstances may the entity disclose or
disseminate any EPDB to any other public or private entity. The obligations of the Entity
to protect confidentiality which are established by this Agreement apply to the EPDB
itself and not to any graphic representation or products produced by the Entity while
using the EPDB. Any authorized consultants, contractors or agents of Entity must
properly execute and file a separate EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement with
Hennepin County.
The Entity expressly agrees to use the County's EPDB in the ordinary course of its
business and all such use shall bear a notice of copyright by Hennepin County.
Secure Handling. The Entity shall require that all EPDB be kept in a secure location at
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 and maintained in a manner so as to
reasonably preclude unauthorized persons from having access thereto. The Entity shall
devote its reasonable efforts to ensure that all persons afforded access to EPDB protect
same against unauthorized use, dissemination or disclosure. Entity agrees it will not
knowingly or negligently allow its employees, agents or independent contractors to copy,
sell, disclose or otherwise make the EPDB available to others. Entity agrees to
immediately notify the County by telephone and in writing if Entity becomes aware of
any unauthorized duplication, sale or other disclosure. Entity further agrees to prevent
unauthorized disclosure by taking appropriate security measures including, but not
limited to, providing physical security for copies of the EPDB and taking all steps Entity
takes to protect information, data or other tangible and intangible property of its own that
Entity regards as proprietary, confidential or nonpublic. Except for off-site backup, the
Entity shall not remove or cause or allow to be removed from the Entity's place of
business or the place of business of any EPDB or any copy thereof without the prior
written consent of the County, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Assistance of the Entity. At the request of the County and expense of the Entity, the
Entity shall use good faith and reasonable efforts to assist the County in identifying any
4.4
use, copying, or disclosure of any EPDB by any current or former Entity personnel -- or
anyone else who may have come in possession of said EPDB while the same was in the
Entity's possession - in any manner that is contrary to the provisions of this Agreement
so long as the County shall have provided the Entity with information reasonably
justifying the conclusion of the County that such contrary use may have occurred.
Survival of Confidentiality Obligations. The Entity's obligations respecting
confidentiality of the EPDB shall survive termination of this Agreement for any reason
and shall remain in effect for as long as the Entity continues to possess or control any
EPDB furnished by the County. In addition, the County shall remain entitled to enforce
its copyright and propriety interests in all EPDB.
5.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
Section 5
TERM, TERMINATION
The Entity and the COUNTY agree that this Agreement is in effect during the period
commencing January 1, 1999 and terminating December 31, 1999. This Agreement shall
commence from the date hereof, unless sooner terminated by either party with cause upon
three (3) calendar days' written notice to the other. The expiration or termination of this
Agreement shall automatically and without further action by the County terminate and
extinguish the license. In the event of any such expiration or termination, the County
shall have the right to take immediate possession of said EPDB, and all copies thereof
wherever located, and without demand or notice. Within five (5) days after expiration or
termination of this Agreement, the Entity shall return the EPDB and all copies thereof to
the County, or upon request by the County, the Entity shall destroy all of the same and all
copies thereof and certify in writing to the County that the same has been destroyed.
It is agreed that any right or remedy provided for herein shall not be considered as the
exclusive right or remedy but shall be considered to be in addition to any other right or
remedy hereunder or allowed by law, equity or statute.
The County's failure to insist upon strict performance of any covenant, agreement or
stipulation of the Agreement, or to exercise any right herein contained shall not be a
waiver or relinquishment of such covenant, agreement, stipulation or right, unless the
County stipulates thereto in writing. Any such written consent shall not constitute a
waiver or relinquishment of such covenant, agreement, stipulation or right.
4
6.1
Section 6
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Entity acknowledges and agrees that unauthorized disclosure or use of the EPDB or
any part thereof could cause irreparable harm and significant injury to the County, which
may be difficult to measure with certainty or to compensate through damages.
Accordingly, the Entity agrees that the County may seek and obtain against the Entity
and/or any other person or entity injunctive relief against the breach or threatened breach
of the foregoing undertakings, in addition to any other equitable or legal remedies which
may be available.
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5.
7.6
Section 7
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
No Agency. The parties hereto are independent contractors, and nothing herein shall be
construed to create an agency, joint venture, parmership or other form of business
association between the parties hereto.
No Waiver. No delay or omission by either party hereto to exercise any right or power
occurring upon any noncompliance or default by the other party with respect to any of the
terms of this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a
waiver thereof unless the same is consented to in writing. A waiver by either of the
parties hereto of any of the covenants, conditions, or agreements to be observed by the
other shall not be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach thereof or of any
covenant, condition, or agreement herein contained. All remedies provided for in this
Agreement shall be cumulative and in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedies
available to either party at law, in equity, or otherwise.
Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Entire Agreement. This License Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between
the parties, and there are no understandings or agreements relative hereto other than those
that are expressed herein. No change, waiver, or discharge hereof shall be valid unless in
writing and executed by the party against whom such change, waiver, or discharge is
sought to be enforced.
No Assignment. Neither party shall assign, sublet or transfer this Agreement, either in
whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other party, and any attempt to
do so shall be void and of no force and effect.
THE ENTITY AGREES THAT THE COUNTY IS FURNISHING THE EPDB ON
AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT WHATSOEVER, AND
WITHOUT REPRESENTATION OR ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
7.7
7.8
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT IN ANY MANNER LIMITED TO,
FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, MERCHANTABILITY OR THE
ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE EPDB.
THE COUNTY'S SOLE LIABILITY AND THE ENTITY'S EXCLUSIVE
REMEDY FOR ANY SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT WHICH IMPAIRS THE USE OF
THE EPDB FOR THE PURPOSE STATED HEREIN SHALL BE THE RIGHT
TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT.
THE COUNTY DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE EPDB ARE ERROR FREE.
THE EPDB WERE DEVELOPED FOR THE COUNTY'S OWN INTERNAL
BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE COUNTY DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT
THE EPDB CAN BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONAL, TRACKING OR ANY
OTHER PURPOSE REQUIRING EXACTING MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE
OR DIRECTION OR PRECISION IN THE DEPICTION OF GEOGRAPHIC
FEATURES.
THE COUNTY DISCLAIMS ANY OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, RESPECTING THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT OR THE EPDB.
In no event shall the County be liable for actual, direct, indirect, special, incidental,
consequential damages (even if the County has been advised of the possibility of such
damage) or lost of profit, loss of business or any other financial loss or any other damage
arising out of performance or failure of performance of this Agreement by the County.
The County and the Entity agree each will be responsible for their own acts and
omissions under this Agreement and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law
and shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other party under the
Agreement and the results thereof. The parties' respective liabilities shall be governed by
the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466, and
other applicable law. This paragraph shall not be construed to bar legal remedies one
party may have for the other party's failure to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement.
Notice. Any notice or demand shall be in writing and shall be sent registered or certified
mail to the other party address as follows:
To the Entity:
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
7.9
7.10
7.11
To Hennepin County:
Hennepin County Administrator
A-2300 Government Center (233)
Minneapolis, MN 55487-0233
Copy to:
Robert L. Hanson
Hennepin County Chief Information Officer
A- 1900 Government Center (190)
Minneapolis, MN 55487-0190
Copy to:
Patrick H. O'Connor
Director, Taxpayer Services Department
A-600 Government Center (060)
Minneapolis, MN 55487-0060
Whereas Clauses. The matters set forth in the "Whereas" clauses on page one of this
Agreement are incorporated into and made a part hereof by this reference.
Survival of Provisions. It is expressly understood and agreed that the obligations and
warranties of the Entity under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.6, and 7.7 hereof and the obligations
and warranties of the Entity and the County which by their sense and context are intended
to survive the performance thereof by the Entity and the County, shall so survive the
completion of performance and termination or cancellation of this Agreement.
Authority. The person or persons executing this License Agreement on behalf of Entity
represent that they are duly authorized to execute this License Agreement on behalf of
Entity and represent and warrant that this License Agreement is a legal, valid and binding
obligation and is enforceable in accordance with its terms.
7
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL
ENTITY, having signed this agreement, and the County having duly approved this
agreement on the~_~__ day of/.~.~.2/ , 19/~ ~ and pursuant to such approval, the proper
County officials having signed mis contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the
provisions herein set forth.
Approved as to form
and execution
~sistant ~/ot~ o y
Date: ~./~~~
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
By: ././fi/' /x. XJ
..~ssistant/Deputy/Coun ,~//~ministrat°r
CITY OF MOUND
Mayor
And..~.~/~/~
Cdi'f~ ler~.?
Form 1 (10 / 98)
PROC T ON o
PROCLAIMING MOUND MANUFACTURERS 2000 WEEK
WHEREAS, manufacturing has the largest total payroll of any business sector in
Minnesota. Providing $18 billion in 1998 wages; and
WltEREAS, manufacturing produces $28.3 billion for the state economy and is the
second largest single share (18.9%) of our gross product; and
wme~REAS, manufacturing exports brought nearly $9.2 billion into the Minnesota
economy in 1999; and
~S, manufacturing provides high skill, high wage jobs which significantly
contribute to Minnesota's high standard of living and economic vitality; and
WI~;RF_.AS, manufacturing contributed nearly $232 million in corporate income
taxes in Minnesota, more than any other business sector, about 30% of total corporate
income taxes in 1999:
NOW, TFI-EREFORE, I Pat Meisel, Mayor of the City of Mound, Minnesota, do
hereby proclaim the week of October 16-22, 2000 to be
MOUND MANUFACTURERS WEEK
in the City of Mound.
The foregoing proclamation was moved by Councilmember
by Councilmember
and seconded
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
To: Kandis Hanson, City Manager
From: Loren Gordon, City Planner
Date: October 6, 2000
Subject: Sign ordinance amendment
Recent events have prompted a review of the City's Sign Code (Section 365) to address
directional and informational signage that is customarily found in off-street parking areas.
Examples of this are directional arrows for drive-thru's, "No parking" signs, handicapped signs,
and special parking privilege designators among others. The code is generally silent on this type
of signage although it might be construed that an applicant apply for a permit. The suggested
ordinance modification corrects this deficiency by establishing an "Off-street Informational
Sign." Under the provisions, this sign would be limited to 3 square feet in size, would not require
permit, and would not have a limit on their quantity. One item the Council should consider prior
to adoption is referral to the Planning Commission. The sign code is not specifically part of the
Zoning Regulations so it doesn't require a public hearing and is on the outside edge of the
Planning Commission's review authority. There is not a rush to adopt this language, so it could
be a discussion item for the Commission if the Council considers it appropriate.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
ORDINANCE NO. -2000
AN ORDINANCE EXEMPTING CERTAIN
SIGNS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
SECTION 365 OF THE MOUND CODE
The City of Mound does ordain:
Section 365 of the Mound Code of Ordinances is amended in the following respects:
I. Section 365:05, Subd. 4 is amended by adding thereto the following new paragraph:
"(g) Off-Street Informational Signs."
II. Section 365:10, Subd. 2 is amended by adding the following new paragraph (w) and
relettering the successive paragraphs:
"(w) Off-Street Informational Sign - A sign, not exceeding 3 square
feet per sign face, located on private property within or adjacent to off-
street parking areas that informs vehicular traffic of parking and access
restrictions within the off-street parking area."
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota this
2000.
day of
Pat Meisel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Fran Clark, City Clerk
JBD-187124vl
MU220-5
CITY OF MINNETRISTA
ADMINISTRATION
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Kandis Hanson, Mound City Manager
Tim Cruikshank, City Administrator
4 October 2000
Westedge Boulevard and utilities
This memorandum is to confirm items discussed at our 10/2/00 meeting with Chuck Alcon, Paul
Heuer, John Cameron, and Loren Gordon in preparation for the 10/9/00 meeting with the
Minnetrista City Council.
1)
The width and design of Westedge will be discussed by our City Engineers and a
recommendation will be forthcoming. The outstanding issues have to do with: a) the
width of the road being less than the 36 foot Minnetrista standard and the reasons for
this proposal, b) how to tie in to south end and north end of the road, c) how to get
under the trestle (Wara Real Estate would need to work with the railroad to accomplish
this), d) whether curb and gutter should be installed on both sides on the north end of
the street (there may be some environmental concerns with curb and gutter on the west
side on the north end), and e) who improves the 80 foot piece on the south that is on
Metropolitan Council property.
2)
Mound would extend water main in existing Westedge south through Minnetrista,
looping Mound's system. In order to do this, Minnetrista would need a utility easement
from Wara Real Estate and Mound and Minnetrista would need to enter into a
cooperative agreement addressing maintenance of Mound's water main that would be in
Minnetrista city limits. Also, Mound would install an emergency interconnection of the
two city's systems at their cost. The cities would need an agreement for this as well.
3) Wara Real Estate would extend Minnetrista water main from North Saunders in
Westedge north to Woodedge Drive for future Minnetrista needs.
4)
Future sewer connection for Minnetrista properties north of the trestle would either: 1)
connect to Mound's line for a short distance before entering MCES (this would require
an agreement between the two cities) or 2) Minnetrista could use the easement Mound
has and run a main to MCES.
5)
If and/or when the rail line is vacated, the City of Minnetrista and Hennepin Parks would
need to work together to apply for a grant for a pedestrian bridge to span Westedge.
Since this bridge would not be in Mound, they would not apply for the grant with us, but
would show support for the grant.
6)
The City of Mound would agree to conducting an information meeting on the
development of this area and how it may impact Westedge traffic. It has also been
suggested that Minnetrista provide staff to support this meeting as well. All area
residents would be notified of this meeting, including the Mound residents east of
proposed Saunders Lake North development.
G:\Tim\MEMOS\WESTEDGE1 .DOC
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Paul Heuer
RE: Mound's West Edge Boulevard Report ~ RoseneB°nestr°°
FILE: BRA File No. 260-gen
Anderlik &
DA TE: October 4, 2000 ~ Associates
Engineers & Architects
MEMO
We have reviewed the Feasibility Report for West Edge Boulevard dated September 25, 2000 and offer the
following comments.
General
The report addresses the reconstruction of West Edge Boulevard from CR15 south to Woodedge Road. The
Mound/Minnetrista boundary runs down the center of the right-of-way. Reconstructing this section of
roadway has many challenges and restrictions, such as poor existing sight distance, steep grades from the
edge of the existing road into private property, wetlands immediately adjacent to the roadway, and trees.
The existing gravel road width averages approximately 24-feet. Mound's City Engineer proposes a width of
30-feet.
Because of the steep street grades and steep driveways, this section of street will not be able to be designed
to meet 30-mph standards. Warning speed signing will be necessary.
Road Width
We consider this road to be either a high volume residential street or a collector street. The Minnetrista
standard width for a high volume residential street is 32-feet. The required width for a collector would be
36-feet. Given the physical constraints listed above, a 36-foot wide street is not practical or feasible. This, in
addition to the fact that the street cannot be designed to meet 30-mph standards, leads to our judgement that
a reasonable width would be 30 or 32-feet. The advantage of constructing it to 30-feet, as recommended in
the report, is slightly less impact on wetlands, driveways, and other areas of private property. The
disadvantage is that a 30-foot street would appear to be slightly substandard with regard to the traffic
volumes expected. We recommend a 32-foot street, which is more in line with City standards.
Option of Curb & Gutter
The Mound side of the street is proposed to have concrete curb and gutter. Options are presented in the
report for the Minnetrista side of the street to be either with or without concrete curb and gutter. From a
functional standpoint, curb and gutter may result in a slightly longer pavement life. The need for curb and
gutter in an urban area is much greater, as manicuring lawns leads to filling in ditches and therefore inhibits
drainage. Properties along this street are not manicured up to the edge of the street. From a construction
standpoint, curb and gutter will result in slightly more cutting or filling outside of the street, resulting in
slightly more impact to adjacent properties. Therefore, there is no significant advantage or disadvantage of
installing curb and gutter in this particular situation. In this case, it would be appropriate to base this
decision purely on aesthetics.
Typical Section
The current section is equivalent to the City of Minnetrista's current residential street section. It would be
appropriate to increase the section slightly, given the fact that this road will act as a high volume residential
street or a collector. We recommend increasing the thickness of gravel base from the currently proposed 8-
inches, to 1 O-inches. A sand base will most likely be necessary in the low area to provide for a stable
roadbed.
Impacts to Minnetrista Residents
Two Minnetrista properties will be affected by this project. Significant grade changes are proposed at
driveways of each of these properties, resulting in the need to extensively rebuild them. A retaining wall
will be constructed in the right-of-way adjacent to the southern property. Temporary construction easements
will be needed from both properties.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMO
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
August4,2000
Kandis Hanson, City Manager
Pat Meisel, City Mayor
Andrea Ahrens, City Council Member
Shirley Hawks
Collette Roberts
Greg Skinner
Proposed Updates to Administrative Code
Please review the attached document which incorporates the proposed updates
to the Administrative Code.
These revisions were approved by the Administrative staff on July 26, 2000.
We realize there are additional elements which need to be added in order to
bring The Code up-to-date such as the Family Medical Leave Act, A Transitional
Workplace Policy, Parenting Leave Policy, and other various types of leave
which are required by law such as time off for school conferences and activities,
bone marrow donation leave and time off to vote.
Our committee will continue to work on this revision process, however the
concensus of the administrative group was to get closure on the elements included
in this packet so they may be implemented with an effective date of January 1,2000.
pr~nted on recycled paper
2.1
2.3
14.1
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
,IULY 2000
STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE
SECTION 2 - COMPENSATION PLAN
Responsibility
Change date Pay Equity Plan was adopted to December 1999. Add annual salary
adjustments verbiage. Change "adopted" to "accepted."
Staff/New Reading:
All salary adjustments for employees shall be based upon the City's Pay Equity Plan
accepted by the City Council in December 1999.
Annual cost of living adjustments for all non-union employees shall be equal to the
highest percentage given to Union Contract personnel each year.
Committee Response: OK
Benefits
Add New Section.
The City provides a cafeteria benefits plan (or pre-tax plan) for its employees for the
purchase of health and dental services, and dependent care expenses.
Committee Response: OK
INSURANCE
Add New Employer Health Insurance Amounts
Staff/New Reading:
The Employer agrees to contribute up to the amounts set forth below towards the cost of
family coverage:
2O00 2001
Medica $470 $540
The Employer contribution amount will increase to offset the increases of the health
insurance premiums at an amount equivalent to the amount specified in Union
contracts.
Committee Response: OK
14.3
14.4
Life Insurance
Remove "employee assistance program", as it has been included in overall insurance
package for last several years.
Raise to $25,000 and delete "and membership in the employee assistance program for
each regular full-time employee."
Staff/New Reading:
The employer agrees to pay the full premium payment for a twenty five thousand dollar
($25,000) life insurance policy and a long-term disability insurance policy for each
regular full-time employee, after thirty (30) days of continuous employment.
Committee Response:
The employer agrees to pay the full premium payment for a ten thousand dollar
($10,000) life insurance policy and a long-term disability insurance policy for each
regular full-time employee, after thirty (30) days of continuous employment.
Staff Response: Okay
Dental Insurance:
Change amount of minimum monthly paid by the City to $30.00 per month.
Staff/New Reading:
After thirty (30) days of continuous employment, the Employer agrees to provide dental
insurance coverage for each regular full-time and full-time probationary employee or pay
up to thirty dollars ($30.00) per month toward coverage including dependents for each
regular full-time and probationary full-time employee.
Committee Response:
After thirty (30) days of continuous employment, the Employer agrees to provide dental
insurance coverage for each regular full-time and full-time probationary employee or
pay up to twenty-six dollars ($26.00) per month toward family coverage and full
coverage single coverage for each regular full-time and probationary full-time
employee.
Staff Response: Okay
21. Eye Examination
Change amount paid from $35 to $50 every 12 months.
Staff/New Reading:
The Employer agrees to pay up to fifty dollars ($50.00) for every twelve (12) months of
full-time employment toward an eye examination or the purchase of eye wear for each
full-time regular employee.
Committee Response:
The Employer agrees to pay up to fifty dollars ($50.00) toward an eye exam or toward
the purchase of eye wear for each employee with at least 24 month of continuous full-
time employment.
Staff Response: .....
The employer agrees to pay up to fifty dollars (50.00) fo? every twenty-four (24)
months of full-time employment toward an eye exam or toward the purchase of eye
wear for each full time regular employee.
SECTION 16 - VACATION SCHEDL~E
16.1 Delete hired before lanuary 1, 1984.
Staff/New Reading:
Regular full-time and probationary full-time employees shall accrue vacation according
to the following schedule:
YEARS HOURS EARNED NUMBER
OF PER BI-WEEKLY OF DAYS
SERVICE PAY PERIOD PER YEAR
0-5 3.077 10
6-15 4.615 15
16-20 6.154 20
21 and over 7.692 25
Committee Response:
R ~ l~fullt' S bt' ~11 ' 1 .1'~'' t'
egu ar x' lme an pro a lonary tu -time emp oyee/.~snan accrue vaca ion according
to the follo'aCing~ schedule: ~
YEARS~ HOURS/EARNED NUMBER
OF ~ PER/BICWEEICLY OF DAYS
SERVICE '~PA~Y PERIOD PER YEAR
o_5
6-15
16-20
~-Z6 and over
Staff Response
3.077'~ 10
4.615 "~ 15
6.154~ 20
7.692 ~-~ 25
9.230 ~0
Regular full-time and probationary full-time employees shall accrue vacation according
to the following schedule:
YEARS HOURS EARNED NUMBER
OF PER BI-WEEKLY OF DAYS
SERVICE PAY PERIOD PER YEAR
0-5 3.077 10
6-15 4.615 15
16-20 6.154 20
21 - 24 7.692 25
25 and over 9.230 30
16.1 Delete "leave musts be taken offduring that year end."
16.2
Staff/New Reading:
On an employee's twenty-fifth (25*) anniversary of service, he/she shall be granted forty
(40) additional hours of vacation with pay for that year. This vacation can be waived to
receive extra salary.
Committee Response:
LReplace with: Vacation leave benefits cannot be waived to receive cash wages.
Staff/Response:
Okay, as long as extra week of vacation starts on 25~ year and not 26th. (Reason is, it
takes an entire year to accrue the one week, so employee would not see the extra full
week until the start of his/her 27th year if left at 26 and over.) Vacation leave benefits
cannot be waived to receive cash wages.
Change to vacation can be taken after 6 months of employment in order to be consistent
with the sick leave 6 month waiting period.
Staff/New Reading:
Paid vacation shall be earned during the first year of employment but cannot be taken
until after 6 months of employment without the approval of the City Manager. Time off
for vacation must be approved by the employee's department head.
Committee Response:
Vacation leave shall accrue during the first year of employment but cannot be taken until
after six months of employment. Accrued vacation may be taken as unpaid leave during
the first six months of employment with the approval of the City Manager. After six
months of employment, vacation leave must be approved in advance by the employee's
supervisor.
Staff Response:
Change to 16.3
Vacation leave shall accrue during the first year of employment but cannot be taken until
after six months of employment. Time off may be taken as unpaid leave during the first
six months of employment with the approval of the City Manager. After six months of
employment, vacation leave must be approved in advance by the employee's supervisor.
16.4
15.1
Change one and one-half to two and one-half
Staff/New Reading:
An employee can carry over up to two and one-half (2 1/2) weeks of all earned vacation
from one year to the next. All vacation time over that amount must be approved by the
City Manager.
Committee Response:
An employee can carry over up to one and one-half (1 1/2) weeks of all earned vacation
from one year to the next. All vacation time over that amount must be approved by the
City Manager.
Staff Response: Okay
SECTION 15 - ttOLIDAYS
Add Martin Luther King Day as 12th holiday. Employees will also have a floating
holiday.
Staff/New Reading:
The employer agrees to provide the following paid Holidays to all regular and
probationary full-time employees:
New Year's Day
President's Day
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Veteran's Day
Martin Luther King Day
Thanksgiving Day
The Day After Thanksgiving Day
1/2 Day Christmas Eve Day
Christmas Day
1/2 Day New Year's Eve Day
One (1) Floating Holiday
Committee Response:
The employer agrees to provide the following paid Holidays to all regular and
probationary full-time employees:
New Year's Day
Thanksgiving Day
President's Day
The Day After Thanksgiving Day
Memorial Day
1/2 Day Christmas Eve Day
Independence Day
Christmas Day
Labor Day
1/2 Day New Years Eve Day
Veteran's Day
One (1) Floating Holiday
Martin Luther King Day
StaffResponse: Okay
15.3 Change Holiday worked rate of pay to 3.5 times the employee's regular base rate of pay
(this will affect 3 sections of the code).
Staff/New Reading:
Any full-time or full-time probationary employee required to work on a Holiday shall
receive three and one-half (3 1/2) times his/her hourly rate for all hours worked. Any
part-time employee required to work on a Holiday shall receive one and one-half (1 1/2)
times his/her regular base hourly pay rate for all hours worked.
Committee Response:
Any full-time regular or full-time probationary employee required to work on a Holiday
shall receive two and one-half (2 1/2) times his/her hourly rate for all hours worked.
Any part-time employee required to work on a Holiday shall receive one and one-half (1
1/2) times his/her regular base hourly pay rate for all hours worked. Work on a ltoliday
requires prior department head approval.
Staff Response: Okay
4.4
Holiday pay shall be paid at a rate of three and one-half (3 1/2) times the employee's
regular base rate.
Committee Response:
Holiday pay shall be paid at a rate of two and one-half (2 1/2) times the employee's
regular base rate.
StaffResponse: Okay
e
17.3
An employee called in for work at a time other than his/her normal scheduled shill, will
be compensated for a minimum of two (2) hours pay at one and one-half(1 1/2) times the
employee's regular base pay rate, except on Sunday when it shall be two and one-half(2
1/2) times the employee's regular base pay rate or on Holidays when it shall be three and
one-half (3 1/2) times the employee's regular base pay rate.
Committee Response:
An employee called in for work at a time other than his/her normal scheduled shift, will
be compensated for a minimum of two (2) hours pay at one and one-half (1 1/2) times the
employee's regular base pay rate, except on Sunday when it shall be two and one-half(2
1/2) times the employee's regular base pay rate or on Holidays when it shall be two and
one-half (2 1/2) times the employee's regular base pay rate.
Staff Response: Okay
SECTION 17 - SICK LEAVE
Add "children" to allowable household family member who can be cared for.
Staff/New Reading:
..."Immediate family member" here includes the employee's own parents, spouse,
children, siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren who are regular members of the
employee's household.., to include children still attending secondary school.
Delete portion of last sentence from original:
For the purpose of this paragraph, "child" is defined in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes 181.940, subd. 4 as an individual under 18 years of age or an individual under
the age of 20 whom is still attending secondary school.
Delete the last five words of last sentence - "under the ages specified herein."
Staff/New Reading:
An employee may use personal sick leave benefits accumulated in accordance with this
Section for absences due to an illness of the employee's child for such reasonable periods
as the employee's attendance with the child may be necessary, on the same terms the
employee is able to use sick leave benefits for the employee's own illness. For the
purposes of this paragraph, "child" is defined as employee's own child, step child, ward
or adopted child.
Committee Response:
Leave as written in the Administrative Code.
17.4
18.2
29.3
Staff Response:
Sick leave may be used for an employee's own illness, physical examination, dental
care, injury, maternity care, outpatient or inpatient treatment for mental illness,
alcoholism, or drug abuse. Employees may also request using sick leave for the
serious illness, injury or other health care of members in their immediate family
who reside with them or for whom they have primary health care responsibility.
Change fi-om two to three days before possibly being required to file a letter fi-om his/her
doctor or dentist.
Staff/New Reading:
Employees claiming sick leave may be required to file competent written evidence that
he/she has been absent as authorized above, or if more than three (3) days, that the
employee has been under treatment and supervision of a doctor or dentist who
recommends work not be performed. If the employee has been incapacitated for the
period of his/her absence or a major part thereof, the employee may be required to
provide evidence that he/she is again physically able
to perform his/her duties.
Committee Response: OK
SECTION 18 - SEVERANCE PAY
Add "up to" in last sentence.
Staff/New Reading:
The Employer shall pay full-time employees the full amount of severance pay at the time
of termination. If requested, the employee may elect to receive equal amounts over a
period of up to five (5) years.
Committee Response: OK
SECTION 29 - MISCELLANEOUS
Add to code:
Each employee shall receive wearing apparel with the City insignia on it not to
exceed the cost of $75 per employee per year.
Committee Response:
Each employee shall receive wearing apparel with the City insignia on it not to
exceed the cost of $35 per employee per year.
Staff Response: Okay
26.2
SECTION 26 - ABSENCES DUE TO WEATHER
Add to code as it is already being received.
If the employee is sent home due to inclement weather or because of building
maintenance problems at City EIall, the employee shall be compensated at their
regular scheduled rate of pay.
Committee Response:
-OIL. SECTION 26 - COMPENSATION FOR TIME NOT WORKED
If the employee chooses to go home due to inclement weather, he or she may
compensate him or herself through the use of vacation or comp time accruals, or
remain unpaid. If building maintenance problems at City Hall causes Management
to close City Hall, the employee shall be compensated by the City for the time lost at
their regular rate of pay.
Staff Response:
If the employee chooses to go home due to inclement weather, he or she may compensate
him or herself through the use of vacation or comp time accruals, or remain unpaid. If
building maintenance problems at City Hall or inclement weather causes Management
to close City Hall, the employee shall be compensated by the City for the time lost at
their regular rate of pay.
27.1
SECTION 27 - LEGAL DEFENSE
'DelVe the words "may not" and add the word "shall." Replace "municipality" with
E~gence, ignor_ance of_la_w_s, non-
~I decision, shall receive legal
d_efens~ by t~e ~ ~
, S attached Defense and Indemnification Policy.
Staff Response: Accept in full Defense and Indemnification Policy. See attached
SECTION 28 - RESIGNATION
28.2 Change to require 30 days notice from department head level employees instead of two
weeks.
Staff/New Reading:
Any department head wishing to leave the service of the City in good standing shall file a
letter of resignation with the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective
date.
Committee Response: OK
SECTION 30 - COMPLIANCE TO THIS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
30.4 Add:
City Management will meet annually with the employee representative group to
discuss possible changes to the administrative code. No changes will be made to the
code without discussion between management and the administrative group.
Committee Response:
City Management will meet no less than every two years with the employee
representative group to discuss possible changes to the administrative code. No
changes will be made to the code without discussion between management and those
affected
Staff Response:
City Management will meet no less than every two years with the employee
representative group to discuss possible changes to the administrative code. No changes
will be made to the code without discussion between the city manager and the
administrative employee representatives.
Other, as submitted bv Committee:
Change each reference to employees as "permanent" to "regular," throughout Code.
Staff response: Okay
POLICY AND PROC?~ URE
FOR
DEFENSE ~ I. NDEI~NIFIC~TION OF
EMPLOYEES
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to propose & policy and
procedure ~o be used in determining whet.her r_he City should provide
defense and indemnification to City employees.
POLICY
It is the policy of the Ci=y of Minneapolis to provide defense
and indemnification in accordance wi=h the public policy impliciu
in Minnesota Sza~u~es, Chapter 466 and to pro=ec~ =hose perfgrming
governmental services on behalf of the Ci=y of Minneapolis against
risk of liability resulting from lawsuics. Because the City of~
Minneapolis is responsible for providing inspection and regulatory~
services and for maintaining law and order, many of its employees]
have a high risk of exposure to claims and civil liabiliuy-/
Consequent!y, iT is the policy of ~he City =o provide defense and
indemnifica=ion for all of its employees in accordance wi~h the
public policy aruiculated in Minnesota $~atu~es, Chapser 466.
SCOPE OF AVAXLA~ILITY
The City shall defend any officer or employee for any toruious
conduct arising ou~ of any alleged act or omission occurring in the
performance of the dusies of his/her position. If the City
determines that any officer or employee is guilty of malfeasance in
· OE-ZB-O0 II :48 Fro~-KEMEDI' & I;EXVEII +E1Z~]?9:~IO T-I~ P.O:~/OE F-440
office, wilful neglect of duty, or bad faith, it shall nog defend
or indemnify that officer or employee.
PROCEDURE
When an employee is served with a summons and complaint in a
lawsuit, the employee must fill out a form requesting that ~he City
defend the employee. This form shall be required in all lawsuits
where employees are named as individual defendants. The employee
shall submi.~ the form ~o the department head for certification that
the employee was acting wir~hin the scope of his/her employment and
acting in the performance of =he duties of his/her position. The
Request to Defend Form and Depar~menta! Certification shall be sen~
to ~he City Attorney's Office. :
After the form and certification have been signed and
presented to the City Attorney's Office, the City A~=orney and
deparrauent head will review the Request =o Defend form and
Departmental Certification to determine if the conduc= occurred
within the performance of the duties of =he position and to make a
preliminary determination whether th.~e conduct involved malfeasance
in office, wilful neglect of du~y or bad faith wi=bin =he meaning
of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. If =he City Attorney and
department head determine =hat r~he employee was acting within the
performance of the duties of his/her position and =ha= conduct did
not constitute malfeasance, wilful neglect of duty, or bad faith,
2
the City Attorney's Office will represent the employee or retain
separate counsel in accordance with ethical requirements.
If the City Attorney and depar[ment head de~ermine that
defense and indemnification is not appropriate because the employee
was either hOC acting in r~e performance of the duties%of the
position or was ac~ing in bad faith, malfeasance or wilf~, neqlact
of duty, the City Attorney shall notify the employee of that
prelLminary, decision. A contract administrative law judge will be
retained by the City to conduct a hearing, if desired by the
employee, to determine whether the City has an obligation to
provide a defense and indemnification To 5he e.~ployee. The
employee may presen~ evidence, wirnesses and argumen~ befo're the
administrative law judqe and cros$-ex~mine witnesses. The
administrative law judge shall issue findings of fac~, conclusions
of !aw and recommendation(s) to the City Council specifically
addressing ~herher the employee was acting within ~he performance
of the duties of his/her position, or is guilty of malfeasance, bad
The recommendation{s) of ~he
faith or wilful neglec~ of duty._~
administrasive !aw judge will be submitted to the ~i~y Council for
a final decision.
If the deparr_ment head and the-City Attorney are unable to
agree on whether the employee should be defended and indemnified by
the City, the case will be presented to The City Council [or, in ~
cases involving the Police Department, ~o the Mayor] for a
preliminary decision. If the Council {or the Mayor in cases
/
3
/
7~lnvolving_ r_he Police Depar~men=) determines =hat defense and
indemnification is appropria=e, the employee shall be immediately
notified. The City A==orney's Office shall provide a defense in
accordance with er_bios! principals. If the City Council or Hayor
preliminarily de=ermine r_ha= ~he employee should au= be de~nded or
indemnified by ~he City, =hen =he ma~er shall be referred to an
adminissra~ive law judge for a hearing as described above.
At=ached ~o this proposed policy and procedure is a flow chart
which is designed =o illustrate graphically =he City's procedure
for providing defease and iademni fica =ion =o City amployees.
4
T-I$~ P.05/06
Engineering o Planning , Surveying
ME M O R,4 ND UM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
October 5, 2000
Kandis Hanson, Mound City Manager
Daniel Parks, MFRA ff*~f.
Mound SWMP - Wetlands Functions and Values Assessment Update
MFRA #10293
As requested, we have approached the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD)
regarding cost sharing of Mound's wetlands functions and values assessment. It is
unlikely that the MCWD will cost-share with Mound or any other city. Instead they are
considering conducting the wetland assessments with the Hennepin Conservation District
for various communities over the next two-years. The City of Mound is one of their top
four priorities and their efforts could begin this fall or next spring. MCWD's staff
believes that Mound's SWMP could be approved contingent upon the MCWD
completing the assessment. The MCWD's wetland assessment program is still
developing and should be better defined at their October 12, 2000 meeting. I suggest we
wait for the results of that meeting and react accordingly.
We have also been in contact with the Metropolitan Council. They have matching funds
in the order of $10,000 immediately available to assist Mound with the wetlands
assessment. The grant would need to be matched by City funds. The grant application
has been provided previously to you and John Dean for review. At your direction we are
completing the application and will forward it to the Metropolitan Council within the
next week. If the Metropolitan Council approves the grant, the City will need to approve
the application agreement. If the MCWD program is viable and acceptable, the City can
choose not to use the grant.
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth. Minnesota · 55447
phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532
e-mail: mfra@mfra, com
Kandis Hanson
October 5, 2000
Page 2
If the MCWD wetlands program does not work for the City's best interest, the wetlands
functions and values assessment should be completed by the City yet this Fall in order to
keep the SWMP approval on schedule for November or December 2000.
We will keep in touch with the MCWD and report back to you and Council at the next
Council meeting and after the Watershed has a more definitive program.
We trust this information has been helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call me at 763-476-6010.
En gineer/parks/j obs/moundmemorewetlandsmonies I 0.5.00
BOARD MEMBERS
Douglas E. Babcock
Chair, Tonka Bay
Bert Foster
Vice Chair, Deephaven
Eugene Partyka
Secretary, Minnetrista
Craig Nelson
Treasurer, Spring Park
Andrea Ahrens
Mound
Bob Ambrose
Wayzata
Kent Dahlen
Minnetonka Beach
Craig Eggers
Victoria
Tom Gilman
Excelsior
Greg Kitchak
Minnetonka
Lili McMillan
Orono
Tom Skramstad
Shorewood
Herb J. Suerth
Woodtand
,heldon Wert
Greenwood
50% Recycled Content
20% Post Consumer Waste
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
18338 MINNETONKA BLVD.. DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 · FAX 612/745-9085
Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
September 12, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LMCD Mayors and Council Members
LMCD Member Cities
LMCD Board of Directors
Interested Parties
Bert Foster, LMCD Vice Chairman
Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director
Update on Proposal for Adding Two Water Patrol Deputies for 2001 Boating Season
In the attached letter, dated 7/24/00, the LMCD brought to your attention a proposal for a way to
increase Hennepin County Shedffs Water Patrol presence on Lake Uinnetonka, for the 2001
boating season, by two full-time Deputies. We requested feedback from the LMCD member cities,
by R/15/00, on two questions relating to this proposal. These were: 1) whether the member cities
would support an increase of Water Patrol presence for the 2001 boating season, and 2) whether the
member cities would be willing to share in some of the costs for it.
Overwhelmingly, the member cities have indicated that they support an increase in Water Patrol
presence on Lake Minnetonka. Many cities indicated a willingness to share some of the cost and
two cities had some concems regarding cost sharing. The comments received from these two
member cities included: 1) Lake Minnetonka is a regional amenity and that that increased presence
of Water Patrol should be funded at Hennepin County level, and 2) there is a need to provide
justification for increased Water Patrol presence on Lake Uinnetonka.
A meeting was held at the Hennepin County Shedffs Water Patrol Headquarters on Thursday,
8/24100, to discuss the proposal, to review and address the feedback received from LMCD member
cities, and to further define the details of the proposal. There was a wide range of local and regional
representation at this meeting, including:
· Hennepin County Commissioner Penny Steele
· Tom Church, Principal Assistant to Hennepin County Commissioner Mary Tambornino
· Orono Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Shorewood Mayor Woody Love, and Spring Park Mayor
Jerry Rockvam
· Four staff members of Hennepin County Sheriff's Office
· Four staff members from LMCD member cities
· LMCD Directors Foster and UcMillan, and LMCD Executive Director Greg Nybeck
After significant discussion, three key points were identified that justify the need for increased Water
presence. They include:
1. A cultural change of boatin.~ activities on Lake Minnetonka. The boats are larger, are
driven in a manner that make larger waves, and are sometimes ddven by people who do not
know the rules of the road and courteous operation. There seems to be an increase in
aggressive operation on some boats of all sizes with a disregard for the law and their effect
Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/-Imcd/
E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
on others. This cultural change has resulted in increased concerns by the public, including
dparian owners and watercraft operators. This has resulted in a reduced quality of the
experience of those that recreate on Lake Minnetonka. The group felt that this situation
could be improved by increased Water Patrol presence by having increased patrol hours.
2. Si.clnificantl¥ reduce I~atrol hours due to increased comi~lexit'v of processing violators.
A BWI arrest, that used to take a Deputy off patrol for an hour to process the offender, now
can take four to six hours. The increased processing time results from laws created to
protect the dghts of the public and has affected criminal investigations. Arrests on the water,
which are more difficult than land, now take much more time, which results in fewer actual
patrol hours. The end result is less visible presence of the Water Patrol on the Lake.
3. The need to Drel~are for the Sl~ecial Del~utv litiqation currently at the Minnesota State
Supreme Court. Historically, the Water Patrol has supplemented their full-time, licensed
Deputies with 30 volunteer special deputies. These special deputies man patrol boats, make
stops, and issue tickets. They average approximately 250 hours of volunteer time per year;
however, their authority to "investigate" has been challenged in court and is currently at the
Minnesota Supreme Court. If the ruling goes against the Water Patrol, there will be a sedous
reduction in Water Patrol presence on the Lake. The group felt that the increase of two
licensed ~aid Deputies would De at least some protection in the case of an adverse ruling. In
the case of a favorable ruling, the two new deputies would have the needed effect of
increased patrol hours.
ue group decided to try to establish a two-year funding commitment, for $100,000 per year, to be
ed exclusively for two additional Water Patrol Deputies to patrol Lake Minnetonka beginning in the
2001 boating season. None of these funds have been voted upon, but the proposed breakdown is
as follows:
· 50% from Hennepin County.
· 30% from the LMCD Member Cities.
· 20% from the LMCD "Save the Lake" Fund (Private contributions resulting from LMCD
solicitation letters).
The LMCD member cities would need to fund the proposed $30,000 through voluntary contributions
for 2001. For 2002, it could be funded either through voluntary contributions or by adjusting the
LMCD levy to its member cities in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.635. The
increased levy would require adoption of a resolution by N of the member cities (11 of 14). Details
of how much each member city would be levied, using the LMCD formula outlined in Minnesota
Statutes 103B.635, is detailed in the attached spreadsheet.
We are asking each city to add the amount shown on the attached spreadsheet to their 2001 budget.
If the other sources of revenue do not become available, the LMCD will rethink the plan and be back
to each group. Please feel free to call the LMCD Executive Director if you have questions.
m
'/54
·
m~
rrlz z
zc')o
I'1'I
m
BOARD MEMBERS
Douglas E. Babcock
Chair, Tonka Bay
Bert Foster
Vice Chair, Deephaven
Eugene Partyka
Secretary, Minnetrista
Craig Nelson
Treasurer, Spring Park
Andrea Ahrens
Mound
Bob Ambrose
Wayzata
Kent Dahlen
Minnetonka Beach
Craig Eggers
Victoria
Tom Giirnsn
Excelsior
Greg Kitchak
Minnetonka
Uli McMi~lan
Oron~
Tom Skramstad
Shorewood
Herb J. Suerth
Woodland
,Sheldon Weft
Greenwood
50% Recycled Content
20% Post Cor~umer Waste
I
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 - TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 · FAX 612/745-9085
Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
July 24, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LMCD Mayors and Councilmembers
LMCD Member Cities
Interested Parties
Douglas Babcock, LMCD Chairman ~/~ ~/~~
Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director
Increase in Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka
During the past year, the LMCD Board of Directors, the LMCD member cities, other agencies
and interested parties, have been reviewing Lake Minnetonka's activity levels and changes in
usage patterns. Notable changes have occurred in the area of charier boat licensing,
specifically the increase to our maximum allowed number of full liquor licenses; and in area of
increased size and scope of weekend anchoring at the north side of Big Island, including
numerous, large, semi-organized events for which no LMCD Special Event permit was
obtained. The Hennepin County Shedffs Water Patrol Division was especially concerned
about the lack of Public Safety access to the Big Island area during these weekend
timeframes.
While some action has been taken by the District to help achieve a better balance for alt users
and uses, like adding marked navigation lanes to the Big Island area, there still are a number
of concerns being discussed by agencies and the public at large. The current concerns all
hav~ brought forward a common thread, the need for increased law enforcement presence on
the Lake, particularly during the summer season. Those of us familiar with the current state of
enforcement on the Lake can easily conclude that the current levels and types of enforcement
provided by the Water Patrol are of high quality and are very cost effective, especially when
recognizing the volunteer Special Deputy program. But, we can also see that increasing full-
time enforcement levels by during the summer months would do a great deal to improve the
consistency of enforcement and the quality of experience for all aspects of lake use.
At the June 28th regular meeting of the LMCD Board of Directors, a presentation was made by
Orono Mayor Gabriel Jabbour proposing the need to explore additional Hennepin County
Sheriff's Water Fatrol presence on Lake Minnetonka. A suggested course of action was to
increase the presence by two full time Deputies, for five months, for the 200t boating season.
After significant discussion, the attached LMCD Resolution 99 was adopted by the LMCD at
this meeting. Two objectives are established in LMCD Resolution 99. They include: 1) the
LMCD believes that a supplemental law enforcement program, partially funded by the LMCD,
the member cities, and the private sector is needed and would be beneficial to Lake
Minnetonka, and 2) the LMOD would agree to be the lead agency, in this type of endeavor.
Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/-Imcd/
E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
This proposal and resolution was carded forward to the Mayors meeting on June 30th, which
included a wide range of local, regional and state representation. Representation included
State Senator Gen Olson, State Representative Barb Sykora, Hennepin County Commissioner
Penny Steele, a representative of Hennepin County Commissioner Mary Tambornino, and a
number of Mayors from the Lake Minnetonka communities. The general consensus of those
present at this meeting believed the idea made good sense and that it should be considered
for the 2001 boating season. It was also agreed that any increase in enforcement should be in
addition to maintaining the levels of funding and enforcement currently provided by the Water
Patrol. In no way was any new program to shift the current levels and funding of enforcement
from Hennepin County to the Cities.
To keep the momentum moving forward on this proposal and to assist the cities with 2001
budget planning, the LMCD would like feedback from its member communities on it by
Tuesday, August 15th. Specifically, we are looking for whether the member cities would
support an increase of Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka for the 2001 boating
season and whether they are willing to share in the costs for it. Possible funding mechanisms
for the member cities to consider include voluntary contributions or by adjusting the maximum
the LMCD can levy to its member cities in Minnesota Statutes 103B.635 by adoption of a
resolution of % of the member cities (10 of 14 cities). It is estimated that the total costs for the
increased presence of the Water Patrol for the 2001 boating season would be approximately
$100,000. The share of the costs for each individual city would be determined using the
existing LMCD levy formula.
If a majority of cities were in support this proposal, the LMCD would create and lead a task
force to formulate and finalize the details of this program. It would be our intent to present the
results of the task force to all the member cities for approval before requesting any specific
funding amounts for 2001.
Please feel free to call LMCD Executive Director Greg Nybeck if you have questions or
concerns regarding this proposal. Your timely response is greatly appreciated!
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RESOLUTION 99
RESOLUTION TO INCREASE HENNEPIN COUNTY
SHERIFF'S WATER PATROL PRESENCE
ON LAKE MINNETONKA
WHEREAS, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board (LMCD) of Directors received
public testimony and discussed the need for increased public safety on Lake Minnetonka at its June
28, 2000 Regular meeting; and
WHEREAS, the LMCD Board of Directors discussed the idea of increasing the presence of
Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Deputies by two during the 2001 boating season for five
months; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol, working through a joint and
cooperative agreement with the LMCD that is renewed annually, is authorized to enforce the
provisions of the LMCD ordinances by the issuance of citations and such other means as permitted
by state law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
The LMCD believes that a supplemental law enforcement program, partially funded by
each the LMCD, the member cities, and the private sector is needed and would be
beneficial to Lake Minnetonka.
2. The LMCD would agree to be the lead agency in this type of endeavor.
Adopted the 2.8th day of Ju0e, 2000.
Douglas Babcock, Chair
ATTEST:
FROM:
DATE:
Plei~e forward A.S.A~P,
Lake Area Mayors
Mayor Gabriel Jabbour
Suly ~$, ~000
L¢7or from the ~MCD Reg~ing ~e~ Wa~ Patrol Presemc on L~
A letter came om fxom the LMCD to ~ll membex cities today reg~rclh~g ~ for ~ldidonal
I~nn~in Count7 Sheriff' s W~tcr Pam~l prcs~ce on Lake Minn~ouka. This lcaex ,eros i~ respcmse
I~ a proposal I made st ~ June 2tt LMCD n~eting, ~md which was ~3m d~scussed at s Lake Area
Mayors' mo~dng oft Ju~ 30,
It is vcxy imlx~rumt rMt, as you revicw ~ proposal, it is clear ~at th~ proposal involves three
~raxce~ of fcmdix~g as follows:
a. $ 3% f'~d~ by thc LMCD wi~h;,, its zurrem ~-.
b. ~3% landed by the LMCD
c. 5 t% ~md~l ~ thc ~rivnm szct~r.
~ven a proj~e~d eo~t of $100,000, r~ Lake .~'es Cities wo~_tld, jolntly con~tmte $33,000 crf the
total co~ If you have troy questions regat~liug lh~ pmpo~I, please ~ not hesizate m call me.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
August 18, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUJECT:
Board of Directors
Greg Nybeck, Executive Director
Update on increase of Water Patrol presence on Lake Minntonka from member cities
At the 6/28/00 Regular meeting, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board of Directors
received a presentation from Orono Mayor Gabdel Jabbour regarding the need to explore additional
Hennepin County Shedffs Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka for the 2001 boating season. The
proposed course of action was to increase presence on Lake Minnetonka by two full-time Deputies, for five
months, at a cost of approximately $100,000. The LMCD Board supported the proposal from Mayor
Jabbour and adopted LMCD Resolution 99 at the 6/28/00 meeting. This proposal was also discussed at
the 6/30/00 Mayors meeting, with a general consensus that it made sense and should be considered for the
2001 boating season.
The attached letter from Chair Babcock, dated 7/24/00, was forwarded to the member cities asking for
feedback from them on the proposal. Specifically, the letter asks whether the member cities would support
an increase of Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka for the 2001 boating season and whether they
are willing to share in the costs for it. The letter requested feedback to the District office by Tuesday,
8/15/00. The attached follow-up letter, dated 7/25/00, was also forwarded to the member cities from Mayor
Jabbour on the proposal.
Because the 8/15/00 deadline for comments from the member cities has come and gone, staff would like to
update the Board on feedback received. Wdtten feedback was received from the Cities of Excelsior,
Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, Mound, and Wayzata. Additionally, verbal feedback was received
from the Cities of Greenwood, Orono, and Sprin9 Park. Staff has attached a copy of the letters received,
for your review, from the member cities that have provided written feedback.
Based on the feedback received, staff believes the majority of the member cities, that have provided
feedback, support increased Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka for the 2001 boating season.
Staff is not clear on the position of the City of Mound on this issue. With regards to whether they are willing
to share in the costs of the proposal, there are mixed responses from the member cities. The Cities of
Greenwood, Minnetonka Beach, Orono, Spdng Park, Tonka Bay, and Wayzata have indicated that they
would be willing to share in the costs of this proposal. The Cities of Excelsior, Minnetrista, and Mound have
indicated that they would not be willing to share in the costs of this proposal.
Prior to the 8/23/00 Regular meeting, staff will attempt to get feedback from the member cities that have not
responded to the proposal. Staff believes the Board needs to discuss what direction the District would like
to take this proposal based on the feedback received from the member cities.
August 8, 2000
Crreg Nybeck
Executive Director
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
1833 8 Minnetonka Boulevard
Deephaven, Minnesota 55331
CITY OF EXCELSIOR
339 THIRD STREET
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331
TEL: 952-47a-5233
FAX: 052-474-6300
Dear Greg:
On August 8, the Excelsior City Council reviewed the LMCD's and Mayor Gabriel Jabbour's
proposals regarding an increased law enforcement program on Lake Minnetonka~
The Council endorsed an LMCD-led effort to develop an increased law enforcement program on
Lake Minnetonka, and supported the idea of creating a task force or committee to do so.
The Council also stated that it would not support the notion that murficipalities around Lake
Minnetonka should pay axuytlfing toward an increased presence of the Hennepin County Sheriff's
Water Patrol on the lake. It believed that Hennepin County should pay to meet its obligation for
the increased need to provide law enforcement services. Council did not want to "mix budgets"
vdth flue County's and others' revenues for what would appear to be the new required level of
Water Patrol services.
Please call if you would like clarification or elaboration on the Council's action.
Sincerely,
Cr on
City Mfd~ager
AUG 1 0 2000
.. AUG 15 ~000 -~i
C~TY O1~ THE VILLAGE O1~ MINN-ETONKA REACH
RESOLI_VrlON 2000-23
Resolution to Support the LMCD'$ Request To Increase Hennepin County
Sheriff's Water Patrol Presence on Lake Minnetonlm
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular mooting of the CiW Council oft. he City
of the Vill~e ofM. inne~onka Beach, Minnesola was held on the 14~ day of August 2000. The
following members were presem: Mayor M2ke Bloom, Council Members Cas,h, Mathews, Left
and Treasurer Salvog.
Council Member Left introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
Where,, the LMCD believes that a supplemental law enforcement program, partially
funded by each, ~he LMCD, the member cities, and the private sector is needed and
would be beneficial to Lake Minnet. onka; and
Now, thcrefor~ be it resolved that the City Council of the Village of l~linnetonka
Beach does hereby support the LMCD's request to i~rease the pr~nce of Hcnnepin
County Sheriff's Water Patrol Deputies by obtain/ng additional funding from the member
dries, as well as other sources, provided that the additional deputies are dedicated solely
to Lake Minnetonk~
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council
Member Gasch and, upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor ~hzreo£: a~ck,
Left, Mathcws. Thc following voted against or absudned: None.
Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted this 14th day of August 200~.'.
ATTEST:
Mike Bloom, Mayor
Marilyn Regnier, .City Clerk
Dat~
Municipal igffices
7701 Courtly Road II0 We, sI
Minnclrisla, MN 55364-9552
11 -Aug-00
Greg Nybeck, Executive Director
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
18338 Minnetonka Boulevard
Deephaven, MN 55391
RE: Funding for increased water patrol on Lake Minnetonka
Greg:
As we discussed on the phone Tuesday, 8/8/00, the Minnetrista City
Council is not supportive of Lake Area cities paying for most of the cost of
increased patrol time on Lake Minnetonka, as referenced in your 7~24~00
letter.
Because Lake Minnetonka is a regional amenity and used by people from
the greater area, there was Council support for Hennepin County to fund
this proposed increase in patrol time.
Please let me know if you need anything fudher.
Si~ely,
T~i~' Cruikshank
City Administrator
CITY OF MOUND
~M1 MA.YWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNE~TA 55364.1687
F/tX (612) 472~
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
August 9, 2000
Dong~s Babcock, LMCD Chairman
Greg Nybeck, LMCD Ex~ufive Director
Mayor Pat Meisel
Mound City Council Members
Kandis Hanson, City' Manager
Increased Water Patrol on Lake Minnetonka
At ifs Aug~ 8, 2000 me.Lag, thc Mound City Council considered LMCD Resolution
99 requesting LMCD member cities tn subsid~ thc cost of two additional patrol officers
for Lake Mi-nc*.onka, in*.he amount of $100,000.00. Members voted to not support the
reso!u~on.
~'oint #1. I~ is the opinion of the Council ~haz any increase ~n problems caused dir~-~dy
by charter boats and hquor consumption on charter boaxs may be direclly eon~zolled by
LMCD. As thc licensing agency, LMCD may control the qu~tity and type of operation
with no increase La law enforcement costs to member cffies. Violations could be
addressed through the licensing controls. Should these commercial operations in some
way cream ~e nell for mom police presence, those costs should be passed directly
through to the licensee in the form of higher fe~. It is not thc role of the City of Mound
to subsidize pzivate business in this manner.
~oint #2. It is the opinion of the Ci~ of Mound Council ~h~t ~s ~o~s~ is ~e m~ of
a recent ~6~on ~ h~ ~d~ed ~e a~o~ of water p~ol vol~t~. ~ o~mc
~ not ~e m~bih~ of lo~ m~cip~ifies; ~l is a Hemep~ Co~ problem.
Point #3. Over thc years, Lake Minnctonka municipalities have been subjected to
mandates for more acc. csscs and more parking. These mandates h~ve increased parking
congestion and have otherwise squeezed the City of M0und, with no accompanying 'ii
means of relic£ This, too, is a regional problem, that bas been made thc burden of ~t
Page:
Date:
Subj:
Two
August 9, 2000
Increased Water Patrol on Lake Minnetonka
locality. It is the opinion of the Council that those agencies that place requOements on
municipalities should bear the burden of the impacts.
l~oint ~t4. It is a fact that cities surrounding Lake Minnctonka pay a greater share of ~e
tax used to regulate Lake Minnetonka already. It is the opinion of the Council that
marketing schemes that ckaw consumers from well outside the Mound area should be
funded by the users (i.e., licensing fees or surcharges) which, in mm, will fund the co~t of
increased water patrol. Licensing requirements could, in fact, require hired marine palzol
as a condition of permit approval. LMCD member cities should not be expected to pay
for increased law enforcement for thcs, types ofiake activities.
Poini #$. If this i~crease were to pass by majority vote of the LMCD membership, the
City of Mom'ad has two remaining concerns, i) It is critical that the two adflidonal
officers be dedica.ted ro Lake Minnetonka and *aha! there are assurances that existing
water patrol on Lake ML-metonka not be rotat~ m other loc, ation~. 2) An alert that
LMCD's 33% participation in th/s program will result in a loss of services Io member
cities otherwise pro~,-ided by those same dollars.
For these reasons, *.be City of Mound is opposed m supporting LMCD Resolution 99.
Should you have f~arther questions or wish further discussion, you are ire'ired to contact
the CiBr Manager or visit with Council Members at a regularly scheduled meeting.
City of Tonka Bay
City of Deeptmven
City of Minnetrista
City of Spring Park
City of Wayzata
Cit3, of Minnetonk~ Beach
City of Victoria
City of Excelsior
City, of Mirmetonka
City of Orono
City of Shorewood
City of Woodland
City of Crreenwood
AUG 1 0 2000
4901 Manilou Road, Tonka Bey, Minnesota 56331 (952) 474.799~,
MAYOR
Duu~ K, olier
Guy
John Se ne~c. aJ
Jucld Mow~
Julia ~wbe~y
July 28, 2000
Mr. Greg Nybeck, Exec. Dir.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
18338 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven MN 55331-3232
Dear Greg:
At their regular meeting of July 25, 2000, the Tonka Bay City Council agreed to
support, the LMCD's proposal to add additional police protection on Lake
Minnetonka and to contribute financially.
We look forward to hearing from you as plans tc add the additional officers
become better defined.
If after reviewing this you have any questions, please contact me at 474-7994.
Sincerely,
Robert Rys u
City Administrator
AUG i 8 2000
Fax (952) 474-6538 · [=-mall: cltyof3onkabay~aol.cnm
City of Wayzata
600 Rice Strcc! Eas!
Way:,~ata, MN 55391-t799
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
A2400 Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487-0240
Dear Commissioners:
Mayor:
Ba~ ry
Council Metal)ers:
Robert Ambrose
R~hyn (
Amh'cw I lumphrcy
.Ioscpl~ Mc('arlhy
Cily Manager:
Allan Orscn
I am writing on behalf of the Wayzata City Council to request your support for County
assistance to address a critical safety issue on Lake Minnetonka. At its August 8th
meeting, the Wayzata City Council discussed the Lake Mirmetonka Conservation
District's (LMCD) request for LMCD member cities to subsidize the cost of two
additional water patrol officers for Lake Minnetonka. Although further details and
clarification is needed fi-om the LMCD before the Wayzata City Council can make a
formal decision, the Council recognizes the need for additional water patrol staffing in
response to the emerging public safety issue on Lake Minnetonka.
The Wayzata Council is very concerned about the impact of the court's recent decision to
limit the enforcement authority of the volunteer water patrol deputies. We all know fi-om
experience that for many people rules and regulations are only as good as the perceived
level of enforcement. Thus, if enforcement efforts decrease while boat traffic continues
to increase, the concern is that the public's safety on Lake Minnetonka will become more
at risk.
The Wayzata City Council understands that public safety on Lake Mirmetonka is
currently the primary responsibility of the Hermepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol. We
also feel that the financial impact fi-om the increased traffic fi-om boaters who live off of
Lake Minnetonka should not be paid by an increased burden on the tax base of the cities
surrounding Lake Minnetonka. However, we also realize the complexity of financing
public safety services on Lake Minnetonka. Thus, the Wayzata City Council is willing,
in the spirit of intergovernmental cooperation, to consider a one-year financial
contribution for two additional water patrol deputies as long as the County Board
commits to alternative long-term financial solutions that will reduce the burden on the
general Lake Minnetonka area tax base for future funding increases.
One long-term suggestion to consider would be to follow the policy at the Hennepin
County parks where there is no fee for using the lake for swimming/fishing or using the
trails, slides, swings, etc. but there is a fee to park your car. Similarly, LMCD member
cities could require a Hennepin County park permit in order to park a boat trailer near a
Lake Minnetonka public landing. Unlike County parks where County employees enforce
the permit requirements, local police departments could be responsible for enforcing the
permit requirements. The purpose of a City/County partnership would be to generate a
Phone: 952-473-0234
Fax: 952-404-5318
e-mail: city~ayzata.org
home page: www. wayzata.o
fair, reasonable and efficient source of revenue that could be used by the County to offset
the increased costs of additional water patrol officers on Lake Mirmetonka.
Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions regarding this
request, please do not hesitate to call me at 375-0336.
Barry Petit
Mayor, City of Wayzata
Cc: Douglass Babcock, LMCD Chairman
Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director
LMCD member cities
State Senator Martha Robertson
State Representative Ron Abrahms
AUG 2 5 2000
EHLERS ADVISOR
Leaders in Public Finance Since 1955
September 2000
Leading News
Declare It or Lose It
The Importance of Reimbursement Declaration
Thc "reimbursement declaration" is ~nc ,d Ibc most impt)rlanl
steps in thc debt plmming process. Simply pu~, you IllttSl
declare intent befi~re spending money flm~ will be reimbursed
flora the proceeds of tax-exempt btulds. [:aihuc Io comply with
these regulations may prevent you t'r~m~ is~uin~ lax-cxcmpl bonds
to pay for these costs.
Many local governments pay for project expenses bcfi~rc issuing
bonds. Land acquisition precedes a buildin~ projccl. Pul~lic
improvements may not be financed until ~lw l;,Ihnving year when
all costs are known. Regardless of thc ~ca~,x d~cse expenditures
made prior to the issuance of bonds arc sul,ject ~o t~deral
regulations on reimbursement bonds, h i~ essential that all
issuers understand the key provisions of Ibc Regulations and N,xv
they affect your bond issues]
Q: Do the Regulations apply to all expenditures?
A: The Regulations apply all capital t'xpcndi~urcs made before
tax-exempt bonds are issued. Subjcc~
Regulations apply to all such cxpcndilurcq, i~tclutling land
acquisition. There are two basic exccpl
requirement" under the Regulations: (I) Planning, design and
similar soft costs that must occur bet;,rc a pro?ct arc not subject
to the Regulations. These "preliminary expentlil ures" may not
exceed 20% of the issue; and (2) An
$100.000 or 5% of the issue.
Q: How do you declare intent?
A: The declaration of intent musl bc in wri~iu~, h musl contain
a general description of thc project ~, I,c tin:meed and maximum
principal nmount of bonds expected t,, bc issued. The
declaration typically occuis in one ot three tiffins:
Inside The Advisor
Case Study Case Study
I Iow FTM ?rs' Key Financial Louisiana t.5,.I bring.
Slratcgk, helped two aflbrdablc ht,u~me 1,, S~.
Minnesota cities. Louis Pa,'k.
· Rcimbnrsement resolution adopted by governing body on
a project-by-project basis.
· Administrative action by staff based on authorizing
resolution adopted by the governing body.
· Declaration incorporated into other project related
action, such as resolution ordering improvement under
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.
Regardless of the approach, it is essential that the
t:, n~sideration of reimbursement be made part of every project.
Failure to include reimbursement matters into the basic
pr~ject approval process creates the risk that they will be
overlooked. One approach to minimize this risk is to include
rcimbu,'sement language as part of the documentation for
every project. This approach does not mean that issuers
should blindly declare intent for every project. Rather, issuer
~hould state the application of reimbursement for each
p~, ~jcct: (1) no expenses will be reimbursed from bond
pt,,ceeds, (2) bonds will be issued prior to making eligible
expenditures, or (3) intent to reimburse is declared.
Q: What time factors apply to the Regulations?
A: Several important time factors govern reimbursement.
The declaration of intent does not expire. There is no time
limit between declaring intent and making reimbursable
cxpcnditnres. The reimbursement clock begins ticking on the
,l;,c ~,l' thc reimbursable expenditure. The key time
ct,nst tarots are as follows:
· Declaration of intent must be made not more than 60
days after making the expenditure.
· Bond proceeds must be allocated to reimburse
Continued on Page 5
- ~ ~ 5::'~ .,~-~&7~,;,:~.i'::':-"'7 .....
.................. :- ......~e~'i,: '.-~
Interest Rate Outlook Appreciating the Upper
Midwest
'Iht ,ulh,,,k t~I Iax- Some thoughts on local
cxcmpl I,~,nd tim, l~t't,d5 li,r g,,vcrnment and public
Iht rcmaindcr oI 2000. fin;race in our region.
The Leaders in Public
Finance
A look at Ehlers' success over
the past two years.
P:~e 2 , Page 3
l'agc 4 Page 5 Page 6
· case 5..tU.C!.._Y.
Key Financial Strategies
Ehlers' Key Financial Strategics helps local government plan for
the futt,re. The following case studies h~k at bow this process
enabled two/vlinnesota cities to ii,ce imp(~rl;uH financial issues.
City of West St. Paul
West SI. Paul is a first-ring suln. I, ,,t 5~. I':ud. 'Iht L iity
fnccs increasing pressures t(~ nt;~itllail~ t'xistil~ pr~rams,
c~n~struct new facilities, fund new i~lli:HJvc ;l~t{ t'~l~;u~te ?]le
existing commercial/residential tax I,a~t,.
Ehlers Approach
Working with City Staff and elected officials, Ehlers conducted
fi)tlr group workshops over a six-mo~)~h pcri,~d. Thc workslaops
allowed the City to assess thc financial posi~i~,~ ~f' thc
prioritize initiative/l~cility requests, It)~dtyl t l)c impact of ench
initiative/fi~cility request to reach C()ll~t.l/Stl~ ~11 ;i fi~lure financial
plan. Each workshop occurred afler Ehlcrs ;u~d L ~ily
completed the work necessary to proceed.
Results
The (2it,,, reviewed the Key Financial S(rate~zies p~eparcd by
Ehle~s. The following activities were ct)ltsidercd:
· l~,econfirmation t)f the fired bal;u, e I~, dicv
Development ora Cnpital ll~ll~l~x't'l~c'l~l l'r~,g~;m~
Funding of annual cquiplnCn~ llt'e,/S
e }:Ulldil~g ()fCily lind EI)A lCdt. x t,l,q,u~c~H il~ili;Hivcs.
l)evelopmcnt a~d fulldil~g t~l' ',~ I h ~t~si~g l~cil~vCstlnclH
P~ogram. Recovery cost t~e t~ Administrative services.
. Identification of City services tha~ ctn~ld be modified
City of Champlin
Chnmpli,~ lies in the n(,H~wcsl g~xx'~ls c,, tither (ff Minneat,olis.
l:inancial isst,cs fi~cing thc (;it5' 'nrt' sh;q~ed I%' both expansi(u~
and redevelopment. In recent `"cars, Ehlcrs bas assisted the (2ity
with several financial planning projects, including a water system
iml,tovement plan, capital equipment fimding program and debt
n~anagement study. Rather than deal with individual issues, Key
Fin racial Strategies provided n comprehensive al~proacb to
fi,~ancial planning.
Ehlers Approach
The planning process involved a series of workshops with the City
(,2ouucil. Each workshop served two purposes: (1) review results
and updates fro.n previous and (2) focus on a new topic. This
educalion and consensus building approach builds understanding
and c~,umitment to implementation.
Thc tln.~dation of the planning process was a detailed trend
analysis of key financial areas. This historical perspective gave
SI ali' mid Council a better frame of reference for looking into the
tt~lurc.
Results
Key Financial Strategies helped Champlin create solutions for a
series (ff important financial needs:
Street reconstruction - Program to fund all street
maintenance projects (sealcoat, mill/overlay and
reconstruction) over next 20 years.
· Sewer rates - Analysis of rate options and conversion from flat
~o consumption based user fees.
· Management policies - Complete review and update of
financial management policies.
k)cbt management - Defeasance of over $1,300,000 of
~unstanding bonds producing over $1,000,000 in fund balance
and futt, re revenues that will be reallocated to capital
investlnent.
· Capital investment - New funding approaches for storm sewer,
street ligl~ting and equipment.
Tax levies - Forecast of future levies, targeting of future levy
issues, and reallocation of levies for taxes payable 2001 to
create better foundation for future management.
2
Case Study
Louisiana Court Housing
City of St. Louis Park
Affordablerental housing is bein~ termed a "crisis" for
lllany
communities across the state. Nt~t only
supply of new rental housing, but exis~ lng tmit~ are regularly
seeing tlouble digit increases in rems. t
commtmity has created a new way h, ,H,~radc i~s h,,.si,g struck
while guaranteeing affordal~le rents Ii
In early 1999, a Mi,lueapolis l~on-prtdil. I~,,jcct
Living (PPL) and the City of SI. Loui~ l'a~ k cxmmlenced .n a
joint venture to stabilize a troubled ~cmal h,~using devch~pmcnt
knowu ns Louisiana Court. The apt~r,~xmm~elV 130 unils were
spread among several buildings wi~h SCl~;Ume ~xvncrs and
managers. The units were thc source, d' a bigJ~ level of p~ dice
calls and a I~ligbting influence iip,~ll Iht S~lll,JttlldillR i)wiit,r-
~,ccupicd h~mles. Rents on ~l,c ut,i~s I~:,,I bt'c~l
significanlJy while the physical ;Ippt';ll;Hit't' had
deteriorating. ]~)III }4arxnening, Ibc t ~iv y'~ t, mmumii
deveJopment director, indicated thai thc t ~i~y's main interes~ m
the joint venture was to see a stabilizafiot~ in property
management and upgrade to the fiscal and social environment
in the development and the continued p, wisi~,~ of affi ~rdable
housing. Council member Ron Eal: was also a strong advocate
fi)r fi~cusing city energy toward Louisiana Court.
]n order to stabilize tile developn~cn~, kecI, lilt: units aflbrdablc,
improve the physical appearance n,d c~nditi~,~ of the buildings,
and uni~' the ownership and management, I'I'L prt~pt~sccJ Io
purchase most of the buildings in thc Complex and tlniJ~' thc
management. The City of St. Louis Park ~,ftbrcd, with financial
advice from Ehlers, to issue $4,505,000 t i.q ~. B, ~nds {t he
"Bonds") to finance a portion ol lilt' acqHJsili,~n alia rcn~wa~ion
of the units. Other sources of reve~mc inch,lcd $2,000,000 o(
low income housing tax credits received l llr~,ugb an allocali~n
of private activity bond authority and :mtOlnalic 4% credils;
$1,000,000 from the Met Council Livable (~, mmmnities
Demonstratitm Account, $900,000 Ii-om ll~t' Metr~q~olitan
Housing Opportunities Program, $600,000 from the Family
Housing Fund, $350,000 from the Met Council Locnl Housing
incentives Account, $140,000 of CI)B(; fm ~ds, $ 100,000 from
MHFA, and $300,000 from the Hennepin (:ounty HOME
flmds.
Tile $2.5 million renovation inch,des significant interior and
exterior improvements, including increasing2 tile ,mmber of
three bedroom units in the development. Thc projected rents
are less than $530 for one bedrooms and $640 tbr two
bedrooms. Another important factor is that the City will retain
a seat on the board of directors for thc new limited partnership
ensure that the operation of the project meets expectations.
"l'hc benefit of the City's financing to the project was significant.
'l'lw B. nds were rated "Aal" from Moody's Investors Service with
a Icrm of 30 years and an average interest rate of under 5.85%.
Ibc inlcrest rate on the Bonds was 1.5% to 2% lower than a
l ypical btmsing revenue bond due to the City's strong credit
r:, ing. The present value of the reduced interest cost was
al~ptoximately $600,000 which leveraged an additional $600,000
ill other sources such as tax credits and other state and local
fimding. The City's strong commitment to the project also
i,dlueuced the Family Housing Fund, Minnesota Housing
t:ma,~cing Agency and Metropolitan Council contributions to the
I,n,jcct. 'Fherefore, the City's general obligation pledge delivered
at Icas~ $1,200,000 of value to the project, plus a better
ct mlpet ilive advantage in securing other state and local funds. If
~hc pr,ject operates properly, the City's actual funding to the
project would be limited to the CDBG contribution.
Several precautions were taken to reduce the risk to the City.
Specifically, the City will have the following security provisions for
tile project:
· First mortgage on the rental units.
· lhincipal amount of the mortgage of $4,505,000 and an
appraisal after rehabilitation of $5,400,000.
· A one year debt service reserve of $335,000 which was
fl~,~ded by the Metropolitan Council.
· A loan to a partnership which consists of PPL as general
partner and a subsidiary of U.S. Bank as a limited partner. As
a limited partner which will receive most of its benefit
tlu'ough low income housing tax credits, U.S. Bank will work
to ensure that no default on the agreement occurs. If a
defiu,lt occurs and the City were to foreclose on the
mortgage, U.S. Bank would lose up to $2,000,000 in federal
tax credits.
· Debt service coverage of approximately 120%.
Combining such diverse funding sources together with a City
general obligation bond which was competitively bid to the
underwriting community made for a challenging project. As
Mayor Jeff Jacobs stated, "Making the Louisiana Court project
work was like holding five ping-pong balls underwater in a moving
stream with one hand". The commitment of the City staff and
(;~ nmcil and the expertise of PPL in affordable housing
developments were the actual keys to the initial and expected
on/going success of the project.
40%
Market News
This sit,,ation will cominm. 1;,, as hmg as the Fed remains
Interest Rate Outlook hapl,carstmlikelythatanyrate
increases will be considered boil)re thc November elections.
Interest rates always play an important role in debt planning.
Changing, and particularly rising rates increase the challenge
of debt planning. You need an accurate, but not overstated
analysis of the costs associated ~vith your project. You need to
know when is the right time to issue the bonds.
The past two years require careful attention to rate trends
forecasts. After reaching historic lows in 1998, tax-exempt
interest rates took a steep and steady rise. From September 1998
to January 2000, the Bond Buyer's 20-Year G.O. Index (the
"BBI") increased 127 basis points. Over the summer, this trend
has reversed. The BBI has fallen over 50 basis points from the
peak in January.
The essential question is "What's next?" It would be nice to
have the answer. Unfortunately, no one knows. Ehlers staff
spends lots of time reading, talking and listening to gain
information that will help make the future clearer. Here are
some thoughts on interest rates and the implications for your
capital planning.
Fed. The actions taken (and not taken) by the Federal
play a key role in determining tax-exempt interest rate~.
On August 22, the Federal Reserve's Open Market Commiuce
chose not to raise interest rates. Lingering concerns about
inflation make future rate hikes a possibility.
The cloud of the Federal Reserve will hang over the bond market
and dampen a long-term trend of lower rates.
Also remember that change.~ in rates for municipal bonds is a mix
rd' perception and reality. IL,cs frequently rise in anticipation
};cd action.
_K_egl2 [~[cs_~! perspective. I'hc upward trends m 1999 were
accenltnucd by historically h~w rates in 1998. Current rates are
at lually I~cl~,w d~'tu'H.t?.t'. 'l lit' t ullcnl BBI is below thc ,ncdia,) index
h)r Ibc periled h'~,n ]imual~ t905 I(~ thc present.
!:!~Lgc[~ ~!;~_'_c. Thc yield ~mvc refers to the difference in imerest
i'atc~ each war ~wcr thc lilt- ~)t a btmd issue. Frequently, rates
,~crcasc by 10 basis p{)ilU~ {l/10th of 1%) each yem; Recently, the
annual increase has often been just 5 basis points. The result is
lower long-term rates. Current rates for maturities ten years and
later arc comparable with much previous periods of lower interest
lilies.
what &,o all ~t' thi~ mci,~ tot your debt planning?
The remainder of 2000 should be a good time to issue
bonds.
\~ohmm/dcmand v,,pically pushes rates down at the
beginning of a year.
h i~ impt~ssil~le h, predict an5' trends past the early weeks
,,~ 2001.
(:all v,,ur Ehlcrs timmt iai advis~r fi,' retire infi~rmation on the
bond mm'kef and ~hc ilnplica~itms fi~r your capital planning. Rate
l~c~d~ and thc rcsuh~ of I,~md ~alcs arc available on Ehlcr~ wcbsilc
www. chlers-inc.com.
8.50% /
8.00%q
7.50%
s.s0 -
5.00%
4.50% -,
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
BBI · 10 Year Treasury
4
Ehlers
Appreciating the Upper Midwest
. Bob Ehlers,
Ijust returned from vacation enjoying national parks of the fi~r
west, the glacier strewn mountains of British Coluu~bia and the
forest fires in Western Montana. Returning to the lqatlands
Upper Midwest was certainly a change. The change is the
appearance and vitality in communities. Small cities are
continuing effort to maintain infrastructure. Streets are being
upgraded, sewer and water distribution systems are being replacot
as needed, and new schools and community buildings are being
built. Economic development is a priority together with new
housing stock. In the metropolitan areas there is redevelopment
in older cities and their infrastructures are also being updated.
the newer communities, planning is being done not only for today
but the future. At the dawn of the twenty first century,
communities are looking at communication facilities to remain
vital.
Why the difference from other parts of the country? Parl is the
State of Minnesota's statutory authority to local governments t~,
finance various types of improvements. It allows elected official~
to determine what and how to provide services. For instance
many western States require more than a simple majority on bond
referendums. Our statutory authorities are broader for financing
local improvements, streets, sewer, water, etc. There are also
mechanisms for financing buildings and equipment wil h~)]ll ~ fi lig
through a bond referendum. Limits on debt are also less
restrictive, allowing communities to do necessary capital pl'ojecls.
In essence, local decisions are left with local elected officials.
Cost effectiv~ financing tools are available should local officials
determine there is a need.
While legal tools are available, they do not do any good if not
used. It is local officials using limited resources to make their
communities viable places to live and work. It takes leadership,
communication and pride. Leadership brings needs to
forefront, then communicates those needs and why it is imp~
for the community to make the investment. Communi[y pride is
the glue that makes it work.
Ehlers & Associates is proud to be part of this upper Midwest
vitality. We enjoy working side by side with community leaders
addressing needs for new schools, better streets, upgrading sewer
and water systems, developing funding options for municipal
utilities and working on long range plans for future infrastrucl
and other financial needs. As our clients needs change so have
our services. Our work with cities on capital in~provemenl
planning has evolved into a program we refer to as "Key Fi,rant]al
Strategies". It is a coordinated effort between staff, cotmcil ~l]~tl
Ehlers looking at all budgetary needs of a community and how
get the most bang t~)r your buck. Our work with economic
develop;nent conlinucs ~t~ expand: using new tools offered by the
].egislalure; updating and reviewing tax increment projects; work
will~ ~ch~)<)l~ ol~ t ;~Jx tl,,~ mauagement and (~perating
I-el~'lt'lldlllllsl alit] ~v~l'k x~ il}l Ibc Slate l.egislalure upgrading your
lhllmt iai legal ~,~1~ I,~ lllt't'l changing times. Assisting local
g()vel'lllllclll wilJl lillilllt iai t:ilpililJ dclllilllds has been a priority
~vitl~ Ehlcrs lln' ~,x'e~ I,,~t5 lixe years. Working with stngand
elected ~fl-it ial~ is al,,, a I,~.m. fit of working in this area. The "can
dt~"attitudemakc~tH j~,l, mt~reenjoyable. Aslimesand
resources change wc will update our services. As in the past, we
need your inpul on concerns iJllkJ needs to better serve you.
Reimbursement from Page 1
expenditures wilbiu I g months from the later of the date of
expenditure or the date the project is placed in service, but
not later than 3 years after the date of expenditure.
. For I~,,~d~ subjccl lo thc small issuer exemption fi'om
m'bilragc l'C[~illc, rcimlnt]'scment must occur not later than 3
years after Iht: p~, ~jecl is placed in service.
'llle ]'eimlmtsemcl~l I)Cn,~d Illay be extended to a maxilnlllU
~,1 5 yt'ar~ will~ the t cstificali~n o(need fi)l' a I~mgcr
t IHIsllllt (hill ]~t.lh,d I~5 I}lt? i~sLicr and a cerl'ificd archilecl or
eligilleel.
These lira]tat]tins >h~)t]ld n~)~ impair a single project. Timing
may I~ecolnc a barrier to t'~mdmm~g older improvenlent projects
into a current bond issue. For example, if a street was placed
inlo sCl-Vice illl~ Cxl~endilme5 were Inadc by August 1999, the
cxpcdL~itu]'cs must be ~'cimbm'scd by February 2001 (unless
C~onclusions
(;OmlMancc with thc rcinibul'sement regulations should be a
routine part of your t{ebl pla]ming process. Here are some
sugge~tio]ls:
· Make Ihe ~'cvicw el ]t'imln]rsement need ant. t
dcclilral i( )n ()l'illlcl]l (ii'necessary)part ofl~lannmg
t )~-t.a~t. a sys~t,m ()1, I~eck~ and balances so thai mt)re than
( )lie si ;Ill pt'l'~( )11 {b ;ll~ ill't' ( ii' lilt'se rCqlliremell[S.
. M,)llih)r Ii]lie t ,))lsllililils illicr project expcndilures hegiu.
A~k quuslions. ~;,I]l l:ldcrs financial hdv]sot and your bond
counsel elm help yell avL)id trouble.
5
: F. hlers
The Leaders in Public Finance
/~ur letterhead calls Ehlers & Associates Leaders m Pul hc
' '~,_)' Finance". This statement has never been more true.
On June 30'", Ehlers completed the best two consecutive fiscal
years in firm history. This success is remarkable when you
consider the market conditions. During 1999, long-term
interest rates rose over 100 basis points. The bond market was
effectively shut down for six weeks because of Y2K concerns.
Refundings disappeared, taking 20% of the bond volume in a
typical year.
The foundation of this success is you - our clients. Your decision
to use Ehlers has made us the leaders in public finance. Thank
you for your trust and support. Together, we will face the
change and challenge of financing local government. Ehlcrs
brings you an unwavering commitment to the highest standard
of service -unmatched quality, client oriented, responsive,
creative.
Growth is another measure of our success. Over the past two
years, many local governments have changed to Ehlers &
Associates, including the following:
City of Andover
City of Brooklyn Park
City of Chanhassen
City of Edina
City of Elk River
City of Farmington
City of Mound
City of Worthington
Nobles County
Forest Lake Township
Ashby School District
Elk River School District
Northfield School District
Osseo School District
Park Rapids School District
Pine River-Backus School District
Prior Lake School District
Remer-Longville School District
Waseca School District
We know that changing financial advisors is an important
decision. Thank you for the confidence that you have placed
us. We look forward to long relationships filled with creative
and effective financial solutions.
__ magazine once described a leader with these terms:
"Thc manager admillJ.qcr.~, II~c leader innovates.
Thu m',magcr maintains, Iht' leader develops.
Thc manager relics,,n systems, thc leader relies on people.
'['he illallilgCl' COtl111 s i ill Ct ~lll It )Is, Iht? leader counts on trust.
'l'hc Illilll;Igt~l' th)cs Ihi~g5 riehl, thc leader does the right thing."
lildc~ & Ass,,t i;nc~ sl~t.~ ~,, bring each ()fthcsc qualities t()
~t'rvinglocalgovcrnmu~t inklilmeSOta. We arc proud to be the
].cadur.~ in Public I:ina]tcc.
Ehlers & Associates
Publicorp Seminar
Tax Increment Financing 2001
February 1-2, 2001
Watch for registration materials in the mail
and at www. ehlers-inc, com
Ehlers & Associates is con]mitred to helping local governments
betler understand the issues that shape public finance.
Roseville (MN) Office
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, MN 55113-1105
651.697.8500
Brookfield (WI) Office
375 Bishops Way, Suite 225, Brookfield, WI 53005-6202
262.785.]520
Nal)erville (IL) Office
1001 East Chicago Avenue, Suite 135, Naperville, IL 60540
630.355.6100
On the Intemel at www. ehlers-inc, com
6
PATRICK D. McGOWAN
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF
ROOM 6 COURTHOUSE
350 SOUTH FIFTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415
(612) 348-3740
FAX 348-4208
September 25, 2000
OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF
Chief Leonard Harrell
Mound Police Department
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Chief Harrell:
At the September 2000 meeting of the Hennepin Chiefs of Police Association, I announced that the
Hennepin County Sheriff's Office will be discontinuing our prisoner transport service on the night shift.
know this service has been helpful to you by keeping your officers in your community, however, I want
you to know that our decision to discontinue this service was driven by the economic realities of the
Fiscal Year 2001 Hennepin County departmental budgets.
We have recently completed what has been a very challenging budget cycle. All Hermepin County
departments and offices have been directed to prepare 2001 budgets not to exceed 2% of tax revenues. In
addition, the Sheriff's Office was forced to make further compromises in order to balance the demands of
opening the new Public Safety Facility in August 2001.
For the first time in this Administration, we have been forced to reduce law enforcement services in order
to meet our mandated county budget guidelines. This is a painful decision for us and we acknowledge
that it will place additional hardship upon your department, as well.
We apologize for this inconvenience, but rest assured we will continue to support you in every way we
are able. We ask for your understanding as we struggle to meet county financial goals. Should you have
any questions in this policy change, please contact Inspector Bill Wilen at (612) 348-9650.
S incer/e/l~j~
Patrick D. McGowan
Hennepin County Sheriff
Recycled Paper
20% Post-
Conslsmer Fiber
Mound Fire Dept.
Account Review
as ol~Au§ust 31, 2000
Account
Command Account
Roxbury Account
Pru Value Managed Account
Fayez Sarofim Managed AccL
Total
To~al Command
Total Managed
Total Assets
*Returns as of 08/31/2000
Allocation Table
Equities Small/Mid Cap
International
Equities Large Cap
Bonds/Bond Funds
Cash and Equivalents
Specialty
Total
% of Total Time Weighted* Net WOrth
65% 7.32% $ 2,094,566.21
23% 8.68% $ 732,460.36
7% 7.38% $ 227,947.36
5% 0.00% $ 147,785.00
100% 7.30% $ 3,202,758.93
$ 2,094,566.21
$ 1,108,192.72
$ 3,202,758.93
Indexes
6.64% S&P 500
15.33% Dow Jones Industrial Ave.
43.55% Russell 2000
30.29% EAFE
1.22% LB Intermediate Bond
2.97% Bal (50% S&P/50% LBGC)
100.00% CPI
Allocation Chart
Cash and Specialty Equities
Equivalents 3% Small/Mid Cap
7%
1%
Bonds/Bond
Funds
3O%
Equities Large
Cap
44%
International
15%
· Equities Small/Mid Cap · International [] Equities Large Cap
[] Bonds/Bond Funds · Cash and Equivalents [] Specialty
Information contained on this page is believed to be reliable. It has not been verified for accuracy or completeness by Prudential Securities Incoq:xx'ated or
Mound Fire Dept.
Mound Fire Dept.
Description
Command Money Fund
Command Money Fund-Roxbury Acct.
Command Money Fund-Pru Value Acct.
Command Money Fund-Fayez Sarotim Acct.
Roxbury Acct. - Bonds
Resolution Funding Corporation 10/15/2000
FICO Strips Set 12 12/06/2001
FICO Strips Ser 19 12/06/2002
FICO Strips Ser 19 12/06/2003
Gov't Backed Trust 11/15/2004
FICO Strips Ser 18 10/05/2005
FICO Strips Set 4 10/062005
FICO Strips Set 9 10/06/2005
FICO Strips Set 17 10/05/2006
FICO Strips Sar 1 11/11/2006
FICO Strips Ser C 11/11/2007
Finacing Corp Strips 10/06/2007
_FICO Strips Ser 1 11/11/2008
FICO Strips Set 12 12/06/2009
Certificates Accrual Treasury Ser S 8/15/2009
FICO Strips Set 1 11/11/2010
FICO Strips Set 7 02/03/2011
FICO Strips Set 12 12/06/2011
US Treasury Strips 02/15/2011
FICO Strips Set 1 11/11/2012
FICO Strips Set 12 12/06/2013
FICO Strips Set 3 11/30/2014
FICO Strips Set 11 08/08/2014
FICO Strips Set 14 11/02/2015
FICO Strips Set 3 11/30/2016
US Treasury Strips 05/15/2016
FICO Strips Ser 1 11/11/2017
General Motors 4/01 / 2011
GNMA 12/15/2001
Motorola Capital Trust 03/31/2039
Pru Diversified Conservative Growth Fund C
Janus Flexible Income Fund F
Target Intermediate Bond Portfolio
Target Total Return Portfolio
Warburg Pincus Global Fixed Income
American Select Portfolio
American Strategic Income
American Strategic Income II
American Strategic Income Ill
Salomon Brothers Worldwide 2008
Janus Worldwide Fund
Pru Jennison Int. Growth C
Target International Equity Portfolio
EuroPacific Growth Fund
Small Cap World Fund
~oxbury Acct. - Large Cap Stock
Pru Value Managed Acct.
Fayez Sarofim Managed Acct
Alliance Growth and Income Fund C
Fidelity Advisor Growth Opportunity T
Pm Jennison Growth Fund B
Putnam Voyager Fund A
Target Large Cap Growth
National Equity Trust Low 5 Set. 32
National Equity Trust Low 5 Set. 26
iHartford Mutual Mid Cap Fund C
Hartford Mutual Cap Appreciation Fund C
Pm Financial Services Fund C
Pm Health Sciences Fund C
Pm Tech Fund C
TYPE AMOUNT
CASH $ 20,246.11
CASH $ 7,156.40
CASH $ 8,183.90
CASH $ 3,477.80
MONEY MARKET $
BONDS/PRFD $ 276,092.21
BONDS/PRFD $ 29,769.90
BONDS/PRFD $ 27,585.90
BONDS/PRFD $ 25,916.40
BONDS/PRFD $ 24,174.75
BONDS/PRFD $ 22,601.43
BONE~/PRFD $ 9,285.90
BONDS/PRFD $ 4,999.40
BONDS/PRFD $ 7,142.00
BONDS/PRFD $ 13,387.60
BONDS/PRFD $ 6,659.10
BONDS/PRFD $ 6,227.40
BONDS/PRFD $ 1Z519.00
BONIY3/PRFD $ 17,450.70
BONDS/PRFD $ 5,395.00
BONDS/PRFD $ 11,713.98
BONDS/PRFD $ 10,133.80
BONDS/PRFD $ 4,985.00
BONDS/PRFD $ 14,131.50
BOND~/PRFD $ 10,793.80
BONDS/PRFD $ 13,240.50
BONDS/PRFD $ 12,306.90
BONDS/PRFD $ 7,835.20
BONDS/PRFD $ 3,836.00
BONDS/PRFD $ 10,815.90
BONI~/PRFD $ 3,358.00
BONDS/PRFD $ 7,918.8o
BONDS/PRFD $ 9,454.8O
BONDS/PRFD $ 17,542.04
BONDS/PRFD $ 712.16
BONIY3/PRFO $ 13,087.80
BONDS/PRFD $ 29,510.03
BONDS/PRFD $ 54,142.58
BOND~/PRFD $ 44,766.79
BONDS/PRFD $ 46,067.33
BONDS/PRFD $ 22,524.92
BONDS/PRFD $ 26,714.50
BONDS/PRFD $ 13,376.00
BONDS/PRFD $ 28,938.00
BONDS/PRFD $ 16,155.43
BO~0dDPRFD $ 46,875.00
s $
INTEP, NATIONAL $ 147,375.15
INTERIqATION~ $ 46,440.38
INTERNATIONAL $ 115,126.31
INTERNATIONAL $ 99,334.97
INTERNATIONAL $ 82,704.19
INTERNATIONAL $
LARGE STOCK $ 449,211.75
LARGE STOC~ $ 219,763.46
LARGE STOCK $ 144,307.20
LARGE STOCK $ 36,097.71
LARGE STOCK $ 82,880.76
LARGE STOCK $ 61,280.60
LARGE STOCK $ 18,714.84
LARGE STOCK $ 245,931.56
LARGE STOCK $ 60,653.23
LARGE STOCK $ 76,052.62
as of August 31, 2000
TOTALS % ALLOCATION
39,064.21 i.22%
970,143.45 30.2~. o
490,981.00 15.33%
LARGE STOCK $ 1,394,893.73 43.55%
MIDCAP STOCK $ 105,722.34
"This report is not the official record of your account. However, it has been prepared In assist you with your investment planning and is for
irfformational purposes only. Your Prudential Securities Client Statement is the official record of your account. Therefore, if there are any
discrepancies between this report end your Client Statement, you should rely on the Client Statement and call your local Branch Manager with
any questions. Transactions requiring tax consideration should be reviewed carefully with your accountant or tax advisor."
~KTG:
MARKET INDEX RATES OF RETURN #
TOP MENU DN IMSD 7.1 053 1/3
08/18/98 BY 00-00 ON 09/13 AT 07:10
PERZODS ENDED AUGUST 31, 2000
EQUITY INDICES
S&p 500
DOW ]ONES INDUSTRIALS
NYSE COMPOSITE
A~EX COMPOSITE
NASDAQ COMPOSITE
VALUE LINE
WILSHIRE 5000
RUSSELL 1000
RUSSELL 1000 GROWTH
RUSSELL 1000 VALUE
RUSSELL 2000
RUSSELL 2000 GROWTH
RUSSELL 2000 VALUE
RUSSELL 3000
MSCI EAFE
MSCI WORLD
PSI LARGE-CAP VALUE
PSI MID-CAP VALUE
PSI SMALL-CAP VALUE
PSI LARGE-CAP GROWTH
PSI MID-CAP GROWTH
PSI SMALL-CAP GROWTH
1 MTH 3MTH YTD
6.21% 7.13% 4.11%
6.72% 6.85% -1~5~9%
5.36% 4.94% 4.13%
4.09% 4.26% 7.58%
11,66% 23,68% 3.36%
6.35% 6.46% 1.00%
7.26% 9.62% 4.11%
7.40% 8.31% 6,44%
9.05% 12.42% 8.92%
5.56% 2.00% 2.36%
7.63% 13.25% 7.32%
10.52% 14.10% 2.29%
4.47% 11.10% 14.25%
7.42% 8.64% 6.52%
0,89% 0.48% -7.13%
3.27% 3,77% -2.06%
6.58% 3.64% 2.50%
6.97% 6.29% 7.60%
6.88% 10.16% 6.58%
9.13% 15.18% 10.80% 44.50% 33.17% 30
12,90% 14.11% 10.52% 52.71% 21.49% 19
7.35% 17.65% 7.42% 37.43% 11.90% 14
1YR 3YR 5YR 10YR
16.32% 20.69% 24 03% lg.4g%
5.03% 15.59% 21
10.91% 13.49% 18
21.67% 13.21% 12
53.53% 38.38% 32
0.53% -0.58% 5
19.92% 19.57% 22
20,13% 21,11% 23
33.44% 28.92% 28
4,16% 12.08% 18
27.15% 9,57% 13
39.08% 13.68% 14
13.68% 4.52% 11
20.63% 20.02% 22
9.84% 11.50% 10
13.45% 16.40% 16
0.02% 9.77% 17 53%
4.07% 3.15% 11 45%
3.56% -0.03% 9 80%
01%
57%
14%
67% 18.48%
32% 15.42%
03% 11.30%
76% 27.14%
96% 7.62%
43% 19.14%
93% 19.84%
73% 21.97%
22% 17.19%
46% 16.30%
04% 15.70%
96% 16.03%
91% 19.45%
40% 8.86%
99% 13,19%
16.68%
16.53%
15.79%
23,18%
20.93%
16.59%
PERIODS ENDED AUGUST 31, 2000
FIXED INCOME INDICES
LB AGGR
LB CORPORATE
LB GOVT
LB GOVT/CORP
LB INTERMEDIATE CORP
LB INTERMEDIATE GOVT
LB INT GOVT/CORP
LB LONG GOVERNMENT
LB MUNICIPALS
SALOMON BROAD
SALOMON CORP BOND
SALOMON NON-US BONDS
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT
US 30-DAY T-BILLS
1 NTH 3 MTH YTD 1YR 3YR 5YR
1.45%
1.30%
1.48%
1.41%
1.28%
1.12%
1.18%
2.32%
1.54%
1.43%
1.27%
4.50% 6 45%
5.10% 5 27%
4.29% 7 55%
4.58% 6 75%
4.34% 4 97%
3.41% 5 34%
3.74% 5.22%
6.41% 13.19%
5.68% 7.57%
4.49% 6.37%
5.06% 4.94%
-1.58% -1.65% -6.08%
0.56% 1.68% 4.22%
0.49% 1.34% 3.60%
7.55% 6.25%
6.46% 5.49%
7.75% 6.60%
7.27% 6.23%
6.41% 5.58%
6.20% 5.87%
6.25% S. 78%
11.62% 8.62%
6.78% 5.25%
7.47% 6.20%
6.12% 5.46%
-5.85% 1.98%
6.18% 5.72%
5,14% 4.73%
6 55%
6 27%
6 55%
6 44%
6 17%
6 02%
6.03%
8.O8%
6.04%
6.53%
6.25%
1.80%
5.67%
4.85%
10YR
8 O7%
8 50%
8 04%
8 13%
7 99%
7 23%
7.38%
10.34%
7.38%
8.10%
8.51%
8.04%
4.94%
4,46%
SPECIALIZED INDICES
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
BAL (50% S&P/50% LBGC)
PERIODS ENDED AUGUST 31, 2000
1 NTH 3 MTH YTD 1YR 3YR 5YR 10YR
0.10% 0.80% 2.61% 3.40% 2.39% 2.48% 2.79%
3.81% 5.88% 5.60% 12.03% 13.65% 15.24% 13.89%
INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS PAGE IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE. IT HAS NOT
BEEN VERIFIED FOR ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS BY PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES
~C~~ED OR ANy ~c ITS EuPLOYEES.
~.<o
0 ~
0 C~ ~
Thomas MacFarlane
201 Chanview
Chanhassen Mn 55317
Len Harrell
Mound Police Chief
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound MN 55364
Dear Chief Harrell,
My names is Thomas MacFarlane, on January 18'~ of this year our son Robert
Ryan was killed in an automobile accident near the Black Lake bridge in your
city.
I would like to write and let you know just how much my wife my children
and I appreciate the professionalism of your organization. The past nine months
have been very difficult as you could imagine. Detective Alexander and the rest of
your officers are to be commended.
Working as a paramedic for North I've had the pleasure of working with your officers on several
occasions and have never found them anything but professional. The efforts put forth by
Detective Alexander from the day after the accident to the day of the sentencing
helped our family cope and alleviated a lot of the pain and stress of the past nine months.
Please let all of your staff ~know that they are in our prayers
Thomas Macfarlane
Checklist
Council-Manager Relations
In Small Communities
Here are some tips for managers, mayors, and councils of small
communities on how to improve their council-manager relations.
For the Manager
Professional and Personal Development
[] Join ICMA and local and state city management professional associations, and attend local govern-
ment management meetings, workshops, seminars, conferences, and special events.
[] Attend local community functions sponsored by the chamber of commerce and governmental and
civic organizations.
[] Adopt a fle~ble work schedule, recognizing that the manager's job does not just last from 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, plus attendance at council and committee meetings.
[] Be relaxed, patient, and at ease in your work. There always are going to be problems and crises and
never enough time to do everything that should be done!
[~ Become a decisionmaker--a risk taker at times--rather than referring issues to the council, especially
on matters other than broad policy questions.
[~l Be a problem solver, with the help of the staff, on all matters involving local government.
[] Develop a proactive, not just a reactive, approach in dealing with activities and problems, and come
up with new ideas.
Relationship with the Mayor and Councilmembers
[] Treat all councilmembers equally, and send the same information to all members. If one councilmem-
ber requests information, that information should be sent to the other members, too.
[] Communicate With the mayor and councilmembers by using weekly newsletters, special
memos/reports/letters, phone messages, and council study sessions. Especially, communicate to the
council prior to each meeting, every letter, phone call, or contact that involves any potential for being
brought up at the council meeting.
~-I Inform all councilmembers promptly and in writing about community activities, problems, and con-
cerns, including citizen complaints and requests, before councilmembers hear about them from out-
siders.
[] Be available to all councilmembers at all times. Encourage them to write or call, even at your home if
urgent. Be responsive to the councilmembers' needs and requests, and be flexible in adapting to the
council as a group. The council should not have to adapt to the manager.
[] Present citizen requests to the council, rather than have citizens appear at council meetings to make
their own presentations without prior staff input.
[] Be responsible for preparing council and committee agendas--with input from councilmembers and
with agenda-supplementary materials containing background information, alternative courses of action,
costs, and recommendations.
[] Present to the council the following on each agenda item requiring council action:
[] This is the situation.
[] These are the facts.
[] These are the alternatives, with estimated costs.
[] This is the manager's recommendation.
[~1 Spend as much time with councilmembers and citizens as necessary. Never try to limit their conversa-
tions or give indications that you have more important things to do.
[] Take leadership in dealing with council inquiries, instead of referring them to staff members for
responses or action.
[] Keep the mayor especially well informed about your activities. Give the mayor special attention, par-
ticularly on sensitive matters likely to cause citizen concern or to come up at council meetings.
24
MARCH 2000
Checklist
[] Volunteer to meet with the mayor preceding council meetings to discuss agenda items informally.
This procedure will give the mayor an opportunity to receive answers and clarifications for his or her role
as presiding officer of the meeting and offer you a chance to give further explanations or to respond to
questions.
[~ Carry out policies determined by the mayor and councilmembers, even when you do not agree with
these policies.
V-I Anticipate problems, and move to solve them without waiting for directions from the mayor or council.
[] Orient new councilmembers both orally and in writing on activities, problems, and procedures (espe-
cially on how you operate), and set up an orientation workshop for the council.
Public Relations and Staff Relations
[] Treat all residents equally--no special favors.
[] Answer all complaints and inquiries promptly and courteously, and see that the staff does likewise.
[~l Defend staff members when they are right, but not when they err. And work with the staff to help
prevent mistakes, particularly on sensitive matters.
[] Delegate and work as a team with department heads, but do not hesitate to override department
heads when the public interest requires an override.
[] Develop good employee relations and delivery of superior local government services.
General Observations
[] Recognize that the manager's priorities are first the mayor and elected officials, second the public, and
third the staff.
[] Prepare all written materials with accuracy and completeness, and anticipate questions from coun-
cilmembers and residents, and trying to prepare answers even before the questions are asked.
[] Have all legal documents reviewed by the local government's attorney. Also, make them available to
the council well in advance of council meetings and not at the meeting or immediately preceding it.
[] Rely heavily on the written word. There is less likelihood of misunderstanding.
~l Be flexible in the administration of local matters when common sense requires it.
[] Retain all essential correspondence or documents for the community's files, and be extremely careful
about discarding anything.
[] Make documents available to councilmembers and residents when requested, unless documents are
confidential, personnel-related, or restricted by law.
For the Mayor and Council
Team Relationship
[] Consider yourselves the policymakers for the local government.
~ Set long-term and short-term goals and objectives as a team, and determine policies (taxes, service
levels, oversight of the manager, and so on).
[] Recognize that the mayor's role is as follows:
- Acts as leader of the council, has high visibility within the community, and has closer contact with
the manager than the councilmembers do.
- Presides at council meetings, assisting councilmembers to reach decisions, interpreting and clarify-
ing, and moving the discussion forward as well as bringing it to a conclusion.
- Communicates and facilitates, serving as liaison and as consensus/communications coordinator
between the councilmembers and the manager--with all parties being equally informed.
- Organizes and guides policy, e.g., may advise the manager to bring more or less information to the
council or may help resolve problems or misunderstandings between the council and the manager
or between the public and the manager.
- Maintains contacts and represents the community with other governmental officials and agencies
inside and outside the community's boundaries.
- Promotes the community.
[~ Use committees occasionally to deal with specific problems or with major policy matters, but do not
use standing committees.
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
25
Checklist
[~ Be good listeners and team players; refrain from snap judgments; be able to "give" and "take" (disagree
without being disagreeable); and act in the best interest of all the residents.
Relationship with the Manager
~ Do not micromanage. Instead, let the manager manage the day-to-day governmental operations with-
out your interference. Even ifvou don't like what's going on, tell the manager, not the staff member.
[~ Recognize that the manager may have a difficult job trying to satisfy a diverse council, with individual
councilmembers having varying expectations, but recognize that the manager's job is to try to adjust to the
wishes of the council as a unit.
[~1 Seek responses from the manager prior to the meeting if at all possible, not at the public meeting.
[~1 Recognize that the role of the mayor and the councilmember is not to deal with the staff, except for
purposes of inquiry or praise.
[~ Handle all complaints through the manager, and ideally, funnel all local government matters through
him or her.
[~ Call the manager for responses to questions, complaints, or concerns.
[~ Set the tone for the government (with the manager having the responsibility to adapt to that tone).
{~ Learn what other localities are doing, perhaps by asking the manager to report on other communities'
operations.
{~ Deal with the local government's attorney only through the manager or mayor, unless you have dele-
gated a councilmember to become involved in a particular legal matter. Individual councilmembers
should not call the attorney.
[~ Establish goals for the manager's performance by identifying improvements in management behavior
and by holding manager performance reviews and evaluations at least once a year.
~ Provide a written critique for the manager, enumerating needed areas for improvement and establish-
ing a time for completion of the improvements. Preferably, give the manager at least a year to accomplish
the improvements.
~ Attempt to resolve the differing views of the mayor and councilmembers about what the relationship
should be between the mayor and manager and between the councilmembers and the manager. Avoid
giving the manager mixed signals from different councilmembers.
Council Meetings
~ Recognize that agenda items are usually for one of three purposes: information, discussion, or decision.
[~ Give council-meeting agenda items to the manager not later than one week before the council meeting.
~ Recognize that council meetings are council meetings, with the public as observers and in attendance to
provide input when asked but not to participate freely in council discussion.
~-I Set approximate time limits on major agenda items, and announce at the outset a closing time for the
meeting. Few worthwhile discussions occur or sound decisions are made after 10:00 p.m. or at meetings
lasting longer than three hours.
[~l Announce at the beginning of the meeting that audience participation will be limited to two to three
minutes per person and that applause and jeering from the audience will not be permitted.
[~ Avoid making commitments prior to a council decision, and take action only at council meetings.
General Observations
~l Realize that you cannot be popular with everyone if you are to serve the greater public interest
effectively.
[~l Do not become involved in the day-to-day operations of the city, even though the mayor and coun-
cilmembers may not have full confidence in the manager. Give the manager an opportunity to develop
managerial skills without council interference in these administrative operations.
~ Recognize that councilmembers should neither expect nor receive special treatment for themselves,
their families, or their associates.
--Robert B. Morris
ICMA Range Rider
Glencoe, Illinois, and a
Former Village Manager of Glencoe
26
MARCH 2000
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
DRAFT
Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Michael
Mueller, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Commissioners
Jerry Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, and Bill Voss; Staffpresent: Jon Sutherland, City Building
Official and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad.
The following public was present: Ted Oare, 1801 Resthaven Lane.
Chair Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVA_L OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2000, MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Mueller, to accept the September 11, 2000,
Planning Commission meeting minutes. MOTION CARRIED. 6-0.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Burma stated that at the September 11, 2000 meeting when discussing Case No. 00-48 Variance,
Greg Petrich, he was concentrating on the hardcover issue and neglected to consider the issue of
the 6 foot variance when he voted in favor of approving Staff's recommendation including a
denial of the requested variance. Burma stated that he would be at the City Council meeting to
explain that he is actually in favor of granting the variance in this case.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
1.0
CASE #00-58: VARIANCE. TED OARE, 1801 RESTHAVEN L.adNE, LOT 11.
BLOCK 12. SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 14 0016.
Michael stated that he had spoken with the City Planner, Loren Gordon, about this case and they
discussed the fact that the City Building Official, Jon Sutherland, had a better handle on this
case.
Brown stated that a decision in this case could change the City Code and that he felt the City
Planner's input was necessary.
Mueller asked for clarification on whether the City Planner felt it was unnecessary to be present
for this case. Michael stated that he thought the City Planner had something else that he needed
to do.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes. September 25, 2000
DRAFT
The City Building Official stated the City Planner would not be present, but that he was prepared
to handle the discussion on this case.
The City Building Official stated that the fire damage to the building on this property was greater
than 50 percent of the assessed market value and that rebuilding it would require the new
structure to meet the current code or the property owner could choose to apply for a variance. He
further stated that the house, in its original footprint, do~s not meet the current 20-foot setback
requirement to Sunset. Across the street fi.om this property, a newly constructed house was
required to meet the 20-foot setback.
In reference to the property owner's request for a variance to the Regulatory Flood Elevation
Standard (RFPE), the City Building Official stated that the floodplain regulations stipulate "No
variance shall allow a use prohibited in a district or permit a lower degree of protection than the
RFPE. A variance shall not be granted for a residential structure to allow the construction of the
basement or lowest floor below the RFPE." Staff cannot act on this request and is not asking the
Planning Commission to do so.
The City Building Official stated that these fn'e cases are some of the most difficult, and that
included in the packet is a letter from the City Attorney and one fi.om the DNR referencing
similar cases.
The City Building Official stated that Staff is recommending the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the side yard setback variance of 12.3 feet.
Brown stated that most cases of this type involve the entire structure being burnt to the ground
whereas in this case, it is only the interior of the structure that is damaged. The applicant is not
asking to make the structure larger or different from the original.
In reference to the regulations from the State Free Board, Brown stated that the flood plain on
Lake Minnetonka is 931 and that this is a 100-year plan. He stated that page 18 of the packet
showed that the building in question is not in the flood plain. He further questioned why the City
is adding an additional one-foot over the amount required by the state and the federal
government. Brov, m stated that these were questions he was hoping the City Planner would
answer.
The City Building Official stated that he was not sure the City Planner could have answered
these questions and that Staff would attempt to investigate these before the Council meeting.
Brown stated that page 17 of the packet showed that the highest water level is 930.5, which is
lower than the state's 100-year requirement. He also stated that no change is being made to the
existing variance and so this should be part of the streamline plan.
2
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, September 25, 2000
DRAFT
Mueller stated that he agreed with Brown and that he felt it was the job of the City Planner.to
deal with issues regarding Codes. He stated that pages 15 and 16 of the packet dealing with the
flood plain is information received from the applicant and are filled out by a company in
Tennessee that is paid by the lender. This company does not look at the actual property in
question. He further stated that the level at one time was 933.5 and was brought down to 933.
He felt it was necessary to get the research done by the parties that specified the 933 in order to
make an informed decision on this. Mueller also stated that perhaps the DNR had no jurisdiction
in this matter.
The City Building Official stated that the shoreland ordinances require all variance cases in the
shoreland zone be sent to the DNR.
Brown stated that the similar cases cited involved rebuilding the houses and changing the
original footprint, but that the property in question was built 25 years ago and would remain in
its original footprint. He stated that he had gotten involved in this case because the Mound Plan
set the requirement over what the state and federal government mandated.
The City Building Official again pointed out the ordinance requiring the house to meet code if
greater than 50 percent of the assessed value was destroyed by fire. He further stated that the
streamlining provisions in the zoning ordinance do not apply in this case due to the fact that the
ordinance has a minimum building elevation.
The City Building Official stated that the Standard Flood Hazard Determination document on
page 18 of the packet was incorrect in stating this building was outside the flood plain.
Brown stated that he felt the City Building Official was giving false information in that
according to the FEMA map, the house was not within the flood plain of either the federal
requirement of 931 or the state requirement of 932.
The City Building Official stated that the FEMA map requires 931, but that the Mound City
Ordinance requires a two-foot free board. In order to protect the City's flood insurance program,
the City must enforce the flood plain overlay.
Mueller stated that he felt the ordinance requiring a structure be brought to code if 50 percent is
destroyed is a good one in most cases. He also stated that the ordinance would not allow the
Planning Commission to make a recommendation on the flood plain issue.
Glister asked what number is being referred to in regard to the City's eligibility in the flood
insurance program. The City Building Official stated that this refers to all the numbers including
931 and 933.
Mueller requested a copy of the Code in question. The Building Official provided the city
ordinance to the Commission.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes. September 25. 2000
DRAFT
Glister stated that she did not want the City flood insurance program put into jeopardy.
Burma pointed out that page 8 of the packet clearly states that the Planning Commission has no
jurisdiction over the 933 requirement and that this is not the variance being requested tonight.
The City Building Official explained that the applicant applied for a variance to the flood
elevation standard, but he advised them not to do so as this was not varianceable. It is okay for
the Commission to discuss this, but the code section as he understands it, is not varianceable.
Burma stated that whether or not action was taken in this case on the flood elevation standard, it
was necessary to address this issue.
Weiland stated that he remembered this discussion in the past, but could not remember why the
extra foot was added. He questioned why the variance requested was 12.3 feet and not the 10
feet as he was calculating. The City Building Official explained the issue.
Mueller confirmed from reading the Code that it was the City of Mound that established the 933
number and not the state or the federal government. The City Building Official stated that the
federal government gives a model ordinance and that the staff and engineers in the local
jurisdiction advise on the elevation, or amount of freeboard.
Weiland stated that he remembered in the past that part of the determination of the number
involved using the highest lake level of the three lakes (Dutch Lake) and adding to that number.
He felt there were additional reasons that this number was used, but could not recall them.
Mueller stated that there was nothing the Commission could do for the applicant on this issue
and that the issue was the side yard setback.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to recommend Council approval of the
side yard setback variance of 12.3 feet.
Discussion:
Mr. Ted Oare, 1801 Resthaven Lane, the applicant in this case, addressed the Commission. He
stated that the documents regarding the flood hazard determination are valid in that a lot of
information is looked at and the companies that provide these are liable for any mistakes that are
made. He further stated that Mr. Sims from the DNR has told him that his property is in flood
zone C, which is not in the flood plain and, therefore, Mr. Oare feels that this ordinance should
not affect him.
The City Building Official stated that a portion of this lot was in fact in the flood plain where the
lot met the lake. Brown agreed that part of the lot was in the flood plain, but the structure was
not.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes. September 25.2000
D AFT
The City Building Official stated that the ordinance is specific as to the lowest floor plan
elevation and this building is currently below the regulation. He stated that it was not possible to
adhere to only one section of an ordinance, but rather that the whole ordinance needed to be
followed. He stated that this has been reviewed with the City Planner, the City Engineer, and the
city Attorney and he was not aware of any variances being granted in the past.
The applicant asked what the starting elevation was on the other houses that were rebuilt. The
City Building Official stated that he did not have the information without research.
Brown stated that while the house does not meet Mound's standard of 933, it is above both the
931 and 932 mandated by the federal government and the state. The City Building Official
stated that the whole ordinance is applicable including the City's standard of 933.
Michael stated that this was not the proper format to discuss this as there was no City Planner,
City En~neer, or City Attorney present and specifically that the Commission had not been asked
to decide this issue by Staff. He further stated that the issue needed to be decided by the City
Council.
The applicant pointed out that it would cost him $40,000 to meet the ordinance. He also stated
that in his discussions with the DNR, they told him that they had no jurisdiction over this.
Mueller explained to the applicant that the Planning Commission could not help him with this
issue, but that the City Council would be able to make a decision.
Michael called the question.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Motion carried.
Brown asked Michael whether the Commission would like him to recommend to Council that
this should come back to the Planning Commission so the ordinance could be reviewed. Michael
stated that he would recommend that the City Council table this issue as there was not enough
time to give hard thought to the issue before making a decision.
Brown stated that if the City Planner and City Attorney were available to answer questions, he
did not want to further inconvenience the applicant.
Mueller stated that he wished to discuss this further with the applicant after the meeting.
Burma stated that he recommended that Brown find out how much leeway is allowed and that
Council direct the Planning Commission to consider the issue of what the free board mark should
be.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, September 25. 2000 D~ AFl
Michael stated that the Planning Commission would also need the support of the City Engineer
in making this determination.
INFORMATION:
1.1 ORDINANCE #103-1999. ADOPTED 8-9/99.
Mueller stated that he was not in favor of this ordinance, but that nothing could be done at this
point.
Michael asked whether all Commissioners had received their invitation for the upcoming
Appreciation Night sponsored by the City. It was confirmed that all had received an invitation.
MISCELLANEOUS:
1.2 DRAFT HRA MEETING MEETINGS, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000.
1.3 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000.
1.4 CITY OF MOUND WEBSITE ADDRESS.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Mueller to adjourn the meeting. MOTION
CARRIED: 6-0.
Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Chair Michael
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone 472-0621
Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Kandis Hanson
Chief Len Harrell
Monthly Report for September, 2000
STATISTICS
The police department responded to 835 calls for service during the month
of September. There were 46 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses
included 4 criminal sexual conducts, 3 robbery, 2 aggravated 6 burglaries,
2 arsons, and 29 larcenies.
There were 110 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses 3 child abuse, 1
forgery/NSF check, 1 weapons, 15 criminal damage to property, 7
narcotics, 10 liquor law violations, 4 DUI's, 9 simple assaults, 11
domestics (3 with assaults), 9 harassment, 3 trespassing, and 37 other
offenses.
The patrol division issued 77 adult and 6 juvenile citations. Parking
violations accounted for an additional 27 tickets. Warnings were issued to
90 individuals for a variety of violations.
There were 8 adults and 8 juveniles arrested for felonies and 20 adults and
32 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were 3 adult felony
warrant arrests and 9 misdemeanor adult warrant arrests. One juvenile
was arrested on warrants.
The department assisted in 14 vehicle accidents; 2 with injuries. There
were 33 medical emergencies and 58 animal complaints. Mound assisted
other agencies on 22 occasions in September and requested assistance 29
times.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - September, 2000
II.
III.
INVESTIGATIONS
Investigator Niccum worked on 3 child protection issues and 4 criminal
sexual conduct cases in September accounting for 53 hours in
investigative time. Other cases included robbery, burglary, assault, theft,
narcotics, absenting, violation of an OFP, possession of stolen property,
fraud, sex offender registration, threats, and forgery. Investigator
Alexander continues to be on family leave.
Formal complaints were issued for robbery, domestic assault, burglary,
gross misdemeanor DWI, underage consumption, disorderly conduct,
failure to yield to pedeslxian, harassment, transient license violation, minor
in possession, and illegal burning.
PERSONNEL/STAFFING
The department used approximately 154 hours of overtime during the
month of September. Officers used 51 hours of comp-time, 223 hours of
sick time, 52 hours of vacation, and 9 holidays. Officers earned 53 hours
of comp time.
IV. TRAINING
All officers attended a four block of Pursuit Driving as mandated by the
state.
V. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER
CSO Salter had 226 calls for service; 25 animal complaints, 44 ordinance
violations, and 152 miscellaneous contacts.
VI. RESERVES
The reserves donated 136 hours of community service in the month of
September. The unit consists of seven members currently.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, September 27, 2000
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
READING OF MINUTES- 9/13/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
1. WATER STRUCTURES
A) Mr. Steve Coddon, consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of variance
application from LMCD Code for side setback requirements and an adjusted dock use area;
B) Additional business;
FINANCIAL
A) Audit of vouchers (9/16/00 - 9/30/00);
B) August financial summary and balance sheet;
C) Additional Business;
3. LAKE USE & RECREATION
A) Discussion on date for annual meeting with Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol;
B) Additional Business;
4. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE
5. ADMINISTRATION
6. SAVE THE LAKE
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
8. OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
10. ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
7:00 PM, Wednesday, September 13, 2000
Shorewood City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spdng Park; Gene Partyka,
Minnetrista; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Lili McMillan, Orono; Tom
Skramstad, Shorewood; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Also present: Chades LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck,
Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician.
Members absent: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Herb Suerth, Woodland. The City of Minnetonka does
not have an appointed Board member.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
Babcock announced that Greg Kitchak, the City of Minnetonka representative on the LMCD Board of Directors, has
resigned. He added he believed that Minnetonka is currently seeking a replacement. He also announced that Bob
Rascop, past LMCD Board Chairman and long-time Board member from the City of Shorewood, has recently passed away.
He asked staff for further detail on funeral and visitation arrangements.
Nybeck stated that the funeral was scheduled for 11 a.m. on Monday, 9/18/00, at Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church in
Mound. He added that a visitation was scheduled from 4-7 p.m. on Sunday, 9/17/00, at Hubers Funeral Home in the City of
Mound.
The Board observed a moment of silence in recognition of the many years of public service served by Bob Rascop as
representative of the City of Shorewood on the LMCD Board of Directors.
Dahlen arrived at 7:06 p.m.
READING OF MINUTES- 7/26/00 and 8/9/00 Regular Board Meetings
MOTION: Skramstad moved, McMillan seconded to approve the minutes of the 7~26~00 Regular Board meeting as
submitted.
VOTE: Ayes (7), Abstained (2; Dahlen and Wed); motion carded.
MOTION: Wert moved, Gilman seconded to approve the minutes of the 8~9~00 Regular Board meeting as submitted.
Babcock stated in the last paragraph of agenda item lA on page 5, he would like to delete the last word of the first
sentence, "them", and insert "each of them individually". He recommended this as a fdendly amendment. Wert and Gilman
agreed to this.
VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (1, Partyka); motion carried.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Re~]ular Board ~eetin9
September '13, 2000
Page 2
'UBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda.
Ambrose arrived at 7:09 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member
requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda.
Gilman moved, Foster seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Items so
approved include: 3B, Staff recommends approval of $500 preliminary investigation deposit for new Beer and Wine
licenses issued for the 2000 boating season to A Day in the Sun Charters for the charter boat, Banana Wind; 4A, 8/11/00
EWM/Exotics Task Force minutes; and SA, accept 9/1/00 letter from Greg Kitchak resigning from the LMCD Board.
PUBLIC HEARING
· Mr. Miles Canning, variance application from LMCD Code for side setback requirements and an adjusted dock use
area.
Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. He asked the applicant for comments and background on the
proposed application.
Mr. Miles Canning, 21100 Excelsior Blvd., made the following comments:
· He has lived in the house at this residence for the last 10 years and has performed a wide variety of public
service in the Lake Minnetonka area. He stated that he generally uses the lake on a daily basis and that he
currently has a problem with dock usage at his residence because it does not comply with Code requirements.
· He has submitted an application for variance from LMCD Code for side setbacks and an adjusted dock use area
because the dock usage does not comply with the ordinances. He added that his property is in area of St.
Albans that has concave shoreline with many properties being irregular.
· There has been some change in seven or eight households in the immediate area. Three or four of them have
had the same residents for the last 10 years. The remaining three or four properties have changed ownership a
total of 12 times over the last five years.
· He stated that he has made application to maintain a dock that has been installed in Lake Minnetonka for a
number of years. He noted that the proposed site has approximately 11.39' of lakeshore frontage at the
ordinary high water mark. He added that the proposed dock and boat to be stored would be contained within
the authorized dock use area; however, it would not meet minimum side setback requirements. He stated that
he believed the proposed application would provide modest and reasonable access to the lake.
· A lagoon that was part of his property was sealed up in the late 1960's. He responded to a concern raised by
one of his neighbors that approval of the variance would infringe upon his lakeshore frontage. He noted that he
has reduced the dock length at his site by 32' since he purchased the property and that he has moved the
location of the dock towards the property owner to the west. He stated that he has stored one watercraft at this
dock for a number of years and that he would agree in wdting to continue this.
· He encouraged the Board to approve the proposed variance. He entertained questions or comments from the
Board.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September 13, 2000
Page 3
McMillan asked Canning for the boat size to be stored at the proposed dock.
Canning stated that he has a 21.5' long pontoon boat with a 94" wide beam. He added that the proposed dock width is
40".
Foster asked for further description of the lagoon that was filled in.
Canning stated that the lagoon used to extend approximately 58' in from the lake and was originally used for the rental
of smaller watercraft, such as rowboats. He added that one property to the east, the Johnson's, has lakeshore
frontage, and that a second property to the east, the Lent's, does not have lakeshore frontage.
Babcock stated that in the staff memo, there was a recommendation that additional survey work might need to be
conducted to include the abutting property owners that could be affected by the proposed variance application. He
added that he concurred with the recommendation.
Mr. Jason Johnson, 5600 Maple Heights Road, stated that he is the abutting property owner to the east and that he
believed that some of the information presented has been factually incorrect and that he would like to clarify this
information. He noted he believed that the lagoon issue is immaterial because it was filled in well before they moved in
at their property approximately three years ago. He stated that he has not challenged the right of Mr. Canning to dock
a watercraft; however, he expressed concern with the actual amount of shoreline, 6', compared to the amount of
shoreline at the ordinary high water mark, approximately 12'. He added that the property owner to the west has
recently been purchased and that he believed that there are some docking concerns associated with it.
Babcock clarified that the Distdct would review the proposed variance application with the assumption that there is
approximately 12' of continuous shoreline at the ordinary high water mark.
Johnson continued that the proposed area of St. Albans Bay has a number of smaller, pie-shaped lots that could have
docking rights impacted by the proposed variance application. He expressed concem that Canning might want to use
the other side of the dock for a rental watercraft.
Skramstad asked Johnson for clarification on how much lakeshore frontage he owned.
Johnson stated that he owned 41' of takeshore frontage. He concluded that he would like things to work out equitably
and that he would like to maintain his property dghts.
Foster asked Johnson to explain the easement dghts of the property owned by Mr. Lent.
Johnson stated that Mr. Lent previously owned both of the properties and he granted himself an easement with the
property that has riparian rights to maintain docking rights on one side of the dock.
Wed stated that he had visited the site recently and that four restricted watercraft were being stored at the Johnson
site. He added this included two restricted watercraft owned by the Johnson's, one by Mr. Lent, and one by the tenant
in the rental home owned by Mr. Lent. He noted that he believed that this storage is illegal because the Code only
allows four restricted watercraft to be stored at the site, if they are all owned and registered to the residents of the site.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September 13, 2000
Page 4
LeFevere stated for maximum boat storage purposes at the Johnson site, the Code does not take into account whether
or not there are easements granted to another property. He noted that he believed the easement granted to Mr. Lent is
irrelevant and that the Code would allow only two boats to be stored at this site, provided that the owner or occupant of
Lent site stores a restricted watercraft at this site. He added that if the outside watercraft stored at the Johnson site is
removed, four restricted watercraft could be stored, provided they are all contained within the authorized dock use
area.
Mr. Jim Wicka, 5165 Greenwood Circle, stated that he was a resident of St. Albans Bay in the City of Greenwood. He
noted that he believed that the variance process with the District is a slippery slope because the demand to approve
variance requests for the storage of watercraft increases as property values around the lake increase. He encouraged
the Board to be critical in its thought process when reviewing proposed variance applications and he questioned
whether the proposed application has a physical hardship associated with it. He concluded that he believed the
applicant could dock at the municipal docks managed by the City of Greenwood.
Mr. Dan Reece, 21170 Excelsior Blvd., spoke in favor of the proposed variance application. He stated that Mr.
Canning is asking for approval to continue a dock that has been installed in the lake for a number of years. He added
that he believed all riparian owners should have the right to place a dock in the lake, subject to it being stored within the
extended side site lines.
Mr. Morton Lent addressed the easement agreement he has with Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. He stated that it was drawn
up by his attorney and recorded, and it allows him unimpeded access to the south side of the dock. He believed that
the lagoon issue is irrelevant to the proposed variance application and that he registered the Johnson property some
years ago. He stated that he believed the current situation is providing him impeded access because his tenants boat
is parked behind his.
Babcock stated that if the parties believe there is impeded access at the Johnson dock as indicated to by Lent, he
believed it should be resolved by the affected parties.
Foster stated that it appears that there are too many boats being stored at the Johnson property and that there might
be some navigational problems with the inner BSU on the south side of the Johnson dock because the Canning
proposed dock is too close to the common side site line.
Nybeck stated that staff has inspected docking at the proposed and abutting sites and it appears that the dock and
boat storage at the Johnson property is not contained within its authorized dock use area.
Ms. Jeannie Bowers-Stead, 21600 Fairview Street, stated that she had worked with the Board some years ago on
resolving some dock issJes at an inside corner site. She noted a large amount of money and time was spent in
resolving these issues and that if the Board views the proposed Canning vadance application as a grandfathering
issue, she stated she would like similar treatment and she requested the Distdct to refund the funds received in
reviewing her application.
Mr. Bill Riley, 21560 Pineview Court, stated that he is a resident of Greenwood and that he believed the municipal dock
program is not an option because of the long waiting list for the spaces available at these docks. He added that he
believed the applicant, who is paying property taxes to live on the lake, has every dght to install a dock and store a boat
at it.
4 7o
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September 13, 2000
Page 5
Lent stated that he believed one possible compromise that might solve some docking concerns at the three proposed
propedies would be a combined dock.
Babcock stated that the Code allows properties to combine shorelines for the purposes of a single, common dock,
provided dock length restrictions and side setback requirements from the extended side site lines are complied with.
He questioned whether the outer extended side site lines of the Canning and Johnson properties would still not
converge within 60' from the ordinary high water mark of the shoreline. He stated that he believed additional survey
work would need to be conducted, with the possibility that an adjusted dock use area variance might still need to be
granted by the District.
Canning stated that he has intentions to limit boat storage at his site to one boat within the extended side site lines. He
added that he had no intentions of renting a watercraft and that he would be agreeable to this if a variance is granted.
There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m
Wert stated that he believed this is a complicated issue and that the Board cannot come up with a clear answer this
evening. He recommended that it be sent back to staff to set up a meeting with all affected parties to explore whether
there is an agreeable solution that could be mediated with all parties. He added that he would be willing to assist staff
in this process.
Babcock stated that he would favor that recommendation.
Foster stated that he also would be willing to assist in this process.
Skramstad stated that he believed the three immediate properties to the west could be affected by the proposed
variance application and that they should be included in this process.
Partyka stated that he believed this process needs to take into account the easement arrangement that the Johnson
property has with Mr. Lent.
Foster asked Canning what prompted him to submit the proposed variance application.
Canning stated he recently received a copy of a letter from Mr. Lent to Mr. Johnson talking about a dispute, with both
parties threatening legal action.
Johnson encouraged the Board to keep any legal issues he might have with Mr. Lent separate from the proposed
vadance application submitted by Canning.
Mr. David Lawrance, 21150 Excelsior Blvd. stated that he supported the proposed vadance application, as long as it
does not affect his authorized dock use area. He questioned whether there is a need to get him involved in the
process if the Board determines to send the proposal back to staff.
MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to refer the proposal back to staff to coordinate a meeting with the parties
involved, and Board members Foster and Weft, to mediate a solution that is agreeable to all parties, and to
direct staff to notify the applicant that an additional 60 days is needed to process proposed applications.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September 13, 2000
Page 6
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
WATER STRUCTURES
A. Mr. George Fougeron, consideration of variance application from LMCD Code for side setback requirements and
an adjusted dock use area.
Babcock stated Foster was directed by the Board to work with staff in mediating the proposed variance application
with the applicant and the affected abutting property owners. He noted that Foster has initiated this mediation and
he asked for an update on the progress.
Foster stated that he met with the applicant and the neighbor to the south since this agenda item was discussed at
the last meeting. He noted that the neighbor to the north, Mr. Tim Becker, was unable to attend due to scheduling
conflicts. He added that a revised site plan has been submitted by the applicant that he believed meets the
requirements of the abutting property owner to the north. He stated that the neighbors to the south agreed to the
revised site plan at the on-site meeting. He concluded that he had directed LeFevere to prepare Findings of Fact
and Order for approval of the variance application.
Babcock asked Foster why the dock use area extended 40' into the lake when only a 24' long boat is to be stored
at this dock.
Foster stated that the Fougeron dock site is an inside corner and that there is a need to ensure navigation to their
dock, especially on the north side.
Babcock stated that he would like the record to reflect that the dock from the property to the north could be
installed to the closest point of the 40' long authorized dock use area variance for the Fougeron property.
MOTION: Foster moved, Wert seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for Mr. George Fougeron for
variance from LMCD Code for side setback requirement and an adjusted dock use area.
Babcock stated that he would like to hear from both the applicant and Mr. Becker on the revised site plan.
Mr. Cheryl Fougeron, 1701 Baywood Lane, stated that she and her husband met with Foster and that they agree to
the revised site plan.
Mr. Tim Becker, the abutting property owner to the north, stated that he was happy with the revised site and that it
should resolve the docking problems.
Babcock stated that he would like a prohibition of canopies added to condition 2 in the Order. He recommended
this as a friendly amendment. Foster and Wert agreed to this.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. Mr. Steve Coddon, consideration of variance application from LMCD Code for side setback requirements and an
adjusted dock use area.
Babcock opened the agenda item by asking staff to bring the Board up to date on it.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September 13, 2000
Page 7
Nybeck stated that the Board conducted a public hearing at its 7/12/00 meeting for a site with approximately 25' of
continuous shoreline at the ordinary high water mark in the northwest comer of Harrisons Bay with a lagoon
adjacent to it. He noted there were some ingress and egress issues into the lagoon and the Board tabled the
application to allow staff to work with the applicant to provide additional information. He stated that the applicant
has provided more detailed information on the survey to show the big picture in the area and they have worked
with the three townhome associations in the area to investigate whether there is an alternative site plan for the
applicant that all parties could agree to.
Mr. Martin Garden, 1760 Commerce Blvd., spoke on behalf of Port Harrison Harbor Townhomes. He stated that an
agreement has been signed by all parties affected by the proposed application. He noted in addition to the
applicant, this includes Mr. John Pastuck, the developer, and the three townhome associations. He stated that an
amended site plan, which moves the proposed site plan to the south, would not affect ingress and egress into the
lagoon area. He noted boat storage at the proposed dock would allow for two, 25' long docks for a twinhome
development. He stated that the main walkway of the townhome association to the south, Harrison Harbor, could
still be used for gassing of watercraft and for visitors. He added that Mr. Pastuck has agreed to have the two
owners of the twinhomes sign an agreement stating that they are aware of the signed agreement he just reviewed.
He entertained comments or feedback from the Board.
Mr. Dave Beedie, a member of the Harrison Harbor Townhome Association, stated that they have no problem with
the revised site plan. He acknowledged that the revised site plan encroaches on their ripadan dght and that they
would like no further encroachment. He stated that they would like a prohibition of canopies at the proposed
docks.
Wert asked LeFevere if the agreement could filed on the title of the twinhomes at this site.
LeFevere stated for legal purposes, the Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the variance request would
stand alone. He added if the Board desires to have future owners aware of the agreement that has been
presented, it could be done through a declaration recorded against the property.
Foster stated that he likes the idea of placing the agreement on the title of the twinhome properties.
Babcock questioned whether the Hardson Harbor Twinhome Association would like the vadance granted into
perpetuity or whether they would like the opportunity to review it annually.
Garden stated that the agreement has been set up to require new owners to sign a form indicating that they would
abide the agreement as a condition of purchasing one of the twinhomes. He concurred with the idea presented by
LeFevere to codify the agreement against the title into perpetuity.
LeFevere stated if the applicant filed the declaration of restrictions against the use of this property., this would put
purchasers on notice when they buy the property.
MOTION: Foster moved, McMillan seconded to direct the attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for
approval of a side setback and adjusted dock use area variance for Mr. Steve Coddon, taking into
consideration the agreement and new survey work submitted by the applicant.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September 13, 2000
Page 8
Babcock expressed concern whether 25' of shoreline, on a lakewide basis, is sufficient to store two watercraft. He
stated that the dock use area and side setback requirements are being adjusted to accommodate for this example.
He also expressed concern about the double counting of shoreline because the shoreline to the south is dedicated
to the Harrison Harbor Twinhome Association multiple dock license.
LeFevere stated that the counting of shoreline is used when determining the number of watercraft that can be
stored using the 1:50' General Rule. He noted the applicant is entitled to store two watercraft by the Code because
it is a platted lot. He stated that applying District ordinances at this particular piece of property creates the hardship
at the proposed site. He added that the Board could determine that the hardship at this site is also created by the
limited amount of shoreline at this site and that the Board needs to determine what is reasonable.
Babcock expressed concern that this might set a precedent for narrow lots on a lakewide basis.
Partyka stated that he believed the proposed vadance application is for a specific situation with specific
boundaries. He bel;eved that every vadance should be treated this way and that it does not set a precedent on a
lakewide basis.
LeFevere stated that whenever adjusted dock use area variances affect the adjacent property, that adjacent
property is subject to the District density regulations. He added the question whether two boats should be stored at
this site is legitimate and the Board needs to determine whether it is reasonable.
Beedie expressed some concern that the vadance would be granted in perpetuity. He stated that he would like
future owners to have the opportunity to address and alter variances with the Board if needed.
Babcock stated that he believed a problem could occur if the residents of the twinhomes purchase the property
with the assumption that the variance is granted in perpetuity and the Harrison Harbor Townhome Association
residents change their minds in the future. He noted it is very difficult for the Distdct to rescind a variance in the
future when a previous Board has already approved it.
Foster stated that the concept that the variance would be granted in perpetuity is not included in the motion.
VOTE: Ayes (9), Nayes (1, Babcock); motion carried.
C. Additional business.
There was no additional business.
2. FINANCIAL
A. Audit of vouchers (8/16/00 - 8/31/00) & (9/1/00 - 9/15/00).
Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. He stated that check # 2761, in the amount of
$535.00, to Daniel Murray should be added to the vouchers for payment.
MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment, adding check # 2761, in
the amount of $535.00, to Daniel Murray.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September 13, 2000
Page9
VOTE: Ayes (9), Abstained (1, Babcock); motion carded.
B. July financial summary and balance sheet,
Nelson reviewed the July financial summary and balance sheet as submitted.
MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to accept the July financial summary and balance sheet as submitted.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
C. Additional Business,
Nelson stated that a CD recently matured at Wells Fargo Bank and that it has been re-invested. He added that
staff has prepared a memo that summarizes the investments of the District.
3. LAKE USE & RECREATION
A. Discussion of 7/20/00 letter from Edward Ferlauto regarding the establishment of no-wake zones in Gideon Bay.
The Board discussed the request from Mr, Fedauto for the establishment of no wake zones in Gideon Bay south
south of Frog Island. The Board discussed that this might be an appropriate area for the establishment of a quiet
waters area. The consensus of the Board was to refer this back to staff for further analysis.
C. Update on Proposal to increase Water Patrol presence for the 2001 boating season.
Babcock introduced the agenda item by asking for an update from Foster.
Foster
·
reported on the following:
A meeting was held at the Sheriffs Water Patrol office, with a wide range of local and regional
representation, on 8124100. He noted there was significant discussion on why there is a need for increased
Water Patrol presence on the lake and that he believed it is outlined in the 9/12/00 letter that was sent out.
He stated that this includes that there has been a cultural change of boating activities on Lake Minnetonka,
that there has been a significant reduction in patrol hours due to increased complexity of processing
violators, and the need to prepare for the Special Deputy litigation that is currently being reviewed by the
Minnesota State Supreme Court.
The proposal would cost approximately $100,000, with 50% coming from Hennepin County, 30% from the
LMCD member cities, and 20% through the LMCD "Save the Lake" fund. He acknowledged that this is a
working idea and that it might need to be re-worked if the funds are not received from Hennepin County or
some of the member cities.
He suggested that the Board should discuss whether they are willing to contribute $20,000 from the "Save
the Lake" fund for this proposal. He stated that if this proposal is going to work, he believed the Distdct
needed to make a two-year commitment. He entertained questions or comments on the proposal.
Nybeck cladfied for the Board that legal interpretation from LeFevere has indicated that contributions for 2001
would be voluntary because the District budget for 2001 has been adopted and certified by the Board by the July 1
deadline. He stated that this could be mandated for the 2002 budget if % of the member cities agree through
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September 13, 2000
Page 10
resolution to an adjustment to the maximum levy the District could forward.
LeFevere stated that voluntary participation for 2001 would require a joint powers agreement with multiple parties
that would agree that the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol would provide additional law enforcement
services.
Wert asked what would happen if some of the member cities do not want to participate for the 2001 boating
season.
Foster stated that there were some member cities that agreed with the idea of additional Water Patrol presence on
the lake for the 2001 boating season; however, they did not want to participate in the funding of this. He noted
there might be some shortfall that would need to be addressed.
Ambrose stated that he believed that the additional information that has been prepared would be helpful to the
member cities. He added that the City of Wayzata believes that this is a regional or state issue; however, they
would be willing to participate on a one-year basis to get the program moving forward.
Babcock stated that if the proposal is to move forward, he believed it should be done on a long-term basis that is
sustainable. He questioned whether using "Save the Lake" funds is sustainable.
Foster stated that the Water Patrol has offered to continue their services in a normal range. He added that if the
member cities would like a high level of enforcement on the lake to deal with quality of experience issues, such as
noise enforcement, the member cities and the region need to assist in paying for it.
Partyka stated that there has been some perception in Minnetdsta that the lake is not safe and that there is a need
for additional Water Patrol presence on the lake. He added that the City of Minnetrista believes that Hennepin
County should provide this, not the local cities.
Babcock stated that he believed that there has been some previous data that states that 60% of those that use the
lake are from the member cities, that 30% are from within Hennepin County, and that the remaining 10% come
from outside Hennepin County. He added that these figures have not been located; however, he believed they are
referenced in the Management Plan. He noted that based on these figures, he believed the proposed breakdown
of the costs, especially the 50% contribution from Hennepin County, appears to be reasonable. He stated that he
believed the dollars spent by the cities would directly benefit the residents of that city.
MOTION: Foster moved, McMillan seconded to authorize up to $20,000 of"Save the Lake" funds, for the next two
years to support additional Hennepin Sheriff's Water Patrol presence, or 20% of the aggregate
commitment of Hennepin County and the member cities.
LeFevere stated that more appropriate language for the motion might be to authorize up to $20,000 of "Save the
Lake" funds, for two years, to support additional Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, provided satisfactory
agreement can be reached for participation by LMCD member cities and the county.
Foster stated that he liked the language from LeFevere better and he recommended that as a fdendly amendment.
McMillan agreed to this.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September 13, 2000
Page 11
VOTE: Motion carded unanimously.
D. Additional Business.
Them was no additional business.
4. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
B. 8/11/00 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting report.
Nybeck reported that a number of topics were discussed at this meeting. These included:
· The George E. Olson letter that outlined the fragmented milfoil problem they have on their shorn line in
Carman Bay. He noted that the Task Force reviewed options to keep their shoreline clean, other than
placing a fence in the lake.
· Them was discussion of the 2000 LMCD EWM Harvesting Program, with discussion on whether weevils
could be transplanted from one ama of the lake to another. He noted that Dr. Newman was instructed to
provide a scope a work, with an objective, to be accomplished on this potential project.
· Reports were mceived from the MN DNR, Hennepin Parks, and Dick Osgood from the Lake Minnetonka
Association.
Babcock stated that the media has reported that the zebra mussel has found its way to a madna on the St. Cmix
River and that he believed dives have been conducted to vedfy the significance of the infestation.
Skramstad asked staff for an update on the mbuttal letter that,was to be sent out in msponse to the Lake
Minnetonka Association (LMA) Newsletter.
Nybeck stated that a rebuttal letter has been forwarded to the LMA office and that it was to be published in the next
LMA Newsletter. The Board directed staff to forward a copy of the rebuttal letter for their information.
C. Additional Business.
Them was no additional business.
ADMINISTRATION
B. Discussion of LMCD quorum policy require ments.
Babcock introduced the agenda item by asking for some background on it.
LeFevem stated occasionally them is not a quorum present at a meeting. He noted under the by-laws and typical
rules of parliamentary procedure, the Board can only convene to adjourn when this occurs. He added it was
suggested by Foster to consider reducing the number for a quorum so that this would not occur as often. He
stated that this has been researched and that only the legislature could do this, not the Distdct itself. He noted that
Foster has recommended that the Board consider amending its by-laws to allow the Board to convene as a
committee of the whole if a quorum is not present. He added that this would allow public hearings to be conducted,
it would allow Board discussion, and it would allow the committee to make m commendations to the Board at a
futura meeting that has a quorum. He stated that this basically would be a committee meeting.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September 13, 2000
Page 12
Foster stated that ho believed it was an embarrassment for the District when a quorum was not present at the
second Board meeting in August. He added when it was determined that a quorum could not be reduced, he
stated he believed a committee meeting could be held to take care a lot of the routine business. He suggested that
minimum number of Board members, such as three, should be present at the meeting in order to do this. He
recommended that he believed it would be appropriate for the Board to direct LeFevere to change the by-laws to
allow for this to occur.
The Board discussed the idea of the District having the opportunity to hold a committee of a whole when there is
not a quorum present at a Board meeting. There was some concern raised that changing the by-laws to allow this
might encourage a greater incidence of Board meeting that do not have a quorum because it removes the urgency
to attend the meetings. The Board stated that has already occurred informally, without changing the by-laws.
There was discussion that the Board needs to communicate to the District office when they are unable to attend
Board meetings. There was also some discussion for the need to hold a public hearing, without a quorum, when it
has been legally advertised.
MOTION: Foster moved to direct the attorney to prepare changes to the by-laws to allow for a committee of the
whole, per Board discussions, when a quorum is not present at a Board meeting. The motion failed due
to the lack of a second.
C. Additional Business.
Skramstad asked for an update on the discussion at the Mayor's meeting regarding increasing the number of
intoxicating liquor licenses that could be issued on Lake Minnetonka.
Nybeck stated that he believed this would be placed on the agenda at a future Mayor's meeting.
Skramstad asked if there is a process for recognizing past Board members.
Babcock stated that this is generally done at the "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet Dinner each February.
Nelson asked if there is any expression from the Board to the family of an ex-Board member who has deceased.
MOTION: Nelson moved, Gilman seconded to direct the Chair to wd(e a letter to the family of Bob Rascop
expressing the sympathies of the Board.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
6. SAVE THE LAKE
McUillan stated that the Lakescaping Workshop planned for this fall on Long Lake was recently held. She added that a
"Save the Lake" Advisory Committee meeting is planned for Wednesday, 10/4/00, and that the next solicitation letter
should be sent out in the near future.
Gilman suggested that interested Board members and the public attend the BeanFest musical festival planned in
Excelsior on Saturday,
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September 13, 2000
7, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT ~
Nybeck stated that the lake level as of 8/28/00 was 928.07'.
Partyka updated that the most recent lake level reading as of 9/13/00 was 927.89'.
8. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
9. NEW BUSINESS
Wert suggested that the District might want to consider investigating the idea of holding future Board meetings at the
Shorewood City Hall.
10, ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m.
Page 13
DoUglas Babcock, Chairman
Eugene A Partyka, Secretary