The URL can be used to link to this page

070990 CC Reg AgP .J CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, July 9, 1990 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call Stover Brancel Mayor Haugen Gagne Watten C. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 20, 1990, City Council Workshop (Att. #2A - Minutes) B. June 25, 1990, Regular City Council Meeting (Att. #2B - Minutes) 3. Consent Agenda - none (reserved) 4. COMMISSION REPORTS A. Planning Commission B. Park Commission 5. DRAINAGE PROBLEMS - Shady Hills Appl: Rev. Almquist Loc: 19355 SHady Hills Rd. 6. APPEAL - FALSE ALARM PERMIT Appl: Mr. James Woog Loc: 27200 West 62nd St. - (Att. #5 - Almquist'S letter) (Att. # 6 - Applicant's letter & Police Chief's Memo) 7. SPEED ZONE STUDY - Near Mountain Blvd. Appl: Petition Loc: Near Mountain Blvd. (Att. # 7 - Mn/DOT Letter & Engi- neer's Memo) 8. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONSTRUCTION VOUCHER # 2 and FINAL PAYMENT FOR FREEMAN PARK BALLFIELD FENCES AND APPUTENANT WORK (Att. # 8 - Engineer's Memo and Resolution) 9. REVIEW FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR IRON REMOVAL/SOFTENING, S.E. AREA WATER Noel Vogen, Associated Consultanos(Bring Blue Report) 10. Matters from tee Floor 11~ REVIEW RFP FOR JOINT PROSECUTOR (Att. #11 - Administrator's Memo;,;& RFP) " .. ..... ~ #L~ ,. '-~i" .........~~ ~~~""'.,;CW~..&...... ~..... - . - CITY OF SHOREWOOD CO~CIL CHAMBERS CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD MINUTES, JUNE 20, 1990 PAGE 1 M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Mayor Haugen called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Haugen, Councilmembers Gagne, Stover, Brancel and Watten. Administrator Whittaker,Finance Director Rolek, George Sherman of Sherman-Boosalis and Robert Thistle,Financial Consultant,Springsted,Inc. AGENDA REVIEW Gagne moved,Stover seconded, to approve the Agenda with the following additions: 1. 1.C. Park Report by Councilmember Watten. 2. Under Other, Administrator Whittaker will also report on Park matters. PARK COMMISSION REPORT Councilmember Watten reported that the Park Commission discussed having an opening ceremony at Freeman Park. This was still tentative and would be decided later. Watten stated that the Park Commission requested a meeting with the City Council regarding the engineering problems with Freeman Park. They felt all parties should attend this meeting. The Council decided they should meet with Engineer Norton and the other Engineers separately, before the joint meeting with the Park Commission. The meeting was set for June 27, 1990 at 7:00 PM. REVIEW PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR TIF DEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY AND SHERMAN-BOOSALIS. Administrator Whittaker presented the staff's proposals for the Guaranty of the TIF bonds. The main concern of the staff is to cover the city's risk. The staff maintained that the maximum period of risk would be four years. In a worst case scenario, if there were no revenue from the development, the property is forfeited for taxes and the City could assume ownership of the property. The staff, therefore, recommended that Sherman Boosalis supply a letter of credit for four years. George Sherman of Sherman-Boosalis explained his firm's proposals: 1. Sherman-Boosalis could not afford to guarantee the bonds for four years unless there was a gas station/convenience store on the site. 2. If the city would not allow a gas station/convenience store Sherman-Boosalis was still willing to provide a letter of credit for the two highest years of debt service. dfl . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES, JUNE 20, 1990 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 2 3. The city could issue revenue bonds instead of general obligation bonds. Mr. Sherman felt that without a gas station/convenience store the development would not have the economic punch for a four year guarantee. Mayor Haugen and Councilmembers Gagne. Brancel, Watten and Stover felt there could be no change on their position regarding the gas station without another public hearing. The final agreement would include a letter of credit at a level which would guarantee the three highest years of debt service. Sherman- Boosalis and the City felt this was a reasonable risk on both parts. There would be an increase in value of the property as soon as the building starts and the improvements are in. Mr. Sherman reiterated his position that without a gas station/convenience store. the development would be difficult to market. Stover asked how long the marketing would take and how long is the City committed? Whittaker said the original agreement called for the project to be started by the end of 1990. Sherman felt that he would know before the end of the year, if he could secure sufficient leases for the development Councilmember Gagne asked if future City Councils are obligated to build the intersection. Attorney Froberg said a new City Council would be bound by any binding agreement that was signed by previous Councils. The site was also zoned for multiple dwellings and Mr. Sherman felt this could also be an excellent development. Stover asked what would happen if there was a change in the Planning Commission's decision? Froberg said there would have to be a new C.U.P. and a hearing. Watten moved, Stover seconded. the motion to prepare agreement on the TIF development. Motion carried - 4/1 (Brancel). Froberg stated that the agreement should include a time frame to market the development. Mr. Thistle thought the Council was talking about two separate issues. If a letter of credit is not provided. then the agreement is null. There can be no change in the developement agreement without the approval of Trivesco. If Sherman-Boosalis buys the property, they buy the developement agreement. DISCUSSION OF FINANCING THE GLEN ROAD DRAINAGE PROJECT. Whittaker stated that there were two ways to finance the drainage project. 1. Through the General Fund. 2. Through a Special Taxing District. A Special Taxing District was easier. administrativly. than a Special Assessment. . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES. JUNE 20, 1990 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 3 Haugen said the City was allowed to bank 1/3 of a mill. for drainage projects. Finance Director Rolek said that .with an assessed value of 9 million, 1/3 mill. would be about $27.000. The Glen Road project would cost $100.000. Stover asked if staff has contacted the area developers to determine their part in financing the project? Does Engineer Norton have a comprehensive plan? Whittaker said he would contact developers. Engineer Norton has determined the sites in the City that will need drainage but the projected price might be four million. Stover felt the benefited properties should pay. Gagne felt all people in area benefited and the city should do something within one year as this was a twenty year old problem. Watten wanted to know what was the frequency of doing these projects on demand. City would need an Ordinance to set up a Special Taxing District. This would be an Ad Valorem tax and deductible. Whittaker said that Mr. Norton would prepare the numbers for people. The cost would be $1200-$1300 per family over 5-10 years. Council advised Froberg to get information for an Ordinance. Set up a public hearing. DISCUSSION SCHEDULE/PROCESS FOR ELDERLY HOUSING AND COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN UPDATE. Gagne had contacted a representative of Real Life Development. He would be willing to talk to the Council on July 16, 1990. Mr. Frank Reese would also like to speak. Watten felt there should be no more than two speakers a night. One would talk at 7:30 and one at 9:00. WATER PLAN Water plan would be discussed at the regular City Council meeting of June 25. 1990. OTHER Whittaker said the Park Commission reviewed the concession stand placement and received a $200.00 deposit for damages. The Park Commission decided to place the stand between the fields. Council wanted the stand in the parking lot. Haugen read letter from Tonka Unite Soccer League. Shorewood provides four fields for soccer. Badger field could not be used this year because of reseeding. Haugen felt Whittaker should find out the need for fields and what other communities are providing and draft a letter to Tonka United. Whittaker indicated that the league had no contract with the City. Gagne felt they should sign contracts, as every other sports organization does. y-- . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES. JUNE 20. 1990 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 4 Watten said the Park Commission proposed an annual appropriation of $25.000 for unanticipated maintenance and minor capital improvements. They are also developing a plan for capital improvements. Rolek said these expenses should be estimated and included in the annual budget. LMCD deadline for comments had been changed to June 28, 1990. ADJOURNMENT Gagne moved. Watten seconded to adjourn workshop at 10:50 P.M. . CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. JUNE 25. 1990 . CO~IL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 1 M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Mayor Haugen called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Haugen opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Haugen. Councilmembers Gagne, Stover, and Watten; Administrator Whittaker, Attorney Froberg, Engineer Norton, Planner Nielsen, Finance Director Rolek. Absent: Councilmember Brancel AGENDA REVIEW Stover moved, Gagne seconded, to approve the Agenda with the following amendments: 1. Under Staff Reports add 9-D Administrator's Report. Topics will be : the letter to Tonka United Soccer, a new polling place on Enchanted Island. and Code Book supplements. Motion carried - 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Gagne moved, Stover seconded. to approve the Minutes for the Council Study Session of June 4. 1990 with the following amendment: 1. Pg. 5 last paragraph - an advisory body. 2. Pg. 6 second paragraph from the bottom- he thinks. 3. Pg. 7 first paragraph - these are the things. Last sentence replace Staff with Commission. Last word should be do. 4. Pg. 8 third line from the bottom - he thinks. 5. Pg. 9 second paragraph from bottom - appointed not elected. 6. Pg. 10 line 6, he doesn't know. 7. Pg. 11 third paragraph. a trickle of money. 8. Pg. 12 first motion. two nays were Stover and Haugen. Motion carried - 4/0 Gagne moved, Watten seconded. to approve the Regular Council Meeting Minutes of June 11. 1990 with the following amendment: 1. Pg. 3 Resolution No. 50-90 . The PID NO. is 32-117-23-24-0011 2. Pg. 6 Resolution NO. 53-90 . Motion carried 5/0. 3. Pg. 8 First paragraph - add on the parking lot. Motion carried - 4/0. 1 t CITY OF SHOREWOOD . REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, JUNE 25. 1990 CO~IL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 2 APPEAL NOTICE TO REMOVE APPLICANT: MICHAEL O'BRIEN LOCATION: 5970 AFTON ROAD Planner Nielsen indicated that Mr. O'Brien still had a pile of brush and a boat stored on his property. The boat is licensed but not to him. This is a zoning violation. Gagne moved. Watten seconded, to grant a 30 day extension of time to Mr. O'Brien. Motion carried - 4/0. CONTRACT WITH LMCD/DNR FOR SHORELAND GRANT AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 58-90 Administrator Whittaker said the LMCD asked the Lake Minnetonka cities to cooperate in the signing of this agreement to meet the standards mandated by the DNR on shoreland management. Councilmember Stover questioned page 5, number 4. Why is the LMCD involved with non-Lake Minnetonka shoreland? Planner Nielsen said the DNR defines the lakes in the Cities and they must conform to DNR regulations. The LMCD is simply offering technical assistance in conforming to the regulations. They are not setting the rules for other lakes. Gagne moved, Stover seconded. to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 58-90. "A Resolution Authorizing Mayor Haugen and Administrator Whittaker to Execute the Shoreland Grant Agreement with the MN/DNR and LMCD." Motion carried on a roll call vote - 4/0 PROPOSAL TO UPDATE MASTER PLANS AND CIP FOR PARKS Whittaker recommended that the Council accept the proposal from Van Doren Hazard Stallings to update the Master Plans and the Capital Improvement Program for the City parks. This would cost up to$2500. Councilmember Watten said he felt this was needed. Watten moved to accept the Van Doren proposal not to exceed $2500. Gagne seconded. Motion carried - 4/0. ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD AND SHERMAN-BOOSALIS INTERESTS, INC. Attorney Froberg referred to page 14 section 5.4 of the Amended Contract for Tax Increment Finance Development. This section was added per the agreement with Sherman-Boosalis. Haugen questioned page 9 of the agreement. The values of Parcel ~ and Parcel B. Stover felt there should be a completion date for construction. Finance Director Rolek said that the residential development was to be completed by 1995 and commercial development by 1992. In addition, the agreement will state that completion dates will be pursuant to the schedule set forth in the Development Agreement with Sherman-Boosalis. George Sherman of Sherman-Boosalis stated that he felt the Contract would work for both the City and Sherman-Boosalis and both parties should proceed with development. RESOLUTION NO. 59-90 RESOLUTION NO. 60-90 CITY OF SHOREWOOD . REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. JUNE 25. 1990 colc I L CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 3 Councilmember Watten felt there should be an honest look at low density commercial development. Mr. Sherman agreed. Gagne moved. Stover seconded. to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 59-90. "A Resolution Approving the Contract for Tax Increment Finance Development by and between the City of Shorewood. Minnesota and Sherman-Boosalis Interests. Inc.". and Authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to Execute said Contract on Behalf of the City." Motion carried on a roll call vote - 4/0. Gagne moved. Watten seconded. to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 60-90. "A Resolution Approving the Assessment Agreement and Assessment's Certification By and Between the City of Shorewood. Minnesota and Sherman-Boosalis Interests. Inc." Motion carried on a roll call vote - 4/0. Haugen congratulated Mr. Sherman on the award Sherman-Boosalis won. in Minneapolis. for low income housing. PETITION FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY OF STREET IMPROVEMENT APPLICANT: PETITIONERS LOCATION: CHURCH ROAD Mr. Neil Vegsund of 6155 Church Road spoke on behalf of the residents of Church Road. He stated that the road was one of the few unfinished roads in Shorewood and that there were drainage problems throughout the year. The last four lots in the area were just developed. The water had drained to these lots. Haugen stated that the City has paid for roads but individual property owners were responsible for resolving drainage problems. Planner Nielsen presented his recommendations for a feasibility study. He stated that the drainage problem must be solved first. The City needs a larger easement and a turn-around at the north end. The cost of the feasibility study should be borne by the residents whether or not the project is undertaken. Engineer Norton said that there are a number of problems to consider in this project: 1. Soil conditions 2. High water table 3. Where to drain the water Norton stated that the water would probably have to drain over land. There is a 12" pipe that goes across the abandoned railway track. but this would have to be enlarged to accommodate the additional drainage. Another alternative would be a holding pond. Watten and Gagne felt that any feasibility study should include the whole subwatershed aarea. Norton said that a storm sewer study done in the 1970's proposed draining this area to the marsh north of Smithtown Road. The project was never done. Norton felt the feasibility study would cost $3200.00. Two soil borings would also be necessary. Gagne said those would cost about $1800.00. The total cost would be $5000.00. Gagne asked Nielsen if the road needed to be so wide. Nielsen stated that this was not unusually wide. they would need the extra space for utility easements and snow storage. -, . . , I CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETI G MINUTES, JUNE 25, 1990 CO~IL CHAMBERS 57~COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 4 Mr. Jonathan Kennedy, Sr. of 6135 Church Rd. asked if he would loose trees along the road. Nielsen said that some may be lost. Kennedy also asked why he was not advised by the builder that there were drainage problems. Nielsen said that in the plan review, the City had advised the builder that there were problems. Mr. Lance DeTrude of 26620 W. 62nd St., owner of lots 2,3,4,5, asked if he would be assessed and can he divide the property if he gives an easement. Nielsen said that he could not speculate on subdivision without reviewing the files, but an easement alone would not preclude subdivision. Mr. Vegsund felt that the entire area, not just the unfinished part of Church Road, would benefit by the project. Would the residents spend money for the feasibility study and find out they would still be flooded? Haugen stated that it was hard to get people to pay for drainage problems in Shorewood if they were not directly affected. Stover stated that an assessment hearing must be held. Froberg said there were two hearings but the first one could be waived if 100% of the people were willing to be assessed. At the time of assessment the residents can object, if they can show that the costs are excessive. Stover asked if the soil borings benefited the City. Watten asked if the soil borings were necessary. Norton answered yes to both questions. BREAK - 9:30 to 9:40. Stover asked if the City could split up the study and make it 2/3 street and 1/3 drainage. The residents would then pay for the 1/3 of the $5000.00 study. Stover moved, Gagne seconded, that the feasibility study be divided between the City and the residents on a 2/3-1/3 basis. Whittaker indicated that the money to pay for the study would come out of the City Contingency Fund. Gagne called the question. Motion carried - 3/1 (Haugen) Stover moved, Gagne seconded, that the homeowners present a petition stating they will pay $150.00 each for the feasibility study, or the project will not be started. Motion carried - 4/0. Mr. Detrude asked if the City would do the project? Council said it would be put out for bids. Mr. Vegund asked if the Engineer could start the study upon receipt of the petition. Gagne moved, Watten seconded, a Resolution to prepare a feasibility study, not to exceed $5000.00, contingent upon receipt of a petition by 100% of the property owners who will agree to bear 1/3 the cost or $150.00 per household even if the project does not proceed. Mr. Detrude asked Engineer Norton if he could estimate the cost of the project. Mr. Norton said that was what the feasibility study did. Mr. Detrude stated he could not go along with this. Mr. Gagne withdrew his motion and Watten seconded. Mr. Gagne said he wanted the Council to take a position on majority rule in the City. Stover agreed that 100% approval of affected owners was too difficult to get. The Council encouraged the residents to discuss payment of the feasibility study and return to the Council July 23, 1990. 4 ~esolution ordering t~~-Cit~'E~~i;;;;~t~=p;;;~;;'a~~~a;~~r~it~AStudY or,the Gle~ Road DraInage project", at a cost not to exceed $2000 00 MotIon carrIed on a roll call vote - 4/0 . . WATER PLAN: Norton said he needed to know what the population fo~ecas~s are for the City. A 1984 study had estimated a population sa uratIon level of 11,000. Nielsen felt this was high. W25atotoeon stateld that the Metropolitan Council set our sewer capacity at , peop e. ~ ~J . I CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEET NG MINUTES. JUNE 25. 1990 C~IL CHAMBERS 5~cOUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 6 Norton felt that. by the 2nd meeting in July, he should have the figures and the update of the Water Plan done. SCHEDULE MEETING WITH COUNCIL: Meeting was set for July 10 at 8:00 P.M. to discuss the City Engineer's role with OSM. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT LETTER TO SOCCER ASSOCIATION: The draft letter will be sent to the Tonka United Soccer Association if the Council approves it. The Council made no corrections. ENCHANTED ISLAND POLLING: Letter was sent to residents of Enchanted Island asking residents to volunteer a polling place for the Fall Elections. CITY CODE SUPPLEMENT: Supplements are ready for Councilmembers. BISHOP OPTION Mr. Whittaker wanted to state that he tried to arrange a personal meetings with Mr. Bishop but could not. Mayor Haugen said she would bring the report on the City plans to Mr. Bishop's home before the hearing on the C.U.P. for a Public Works Building. BREAK: 11:30 to 11:40. COUNCIL REPORTS WATTEN: Nothing to report. GAGNE: IRON REMOVAL He wanted to take Iron Removal off the July 16 Agenda because he knew people who wanted to comment and Council would need more time. The speakers on Elderly Housing could be moved up. The discussion on Iron Removal was moved to Monday. July 30 at 7:30 or the regular July 9 meeting. OLD MARKET ROAD He also requested the Mayor send a letter to Excelsior explaining Shorewood's position on the Hwy. 7 intersection with Old Market Road. STOVER: Nothing to report. HAUGEN: MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED BOARD Wanted to send letter to other Lake Cities on representatives. The Council agreed to send a letter on Watershed Board appointments. DRUG TESTING Would like to look into Drug and Alcohol testing. Felt we should have policy. The Council instructed the Administrator to study the drug program. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Watten moved, Gagne seconded. to adjourn the meeting at 11:50 P.M.. subject to the payment of claims. Motion carried - 4/0. GENERAL AND LIQUOR FUNDS - ACCOUNT NUMBER 00-00166-02 Checks No.4538-4586 GENERAL $21,928.74 LIQUOR $56,046.70 TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED $ 77,975.44 6 II> ~.... ~ 'CITY OF SHOREWOOD ~ REGULAR COUNCIL MEE~G MINUTES. JUNE 25. 1990 C~IL CHAMBERS 5~~COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 7 Checks No.4587-4636 TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL $104,023.88 TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST $181.999.32 PAYROLL REGISTER JUNE 20, 1990 Checks No.204143/204174 GENERAL $12,325.66 $15.258.89 LIQUOR $2.933.23 TOTAL PAYROLL RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Katie Snyder Recording Secretary MAYOR JAN HAUGEN ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK LAURENCE E. WHITTAKER --. VvtJv...,u-n'''''JwJVU Ull'\~~". '} \, Jtme 29, 1990 . . COMM. # Mr. Jim Norton Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. 2021 E. Hennepin Ave., Suite 238 Minneapolis, MN 55413 JUl fJ 3 1990 lle'ld COP'{ i Dear Mr. Norton: I was pleased to hear in a telephone conversation, yesterday, with CotmCilwoman Kristi Stover that you intend to include a report on the surface water run-off problem at our property (19355 Shady Hills Rd.) at the CotmCil meeting, July 9.. I am writing to provide you, as well as the Council, with information on this matter which I hope may be helpful. We purchased our house at the above address in the middle of May, 1989. The seller's disclosure statement at the time of our purchase indicated that in "the rain of the century" (1987), one day after they moved into the house, surface water entered the basement through a broken window. However, the owners subsequently had the front yard landscaped and the basement redecorated (including new carpet), and there had been no problem since. The statement indicated that the City of Shorewood assisted with the clean-up in 1987. We were soon to learn that the reason there had been no problem was not so much a redesigned landscape as, rather, two years of drought. In the thirteen months during which we have owned the house, we have had surface water running into our basement on three occasions. The most recent occurrence was yesterday when we received about 2-3 inches of rain in approximately one hour. The cause of the problem seems apparent to me. Our house is located in the low spot of Shady Hills Rd. The house is on the south side of the street facing north, with a walkout basement to the south. Water drains down streets from three directions to a spot in front of our house. Two storm sewer grates are intended to receive the water into a large sewer pipe and carry it underground on the west side of our house into a pond south of our back yard. The landscaping of our yard does, in fact, convey the water away from the house and around to the west side where a drain pipe carries it to the back yard. Everything works well.. .until the storm sewer is no longer able to accOlllIlOdB.te the flow on the street (which happens very quickly because of the large drainage area). The overflow then forms a river which flows into our front yard and against the north wall of our house. It, then, courses around to the west side and down the grade into our back yard. The window wells on the front (north side) of our house fill :immediately. In 1987 and, again, this spring, the pressure of the water broke a basement window, and water literally gushed into our basement. (It was necessary for us to oPen the walk-out door so the river which flowed in the north side could flow out to the south.) The damage to our property created by this overflow is considerable. There is serious erosion on the west side of our house. As a result of yesterday's rain there are two holes in the earth roughly 12"-18" deep and comprising approximately 30 sq. ft. in area. The landscaping close to our house has been badly damaged. Top soil has been washed away from tree roots of two large trees. The eroded material has been deposited on our back lawn. The interior of our basement, of course, has been badly damaged inspite of long hours with clean-up equipnent. I visited with you, Mr. Norton, as well as with Mr. Zdrazil, earlier this spring about this matter. We are grateful that larger grates were installed on the storm sewer in front of our house. During the rain, yesterday, I was out to make sure that they were -5 J not plugged with debris (Ae problem had been with the seer grates). They were, in fact, functioning well. However, it is apparent that the design of that storm sewer is not adequate to carry the run-off from such a large area. (We are, also, grateful that the sewer outlet at the pond was cleaned out, this spring.) As you know, the City owns an easement along the west boundary of our property. I certainly respect your engineering juigement and would hope that a way could be found to convey overflow from the street grates down the easement line to the pond below. I have discussed the matter with our neighbor to the west, and we both would favor some kind of waterway that would avoid erosion and carry the water most directly to the pond. I am, also, hopeful that the City Council might understand that at this point my wife and I need some assistance regarding the clean-up of the most recent flood. We worked very hard and at considerable expense to clean up our basement and back yard after the flood this spring. We did that, hoping along with you and Mr. Zdrazil that the newly installed street grates would alleviate our problem. It is now clear that the problem is not so easily solved. We would hope that the City would assURe some responsibility for the water from the entire neighborhood flowing against and around and through our house. We have neither the financial resources nor the energy to do the clean-up again entirely on our own. We like the City of Shorewood. We hope to live here for some time. We will be grateful for anything that you can do to make that possible. Thank you! m~~ Paul H. Almquist 19355 Shady Hills Rd. Shorewood, MN 55331 474-3539 co: City Council Members ,I , . . ~.' , v ~ 5A,.J Dy ~ \<... ~.N J.-.J 8- L'1 - c::. ( '(t../ FIW;-r: ~~. -1AI-t C;;-S Wee G- Z 7?.<:::;.o W. b LA..I i> S \" c. ( I;;./t... ~ 5/.( 0 ~ ~-ZJ_)(.){.7) 'D I v.-r d .c-n? ( '\) A ~: b - z. 6 - 9 Q. (L r;:- · . ALA(Z."'1 P Ef2.:.1'""( (-r YOIA. J-{ A,JE" (3 ....~~ N u 'Il ~ {~ IS r oFF f c...;c It- S1T'P14 <2N 1> ~ f\J c----z..-<.Il.. €:,- rL ~ 7J"'A'\ b u.. JZ- rpfL<=.?1' J ~ riA S 1-1 A 'P ~ 'f1-te..~ P,AL.S"~ AL,.~... S ' fJ Ctfl' €C: {L. Fol'- ..:S'~o. 0 Co /b ( r ..~~ _ f"~~CE-fASC__.,LJ~__ AL,AR-~'-7 r &~''7 IT ~,_.Pvt"!u5c-('ArJC t r/CLoSeTI IS , t --77., ' I .....5t'-1o~(,-ZJ6oI>C- t'E7Co(7E C-~,/'It?~.6 6 (. P L f:""A S (;' 1$ ~,J/V"..ECJ4'"lc--V / /.10 rJ t=-I/e! 7"7-'.A r.J:: !3t::-'Z r l:'7/E . . / Op,c=~C~N~lo'Z IS ~ I^" 4::-1l-/lc~ /~ .7).(b" /\!C{,....a'~ o F~LS~ .Ac..A..1.~5_./{__~. ~ l~ 4S, ... ,f2-:~/!-'Tl_~,?tJ(JOCA! :r_~ '''I OF 1]-' cr .77<1 ,41..A L...l..J I3'-1.C..~pq;(<.~e-J..m'___' o -vEl' .QE.___TH. c .A LI4~~5___77-:'~_.,5" ~.Y'CJ:1...... ...L-.'(\ (Lr ..... .ne..,.,^!.~!::'~.I1.__,_., '-t '- C-5J4Ld::-r'j-12I::-Pr. /!.fE5"pqt-Jpt'V 17> wa:!::..E-rJr/ FAC r;: . _____ ~ l.--/~n~':!:!.(.~n~~-. _6,,/ ____5i):t~O.NE ___/1.10 ,f __A,::,<::..?yalZt"2. cP__rn_~r:~~, Iii 111-21-' E--I!-tl- t!7-7 r.s.LA:r:. __&.E__:rZ,z::t_~-----2R.E' 'K-J)l.'J_::::-1E IJ TIS)' ,1:/1)1 €7?-'--:.J:>t' 1 NO rr /~~~ A 1<-~y-~.~~~t!~nr_..~l_~---7E.1;" ~ rPeJ-rf "t€!-r1 (S$.(~d..cL...A ~~.~~_'i7CJdn"" .____._,~_______._.___.~~. . . () '^-(t A L/~(2_n HAS C /lI...LE'1> n-ilF ? C L i C. E 1==.-+.J-rtt~7:;je:--~ jV t;;;:v 8l . '-..I O(,,-r..,-- FaIt. P=SSI lSl. 7 c,.Jt;;: n.......c:=,J 4.J (J E ".J 71-t Ef! E W /.1 ~ IV <:) T A ,.J tf.,...J A L-<..'T'r-\ C; P-I7- ~ 1,r...J~C.\.. ': r<>r-J . :;: I~,... 0 W lS,..JfE 71 M. E' t....; (..I C;;~ A I'd cr (:. (.( 13 6 f-- &;;--,...; ~---yz. ~ n -I IC' 'f3. 14.. (2...,.) A N V WA~ &c.r-.l~ tJ~~.;;;: ? c<-t c.. ~ P. ,?- t.. ( VYE"1> . (J 17-f EJt. 77 r-, E S- C",- rJ IJ ~ n-< 0 {z__( z. ~--p ?t::----p.. Sr..)rrf' L.:.~ r 0 P$N E"1> .Il V 0 Cl a--T!-i AT {,..w A .$ N 6,- L.c~ c~r;_7J . r r; ~'--I t=-l.,'C 7/../ f SE TD ~ E= ~ L-l..-.J f-3.V... Tlic(t i c 6'{> i /J f!'!-<:. u I' <_l/$ - ./ E ~?EC~ (,4.LL,/ /r 7/.1' (=1' (':: g, f.l Lr(h i-...J' t-~ S -:;-E'/, Ire- 17-.1 e: .A ( ;4 ,2j"'1 (5 $'E't A ""1' f7:-J F IN' nec.-< P t::--,e. ""c:,'-"-:; ^(c-(~~ i-l.Av'L'~~ (\1.0,. .... ~ ? - .. /-'/' V "'_ 1-- d I ' F-\ _ - \.J... 1"- /,,~, '- ( .c, /-...( C f- ,- c-_t'.t '......,. _ -- " fZJ L-::7'..; r r::;:-,e Oft ])6t:S t-JDT {4A,vIE L ~b {"" rr. A rc- pc 5:5:6' s-S (cr/ Dr A K-~Y L..J1f Cd.."'; Sf [>t::J'1...: TN (.5 A /if LA IV .it '-<..~ \Z- (L__ (i-y I /'f (':2.(." sr c.J I.J / T ;i c:5' 1> A S.s) / A..i <./ A :!J cJo'J o tZ- iJ (~I:>r 7"" EV f:'(2- l' O'-i..W A^' r 70 C -4 L. .... I r. A LD C(~ <?j) 6 (L (,lr-' L.OCk.e:?]) 't)(;, 0 (2.. j -1,A':: vJ 0 _'B O(Lt ~ C- ON {..J l-lE'Tl-'CJ2.-n../ ~ A L.A ~ (S F ~ L~f: o 1-- ,iJ(;>.'C I FiX 1/6' lI!.o.'J H__g~""1:-fc:VE.....-..j_L..(S77../<!=. Sc..<-_G:.._rt-cS-pc,_f\Jr'IB/WTLj 6r:::-V../E PO<"'tCe=- 7?J_72C;C./~E 1'1= ;4 C,;4L L /5 A F"Af.St: U f\ L ~h-. T ff IE"'" I "'1J?~~ff- ( 5. c. €1Z-7f'..I!! L. '7 N () Tn€' , :.... ---- \!; rJ 0 ~ C ,J i,t 0 E ~_rO rEt-L. 11I(L._(~~CE ~- >JHe:-. .Ls A I:! i i ^ -f~i---j"I-(..<' ~b( ."2. C1) /N'(Y2. ~ 'Q EfZ~ ~ A -r f ..s i i I J.on t:f'N'l~ItI~_<..r_'Th~ f712l;..~.uE.L____~_" II <S:L.-<.~ P~5.EI} 10 l5e- . . YE'~ 'P (2.E c. (<:::.: L L( n.JiS /<::" ..... L.v N p.. T 'TIlE 7' 0 <. ( C E" A (Le:- vO/AJG-. A t-f' v --r-. . I r- /.. 'A '(:' I I f-J..) .j L0 !~Oj~ 'to T i..J 0 I c.,f,A 5 Yf-A/?..S'" A ";.0 /^-i ;"..1 E lJ l':o,:: P (-c'.,.. l G I T7-< tv' /<1 e: Ai A F (1...( G. ,-( 1l:..~ l;"l) L E' l{ f:'-E-"?-1 r;4 A 7}()C <=~( t-,"'N -r- ::;CJ rI CA C L ~p nc:: '7CJ (2:'- c: ME ::: ..:.) ,--r <:::-0 A..i l::- '-~.. A _~ C~!.. t T If /~- (7- Tf? t~~ 0,'''''/ G t--l/--:' n (.., ~J /._'J r~ - 1.:. <'-'. ~/ .....--:-l- '.(t-,., r I"" /,L' E/) '(/../G ? ~,C( ("' (;' . 77~ ~.'--. Y r\ / r <.. (<" c: / .:!..7.c /-:> ~....V (- j.,;; A /'/&7 (, (-.( q~ /'2~ / / z./ /10::: / P (-.:c- ( fi {..'=--1) {'!_/ !-:';:!. (- ~ _rl:::":"2 ~_ c-:'.= , .I " . . / 77'" ....~ r T/...J/':" (t..I.,!.J Pe-l T 6 r _ / '7).( ,A ( If WAS; JqsT A ~ ~ ~ r 1'\ L 5' ~" A r.. II f-. ;'1 ,<., N 7J TI J L.......,..., ,~. :;. ",J J? ,- I I .. ,'" L,' .,.. D' (1 rJ-r Nl:::~ ,AI AJ-7 {)-li:E" DFF(t E"{<?- /<1 iT r:..--;?JV'T1 <..\ N LE7T ~"..J'O .J.- ,-v L-l/ 1:= ~- H f.=?fZ.. v F [L.. ". ~ 1"-" . ..:Z- {] rL.( CL-' E 77 " E 77J~ pc,)( .( C E ./) c..") (7') fJOt:) j)ET" I pC A F;q (,5 ~ /4 t. ,A te,,1.. 1../ A S' 0 ce' l'{ ~€]) ({ /'-.l T f'- F (liZST C {-{["=Ltc:, t. 'v . f 17-r.' 77-1 I~ ? ./.l G (l cT" I 77..1 Lry /2. e'S- (" (.J (:.7'V T / P6r1 T Y'6C( pc E:,A)' (!"' 0(2 f""j{,... 'T2-f I S- H.A TIc'?!' -;e:, '77 ~ r ,4 (r t-:N 17().;V o .~ 1',.. t[: C(f""/ (o'-{.JC/'- BV to fZ- C,...; A I!.. () /",/ c coev Or? T:-If5 0(2.. (b II,/Al A L !;x 7> E<:..l A i/'Z to c:: (> <.0 .,.J <;" c- /0 77-1cH. 'F/'l. c> ., D,'2 7H <-";-r L.<..J ( fi-( r r-J' ~<,.;!. n;:c--,..l p.cI '7S . yo (..~ ..sf/ole (~''-<'" I / ~~ c./tft7J ~;r~b-Jr ~ .00'1 CL a<.J~n. ., SOUTH LAKE M6ETONKA PUBLIC S~ DEPARTMENT 810 Excelsior Boulevard Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 RICHARD A YOUNG Olief of Police (612) 474-3261 HEBORANDUB From: Larry Whi~taker ' Chief Young July 2, 1990 To: Date: Subject: Woog Alarm Permit and Letter I have received your request for my comments on the letter written by Mr. James Woog of 27200 West 62nd Street concerning his false alarm permit. The alarm ordinance does not specify when alarms are valid (ie. unauthorized intrusion) but rather when alarms are not valid (ie. false alarms). The ordinance defines a false alarm as one caused through mechanical failure, malfunction, improper installation or negligence of the owner. It is my definite opinion that the alarms referred to by Mr. Woog are due to the negligence of the owner. I vehemently disagree with Mr. Woog that a locked or unlocked door has no bearing on whether the alarm is false or not. The leaving of unlocked alarmed doors is negligence and is a false alarm by definition of the ordinance. An alarm system is not designed to take the place of a locked door. If the doors are not going to be locked, the alarm should not be turned on by the owner. Any neighborhood child, solicitor, UPS delivery person, etc. could accidently or purposely open the door causing an alarm activation and an unnecessary response by officers of this department. Even if such alarms were permitted, it is not the responsibility of the police department to investigate a non-forced entry alarm to determine who set it off and if determined, to ascertain if such intrusion was "authorized" by the homeowner. One of the main purposes of the alarm ordinance was to reduce the intensive, time- consuming efforts required of the police department by such alarm systems. These systems have the name Burglar Alarms because their main purpose is to detect forced entry burglary. The ordinance also provides for a procedure in which the alarm owner may submit a written report to me. It then specifies that I may determine not to charge the alarm owner with a false alarm IF the alarm was caused by conditions beyond the control of the alarm owner. Obviously, these alarms could have been prevented by the alarm owner by merely locking his doors and were therefore well within his control. Serving South lAke Minnetonka Communities of Excelsior, GTeenwood, Shorewood and TonkIl Bay As I was research'" another question raised'" Mr. Woog which I shall address in ~ next paragraph, I found ~at Mr. Woog should have been required to get an alarm permit before now. Apparently our record keeping in this office has a flaw. The alarm file shows four alarms at this residence (see attached copy) while the Incident Complaint Report file shows SEVEN false alarms in approximately one years time (also see attached copies). It appears that this alarm system is one of those that is the target of the ordinance (please see State of purpose of the ordinance which is also attached). In reference to the report by Mr. Woog of a tree cutting incident several years ago, I did review the many incidents we have had for his address and found the incident he refers to. It occurred on March 20, 1988. Unfortunately it happened so long ago I can not adequately look into the incident. Had Mr. Wooq contacted me shortly after the incident, I could address his concerns knowledgeably. As it is, the primary officer on the case is no longer employed with this department and the second or backup officer does not remember the incident. The report indicates it was a property dispute involving the cutting of wood and it was resolved. I can not at this time tell you how -it was resolved. It appears the officer felt it was a property or boundary dispute which makes it a civil matter. If you or the Shorewood City Council have any further questions, please contact me and I will address them immediately. . KnowledgeMan ver 1.07 The Knowledge Management Software from MOBS (C) COPYRIGHT 1983,1984 Micro Data Base Systems, Inc. Lafayette, IN 47902 User Name: chief Password: use alarm -load alarm with "me" -s ["27200*"] NAME ADDRESS WOOG WOOG JAMES WOOG JAMES WOOG 27200 WEST 62ND STREET 27200 WEST 62ND STREET 27200 WEST 62ND STREET 27200 WEST 62ND STREET . DATE 89/06/12 89/08/20 90/01/19 90/04/28 K C C I U Y I U Y I M Y I U Y . . Mon 07-02-90 South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Initial Complaint Record Time: 1: 16 pm Case Number: 89501985 Reported By: Address: City: Complainant: Address: City: Incident Description: Date Reported: 04/05/89 DOB: State: Apt. #: Zip Code: Phone #: Danger (Y/N): DOB: Apt. #: Phone t: State: Zip Code: Danger (Y/N): ALARM 27200 W 62ND ST, UNLOCKED DOOR - RESOLVED Squad/Badge #s: 5 Addt'l Reports : No Protected : No Rcv'd By: 5 Day: WED Date Committed: 04/05/89 Time Committed: 13 : 09 Mess. Key ECI Control Number (OCA) 89501985 Cont. Agency NCIC Ident. (CAG) MN0270700 Date Reported (RPD) 04/05/89 Time Reported (TRP) 13 : 09 Location Grid Number (LGN) S2 Place Committed (PLC): W 62ND ST 27200 HRD Squad/Badge # (SBN) Time Assig.(TAS) R 5 13 : 09 Time Arr. (TAR) Time Clr. (TCL) 13 : 14 13 : 20 I S N 01 U 0 C 9803 U C S C . . Mon 07-02-90 South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Initial Complaint Record Time: 1:18 pm State: Apt. *: Zip Code: Date Reported: DOB: Phone *: Danger DOB: Phone *: Danger 06/12/89 Case Number : Reported By: Address: City: Complainant: Address: City: Incident 89503845 (Y/N): Apt. *: State: Zip Code: Description: ALARM 27200 W 62ND ST NATIONAL GUARDIAN - FALSE TRIP ( Y /N) : - WOOG RES Squad/Badge *s: 4 Addt'l Reports : No Protected : No Rcv'd By: 4 Day: MON Date Committed: 06/12/89 Time Committed: 19 : 20 Mess. Key ECI Control Number (OCA) 89503845 Cont. Agency NCIC Ident. (CAG) MN0270700 Date Reported (RPD) 06/12/89 Time Reported (TRP) 19 : 20 Location Grid Number (LGN) S2 Place Committed (PLC): W 62ND ST HRD Squad/Badge * (SBN) Time Assig. (TAS) R 4 19 : 20 Time Arr. (TAR) Time Clr. (TCL) 19 : 22 19 : 24 I S N 01 U 0 C 9803 U C S C . . Mon 07-02-90 South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Initial Complaint Record Time: 2:31 pm State: Apt. :/t:: Zip Code: Date Reported: DOB: Phone :/t:: Danger DOB: Phone :/t:: Danger 08/20/89 Case Number : Reported By: Address: City: Complainant: Address: City: Incident 89506194 (Y/N): Apt. :/t:: State: Zip Code: Description: ALARM 27200 W 62ND ST FALSE TRIP SEE ALARM CARD ( Y /N) : - WOOG RES Squad/Badge :/t:s: 4 Addt'l Reports : No Protected : No Rcv'd By: 4 Day: SUN Date Committed: 08/20/89 Time Committed: 14 : 36 Mess. Key ECI Control Number (OCA) 89506194 Cont. Agency NCIC Ident. (CAG) MN0270700 Date Reported (RPD) 08/20/89 Time Reported (TRP) 14 : 36 Location Grid Number (LGN) S2 Place Committed (PLC): W 62ND ST 27200 HRD Squad/Badge:/t: (SBN) Time Assig. (TAS) R 4 14 : 36 Time Arr. (TAR) Time Clr. (TCL) 14 : 39 14 : 41 I S N 01 u 0 C 9803 u C S C . . Mon 07-02-90 South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Initial Complaint Record Time: 1:15 pm State: Apt. =It: Zip Code: Date Reported: DOB: Phone =It: Danger DOB: 08/26/89 Case Number: 89506357 Reported By: Address: City: Complainant: Address: City: Incident Description: ALARM OPEN (Y/N): Apt. =It: State: Zip Code: 27200 WEST 62ND ST (WOOG) DOOR FOUND - HOUSE APPEARED Phone =It: Danger (Y/N): OK - SECURED Squad/Badge =Its: 8 Addt'l Reports : No Protected : No Rcv'd By: 8 Day: SAT Date Committed: 08/26/89 Time Committed: 17 : 08 Mess. Key ECI Control Number (OCA) 89506357 Cont. Agency NCIC Ident. (CAG) MN0270700 Date Reported (RPD) 08/26/89 Time Reported (TRP) 17 : 08 Location Grid Number (LGN) S2 Place Committed (PLC): WEST 62ND ST 27200 HRD Squad/Badge =It (SBN) Time Assig.{TAS) R 8 17 : 08 Time Arr. (TAR) Time Clr. (TCL) 17 : 12 17 : 21 I S N 01 U 0 C 9803 U C S C .. . Mon 07-02-90 South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Initial Complaint Record Time: 1:17 pm Case Number : Reported By: Address: City: Complainant: Address: City: Incident Date Reported: 01/19/90 DaB: Phone #: Danger (Y/N): DaB: Apt. #: Phone #: State: Zip Code: Danger (Y/N): Description: ALARM AT THE JAMES WOOG RESIDENCE, 27200 WEST 62ND ST - EVERYTHING APPEARED TO BE SECURE - NO KEY HOLDER RESPONDING State: Apt. #: Zip Code: 90500498 Squad/Badge is: S4 Addt'l Reports : No Protected : No Rcv'd By: S4 Mess. Key ECI Day: FRI Date Committed: 01/19/90 Time Committed: 13 : 03 Control Number (OCA) 90500498 Cont. Agency NCIC Ident. (CAG) MN0270700 Date Reported (RPD) 01/19/90 Time Reported (TRP) 13 : 03 Location Grid Number (LGN) S2 Place Committed (PLC): WEST 62ND ST 27200 HRD Squad/Badge # (SBN) Time Assig.(TAS) R S4 13 : 03 Time Arr. (TAR) Time Clr. (TCL) 13 : 05 13 : 10 I S N 01 U 0 C 9803 U C S C . . Mon 07-02-90 South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Initial Complaint Record Time: 1:17 pm State: Apt. i: Zip Code: Date Reported: 04/28/90 DaB: Phone i: Danger (Y/N): DOB: Phone i: Danger (Y/N): W 62ND ST - WOOG RES Case Number : Reported By: Address: City: Complainant: Address: City: Incident 90502857 Apt. i: State: Zip Code: Description: INTRUSION ALARM 27200 SEE ALARM CARD Squad/Badge is: 4 Addt'l Reports: No Protected : No Rcv'd By: 4 Day: SAT Date Committed: 04/28/90 Time Committed: 19 : 46 Mess. Key ECI Control Number (OCA) 90502857 Cont. Agency NCIC Ident. (CAG) MN0270700 Date Reported (RPD) 04/28/90 Time Reported (TRP) 19 : 46 Location Grid Number (LGN) S2 Place Committed (PLC): W 62ND ST 27200 HRD Squad/Badge i (SBN) Time Assig.(TAS) R 4 19 : 46 Time Arr. (TAR) Time Clr. (TCL) 19 : 47 19 : 53 I S N 01 U 0 C 9803 U C S C . . Mon 07-02-90 South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Initial Complaint Record Time: 1:17 pm State: Apt. i: Zip Code: Date Reported: 05/01/90 DOB: Phone i: Danger (Y/N): DOB: Case Number : Reported By: Address: City: Complainant: Address: City: Incident 90502920 Apt. i: State: Zip Code: Description: 27200 W 62ND ST - ALARM USER ERROR - SEE ALARM CARD Phone i: Danger (Y/N): Squad/Badge is: 5 Addt'l Reports : No Protected : No Rcv'd By: 5 Day: TUE Date Committed: 05/01/90 Time Committed: 14 : 22 Mess. Key ECI Control Number (OCA) 90502920 Cont. Agency NCIC Ident. (CAG) MN0270700 Date Reported (RPD) 05/01/90 Time Reported (TRP) 14 : 22 Location Grid Number (LGN) S2 Place Committed (PLC): W 62ND ST 27200 HRD Squad/Badge i (SBN) Time Assig.(TAS) R 5 14 : 22 Time Arr. (TAR) Time Clr. (TCL) 14 : 26 14 : 30 I S N 01 U 0 C 9803 U C S C 601.01 SECTION: 601.01 : 601.02: 601.03: 601.04: 601.05: 601.06: 601.07: 601.08: . . 601.02 CHAPTER 601 ALARM SYSTEMS Statement of Purpose Definitions Permits and Exemptions False Alarms, Reports Required Prohibited Conditions, Systems Utilizing Taped or Prerecorded Messages Permit Fees Suspension or Revocation of Permit Criminal Penalties 601.01 : STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: The City deems it necessary to pro- vide for the regulations of alarm systems which are designed to signal the presence of a hazard requiring urgent attention to which public safety personnel are expected to respond, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The City Council finds that the regulation of alarms is necessary in order to reduce the increasing frequency of false alarms in the City. The great number of and increasing frequency of these false alarms requires intensive, time-consuming efforts by the Public Safety Department and thereby distracts from and reduces the level of services available to the rest of the community. This diminishes the ability of the City to promote the general health, welfare and safety of the com- munity. In consideration for the necessity on the part of the City to provide numerous public safety services to all segments of the community, without an undue concentration of public services in one area to work to the detriment of members of th~ general public, it is hereby decided that the alarm systems shall be regulated through the permit process described below. . ) DEFINITIONS: As used herein, unless otherwise indicated, the following terms are defined as follows: Subd. 1. ALARM SYSTEM: An assembly of equipment and devices (or a single device such as a solid state unit) arranged to signal the presence of a hazard. 601.02: ) ) . . 601.02 . . 601.03 For the purposes of this Chapter, the alarm, when triggered, must be directly connected to a central monitoring agency which then notifies the Police and/or Fire Departments of an emergency to which public safety personnel must respond, or may emit an audible signal which will require urgent attention and to which public safety personnel are expected to respond. ( Subd. 2. ALARM USER: The person, firm, partnership, association, corpora- tion, company or organization of any kind on whose premises an alarm system is maintained. "Alarm user" shall include persons occupying dwell- ing units for residential purposes, but shall not include persons maintaining alarm systems in automobiles. ( Subd. 3 . FALSE ALARMS: The activation of an alarm system through mechanical failure, malfunction, improper installation or the negligence of the owner or lessee of an alarm system or of his employees or agents. It does not include activation of the alarm by utility company power outages (except as set forth below) or by climatic cqnditions such as tor- nadoes, lightning, earthquakes, other violent conditions of nature, or any other conditions which are clearly beyond the control of the alarm manufacturer, installer or owner. Effective August 1, 1987, false alarms resulting from power outages shall be treated as other false alarms and counted as false alarms for permit purposes. ( Subd. 4. PERSON: Any individual, partnership, corporation, association, cooperative or other entity. 601.03: PERMITS AND EXEMPTIONS: Subd. 1. Permit Required: Every alarm user who, during the course of a twelve (12) month period, incurs more than two (2) false police alarms or more than one false fire alarm shall be required to obtain an alarm user's permit. Subd. 2. Review of Permit: The Chief of Police shall review the issuance of all alarm permits. Subd. 3. Process for Issuance of Permit: Upon receipt and determination of the third false police alarm report, or the second false fire alarm report at an address within a twelve (12) month period, the Chief of Police, after review, shall notify the City Clerk who shall then assess the alarm user for an alarm user's permit. The assessment invoice shall be sent by cer- tified mail. The alarm user must submit the required permit fee to the City Clerk within ten (10) working days after receipt of the assessment invoice in order to continue to use his alarm system. Any subsequent false police or fire alarms at that address within a period of twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of the permit shall automatically revoke the permit and the process must then be repeated and a new permit obtain- ed; except that after six (6) months or more have elapsed since the issuance of the permit, a single false police alarm shall not revoke the permit. ( '-- 601.03 . . 601.07 } Subd. 4. Duration of Permit: All permits, unless otherwise revoked, will expire twelve (12) months from date of issue. _ Subd. 5. Exemptions: The provisions of this Chapter are not applicable to audible alarms affixed to automobiles. 601.04: FALSE ALARMS, REPORTS REQUIRED: " \ Subd. 1. False Alarm Reports: The Chief of Police may, at his discretion, re- quire a false alarm report to be filed by the alarm user with the Public Safety Department, within a time period to be specified by the Chief of Police. If the Chief of Police determines that a false alarm has occurred at an address, the alarm user at that address may submit a written report to the Chief of Police to explain the cause of the alarm activation. If the Chief of Police determines that the alarm was caused by conditions beyond the control of the alarm user, the alarm will not be counted as a false alarm at that address. Subd. 2. False Alarms Excused: False alarms will be excused if they are the result of an effort or order to upgrade, install, test, or maintain an alarm system and if the Public Safety Department is given notice in advance of said upgrade, installation, test and maintenance. 601.05: PROHIBITED CONDITIONS, SYSTEMS UTILIZING TAPED OR PRERECORDED MESSAGES: No person shall install, mon- itor or use and possess an operative alarm which utilizes taped or prerecorded messages which deliver a telephone alarm message to the Police or Fire Departments. 601.06: PERMIT FEES: Subd. 1. Permit Fees: The fees for alarm users' permits shall be as follows: Police Fire $ 50.00 150.00 " ~) Subd. 2. Requirement of Subsequent Permit: After expiration of an alarm user's permit, no subsequent permit shall be required until such time as the alarm user incurs more than two (2) false police alarms, or more than one false fire alarm within a twelve (12) month period. ) / 601.07: SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF PERMIT: Subd. 1. Basis for Revocation or Suspension: In addition to the automatic revoca- tion process described in Section 601.03 of this Chapter, the Public '. j '.' 601.07 . . 601.08 1 . . . , -, Safety Department may suspend or revoke any alarm user's permit issued pursuant to this Chapter if the Public Safety Department finds that any of the following occur: a. That any provision or condition of this Chapter has been violated by an alarm user or his agents; b. That an alarm system has actuated an excessive number of false alarms; c. That the alarm user has knowingly made false statements in or regarding his application for an alarm user's permit; d. That the alarm user has failed to correct or remove, within a reasonable period, violations of this Chapter after receipt of notice to do so; e. That the continued effectiveness of the alarm user permit constitutes a substantial threat to the public peace, health, safety or welfare. Subd. 2. Investigation: All alleged violations defined above shall be investigated by the Public Safety Department. The alarm user shall be given notice of the proposed revocation or suspension and be provided an opportuni- ty to informally present evidence to the Chief of Police prior to the final decision on revocation or suspension. Anyone aggrieved by the decision of the Chief of Police may appeal that decision to the City Council. 601.08: CRIMINAL PENALTIES: Subd. 1. Any alarm user who continues to use an alarm system after receiving notice of revocation or suspension by the Public Safety Department shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred dollars ($700.00) and by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days. Subd. 2. Any person required by this Chapter to obtain an alarm user's permit who knowingly fails to do so shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred dollars ($700.00) and by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days. (Ord. 182, 7-14-86) / ---' ~ ~.("'\~tlESo}; I~ -1g, 1. ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ OF T~~ .nesota Department of Transpo~ Metropolitan District Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Reply to :5001 LUluth Street, Golden Valley, }tf 554Z Telephone No. 591-4605 June 26, 1990 Iaurence E. Whittaker, Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road ShoJ:::'eYTOOd, MN 55331 Re: Speed Zoning Near Mountain Blvd. Dear Mr. Whittaker: '!he speed zoning study of Near Mountain Boulevard requested by the Shorewood City Council in Resolution 41-90 has been completed. Based on the study results arrl as discussed with you earlier, we have identified. two speed zoning alternatives: 1) continue to rely on Minnesota I s statutory 30mph urban district speed limit by electing not to install speed lilnit signs 2) post a 25 mph speed limit. It is our judgment that either alternative is feasible arrl selection of one deperrls on city policy arrl preference. '!herefore, we ask Shorewood to choose the alternative it prefers. Before making the choice, however, we suggest consideration of the followin:J factors; same of which concern speed lilnits in general arrl others concerning Near Mountain Boulevard. Speed lilnit signs are a traffic control device best suited to through streets where they will contribute to srocx>th traffic flow, will serve as a basis of enforcement against those who drive at a speed considered unreasonable or unsafe, arrl will inform both m::>torists arrl adjacent residents of the prevai1in:J speed of traffic. since nnst drivers choose their speed based on perceived. con:titions (road width arrl surface, adjacent development, ano.mt of traffic, etc.), a speed limit sign will not influence the prevai1in:J speed of traffic unless an extraordinary continuous enforcement effort is made. 'Iherefore, nnst mmicipalities elect not to post speed lilnits on residential streets where allwst all traffic consists of local residents who are familiar with con:titions arrl ~E 1990 :fit ,An Equal Opportunity Employer ~ . . Iaurence E. Whittaker June 26, 1990 Page Two where enforcement activity can be expected to be infrequent. Instead they rely on Minnesota's statutory speed limits. Two other reasons mmicipalities elect to rely on statutory speed lilnits are the cost of installin:J speed limit signs on all streets arrl the confusin:J array of speed lilnits that can result from each street bein:J speed zoned on its own merit. We have not received. the construction plans for Near Mountain Boulevard frcan OSM as mentioned in your June 1 letter. But based on our study data, we Y.lOUl.d conclude that stoppin:J sight distances on Near Mountain Boula"a.l:d are marginally adequate for 30- mp..'1 speed, while intersection sight distances are less than desirable. In addition, several curves exist which have maxinum comfortable speed of 15 mph - 20 mph. Although Near Mountain Boulevard appears to serve primarily as a residential street, it also has same function as a collector or through street as evidenced by the fact that all intersectin:J streets are controlled by stop signs. If you determine the through street fimction is sufficient to warrant speed signin:J, the first priority should be to install curve wa.min;J signs with advisory speed plates. '!he second priority would be to install regulatory speed lilnit signs. It would also be desirable to have consistent signin:J for all of Near Mountain Boulevard arrl any speed lilnit should extend frcan Pleasantview Road to vine Hill Road. C1anhassen did ask for a speed zoning study for their part of Near Mountain Boulevard in 1988 arrl was offered. the same alternatives presented to Shorewood. '!hey chose at that time to rely on Minnesota's statutory 30 mph speed limit. Please consider the alternatives arrl inform us of Shorewood' s decision. If you have questions or would like additional infonnation contact Ed Brown (591-4617) at this office. Sincerely, 'I ~ .---.,.. .,~~ --9n J. S. Katz, . District Traffic EnJineer JSK:pl:EB . . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FENCING AND APPURTENANT WORK FOR FREEMAN PARK WHEREAS, on 25 September 1989, the City accepted the bid of Finley Brothers Enterprises (the Contractor) and entered into an Agreement for certain fencing and apputenant work for Freeman Park; and WHEREAS, said Agreement provided for the Contractor to perform said fencing and appurtenant work for Freeman Park in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, said work has now been completed by the Contractor, as further described in that certain memorandum of the City Engineer dated 25 June 1990, attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the City hereby accepts from the Contractor the fencing and appurtenant work described in Exhibit A. 2. That final payment be made to the Contractor upon receipt of Affidavit, State of Minnesota Form 1C-134, and Receipt and Waiver of Lien Rights from Finley Brothers Enterprises. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 9th day of July, 1990. Jan Haugen, Mayor ATTEST: Laurence E. Whittaker City Administrator/Clerk Roll Call Vote: A yes - Nays - *~ . ";;;=:J~~-" I."'" ~~. ~'.. Orr '. . .:: Schelen !. . ";. . .'t:.; Mayer~m & .~ . AsSOOates,Inc. . 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis. MN 55413 612-331-8660 FAX 331-3e06 Engineers Surveyors Planners June 25, 1990 City at 5horeRood J75J Country Club Road Shorewood\ Minnesota 55331 Re Fencing and Appurtenant Work Freeman Park USM CO~I. No. 4457 City Couned Enclosed are four (1) copi€'~ of COllstruction P.3Yl!l;1nt VDi..:cher r~<1. i & Final on thp referenced prOJECt. iil the aflount of 2,179.14. Pur~ua!lt to Q~r field observatiun, as per fDt~edln accordanCE ~ith JUfcontract, we hereby certify that the Edterlals ar!! satistactory ~nd the work properly perfor.ed in accordance with the plans and specifications. UPOll receipt of affidaVit, State of Kinnesota For! 134, and also Receipt and Waiver of lien Nights fro~ Finley Br05. Ent~rpri5es, please aake payment to Finley Bros. Enterprises, 58ul Baker Rd., MlnnetooLa, Kn. 55345 at yuur parliest COOVenlence. Very truly yours, nRR.5CHElEN-MAYERON & ASSOCiATES, INC. ~ -P r;.;:;i;;;;v Jd6es P. Narton,P.E. Project Engineer JPIl:R6D Enclosures cc Finley Bros. Enterprlses 4~ . E~tlmate Voucher No. 2 & Fina~ CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT VOU~ Date June 25, 1990 For Period Ending June 15, 1990 PrOject No. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Class of WorL Fencing and Appurtenant Work -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- location Freeian Park To: Finley Bros. Enterprises 5801 BaLer Rosd Mlnnetonka, Mn. 55345 Ph (bl2l 933-8272 For City of Shorewood, Minnesota A. Original Contract Aiount $ 43,594.80 B. Total Additions $ 0.00 C. .Total Deductions $ 0.00 D. Total Funds Encumbered $ 43,594.80 E. Total Value of Work Certified to Date $ 43,594.80 F. Less Retained Percentage 7. $ 0.00 G. less Total PrevIous Payments $ 41,415.06 H. Approved for Payment, This Report $ 2,179.74 I. Total Payments Including This Voucher $ 43,594.80 J. Balance Carried Forward $ 0.00 APPROVALS ======================================================================================================================== ORR-SCHElEN-KAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Pursuant to our field observation, as performed in accordance with our contract, we hereby certify that the ~aterlals are satisfactory and the worL properly perforaed in accordance With the plans and specifications .nd that the total work IS 100 7. completed as of June 15, 1990 . We hereby recomeend payment of this voucher. Sig,'d ,-:::::::;~~~;;~;;;:;_;;;;;:;;____:::::------------------------- S,g"d '~__~_~~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ThiS is to certify that to the best of my lnowledge, Inforlatlon, and belief, the quantities and values of work certified herein is a fair approtimate estllate for the period covered by thiS voucher. Contractor Flnley Bros. Enterprises Signed By ---------------------------------------------- Date : Title ---------------------------------------------- :::;:;====::::=;:::====:==;:::::::===:::=;;:;:::::::==================================================================== City of Shorewood Approved for payment Voucher -------------------------.---------- --------------------------------------------- ChecLed By Authorized Representative Date Date --------------------------------------------- Page 1 of 2 4457 Estl.ate Vuucher No. 2 & Final O.lt~ : June 25, 1990 F~nciog aod Appurtenant Work rr!'~...fl Perk fur H,t' Llty of Shorewood, ~Innesota r.(J/ltract Date ..or k. COlpleted Septe~ber 25, 1989 June 15, 1990 Item I~O. !teit 0:,57.501 Wire Fence 8' High Chai" link v2557.50t Wire Fence 10' Hlgh Chain Link v2~57.501 Wire Fence 16' High Chain linK ~ . Contractor : Finley Bros. Enterprises 5801 Baker Rose Mlnnetonka, Mn. 55345 Ph (612) 933-8272 Work Starrted COilpletlon Date October 30, 1989 NoveDber 1, 1989 Work Completed Contract This Amount Quantity Unlt Unit Price Total Price Month This Mo~th 2650 ~.F. 480 L.F. 180 L.F. to. ~10 12.21 55.05 27,825.(1) 5,860.80 9,909.00 To ta 1 ........................................................... S 43,594.80 Page 2 of 2 4457 Total to Date Quantity Total Price 0.00 2650 27,825.00 0.00 480 5,8bO.80 0.00 180 9,909.00 ------------ ------------ $ 0.00 l 43,594.80 . . MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCI L Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Braneel Vern Watten CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 MEMO TO: FR: DT: The City Council Larry Whittaker July 5, 1990 KE: RFP for JOINT PROSECUTOR The SLMPSD Board and the area City Administrators/Manager have been looking at the advantages/disadvan~ages of a Joint Prosecutor since late February. The disadvantages are spelled out in detail in the Memos from the current Prosecutors. And, the advantages are listed in Chief Young's Memo. I think they boil down to: Advantages: Closer relationship with the Police Dept. Chief Young and his staff would like faster responses, less delay in filing charges, easier access to the Prosecutor and better communication. They also think there may be some cost savings. Disadvantages: The current Prosecutors/City Attonn~ys are con- cerned that there won't be sufficient "distance" between the police and the Prosecutor - especially if they are housed in the same building. The Prosecutor would not be as independent, would not temper normal police enthusiasm to prosecute, might not feel as free to plea bargain, and would not consider the unique "sense of justice" each City may have. And, they argue, that there may be little, if any, cost saving if the cities have to provide back-up, hire two attorneys to cover all the cases, and "staff" a law office. Keeping the office separate from the police - even if combined, should eliminate this compromising relationship and still save some money. So, we decided to go ahead and request proposals to find out the level of interest and to see if we can save some money. The DRAFT RFP in this packet is the result of this effort. Each City would have to hire this Prosecutor; so, each City Council in the SLMPSD has to approve the RFP and the eventual contract, if there is one. The only corrections suggested by any of the Attorneys are those high- lighted on the attached page. These are really just amplification and clarification; so, I'm sure they will meet everyone's criteria. Please review as much of this as you can; and, if we find a savings, we'll go into it more. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore ~ J) . . ~equest for Proposal : city - Prosecuting Attorney Page 2 F. G.-P.- Appear at Arraignments Try all Court Cases Appear at and trial meetings -Au~a.ll pre-trials::9'!:' jury cases. in H'-6'T- I . -H-;- Try all Jury Cases. whether a case should be agpealed. Examine and evaluate ~:l:-~~~ A!'l,~J::f:a::Lt::._C .L.u.:.\:~. Prepare applellat~ briefs and other necessary documents for _~~~ all appeals ~n Appal1~t9 Cg~~t~ al] appeaLs~ and ~Tg\l~ the cape at:; oX~I.a1:g\lffien1=s~ Make mo'."'t.hlv. a.ctj-vi.tv renorts as. reque<::ted to' eachCity~": -~nager/Aam1n1s~ra~or. = - J . -~-;- K. .;o.;r- K. III. city Expenses As an indication of past work loads and financial considerations, the cities expenses for criminal prosecution are shown for the past three years. Excelsior Greenwood Shorewood Tonka Bay 1987 $20,400 9,499 25,269 12,147 1988 $21,000 12,148 20,207 5,700 1989 $21,000 15,115 22,931 10,968 Population 3,500 600 5,612 1,500 IV. Case Load since all cities have compensated their attorneys in different manners, they have therefore different records on the activities each has performed. ThUS the best summary of activities available to us is from the SLMPSD of their activities. Since this is where the vast majority of the workload will be initiated it is a good indication of the attorney workload. Tvpe of citation Total No. Issued Fail to Obey sign or Signal Accident Reporting violation OWl Over .10 Open Bottle Reckless or Careless Driving Speeding Driving Rules -. Passing, Left of Center, . . One Way Turning, Change of Course, Signaling Right of Way Hitchhiking - Solicit Business - Bicycles 137 3 209 275 87 31 2,626 47 150 27 4 . . DRAFT Dear The South Lake Minnetonka cities of Excelsior, Shorewood, Greenwood, and Tonka Bay are seeking the services of an individual to serve on a contractual basis as the Prosecuting Attorney. If you are interested, we invite you to submit a proposal fashioned after the enclosed RFP. At this time we are not certain how many cities will agree to hire a joint prosecutor; however, our respective City Councils have directed us to request proposals for such a position. If you have any questions on the RFP or the process involved please contact Larry Whittaker of the City of Shorewood. This will help simplify the process and produce answers with which we are all aware. Sincerely, Larry Whittaker City Administrator City of Shorewood Gregory S. withers City Manager city of Excelsior Wendy Anderson City Administrator City of Greenwood David Callister city Administrator City of Tonka Bay ." #- II . . South Lake Minnetonka cities Request for Proposals City Prosecuting Attorney I. Introduction One or more of the following cities are seeking the services of an individual, who may be a member with a firm, to serve on a contractual basis as City Prosecuting Attorney. The cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood, and Tonka Bay have formed a joint powers board and created the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department to provide Police services to the respective jurisdictions. The cities are now investigating whether any benefits could be realized by having a joint prosecutor. We are therefore requesting submission of proposals for the position. Proposals should be as specific as possible and address each of the following areas. They should be presented to the City of Shorewood, Larry Whittaker, Administrator, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, 55331, by Noon, Friday, August 17, 1990. II. General Description of Services The cities are considering contracting for legal services in the area of Criminal Prosecution. Under state Law, the cities are charged with the responsibility of prosecution of all petty misdemeanors, misdemeanor, and some gross midemeanor offenses committed within the corporate limits of the cities. This includes all such cases initiated by any law enforcement agency and citizen complaints. Therefore, the Prosecuting Attorney must: A. Provide advice, consultation and training where required, to the SLMPSD, and to all other departments of the cities in the interpretation and enforcement of statutes and ordinances and investigations of suspected violations, in connection with the prosecution of criminal cases. B. Prepare criminal complaints where facts warrant. C. Evaluate all cases where a plea of not guilty is entered. 1. Prosecute if warranted 2. Prepare pre-trial Rasmussen notice if required 3. Seek a complete additional investigation if required 4. Plea bargain where advisable D. Represent city in all pre-trial motions. E. Perform all needed legal research and prepare briefs when required or advisable. . . Request for Proposal City - Prosecuting Attorney Page 2 F. Try all Court Cases G. Attend all pre-trials or jury cases. H. Try all Jury Cases. I. Examine and evaluate all appeals to Appellate Courts. J. Try all appeals in Appellate Courts K. Make monthly activity reports as requested to each city Manager/Administrator. III. City Expenses As an indication of past work loads and financial considerations, the cities expenses for criminal prosecution are shown for the past three years. Excelsior Greenwood Shorewood Tonka Bay 1987 $20,400 9,499 25,269 12,147 1988 $21,000 12,148 20,207 5,700 1989 $21,000 15,115 22,931 10,968 IV. Case Load since all cities have compensated their attorneys in different manners, they have therefore different records on the activities each has performed. Thus the best summary of activities available to us is from the SLMPSD of their activities. since this is where the vast majority of the workload will be initiated it is a good indication of the attorney workload. Type of citation Total No. Issued Fail to Obey Sign or Signal Accident Reporting Violation DWI Over .10 Open Bottle Reckless or Careless Driving Speeding Driving Rules ~Passing, Left of Center, - - One Way Turning, Change of Course, Signaling Right of Way Hitchhiking - Solicit Business - Bicycles 137 3 209 275 87 31 2,626 47 150 27 4 . Request for Proposal city - Prosecuting Attorney Page 3 Tvpe of citation controlled Access Prohibited stopping or Parking Parking - Method Littering School Bus stop Arm Unsafe Equipment - Headphones Lights to be Lit During Darkness Headlamp violation Rear Lamp violation Projecting Load, Slow Moving Veh. violation Lights on all Vehicles stop and Turn Signals warning Lights Too Many Lights Brake Violation Horn violation - Seat Belt Violation Muffler Rear View Mirror Windshield Violation Tires Bumpers - Wheel Flaps Registration Overwidth special Permit Violation Seasonal Weight Limitation Conspiracy-Aid & Abet-Allow Illegal Operation Motorcycle, Motorbike Violation Parking - All Other Parking - Fire Lane Parking - Meter Parking - Overtime Voided citation Traffic & MV Violations - All Other Altered Drivers License Cancelled Drivers License Change of Domocile Expired Drivers License Instruction Permit Violation Limited Drivers License Violation No Corrective Lenses No Drivers License Revoked Drivers License Suspended Drivers License Violate Drivers License Restriction Abandon Motor Vehicle on Public/Private Prop. Excessive Acceleration/Spinning Tires No Insurance Small Amount of Marijuana in Motor Vehicle . Total No. Issued 80 220 5 1 14 12 4 110 52 3 12 30 1 1 1 117 23 1 4 1 4 902 3 1 1 2 48 104 1 1,093 10 204 13 9 6 59 12 2 6 27 65 53 50 3 1 9 127 33 . . Request for Proposal City - Prosecuting Attorney Page 4 Tvpe of citation Total No. Issued Possession of Drug Paraphernalia Non-Traffic violations - All Other Assault Burning Curfew Disorderly Conduct Dog/Other Animal violation False Identification False Information Fireworks Fishing Incorrigible Juvenile Indecent Conduct Liquor - Under 21 Liquor - Over 21 Littering Obstruct Legal Process Party Violation Public Consumption Theft Motor Vehicle Accident - All Other Drugs-Sch. I Non-Narcotic Sale Marijuana Juvenile Status - Alcohol Offender Liquor Violation - Other 26 3 1 2 10 7 24 2 8 3 2 1 2 333 4 6 2 3 12 5 1 1 2 1 GRAND TOTAL 7,597 V. Type of Contract I f the cities agree on a proposal, a contract for City Prosecuting Attorney Services will be signed between the individual selected and the individual cities participating in the joint search program. The individual named would then provide all the necessary legal services outlined unless unable to do so because of illness, vacation, schedule conflicts or other justifiable reasons. In the individuals absence another attorney can be assigned, with the consent of the City Council. It is comtemplated the contract term will be for two years. It may be extended by the Council for any length of time following negotiations of the fees. VI. Qualifications The cities are extremely interested in the qualifications of the proposer. Proposals s~ould state the qualifications of the . . Request for Proposal City - Prosecuting Attorney Page 5 individual, and if applicable, the qualifications of the firm which may support the individual (keep the two separate). The proposal should summarize the experience in prosecutions, particularly in Hennepin county, the length of various experiences, and the individuals educational background. We are also concerned with potential conflicts of interest. Please state what other government subdivisions you or your firm represents. Are there other possible conflicts which may arise? If you are selected as prosecuting attorney and a conflict does arise, will you represent the City as your first priority? Also of interest is the office and support staff of the proposer. Where is, or will your office be located? What size is it? Is there a complete library? Is there computer assisted research capability? How is research accomplished and by whom? What type and size of support staff exists, and what are their qualifications? What kind of Word Processing capabilities do you have? Is there an in-office fax? How much and in what manner will a fee be charged for services? How will a statement be presented? What arrangements will be made to continue contacts with the Police Chief, City Manager/Administrators, and City Councils. VII. Evaluation Proposals will be evaluated by a committee composed of City Manager/Administrators, Council Members, and the Police Chief. Items to be considered on the evaluation will be the experiences, education and training of the individual, the support and experience which could be provided by the individual firm, the verbal presentation made to the Committee, the individuals' office location et. al., and any potential conflicts of interest. VIII. Proposals Ten (10) copies of the Proposal for City Prosecuting Attorney Services shall be submitted to Larry Whittaker, Administrator of the city of Shorewood, 5755 country Club Road, Shorewood, 55331, before 12:00 Noon on Friday, August 17, 1990. The Committee will review the proposals and may elect to interview one or more of the candidates. If it is decided to proceed, recommendations for selection will then have to be made to each city Council. It is anticipated the contract for service would be effect~ve January 1991. All questions regarding details of the RFP or comments on the proposals shall be directed _.to Larry Whittaker. No contacts shall be made with other Council members, administrators or officials. . . Prosecutinq Attornev Schedule Discuss RFP Contents Review Draft RFP Council Approval of RFP Distribute RFP Receive Proposals Committee Meets to Review Council Considerations Contract Drawn & Approved (by New Council) " 6/06/90 6/20/90 7/09/90 7/16/90 8/17/90 9/05/90 _ 12/3/90 1/14/91 j, HENNEPIN . . OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Development Planning Unit 822 South Third Street, Suite 310 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 348-6418 June 20, 1990 Mr. Laurence Whittaker City Clerk-Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Whittaker: Every three years Hennepin County must be certified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as an urban county to continue to receive an annual entitlement grant through the Community Development Block Grant program. The process to gain certification for Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993 is now underway. The key element in the process is the execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement between the County and each community therein that wishes to participate in the program and therefore be eligible to undertake important local activities with CDBG funds. The accompanying three copies of the Joint Cooperation Agreement for Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993, Contract Number A05060, is provided for your execution should you elect to remain a participant in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program for the next three years. A sample resolution for your governing body to pass to authorize execution of the agreement is included for your convenience. A certified copy of the authorizing resolution must be returned with all three copies of the executed agreement by Friday, August 17, 1990 to: Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development 822 South 3rd Street Suite 310 Minneapolis, MN 55415 That date is necessary to assure execution by the County Board and transmittal of a fully executed agreement to HUD by the imposed September 4, 1990 deadline. One will be returned to you by the same date. The new agreement incorporates the amendments that were appended to the last agreement. Also included are several changes to accommodate new requirements directed by HUD, such as emphasizing affirmative action to further fair housing and clarifying the relationship between cooperating communities and the County as subrecipient and recipient. HENNEPIN COUNTY on equal opportunIty employer -:tI-/2- June 20, 1990 Page 2 . . Of most significance is the elimination of the discretionary account. The unexpended funds which made up the account will now be added to the annual basic grant and programmed for use along with the development of the annual program. This change reflects the general improvement in expenditure rate and simplifies program administration. Should your community wish to remain in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program for Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993, it need only pass a facsimile of the sample resolution, execute the agreement and return them as instructed. Should it decide not to execute the agreement it would not receive CDBG funding through the Urban Hennepin County program beginning with Fiscal Year 1991. We look forward to your continued participation with us in the CDBG program. Sincerely, M ~&(W"\N" Robert Isaacson Planning Supervisor Enclosure cc: HUD Larry Whittaker . . RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. 70496, for the purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant program; and WHEREAS, the City and the County wish to terminate the current Agreement and execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. AOS060, to reconstitute Urban Hennepin County for purposes of the Community Development Block Grant program. BE IT RESOLVED, that the current Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County, County Contract No. 70496, be terminated effective September 30, 1990, and a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County, County Contract No. AOS060, be executed effective October I, 1990, and that the Mayor and the be author- ized and directed to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. The question was on the adoption of the resolution, and upon a vote being duly taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and, the following voted against the same: WHEREUPON SAID RESOLUTION WAD DECLARED DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF , 1990. ATTEST: CITY OF SHOREWOOD BY ITS . . Contract No. AOF;rkO JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and the CITY OF ~ol~uvood , hereinafter referred to as "COOPERATING UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471. 59; WITNESSETH ; COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that COUNTY secure Community Development Block Grant funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein defined and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. I. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR Part 570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: A. "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended (42 U.S.C. 5301 et.sea.). B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570. C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. D. "Cooperating Unit" means any city or town in Hennepin County which has entered into a cooperation agreement which is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County which is a party to each Agreement. E. "Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or documents submitted to HOD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community Development Block Grant program. F. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is certified 'by HOD to have a population of 50,000 or more people. . . II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower incom~ housing activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who reside within the corporate limits of the COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grants from Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993. I II . AGREEMENT A. The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on the effective date of October 1, 1990, terminating no sooner than the end of the program year covered by the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal Year 1993 as authorized by HUD subsequent to the effective date and for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted to the County for such period. B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agree- ment shall be terminated at the end of the three-year program period during which HUD withdraws its designation of COUNTY as an Urban County under the Act. C. This Agreement shall be'executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than August 17, 1990.. D. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the urban county's certification required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Deve1op- ment'Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, Title ,VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and other applicable laws. IV. ACTIVITIES COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to under- take and carry out within the terms of this Agreement certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding under the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agree- ment. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable ,requirements of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY's responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the develop- ment of the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds pursuant to 24 CFR 570'.300 et.sea. 2 . . A. COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows: l. COOPERATING UNIT will in accord with a COUNTY established schedule prepare and provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed form, an annual request for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives. 2. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR 570.50l (b), it is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, 'including the requirement for a written Sub- recipient Agreement set forth in 24 CFR 570.503. The Sub- recipient Agreement will cover the implementation requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly executed with and in a form prescribed by COUNTY. 3. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same subrecipient requirements stated in 2. above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such instances a written Third Party Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING UNIT in a form prescribed by COUNTY. 4. COOPERATING UNIT shall implement all activities funded for each annual program pursuant to this Agreement within eighteen (18) months of the authorization by HUD to expend the basic grant amount. (a) Funds for all activities not implemented within eighteen (18) months shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement. (b) Implementation period extensions maybe granted upon request in cases where the authorized activity has been " initiated and/or subject of a binding contract to proceed. 5. COOPERATING UNIT shall use funds provided pursuant to Section V. of this Agreement to undertake no more than three (3) grant funded activities administered by the COOPERATING UNIT. Each activity shall have a budget of at least seventy-five hundred dollars ($7,500), or the total amount of the planning alloca- tion of COOPERATING UNIT if less than seventy-five hundred dollars ($7,500). A COOPERATING UNIT may assign less than seventy-five hundred dollars ($7,500) to an activity when the activity is one that is programmed by at least one other COOPERATING UNIT and administered by only one COOPERATING UNIT on behalf of the others, provided that the total activity budget is at least seventy-five hundred dollars ($7,500). 3 . . 6. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to accomplish the community development program and housing assistance goals as contained in the Urban Hennepin County Housing Assistance Plan. 7. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all programs and/or activi- ties funded in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall in implementing all programs and/or activities funded by the basic grant amount comply with all applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative acti~n and equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY. 8. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further fair housing.within its own jurisdiction or that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its fair housing certification shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funding for activities. 9. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process as established by COUNTY in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. 10. COOPERATING UNIT shall comply with all of the administrative . guidelines of the COUNTY now in effect or a~ hereafter promul- gated. 11. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY. B. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: 1. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate review- 'ing agencies on an annual basis all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act. 2. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the prep~ration and submission of the request for funding. 3. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERAT- ING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing assistance goals. 4. COUNTY shall upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT agree to administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive twelve percent (12%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity. 4 . . 5. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations and HUD administra- tive directives. V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under the Act shall be allocated as follows: A. COUNTY shall retain ten percent (10%) of the annual basic grant amount for the undertaking of eligible activities. B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be apportioned by COUNTY to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C of this section for the purpose of allowing the COOPERATING UNITS to make requests for the use of funds so apportioned. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding. C. Each COOPERATING UNIT will use as a target for planning purposes an amount which bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: 1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING UNITS. 2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS. 3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERAT- ING UNITS. 4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. D. It is the intent of this section that said planning allocation utilize the same basic elements for allocation of funds as are set forth in 24 CFR 570.4. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data furnished by HUb. E. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request its planning alloca- tion, or a portion thereof, the amount not requested shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement. VI. FINANCIAL MATTERS A. Reimbursement to the COOPERATING UNIT for expenditures for the implementation of activities funded under the Act shall be made upon receipt by the COUNTY of Summary of Project Disbursement form and Hennepin County Warrant Request, and supporting documentation. 5 . . B. All funds received by COUNTY under the Act as reimbursement for payment to COOPERATING UNITS for expenditure of local funds for activities funded under the Act shall be deposited in the County Treasury. C. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the Act and Regulations. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to permit reports required of the County to be prepared therefrom and to permit the tracing of grant funds and program income to final expenditure. D. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree to make available all records and accounts with respect'to matters covered by this Agreement at all reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized federal' officials. Such records shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than three years from the last receipt of program income resulting from' activity implementa- tion. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall perform all audits as may be required of the basic grant amount and resulting program income as required under the Act and Regulations. E. COOPERATING UNIT shall inform COUNTY of any income generated by the expenditure of ~DBG funds it has received and shall pay to COUNTY all program income generated except as derived from activities with an approved revolving account. When program income is generated by an activity that is only partially assisted with CDBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of CDBG funds used. 1. COUNTY will retain ten percent (10%) of all program income paid to COUNTY to defray administration expenses. 2. The remaining ninety percent (90%) of the program income paid to COUNTY shall be credited to the grant authority of COOPERAT- ING UNIT whose project generated the program income and shall be used for fundable and eligible CDBG activities consistent with this Agreement. 3. COOPERATING UNIT is authori~ed to retain program income derived from projects with an approved revolving account provided such income is used only for eligible activities in accordance with ~ll CDBG requirements as they may apply. 4. COOPERATING UNIT shall maintain appropriate records and make reports to COUNTY as may be needed to enable COUNTY to monitor and report to HUD on the use of any program income. 5. Any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the closeout or 'change in status of COOPERATING UNIT' shall be paid to COUNTY. 6 . . F. Should an approved activity be determined to represent an ineligible expenditure of grant funds, the COOPERATING UNIT responsible shall reimburse the COUNTY for such ineligible expense. 1. All reimbursements for ineligible expenditures shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement unless decreed otherwise by a Federal regulatory body or by final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction. 2. "When it is determined by the COUNTY that grant funds have been expended on an eligible activity and through no fault of the COOPERATING UNIT the project fails or is no longer eligible, the return of grant funds shall be reallocated in the same manner as program income in Section VI.E. of this Agreement unless decreed otherwise by a Federal regulatory body or by final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction. VII. REAL PROPERTY ACOUISITION OR IMPROVEMENT The following provisions shall apply to real property acquired or imp~oved in whole or in part using CDBG funds. A. COOPERATING UNIT shall promptly notify COUNTY of any modification or change in the use of real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvement including disposition and comply with 24 CFR 570.505. B. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY the greater of the actual sale proceeds or an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. C. Program income generated from the disposition or transfer of property prior to or subsequent to the closeout, change of status or termination of this Agreement shall be treated as stipulated in Section VI, paragraph E of this Agreement. VIII. METROPOLITAN CITIES Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitle- ment status and become part of Urban Hennepin County. 7 . . IX. EXECUTION COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on ___, 19___, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon Proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA By: ~ ~ -::f 4: ~airman of i~S County Board .-... h~~~.v ff~ Deputy/Assoc1ate ~ounty Administrator '.Assistant County Attorney ._ / /,." dif Date: & \__~t/ - (... Attest: Deputy County Auditor . APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: CITY OF By: Assistant County Attorney Its Date: And: Its CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B Charter 8 . . ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 501 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO GENERAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 501.01, Subd. 1, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Subd. 1. Offensive, Unhealthy Substances Prohibited: No owner, agent or occupant of any privately owned lands or premises shall place upon or permit upon his premises any abandoned, discarded or unused objects or equipment such as nonoperative vehicles of all kinds, [1] motor vehicles not displaying a current state license, furniture, stoves, refrigerators, freezers, lumber, trash, debris, junk containers, machinery, implements, equipment which is no longer safely usable for the purpose for which they were manufactured, noxious weeds and nuisance weeds as defined in ~-&t-et-ut-es, 3-ect:i:orr-i-fr.-i:-1i, Section 502.02. Subd. 8 of this Code. fallen trees, fallen tree limbs, dead trees, dead tree limbs, garbage (except in authorized containers), ashes, yard cleanings or any other foul or unhealthy material. Composting of leaves, grass clippings, and easily biodegradable, nonpoisonous garbage may be permitted, however, as provided in Section 507.02, Subd. 3, of this Code." Section 2. This 0 rdinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this 9th day of July , 1990. Jan Haugen, Mayor ATTEST: Laurence E. Whittaker City Administrator / Clerk :t:I \'3A2 . . ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 502 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO NUISANCES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 502.02, Subd. 8, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Subd. 8. All noxious weeds as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.171. and nuisance weeds and other rank growths upon public or private property. "Nuisance weeds" shall include weeds or qrasses. whether or not noxious. qrowinq upon any lot or arcel of land to a hei ht reater than ei ht inches 8" or weeds or qrasses which have qone to seed. Section 2. This 0 rdinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this 9th day of July, 1990. Jan Haugen, Mayor ATTEST: Laurence E. Whittaker City Administrator/Clerk -$ \3A'L t . .J . MPELRA SU~~ER CONFERENCE ST. CLOUD . 1:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. ST. CLOUD CIVIC CENTER August 22, 23, 24, 1990 "WEDNESDAY - AUGUST 22, 1990 . JUST CAUSE AND DISCIPr.INE Fundamentals of the disciplinary process and necessity of establishing standards of just cause. Questions and participation are encouraged. presentors: Bill Peters, Hennepin County Labor Relations Representa- tive Rise Kohlmeyer, Hennepin County Labor Relations Representa- tive THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 1990 8:00 a.m~ - 9:00 a.m. Registration Coffee and Rolls 9:00 a.m. - 9:15 a.m. Welcome Session Charles Winkelman, Mayor City of St. Cloud Jerry Thompson, President NPELRA 9:15 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. GENERAL SESSION "TAKING CHARGE OF CHANGE" Presentor: Catharine, Van Nostrand, Consultant, Van Nostrand and Associates 10:30 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. Break 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. CONCURRENT SESSIONS .PAY EQUITY" Presentors: Faith Zwemke, Pay Equity Coordina- tor, State of Minne- sota Jim Fox, Ernst and Young, Consultants 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. "INSURANCE" Presentors: Lawrence IntVeld, Chairperson,.Minne- sota Education. Association Teacher Fringe Benefit Task Force Mary Illies, Public Employees Insurance Plan Manager ,.State of "Minnesota" . 3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. _. ~ ,t, r . CONCURRENT SESSIONS .SICK LEAVE ABUSE" presentor: Lynell Wood, Labor Relations Manager, State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services 3:30 p.m. ~ 5:00 p.m. .COMPARATIVE STATE ISSUES - RESOLUTION AND INTEREST ARBITRATION PROCEDURES. Presentors: Rollie Toenges, Labor Relations Director, Hennepin County . Jerry Thompson, NPELRA President" 7:30 p.m. 9:00 - 10:00 p.m. Social Hour - Radisson Suites Complimentary for Hotel Guests Dinner - Pirate's Cove 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Pirate's Cove Sunset Cruise (Additional tickets $25.00 and babysitters available) FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, 1990 Complimentary Breakfast Buffet for Radisson Suite Hotel Guests 8:00 a.m.- 8:30 a.m. Coffee 8:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. GENERAL SESSION .STRIKE ISSUES: THE RAMSEY COUNTY EXPERIENCE" Presentor: Dick Brainerd, Personnel Director Ramsey County 10:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. Break 10:30 a.m. 12:00 noon GENERAL SESSION "STATE AND FEDERAL ISSUES" Presentors: Dave DOmbrowski, Director. Employae and Legislative Relations, Metro- politan Airport Commission 'Merry Beckmann, Minnesota Association of Counties" , . . .,....', I{. ,- . REGISTRATION MPELRA SUMMER CONFERENCE ST. CLOUD CIVIC CENTER ~. August 22 - 24, 1990 Please reserve space for: Position Name Organization Phone Address Please check if interested to attend Elective Sessionl "Just Cause and Discipline" Wednesday, August 22, 1990 1:30 - 4:30 p.m. Session will be held only if registered numbers warrant. A conference fee of $95.00 per person must accompany each registration. Make checks payable to MPELRA and send to Paula Faust, St. Cloud City Attorney's Office, 400 South Second Street, St. Cloud, MN 56303. -----------------------------------------------------------~------------- ST. CLOUD RADISSON SUITE HOTEL (612) 654-1661 MPELRA SUMMER CONFERENCE August 22 - 24, 1990 $68 single Rates: $78 double Rates: NAME: NO. OF PEOPLE ADDRESS: CITY STATE ZIP PHONE ARRIVAL TIME ARRIVAL DATE DEPARTURE DATE Separate hotel reservation form and send directly to: . St. ,.. . . MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCI L Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel Vern Wanen CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: M.. ROLEK DATE: JULY 3. 1990 RE: PERA DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN The State Legislature. in its last session. created a new pension plan under PERA. called the Defined Contribution Plan. This plan is open only to elected public officials. There is no minimum monthly earnings level to be met. and all elected public officials. with the exception of county sheriffs. are eligible for membership. Officials participating in the plan would contribute five percent of gross earnings into the plan. which would be matched by the governmental unit. This money is invested. at the discretion of the participant. in anyone of six investment options available through the Minnesota Supplemental Investment Fund. Federal and state income taxes are deferred on all contributions and on any investment income until the funds are withdrawn. Participation in this plan is totally optional. An elected official may choose to participate at any time while holding elected office. In addition. an official may elect to "buy back" service credit in the plan for previous years' service. up to 25% of the annual remuneration for their office. Once an official opts to participate. they must continue in the plan until they leave office or become permanently disabled. I am enclosing a brochure from PERA explaining the Defined Contribution Plan. Please read it and let me know if you have an interest in the plan. As this is budget time. it is appropriate to consider this item when preparing our 1991 budget. Please let me information. will be happy know if you have any questions relating to this If you would like information on the investment to supply you with a prospectus. options. I A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore l~cL{ .') . .. Retirement Plan Alternatives For Local Minnesota Elected Officials UA ~~~tion passed in the last session of the . esota Legislature permits elected officials in Minnesota to participate in the Public Employees Retirement Association's (PERA) Defined Contnbution Plan, or DCP. Officials who enroll in the Defined Contnbution Plan will contnbute 5 percent of subsequent earnings and their employers will contnbute an identical amount. DCP participants may also pay past contributions on uncovered elective service, if they have it, and invest those contributions in the DCP. As always, elected officials who earn more than $425 a month may enroll in the PERA Coordinated Plan. In addition, under provisions of the new law, officials who are or become members of PERA's Coordinated or Basic Retirement Plans may purchase past uncovered elective service at actuarial cost. The new law opens the Dermed Contnbution Plan to all local elected officials in Minnesota, except elected county sheriffs, whether or not the elected offi- cials are presently enrolled in the PERA Coordinated or Basic Plan. Officials will have an opportunity to en- roll in either the DCP or Coordinated Plan, but not both. Elected officials currently in the Basic or Coor- dinated Plan have from July 1. 1990 to June 30, 1991 to elect to participate in the Defmed Contnbution Plan. There is no time limit on enrollment in the DCP for officials who are not presently PERA members. The purpose of this brochure is to explain the options available to elected officials. It also describes PERA's Dermed Contribution and Coordinated Plans, and the steps to be taken to purchase past ser- vice or pay past contributions. Options For Elected Omcials The options available to elected officials generally depend upon whether the official has elected service prior to the present position, whether the official is currently a member of PERA's Basic or Coordinated Plan, and whether the official elects to participate in the Defined Contnbution Plan, the Coordinated (or Basic) Plan, or refrains from PERA membership en- tirely. . . Current Officials With Past Elected Service Officials presently holding elective office who have prior service as elected officials have a number of al- ternatives, depending upon whether they choose to enroll in the Defined Contribution Plan or begin or continue in the Coordinated (or Basic) Plan. Officials Presently Enrolled In PERA May Elect DCP Elected officials presently members of PERA's Coor- dinated or Basic Plans may join the Defined Contribution Plan between July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991. Enrollment in the DCP terminates the Basic or Coordinated membership. The participant will pay contn'butions of 5 percent of all future earnings into the Defined Contn'bution Plan; the employer will match-those contnbutions. Because Coordinated (or Basic) membership has ended, the official has the fol- lowing options: . If the official has 3 or more years of service, the official has 2 alternatives: 1)PERA contributions may be left with PERA. This will entitle the official to collect a deferred PERA annuity as early as age 55. .At the time of the deferral, an annuity is computed based upon the individual's average salary and years of service. This annuity is then increased by 3 percent annually to the fast of the year following age 55, and by 5 percent annually after that. Or 2) the official may apply for a refund of employee contnbutions plus 6 percent interest compounded annually. . Or, if the official has less than three years of service, the official may apply for a refund of employee contnbutions plus 6 percent interest compounded annually. The taking of the refund dissolves the individual's right to a pension or disability or survivor benefit. - . ". The new DCP participant with prior elected service may also have the following additional option: If the official has service in elected office (either the currently held position or a previously. held posi_ tion) which was not covered by PERA (in other words, the official had not made PERA contnbutions at all on this- service), the official may pay all or part of these past contributions and put them into the Defined Contnbution Plan. . Officials Electing Or Remaining In The Coordinated or Basic Plan Officials presently enrolled in PERA who have prior elected service (either in the currently held office, or in a previously held office) and who choose to remain in the Coordinated (or Basic) Plan will make Coor- dinated contributions of 4.23 percent on future salary and their employer will match that percentage and contnbute an additional.25 percent of salary. (Basic members and employers contribute 8.23 and 10.73 percent respectively.) These officials will also have one or more of the following options: . The official may purchase prior uncovered service credit. The purchase requires that PERA compute the additional pension amount that will be paid as a result of the purchase of service credit. PERA uses actuarial tables to determine the current value of the additional pension. If the member meets requirements, the member may purchase all or part of the uncovered service and may make annual payments over five years. . The official may repay a PERA refund, if he or she received a refund at termination of a previous public position. In repaying a refund, the member purchases prior covered service. The member must repay the actual refund amount with interest at 6 percent compounded annually. If repaid, prior service credit is restored and the member will receive a larger pension at retirement as a result. Omcials Not Presently Enrolled In A PERA Plan Officials currently holding elective office who have elected not to enroll in PERA's Coordinated or Basic Plan may continue to remain out of those plans and the DCP as well. . '., 'I Omcials Elected In The Future The opportunities afforded newly elected officials (without prior elective service) depend upon whether the officials choose to enroll in the Defined Contribu- tion Plan or the Coordinated (or Basic) Plan, or remain out of PERA. Future elected officials not en- rolled in the Coordinated plan may: . As in the past, elect to enroll in the Coordinated Plan if they are earning or will earn more than $425 in a month. Officials will pay 4.23 percent of salary to PERA; their employers will match that 4.23 percent and pay an additional share of .25 percent, for a total employer contnbution of 4.48 percent of employee salary. Once enrolled in the Coordinated Plan, members may withdraw from participation only upon termination of that elective office. . Enroll in PERA's DerIDed Contnbution Plan. Upon enrollment, the participant ~ contribute 5 percent of earnings to the plan. This. 5. percent will be matched by the employer. PartICIpants need not meet a minimum earnings level to enroll in the DCP. Once enrolled in DCP, members must contribute to the plan until termination of elective office. . Remain out of PERA entirely. Present or new officials may elect to participate in either the DCP or the Coordinated Plan at any point in the future while in elected office. Individuals Not Presently Holding Office The law that created the Defined Contribution Plan for elected officials does not apply to persons not presently in elective office, but who' have held elective office in the past. It also does not apply to current PERA members who are not presently in elective office PERARetirees In Elected Office PERA retirees may hold elective office and emoll in the Defined Contribution Plan. Participation in DCP does not affect retirees' benefits. . 2 . Facts About .The Defined Contribution Plan The Defined ContnoutiOD Plan operates much like a savings plan. CoDtributions are made by employees and matched by employers"and are in. vested in accounts of the Minnesota SupplemeDtal Investment Fund selected by the participating elected official. Contributions are used to purchase shares in the accounts selected. The value of ac- counts increase ( or decrease) as the value of the shares purchased increase and as shares pay either dividends or interest. The investment account options available to par- ticipants are described in the enclosed Minnesota Supplemental Investment Fund Prospectus. Elected Officials Eligible To Participate Except for elected county sheriffs who are specifically excluded, participation in the DCP is open to all elected local government officials in Min- nesota. However, elected officials cannot participate in the plan if they are already members of the Public Employees Retirement Association's Coordinated or Basic plans (or any other employer. paid pension plan) because of elective employment. (There is a one.year window period of July 1, 1990, through June 30, 1991, in which elected officials who belong to the Basic or Coordinated Plans may elect to terminate that membership and enroll in the DCP.) Elected officials eligible to elect the DCP include, but are not limited to, school board members, couo. ty attorneys, city council members, county commissioners, township supervisors, county auditors, and county treasurers. DCP Participation is open to elected officials regardless of the level of their earnings. Cost or Participation Participants in the Defined CoDtnbution Plan con. tnoute 5 perceDt of earnings; their employers match that 5 percent. Contributions are paid on salary . which, for the purposes of the Defined Contribution Plan, is the same as salary for PERA'~ Basic, Coor. dinated, and Police and rrre Funds. Therefore, salary includes compensation for services rendered or labor performed. Moreover, deductions are to be taken on used vacation and sick leave and on retroactive pay. Salary does not encompass reimbursement for or pay. ment of expenses. Also, salary does not include payIDeDt for unused vacation or sick leave. Unlike PERA's Basic, Coordinated, and Police and rrre Plans, for elected officials who have chosen to par- ticipate, coDtnbutions are taken regardless of earnings level. In other words, participants need not earn more than $425 per month in order to participate in the Defined ContnbutioD Plan. As statute authorizes, PERA deducts two percent of employer contributions to help defray the cost of administering the plan. Benefits Earned In The Defined Contribution Plan Participants are paid the value of their accounts in the DCP as a lump sum at death, retirement (at any age), or termination of employment. The lump sum payment is the actual value of the shares held plus ac. cumulated interest or dividends earned by those shares. At termination or retirement, payments are made to the participant 30 days after application. Or, the participant may leave contributions invested, roll the payment over into another qualified plan, or direct PERA to remit payment to an insurance company licensed by the state and selected by the participant for the purpose of purchasing an annuity. At death, payment is made to named beneficiaries. If there are no beneficiaries on record, payment will be made to the deceased participant's legal heirs. Withdrawals Upon Permanent Disability A DCP participant may withdraw funds from the Defined Contnoution Plan if he Or she becomes per. manently disabled. Withdrawals may be made in equal monthly installments in increments of $100. Also, withdrawals may Dot exceed ten percent of the joint employer and employee contnbutions for the month preceding disability. To collect disability pay- ments, participants must file an application with PERA. In addition, PERA must certify that impair. 3 . ment meets the statutory definition of disability, that disability is expected to be greater than one year in duration, and that disability will prevent performance of full time employment. Payment begins on the first day of the month following the month in which the dis- ability occurred. Payments end when the participant's disabled status ends or the account balance is exhausted, whichever occurs first. Taxes Dererred On Contributions Federal and state income taxes on contnoutions made to the Defined Contnbution Plan and earnings on DCP investments are deferred to the time of withdrawal. Withdrawal occurs when lump sum pay- ments are made at death, termination of employment, or retirement, or when partial payments are made upon permanent disability. Enrollment In The Defined Contribution Plan Elected officials demonstrate their desire to enroll in the DCP by completing a PERA Defined Contnbu- tion Plan membership form. Enrollment is effective on the first day of the month after the membership form is received in the PERA office, or on the date when the term of office commences, whichever date is later. Contnoutions are to be computed on all qualified salary earned from the effective date of en- rollment. Employee and employer contnbutions are to be paid to PERA monthly. Contnoutions are submitted along with a Defined Contnbution Deduction Report. This Deduction Report is a three-part docu- ment. The original is salmon in color, the first copy, white, and the second copy, yellow. The salmon and white copies are to be submitted to PERA when pay- ments are made. The employer is to retain the yellow copy. The PERA Coordinated Plan Elected officials may join the PERA Coordinated Retirement Plan if they earn more than $425 per " month. Coordinated members contnDute 4.23 per- cent of earnings to PERA. Employers match . employee contnbutions and pay an additional .25 per- cent of salary to PERA. Employers must report earnings and contributions on a Salary Deduction Report. These reports "and payments of employee and employer contributions must be submitted to PERA each time employees are paid. Complete det3.iLs about how contributions are reported arid paid'tan be found in PERA's Reporting Manual For Payroll and Personnel Officers. Under the Coordinated Plan, members earn a pen- sion based upon the number of years they contnbuted on public employment and a percentage of their average salary (five highest consecutive years). Specific rules with regard to.age and number of years of service govern when members may retire and the amount of their pensions. Members may retire as early as age 55 with 3 years of service, but their pen- sion will be reduced for early retirement. The Coordinated Plan also provides disability and sur- vivor benefits. These benefits and complete retirement options are discussed in the enclosed brochure, "Your Benefits With PERA, Information For Coordinated Members.w Options For Officials With Past Elective Service Officials Enrolled In DCP May Pay Past Contributions Elected officials who exercise their option to par- ticipate in the Dermed Contribution Plan and who have previous uncovered service as an elected official may pay contnbutions on that past service and invest them in the Defined Contnoution Plan. Uncovered service is service as an elected official for which the elected official could have, but did not, elect to be- come a member of PERA's Coordinated or Basic Retirement Plans. Contnbutions may not be made on service covered by a public or private employer con- tnbutory pension plan, including PERA's Basic, Coordinated, or Police and rrre Plans. This means that DCP participants who had previous PERA ser- vice as an elected official, and who took a refund of employee contnbutions at termination of this elected position, may not repay these contnbutioJ1S and invest them in the Dermed Contnbution Plan. 4 . . '. The amount of past contnbutions are computed using the Coordinated or BaSic contribution rates in effect at the time the service was rendered. If the par- ticipant chooses to pay these past contributions, the participant's employer will be obligated to pay the corresponding employer contribution applicable at the time along with the employer additional share in effect, if any. Payment of these past contributions also requires payment of 6 percent interest com- ' pounded annually. Participants may choose to pay all or part of these past contributions. Also, payments may be made in annual installments. The amount of past contribu- tions that can be paid in any given year will be limited to 15 percent of current income. The Internal Revenue Service limits contributions to tax deferred . plans in a given year to 25 percent of current income. Because ten percent (5 percent by the participant and 5 percent by the employer) of current earnings are going into the Defined Contnbution Plan, past con- tributions are limited to 15 percent of current income. For 1990, the first year of the plan's operation, past contnbutions will be limited to 7.5 percent (one half of 15 percent) of current income. Omcials In The Coordinated Plan May. Purchase Prior Service Credit Purchases of prior service can be made by elected of- ficials who are or become members ofPERA's Basic or Coordinated Plans and who have previous un- . covered elected service. In purchasing prior service, members pay for the increase in pension that will be paid at retirement because additional service credits were purchased. Elected officials in the Coordinated or Basic Plans may have two ways to make such a pur- chase. One way is to purchase the service credits that could have been, but were not, earned had the official elected to participate in a PERA plan while in elected office. The other way is to repay a refund, if a refund was issued following termination of past public employment covered by a PERA plan. Purchase Of Past Uncovered Service To be eliglble to purchase prior service, several condi- tions must be met: (1) an elected official must have served previously in a PERA-eliglble elected position; (2) the elected official must have chosen not to exercise his or her option to pay PERA contri- butions on earnings from this elected position; and , '-." ':'_4.~ - _..... ~~~J' ~.... ~'~'..;.;_,-~_._,.:.-.-. . (3) the official's past compensation must have met the PERA earnings threshold in effect at the time. If all of these conditions are met, the official may pur- chase prior service. The purchase price is the amount of funds that must be set aside now to pay for the ad- ditional pension t1iat will be paid at retirement. The price of the additional pension 'depends upon the official's current age, projected average salary, and years of service. The calculation assumes that funds used to make the purchase will be invested and earn interest until retirement. A simplified example will help illustrate how purchase of prior service works. Mary Jones is an elected county official whose term began two years ago. Mary chose not to join PERA at the beginning of her term. However, she changed her mind and has decided to begin contributing to the Coordinated Fund. Ten years ago Mary served a two- year term in another county elective position, but chose not to participate in PERA at that time. To cal- culate the cost of prior service, PERA performs two computations. FIrst, PERA estimates the value of the pension Mary will earn on her present job, assuming that she does not purchase any past service. PERA uses Mary's present age (32) and salary level to es- timate that her pension will be $888 per month at retirement. Next, PERA adds 4 years (two years from her un- covered service in her former position and 2 years of her uncovered service from her present position) of service credit to the formula. The total pension at retirement is projected to be $1,025 per m:onth with the addition of 4 years of service. The increase in pen- sion is $137 per month ($1,025 - 888 = $137). If purchased, this $137 increase in pension will be paid for Mary's expected lifetime (that is from retirement to death). PERA uses actuarial tables to determine that $13,657 must be invested now in order to pay $137 per month for Mary's expected lifetime. This $13,657 is the cost of purcha$:ing prior service. Offi- cials may purchase all or part of their prior service and pay interest at 6 percent compounded annually. Also, prior service may be paid as a single lump sum or in annual installments over five years. Employers may, at their discretion, pay a portion of the cost of the prior service. Payment options and the specific procedures for payment of past contn"butions into the DCP are discussed on the next page. 5 . . . Repayment Of Refund Repaying a refund restores service credits forfeited when the refund was taken. To repay a refund, the member must pay the amount of the refund itself along with 6 percent interest ~mpounded annually. The earliest a refund may be repaid is 18 months after reinstatement as a PERA member. The latest a refund can be repaid is 6 months following retirement. Procedures For Purchases The following paragraphs set forth the steps that must be taken to pay past contributions or pur- chase prior service. Only officials who elect to come into the Defined Contnbution Plan may make past contn'butions on un- covered service. And only officials who are or become members of the Coordinated or Basic Plans may purchase prior service at actuarial cost or repay a refund. 1. Elected officials interested in m~1ring a purchase should contact their employers to obtain a form entitled "Record of Annual Earnings for Elected Officials" 2. PERA has mailed these annual earnings forms to all known PERA employers in Minnesota. The form may also be obtained by ca1ling the PERA office and asking for the Benefits Department. . 3. The employer must supply annual calendar-year salary paid to the official in the years of uncovered elected service. The form also calls for: . name of official, . current address, . beginning and ending dates of terms of office, . date of birth, . Social Security number, . PERA number, if any, . spouse's name, if any, and birth date, . name and address of the governmental employer, and . . projected retirement date (onJy for officials interested in purchasing prior service). 4. Upon completion, the employer should submit the earnings record form to the PERA office. 5. Upon receipt, PERA will compute the total cost to purchase prior service, payment of past contnbutions, or both and mail these figures to the elected official. The letter will supply instructions to employers and elected officials about how payments are to be submitted. 6. Officials will need to indicate whether they wish to pay all or a portion of the amount of past contributions or past service. Officials who want to arrange for installment payments should phone the PERA office to make those arrangements. ................. .................. .........-...,........ ........ ...... . '. 6 .. CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR JULY 9, 1990 COUNCIL MEETING AMOUNT -. CHECK NO. TO WHOM ISSUED CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JUNE 22, 1990 4637 (G) EXC. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 4638 (G) GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE 4639 (G) PRECISION COMPUTER SYSTEMS 4640 (L) . COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE 4641 (L) COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE 4642 (G) CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 4643 (G) CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 4644 (G) ICMA RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION 4645 (G) PUB. EMP. RETIREMENT ASSOC. 4646 (G) COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE 4647 (G) THE BANK EXCELSIOR 4648 (L) BUR. OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS 4649 (L) BELLBOY CORPORATION 4650 (L) COPIER ALTERNATIVES 4651 (L) GTE DIRECTORIES 4652 (L) GRIGGS, COOPER AND COMPANY 4653 (L) JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 4654 (L) MINNEGASCO, INC. 4655 (L) MN BAR SUPPLY, INC. 4656 (L) NSP 4657 (L) EDPHILLIPS AND SON 4658 (L) POGREBA DISTRIBUTING, INC. 4659 (L) QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS 4660 (L) US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 4661 (G) JANICE HAUGEN 4662 (G) MENARD'S 4663 (G) US POSTMASTER 4664 (G) BRADLEY J. NIELSEN PURPOSE CONTRIBUTION TO FIREWORKS FUND $ TIF WORKSHOP-K. STOVER PAYMENT NO. 1 ON COMPUTER SYSTEM SALES TAX FOR MAY 1990 SALES TAX FOR JUNE-FIRST HALF PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS ICMA PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS PERA PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS STATE TAX WITHHELD FED, FICA, AND MEDICARE WITHHOLDING TAX RENEWAL REGISTRATION AND RETURN 1,000.00 65.00 5,700.00 8,890.33 4,445.16 165.00 45.00 543.46 1,757.24 928.64 5,312.52 500.00 2,564.40 30.00 46.40 4,625.58 1,875.79 14.36 160.85 350.20 998.38 749.25 1,161.73 224.55 295.80 240.66 271.16 130 .00 LIQUOR PURCHASES CONTRACT FOR COPIER MAINTENANCE ADVERTISING LIQUOR, WINE AND MISC. PURCHASES LIQUOR AND WINE PURCHASES UTILITIES MISC. PURCHASES AND SUPPLIES UTILITIES LIQUOR AND WINE PURCHASES BEER AND MISC. PURCHASES LIQUOR, WINE AND MISC. PURCHASES UTILITIES AND ADVERTISING CONFERENCE EXPENSES TIMBER POSTS FOR NOBLE ROAD POSTAGE FOR SECOND QUARTER wlS BILLINGS SECTION 125 DEPENDENT CARE REIM. TOTAL GENERAL 16,454.48 TOTAL LIQUOR 26,636.46 TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED 43,091.46 -1- CHECK NO. CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR JULY 9, 1990 COUNCIL MEETING CHECKS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL TO WHOM ISSUED PURPOSE AMOUNT $ 17.04 85.74 365.16 1,214.75 46.70 340.54 78.50 100.00 2,614.42 2,581.66 5,025.00 4664 4665 4666 4667 4668 4669 4670 4671 4672 4673 4674 4675 4676 4677 4678 4679 4680 4681 4682 4683 4684 4685 4686 4687 4688 4689 4690 4691 4692 4693 4694 4695 4696 4697 UTILITIES OFFICE SUPPLIES LAUNDRY SERVICES FOR JUNE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES FOR MAY CHAIN SAW PARTS SHOP SUPPLIES COFFE FOR CITY HALL TAPING OF JUNE COUNCIL MEETINGS CHEMICAL FOR WATER SYSTEM JULY ASSESSORS FEE LEGAL FEES FOR JUNE ON-GOING 200.00 DEV. 120.00 GENERAL 2,380.00 PROSECUTIONS 2,015.00 LITIGATIONS 60.00 RETAINER 250.00 WATER TOWER SOD WORK PUBLIC WORKS SUPPLIES TREASURER LEGAL NOTICE MAIL LIST-PW SITE TREASURER PRISONER EXPENSE FOR MAY STARTER PARTS FOR #27 MOWER PARTS MISC. STEEL AND LABOR TACK OIL LEGAL FORMS UTILITIES PUBLIC. PUBLISHING MCFOA DUES-SUE AND SANDY WATER AND SEWER SERVICES FOR JULY UTILITIES UTILITIES SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX RENTAL ENGINEERING FEES FOR MAY GENERAL 2,650.80 ON-GOING 4,189.08 DEVELOPMENTAL 840.28 STREET PROJ. 77.40 WATER REPORT 195.48 SE AREA 385.69 JOSEPH PAZANDAK MILEAGE PIKE'S BUILDING MAINTENANCE JUNE JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR CITY HALL REYNOLD'S WELDING SUPPLY ACETYLANE ALAN ROLEK MILEAGE KATIE SNYDER JUNE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SPRINGSTED FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES AT & T ACRO MINNESOTA AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS CHASKA PARTS SERVICE CROSSTOWN OSC, INC. HAROLD DIRCKS FEED-RITE CONTROLS, INC. ROLF E.A. ERICKSON FROBERG AND PENBERTHY, P.A. FURY CONTRACTING HANCE HARDWARE HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY LANO EQUIPMENT MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY MANN MADE PRODUCTS MIDWEST ASPHALT MILLER DAVIS LEGAL FORMS MINNEGASCO, INC. MINNESOTA SUBURBAN MCFOA MUNITECH, INC. NSP NSP NORWEST BANK ORR, SCHELEN, MAYERON AND ASSOCIATIATES (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) -2- 2,500.00 30.01 92.00 1,216.11 62.88 80.52 65.16 598.50 5.00 28.55 174.04 50.00 4,917 .00 2,599.58 1,300.57 75.00 8,338.73 64.56 275.00 21. 65 48.60 450.00 9,434.32 CHECK NO. CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR JULY 9, 1990 COUNCIL MEETING TO WHOM ISSUED PURPOSE AMOUNT CHECKS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL (CONTINUED) 4698 4699 4700 4701 4702 4703 TESSMAN SEED AND CHEMICAL TONKA PRINTING US WEST COMMUNICATIONS WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE WATER PRODUCTS WILDFLOWER SEED FOR PARKS ENVELOPES UTILITIES RECYCLING SERVICES FOR JUNE WASTE REHOVAL HETERS AND READERS TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST -3- $ 100.00 99.15 589.47 3,890.00 191. 00 1,172.00 50,938.91 94,030.37 . CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR JULY 9, 1990 COUNCIL MEETING CHECK NO. TO WHOH ISSUED HOURS AMOUNT PAYROLL CHECK REGISTER FOR JULY 3, 1990 PAYROLL 204175 VOID 204176 (G) LEONARD V. WATTEN COUNCIL $ 147.82 204177 (G) JANICE HAUGEN MAYOR 178.50 204178 (G) BARBARA BRANCEL COUNCIL 147.82 204179 (G) ROBERT GAGNE COUNCIL 150.00 204180 (G) KRISTI STOVER COUNCIL 150.00 204181 (G) LAURENCE WHITTAKER 80 REG HOURS 1,031.79 204182 (G) SANDRA KENNELLY 80 REG HOURS 756.14 204183 (G) SUSAN NICCUM 80 REG HOURS 598.97 204184 (G) ANNE LATTER 62.25 REG HOURS 421.96 204185 (G) ALAN ROLEK 80 REG HOURS 928.57 204186 (G) WENDY DAVIS 80 REG HOURS 570.97 204187 (G) BRADLEY NIELSEN 80 REG HOURS 835.83 204188 (G) PATRICIA HELGESEN 64 REG HOURS 409 . 10 204189 (G) JOSEPH PAZANDAK 80 REG HOURS 813.43 204190 (G) CHARLES DAVIS 80 REG HOURS 414.02 204191 (G) DENNIS JOHNSON 80 REG HOURS - 2 OT 700.50 204192 (G) DANIEL RANDALL 82 REG HOURS-2 OT 724.65 204193 (G) HOWARD STARK 82 REG HOURS-3 OT 595.02 204194 (G) RALPH WEHLE 80 REG HOURS 544.16 204195 (G) DONALD ZDRAZIL 80 REG HOURS 1,004.46 204196 (G) JOSEPH LUGOWSKI 80 REG HOURS 679.03 204197 (G) TODD LATTERNER 32 REG HOURS 258.16 204198 (G) LAWRENCE NICCUM 80 REG HOURS 546.40 204199 (L) RUSSELL MARRON 43.5 REG HOURS 204.32 204200 (L) CHRISTOPHER SCHHID 80 REG HOURS 430.05 204201 (L) BRAD HOLTHE 8 REG HOURS 41.00 204202 (L) BRIAN JAKEL 28 REG HOURS 138.80 204203 (L) MARK KARSTEN 58.5 REG HOURS 232.76 204204 (L) WILLIAH JOSEPHSON 80 REG HOURS 598.00 204205 (L) SUSAN LATTERNER 36 REG HOURS 161. 69 204206 (L) DEAN YOUNG 80 REG HOURS 551. 76 204207 (L) SCOTT BARTLETT 34.5 REG HOURS 173.03 204208 (L) DAVID PETERSON 24.5 REG HOURS 108.23 204209 (L) KELLY HICHELSON 18 REG HOURS 82.02 204210 (L) JOHN FRUTH 17 REG HOURS 77 .99 204211 (L) NOEL NICHOLS 12 REG HOURS 57.83 204212 (L) CRAIG SCHOLLE 18 REG HOURS 82.02 204213 (L) ERICA SHAW 20.5 REG HOURS 84.96 204214 (L) BRIAN ROERICK 7 REG HOURS 32.77 TOTAL GENERAL 12,607.30 TOTAL LIQUOR 3,057.23 TOTAL PAYROLL 15,664.53 -4-