Loading...
1985-03-051. Call to Order. — 7: 2. Roll Call. 3. Adoption of Agenda. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA March 5, 1985, Agenda 7:30 P.M. 4. Approval of Minutes, February 19. -- a 5. Consent Calendar a. b. c. d. e. 01)1_, 7) Acknowledgment of Letter from District 9 Acknowledgment of Code Enforcement Montly Report for February Acknowledgment of February 26 Planning Commission Minutes Approval of the List of Claims (available Tuesday) Approval of the List of Licenses End of Consent Calendar 6. Public Comments -.. ne 7. Unfinished and New Business a. CAO 85-01 Hunter -- b. Memo on Screening C),20 c. Memo on WaZ Servi e # i) 5700 d. Memo on Rrpuesit Lor e. Memo on drqt/rt f. Me g. k/1 8. Respo Application for Critical Area Ordinance Variance ot 1 , Curley Addition r River ain Condominiums Processing 'd eq est for Street S e ing 7,1,....., /qc.5-0 24, Me )985 Police Contract — A2'4 Ptet,er--ef - 190 -- Council Comments and Requests ity Hall Architects -- AJ:4314' -s- a. Memo on hg 13' 9. Council Comments and Requests 10. Adjourn. 4770-,,va. ••! CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 20, 1985 TO: Mayor, City Council, and Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator SUBJECT: Recreation Director - Compensation Analysis INTRODUCTION In setting 1985 compensation for Recreation Director Duane Selander, Council asked for a review of the propriety of the level of compensation for that position. A review of the recreation program was already identified as a 1985 work project for City staff and the Park and Recreation Commission. The purpose of this memo is to provide a preliminary analysis of the appropriateness of the salary and expense allowance of the incumbent recrea- tion director. It is recommended that the current arrangement be continued through 1985, and that the recreation program be further analyzed prior to preparation of the 1986 budget. BACKGROUND 1985 compensation for the Recreation Director is $746 per month; $8,952 annually. He also receives an auto allowance of $40 per month; $480 per year. These figures were set by Council in December, 1984, as a part of the overall pay plan for City employees. At that time, Council approved the Recreation Director's pay and auto allowance through March 31, 1985, and directed staff and the Park Commission to consider the propriety of that amount before March 31st. Council also raised the issue of whether there are alternative met- hods of recreation service delivery that might be more efficient. The Commission is conducting a community survey of recreation needs through the City newsletter, and hopes to begin to analyze the results in April and May. It would be advisable to wait until that analysis is complete to consider any further alterations to the recreation program. Any recommended changes should be available in time for incorporation into the 1986 City budget. It would not be feasible to change course prior to the summer recreation prog- ram. SALARY COMPARISON As noted above, the incumbent's compensation is $8,952 salary and $480 auto allowance. He estimates an approximate 415 hours per year, broken down as follows: (100 Hours - Winter) - Supervising rink attendants daily while evaluating the attendance and activities. This is an approximate 60 day period each season. Daily time for the four rinks runs between 75 to 90 minutes. Schedule and coordinate Mend-Eagan's hockey teams at rinks - times and locations. Communicate with coaches any problems with schedule, ice conditions, etc. (175 Hours - Summer) - Summer daily activities 5 days a week, approximately 5 hours per day. Afternoon - night - morning art and crafts for 7 weeks. (45 Hours) - Adult softball begins in May, evening hours, 3 evenings for 6 weeks, at 2 1/2 hours per session. ( 5 Hours) - Coordinate and schedule the fields for Mend-Eagan's softball and baseball in which City fields are used. Coordinate umpires for their teams. (50 Hours) - Registrations, organizing teams, making schedules, new releases, flyers to schools, ordering equipment and picking up, hiring personnel, pre -season meeting with coaches, training umpires. ( 5 Hours) - Record all hours worked by Recreation personnel and submit to payroll department. Home telephone communications - yearly. Scheduling - anything from 5 minutes to 10 - 15 minutes. New resident (programs) offered. (25 Hours) - Fall football - Saturday afternoons, organize, referees. (10 Hours) - Attend Park and Recreation Commission meetings. 415 Hours Total The $8,952 salary divided by the 415 hours yields a productive hour compensation of $20.85. Many metropolitan suburbs employ full-time park and recreation direc- tors, and their salaries are recorded in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Salary Survey, provided by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. 1984 is the latest data currently available; for purpose of this analysis, those figures are updated by 5% for 1985. Suburbs Over 10 000 Population - The average 1985 salary is $37,700, to which must be added 11.3% for social security and retirement contribu-, tion, plus $1,860 insurance contribution. This brings total compensation to $43,820. Although the work year consists of 2,080, actual productive hours are approximately 1,830, after time off for vacation, holidays, and sic- kness. Dividing total compensation by productive hours yields a net effec- tive cost of $23.95 per hour. Suburbs Under 10,000 Population - The average 1985 salary to which is added 11.3% for social security and retirement, plus insurance. This brings total compensation,to $32,356. Dividing 1,830 hours of productive time, as discussed above, yields a net cost of $17.68 per hour. AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE is $27,400, $1,860 for this by the effective Although the incumbent Recreation Director has not kept a record of actual mileage, his estimate is approximately 2,000 miles per year. At the IRS allowable rate of 20.5 cents per mile, this would equal $410 per year. At the City reimbursement rate of 22 cents per mile, it equals $440. For 1985, the automobile allowance was increased to $40 per month, or $480 per year. INCUMBENT QUALIFICATIONS The appropriateness of the incumbent's level of compensation is a factor, not only of the job requirements, but also his professional qualifi- cations. A copy of his resume is attached. While we have never prepared a job description that includes minimal qualifications, my general reaction is that Mr. Selander's background in recreation is very strong, and he would certainly be a competitive candidate for the position of Mendota Heights' Recreation Director, were we recruiting today. Also attached is a statement from Mr. Selander detailing the history of Mendota Heights' recreation program. CONCLUSIONS Based on the above analysis, it appears that the current rate of compensation and auto allowance is adequate, but not excessive. The incumbent's hourly productive rate is almost exactly half -way between that paid in suburbs under 10,000 population and those over 10,000. Although Mendota Heights is in the former group, we are moving toward the top of that group in terms of population size. Also, the incumbent's rather extensive training and experience justify an "above average" salary. RECOMMENDATION Based on the conclusion that the compensation for Recreation Director Selander is appropriate, and that it would not be feasible to consider significant changes to the recreation program for implementation in 1985, it is recommended that Mr. Selander's compensation be continued at its present level through 1985, and that the staff and Park and Recreation Commission continue their study of the recreation program, such that any desired changes can be incorporated into the 1986 budget. Res ectf fitted, evin D. Frazel City Administrator RECREATION COORDINATORS RESUME PERSONAL DATA Name - Dewey Selander Marital Status - Married, wife Mary Children - Two, ages 8 and 12 Address - 1280 Ottawa Avenue, West St. Paul, MN 55118 Telephone - 455-7112 Birthplace - St. Paul Date of Birth - December 29, 1943 Veteran - Army EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Masters Degree in elementary education - University of Wisconsin, River Falls. Minors and additional course work in physical education, health and recreation, leisure time activities life long and sports. Coaching certificate course work - care and prevention of injuries, first aid, psychology, administration, budgets, theories. EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE Fifteen years elementary teacher - South Washington County School - Cottage Grove. Five years coordinator of recreational activities, City of St. Paul Park, 1968 - 1973. Twelve years coordinator of recreational activities, City of Mendota Heights, 1973 - present. Extra curricular employment - Park -Cottage Grove High School hockey coach. Brady High School hockey coach. Umpire and referee, Minnesota Amateur Athletics. league of minnesota cities February 20, 1985 TO: Mayors, Managers, and City Clerks President of e gue of Minnesota Cities FROM: Mary Anderson League Local Government Aid Formula As you are aware, the proposed League local government aid formula was approved by an overwhelming majority at our recent Legislative Conference. Uniting cities behind a common formula was a major accomplishment but only the first step. We must now work hard to convince the legislature of the importance and value of local government aid as well as to gain their support for the new formula. The Legislature is seriously considering the provision of $600 million to over $1 billion in overall tax relief. Our request for a $27 million increase the second year of the biennium would seem modest in comparison. But that does not mean it will be easily achieved. Some leaders in the House are seriously considering granting no increase in LGA in the second year of the biennium. To be given an increase, cities must individually and collectively impress upon.legislators.the role that LGA plays in property tax relief. Each dollar in LGA 'reduces the need for increased municipal property tax levies. It is an essential and efficient component of the overall property tax relief system. To get the formula passed with an increased appropriation will require the support and effort of everyone affected. The League staff is working hard on your behalf, testifying at hearings and meeting with individual legislators. But legislators are often much more receptive to suggestions from you, their constituents. Please call or write them. Emphasize the importance of LGA to your community, how your community and others would benefit from the new formula, and ask for their support. You need not be a formula expert to do so. Just share your general thoughts and concerns. The enclosed °Highlights of the League LGA Formula° is a good document to work from. 183 university avenue east. st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600 (over) 2 Enclosed in this mailing are a number of printouts and another copy of the explanation of the formula. Those of you who attended the Legislative conference received copies of this there. It differs somewhat from the earlier mailed printouts. It was discovered that the State Auditor's Office made some errors in providing data to the League and others about specific expenditures. These printouts reflect the correctec data, Thankfully almost all cities affected get their aid increased by the correction. All 18 cities that were affected in the 1986 recommended aid figures were called by League staff prior to the Legislative Conference. The changes are highlighted in the attached printouts by astericks (*), Pleaie review the enclosed materials. If you have any questions please call Diane Loeffler or Jeff Van Wychen, the Legislative Assistant who is working with her through the session. You'll find both of them very easy to work with. Thanks for your assistance and support. Your legislative contacts are much needed and appreciated. Minnesota Department of Transportation District 9 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Box 9050 North St. Paul, Minnesota 55109 3 `' CITY OF MENDrIT HE!CFIIS FEB 2 1985 Telephone 779-1175 February 20, 1985 Mr. Paul Perrault 667 North Freeway Road Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 Dear Mr. Perrault: SUBJECT: S.P. 1918 (TH 110) S.P. 1982 (I -35E) Interchange Traffic Operations Your observations in regard to the above referenced interchange are good and much appreciated. In general, we agree with most of your thoughts, however, we feel we need to gather some additional data and make some traffic forecasts prior to a final decision for some of suggested improvements. This interchange was basically designed and constructed 20 years ago based on projected volumes which reflected the completion of the interstate system. Unfortunately, this freeway system had to be opened in stages and we still have remaining sections uncompleted. When 1-494 between I -35E in Mendota Heights and Highway 52 in Inver Grove Heights is opened to traffic in 1986, -traffic volumes using the ramps at Highway 110 for I -35E to the south should reduce by over 50 per cent. This means that any improvements that would be made now wouldn't be needed after 1986. We have been watching this interchange closely since I -35E was opened to the south last fall. Although not ideal, we do feel it operates within tolerable limits. Our most recent observation, which was last week, revealed that motorists were able to clear the intersection within one cycle of the signal. Traffic delays for the rush hour periods were minimal and wouldn't justify widening the ramp from northbound I -35E to Highway 110. When weather permits, we will update our traffic counts and make some new predictions to see if there may be an increase in traffic to justify the ramp widening prior to the opening of I-494 in 1986. We agree that additional signing along Highway 110 for I -35E is needed. Overhead signs similar to those on Lone Oak Road and West 7th Street are under contract for installation facing eastbound traffic and should be installed early this spring. Additional signing for westbound will be ordered and, hopefully, installed at the same time. An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Paul Perrault February 20, 1985 Page Two The Highway 110 median crossover for westbound to southbound I -35E should be widened to improve the angle as you suggested. We hope to have this corrected as soon as weather permits. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Sincerely, Richard A. Elasky, 7.E. Assistant District Engineer cc: Mr. Jim Danielson CITY, OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: CAO Review & Variance Lot 3, Hunter's Bluff CA085-01 DISCUSSION: February 20, 1985 Steven Hunter, 1175 Orchard Place has applied for a Critical Area Ordiance Review (CAO) and 32 foot variance to the 40 foot setback from the bluff line for a single family home to be built on Lot 3, Hunter Bluff Addition. Dr. Hunter maintains the best thing about Lot 3 is that it has an excellent view to the west, however the only way to capture the view and still maintain a relatively low profile home, is to situate it as depicted on the attached site plan. There is an existing summer house constructed on the lot that now extends over the bluff line. If allowed to build his home as requested, Dr. Hunter would remove the summer house. Staff, in reviewing the site plan, find the slopes where the home is proposed to be placed are 10-20% which need a special review (standards on back). Staff finds that th6-applicant's proposal meets all those require- ments. ACTION REQUIRED: Waive the requirement for a public hearing, review the proposed application and variance request and make a recommendation to the City Council. 2.5 Site Plan Approval Standards. Unless a variance from the strict application of the provisions of this Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance is granted, no site plan which fails to satisfy the following standards shall be approved by the City Council: A. No development shall be permitted on slopes between 12% - 40% unless the applicant shall prove that the following conditions are met: 1. The foundation and underlying materials of any structure, including roads, shall be adequate for the slope conditions and soil type. 2. Adequate controls and protections exist uphill from the proposed development such that there is no danger of structures or roads being struck by falling rock, mud, up -rooted trees, or other materials. 3. The proposed development presents no danger of falling rock, mud, up -rooted trees, or other materials to structures downhill. 4. The view of the developed slope from the river and opposite river bank is compatible with the natural appearance of the undeveloped slope, compatible with any historic areas nearby, compatible with the view from historic areas, including the Fort Snelling viewshed protection area, and compatible with surrounding architectural features. To the maximum extent possible, the use of natural devices, including vegetation management, shall be preferred over the construction of artificial devices, including culverts, holding ponds, walls and terracing. 5. All structures other than buildings and roadway surfaces, but including retaining walls should comply with the following design standards: a. retaining walls or terrace contours shall not exceed five (5) feet in height; b. construction shall be of native stone or wood; c. the use of gabbions, pilings, tiebacks, metal retaining walls, and pre -cast or cast in place concrete retaining walls is specifically prohibited; d. the minimum space between terraces and retaining walls shall be twenty (20) feet. 6. Any lift stations required to service the slope development with local sewage systems are designed in accordance with local design standards and approved by the City Engineer. 7. No septic tanks shall be placed within the Critical Area. 8. In no case shall slopes with a natural slope in excess of forty (40) percent be developed. ,1/23/85 • LEAGUE OF MN CITIES - TECHNICAL COMMITTEE LGA FORMULA V2 LGA = ( .53 * 3YR.AVE.BASIC.EXPEND ) * ( STATE AAV PER CAPITA / CITY'S AAV PER CAPITA ) MINIMUM -OF $2_ PER C1 PITA OR 1% OVER . •, - _ - - ,. * INDICATES A CHANGE FROM THE ORIGINAL YELLOW PRINTOUT DUE TO AUDITOR'S ERROR IN PREPARING' COMPUTER TAPE, NAME MAPLEV I EW MAPLEWOOD MARBLE ... 1985 LGA 1986 LEA- - %-CHGE -FORMULA PURE FORMULA BASIC EXPEND.' WITH CAPS 46,595 51,254 1,277,158 1,404,873 150,255 165,280 - 41AR I€T -47-,-084 MARINE ON ST CRO I X 17,721 MARSHALL 794,582 - ---- - - -----MAY-ER e2 -941 MAYNARD 74,711 MAZEPPA 37,125 MC-GRAT-H 821 MC GREGOR 39,679 MC INTOSH 66,447 MEADOWLANDS MEDFORD MEDINA MEIRE GROVE MELROSE MENAHGA MENDOTA - - ENDOTA-KEPOHTS- MENTOR 25, 256 ---21-738 278,505 54i-792 19, 493 874,040 82,182 40,837 -� jr-800 43,646 73,091 -60,r4.5-1 ----- -663-496- 5 0,4.5-1-----.--66,--496- 5, 487 6,035 61,214 67,335 FROM 85 PROVISION 10.0 10.0 10.0 MX10 MX10 MX10 NO CAPS AVERAGE 81-83 --443,258 1,435,970 * 421,965 * ---10:0 MX10 89,137 10.0 MX10 28, 420 * 81,353 * 10.0 MX10 1,642,138 * 2,202,825 * 10.0 1+4X- 0 .40,-035-- 51,185 34,837 4,164,329 * 318,063 * 13,826 10.0 MX10 91,178 * 77,264 * 10.0 MX10 92,845 81,427 14-9.2 -SAP --a,-4716-- 10.0 MX10 103,694 91,490 10.0 MX10 170,634 * 91,838 * 10.0.----M.X-1-0• . 4301363 -* 10.0 MX10 27,513 10.0 MX10 109,321 -5,356 356 103,435 113,778 10.0 MX10 198,403 4,074 4,481 10.0 MX10 10,716 241-7,-r7 @64 --33f4-650 10.0 MX -1.0 3961424 115,157 126,672 10.0 MX10 185,198 10,088 11,096 10.0 MX10 29 921 MIDDLE RIVER 141€SV-I L -LE MILACA MILAN MILLVILLE MILROY MINNEAPOLIS MINNEISKA MI NNCOTA MINNESOTA CITY 49.62, 5,300 27, 781 41-500 15,754 98,334 27,243 608, 903 8,307 428,738 -4- 160,805 60,246 21.1 PCA' 10.0 MX10 6/1.1 f!Cfp 1.0 'MNI% 54, 14R 31,396 281,290 277,359 * . 45,388 49,926 10.0 MX10 85,205 •* 1, 137 3, --1-84.-4---PCAP- 241783 4,702 5,172 10.0 MX10 8,859 19,234 21,157 10.0 MX10 34,975 7,791 ---8.r5.70 -10,4 MX I-0 15,367 58, 040, 873 63, 844, 960 10.0 4,315 14746 10.0 13C,748 150,4"'T 10.0 7,324 8,056 10.0 ,MX10 MX10 MX 10 MX10 445 25,061 „...19, 614-- 761538,307*, 6, a. ci8i 1".,8 * 24,615 .51.;300 * `59,118 * - 151377 - -_ 9,665 36,048 ,17,.952 173, 342 * 7,514 1!l ,X41 ' 47,858 f 9;6 .'" -roma.. 11 all - EASES -TT TOTAL APPROPRIATION LEAGUE OF MN CITIES - TECHNICAL COMMITTEE LGA FORMULA ALL GUARANTEED A MINIMUM OF $25 PER CAPITA, BEYOND THAT INCREASES OVEV'85 PROPORTIONATELY REDUCED 1945: LGA .10% APPROP % CHGE,.6:P•APPI4Eii!, . , • :,•• •,3 3 14 '5 MAPLEVIEW MaPEEIRICID MARBLE MARIETTA 1986 -LGA 'FROVV:85. FORMULk,;, 1986ILSA- F -85, FORMULA' • - PROVISION PROVISION' 46, 595 51, 254 10.0 MX10 7 49,110, 5.4 MAX 1, 277, 158 1, 404, 873 1.070—MX10'1, 346,424 : , 5: 4 Mak • 150, 255 165, 280 10. 0 MX10'. 156,,368,;' • . 5:4; 47,084 , • 511792 10. 0 MX10-', ' 49,626'' : ' 5.4 17, 721 19,49. 10.0 MX10 874, 040 10.0 MX10 25, 235 10.0 MX10. ,6 IvIARTNEOWSTtitU1X '7' I a : MARSHALL MAYER 794, 582 22,941 19: MAYNARD :0 MAZEPPA 2: MC GRATH 22 -MC MC I NTOSH MC K I NLEY 74$ 711 37,125; 821 39,679 447 60, 451 824482 40, 837 1,800 43, 646 73,091 66,496 10.0 MX10 10.0 MX10, 119.2 PCAP 10.0 -rum 10.0 tow 10.0 mxio 3: HUUW.1. MEDFORD. MEDICINE LAKE_ MEDI N14 MEI RE GROVE MELROSE 32. MENAHbI4 MENDOTA. • 0, 4111 61, 214 • 5,584- 10.s, 445 4,074 307, 864 11,1b1 10, 088 8$10.3* 1.f6 MX114," 67, 335 10; 0 MX10' 9; 356 67.6 MX PC 11,118 10.1aMfll 4, 481 338, 650 16, r'2 11; 096 10.0 MX10 10.0 MX10 10.w mx1w, 10. 0 - MX10 MAX MAXI, 18,871 5.4• MAI 837,489 5.4 MAX 24, 179 5.4'MAX 78,745 5,4 MX 4 39, 129- 5. 4 MAX • 1, 800: 119.2 PCAP 17821 5.4 MAY 70,034 5.4 MAX ' 63,715 5. 4 MAX 5,182 .4. MAX 64, 519 5.4- MAX 9, 356 67.6 MX PC 709; 0c0 5.4 MAX 4, 325 6.2 PCAP 324, 488 5.4 MAX 121,,Stb• 5.4 MAX 5. 4 MAX . 10;632 ' * — 33, MENDOTA HEIGHTS. • --------732,E9 211 962 10.0 MX10 203098. 5::4' MAX' 3. 2113. MIDDLE RIVER MIESVILLE ,.375 25, 256 2, 738 278,505 45, 388 1,137 5, 600 27, 781 4, 500 t1,20 - 49, 926 3, 200 10.0 64.4 1.0 10.0 181. 4 • • • MX10" PCAP '4,500 MN1% MX10' PCAP MX10 MX10 MX10 ,300' 261 619 * 280,00a. :,, . 47,838'' .: - 3, 200 i2-: 4,955 20,272 8, 211 21.1 5.4' 64.4 0., 5:*, 1814'0 . 5.4 5.4 5: 4 ' P • • MAX PCAP MIN _MAX' •••,:. -• PCAP-TrA',/„ MAX MAX _ MAX ' - ' - • „ 3' _ 39 _ 39 MILACA MILAN MILLERVILLE 40 _ ,., 42 RILLV1LLE MILROY MILTONA 4, 702 13,234 7, 791 .... 5, 172 21, 157 8, 570 '10.0 10.0 1040 43 ..._ .. !-.71 - ' • KINNEAR:14S MINNEISKA . ' --otrNtoTA' 58, 040, 81S " • 4,315 136, 748 ' '' ., ' •6.3,844,'90. • 4,746.:„.- ' 150022, ' 10.0 10,0 ., 10.10 MX -10 MX10 ,., MX10-' 61$ 1151 er.3 . .,., , . ,;,:, • 4,547, ',,. ,'144,13;:' ;:•?... 5: 4 5.4 ' 5.4 MAX .:,..,‘ - MAX :::::„.,::;'• '. ;,,•:,. . ,:',::: - -' 1 . A CITY AT'ION,'OF ' LEAGUR OCAi�' GOVERNMENT f. • i, sr ti =tl e. diaximurii_rs.�tnci:i qualify;.`.for'state aid, over_.previaus; year's:LGA, beyond' '`-ear. Muer ' lev. BMX 3'. year '• average of basic municipal. expenditures..;;;, SAAVPC„.Statewide average adjusted assessed ,value per .capita CAAVPC.=;Individual city's adjusted assessed value per.capita: BASIC RATIONALE The proposed formula provides that local government aid -(LGA) should be distributed on the basis of need and capacity.- Need•is reflected by population and expenditures for basic municipal',services. Every city .should receive a basic•amount,of LGA per capita. -Beyond that minimum amount, aid is distributed based on need -,(basic municipal expenditures) adjusted- for capacity 'for raising- funds locally (adjusted -.assessed value). No cities would be ;cut. Cities who,. currently' receive -more than the formula wouldgrant,them, will get a 1% increase over the previous year's :aid' until the others catch up. No city can -increase more than 102 per year once they reach the $25 per capita'_minimum. Any incentive to spend is-tempered:.by•-the select definition'of : basic: 'expenditures, the three year `•lag - in the expenditure data, and by cutting the basic expenditure average in half. The assessed•value adjustment provides:.that, cities with below average assessed value per capita will get proportionately more LGA while cities above average in assessed value will get lees. -1 ' BASIC MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE FACTOR The definition of basic municipal'expenditures is included in the LGA Policy,Frameworkadopted by the League Board of Directors in August after a'public bearing. ' Basic' municipal"expendituies r include:.; •public, safety;•streets,sanitation (excluding garbage collection), -libraries, redevelopment; and general government and related purposes:.;Related- purposesincludes ,=insurance and'judgements,and unallocated pensions. Theserepresent-' current expenses, - not ;:::capital;;; improvements to- city property. ” 'The''. `figures are taken from the,Annua1 Report ,of :the:,Stmeate. `Auditor; which: based on the - audited aauuai financial :`statents eacl%' city `is` -required to' provide;: ': ....- e "A 'three ;;y_ear'.rolling •average. of basic` 'municipal^ i expend? tures`• 7:s,used i n the ` frinu•;a F..0i :? the'; x:1986 :LGA'`_d s -tri lsutian, �eup n 'iture's; ; arom 1981.=83' wi l be'used. This three'yearrylag`„i.sr' necessaxywKFbecause..x,the, • Auditor! s Office. will not have completed`'reviiew of the 198'4 financial reports`:{until the 'fall:'4 -of =°.'1985:' and:':1986,, LGA must bexcertifi.edE .n=' August„ a'On "!:'average, ; the.-', basic •-"municipal - "expenditures ,, equal`;; app�roicainate .yA two:;thirds:-af a city':s:.total ; current* ;expenditures: and 4 % f 'their".,'total'°expe diturx _.' . p" ' 8 i es. -When-':lie bas%c"`,ex eniiitu�es a=ef'cut: in . half . by:_..tmultiplication by. •,,.53.,•: -it, means that; the\ proposed LGA,; .e- _ .. :%^,” '•.i :.t.�,n'•. - ..t k•<2 'i?:: ,.,,. -formula'= n3 ; factors in about'one °f urt � endi u a. ; =a y _ a h.�ofa �c%ty�s�elcp t re ,��;i"c;:�. :s is a felt- :that. 'limi.ting:thia''factor= byw its ;d'efinitaoti;'�f-•the^ -three' year lag if. -4‘,, the,.. calculation ,of'sthe.r;fo'rmufaµwall: offectivel'{�'h l imit.:,concern`; s ,.,,fit .. _ . I >' t3.li': ts.•; .: .,r^ e. ;A` -.t, ,..:-.i_a:.... . - .. -• • abouMany _incentive : t p - m .w;` q �a dit "t •:T:<} 's .._- . ,.o's eriduiare��oo.t.yaxecei� e.w, d iorial:;,ZGA "4; ADJUSTED'ASSESSED VALUE FACTOR.-:: An individual city's adjusted assessed value per capita is compared to the statewide average assessed value per capita ($7,134). Cities with below average assessed value per capita get more aid, cities with above average assessed value get less. For cities near the average of $7,134 per capita, this factor doesn't have a great deal of influence. Adjusted assessed value has long been used for LGA distribution because it puts all cities on an equal basis. The adjusted assessed value is calculated by dividing the assessor's calculation of assessed value by the sales ratio for that city. The net amount of fiscal disparities and the base amount of tax increment projects are included in this figure. tz. 1983 adjusted assessed value figures were used in the League's. computer simulations. 1984 values should be available for use in the final 1986 aid distribution. $25 PER CAPITA FLOOR This was determined to be a basic amount of LGA that each city should receive. 130 cities (15% of the total) currently receive less than this amount currently. The cost of raising them to this floor is approximately $3 million. No city is allowed to be raised above the pure formula amount by this provision. MAXIMUM INCREASE After achieving $25 per capita in aid, no city is allowed to gain more than 10% per year in additional aid. MINIMUM LEVY In order to qualify for any local government aid, cities would be required to levy 2 equalized mills. ONE PERCENT MINIMUM INCREASE Each city would receive a minimum increase of 1% per year. This would apply to those 69 cities whose current LGA amounts are over the 4c amount they would earn under the proposed formula. APPROPRIATION The League' is requesting a 10% per year increase. in total appropriation for LGA for calendar years 1986 and 1987.. CUTBACKS If the Legislature does not fund the League's requested appropriation for LGA, the following system would be implemented. All cities would:v.. still be guaranteed $25 per capita. Beyond that all'increases would be cut back proportionately. For example, a city now receives $100 .- and would be raised to $110 under our requested appropriation. If the* -- Legislature provides 10% less than the League appropriation request, - this city's increase of $10 would be cut back 10% . Their total aid would be $109. $110 — (.10 * 10). _ -2- COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSED LEAGUE FORMULA 1. Who wins and who loses? The vast majority of cities get significant increases. 87% of all cities receive increases of 10% or more in 1986. The largest increases 'in the first year go to those cities who currently receive less than $25 per capita. Only 69 cities (8% of the total) come under the minimum increase of 1%. No cities are cut. 2. How many cities are affected by the various maximums and minimums and what is the cost of those provisions? 1% Minimum Increase 69 cities in this category (designated MN1% on your printouts) Cost of the 1% increase - $ 147,141 $25 per capita 119 cities get their 1986 aid under this provision. Cost of raising these cities to $25 per capita - $3,038,637 (However most of these cities would get a maximum 10% increase if this minimum were eliminated, so total savings would be approximately $2.5 million.) 10% maximum increase 631 cities come under this provision 3. When would this go into effect? The first year under the new formula would be calendar year 1986. Because cities had to set their 1985 property tax levies in October of 1984, the state committment to LGA for 1985 (state fiscal year '86) has been set. Aids in that first year of the biennium are to increase a maximum of 6%. Because of the payment shifts imposed in response to the state's budget problems, the city's calendar year accounting of LGA does not match the state's fiscal year. Cities do their accounting by calendar year. The 1985 local government aids are not paid until July which is after the start of the state's fiscal year '86. The following table summarizes the League's LGA request: Calendar 1985 Calendar 1986 Calendar 1987 State F.Y.'86 State F.Y.'87 State F.Y.'88 $ 264,858,412 $ 291,682,803 $ 320,851,083 4. What happens if the Legislature appropriates less than a 10% increase for 1986 and future years? The request is for a 10% increase each year for calendar years '86 and '87. The formula will work with less funding. All cities who receive an increase under .the 10% appropriation would. also receive an increase under a lesser percentage. The cutback provision states that in the case of a lesser appropriation, everyone's increase (not the base) is proportionately reduced except that all are still guaranteed a minimum of $25 per capita. This is demonstrated by the pink colored computer run in your packet which compares a 10% and 6% increase in appropriation. The new minimum under a 6% appropriation becomes 0.54% and the new maximum 5.4%. (The maximum is not the full 6% because of the funds used to give each city a minimum ,of $25 per capita.) • -3- EXPLANATION OF COMPUTER RUNS The computer runs included in this mailing were prepared by League staff Using data supplied by the Department of Revenue and the State Auditor's Office. Blue Run - League of Mn. Cities Local Government Aid Formula This run provides estimates of what each city would receive in LGA under the new formula. Cities are listed in alphabetical order. The columns are described below: 1985 LGA - Amount each city will receive in 1985 under the current formula. 1986 LGA with caps - This is an estimate of what each city would receive in 1986 under the new formula. It takes into account all of the maximums and minimums of the proposed formula. Actual amounts in 1986 would be somewhat different as 1984 assessed value data not currently available would be used. % Change from 85 - This shows the percent increase from 1985 to 1986. Formula Provision - This column indicates what formula provision would apply in 1986 to that city. They are abbreviated as follows: FORM - on pure formula MX10 - gets maximum increase of 10% MN1% - gets minimum increase of 1% PCAP - gets aid under $25 per capita provision MXPC - $25 per capita is over pure formula amount so gets full formula amount (same as FORM) Pure Formula No Caps - What a city would receive under the basic formula without any maximums or minimums. Green Run - Factors Used in the League of Mn. Cities LGA Formula Population 83 or 84 - Same population figures being used by the Dept. of Revenue for calculation of 1985 LGA. 1983 estimates for non -metro cities, 1984 for metro cities. $25 per capita - Population times $25 Basic Expend. Average 81-83 - Three year average of expenditures for baqi'c municipal expenditures as defined by the LGA Policy Framework, Data is from the annual financial reports submitted to the State Auditor for the years 81,82, and 83. For the 15 cities who did not report in all of those years, a one or two year average is used for illustrative purposes. 83 Adjusted Assessed Value - 83 pay 84 assessed value adjusted by salesiatio. This is calculated by the Dept. of Revenue. The sales ratio adjustment puts all cities at 100% of market value for assessment purposes so that no city gets more or less aid depending upon their assessment practices. This is the same assessed value figure used in calculating 85 LGA. 83 AAV per Cap - 83 Adjusted assessed value divided by population. 1985 LGA - What the city will receive in.1985 under the current formula. Att- Pink.Run - Comparison of 10% and 6% Increases in Total Appropriation This printout demonstrates the impact of the League formula if thLegislature grants leas than a 10% increase in total appropriation, , The 6% appropriation figures'ehow that under the League's cutback procedure, all cities which -receive increase under a 10% increase in appropriation would also receive an'increaSe.under a 6% appropriation. Cities are still guaranteed $25 per capita. Lague of minnesota cities LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID POLICY Passed by LMC Board of Directors August 7, 1984 SYNOPSIS A Local Government Aid formula should be a simple expression of the Legislature's intent. Local government aid (LGA) should be distributed according to 1) the city's revenue raising capacity, as measured by its taxable'assessed value; and 2) the city's need, as measured by its population and/or households and its expenditures for basic municipal services. STATEMENT AND RATIONALE Local Government Aid is an essential property tax relief program that provides cities with an important source of revenue to finance municipal services. Cities rely heavily on LGA. Eliminating LGA would create extreme property.tax increases -in many areas. Local government aid complements cities' other major revenue source, the property tax. As such, LGA must be distributed in a way which alleviates the problems inherent in reliance on the property tax as the major revenue source cities control. Cities vary markedly in their ability to raise money from property taxes. There are also wide variations among,cities in their citizens' need for services and the costs of providing those services. A complementary revenue source for cities is necessary precisely because a city's ability to raise revenue from the property tax does not necessarily coincide with the cost of the services which that city 'dust provide to its citizens. An LGA formula must reflect both the individual city's need and its local revenue raising capacity. A city's capacity to raise revenues from the property tax is easily measured by -'the city's equalized assessed value. (For metro -area cities, the assessed value after fiscal disparities distributions is the appropriate. figure.) An acceptable aid formula should provide proportionally more aid to cities with less taxable assessedNalue,'other things being equal. - Need is more difficult to define and to measure. There is no single data item which measures need equitably,; rather, we must rely on a combination of factors to approximate need. Need is clearly related to some extent to the city's number -of inhabitants. Cities provide services to people. Because some services relate more closely to households than to individuals, the formula should reflect both the population and the number of households. Every city should receive a basic LGA distribution based on its population and/or number of households. - OVER - -5- . 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 (61 2) 227-5600 Local Government Aid Policy Page 2 However, neither populationnor the number of households completely reflects'need. Cities with similar populations and numbers of households may be faced with quite different service needs. (Factors such as age, construction and density of buildings,'crime rates, elderly population, school age population, climate, geographic size, -population density, ?overty levels, crime rates, seasonal or daily influx of people, need to construct or replace capital facilities, and a myriad of other factors may cause similar sized cities' needs to differ.) Clearly, a formula cannot attempt to incorporate measures of all of these factors; the result would necessarily be complicated and to some extent arbitrary. Rather, the formula should rely on the judgment made by the persons;in the best position to evaluate a city's need: that city's council. - The local city council's judgment as to the expenditures required in order to provide the type and level of service needed by its citizens should be reflected in the formula. The formula should reflect all expenditures for basic municipal services.. "Basic municipal services" include public safety, streets, sanitation, libraries, redevelopment, and general government and related purposes. This definition is intended as a limit, to assure that a city will not receive additional local government aid as a result of its discretionary spending on non-essential services. So far as possible, the formula should notybe affected -by the-city'sc'hoice among .tax levies, special assessments, or user' fees to 'finance basic Municipal 'services. To attempt to measure need by the tax levy, or by past LGA, or by a combination of those factors is not acceptable. The past LGA distribution is the.result of several formula changes accompanied by grandfather provisions, minimum increase guarantees, etc. The resulting distribution pattern is at - least somewhat arbitrary. And,to focus on past aids and levies or levy limits ignores the other revenues which cities' citizens contribute so that:the city can meet their service needs. - A formula developed in accordance with this policy would likely result in a substantially different distribution.of•funds. The transition must be handled in°an`orderly fashion; avoiding drastic year. -to -year increases:ot... decreases in aid.; Increases and decreases};should be phased in, to avoid' the need for'sudden "shock" property tax•increases.on one hand, and the_teuiptation to view increased'aid.as. a. windfall•:onthe4other•. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE LEAGUE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID FORMULA • The League believes that local government aid (LGA) is an essential component of the property tax relief system. Each dollar in LGA reduces the need for increased municipal property tax levies. • Unlike targeted property tax relief, local government aid benefits all types of property and thus benefits business and renters as well as homeowners. • The League is requesting a 10 percent increase in LGA in the second year of the biennium which is the first year the new formula will be in effect. Increases in LGA should be considered part of the overall tax relief package. • The League formula was overwhelmingly endorsed by League members at our 1985 Legislative Conference in January. The League represents 741 cities of all types and sizes throughout the state. This is the first time in years that cities have been united in addressing this divisive issue. • The League formula can be implemented with a minimum of disruption. All cities are guaranteed a basic amount of aid and no cities are cut. The vast majority of cities would recieve significant increases. Only 69 of the 855 cities in Minnesota would be constrained by a 1 percent minimum increase provision. • The League formula is relatively easy to understand. A city's aid equals 53 percent of its average expenditure for basic services adjusted for its assessed valuation. Each city is guaranteed a minimum amount of $25 per capita, beyond that no city can increase more than 10 percent per year. • The assessed value factor provides that cities that have below average assessed value will get proportionately more aid while cities with high assessed value will get proportionately less. • The formula provides for local accountability and flexibility in revenue raising decisions. No city is rewarded or punished for choosing any particular combination of taxes, service charges, or special assessments. • The formula uses expenditure data but is designed so that it will not significantly influence budget decisions. The expenditure factor is tempered by a three-year lag in the data, use of a three-year average, limiting the expenditures used, and counting only about half of a city's basic expenditures. • After full implementation, the formula will be easily projected for state budget planning purposes. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES, FEBRUARY 12, 1985 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Park and Recreation Commission was called to order by Comissioner McMonigal at 7:30 P.M. The following members were present: McMonigal, Doffing, Knittig, Schneeman and Singer. Absent were Stein and Williams. Also present were Terry Blum and Thomas Doland, 1043 Brompton Place. APPROVAL OF MINUTES TRAIL EASEMENT ON DOLAN PROPERTY PARK MAINTENANCE RECREATION PROGRAM Ayes: 5 Nayes: 0 REPORT ON DOWN- TOWN TASK FORCE Minutes of the January 8, 1985 meeting were approved as submitted. Thomas Dolan came before the Commission to present the history and present status of the potential need for a trail easement through his property. According to Mr. Dolan, the contractor developing the adjacent lot did not remove excess soil as agreed upon. Consequently, the final grade where the trail would be located is not yet determined. Since final grading can not be done until May, he will notify the Commission when the grading will take place. Then members can inspect the lot for deter- mining if a trail easement is needed and how to construct it. Terry Blum reported that the rink at Ivy Falls still continues to heave. He recommended that the Commission contact City Staff for possible installation of drain tile. The maintenance crew will continue to flood the rinks'. at a rate of two per day,,.weatherpermitting. Dewey Selander reported that he has not received any complaints regarding the ice rinks the past month. Although shovellingi:the rinks is part of the job description for the rink attendants; there have been instances where the rinks need shovelling during the weekends. Scrapers are available for others to assist the attendant, but the attendants are responsible for clearing the ice. After some discussion regarding rink hours, Doffing moved that the rink hours be extended by two hours on Saturday with the starting time changed from 12 noon to 10:00 A.M. Schneeman seconded the motion. The new hours will be noted on the November calendar for scheduling in 1985-1986. McMonigal reported on the status of the "Downtown" Task Force. During the last joint meeting between the City Council, Planning Commission and Park and Recreation Commission, the Council requested that the City Planner Park and Recreation Minutes, Page Two February 12, 1985 and Staff outline subsequent steps for further analysis of the recommendations. The Council will then attempt to determine necessary steps for this analysis. SPECIAL PARK The Commission reviewed the memo from City Treasurer, FUNDBALANCE Larry Shaughnessy, regarding the Special Park Fund. The estimated balance as of December 31, 1984 is $247,500. The Commission will, however, request that City Staff include more detail on the increments of in- come as they accrue. SKATING AT ROGER'S LAKE PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY The Commission reviewed the memo from Public Works Director, Jim Danielson, regarding ice skating on Roger's Lake. The Commission concurred with the potential problems and precedents and accepted the conclusion not to proceed with skating on Roger's Lake. The Commission reviewed the initial draft of the Park and Recreation Survey that will be sent to each resident of Mendota Heights, citing the need for a different intro- duction, deletion of questions and terms and questions of layout. Singer will meet with City Staff to deter- mine a more acceptable working draft. MISCELLANEOUS Knittig will make a new calendar for Commission members outlining a schedule of month to month needs. Doffing will attend the next City Council meeting. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Alan Singer, Secretary x..• TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Building Activity CURRENT MONTH NO. BLDG PERMITS SFD 0 APT 0 C/I 3 MISC. 1 VALUATION • MEMO • Report for February, 1985 0 0 655,500.00 4,000.00. FEE COLLECTED 0 0 3,237.25 73.43 3,310.68 SUB TOTAL 4 TRADE PERMITS Plbg 1 Wtr 0 Swr 0 Htg, AC, Gas Pipe 1 659,500.00 :w. DATE: February 25, 1985 YEAR TO DATE - 1985 NO. VALUATION 1 104,910.28 0 0 3 655,500.00 4 38,440.00 FEE COLLECTED 735.08 0 3,237.25 521.42 YEAR TO DATE - 1984 NO. VALUATION FEE COLLECTEE 2 129,917.27 1,087.35 0 0 0 11 1,156,678.00 6,511.57 5 89,970.00 964.79 14.00 0 0. 10.00 8 798,850.28 5 2 2 4 4,493.75 104.00 10.00 35.00 136.50 18 1,376,565.27 8,563.71 17 7 7 25 SUB TOTAL 2 LICENSING Contractor's Licenses 23 24.00 575.00 13 X13 285.50 2,825.00 56 154 384.00 35.00 122.50 2,032.50 2,574.00 3,850.00 TOTAL 29 $659,500.00 $3,909.68 1 34 $798,850.28 $7,604.25 228 $1,376,565.27 $14,987.71 NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee an: valuation amounts. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 25, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator SUBJECT: Request for Data Processing Study BACKGROUND AND HISTORY Since 1979, Mendota Heights has been a member of the Local Government Information System (LOGIS) computing consortium. LOGIS is a joint powers organization of Twin Cities suburbs, set up to provide computing capabil- ities, through time-sharing on a central system in Brooklyn Center. They provide mainly "bread and butter" applications, such as accounting and utility billing, although some individualized applications can be obtained. In 1983, the City purchased its first in-house computer, an IBM PC. It has been used for word processing, spreadsheet applications (i.e., budget preparation), fixed asset inventories, etc. Expanding useage caused us to purchase a second IBM PC last year so that both engineering and administra- tion would have ready access to personal computing capability. Also, Schaak Electronics donated a Macintosh to the police department, which is used for such things as preparation of the Crime Watch newsletter. Not surprisingly, as the staff has grown more proficient in computer useage, we have identified many other potential applications. The most pressing need at this time is the police department. Our manual record keeping system is essentially a "horse and buggy" operation; not only must our police secretary prepare and file manual records, but she also has to follow up with data input to the State crime reporting system. Ideally, these tasks should be integrated, and can be so done with a couple of police packages tailored for Minnesota local governments. At the same time we continue to identify new applications, the Adminis- trative staff has begun to seriously question whether we might be able to more effectively and efficiently accomplish our basic data processing tasks (i.e., accounting, utility billing) on an in-house system, perhaps even a micro. Current LOGIS charges for these basic services are approximately $30,000 per year. Kathy has looked at one microsystem (from Geminus, the same software dealer that services LOGIS) that would cost about the same $30,000 to set up in the first year, then be maintained for less than half that annual amount thereafter. The danger in our learning and enthusiasm is that we may be taking a piecemeal approach to data processing, that could be very costly in the end. We have all agreed that we probably know just enough to intelligently and thoughtfully make the wrong decisions: DECISIONS TO BE MADE Staff has identified several'questions that need to be answered by mid- year, so any change of direction•can be incorporated into the 1986 budget. They include: 1. What type of system should the police department have? 2. Should an in-house system (as opposed to LOGIS) be considered for existing applications? If so, what are our alternatives? 3. What other applications should we start thinking about (i.e., fleet maintenance, public works scheduling, fire applications, etc.)? 4. Most importantly, can and should these applications all run on an integrated system, or should they be independent? Put another way, should we keep buying micros, or look at a mini system? 5. Is now the time to change, or should we wait for a new City Hall? If wait, what are our stop gap measures? As indicated above, staff feels it has just enough expertise to answer the above questions wrongly. Therefore, we are proposing to obtain some outside assistance. PROPOSALS FROM PEAT, MARWICK, AND MITCHELL Attached is a proposal from Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell (the City's auditors) to assist us in a comprehensive computer study. This proposal was provided at our request. We felt that Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell, being our auditor, would be in the best position to understand our needs. Their completion of Tasks 1 - 5, as outlined in the proposal, will, enable us to take the comprehensive, long-range view of data processing that we currently lack. At the completion of the study, we should be able to devise an implementation strategy for programming changes into the 1986 budget, and making a smooth transition off the LOGIS system, if that is the direction indicated. FINANCING OF FEES Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell's fees for the study are indicated at approximately $6,500, plus $600 of expenses. In preparing the 1985 budget, we did not anticipate this expense, so it is unbudgeted. However, we have come to the conclusion that such a study is essential if we are to be prepared to make decisions for 1986 that have potential cost savings for future years. Treasurer Larry Shaughnessy recommends that the study be paid from' the unappropriated General Fund balance. As we subsequently purchase equipment for Police applications, a portion of these costs can be charged back to Equipment Certificates. RECOMMENDATION For the reasons cited above, I strongly recommend that we proceed to complete a comprehensive data processing study by retaining the services of Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs, it should pass a motion accepting the proposal of Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell, for assistance in developing an information systems plan, and appropriating $7,100 from General Fund unappropriated surplus. Respectful y submitted, Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator KDF:madlr CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 25, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator SUBJECT: Request for Data Processing Study BACKGROUND AND HISTORY Since 1979, Mendota Heights has been a member of the Local Government Information System (LOGIS) computing consortium. LOGIS is a joint powers organization of Twin Cities suburbs, set up to provide computing capabil- ities, through time-sharing on a central system in Brooklyn Center. They provide mainly "bread and butter" applications, such as accounting and utility billing, although some individualized applications can be obtained. In 1983, the City purchased its first in-house computer, an IBM PC. It has been used for word processing, spreadsheet applications (i.e., budget preparation), fixed asset inventories, etc. Expanding useage caused us to purchase a second IBM PC last year so that both engineering and administra- tion would have ready access to personal computing capability. Also, Schaak Electronics donated a Macintosh to the police department, which is used for such things as preparation of the Crime Watch newsletter. Not surprisingly, as the staff has grown more proficient in computer useage, we have identified many other potential applications. The most pressing need at this time is the police department. Our manual record keeping.system is essentially a "horse and buggy" operation; not only must our police secretary prepare and file manual records, but she also has to follow up with data input to the State crime reporting system. Ideally, these tasks should be integrated, and can be so done with a couple of police packages tailored for Minnesota local governments. At the same time we continue to identify new applications, the Adminis- trative staff has begun to seriously question whether we might be able to more effectively and efficiently accomplish our basic data processing tasks (i.e., accounting, utility billing) on an in-house system, perhaps even a micro. Current LOGIS charges for these basic services are approximately $30,000 per year. Kathy has looked at one microsystem (from Geminus, the same software dealer that services LOGIS) that would cost about the same $30,000 to set up in the first year, then be maintained for less than half that annual amount thereafter. The danger in our learning and enthusiasm is that we may be taking a piecemeal approach to data processing, that could be very costly in the end. We have all agreed that we probably know just enough to intelligently and thoughtfully make the wrong decisions; DECISIONS TO BE MADE Staff has identified several questions that need to be answered by mid- year, so any change of direction can be incorporated into the 1986 budget. They include: 1. What type of system should the police department have? 2. Should an in-house system (as opposed to LOGIS) be considered for existing applications? If so, what are our alternatives? . What other applications should we start thinking about (i.e., fleet maintenance, public works scheduling, fire applications, etc.)? 4. Most importantly, can and should these applications all run on an integrated system, or should they be independent? Put another way, should we keep buying micros, or look at a mini system? 5. Is now the time to change, or should we wait for a new City Hall? If wait, what are our stop gap measures? As indicated above, staff feels it has just enough expertise to answer the above questions wrongly. Therefore, we are proposing to obtain some outside assistance. PROPOSALS FROM PEAT, MARWICK, AND MITCHELL Attached is a proposal from Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell (the City's auditors) to assist us in a comprehensive computer, study. This proposal was provided at our request. We felt that Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell, being our auditor, would be in the best position to understand our needs. Their completion of Tasks 1 - 5, as outlined in the proposal, will enable us to take the comprehensive, long-range view of data processing.. that we currently lack. At the completion of the study, we should be able to devise an implementation strategy for programming changes into the 1986 budget, and making a smooth transition off the LOGIS system, if that is the direction indicated. FINANCING OF FEES Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell's fees for the study are indicated at approximately $6,500, plus $600 of expenses. In preparing the 1985 budget, we did not anticipate this.expense, so it is unbudgeted. However, we have come to the conclusion that such a study is essential if we are to be prepared to make decisions for 1986 that have potential cost savings for future years. Treasurer Larry Shaughnessy recommends that the study be paid from the unappropriated General Fund balance. As we subsequently purchase equipment for Police applications, a portion of these costs can be charged back to Equipment Certificates. RECOMMENDATION For the reasons cited above, I strongly recommend that we proceed to complete a comprehensive data processing study by retaining the services of Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs, it should pass a motion accepting the proposal of Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell, for assistance in developing an information systems' plan, and appropriating $7,100 from General Fund unappropriated surplus. Respectfully submitted, Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator KDF:madlr CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Frazel it1'didinistrator SUBJECT: 1985 Police Contract INTRODUCTION We have now reached agreement with the police officer's bargaining unit -for a 1985 contract. The proposed contract is before Council for approval. AMENDMENTS The following amendments are included: 1. Article XVII Insurance - The maximum employee contribution is increased from $145 to $155, the same level as for public works and non -organized employees. In addition, the police will have the option to apply up to $10 of this amount toward dental insurance, effective April 1. 2. Article XXIII Wage Rates - All wage rates are increased by 5 percent. Again, this is the same level of increase extended to the other groups of employees this year. 3. Article XXV Holiday - A new provision allows employees the option ofd selling back holidays. They are obligated to notify us by Novemifer "lst of the prior year, so the Department can schedule the sold back holidays. As I have previously discussed with Council, we feel this provision is mutually beneficial. The remainder of the contract is unchanged. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the contract. ACTION REQUIRED Motion to approve the 1985 contract with the Police Officer's bargaining unit. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 25, 1985 TO: 'Mayor, City Council and City Ad4 rator FROM: Richard Ploumen Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: 1985 Street Sweeping INTRODUCTION The following bid rates were received from two sweeping contractors for street sweeping in 1985: Crosstown Sweeping of Minneapolis $48.00 per hour Joe Rosse Commercial Sweeping of St. Paul 46.50 per hour The estimated total hours required for street sweeping are 170 hours. RECOMMENDATION Awared the street sweeping contract to Joe Rosse Commercial Sweeping, at their rate of $46.50 per hour. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with staff recommendation, it should award the bid to Joe Rosse Commercial Sweeping of St. Paul. RP:madlr CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 1985 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Kruse at 8:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Kruse, Frank, Morson, Burke, Henning, and new member Dorothy McMonigal. Stefani had notified the Commission that he would be unable to attend. Also present were Planning Consultants Howard Dahlgren and Paul Blase and Public Works Director Jim Danielson. Chairperson Kruse introduced Dorothy McMonigal to the Commission mem- bero and welcomed her to the Commission. Chairperson Kruse also noted that Commissioner Morson was reappointed to a three year term on the Commission. ELECTION OF OFFICERS APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 CA085-01, HUNTER, VARIANCE Commissioner Frank nominated Commissioner Kruse for Chairperson. Henning seconded the motiou. Burke moved that nominations be closed. Frank seconded the motion. Cameron Kruse was unanimously elected as Chairperson of the Planning Commission. Frank nominated Commissioner Morson as Vice - Chairperson. Burke seconded the motion, and moved that the hearing be closed. Henning seconded the motion. Jerry Morson was unanimously elected Vice - Chairperson of the Planning Commission. Minutes of the January 22nd meeting had been submitted previously. Commissioner Morson moved that the minutes be approved as submitted. Commissioner Frank seconded the motion. Dr. Stephen Hunter was present to explain his request for a 32 foot variance to allow construction of a single family home on Lot 3, Hunter Bluff, which is located within the River Critical Area Corridor. He showed a photo of the immediate area taken in 1937, and noted that his family had moved into the present home in 1955. He also stated that he intends to remove the summer house. When asked about potential runoff problems below the bluff, he responded that the springs in the bluff present a more significant problem than any runoff from the roof of a single family home. Dr. Hunter stated that his home will have a cedar or redwood Ayes: 5 Nays: 1, Henning Page Two, February 26, 1985 Minutes exterior, and that the visual impact from across the bluff will be insignificant. Commissioner Henning asked how many variances have been granted in the Critical Area since 1979. Planner Dahlgren said there have probably been about a dozen or so granted. Henning also asked how much land in the bluff area is still undeveloped. Planner Dahlgren stated that most of the area is developed, and that probably only 5% of the land is undeveloped. Chairperson Kruse noted that the proposed home is a two-story structure, with a high roof, and noted that he would prefer to have a lower structure=with less visibility. Chairperson Kruse suggested_that perhaps Dr. Hunter could make some concessions on the home. Dr. Hunter noted that the roof material may be shakes, in either an earth tone or a dark brown, or else a dark asphalt color. Commissioner Frank noted that the Critical Area Ordinance is designed to protect the bluff area itself, and that it seems as though this proposal is in direct violation of the spirit of the Critical Area Ordinance. He questioned where the physical hardship is. Planner Dahlgren stated that there is no hardship, therefore there really is no basis for issuing a variance for a 32 foot setback. Dr. Hunter stated that there is no hardship under the CAO definition, but that he felt his proposal was less agressive than Bream's strip further on the bluff in Lilydale. Chairperson Kruse noted that he would like to see the house moved at least 20 feet back from the bluff, with shakes on the roof left to weather' naturally, to blend in with the natural terrain. Commissioner Frank,stated that he probably could not go with the 20 foot setback as he felt the house is too massive. Commissioner Frank moved to recommend denial of the variance as presented. Commissioner Morson seconded the motion. Chairperson Kruse suggested a possible compromise with the proposal, that being a less steep roof, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL AREA PROPOSED HOUSING AMENDMENT Page Three, February 26, 1985 Minutes placing the house 20 feet back from the bluff, and possibly rotating the house away from the bluff, since the length of the house is proposed to be 56 feet. Planner Dahlgren suggested that Dr. Hunter and his architect relook at the plan and come up with a new plan. He could go to the Council with a revised plan, or come back to the Planning Commission with some sort of revision. Dr. Hunter noted that his architect would be unhappy, but that he could live with the house being placed 20 feet back from the bluff, and that his builder will be happy to have it moved back also. He noted that he would prefer to go on to the City Council with a 20 foot setback request, rather than revise his plan for Planning Commission approval, since he planned to do most of the construction himself and he preferred not to delay another month. The Commission acknowledged receipt of a memo from City Administrator Frazell relative to further analysis of the Central Commercial Area Task Force report. Public Works Director Danielson briefly explained the four steps staff will complete in order to go forward with the plan. Planner Dahlgren suggested that something should be done with the right-of-way for TH 149. Chairperson Kruse expressed concern with the proposed park on the Perkegwin property and felt that it should be deleted and the land better utilized. He also felt that low to modest housing would be ideal along TH 149. Planner Dahlgren suggested keeping the proposed park in place for the residents who will live in the area. Perhaps the park could be smaller, depending on the type of residents in the area (i.e., senior citizens or families). The Commission discussed several proposed changes to the revised Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Housing Element - Draft, revised February 11, 1985, and dated February 22, 1985. Planner Dahlgren pointed out that 96.9% of the housing units in Mendota Heights were owner -occupied, and he felt that this was very significant. He also noted that the density of single family homes is very • Page Four, February 26, 1985 Minutes significant. He added that Guy Peterson, from the Metropolitan Council housing staff felt that the density in R-1 zones is still low and that the lot sizes are still very large, but otherwise he felt confident that the amendment was positive. Chairperson Kruse noted several suggested changes and noted that the Commission would make their recommendations at the March Planning Commission meeting. Planner Dahlgren suggested a joint Planning/City Council meeting for further discussion prior to the Planning Commission conducting a public hearing on the Housing amendment. The Commission concurred with the suggestion and gave the go ahead to schedule a joint meeting. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Burke will attend the March 5th Council meeting, and Commission members will attend the first Council meeting of each month on a rotating basis. VERBAL REVIEW Public Works Director Danielson gave a verbal review of the Northwestern Bell Telephone application and the Krey subdivision application that had been before the City Council for approval. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner Morson moved that the meeting be adjourned. Commissioner Burke seconded the motion. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:24 o'clock P.M. LIST OF 1985 CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 5, 1985 Excavating License: E and H Earth Movers, Inc. General Contractor's License: Rei -Cor Construction, Inc. J. Paul Sterns Company Darryl Thayer and Associates Central Roofing Company Houle Construction PLANNING REPORT DATE: 26 February 1985 CASE NUMBER: C,40 85-01 APPLICANT: Stephen G. Hunter LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Orchard Place and Hunter Lane ACTION REQUESTED: Site Plan Approval Variance to Critical Area PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This request is for Site Plan Approval and a Variance to allow the construction of a single family residence, as illustrated on attached Figure 1. This property is located within the Minnesota River Critical Area, which as you know, means that proposed developments must comply with the City's adopted Critical Area regulations and standards, in addition to those set forth in the underlying zoning district (R-1). 2. The applicant is proposing to build a house on Lot 3 of the Hunter Bluff Plat. Attached Figure 2 illustrates the general location of the subject property. The fee owners of lot 3 are Samuel and Thelma Hunter, the applicant's parents. 3. The proposed use of this property is consistent with the R-1 District requirements. The lot in question meets all of the applicable standards as set forth in Section 7 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 4. There is one reason why this request has been referred to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. That reason is that the applicant is proposing to site this new house almost totally within the required 40 foot setback from the Mississippi River Bluff Line. This siting requires the approval of a setback variance. The purpose for requiring the approval of a site plan is to identify the hardship which justifies the approval of the variance and to identify any and all efforts which are being made in the development of the site to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. 5. We understand from our review of the site plan which has been submitted, and from discussion with City Staff members, that Dr. Hunter is proposing to locate the new structure immediately adjacent to the existing "Summer House" and patio, both of which are illustrated on Figure 1. No additional information has been submitted to us to justify this request and there is nothing evident in our review of the proposed site plan which indicates that the lot cannot be developed to meet the setback standard. In conclusion, from the information which we have reviewed, we can identify no technical justification for the requested variance. JWS • e. c• -.9 ...ib%9`...'. 9 o„.3. /ty j 33'r. ••••1/..,,,%: : / 00 c 5 oftlaivi .4 136.91 • 4 'K'...:121A/i....• ..., 10 04 0c) s') 11 sc,5 - - - _ 270.00 t 444 4f 44 4? I O52-' 051.01 20 N 66'92.21.V. el 110 HILL N 44 66IV2 6 z Rnut5E,N F.4-0REr7 PIA I Li.- 1 PS ,6 22! A PART oF 010-09 267084 -A 020-09 i 3 4-08 S D II V T. LT 2 •. N8tr9d53"E 336.40 • 1 0 z N 89° 27E 185 8 • 1 2 •• .n 0 • ol 4 Ntrri ru•.-1. 6 34 45 S 6 PO co -r -r 33 -. 0 89°03' 46E 483. 4 6 0911N POI NT 2 NORTH SCALE: 1" - 200' 020-08 24cx-i, 032- 08 OF2 C 010-08 040-08 , • 1 . 157 2 5 ..1 1-71.2. i 0 16) 1 7 1 2f. o 0 et 0 cr, '1 et as 1 0, 326. 50 K89 18 31 E 0' • 2 4 tr. tn. Ir 01 tr, ••• et, 0 0 •) 010-0; %/7741C.- °, 4 6, 0 Er j .1K CITY 07MENDOTAHEIGHTS MEMO el;)71' TO: Mayor, City Council and City Admi stra or FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Critical Area Ordinance Lot 3, Hunter's Bluff CA085-01 DISCUSSION: February 28, 1985 Dr. Steven Hunter appeared before the February meeting of the Planning Commission to request a 32 foot variance to the 40 foot bluff line setback. Planning Commission recommended 5 to 1 to deny the request. It was sug- gested by the Planning Commission that he work on some possible compromise and return to a later meeting, however because Dr. Hunter is in a hurry to begin construction this spring he is going to prepare a compro4oe and present it at the Council meeting. Dr. Hunter will have drawings of his house plans available at the meeting. ACTION REQUIRED: Complete a Critical Area site plan review and consider a variance to the bluff line setback. If Council desires to grant a Critical Area Ordi- nance Permit they should first waive the requirement for a public hearing. If the Council desires to deny the request they could direct application to redesign his layout and return to Planning Commission for a second try. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO March 1, 1985 TO: Mayor, City Council and City r FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Backbone Trail System Trail Lighting Job No. 8409 INTRODUCTION: At the February 19, 1985, City Council meeting the merits of lighting City trails were discussed. Staff was directed to prepare a cost estimate. DISCUSSION: In order to prepare an estimate staff met with two experts for advice, Mike Klassen, Lighting designer for the City of St. Paul and Bill Feahr, a lighting supplier's representative. Mike states that to estimate this type of facility you would use $2300 - $3000 per fixture. The variation would enter in depending on the fixture selected or other particular complexities. Bill, then designed a system along the proposed trail from Wagon Wheel Trail to Mendota Heights Road (adjacent to Rogers Lake). He felt an adequate system would be obtained by spacing the lights at about 200 feet (15 fix- tures). I have pictures of example fixtures that could be used for trail lighting and I will bring them Tuesday evening. ESTIMATED COST: 15 Fixtures X $3000 = $45,000 ACTION REQUIRED: No action required. This memo is presented as a preliminary cost estimate for your information/discussion only. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS • MEMO March 1, 1985 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Adm' FROM: James D. Danielson Public Works Director ilator SUBJECT: Curley's Addition Park Property INTRODUCTION:Job No. 8418 At their January 15th meeting, Council agreed to provide plantings along the Curley Addition bike trail in an attempt to keep people from cutting across the Maple's yard. Staff was directed to determine the type of plantings and prepare a cost estimate. DISCUSSION: Staff met with a landscape designer to discuss alternatives. The Maple's preference was spruce, however spruce was ruled out because they should be spaced at 20 - 25 feet to allow for growth and at that spacing it would be many years before they would function as a screen. We determined hedges were the best alternative and found'tbat there many to choose from. Winged Euonymus (Burning Bush) were mentioned at the City Council meeting and the landscape designer told us that they would be an excellent choice.. Estimated Cost 20 plants (installed by City forces) @ $13.50 each = $270.00 Mrs. Maple has indicated that the Winged Euonymus would be acceptable to her. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recomniends that 20 Winged Euonymus be planted along the Maple's property line by the City maintenance forces in conjunction with the trail construction this summer. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation the should pass 1 11. i J • i : VI • c ,..' E St _.- • k.:••••• It io Mith• 1 ,..1,14,.. .,,, ' Z 3t4, :k i :i :: : . ., ON' oN to .,... 10 04 S. ...,* ,• ti I I O • . . t.....srie. Org:.52 0404. EA' 04-/-e-e-/ 4°. oeye-evepy / LIf 00c• J40.52 05C.'47 developer would be willing to pay an "area" charge based between his parcel and the other parcel along the front footage of Highway 13. In other words, there are two parcels fronting Highway 13, that of our client, ("Tract A") and that of a neighbor. The total frontage is 299.77 feet. The Tract A represents an area of approximately 54% of the entire area. Applying this formula, the developer would be willing to pay the following: 1. 11.00 x 299.77 x 1.25% x 54% =$2,225.79 2. Interest 3,513.41 3. WAC 4,640.00 TOTAL $10,379.20 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO March 1, 1985 TO: Mayor, City Council and City A FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Riverrain Condominiums, Lilydale Water Hookup DISCUSSION: Trucker Sheehy Contractors approached the City last year requesting a water connection to serve their newly approved 29 unit condominium building in Lilydale. City staff using past precedent and existing resolutions calculated charges for the connection. (Attached) Dennis Trooien an attor- ney representing Trucker Sheehy feels the charges as calculated are exces- sive and has prepared an alternative for your consideration (attached). He will be present at the Council meeting to argue it merits. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Follow existing precedent and resolutions and allow Riverrain to connect to the City's watermain for a $15,268.20 connection charge. 2. Amend existing practices to calculate a new charge for the connec- tion. 3. Don't allow Riverrain to connect to the City's water system. ACTION REQUIRED: Hear Mr. Tooien's arguments, select on of the three alternatives to be implemented.-' CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO Gry,A-4-; TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: River Rain Condominiums Lilydale INTRODUCTION: � Trucker Sheehy Contractors have received approval from the City of Lilydale tp construct a 29 unit condominium just north of the existing Lexington Riverside units along Trunk Highway 13, (See Map) DISCUSSION: ~» Lilydale has a sewer main available to serve this new building but no watermain. Mendota Heights has an 8 inch main on the south side of Trunk Highway 13 that has the capacity to serve the buildiuO. Trucker Sheehy requested to connect to that line and the City of Lilydale has agreed to allow the connection. Mendota Heights has an ordinance wherein payment for such a connection is esta- blished and has been previously utilized. (See Resolution No. 78-00) In this Resolution there are two formulas for calculating the connection charge with the City computing both methods and then selecting the largest amount as the connec- tion charge. One method utilizes the amount of front footage abutting the muni- cipal improvement, and the other utilizes a flat sum of $300.00 per unit. The proposed structure will be located on a lot that is remote from a City street and is connected to the street by a narrow strip of land. This type of lot is referred to as "a flag lot". There is no standard City policy for calculating front foot assessments for flag lots, however, there is precendence for using the lot width at the wide part of the lot as the frontage. The test for establishing assessment rates is "benefit received", and it seems to staff that this lot will receive the same water main ''beuefit" for the full frontage whether it is contiguous to the road or set back from the roadway. The equivalent frontage at the wide part of this parcel is 299.77 feet. To provide the Council with Staff's method of determining an equitable connection charge, the following formulas are used: FORMULA A Calculations using Resolution No. 78-60 Assessment rate at time of water installation in 1970 = $11,00 per assess- able foot charge to outside City residents 125%. Interest Rate on unpaid assess- ments = 7.0%. W.A.C. charge = $200 per unit, reduced by 20% for condominiums. 1. $11.00 X 299.77 X 1.25 = $ 4,121.84 2. Compounded Interest on $4,121.84 at 7.0% from 1970 = 3. W.A.C. Charge - 29 X $200 X 0.8 = Suggested Connection Charge Under Formula A Formula 6,506.46 4,640.00 $15,268.30 Connection charge at $300 per housing unit interest rate on unpaid as- sessments l. 29 units X $300 = 2. Compounded Interest at 7.0% = Anticipated Connection Charge 3. Less estimated cost for internal main distribution, by developer = 25,974.80 Computed Connection Charge under Formula B -$ 3,541,55 Based on above calculations, staff computes connection charge to be $15,288.30. $ 8,700.00 13,733.25 $22,433.25 NOTE: Fire Marshal Lange recommends the placement of a new hydrant on the north side of Trunk Highway 13, the cost of which is to be paid for by the Developer. RECOMMENDATION: Subject to receipt of $15,268 together with the applicant agreeing to in- stall a fire hydrant on the north side of Trunk Highway 13 and agreeing to pay any and all other costs associated with installation of the new watermain under Trunk Highway 13, staff recommends allowing Trucker Sheehy to connect to the City of Mendota Heights' water main. ACTION REQUIRED: * If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation it should pass a motion authorizing staff to issue a water permit to Trucker Sheehy subject to compliance with the conditions set forth in the recommendation being met. DEC 2 4 198,, FRUCKEH SHEEHY eity Of ZI oak en crlie cgrississippi 855 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY / LILYOALE, MINNESOTA 55118 1 PHONE 450.0001 City of Mendota Heights c/o Dave McCartney Trucker Sheehy Const. P.O. Box 9393 Mpls., MN. 55440 To Whom It May Concern: December 20, 1984 You are hereby authorized to grant water service to River Rain Condominium Project which will be located in the city of Lillydale. River Rain and Associates will be responsible for all permits, fees and any other charges what so ever. Sinc rely you r' • 7,7111,CTIS. • :.,--,,. ,,,,..- ' '... 0 if -----r: - ..4.,,,. ---v.--;,..--7-- ,c,:. . .‘. .„, ;k:if, " • f., I: 64 ‘,. . : 1 e • a *a: ---:-----4• .4:4 J..," e % c or i i-1%;. .o.-6. .". t ; i9 114:1.1,•.,44••1"4.4 4 . -- fJ°4:-1.;...f. 2 . •A‘ {.,... ric.merra,7 zwesr ?*2 •,. env sal; 4•4t S •• .'ttt • 3 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 78-60 RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 73-94, AMENDING CHARGES FOR WATER CONNECTIONS OUTSIDE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has in the past provided central sewer and water service to properties outside the municipal boundaries; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 73-94, adopted on the Twentieth day of November, 1973, established connection charges for water service outside the municipal boundaries; and WHEREAS, in the intervening years conditions have changed and other factors entered into connection charge consideration; and WHEREAS, interest on deferred assessments is now charged those people wj.thin Mendota Heights when deferred assessments are paid up; and WHEREAS, it seems fitting and proper to levy interest charges on outside properties as well as on Mendota Heights properties; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that Resolution No. 73-94 is hereby rescinded and the connection charges re-established as follows; , 1. That the water connection charges for multiple dwelling units and townhouses on properties outside of the municipal ,boundaries be established according to one of the two following formulas: A. Total project cost to be 'o^,`vtrd from the following individual items: 1. Front foot assessment plus 25%, based on the special assessments levied for that particular area; plus 2. Interest compounded at 7% since the project was assessed; plus 3. The cost (estimated or actual) of internal distribution main construction (cost of services excluded) expended by others; Or B. The total project cost to be computed from the lump sum cost per unit as follows: 1. Apartments and apartment condominiums at $300 plus 7% compounded annually since original assessment date per n^*,/"",, |,|w, 71. .rvn!",.n.|/,\ .vo"u}|y /'//^../ ..,'.'.`.:/w'o/ .|^/,. p"'/ / ' Resolution No. 78-60 -2- 3' If total project cost is highest under Formula A, then the charge shall be Front Foot Assessment plus 25x plus compounded intccest' ff—total project cost is highest under Formula o, then the connection charge shall be such total, reduced by the cost (estimated or actual) of internal main distribution construction (cost of services excluded) expended by others. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that charges for water and sewer connections to properties outside of Mendota Heights boundaries, properties not included in the above formulation, be based on the sum of three elements in this order of computation: 1' Original assessment rate as applied to Mendota Heights properties; 2. A surcharge of 25x to partially pay for General Obligation contributions and other non-specified governmental costs; 3. A 7% "iuteremt" charge to be compounded annually, added to the above "principle" charges of (1) and (2), commencing on date of original assessment levy. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the provisions of Ordinance No. H06 and Ordinance No. 807 relative to Water Availability Charges and Water Surcharges shall be applicable to all outside water connections. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this Sixth day of June, 1978. . `~�� -^' (;:t .//71 '/ �,/~^'Kathleen M. Swanson ''^` City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS �_��� � ,noc By Robert G. Lockwood Mayor CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 10, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Fraze City Adminis ator SUBJECT: River Rain Condominiums in Lilydale Jim Danielson, Larry Shaughnessy, Tom Hart and I met to discuss assess- mentsfor water service for River Rain condominiums on Thursday afternoon. Because of the lateness of the day, and the fact that Public Works Director Danielson will be out of the office on Friday, the memo on assessments for this project will be included in the add-on agenda on Tuesday evening. Please review the materials that were included in the January 3rd packet in preparation for discussion on the 15th. KDF:madlr i OPPENHEIMER WOLFF FOSTER SHEPARD AND DONNELLY ;730 ='RST BANK BLDG. SAINT PAUL. MINN. 55101 TELEPHONE 612 227-7271 TELEX•701879 Saint Paul, Minnesota March 1, 1985 HAND DELIVER Mr. Tom Hart Winthrop, Weinstine & Sexton Conwed Tower St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Riverain Condominiums Dear Tom: 4824 ICS CENTER MINNEAPOLIS. MINN.55402 TELEPHONE 812 332-8451 TELEX•701605 ;317 F STREET N. W ,SUITE 7C0 WASHINGTON.0.C.20004 TELEPHONE• 202; 293-5098 TELEX 486191 29 SCUARE 4e `AEE,S 1040 BRUSSELS. BELGA N1 TELEPHONE•511-38 00 TELEX•62238 Set forth below is a proposed resolution which we would like the City of Council of Mendota Heights to pass at their meeting on Tuesday, March 5, 1985 relating to the above -referenced matter: BE IT RESOLVED that upon (1) payment of the amount of $_0-15-0') to the City of Mendota Heights by Trucker -Sheehy Constructors, Inc., (2) the applicant agreeing to install a fire hydrant on the north side of Trunk Highway 13 (or such other location acceptable to the fire marshall) and (3) applicant agreeing to pay any and all other costs associated with installation of the new watermain under Trunk Highway 13, then staff is authorized to issue a water permit to connect to the City's watermain. The main installed by applicant running from the City's existing main on the South side of Highway 13 to the North side of Highway 13 may be the same size as the City's main. Further, staff is authorized to agree with Trucker -Sheehy Constructors, Inc., that no persons other than the owner or owners of the Riverain Condominiums shall be entitled to connect to or utilize the main and distribution system thereby paid for or constructed by Trucker -Sheehy Constructors, Inc., without its prior written consent and the payment of a reasonable charge to Trucker -Sheehy Constructors, Inc. This agreement shall not affect any connection to the City's existing main in Highway 13 and shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any consents, permits, assessments, charges or other fees imposed by the City of Mendota Heights. Very truly yours, OPPENFF, FOSTER SHEPARD AND DONNELLY By - Wim'_ Dennis J. uieir— DJT/djk cc: James L. Trucker Melvin Renner Jim Danielson (City of Mendota Heights) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council un/ FROM: Kevin D. Frazel LG yAdministrator SUBJECT: Appointment of Fire Marshall INTRODUCTION The 1986 budget appropriated $8,000 for hiring a Fire Marshall on a part-time consultant basis. The purpose of this memo is to recommend Council appointment of Mr. Don Hove to the position. March 5, 1985 BACKGROUND Fire Marshall duties have previously been provided by Gene Lange on a supposed quarter -time basis. However, the dictates of Gene's other responsi- bilities (i.e. Police Captain, Investigator, Fire Station "project manager") haveseverelyrlimited the time he could devote to the job. Consequently, we included $8,000 in the 1985 Fire Department budget to hire .an independent Fire Marshall, and placed all of Gene's salary in the Police Department. Our estimate for a Marshall was 8 to 12 hours per week. Attached is a copy of the position announcement. It was sent to all area fire chiefs, and an ad placed in the Minnesota Smokeater. In response, we received six resumes. On February 19 and 20, Chief Noack, Assistant Chief Maczko, Firefighter George Lowe, and I interviewed three. We were of the unanimous opinion that all three were excellent, but that our first choice was Don Hove, currently assistant Fire Chief and Marshall for West St. Paul. DISCUSSION Mr. Hove essentially created the West St. Paul fire inspections and prevention programs from the ground up in::the early 1970's and has been in charge of it since. He is also extremely knowledgeable about hazardous materials, being a qualified instructor on the subject, for the National Fire Prevention Association courses. He is well known to, and highly respected by, our own Fire Department. For personal reasons, Mr. Hove is resigning as Assistant Chief in West St. Paul, and returning to 24 hour rotating shifts. This will enable him to be available to us during regular office hours. COMPENSATION Mr. Hove and I have discussed alternative ways of structuring compensation and have come to an agreement that an hourly retainer would work best. Subject to Council approval we have agreed to $12.50 per hour, plus 224 per mile for use of his vehicle. There would be no additional fringe benefit costs. The budgeted funds of $8,000 should be adequate to cover this compensation. RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION REQUIRED Motion to approve the hiring of Mr. Don Hove as Fire Marshall on a consultant basis at the rate of $12.50 per hour plus mileage. Attachments CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO March 5, 1985 TO: Acting Mayor and City Co ncil�� FROM: Kevin D. Frazell, ./�ni'strator SUBJECT: Add -On Agenda for March 5, 1985 The List of Claims is provided for Item 5d and one item is recommended for addition to the agenda. 3. Adoption of Agenda It is recommended that Council adopt the agenda with the addition of Item 7h. - Appointment of Fire Marshall. 5d. Approval of the List of Claims The list is attached. 7h. Appointment of Fire Marshall Attached is a memo recommending appointment of Mr. Don Hove as Fire Marshall on a consultant basis. KDF:kkh Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 COMPUTER STUDY CITY HALL Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 STREET SWEEPING Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 POLICE AGREEMENT Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 FIRE MARSHALL Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 BIKE TRAIL LIGHTING Page No. 2221 March 5, 1985 CONDOMINIUMS, LILYDALE, MINNESOTA," based on a connection charge of $12,500, and as amended by Council. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. The Council acknowledged and briefly discussed a memo from the City Administrator recommending preparation of a data processing study. As the result of the discussion, staff was directed to contact other communities that have left LOGIS and request proposals from additional firms for preparation of the study. The Council discussed a proposed request for proposals for a city hall architect. Various changes were made in the draft RFP, and Council directed that a citizens study committed be formed. Councilmember Cummins moved to distribute the amended Request For Proposals to an appropriate list of qualified architects. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Councilmember Hartmann moved that the contract for 1985 street sweeping be awarded to Joe Rosse Commercial Sweeping for their low bid of $46.50 per hour. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Councilmember Blesener moved to approve the 1985 contract with the Police Officer's bargaining agreement. Acting Mayor Witt seconded the motion. Councilmember Hartmann moved to approve the hiring of Don Hove as Fire Marshal on a consultant basis at the rate of $12.50 per hour plus mileage. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. The Council acknowledged and briefly discussed a memo from the Public Works Director on backbone trail system lighting. The matter was referred to the Park and Recreation Commission. COMMENDATION ADJOURN Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 ATTEST: Page No. 2222 March 5, 1985 The Council commended the Public Works staff for their snowplowing efforts on March 4th. There being no further Council, Councilmember be adjourned. Councilmember Blesener business to come before the Hartmann moved that .the meeting seconded the motion. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:26 o'clock P.M. Elizabeth A. Witt Acting Mayor ( Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Vote on Original Motion: Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 RIVERRAIN WATER CONNECTION Page No. 2219 March 5, 1985 view may be a hardship. Councilmember Blesener expressed. concern over building within 7 feet of the bluff and all of the excavation work which would occur on the bluffline. She suggested that 20 feet from the bluffline would be a reasonable location and that she could support a 20 foot variance. After discussion, Councilmember Blesener moved to waive the public hearing requirement and to grant a 20 foot variance from the Critical Area setback requirement to allow construction of the residential structure 20 feet from the bluffline. Acting Mayor Witt seconded the motion. Councilmember Cummins felt that a fifteen foot setback would protect the bluff and provide an extra five feet of river view, yet would not be inconsistent with past practice considering the number of structures existing at or near the bluffline. Councilmember Cummins moved to amend the motion to provide for a 20 foot bluffline setback for the body of the structure and a 15 foot setback for the small portion that juts out from the main structure. The amendment died for lack of a second. Mr. Dennis Trooien, representing Trucker Sheehy, was present regarding the firm's request for the extension of the City's water system to their property located on T.H. 13 in Lilydale. Mr. Trooien distributed copies of a proposed resolution to authorize the extension. He stated that he has met with City staff and the only issue to be resolved is that of cost. He reviewed a drawing of the site, stating that his client's parcel (Tract A) is part of an original tract of land fronting on T.H. 13 but that only a small portion of Tract A fronts the highway. Tract A contains approximately 54% of the area of the original parcel. It was his contention that if the parcel had not been divided, the connection charge would be based onthe total frontage of 299.77 feet. He felt that the connection charge should therefore be based on 54% of the amount which would have been charged'for the entire original parcel: $10,379.20 (including interest and WAC). He acknowledged that there is precedent for the connection charge calculation used by City staff, Ayes: 2 Nays: 2 Witt Hartmann Page No. 2220 March 5, 1985 there is also precedent for the basis he proposes. Councilmember Hartmann expressed his position that the formula staff used for calculating the charge has been used in the past and stated that he could see no reason to take exception to that formula. Public Works Director Danielson stated that the same formula was used to calculate the charge for the Bream property on Lexington Avenue (also in Lilydale) and that the property is also a flag lot. Acting Mayor Witt stated that the test for establish- ing assessments is benefit received and the same test would apply for outside connections. She supported the staff recommendation. Mr. Trooien reviewed his proposed resolution, acknowledged that the City will still have the right to charge the adjacent parcel which fronts on T.H. 13 for any future utility connection. He pointed out that the resolution includes a condition that when the adjacent parcel is developed, Trucker Sheehy has the right to give prior written consent for water connection and reimbursement by the other property owner for a portion of the cost his client will expend for internal watermain construction. Councilmember Blesener felt that the total frontage should only be charged once for utility extension. Councilmember Cummins felt that the resolution establishing the connection formula does not contemplate flaglots and is not entirely applicable. City Attorney Winthrop stated that the issue is not that of assessment but rather what is a reasonable charge to provide water to the property. He pointed out that the City has no control over development of the property and that the matter at issue is only to determine a fair charge for Parcel A -- Parcel'B should not be a consideration at this time. After lengthy discussion, Councilmember Cummins moved approval of the proposed resolution based on a connection charge of $10,379.20. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Motion failed. After further discussion, Councilmember Blesener moved the adoption of Resolution No. 85-20, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WATER CONNECTION TO RIVERRAIN Page No. 2217 March 5, 1985 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, March 5, 1985 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, was held at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Acting Mayor Witt called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Acting Mayor Witt, Couucilmemhera Bleeaner, Cummins and Hartmann. Mayor Lockwood had notified the Council that he would be out of town. AGENDA ADOPTION Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Hartmann moved adoption of the agenda for the meeting including additional items contained in the add-on agenda. Councilmember 8laoeuar seconded the motion. Councilmember Cummins moved approval of the minutes of the February 19th meeting with correction. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Councilmember Cummins moved approval of the consent calendar as submitted and recommended for approval as part of the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of all necessary-flocumeota contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of a letter from Mn/DOT regarding interchange traffic operations at T.H. 110 and I -35E. b. Acknowledgement of the Code Enforcement monthly report for February. c. Acknowledgement of the minutes of the February 26th Planning Commission meeting. d. Approval of the List of Claims dated March 5, 1985 and totalling $692,751,60. e. Approval of the issuance of an Excavating License to E and H Earth Movers, Inc., and General Contractor licenses to: Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. CAO 85-01, HUNTER Page No. 2218 March 5, 1985 Rei -Cor Construction, Inc. J. Paul Sterns Co. Darryl Thayer & Associates Central Roofing Co. Houle Construction Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Dr. Steven Hunter was present to request approval of a critical area ordinance variance to allow construction of a home on Lot 3 of the Hunter Bluff Addition within the forty foot bluffline setback. He stated that he would like to construct the home in the area proposed on the site plan in order to take advantage of the view over the bluff: the best location is where the summer house is currently located. He felt that by locating the house as proposed he would be able to take advantage of the view without any environmental or aesthetic harm and that what he proposes would be fair and consistent with the intent of the Critical Area Ordinance. He reviewed the site plan and showed the Council members pictures of the site from several locations off the site, and stated that the house would have insignificant impact on the bluffline. He informed the Council that as the result of the Planning Commission discussion, he directed his architect to reduce the height of the structure. He noted that he plans to use either cedar or redwood for the exterior so the house blends in with the surround- ing woods and that the roof will either be either wood shakes or earthtone shingles. He further stated"'that he plans to plant numerous evergreens on the bluff to fill in the areas where elm trees have died. He pointed out that soil tests conducted by the University indicate that one house will not create erosion problems if the existing trees are left in tact, and this is what he plans. He stated that his site plan proposes to locate the structure 7 feet from the bluffline at the closest point but that the majority of the house would be 12 feet from the bluffline. In response to a question from Councilmember Cummins, Public Works Director Danielson stated that twelve variances from the bluffline setback have been granted in the past. Responding to Councilmember Blesener's comment that those variances have been granted on the basis of hardship, Councilmember Cummins stated that the potential reduction in the value of the lot by forcing the-own°er• to move the structure back, because he would not then be able to take advantage of the bluffline LMOUNT 13/5/85 CLAIMS LIST 5.00 5.00 15-Engr• 20 -Police CHECK REGISTER 30 -Fire 40 -Code Enfc VENDOI ITEM DESCRIPTION * MUNI CI-rPALS 659.53 BORROUGIHS 20.00 B0RR000HS - 679.53 *.- 60 -Utilities 70 -Parks 80 -Planning 90 -Animal Control ACCOUNT NO. INV. 1985 DUES FRAMESISHELF SUPP SHELF SUPPORTS 01-4404-11 0-10 16-4620-850-00 0.. 16-4620-850-00 2 25.00 GREG PA'YETTE ` • 25.00 It., 222.05 222.05 *- 35.00 35.20 624.00 624.00 *i CORRI GAN _LECCO 1985 DUES 01-4404-030.30 HTR RPRS OLD FS 01-4490-020-20 2 OAK CTYCH PDL ASSN 1985 DUES C E DAHLGREN& ASSOC ' RE SPLIT CUTLOT A 42.00 GOVT TRNG SVC 42.00 *� _1/9 CONF 29.76 JOHNSON PA'3ER & SPLY BOWLS/TUMBLERS 29.76 *- 25.00_ 25.00 +r/ MINN CITY MGMTASSN 1985 DUES 597.55 MORTDN SA_T 597.55 */ SAFE-TSALT 145.00 MARKS AUTO UPHOLST CUSHION RPR 145.00 */ 105.00 N S PE 105.00 *7- 11.97 11.97 */ P C WORLD 18.50 PARKMACHINE INC 18.50 */ CONST FORMS 01.4404-020-20 10-4235-000-00 8' 01-4400-110-10 2 01-4305-030-30 A' 01-4404-110-10 01-4421-050-50 5 ' 01-4330-490- 70 2 05-4300-105-15 ONE YR RENEW RPRS 511_.20 'R L_,_0E0RGE _ & ASSOC- '. PAR TSA IR COMP 511.20 */ 1,652.15_ 1,652.15 *-' 945.5 ,945.05 *� OFFICE I`JTERIORS INC FURN _NEW- FS JAMES STEELE CONST 363.20 SIGN CENTER PYMT7 1% RET 01-4402-110-10 01-4330-460-30 M' 01-4330-460-30 _Y 16-4620-850-00 B, 16-4460-850-00 CR WATCH 01-4305.020-20 CHECK REGISTER 'OUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. I 61V 363.00 *- 5,000.30 UNITED flOPER TIES RFD BAL IR 80 ESC 21-2010-000-00 5,000.00 *,' 56.20. • 56.20 56.25 ZEE MED ICA L SVC ZEE MEDICAL SVC ZEE MEDICAL SVC 168.65 5,29 AT & T INFO SYSTEMS 5.30 AT & T INFO SYSTEMS 5.30 T & T INFO SYSTEMS 15.89 7,44 7.44 74 .82 74.82 *.../ 21.50 21.50 18,78 69.29 88.07 */ B&J AUTO SP LY BD WA TEOMMISSION BROW'J PHOTO CITY MOTOR SUPPLY CT TY MOTOR SUPPLY 8.)? COPY!Qpp cl 16.25 COPY EQUI? CO 8.08 / COPY EQUIP CO 32.40 4,1 1 $601 .:30 905.00 1 • 664_40:70 4,170.00 OCR CORP. OCR CORP. OCR CORP. 120.00 : DENNIS DELMONT FIRST AID CAB 01..4 305..050..50 FIRST AID CAB 01.4305..070..70 Y FIRST AID CAB 15..4305..060..60 FEB SVC FEB SVC FEB SVC PARTS JAN USE 01-4210-050-50 01-4210-070-70 15..4210..060..60 01-4330-440-20 ( FILM ID CARDS S BEAMS MISC PARTS XEROX VELLUM SPLYS XEROX VELLUM MAR RENT MAR RENT MAR RE NT 01..4425..315..3n ..4365,;136- 01..4330..440..20 1 01..4330..440..20 1 01-4300-020-20 5 01-4300-080-80 S 05..4300..105..15 S 01-4200-600-10 01..4200..600..10 05....42001600...1 5 MAR MI 01-4415-020-20 kMOUNT 1 20.0 0 */ VENDO? CHECK REGISTER 581,350.30 FIRST MAT! -ST PAUL 220.00 FIRST NATL-ST PAUL 581 ,570.00 */ 175.00 FRAZ LEL KEVIN -171:60 *r- 132.31 66.20 _ 198,51 215.00 215.00 * 10.38 1.32 1.32 1.32- 1.32 3.30 16.32 ICMA RC I C MA.._RC_._._.. INSTITUTIONAL SALES KNUTH TOM KNUTH TOM KNUTH..TOM KNUTH TOM KNUTH TOM KNUTH TOM. 63.65 KULLANDER GUY 1.76 KULLANDER _GUY 10.58 KULLANDER GUY 5.05 KULLANDER GUY 8.60KULLA JOER GUY KULLANDEP GUY 33.10 KULLANDER GUY 12.68 KULLANDER GUY 38.15 KULLANDEP GUY 179.29 *i 31.28 31.28 */ LA KELA ND FORD 153.00 LELS ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV. TAC 84 BDSVC CHG TAC 01-2116-000-00 01-4490-110-10 MAR MI 01-4415-110-10 3/1PAYROLL 3/1 PAYROLL CHAIR 01-2072-000-00 01-4134-110-10 05-4600-105-15 OE MI THRU 2/25 MI RE LEX TR Mi RE LEX TR CORRPRO Mi THRU 2/25 MI T##RU__2/25. __. 05-4415-105-15 10-4415-000-00 10-4415-812-00 10-4415-812-00 87-4415-812-00 98-4415-8.26-00 MI/SPLYS _ MILEAGE AWARD FRANES MI/SPLYS SPLYS ARTSIGN MILEAGE MI/SPLYS MI/SPLYS. MI/SPLYS PARTS 01-4268-650-10 0_1-44_15-110-1_0_ 01-4490-110-10 05-4268-650-15 05-4300-105-15 05-4415-105-15 15-4268-650-60 ___ 16-4268-650-00 _21-4268-650-00 ....____01-433(1-.460-_30 55 MAR DUES 01-2075-000-00 AMOUNT VENDOP 153.00 59.80 -290.00 67.74 417.54 :r CHECK REGISTER LMCIT NP PLAN LMCIT HP PLAN LMCIT HP 'LAN 13.34 LOGIS _ 13.35 LOGIS 341.15 LOGIS 51 .9 5 13.35 1,332.59 */ 628.35 826.50 436.00 155..00 651.25 310.30 682.50 620.3© 155.00 4,464.30 *i LOGIS .. _ - LOGIS MEDC_NTIERS Ml* DC!NTERS MEOCE NIERS MEDCE NT'ERS MEDC=NTIERS MEDCENTiERS ME0CENTERS ME OC E NTrER S MEOCENTIERS HP HD HP HP HP HP HP HP HP _ 833.33- _ _� .METRO WAST= CONTROL 22,227.65 METRO WASTE CONTROL 2,083.337_ METRO WASTE CONTROL 19,310.99 *l 24.95 8.00 32.95 *, MINN BENEFIT ASSN MINN BENEFIT ASSN 18.70 MINN MUTUAL LIFE 3.40 MINN MUTUAL LIFE 3.40 M?NN MUTUAL LIFE 1.70 MINN MUTUAL LIFE 5.10 MINN MUTUAL LIFE ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INVF. MAR PREM MAR PREM MAR PREM. 01-2074-000-00 C 01-4131-020-20 C 01-4131-021-20 0 JAN SVC JAN SVC JAN SVC JAN SVC JAN SVC JAN SVC JAN SVC 01-4214-110-10 0 03-4214-000-00 0 05-4214-105-15 C 10-4214-000-00 C 15-4214-060-60 16-4214-000-00 MAR PREM 21-4214-000-00 MAR PREM MAR PREM MAR PREM MAR PREM MAR PREM MAR PREM MAR PREM MAR PREM 01-2074-000-00 11) 01-4131-020-20 01-4131-021-20 '% 01-4131-040-l-^ 29 01-4131-050. -g 01-4131-070-ri 7 01-4131-110-10 " 05-4131-105-15 W 15-4131-060-60 V MARCH INSTALL MARCH INSTALL MARCH INSTALL MAR PREM MARFREM 14-3575-000-00 1'. 15-4449-060-60 1'. 17-3575-000-00 1` 01-2074-000-00 01-4131-021-20 MAR PREM 01-2074-000-00 2 MAR PREM01-4131-020-20 2 MAR PREM -_� .01-41 31-021-20 Z MAR PREM 01-4131-050- 2 MAR PREM 01-4131-110- _ 2 A MOUNT 74,14 74.1 4 45.00 45.00 * 33f.38-- 336.16 33.38-- 336.16 669.54 *,- 176,94 119.71 37.46__ 113.75 291.79 57.17 _. 37.46 834.28 *-// 145.G0 00.00 235.30 */ 9.90 9.90 +ti/ 4P.00 40.00 1,014.50 62.15 88. RO 777.05 162.05 115.45 2,220.10 *,- VENDOR CHECK REGISTER ITEM OESCRIPTION MOTOR PAPTS SERVICE MZSC PARTS ACCOUNT NO, INV, 01-4330-490-50 MOTOROLA INC NORT-IERNST POWER CO NORTHERN ST POWER CO NORTHWESTERN BELL NORTHWESTERN BELL NORTHWESTERN _BELL NORTHWESTERN BELL NORTHWESTERN BELL _ NORTHW_ESTER N_ BELL NORTHWESTERN BELL RPR S FEB SVC FEB SVC FEB SVC FEB SVC FEB_SVC FEB SVC FEB SVC FEB SVC__.__ FEB SVC 01-4330-450-20 OAK CREST KENNELS_ RET/CALLS FEB. CAK CREST KENNELS _ ^ FEB IMPOUNDING SLTOFFICE PROD SELANDER DUANE C SHAUGHMESSY L E JR SHAUGHNESSY L E JR SHAUGHNESSY L E JR SHAUGHNESSY L E JR SHAUGHNESSY L E JR SHAUGHNESSY L E JR 1,201.44 SPIELY J L CO PADS MARCH MI FEB SVC FEB SVC FEB SVC FEB SVC FEB SVC FEB SVC tt9 GRAVEL 01-4211-300-50 01-4211-315-30 01-4210-020-20 01-4210-030-30 01-4210-050-50 01-4210-070-70 01-4210-110-10 05-4210-105-15_ 15-4210-060-60 01-4221-8007-90 01-4225-800-90 01-4300-110-10 F 01-4415-200-70 01-4220-132-10 03-4220-132-00 05-4220-132-15 1-4-42'20:1322-00- 16-4220-132-00 4-4220-132-00- 16-4220-132-00 21-4220-132-00 01-4421-050-50 `. COUNT VENDOR 1 ,201 .44 *.- 50.00 50.00 *_ CHECK REGISTER SIGNAL CAR WASH 1,951.96 1 ,334.61 537,29 18.16 46.34 ST TREA=S PERA ST TREAS PERA ST TREAS PERA ST TREAS PERA ST TREAS PERA 175.61 99.61 140.38 204.88 60.44 4,569.28 *i ST TREAS P'ERA ST TREAS PERA ST TREAS PERA ST TREAS P'ERA ST TREADS P'ERA 25.90 SUN NEWSPAPERS 25.00 *� 134.62. 196.94 y✓ 415.40 30.0'0 22.95 468.35 *, 79.17` 29.70 19.80 9.90 138.57 90.30 90 .?0 *--- TRAIL DODGE INC TRAIL DODGE INC UNIFORMS JNLIMITED UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS UNLIMITED ITEM DESCRIPTION :0 ACCOUNT NO. INV. 4 1ST QTR 85 01-4430-020-20 2/15 PAYRCLL 2 /1 5 PAYROLL 2/15 PAYROLL 2/15 PAYRCLL 2/15 PAYRCLL 01-2062-000-00 01-4134-020-20 01-4134-021-20 01-41 34-030-30 01-4134-040-40 2/15 PAYROLL 2/15 PAYROLL 2/15 PAYRCLL 2/15 PAYRCLL 2115 PAYROLL 01-4134-050-50 01-4134-070-70 01-4134-110-10 05-4134-105-05 15-4134-060-60 ONE YR RENEWAL UNIT=O—CENT TRUSTEE UNITED CENT TRUSTEE UNITED CENT TRUSTEE UNITED CENT TRUSTEE UNITED WAY- ST PAUL. 75.49 FUND 03 TOTAL RPRS RPRS 01-4402-020-20 01-4330-440-20 61i MIS C MACK SOCKS OLMSTEAD GLOVES REYES MAR PREM MAR PREM MAR PREM MAR PREM MAR CONTR 01-4330-440-20 60' 01-4410-020-20 27L 01-4410-020-20 27a 01-4410-020-20 27 01-2071-000-00 .61'1 01-4132-020-20 Lt 01-4132-050-50 1..1 01-4132-070-70 Li, 01-2070-000-00 GENERAL FUNO WATER REVENUE FUND AMOUNT VENDOR CHECK REGISTER ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV; 3,064.63 FUND 05 TOTAL 638.67_ 56.28- 22,916.35 2.0,503.41 FUND 16 TOTAL 2,083.33• FUND 17 TOTAL FUND 10 TOTAL FUND 14 TOTAL FUND 15 TOTAL 5,166.95 1.32 3.30 FUVD 21 TOTAL FUND 87 TOTAL FUND 98 TOTAL 651,732.34 TOTAL MANUAL CHECKS ; 10702 100.00 U.S. Post Office 10703 10.00 Coalition for L.IT 10704 5,196.67 Dir Int Rev 10705 �T� 5,400.57 Comm'Revenue 10706 2,665.38 St Treas SS Fd 10707 425.00 DC Bank 10708 1,098.72 SCCU 10709 25,057.03 City MH PR Acct 2/15 Payroll 10710 66.79 K. Swanson Software 10711 ---- __.. 15.00 NO -St Chap ICBO ----3/1 Mtg. P. Berg 10712 700.00 Blue Earth County Bail 10713_ _ 25.00_Treas St Minn Regr. D. Delmont 10714 28.89 AT &T, Replace lost check 10715 230.57 U. S. Post Office N.L. Mailing ENGR ENTERPRISE SPECIAL PARK FUND CONSOLIDATED DEBT SERVIC SEWER UTILITY TID I79-7/81-4/82.2/82-6 ' UTIL RESERVE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT I83-4/83-48 GRYC/DAK CTY I84-6MH RD LEX 55 MSA N.L. Mail Deposit . REgr. K. Frazell 2/15 FIT 2/1 & 2/15 SIT 2/15 FICA 2/15 Payroll Deductions 41,019.62 GT 692,751.66 chae/ ,moo/q� It _1— c aI /70 4- De 1/1/ Grc 30- 1 O 30' SB .1.201 r / goo qo iEi:1 5 X985 0 47 / , \