1985-01-081
January 8, 1985
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on January 8, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council
Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were:
Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllis Jensen, Gary Paulsen,
Russ Peterson and Steve Smith. Also present were: City Manager
Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Clerk Fran Clark,
Finance Director Sharon Legg, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand,
City Planner Mark Koegler and the following interested citizens:
Joan Polston, Cynthia Smith, Andrea Ahrens, Frank Ahrens, Shirley
Anderson, Ernest Clark, Pat Wooldridge, Tom Reese, Elizabeth
Jensen, Charles Smith, Dennis Heckes, Ross Nelson, Henry Reinitz,
Jerry Longpre, Dave Klein, John Bierbaum, Ron Johnson, Frank
Weiland, Ted Ganzel, Buzz Sycks, Merritt Geyen, Mary DeVinney,
Margaret Bargman, and Dave Osdoba.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in
attendance.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Bob
Polston, and Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen and Steve Smith.
The Mayor asked if Mr. Smith and Ms. Jessen would like to say a
few words.
Councilmember Smith thanked his supporters from voting for him
and stated he has two goals: 1 ) to have a full disclosure City
Council, allowing citizen input in decisions; and 2) to look at
every expenditure before it is made and make sure the City is
getting the lowest possible price.
Councilmember Jessen stated she is grateful for the opportunity
to continue serving on the City Council and looks forward to
seeing the City progress forward.
HINUTES
The Minutes of the December 26, 1984, Regular Meeting were
presented for consideration. The City Manager stated that the
City Clerk has called to his attention the fact that the new dock
fees, approved at that meeting, should have been approved by
amending the ordinance instead of by resolution.
Councilmember Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following
correction to the Minutes of December 26, 1984,
2
January 8. 1985
ORDINANCE #472 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26.9307 OF THE
CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH LYCENSE FEES FOR DOCK
PERMITS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the
Minutes of the December 26, 1984, Regular Meeting, as
amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGULATING THE ERECTION,
CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, ALTERATION, LOCATION OR
MAINTENANCE OF SIGNS WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUND
The City Manager reported that this proposed ordinance is the
recommendation of the Planning Commission. It comes about
because the current sign ordinance stated that the maximum area a
sign can be is 9 square feet. This has caused every person
requesting a sign over that size to apply for a variance. The
Planning Commission has researched and reviewed this ordinance
and have been using it as a trial document for almost 1 year.
City Planner Mark Koegler and the City Manager have met with the
Retail Merchants Association and presented it there.
The Council thanked the Planning Commission for all their
diligent work on this proposed ordinance.
City Planner Mark Koegler briefly went over the sections in
the proposed ordinance. He then stated that there would be a
recommendation at the end of the meeting to incorporate the
campaign sign ordinance. approved on December 11~ 1984, into this
ordinance and into the Zoning Code.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there were any
comments for or against the proposed ordinance.
TED GANZEL, 4809 Bartlett Blvd. asked why there would be a
permit required for a change in color or copy of a sign.
The City Planner replied that the City would like to
know if there was a change in owners and the color
change could conflict with traffic signs and cause a
public safety problem.
Mr. Ganzel stated that he felt that Section 23.1205.5: ( 1)
requiring that window signs no exceed 25 percent of the
window area would cause hardship to the businessmen.
The City Planner replied that the Planning Commission felt
that 1/4 of the total window area was sufficient because
someone could put up a small outside sign and then cover the
windows with other signs.
3
January 8, 1985
Mr. Ganzel then questioned the proposed ordinance restriction
of not painting signs on outside walls.
The-City Planner explained that the ordinance does allow
people to put sign board on outside walls and paint their
signs on them. but that care and maintenance of signs painted
directly on walls is a problem.
Mr. Ganzel -asked what formula was used in Section 23.1225.5
(2) determining that a free standing sign cannot exceed 48
square feet.
The City Planner stated that the Commission reviewed 6 to 10
other cities sign codes and tried to determine a sign size
that would be reasonable for Mound.
DAVE KLEIN, 5301 Shoreline Blvd., stated that he feels the
section on window signs is too restrictive. He stated that
he has to rely on window signs because his business is
setback from the road and the newspaper advertising is not
sufficient for his needs. He also stated he is for wall
signs being allowed to be painted directly on the cement
blocks.
JERRY LONGPRE, 2300 Commerce Blvd., stated that he has a
problem with Section 23.1210 (36) relating to window signage
area including all signs visible from the exterior of a
building that are placed on the back of shelving units,
walls, or similar structures located less than 15 feet from
the window surface. He stated he feels this will be a
problem for people who have small floor area. He also stated
that Section 23.1220 (4) regarding temporary banners and
pennants only being allowed for 1 ~+ days would be a real
problem for Mound businesses.
DAVE KLEIN, agreed with Mr. Longpre on the setback of signs
at 15 feet.
FRANK AHRENS, X673 Island View Drive, asked why a public
hearing was not held ,relating to the previous campaign sign
ordinance that was passed at the December 11th meeting.
The City Attorney explained that that ordinance was an
amendment to Chapter 55 of the current City Code and was not
part of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a public hearing.
Mr. Ahrens asked what was covered in the election sign
amendment.
The City Attorney went over the highlights of the amendment.
The City Planner explained that Section 23.1220 (3) related
to campaign signs which is in the proposed sign code would be
January8, 1985
replaced with the already adopted Section 55.38.E if the
Council wished to do so this evening.
The-City Manager explained that the City received numerous
complaints during and after the election regarding political
signs and the length of time they were allowed to be up, etc.
Mr. Ahrens stated that he felt the 28 day restriction for
political signs being allowed was too restrictive and w ould
give the incumbants an advantage over others.
MRS. MARGARET BARGHAN, 4691 Wilshire Blvd., asked if this
ordinance would give the City permission to just come in and
remove political signs from private property. The Council
stated no this would not give the City that right unless the
property owner asked to have them removed.
Councilmember Smith asked Ms. Bargman how far her fence is
from the road. Ms. Bargman answered it is just across a
small grassy area from the sidewalk and with the setbacks in
the new ordinance, political signs would probably have to be
behind her fence.
TOM REESE, member of the Planning Commission, stated that
the Planning Commission spent alot of time on Section 23.1220
(3) Campaign Signs and he just wanted people to know that the
Planning Commission did not work on Section 55.388.
The Mayor reminded the public that this hearing is on only
the proposed sign ordinance and not the amendment to Chapter
55 that was adopted previously.
CINDY SMITH, 4701 Tuxedo Blvd., stated that she thinks there
is an typographical error in Section 23.1220 (6)(g). It
should have read "Garage sale s^gns shall be limited to five
(5) days per occurrence".
The .City Attorney stated that most of the communities that he
knows about do not have their sign ordinance in their zoning
ordinance because it takes a public hearing and a 4/5's vote
to change anything.
The City Planner stated that he knows of a number of
communities who have their sign code incorporated into their
zoning ordinance. The reason being that if a new business
comes to town and they need information, it would all be
included in the zoning ordinance, but, he. stated, the sign
code can exist either way.
The Mayor asked the City Attorney if the city should have
held a public hearing on the amendment to Section 55, because
of the idea of incorporating it into the zoning ordinance.
5
January 8, 1985
The City Attorney stated that a public hearing is not
necessary for any ordinance unless it pertains to the zoning
ordinance.
The City Manager stated that the amendment on temporary
election signs was never intended to have .been included in
the zoning ordinance. The Council agreed that they do not
want temporary election signs included in the zoning
ordinance.
BUZZ SYCKS, 5900 Beachwood Road, asked what prompted writing
a new sign ordinance for the City.
Councilmember Peterson stated that back when he was on the
Planning Commission, the commission felt there was a need for
consistency and that was how the proposed ordinance came
about.
JERRY LONGFRE, 2300 Commerce Blvd., stated that he could
understand the section of the proposed ordinance prohibiting
wall signs painted directly on the block because of the sign
that was on the Anderson Building for years and looked awful.
FRANK AHRENS, x+673 Island View Drive, recommended that the
Council adopt the Planning Commission recommendation for
Campaign signs and eliminate the one that is already law.
Mayor Polston again reminded the citizens that Section 55.38B
has already been adopted and is not part of the public
hearing tonight.
Tom Reese, Planning Commission Member, stated that the
Planning Commission felt they had done a comprehensive study
on this section of the ordinance and had come up with a
workable section.
Liz Jensen, Planning Commission Member, stated that she would
like to address the following issues:
1. Wall signs (signs painted directly on walls) were
dealt with in the proposed ordinance because they are
• not easily maintained.
2. Window signage was done because of a public safety
factor for the citizens on roads passing and looking at
window advertising.
DAVE KLEIN. stated that he still feels the Council should not
be so restrictive on wall signs and the 15 foot setback of
signs from the windows is unreasonable.
Councilmember Paulsen asked what setback the citizens would
feel would be fair from windows. Mr. Klein stated he thought
6
January 8, 1985
felt it should be reduced.
The City Planner stated that the reason it is in the
ordinance is to keep someone from putting shelving near a
window and plastering it with signs.
Councilmember Peterson thanked Mr. Ganzel for his input and
help. He then asked if a permit fee would be charged for all
existing signs. The City Planner stated no, but it would
require people to fill out an application, explanation, and
description of their existing signs so that the City can
catalog each sign.
Mayor Polston stated he has some real problems with
incorporating the proposed ordinance in the zoning ordinance
and that he has some problems and needs clarification on
certain sections.
Polston moved and Peterson seconded a motion to continue the
public hearing and refer the proposed sign ordinance back to
the Staff and the Planning Commission for further review and
study to be brought back before the Council the 1st meeting
in March (March 12. 1985).
The City attorney suggested that before the ordinance is
brought back before the Council it be put in ordinance form,
a repealer section added and a summary of the ordinance be
developed for publication.
The Council thanked the Planning Commission for all their
work and assured them they realize a sign ordinance is very
difficult to develop and deal with.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 24
FOOT BY 30 FOOT STORAGE BUILDING - MT. OLIVE LUTHERAN CHURCH
PROPERTY. 5218 BARTLETT BLVD. (CASE X84-373)
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to
speak for or against the issuance of this Conditional Use Permit.
ROSS NELSON, 8280 County Road 15, Maple Plain, stated that he
is the contractor for this project and is in favor of it.
DAVE OSDOBA, 2600 Wilshire Blvd., asked what kind of
construction the building w ould be. The Building Inspector
stated that it would be according to all codes. Mr. Osdoba
then asked if this building would be equivalent to a resident
building a garage. The Building Inspector answered yes.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
7
January 8, 1985
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 24' BY 30'
STORAGE BUILDING IN PT. OF BLOCK TWO ( 2) ,
SHIRLEY HILLS, UNIT D AND TRACT A,
REGISTERED LAND SURVEY #125, PID #24-117-
24 21 0002 AND #24-117-24 21 0015 (5218
BARTLETT BOULEVARD
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR KITCHEN AND RESTROOM
EXPANSION AT AL & ALMA'S RESTAURANT, 5201 PIPER ROAD (CASE #84-
374 )
Merritt Geyen, owner of Al & Alma's, was present and explained
the proposed expansion which would consist of a 10.4 foot by 27.8
foot addition.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for any comments
from citizens for or against the issuance of this Conditional Use
Permit.
BUZZ SYCKS~ 5900 Beachwood Road stated that he is in favor
of the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
MARY DE VINNEY, 3214 Tuxedo Blvd., stated that she has been a
neighbor to the restaurant for many years and since the
Geyens have taken over the operation they have really
improved it. She stated she was in favor.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommends
approval.
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-2 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 10.4 FOOT BY
" 27.8 FOOT ADDITION IN LOTS 1, 2, AND 3,
BLOCK 8, WHIPPLE (5201 PIPER ROAD) - PID
#25-117-24 21 0016 AND 0017
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
8
January 8, 1985
DISCUSSION ON DEFEASANCE
Pat Wooldridge Miller/Schroeder~ was present to discuss
defeasing part of the City's debt service.
The City Manager explained that defeasance involves establishing
an irrevocable escrow account from wich the cashflow is adequate
to pay the remaining principal and interest payments on an
outstanding bond.. The objectives of defeasing certain of the
City's bond issues is two-fold:
1. The City can achieve a certain amount of savings with
respect to its debt service costs; and
2. The City can free up a substantial amount of money held
in its debt service sinking funds. available to be used
for a variety of purposes.
He further explained that this item is only for discussion and
not something Mound would want to do at this point because with
today's investment market it would not be adviseable~ but if the
market changes in the future we should be aware of what our
available alternatives are.
The Council asked various questions of Mr. Wooldridge.
The City Attorney asked Mr. Wooldridge what specific statutory
authority allows this. Mr. Wooldridge .stated he did not know
the number of the Minnesota Statute which allows this.
The Council thanked Mr. Wooldridge for attending the meeting and
his explanations.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from
the citizens present.
ANDREA AHRENS~ X4673 Island View Drive asked if before
Section 55.38B of the City Code was passed. it was reseached
to see what other communities were doing with regard to
limiting the time campaign signs could be up and what was the
reason for the 28 day limitation?
The City Manager stated yes other communities campaign sign
ordinances were looked into.
Councilmember Peterson stated that the reason for the 28 day
limitation was in part because the longer signs are up the
more delapidated they get and the Council felt it was fair
for everyone to have the same time limit.
9
January 8, 1985
Mayor Polston agreed with Councilmem ber Peterson and added
there is no perfect way to enact an ordinance. Someone- can
always find something they don't agree with.
Councilmember Smith asked how many calls the City had gotten
objecting to the signs.
The City Manager stated that he received 2 or 3 a week from
citizens complaining about signs being dumped in their yards
or complaining about the length of time the signs were
allowed to be ups or about signs in delapidated condition.
Mayor Polston stated that he had received a minimum of 15
calls or conversations with people for the same reasons.
Andrea Ahrens stated that she felt the Council should hold
public hearings on all issues not just mandated items.
Mayor Polston stated that the Planning Commission holds
public hearings as well as the City Council on many items and
they are all published in The Laker. All agendas of upcoming
meetings are available the Friday afternoon before a meeting
and anyone interested can pick one up. If anyone cares to
attend they are most welcome.
Frank Ahrens stated he feels it is the responsibility of the
candidate to keep his signs in order. He objected- to'the 28
day limitation because he feels the incumbant has an
advantage and he hoped this was not an attempt to limit
challenges. He also objected to the setbacks required in
this section of the code because it will not allow some
people to have sign s such as Mrs. Bargman who has a fence in
her yard.
Frank Weiland stated to Mr. Ahrens and Mrs. Bargman that
there is no restriction that says Mrs. Bargman cannot put a
sign on top of her fence.
RON JOHNSON X4416 Dorchester Rd.~ stated that he will have an
informational meeting at his home tomorrow evening at 7:30
P.M. regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Turnquist
Estate. He invited anyone interested to attend and hear the
developers plans.
Mayor Polston reminded the Council that only 2 members of the
Council could attend because of the open meeting law.
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR FOR 1985
Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-3 RESOLUTION APPOINTING RUSS PETERSON ACTING
MAYOR FOR 1985
10~
January 8, 1985
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER
Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-~1 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER THE
OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1985
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL DESPOSITORIES
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION X85-5 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL
DEPOSITORIES FOR 1985
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO VARIOUS COMMISSIONS
Mayor Polston asked who would like to be appointed as Council
Representative to the Park Commissio n Planning Commission and
the Cable T. V. Commission. Councilmember Paulsen volunteered
for the Cable T.V. Commission. Councilmember Jessen volunteered
for the Park Commission. Councilmember Smith volunteered for the
Planning Commission.
Polston moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION X85-6 RESOLUTION APPOINTING PHYLLIS JESSEN TO
THE PARK COMMISSION, STEVE SMITH TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND GARY PAULSEN TO
THE CABLE T.V. COMMISSION AS COUNCIL
REPRESENTATIVES FOR 1985
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL BONDS
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-7 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A
#20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION X85-8 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A
X20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/
11
January 8. 1984
FINANCE DIRECTOR
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1985 LMG/AMM LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE
The City Manager reminded the Council that the 1985 LMC/AMM
Legislative Conference will be January 29 and 30th in St. Paul.
Anyone wishing to attend should contact th City Clerk and she
will make the necessary arrangements.
STRATEGIC PLANNING PROGRAM
The City Manager reported that Mound has been selected to
participate in "Innovation in the Public Sector through Strategic
Planning". He stated Councilmember Peterson has volunteered to
attend these sessions and welcomed any other Councilmembers who
wished to attend. The first meeting will be January 17th.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
The bills were presented for consideration.
Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the
payment of bills as presented in the pre-list, in the amount
of #147,676.14. when funds are available. A roll call vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COUNCIL PLANNING SESSION
The City Manager stated that in the past: a meeting of the
Council has been held to discuss goals and objectives for the
upcoming year. He asked the Council if they wished to set a
date.
Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded a motion to set Saturday,
February 2, 1985, at 9:00 A.M., in the City Council Chambers
for a Council Planning Session. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
DISCUSSION ON CONTEL PUBLIC HEARING
The City Manager suggested setting a date fora public hearing on
the proposed rate increase Gontel is seeking to see if the
citizens want the City to intervene again. The City Attorney
suggested that the Council may want to wait to set this date
until their is a ruling on the Attorney General's office asking
that the proposed Contel rate increase be thrown out because it
is based on future projections. The Council agreed to wait.
1 2~
January 8, 1985
TOWN SQUARE RESOLUTION OF INTENT FOR IRB~S
The City Manager explained that it is rumored that Congressman
Pickle is going to introduce legislation in Congress on January
22, 1985, that would eliminate IRB's. Since the developers of
the Town Square project have not yet decided if they are going to
request IRB~s, Mr. John Bierbaum, the developer's attorney, is
asking that the Council pass a resolution of intent to issue
IRB's if feasible and requested. If the Council does not pass
such a resolution, it would not be able to sell IRB~s if the
legislation is introduced.
Mr. John Bierbaum was present to answer any questions. The City
Attorney explained that the Council would not be obligating
itself in passing the proposed resolution.
Councilmember Smith asked the City Attorney if the Council would
have to act now or could this wait until the January 22nd
meeting. The City Attorney stated that the Council would have to
act now, because the legislation is rumored to be introduced on
the 22nd and that would be too late.
Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION X85-9 RESOLUTION TO PROCEED TO ISSUE COMMERICAL
DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE A
PROJECT
Councilmember Paulsen asked if this was just an intent
resolution. The City Attorney answered yes.
Councilmember Smith asked if the City could reverse this
later. The City Attorney answered yes.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. January Calendar.
B. Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 1984.
C. NLC Legislative Conference in Washington D. C. Announcement.
D. Letter from Hennepin County regarding recent election
administration and voter registration process.
E. St. Louis Park Newsletter for December and January.
F. Commendation Letter to Gary Cayo and Steve Grand.
G. Information on New Tax to be Collected from Garbage Haulers
13
January 8, 1985
from the Metro Council.
H. Metro Council Review - December 14. 198.
SECTION 55.38B OF THE CITY CODE
Councilmember Smith stated that since he was not on the Council
when Section 55.38B relating to campaign signs was added to the
City Code and he feels it is too restrictive, he would like to
proposed the following motion:
Smith moved to repeal Section 55.38B of the City Code and
hold a public hearing on this section to get citizen input.
Councilmember Paulsen stated he would second the motion if
Councilmember Smith would delete the repeal section of his
motion. Councilmember Smith agreed.
The Council discussed an appropriate date for an
informational meeting and decided on April 9. 1985, at 7:30
P.M.
Smith and Paulsen agreed to having this date inserted in the
motion. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded a motion to adjourn at
10:20 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. 'Motion
carried.
J n Elam, City Manager
Fra777777n Clark, City Clerk
BILLS------JANUARY 8, 1884
Anchor Paper Co. 369.86 Kool Kube Ice 118.00
Allstar Electric 260.67 Pepsi Cola/7Up 286.99
Allied Painting ~ Renovating 935.00 Rex Distributing 422.26
Holly Bostrom 248.00 Royal Crown Beverage 77.85
Gayle Burns 3.50 Pogreba Distributing 3,279.20
Donald Bryce 100.00 Twin City Home Juice 33.56
Bowman Barnes 99.47 Thorpe Distributing 4,687.18
Robert Cheney 363.00 .Mound Fire Dept 4,624.20
Citywide Services 16.50 Wendy Anderson 11.00
Davies Water Equip 1.37 Assn Training Officers-MN 10.00
Dependable Services 33.00 Jan Bertrand 101.56
Dixco Engraving 7.00 Thomas Carl 500.00
General Communications 41.20 Bill Clark Oil 1,800.84
W.W. Grainger 261.66 Jon Elam 119.41
Glenwood Inglewood 38.50 Fidelity Bank. 15,888.67
William Hudson 445.00 Griggs Cooper 2,260.70
Eugene Hickok ~ Assoc 132.00 Shirley Hawks 6.60
Hennepin County Treas 1,096.50 HRA 8,585.00
Hennepin County Sheriff 515.32 HEI, Inc. 25,000.00
Internatl City Mgmt Assn 10.00 Len Harrell 80.00
Industrial Utilities, Inc 663.00 Holiday Inn 82.00
Lowells Auto 53.52 Johnson Bros. Liq 3,522.44
Metro Fone Communications 35.40 Jim Jagodzinski 1,250.00
Mpls Oxygen Co. 47.15 Internatl Assn Chf Police 50.00
Mtka Portable Dredging 1,950.00 Jody Collier Kruse 500.00
Miller Davis 179.00 pr. Robert .Lauer ~ 356.00
Marina Auto Supply 418.88 Jerry Longpre 326.00
City of Mound 21.88 Mound Postmaster 118.56
Wm Mueller & Sons 2,071.46 MN Dept Public Safety-Liq 12.00
Martins Navarre 66 66.00 Metrop Emerg Mgr Assn 25.00
Popham, Haik 1,251.67 Metro Waste Control Comm 25,054.47
Q.R.S. Corporation 6,939.50 Ed Phillips ~ Sons 1,967.11
Bradford Roy 445.00 Profess Police Serv 195.00
Bob Ryan Ford 20.31 Quality Wine 2,302.97
State Bank of Mound 13.80 Del Rudolph 80.00
Saliterman LTD 1,070.63 Victoria State Bank 1,143.26
Don Streicher Guns 47.00 ..Blue Cross/Blue Shield 160.62
Tweed's Service Garage 684.65 Minnegasco 3,139.11
Thrifty Snyder Drug 37.00 Navarre Hdwe 126.11
Unitog Rental 274.09 Thurk Bros. Chevrolet 25.06
Winner Industries 4.36 State Treasurer 1,543.06
Water Products 276.02 P.E.R.A. 2,551.26
Widmer Bros, Inc. 1,132.75
Butch's Bar Supply 127.86
Coca Cola Bottling 188.10
City Club Distributing 3,976.51
Day Distributing 3,540.09
East Side Beverage 3,498.25
Flahertys Happy Tyme 180.20 TOTAL BILLS 147,676.14
Griggs Beer 567.90
Happy's Potato Chips 102.02
Jude Candv ~ Tobacco 150.4
L