2000-08-22MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 22, 2000
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, August 22, 2000, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present Mayor Pat Meisel; Council Members: Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah
Weycker. Absent and excused: Council Member Andrea Ahrens. Also in attendance were
City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney John Dean, City
Planner Loren Gordon, City Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Recording Secretary Diana
Mestad. Others present: Ken Custer; Jo Longpre; Lorrie Ham, The Laker; Dawn Donofro;
Margi Raines; Barry & Joan DeSmet; Marie Fueseon; Toby Fuers; F. Herman; Brian
Meagher; Peter Meyer; Jim & Denise Crawford; Katlin Flar; William Nobraster; Todd
Hansen; Steven Behnke; Bill Bline; Thomas & Tara Stokkes; Steve and Deb Grand; Stephen
and Deb Vertnik.
*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 7:30 p.m. and welcomed the people in attendance. The
pledge of allegiance was recited.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
The City Attorney removed Item 8B from the Consent Agenda. Council Member Hanus
removed Item F and changed it to 7A on the Agenda. The City Clerk added a new item F to
the Consent Agenda.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to approve the agenda and consent
agenda with the changes noted above. The roll call vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried. 4-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0 APPROVE MINUTES: AUGUST 8, 2000 REGULAR MEETING.
*1.1 APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS.
· 1.2 APPROVE A RESOLUTION OPPOSING WINE IN GROCERY STORES.
RESOLUTION #00-76
RESOLUTION OPPOSING WINE IN GROCERY
STORES
'1.3 SET MEETING DATES:
388
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
*1.3
SET MEETING DATES:
A. ACTION MOVING SEPT. 12, REGULAR MEETING TO SEPT, 13, TO
INCLUDE ELECTION CAVASSING, DUE TO PRIMARY ELECTION.
'1.4
B__ ACTION SETTING SPECIAL MEETINGS FOR 2001 BUDGET
WORKSHOP: 6:00 P.M., AUG 29 & OCT. 3
ACTION SETTING APPRECIATION EVENT FOR BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS: OCT. 3.
APPROVE PAYMENT REQUESTS:
A. PAYMENT #1 TO KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FOR
AUDITOR'S ROAD.
B_ FINAL PAYMENT TO ALLIED BLACKTOP COMPANY FOR ANNUAL
'1.5
SEAL COAT PROJECT.
SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 TO CONSIDER
AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 800.05 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO
THE HOURS OF SALE FOR ON-SALE SUNDAY INTOXICATING LIQUOR.
1.6
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT
SUBJECTS NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER
SUBJECT.)
Pete Meyers, 5748 Sunset Road, wished to inform the Council and the community that
Eastern Bluebirds have nested successfully at the Hatter's field site. Council Member Hanus
asked where in the field the birds had nested. Mr. Meyer's stated it was the north side of
the football field.
1.7 PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
FOR APPOINTMENT.
Council Member Hanus stated that he felt that the Park Commission has been complaining
for a long time that the Council does not listen to their opinions. He stated that he felt it was
a natural progression for Commissions to change over the years as members come and go,
but that the Park Commission had not changed its views on parkland in years. Council
Member Hanus felt that the Park Commission should strive to have more diversity on the
board to allow for debate.
Mayor Meisel stated that she could understand Council Member Hanus' point and that she
felt it was valid. She further stated that other commissions do have more diversity in their
members, but that the Park Commission is always in agreement on issues.
389
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
Council Member Weycker stated that she felt that the minutes from the meetings do reflect
that discussion takes place.
Council Member Hanus stated that he read in the minutes that the other candidate for the
open position had stated that he felt the City was not able to take care of the parks it
currently had.
Council Member Brown stated that he felt there was a problem with the interview process in
that the candidates were not asked the same questions.
Council Member Weycker stated that the questions asked of the applicants were related to
statements previously made. She further stated that Schelly Young was clearly the better
candidate. She also stated that she was offended by the lack of trust by the Council.
Council Member Weycker stated that not one budget item for park improvement has been
approved. Council Member Brown stated that parks would be discussed in this year's
budget.
Council Member Hanus stated that while he thinks it is natural for a seated body to appoint
like-minded people, he likes the idea of re-advertising and re-interviewing for the opening.
Council Member Weycker pointed out that the previous ad ran for several months with no
applicants.
MOTION, by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to re-interview the two candidates and
re-advertise for new candidates.
Discussion:
The City Manager suggested inviting people to apply in order to encourage more diversity.
Council Member Hanus stated that he would like to know in advance when board members
are planning to leave.
Peter Meyer, Park Commission member, stated that this was the first interview where
Council was not invited, but that the Commission does want Council's input. He suggested
that Council review the tapes from the interviews rather than repeating them. He further
stated that at the time the Dock Commission was created, the Park Commission was reduced
from 8 members to 5 members. Mr. Meyer stated that he had opposed that reduction as it
resulted is less input.
Council Member Hanus asked whether the seats could be filled on a larger board. Mr.
Meyer stated he thought the seats could be filled.
Council Member Hanus stated that if the reduced size of the Commission was a detriment,
Council could entertain increasing the size in the future.
390
Mound City Council Minutes. August 22, 2000
Mr. Meyer stated that the Commission has been one member short since January. Council
Member Hanus stated that no one is questioning the work being done by the Commission,
but rather they were trying to identify a longstanding problem.
Mayor Meisel called the question.
AYES: 3
NAYS: 1 (Weycker)
Motion carried. 3-1.
1.9
DISCUSSION ON CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL, INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR
WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER: SEPT. 13.
The City Manager stated that it had been brought to her attention by the City Planner that the
policy was to forgo public hearings at the final plat approval level. Council Member Hanus
stated that the preliminary plat approval would still have a public hearing and that this is
where the main issues are worked out. He felt that a public hearing at the final approval
stage was not necessary.
Mayor Meisel stated that she had checked with builders around Mound on this issue and they
felt that the final plat public hearing was an additional hoop to jump through.
MOTION, by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to proceed with policy as written.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0.
1.10 CASE//00-47: VARIANCE - TOM STOKES - 5212 WATERBURY BOARD.
The City Planner pointed out that the Minutes from the Planning Commission regarding this
issue were included in the packet. He reviewed the issues of the case stating that the west
garage side is too close to the side yard. The neighbors alerted the City to this. The
Planning Commission had a 3-2 vote to not approve a variance. Staff wants the house to
adhere to a conforming 10-foot setback.
Council Member Brown stated that he disagrees with Staff's recommendation. He felt that
because both Staff and the Planning Commission had missed the setback, this was not the
builder's problem. He further stated that the City is allowing a PUD with 6-foot setbacks.
He also pointed out that this was only a 4-foot variance.
Mayor Meisel requested that Mr. Stokes and the public speak at this time.
Tom Stokes, the builder on this project, stated that he was given direction by the City and
gave the following timeline for this issue:
1. Originally Steve Banke (the home designer) contacted the City. Mr.
Banke, Fineline Design Group, stated that in reviewing the document
391
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
regarding the splitting of this parcel into two lots he found the following
discrepancies: Whereas No. 3 refers to parcels A and B and the numbers
therein do not match the survey; whereas Nos. 4 and 5 have conflicting
statements. Because these items did not make sense, Mr. Banke called the
City. He stated that he has spoken with Peggy, Chris and Rhonda. He
was told that the side yard setback was 6 feet.
2. Mr. Stokes stated that his staff called the City and was told it was a &foot
setback and that he considered information given to him by the City to be
accurate.
3. The lot survey company called the City and was told that the side yard
setback was 6 feet.
4. Mr. Stokes presented the building permit package that includes a survey
indicating the 6-foot setback. He further stated that the house to the west
is 52.2 feet from the property line.
5. Mr. Stokes stated that his staff called Rhonda for the address of the lot and
received that information by mail, which included a setback sheet that was
incomplete. His staff member called Rhonda and was told that the setback
was 6 feet.
6. Mr. Stokes then showed his building permit application with approval and
signature by J. Sutherland. He also showed the actual permit signed by
Rhonda.
Mr. Stokes stated that he felt that he has met his obligation for due diligence in this matter
and resents the implication that he, as the builder, brought this on. He feels that he has a
good reputation in the City of Mound.
Mr. Stokes stated that even though the intent of the Resolution was confusing, he, as the
builder, followed due diligence. He feels that he has worked through the years to follow the
ordinances in the City and feels that this situation has damaged his reputation.
Mr. Stokes also pointed out that the Planning Commission Minutes stated that Mr. Crawford
also called the City and was told that the side yard set back was 6 feet.
Mr. Stokes stated that this neighborhood has a history of variances for setbacks for side and
front yards. He stated that the property to the north was given a front yard setback of 20
feet in 1992. He stated that there is a history of variances for construction of new
properties.
Mr. Stokes stated that he lives across the street from this property and after doing the
research on constructing a one-car garage; he found it would lower the price of the house by
$33,000. He also felt that a one-car garage would encourage outside storage on the lot.
Mr. Stokes stated to the Council that he is asking for a variance on this property along with
a refund of the fee he was asked to pay. He also wants a public apology for the harm this
has caused his reputation.
392
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
The City Building Official stated that the builder had made an honest mistake in this
situation. He further stated that Staff had also made an honest mistake and that he takes full
responsibility for this. He admitted that he missed this setback issue on the permit process.
Mr. Sutherland apologized for his part in this situation. He stated that he understood the
recommendation made by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Meisel reminded everyone that Jon Sutherland has been in his position for ten years
and this is simply a human mistake.
Council Member Brown stated that Mr. Suthefland was not the only person at fault as the
Planning Commission had also reviewed this.
Denise Crawford, property owner on the west side, stated that mistakes have been made and
time has been wasted. She stated that she had to put her own remodeling projects on hold
while this was resolved. She feels that the City needs to do its job correctly. Ms. Crawford
stated that she felt that the builder was aware of the problem all along. She stated that the
neighbors were not notified of the property sale because the City has not updated the plat
since 1995. Ms. Crawford stated that Mr. Stokes was aware of the 10-foot setback because
he had built his own house in the neighborhood. She stated that after the issue was brought
to the City's attention, the house went up very quickly. She stated that she is the one who
will suffer if the house is allowed to remain and requested that any future building such as a
deck be required to comply with the code.
Margie Reins, Minnetonka Realty, stated that she lives two blocks from this property. She
stated that Mr. Stokes is a high quality builder. She asked why if the City had missed the
setback, was the builder being punished. She felt that a one-car garage was not an option
because outside storage was already a problem on the island.
Stephen Vertnik, north side neighbor, wondered about the side drainage. Council Member
Hanus stated that even if the house were moved, the water flow would remain the same.
Mr. Vertnik stated that because Mr. Stokes had been building in the area for ten years, he
must have been aware of the setbacks. Council Member Hanus pointed out that City Staff
who are very familiar with the code missed the setback in this case.
Debbie Vestnik, 5217 Windsor, stated that she felt this was the fault of the City of Mound,
but the Crawfords would be the ones to suffer. She stated that she felt the City Council likes
to pile houses on top of one another in order to increase the City's tax base.
Council Member Hanus stated that Ms. Vestnik's comments were out of line and asked her
how the Crawfords would suffer in this situation.
Ms. Vertnik stated that they would have this house on top of them and that there was a
reason for setbacks.
Fran Herman, 2537 Westford Lane. Mr. Herman stated that Mr. Stokes built a high quality
home for him and followed all codes.
393
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
Deb Grand, Evergreen, stated that mistakes were made in this situation, but everyone would
come out okay in the long run. She stated that she felt Mr. Stokes had shown due diligence.
Jack Shusts, 3644 Kildare, stated that he is a customer and friend of Mr. Stokes. He has
observed that Mr. Stokes has always fixed his mistakes in the past, but does not feel that this
was his mistake.
Bill Bline, 5560 Windsor Road, stated that he is one of Mr. Stokes' customers who had
issues with setbacks and that Mr. Stokes was diligent in making sure the house conformed.
He did not feel Mr. Stokes should suffer for the City's mistakes.
Steve Graud, 6323 Evergreen, stated that Mr. Stokes added drainage and retaining walls in
his neighborhood over and above what the City required. He stated that he is a
subcontractor for Mr. Stokes and feels that he is diligent in applying the rules. He felt that
the word of the City official should be trusted and that the City should do the right thing so
that Mr. Stokes would not lose money. Mr. Graud stated that the house was framed by the
standard crew and not slapped together. He felt that Mr. Stokes is ethical and should be
granted the variance.
Mr. Stokes stated that he has not seen an official stop work order to date. He was asked by
Rhonda to voluntarily stop work on a Thursday and he did so through the following Monday
morning until he had spoken with Jon Sutherland who okayed his continuing on the house,
but not the garage.
Mr. Banke confirmed for Council that it was the garage that required the variance and not
the house.
Brown moved and Hanus seconded the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION//00-77 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 5212 WATERBURY
ROAD, P & Z CASE//00-47
with the following amendments:
1. Return to Mr. Stokes of the variance fee.
2. Address the drainage issue.
Discussion:
Council Member Weycker suggested that a privacy fence be added to the west
property line. Mr. Stokes stated that he had no objection to building such a
fence and would work with the neighbor on the location. The City Building
Official pointed out that the drainage was already approved at the 6-foot
setback.
Amendment by Weycker:
394
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
3. Builder will work with neighbor to install a privacy fence on the west property
llne.
Brown and Hanus agreed with this amendment.
Mayor Meisel called the question.
The vote was 4 in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION, by Hanus, seconded by Brown to direct Staff to allow the builder to
resume construction, but not the landscaping, before the Resolution is passed.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0.
Both Council Members Hanus and Brown stated their apologies to Mr. Stokes and the
neighbors involved for this situation. Mayor Meisel pointed out that Jon Sutherland has not
made mistakes on the hundreds of plans that he has reviewed in the past. She further stated
that Mr. Stokes was not to blame for this problem.
1.11 CASE//00-39: VARIANCE - TODD HOVREN - 4552 DENBIGH ROAD.
The City Planner stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this and felt the house was
already at the setback and that the deck could be located in a different place.
Council Member Hanus stated that he asked for this to be pulled because denials are never
on the Consent Agenda.
Todd Hovren stated that he is applying for a 12x10 deck. He stated that the sliding door was
already in that spot when he bought the house. This would give him an additional entrance
and a more direct access to the basement, which has only an outside entry. He stated that
his house is the only one on the block that does not have a lakeside deck.
Council Member Hanus pointed out that the lakeside does have 3 feet of flat grade before
dropping off, but the survey indicates that the edge of the house is at the top of the steep
slope.
Mr. Hovren stated that the deck posts would be about 10 feet high. He stated that he did not
wish to put the deck on the west side because it would then face the garage.
Council Member Hanus stated that the applicant's statement that he would be tearing the
house down in five years makes it harder to grant the variance. He suggested using steps to
get the deck closer to grade or putting a 3 foot walkway on the front of the house with a
deck on the side.
Mr. Hovren stated that the point was to have a deck facing the lake but he would be willing
to downsize it to 80 square feet.
395
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
Council Member Hanus stated that if the home was in good shape and going to remain,
Council could probably grant this request.
Mr. Hovren stated that when he rebuilt, he would be following the setbacks.
Mayor Meisel asked about approving the deck for a limited time. Mr. Hovren was agreeable
to this suggestion.
Council Member Hanus asked whether Mr. Hovren was willing to sign a written agreement
stating the date by which the existing house would be tom down. Council Member Hanus
stated that the current arrangement regarding temporary garages was that an easement was
given to the City allowing it to remove the garage and charge the cost back to the owner on
the taxes. Mr. Hovren stated that this would work for him and that five years would be
enough time.
Council Member Weycker stated that she was more in favor of a side/comer location for the
deck as the whole ideas is to protect the bluff.
Mr. Hovren stated that all of his neighbors needed and received variances to build their
decks. He further stated that if he built the deck on the west side, a 40 foot oak tree would
need to be removed.
Council Member Hanus pointed out that the tree would most likely be removed when the
new house was built. Council Member Brown stated that he did not want to see the tree cut
down, and that he liked the idea of a five-year term for taking down the house and proposed
deck.
Council Member Hanus stated that type of agreement had never been done before in these
situations. He stated that he had reservations about adding new structures to an old one in
such poor condition.
Council Member Brown pointed out that it might be better to deny this at this point. Council
Member Hanus stated there was still the option of placing the deck on the side with a front
walkway.
Council Member Brown suggested tabling this so that the applicant could work with Staff to
find a better option.
MOTION, by Brown, seconded by Hanus to table this until applicant can work
with Staff to find a better solution. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried. 4-0.
1.12 RAYMAR PROPERTIES, INC.
A__~. ACTION AMENDING RESOLUTION.
396
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
The City Attorney stated that an amendment to the Resolution was necessary to item 4 to
include the following: The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are
secured, or in the reasonable judgment of the Building O0~cial, are like(¥ to be secured prior
to the issuance o_fa Certificate of Occupancy.
Mayor Meisel asked whether Raymar had reviewed this change and the City Attorney
conformed that Raymar had reviewed it.
Hanus moved and Brown seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//00-78
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION//00-52
WHICH APPROVED THE PLAT FOR MOUND
VISIONS ADDITION
The vote was 4 in favor. Motion carried.
1.13 DISCUSSION OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT POLICY ISSUES.
Dan Parks, McCombs, Frank Roos Associates, Inc., stated that he and the City Manager had
met with staff from the Watershed District about two weeks ago. The Watershed District
feels that they have a different set of priorities than the City. Currently, the law says that
the Watershed can make the rules including local plans. Mr. Parks feels that the functions
and values assessment is going to be required by the Watershed. He feels that there are 30
to 35 wetlands in Mound and did try to stress to the Watershed that the City is fully
developed.
Mr. Parks stated that he did not want to spend $15,000 to $20,000 of City money on the
functions and values assessment, as he did not feel the report would be useful to the City.
Mr. Parks does feel the Watershed will require this report and will not approve the City's
plan without it. He has received a message from Jack Frost of the Met Council indicating
that they may share the cost of the assessment on a 50/50 basis up to $10,000. At this point,
Mr. Parks is not sure if the Met Council will place any requirements on this money.
Mr. Parks' recommendation is to approve the minimum buffers, prepare the ordinances, and
take responsibility for the Watershed.
The City Manager pointed out that there is value in doing this now because the Watershed is
looking at increasing the buffers. Mr. Parks confirmed this in that the current minimum
buffer is 30 feet, but the Watershed is considering increasing that to 50 feet.
Council Member Weycker asked whether conducting the wetland study would allow the City
to determine the size of the buffers. Mr. Parks stated that it would not, but it would allow
technical reasons to be brought out that may allow deviations. He further stated that the
Watershed feels this is an important tool for the City to have.
397
Mound City Council Minutes. August 22. 2000
Council Member Hanus asked how often the assessment would need to be done. Mr. Parks
stated it was a one-time shot and that most of the wetlands in Mound are primarily
functioning as storm ponds. He further stated that the main reason for doing the assessment
would be to get the plan approved. The City Manager added that it would also allow the
City to have permitting authority.
Council Member Hanus asked for confirmation that if the plan was approved with a 30-foot
buffer, the Watershed could not change that. Mr. Parks stated that it was the City
Attorney's opinion that this was tree, but that the rules were unclear about what the future
Watershed authority could be.
Council Member Hanus stated that he was concerned about the ambiguous nature of the
wetland definition and how that could affect the lakes. Mr. Parks stated that he did not feel
the wetland definition was ambiguous, and that there has been a move over the last few years
to disband the Watershed.
Council Member Weycker stated that the bottom line in all of this was who would have the
future permitting authority.
Council Member Hanus stated that he agreed that the City should be the permitting authority,
but was concerned about a way to word the document to achieve flexibility in interpretation.
He wondered if the City could use its own language.
Mr. Parks suggested incorporating the word average into the document, for example, stating
an average amount of buffer required. He further suggested that a subcommittee be formed
to get opinions on the issues.
Mayor Meisel stated that she felt that the time was better spent working out the wording on
the buffer. She stated that she did not want to do the study because she did not feel the
information would be used.
Council Member Hanus agreed with this and felt the Watershed should do the study. He
further stated that he felt this was a land taking issue and an unfunded mandate.
Council Member Brown suggested the City could file suit against the Watershed. Council
Member Hanus felt that would be too expensive.
Mayor Meisel suggested looking for other sources to pay for the study. Council Member
Hanus stated that he felt the Watershed should be forced to pay for the study. Mr. Parks
stated that the Watershed is hesitant to pay because of an issue of fairness with the other
cities.
Council Member Brown suggested approaching the Watershed with the fact that the City did
not have the money to do this study at this time. Council Member Hanus agreed again
stating this was an unfunded mandate.
398
Mound City Council Minotes, August 22, 2000
Council Member Weycker stated her mind was made up on this issue and that the other
Council Members should participate on a committee to get more information in order to
come to a decision.
Mr. Parks stated that the original intent was to get the plan approved on September 14. The
new option study would take a couple of months and he does not feel the City is in a position
to ask for plan approval now. He suggested the City send a letter to the Watershed stating
its inability to finance the study at this time. The proposed funding from the Met Council
along with the need for money from the Watershed could be the basis for the presentation on
September 14. This would provide the City with feedback on this plan.
Council Member Hanus asked when the need for this study was first brought out by the
Watershed. Mr. Parks stated that he did mention this to Council originally, but it was not
the focus as it was considered a technical issue.
Mr. Parks stated that he did see value in building a wetlands management plan, but he did
not think Mound needed one.
Mayor Meisel proposed that Mr. Parks put together a letter to the Watershed as stated. She
wondered if there were any other ways to lower the cost. Mr. Parks stated that he would get
a dollar commitment from the wetlands expert, but that he thinks the cost would be $15,000.
Mayor Meisel stated that currently that would be $7,500 from the Met Council and $3,500
each from the Watershed and the City.
Council Member Hanus stated that the Watershed is looking at towns in different stages of
development and is currently addressing the issue of new construction. He questioned
whether it would be beneficial to try to convince them that Mound is fully developed. Mr.
Parks stated that this has been tried.
Council Member Hanus asked when the wording on the buffer would need to be complete.
Mr. Parks stated that he did not want to commit to any wording at the September 14
meeting, but that Council should begin discussing this and be ready in September.
1.14 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. AMM FAX NEWS
B. LETTER ON WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER FUND DRIVE
C. WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY COLLABORTIVE MINUTES:
De
JUNE 16.
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES:
AUGUST 14, 2000.
399
Mound City Council Minutes. August 22. 2000
E. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT NEWSLETTER:
AUGUST 9.
F. POLICY REMINDER: WATER SHORTAGES.
G. ARTICLE: HOW FAIR ARE YOUR ZONING HEARINGS?
H. OPEN SPACE OPEN HOUSE TALLIES AND COMMENTS,
I. FINANCIAL REPORTS THROUGH JULY 1, 2000.
1.14 EXECUTIVE SESSION: POSSIBLE LITIGATION.
At 10:15 p.m. the City Council moved into executive session.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0.
Kandis Hanson, City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
400
I'A YMI,iN'I' llll,L$
I)ATli: AUGUST 22, 2000
I~ll,l,S ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
BA'I'CIItl
#0081
AMOUNT
$227,706.76
TOTAl, BILLS $227,706.76