1984-06-26124
June 26, 1984
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on June 26, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council
Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were:
Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Phyllis Jessen,
Gary Paulsen, and Russ Peterson. Also present were: City
Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Inspector
Jan Bertrand, Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm, Public Works
Building Study Committee Members (Carey Manso, Paul Young and
Earl Bailey), and the following interested citizens: Howard
Hagedorn, Louise Hagedorn, Keith Kullberg, Cynthia Smith, Steve
Smith, Helen Wolner, LeRoy Poetz, Gordon Swenson, Del Pfeifer,
Richard Sufficool, Lynn Rumpca, Donna Rumpca, Rose Bute, Norman
Bute, Robert Derner, Sandra Inman, Barbara Bergquist, Tom
Schammel, Russ Witham, Andrea Ahrens, Frank Ahrens, Buzz Sycks,
and Larry Connolly.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in
attendance.
The Minutes of the June 12, 1984, Regular Meeting were presented
for consideration.
Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the
Minutes of the June 12, 198, Regular Meeting, as presented.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING• DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS FOR JUNE
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone
present who would like to address the Council about a delinquent
utility bill. There was no one. The Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Charon moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION X84-96 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE DELINQUENT
UTILITY BILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF #2,380.98
AND AUTHORIZING THE STAFF TO SHUT-OFF
WATER SERVICE FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT
The City Manager explained that this committee was appointed by
the Council and charged with studying the following:
125
June 26, 198
1. Whether a new Public Works facility is needed.
2. What the present facilities are and there problems.
3. Find a general site for a new facility, if it is needed.
4. What would be a general size and cost.
5. Give a recommendation on possible financing.
They have met ~ times over the past two months, have developed
some recommendations for the Council and are ready to submit
their report.
Carey Manson read the Summary Report on the Public Works
facility which was as follows:
1. The present Public Works facilities are very inadequate and
antiquated and must be improved.
2. A permanent location for a City Public Works facility must be
developed to insure adequate care, in lieu of present minimum
care, of the City's one million dollar equipment inventory.
3. A centralized facility will insure increased employee
efficiency, equipment maintenance, and provide a cost
effective way for the City to manage its valuable and limited
resources.
4. The City needs to move out of the "Anderson Building" on
Commerce Blvd. and the Lost Lake storage yard on. County Road
15 as soon as possible. These two facilities contribute to
community blight and constitute a very poor use of the City
owned land within the downtown area. The City's image would
improve immediately if these existing uses could be
eliminated.
5. Funds that are generated from the sale or reuse of the
"Anderson Building", the Lost Lake site and the balance of
the three acre site should be dedicated toward the
construction of a new Public Works facility. The remaining
cost should come from a public bond sale. City General Fund
reserves should not be used to pay for a Public Works
Building.
6. A site of 100,000-150,000 square feet (2-3 acres) would be
required to fully serve the City's Public Works needs. Since
the City is enclosed on all sides, it is envisioned that this
facility will be a one time only expenditure and will meet
the City's long-term needs.
7. Because of the required size needed for a facility, sites
located on the western edge of the City are suggested. Top
priority would be to explore revising the City.'s former sewer
lagoon located on Westedge Blvd. and use the three acre site
..for road access. At this time it is storing water and being
126
June 26, 1984
overgrown with trees and swamp weeds.
A second location could be the City owned three acre site
located north of the Burlington-Northern Railroad tracks on
the north-south section of Westedge Blvd. This site could be
used sooner than the sewer lagoon because the City owns the
property. It would also require less soil correction than
the lagoon site.
Other sites explored proved inadequate or potentially
expensive.
The Committee also recommends the continued use of the
existing Island Park facility as either cold storage or as a
City Shop/Garage. Improvements to this facility must also be
undertaken to make this facility useable. These should
include installing new insulated electric doors and building
insulation.
8. The Council is urged to move ahead on this project quickly as
the loss of the Anderson Building and the Lost Lake site
both potentially eminent, will prove costly to the City in
terms of lost storage space and the potential to have to pay.
high rent for interim storage facilities.
9. The Committee as its final recommendation reminds the
Council to delay this decision further will only result in
added total costs in the future. It is estimated that just
in the last 6-8 years the cost of a Public Works facility
may have doubled. This will occur again in the future.
Councilmember Paulsen stated that he felt the present Island Park
facility was not adequate as it relates to size but that it is
in relatively good shape if repairs were made. He also asked the
Committee what other sites besides the two recommended sites off
of Westedge Blvd. were explored.
The Committee stated some of the other sites looked at were the
Tonka Building, the area behind Hardees, the site on County Road
110 behind the PDQ.
Councilmember Paulsen stated that he felt if we used either of
the two recommened sites we would just be taking the public works
facility from one residential area and moving it to another.
Russ Witham asked what was wrong with the present facilities.
Mayor Polston explained that the Council is trying to free up the
commercial areas (i.e. the Anderson Building and Lost Lake site)
that the City is using for storage so that it can be developed
commercially. He further explained that a site of 2 to 3 acres
is not easy to find in Mound.
127
June 26 , 1 98~+
Councilmember Peterson asked if anyone had another site to
suggest. Councilmember Paulsen suggested the City look at the
site on the north side of County Road 110 across from the PDC2.
Russ Witham stated he thought somewhere outside of Mound would be
good.
Councilmember Paulsen stated that he thought the Committee did a
good job on the report, but didn't realize how volatile the
political issue was. Committee member Paul Young stated that
they did ,not consider the political issue, just the facts as they
presented them.
Councilmember Paulsen stated that he feels a public works
facility is an industrial function and that it should not be put
in a residential area.
The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak.
Mrs. Bergquist, Halsted Lane, asked why the City would even
consider moving an industrial use into a residential area. Mayor
Polston stated that the City is limited for sites of the size
needed and that is how the Committee came up with the particular
sites they did.
Councilmember Paulsen stated that he felt the Committee chose the
3 acre site because the City owns it and the lagoon site because
it would be relatively low cost as it is owned by the MWCC.
Initial cost was a big factor. He stated that he felt the
Committee, as taxpayers, were under certain pressures to save the
City money, but when we build a facility like this and destroy
residential property values it was being pennywise and pound
foolish.
Russ Witham asked if the City would have an engineer cost this
out and study the site problem. Mayor Polston explained that the
city had a engineer prepare a report and they too thought the 3
acre site was the proper site. It was then suggested that the
Council appoint a task force of local residents to look into
other sites. Each Councilmember was active in choosing members
of the Committee. Now the Committee has submitted their report,
which is before us tonight. He explained that the City is trying
to make a fair and open decision.
Several citizens stated they felt their property values would go
down if the lagoon site was chosen. They asked what the next
step would be.
The Mayor explained that the Council will either accept or reject
the report, then set a date and hold a public hearing prior to
the Council making any decision. There are also financing
questions that would have to be dealt with.
128
June 26, 198
Russ Witham stated he felt the City should look at sites outside
of Mound
Buzz Sycks asked if there was thought given to purchasing part of
Tonka, why wasn't Balboa (potential buyer) contacted. The Mayor
stated that this site is being considered, but Balboa does not
own the building yet so it makes it difficult to negotiate. Also
they are talking about $7.00 per square foot for space. That
times 150,000 square feet would make the cost very high.
Councilmember Peterson stated that the Council is trying to find
the best solution to a problem.
Committee member Paul Young stated there is approximately
$1,000,000 worth of equipment sitting around deteriorating, costs
keep going up and the Committee would love to find the perfect
site.
Russ Witham again stated he thought we should consider sites out
of Mound.
The Mayor and Councilmember Charon both concurred that they would
not even consider putting the City's Public Works facility in
another community.
Councilmember Paulsen stated he was going to vote for the report
even thought he did not agree with all the items in it. He
stated this will be an ongoing subject and is not final.
A citizen asked if this was something that could happen tomorrow.
The Mayor answered no. If the. Council accepts the report then
they would put in motion the necessary action to select a final
site, come up with a way to finance, get preliminary costs, hold
a public hearing, have plans and specifications drawn and either
order the project started or put to a referendum vote.
A citizen asked if one site was more desireable than the other.
The Mayor stated that so far the 3 acre ,site on Westedge was the
most desireable.
Councilmember Paulsen stated that he didn't think the engineering
study considered the demographics or the people around this site
because the area north of the site is platted residential and the
only reason it has not yet been developed is the economy. He
stated that to him both the lagoon site and the 3 acre site are
unacceptable and he would not vote in favor of either.
Several citizens stated that in their opinion the 3 acre site
would be preferable to the lagoon site.
Councilmember Jessen thanked the Committee for a fine report and
stated that the Council knew it would be difficult to site this
129
June 26. 1984
facility no matter what.
Councilmember Peterson stated
site and will to continue to
Committee for their report.
he hasn't made his mind up yet on a
look at options. He thanked the
Councilmember Charon stated that she will not look at sites
outside of Mound. She thanked the Committee for their report.
Mayor Polston stated that none of the Council has an objection to
putting the facility in an industrial area if there is a site
large enough and the costs are not prohibitive.
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to accept the
report of the Public Works Building Study Committee, but
leave it open so that further study can be made of other
sites within Mound and allowing more input from other
citizens. Study to be continued by Staff, the Committee and
anyone else interested. To be presented to the Council at
the August 14, 198 meeting. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
CASE X83-332• HOWARD HAGEDORN, VACANT LOT EAST OF 1736 SHOREWOOD
LANE, SHADYWOOD POINT, 14 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE
The City, Manager explained that the Applicant and Keith Kullberg,
have applied for this 14 foot front yard variance to allow a home
to be constructed on Parcel B as approved in the .subdivision
under Resolution ~k83-59 on April 19, 1983. The City Code Section
23.408(5) requires lots abutting more than one street shall
provide the required front yards along every street within the R-
2 zoning district provisions allowing structures to be setback
from the street front 20 feet to the property line. The Planning
Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval
of the variance request due to the shallowness and topography of
the lot.
Charon moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION X84-97 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE
14 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR PART OF
LOTS 21 AND 22, BLOCK 4, SHADYWOOD POINT,
PID X13-117-2~F 11 0020
The vote was 4 in favor with Councilmember Paulsen being absent
for the vote. Motion carried.
CASE ~8~-333• STEVEN SPENCER, 3017 LONGFELLOW LANE, LOT 3, BLOCK
8, THE HIGHLANDS, 2 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE
The Building Inspector explained that this item has been
130
June 26, 1984
withdrawn by the applicant because he could not get financing for
the project. No action was taken.
CASE X84-335: LE ROY POETZ, 1620 EAGLE LANE, LOTS 6 ~ 19 & N 1/2
OF 18, BLOCK 11, WOODLAND POINT, 5 FOOT FRONT YARD
VARIANCE
The City Manager explained that the request is to enable to
applicant to remove the existing house and replace it with a new
structure plus an attached tuck under garage to be jogged out
from the building 6 feet closer to Eagle Lane (25 feet to the
property line). The Zoning Code for the R-3 district with a lot
depth of 160 feet on lots of record requires a 30 foot setback.
Section 23.408(6) allows the front setback to be averaged with
the adjoining structures, but this doesn't quite come up to that.
The request is for a 5 foot front yard variance the same as
their present house setback. The Planning Commission recommended
approval.
Jessen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION X84-98 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COM HISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPRIVE A 5
FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR LOTS 6 AND
19, N. 1/2 OF 18, BLOCK 11, WOODLAND POINT
(PID X13-117-24 12 0189)
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CASE ~~84-337• RICHARD SUFFICOOL, 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 13 &
14, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT, FLOODPLAIN VARIANCE
& 4.7 FOOT EXISTING SIDEYARD VARIANCE, AND
LAKESIDE VARIANCE
The City Manager explained that the applicant has applied for a
variance in setback to the Lakeshore and to construct below the
floodplain elevation of Lake Minnetonka a 12 by 22 foot screened-
in porch to the S.E. corner of the house 4 to 8 inches below the
existing first floor elevation of 932.3 NGVD. The City Code
Section 26, Part A, Page 2C and the Minnesota State Building Code
does not allow construction below the elevation of 933.5 NGVD
riparian to Lake Minnetonka without floodproofing permit
approval. The Planning Commission recommended approval due to
the shape of the lot and to afford the owner reasonable u•se of
the property.
The Mayor asked the City Attorney if the City was accepting legal
responsibility (liability) if it grants the variance and we let
him build in a floodplain and then it floods. The Attorney asked
the owner why the porch couldn't be raised above the low water
mark. The owner stated it is just a porch and you would open a
sliding glass door and have to step up to the slab porch. He
131
June 26 , 1 98~+
then presented plans drawn by a certified professional engineer
which the Building Inspector had not seen yet.
The City Attorney read part of Chapter 26 of the City Code:
"Neither the building inspector or the City Council shall
approve any permit or establish floor elevation which is less
than three feet above the 1965 high water level or the
following designed flood elevations:
a. Minimum building elevation of no less than 933.5 MSL,
1929 datum on any lots in the City riparian to Lake
Minnetonka.
The City Attorney then answered the Mayor's original question
about City responsibility. If the City allows this addition,
which is against its own ordinance and the State Building Code,
yes the City would need a hold harmless agreement, a restriction
or a deed covenant which is attached to the property which
relieves the City of Mound and puts the responsibility on a
registered professional engineer that this is not going to be
flooded or damaged.
The Mayor asked the City Attorney, "If this met the requirements
and didn't need a variance could he build this porch in a
floodplain?" Attorney: "If this is a floor elevation, the
ordinance says no."
The City Attorney stated that what the ordinance does say in
Chapter 26.06,D5, is, "Any applicant who is denied a building
permit for the reasons set forth in this ordinance may appeal
said denial to the City Council. The Council may approve or deny
said application or it may require the applicant to file a
certification from a registered professional engineer certifying
that the location and elevation of the proposed structure will
not be subject to flooding or cause the flooding of abutting
properties. The Council may condition said approval based on
reasonable requirements to protect the health, safety and general
welfare of the applicant, abutting properites or subsequent
owners of the subject property." He stated that this puts the
onus on the certified engineer and not on the City.
He advised the Council that if they concur with the Planning
Commission and approve the variance, that they do it with the
following conditions:
1. The Council make a finding that this is a porch and
therefore is not a floor elevation. Thus the City is not
violating its own ordinance.
2. Require the applicant to comply with 26.06 (D5) as stated
above.
132
June 26~ 1984
3. That the applicant file with the City a hold harmless
agreement (to be prepared by the City Attorney).
Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #$~4-99 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS AND A
FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION VARIANCE (WITH
CONDITIONS) FOR LOTS 13 AND 14. BLOCK 1.
SHADYWOOD POINT (PID X18-117-23 31 0006)
WITH CONDITIONS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
GAMBLING PERMIT- OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to authorize the
issuance of a Gambling Permit to Our Lady of the Lake
Catholic Church for August 4 and 5. 198~F. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
3.2 BEER LICENSE: OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to authorize the
issuance of the 3.2 Beer License to Our Lady of the Lake
Catholic Church for August 4 and 5. 198+. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
JUDGE HERBERT WOLNER
Judge Herbert Wolner was present requesting an explanation as to
why the City Prosecuting Attorney is continuing to file Notices
of Removal on all of the cases from Mound that come before him.
He explained that this causes another judge to take on his ease
load and also covers 11 different communities not just Mound. He
said that on Mound cases none involved any controversy or
required any litigation. Judge Wolner read Minnesota Statute
542.12 on the Notice of Removal which he stated is restrictive to
a particular case and not to an entire calendar thus these
Notice of Rem ovals will no longer be accepted unless Mound files
one on each case.
The Judge then stated that last year when he appeared before the
Council as a concerned taxpayer concerned about the Budget that
he was followed to the parking lot by the Police Chief and his
wife and berated. Adding that shortly after that the Police
Chief sent a letter to Judge Johnstone asked to have Judge Wolner
removed from all Mound cases.
Judge Wolner asked if the Council in formal session. asked to
133
June 26- 1984
have these Notices of Removal initiated again. The City Attorney
reported that he reads all the minutes and attends most all
meetings and that to his knowledge the Council has never taken
any such action. The Attorney then stated that he beleives this
is an issue that is between the City Prosecuting Attorney and the
Judge. He advised the Council not to comment.
Judge Wolner asked Gity Manager Jon Elam if he had told the City
Prosecuting Attorney to file the Notices of Removal. The City
Manager stated that he had no comment.
Judge Wolner stated that he considers these Notices as character
destruction and stated that if the Council did not initiate the
request that they pass the following resolution which he read:
"BE IT RESOLVED that the Mound City Attorney be directed to
refrain from filing any "Notice of Removal" against Judge
Herbert E. Wolner except where in the attorney's opinion in
a specific case actual or potential bias or prejudice might
exist."
The City Attorney again stated that he felt the was an issue
between the City Prosecuting Attorney and the Judge and advised
the Council not to comment or take any action. No action was
taken.
LIQUOR STORE MANAGER
The City Manager introduced Joel Krumm~ the new Liquor Store
Manager to the City Council.
ROSE BUTTE, 5420 BREEZY, SEWER BACKUP CLAIM
Mr. and Mrs. Butte were present and explained that they had
sewage backup in their basement recently. This was caused by the
lift station near their house being plugged up. They put in a
claim to the City's insurance company and were denied because the
insurance company states that the City was not negligent and did
nothing willfull to cause the backup. She further explained that
her husband has been out of work for 2 months they have 4 foster
children and no money to have the basement where bedrooms are
located redone. She asked that the Council authorize payment of
the claim.
The City Attorney advised that the Council cannot pay this claim
because if the City overturns the insurance company decision:
1. it would be setting a precedence for any future claims;.
2. it would open the City up to an individual taxpayer
filing a suit againt the City for paying a claim with no
authority.
134
June 26> 1984
The Council all agreed that they felt sympathy for the Mr. & Mrs.
Butte but that their hands were tied. Mayor Polston asked the
City Manager to check into the Buttes obtaining a Housing
Rehabilitation Grant from HUD. No action was taken.
Councilmember Charon suggested that the City put up signs near
the red light on the lift stations to tell people that if they
see the light on to call the Police as soon as possible to avoid
another situation like this.
COMMERCIAL DOCK APPLICATION - SURFSIDE
The City Manager reported that the Park Commission recommended
approval of this application, but mentioned that from now on the
application should be in on or before March 1 of each year.
Jessen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the
issuance of a Commercial Dock License to the Surfside, Inc.
for the year 198. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
STREET LIGHT REQUEST - 1600 AVOCET
The City Manager explained that the City has received another
request for a street light at 1600 Avocet. In having Patrolmen
John Ewald research the request, he found that the majority of
the residents in this area are summer or weekend residents only.
Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the
request for a street light at 1600 Avocet if the residents in
the area agree to pay the monthly costs. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1984 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
The City Manager presented the 1984 Administrative Code and
explained that this is just a confirmation to all non-union
employees of what the code is. The City Attorney asked that no
action be taken on this until the next meeting so that he had
time to go over several points with the Staff. No action was
taken.
RATE REFUNDS - CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE
The City Manager presented the offical Petition for
Reconsideration of the refund which has now been filed.
APPOINTMENT TO WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS, INCA
The City Manager explained that the City has received a request
from Westonka Senior Citizens, Inc. to appoint a Councilmember as
representative of the community to their board. Councilmember
135
June 25, 1984
Peterson stated that he would serve on this board. Mayor Polston
stated he would be an alternate.
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 46 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Manager explained that between Clyde and Dorchester on
Island View Drive the street is posted no parking in a manner
that is confusing. In checking the ordinance, he learned that
there is no ordinance prohibiting parking in this area. Due to
hills and curves and to be consistent with other City streets
where parking is limited to one side of the street, he would like
the ordinance amended.
Polston moved and Paulsen seconded the following:
ORDINANCE #464 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 46.29 (b). OF
THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SUBSECTION 62. - NO
PARKING ON THE EAST SIDE (OR LAKESIDE) OF
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE BETWEEN CLYDE ROAD AND
DORCHESTER ROAD
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
The bills were presented for consideration.
Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount
of #70,423.98. when funds are available. A roll call voted
was unanmously in favor. Motion carrried.
BASEMENT OF CITY HALL WATERPROOFING QUOTATIONS
The City Manager explained that the basement of City Hall has
been leaking for several years but is extremely bad this year
because of the rains. There are many records that have been
ruined or are getting moldy. In order to correct the problem the
basement needs to be tiled around the edges. The Building
Inspector solicited quotations and has received 2 which are as
follows:
Rite Way Waterproofing, Inc. X5,386.00
Standard Water Control Systems, Inc. $4,280.00
The Staff is recommending Standard Water Control Systems, Inc.
Charon moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the
quotation of Standard Water Control Systems. Inc. in the
amount of X4,280.00. for the tiling of the City Hall
basement. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
136
June 26, 1984
CHANGE PUBLIC HEARING DATE - SUPER AMERICA (OLD METRO 500 SITE
The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission had
originally reccommended setting July 24, 1984, as the date for a
public hearing on a Conditional Use Permit for a gas
station/convenience store at 5377 Shoreline Blvd. The Staff is
recommending that the public hearing be held on August 14, 1984,
because there have been no clear answers on the soil analysis.
Jessen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to set August
1 ~. 198~F. at 7:30 P.M. as the date for a public hearing on a
Conditional Use Permit for a gas station/convenience store
at 5377 Shoreline Blvd. The vote was unanimoulsy in favor.
Motion carrried.
MISCELLANEOUS/INFORMATION
A. Planning Commission Minutes - June 11, 1984.
B. Memo from City Manager on 1984 Work Comp. Rate.
C. Commons Docks Program Update.
D. Announcement of Metro Council Regional Meeting.
E. Memo from West Hennepin Human Services.
F. Breakdown of Contributions from Gift Catalog.
G. AMM 1983-84 Annual Report.
H. Memo from Community Services - Re: Senior Citizen Funding.
I. Letter from Senator Boschwitz.
J. Public Services Redesign Project Memo.
K. Letter from Hennepin County - Re: Town Square.
L. Legion Post 4398 Gambling Report for May, 1984.
M. Evenson-Dodge Financial Report.
N. Twin Cities Labor Market Report - June.
0. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Agenda - June 12, 1984.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minutes - May 17, 1984.
Charon moved and Polston seconded a motion to adjourn at
10:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried. ~
Fran Clark, City Clerk Jon Elam, City Manager
BILLS-----JUNE 26, 19$4
Air Comm 172.65
Allstar Electric 2,306.20
Apache Paper 137.16
Assn of Metropolitan Municip 1,603.00
Burlington Northern 533.33
Blue Cross/Blue Shield 137.01
Braun Environmental Lab 18,076.43
Bill Clark Oil 228.25
Coast to Coast 116.79
Contel 1,191.50
C ~ H Distributors 131.88
C J Industries 150.20
Davies Water Equip 45.61
Driver ~ Vehicle Services 8.25
First Bank Mpls 4.00
Glenwood Inglewood 52.50
Eugene Hickok ~ Assoc 2,120.41
Hawkins Chemical 114.38
Hayden-Murphy Equip 152.14
Internat'1 City Mgmt Assn 256.00
Internat'1 Institute Munic Cl erks 50.00
Kromer Co. 23.76
Kool Kube Ice 215.80
LoGls 1,930.04
Lyman Lumber 58.26
Sharon Legg 44.60
City of Minnetrista 140.00
McCombs-Knutson 3,496.00
Minnegasco 615.78
MN Dept Public Safety 40.00
Munitech, Inc 7.50
Mpls Oxygen 21.00
Martins Navarre 66 15.00
Northern States Power 4,194.59
NW Bell Tele 270.05
No Star Waterworks Prod. 138.47
Neitge Construction 82.50
Pitney Bowes Credit 26.00
Brad Roy 14.90
Tom Rockvam 202.00
Road Machinery 32.20
Suburban Community Services 888.25
Streicher Guns 17.95
S 0 S Printing 74.20
State Treas-Surplus 8.80
Francis Salden 63.80
Thurk Bros. Chev 15.00
Uniforms Unlimited 146.40
Von Klug z; Assoc 1,250.00
Widmer. Bros. 3,216.72
Waconia Emerg Physician 57.75
Westonka Sports 132.75
Westonka Firestone 57.54
Xerox Corp. 933.92
R.L. Youngdahl ~ Assoc 3,347.00
Kirk Corson 8.34
Commissioner of Revenue 5,282.88
Commissioner of Revenue 2,779.62
Consulting Radiologist 11.00
Griggs Cooper 2,484.90
Robert E Johnson 730.72
Johnson Bros Liq 2,780.57
Mrs Ralph Lang 14.80
Brad Landsman 61.25
City of Mound 45.47
Metro Waste Control 2,103.75
Mound Postmaster 110.04
P.D.Q. Foods 1,289.97
Ed Philiips ~ Sons 2,028.57
Quality Wine 76.68
Dell Rudolph 427.50
George Riches 8.00
Greg Skinner 27.00
State Treasurer 15.00
James Thompson 547.40
Keith Putt 200.00
TOTAL BILLS 70,423.88