Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-94 CCMMARCII 15, 1994 LAKE EL110 COUNCIL MEETING List of Claims for Approval far the period 03/11/94 to 03/15/94 03/11/94 CLAIM TOTAL ACCOUNT ACCOUNT TO WHOM PAID FOR WHAT PURPOSE DATE NUMBER CLAIM NUMBER AMOUNT WEBER ELECTRIC, INC. INSTALL RECEPTACLE FOR CABLE EQUIP. 03/15/94 2465 129,28 100-41300-216 129,28 VISA ELMO INN - 2/2/94 03/15/94 2466 31,05 100-41300-216 31.05 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY OFFICE MAINT. 03/15/94 2467 49,01 100-41609-400 49,01 HAGBERG'S COUNTRY MARKET OFFICE MAINT. 03/15/94 2468 13.06 100-41500-400 13.06 BELLAIRE SANITATION OFFICE BLDG MAINT 03/15/94 2469 66,95 100-41500-400 66.95 WASHINGTON COUNTY TREAS. RECORD RESOLUTIONS 94-6 & 94-5 13/15/94 2470 39.00 160-41500-200 39,00 KINKO'3 CF MINNESOTA, INC. 3/2/94 NEWSLETTER PRINTING 03/15/94 2471 533.60 100-41500-354 533.60 A T & T OFFICE TELEPHONE 03/15194 2472 16.89 100-41500-320 16.89 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 03/15/94 2473 138.18 100-41500-200 138.18 WASHINGTON COUNTY TREAS, 1994 TAX ROLLS 43/15/94 2474 125,72 100-41500-200 125.72 STILLWATER GAZETTE LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 03/16/94 2475 81.00 180-41500-361 81.00 WASHIMGTDN COUNTY TREAS. 1/2 SECTION MAPS 03/15/94 2476 4.66 100-41500-200 4.66 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO FEBRUARY UTILITIES 03/16/94 2477 3,245.99 100-41500-389 258.60 100-42200-380 641.71 150-43109-380 636.35 100-43160-380 837.85 100-452B0-380 851.50 602-49450-380 21.58 A T & T FIRE & MAINT TELEPHONE 03/15f94 2478 48.63 100-42200-320 19.55 100-43100-320 29.08 U S. WEST FEBRUARY TELEPHONE 03/15/94 2479 435,92 100-41500-320 225.17 i 100-42200-320 137.95 100-43100-320 56.57 100-45200-320 66.23 TKOA JANUARY ENGINEERING 03/15/94 2480 2,982.64 100-41930-390 2,609,74 100-428S0-312 312.90 PETERSON FRAM & BERGMAN FEBRUARY LEGAL 03/15/94 2481 4,941.12 100-41600-300 4,416.32 601-41600-300 259.00 402-41600-300 266.80 ST CROIX ANIMAL SHELTER FEBRUARY ANIMAL IMPOUNDING 03/15/94 2482 224,76 100-42700-418 224.76 TNT RECYCLING FEBRUARY RECYCLING 03/15/94 2483 4,579,20 100-43200-318 2.772.00 803-43200-318 1,807.20 ELNO'S LUMBER & PLYWOOD PARKS MISC SUPPLIES 13115/94 2484 46.04 100-45210-219 46.04 ON -SITE SANITATION INC SUNFISH PARK SATELLITE 03/15/94 2485 69,22 100-45200-386 69.22 TWC INC. PARKS TRUCK RADIO 03/15/94 2486 738,0E 100-45200-223 738,08 METRO FIRE FIRE DEPT SUPPLIES 03/15/94 2487 1,149.46 100-42200-217 194,15 100-42200-580 955.31 ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT CO. FIRE DEPT TRUCK REPAIR -GENERATOR 03/15/94 2488 305,43 140-42200-270 305,43 JAMES SACHS JAN. & FEB. RUN REPORTS 03/15/94 2489 73.75 100-42200-200 78,75 ROAD RESCUE INC FIRE DEPT TRUCK REPAIR -STROBE LITE 03115/94 2490 45,00 100-42200-220 45,00 APOLLO HEATING FIRE STATION 1 FURNACE REPAIR 03/15194 2491 64.00 100-42200-451 64.00 OSWALD FIRE HOSE FIRE DEPT SUPPLIES 03/15/94 2492 190.80 100-42200-217 190.80 LAKE ELMO OIL FEBRUARY FUEL 03/15/94 2493 2,103.26 100-42200-212 128.61 100-42400-331 70.17 150-43100-212 1,852.28 100-16200-221 52.20 r '. CONF,OF BLO6.OFFICIALS BLDG OFFICIAL ANNUAL DUES 03/15/94 2494 75.00 100-42400-207 75.00 .4DS CABLE SUPPLIES & NAINT DEPT SUPPLIE 03/15/94 2495 54.67 100-41300-216 15.79 100-43190-223 38.88 T.A. SCNIFSKY & SONS MAINT DEPT BLACKTOP MIX 03/15194 2496 51.98 100-43100-407 61.98 JUNKER SANITATION MAINT DEPT DUMPSTER 03/16/94 2497 86.23 100-43100-223 86.23 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD NAINT DEPT SUPPLIES 03/15/94 2498 12.60 100-43100-223 12.60 AIRSIGNAL, INC. MAINT DEPT PHONES 03/15/94 2499 31.02 100-43100-320 31,02 March 15th Page 2 List of Claims for Approval For the period 03/11/94 to 03/15/94 03/11/94 CLAIM TOTAL ACCOUNT ACCOUNT TO WHOM PAID FOR WHAT PURPOSE DATE NUMBER CLAIM NUMBER AMOUNT TWIN POINT TAVERN REIMS FOR ITEMS -BACTERIA IN WATER 03/15/94 2500 138,49 601-49400-430 138,49 MILLER EXCAVATING 2/1/94 WATERMAIN BREAK 03115/94 2501 2,258.47 601-49401-430 2,258.47 TWIN CITY TESTING WATER TESTING -NEW WATER TOWER 03/15/94 2502 98.21 601-49400-400 98.20 OAKDALE, CITY OF FEBRUARY WATER PURCHASED 03/15/94 2503 567.54 601-49400-250 567,54 MAQUIRE IRON, INC. WATER TOWER REPAIR -PER CONTRACT 03/15/94 2504 52,725.10 601-49400-430 52,725.00 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SEWER FUND ANNUAL FEE 03/15/94 2505 505.00 662-49450-430 505.00 TOTAL 79,140,90 79,140,90 79,140.91 MINUTES APPROVED: April 5, 1994 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 15, 1994 Acting Mayor Johnston called the council meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. in the council chambers. PRESENT: Mottaz, Conlin, Johnston, Johnson, City Engineer Bohrer, City Attorney Filla and Administrator Kueffner. ABSENT: Mayor John. ACTING MAYOR JOHNSTON ACKNOWLEDGE SCOUT LEADER DENNIS WEAVER; SCOUTS, JACOB WEAVER, BRIAN DAVEY, BRENT ROGERS WHO ARE WORKING ON THEIR MERIT BADGE. 1. AGENDA Add: 7A. Status Report on Olson Lake Estates Pond, 7B. Notification by the VBWD of a development in West Lakeland Township that is tributary to Downs Lake, 10E. Request by Rep Neary asking support for annexation bill. M/S/C Johnson/Conlin - to approve the March 15, 1994 city council agenda as amended. (Motion carried 4-0). 2. MINUTES: March 3, 1994 M/S/C Mottaz/Conlin - to approve the March 3, 1994 City Council minutes as amended. (Motion carried 4-0). 3. CLAIMS M/S/C Conlin/Mottaz - to approve the March 15, claims #2465 through #2505 as presented. (Motion carried 4-0). 4. PUBLIC INFORMATION - None 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Update on HF1828 House File 1828, introduced by Walt Perit, allows Oakdale to petition independently to annex properties currently owned by MnDOT that are within the jurisdiction of Lake Elmo, was defeated today by a vote of 11-9 in the House Committee on Local Government Affairs. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 15, 1994 2 M/S/C Conlin/ Mottaz - that the City Administrator write a letter to City of Oakdale and invite them to a joint council meeting on Thursday, April 7, at 7 p.m.; areas of discussion would be initiating the process --just getting together to talk about how we are going to progress through the negotiations, set meeting dates, review our letter to them, suggest having a mediator work with us and put this in a form of an agenda, 2 or 3 bullets of some of the possibilities on process, and set adjournment at 8:30 p.m. (Motion carried 4-0). This letter will be included on the March 22, 1994 recodification workshop agenda for council review. 6. PLANNING, LAND USE & ZONING: A. Recommendation from Planning Commission on Highway 5 Study On December 13,1993, the PZ made a motion to amend the Comp Plan Future Land Use Map to show Limited Business - LB the same as allowed on 1-94 from Stillwater Blvd., north of the railroad tracks to County Road 13, on the south side of TH5. Administrator Kueffner stated before a study is done, 3M should be brought in to find out if they have intentions to develop their property. We are dealing with Hwy. 5 to clean up the Animal Inn in Agricultural zoning with very small lots and the Joe Roger's property. The PZ felt that LB would be a reasonable use on that strip of land. Council member Conlin explained the area that the planner suggested to look at in the study takes in the 3M property north of 5 and all the way to Stillwater Road to the south which is beyond the perimeters of what originally the PZ was looking at. She definitely was not in favor of a study that large. Conlin indicated LB is a good ordinance and suited for non -sewer area and appropriate for the south side of Hwy 5 and the railroad tracks. She felt it would be good for the Mayor to meet with 3M to discuss their long range plans for that area and at that time determine if the study should be done to the north. Council Member Mottaz added that we cannot exclude 3M property, but should ask them if they have any current plans and involve them in what's going on. He would like to wait until the Mayor comes back and ask him. M/S/C Mottaz/Johnson - to table discussion on the Highway 5 Overlay Study until the Mayor returns from vacation to receive his input. (Motion carried 4-0). LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 15, 1994 7. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT In his memo dated March 8, 1994 City Engineer Larry Bohrer indicated he made a calculation of the volume of Olson Lake Estates Pond represented in the "as approved" plan and compared it to the "as -constructed" plan as prepared by the DNR. Pond volume below the outlet elevation is considered "dead" storage. It is this volume which is most beneficial for water quality improvement. We find that the dead storage as constructed exceeds the dead storage provided by the approved plan by 13%. Larry Bohrer reported that at the DNR meeting discussion continued on water quality. It seemed that the DNR and Corp of Engineers were going to accept the pond in its "as built" condition. A number of the members wanted to let the pond function in its normal mode for one year and do some observations. Attorney Dayton made it clear that Lake Elmo would not accept water of a quality that would degrade Olson Lake. In order to keep dialogue going, a proposal was made by Attorney Dayton with the understanding that it would be discussed at this meeting. These are the conditions under which the pond might be allowed to function normally for one year: 1. The VBWD will propose a feasibility study to analyze upstream mitigation measures, mitigation measures in Olson Lake Estate's Pond, and alternate discharge routes. VBWD should fund the cost of the study. 2. The VBWD will pay for the chemical treatment of Olson Lake for one, year. (The residents on the lake pay each year for treatment of the lake.) 3. A spring -time discharge should be done to create capacity in the Olson Lake pond. Also, the Pond shall be treated prior to release, if appropriate. 4. Prior to any other discharge, Olson Lake Estate Pond shall be treated so that phosphorus concentration is no greater than what exists in Olson Lake, 5. A monitoring program shall be conducted to measure the efficiency of the Olson Lake Estates Pond treatment. The Council suggested inviting the Tri Lakes Assoc to the next meeting to keep them appraised of the situation. M/S/C Mottaz/Johnson - that a letter be prepared by the city engineer and administrator stating the city's conditions on which the pond might be allowed normal discharge for one year and forward the letter to VBWD. (Motion carried 4-0). LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 15, 1994 B. Notification by VBWD of development Mannington Downs in West Lakeland Township that is tributary to Downs Lake Larry Bohrer reported that the VBWD notified the city of a proposed development in West Lakeland Township, known as Mannington Downs, which is tributary to Downs Lake. The development of this area will not increase the rate of surface water runoff from the watershed; however, the volume of runoff will increase due to the eventual increase in impervious surface. A decision to approve this subdivision is scheduled at the March 24 VBWD meeting. In the revised 509 plan, the VBWD is proposing a controlled outlet for Downs Lake, but no timetable was developed. M/S/C Mottaz/Conlin - to send a letter to the VBWD encouraging them to accelerate the project to construct an outlet to Downs Lake and ask if there is additional ponding besides the wetlands planned for the new development, Mannington Downs, In West Lakeland Township because this is considered a flood sensitive area. (Motion carried 4-0). The City Administrator will notify Ann Bucheck, Eden Park, that the Mannington Downs Development will be on the March 24, 1994 VBWD agenda. 8. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Officials to be reimbursed for legal fees Attorney Filla reported the Afton circumstance are not exactly the same as Lake Elmo's in the following way: Lake Elmo's case involves a lawsuit by a resident against two council members who were found not in violation of the open meeting law. The Afton case involved a lawsuit by a resident against 3 council members who were subsequently found to have violated the open meeting law even though it may have been unintentional. In addition, in Afton the 3 council members sued the city and the League of Cities. District Court threw out their claims and the appellate court has now reversed. The District Court had said there is a provision in the standard League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Contract that the appellate court requires the League of Cities reimburse for legal costs incurred. This issue is not present in the Lake Elmo case. The League of Cities intends to appeal this and have filed petition. They don't know if the Supreme Court is going to accept the case for review. Attorney Filla was told by the League of Minnesota Cities, pending the outcome of this before the Supreme Court, to file a claim. He will review the letter that was sent to the city denying coverage from the League of MN Cities and draft the correspondence with copies of the appropriate bills and request they reimburse the city under this provision of the standard contract that also applies to Lake Elmo. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 15, 1994 9. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Council member Conlin reported on the March 10 cable commission meeting she attended. Issues discussed were amending the by-laws to always use a weighted vote; amend the joint powers agreement to eliminate alternate directors and update the population. The franchise is up in approx. 17 months and there was discussion on what the next franchise will consist of. Councilman Johnson reported two grant applications were submitted to the DNR for two different tree program. 10. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT A. Recommendation from Solid Waste Committee on Open Burning The law has changed to allow for open burning of trees, brush, grass and other vegetable matter in the clearing of land, the maintenance of street, road and highway right-of-way and in accepted agricultural land management practices. The Solid Waste Committee has asked for some direction from the Council on this. Should they prepare an ordinance similar to that of Stillwater or is the city going to continue its ban on burning. Council members Mottaz and Johnson did not want the city's policy on open burning to change because the residents have a site to bring their brush and leaves/grass clippings and did not want to increase air pollution. B. Recommendation from Solid Waste on Composting The Solid Waste Committee recommended that we continue on accepting leaves and grass clippings and brush from Lake Elmo residents at the same cost as last year. That cost was $10 from Lake Elmo residents which included "Clean Up" days and $15 for non-residents and $50 for the small lawn maintenance contractors. Administrator Kueffner reported an inquiry was received from the City of Woodbury asking about the availability of the site for its residents because they are losing their compost site. The garbage collector for Stillwater and Oak Park Heights will no longer take leaves and grass clippings. If we allow these other communities to use the site, we will have to expand hours of operation so that the traffic is spread out and have to talk to the County in expanding the site to accommodate them. To help defer these additional costs, a suggestion was made to increase non-resident sticker to $20 per calendar year. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 15, 1994 Council member Mottaz was opposed to expansion of the compost operation due to increased traffic and more work for the staff that will not be covered and not included in the total operation cost. Woodbury has land for their own site and didn't want Lake Elmo to be a dumping site. The consensus of the Council was to continue the program that is in -place because they shared the concern that Lake Elmo cannot service the entire East Metro area. If we find we are getting a significant increase in usage, we will look at expansion later. M/S/C Johnson/Mottaz - to increase the non-resident compost fee from $15 to $20, but keep the $10 fee for Lake Elmo residents which includes clean up day and $50 for the small lawn maintenance contractors per calendar year. (Motion carried 4-0). C. Set date for "Clean -Up" Days M/S/C Johnson/Mottaz - to set May 21st from 8 a.m. until noon as Lake Elmo Clean up day. (Motion carried 4-0). D. Recodification Administrator Kueffner explained the PZ did not feel they have the time to go through and rewrite the code. When she explained the ordinances had already been incorporated into the code by the League of MN cities, they felt it would be a job better done by the staff to check to see if all the ordinances are incorporated. If there are sections of the code the council feels need rewriting, then this is a separate issue. The attorney for the League has already reviewed the code and made recommendations. The concern is not completing the recodification. The staff will prepare list of the sections of the code added or changed and Mary will incorporate the ordinances into the code. There is no money in the planning budget for what the Planner has proposed. The Council will form a strategy on how to complete the recodification at the March 22 recodification workshop. E. Letter from Representative Pam Neary The council received a letter from Rep. Pam Neary requesting the city's support of her recent bill on annexations. The council was not in favor of endorsing this bill, but favored proposing a study of the entire Municipal Planning/Annexation laws. M/S/C Mottaz/Johnson - to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. (Motion carried 4- 0). ********************************************** LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL RECODIFICATION WORKSHOP AGENDA Tuesday, March 22, 1994 6:00 p.m. MEETING CONVENES 1. AGENDA 2. MINUTES: March 8, 1994 3. Review letter to City of Oakdale inviting them to a joint council meeting 4. Form strategy to expedite Recodification of Lake Elmo Municipal Code 5. Other 6. Adjourn MINUTES APPROVED: 4-5-94 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL RECODIFICATION WORKSHOP MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 Acting Mayor Johnston called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the city council chambers. PRESENT: Johnston, Mottaz, Johnson, John (arrived 6:30 p.m.) and Administrator Kueffner. ABSENT: Conlin 1. AGENDA M/S/C Mottaz/Johnson - to approve the March 22, 1994 city council agenda as presented. (Motion carried 3-0). 2. MINUTES: March 8, 1994 M/S/C Johnson/Mottaz - to approve the March 8, 1994 council minutes as presented. (Motion carried 3-0) 3. Review letter to City of Oakdale inviting them to a joint council meeting M/S/C Johnson/Mottaz - to approve the letter, as amended (change "request' to "Invite", add "proposed agenda",) to city of Oakdale inviting them to a joint council meeting and approve the proposed agenda. (Motion carried 3-0). 4. Form strategy to expedite Recodification of Lake Elmo Municipal Code Administrator Kueffner explained the purpose of the recodificiaton is to make sure that every ordinance we have adopted since 1979 is inserted in the code. She will check to see if all the ordinances have been inserted and any corrections made by the city will be typed in BOLD 3ta&:&. The Council will review the recodification to make sure it meets the intent and spirit of how the city wants to govern themselves. A finished copy of the recodified section will be mailed to the Council. M/S/C Mottaz/John - that the City Administrator will implement plan as outlined. (Motion carried 4-0). M/S/C Mottaz/Johnson - to adjourn the meeting. (Motion carried 4-0). 11MVI0-04 IUr 10,, 4 r, uI w, ave sr, u LVhn Elmo G I.uke Elmo Airport 17 20 00 3 2` :,5' � CT, to 0 2000 Scale in Feet 1 ��I MANNINGTON DOWNS West Lakeland Township, MN Judges and judicial officers are cautioned to avoid engaging in any preliminary unrecorded and unswom conversation with the officer or prosecutor. See ABA Guidelines for the Issuance of Search Warrants, Guideline 11(3) (1990). In order to complete the record, the recorded oral testimony must be transcribed, the transcript reviewed by the judge or judicial officer to insure Its accuracy, and the transcript filed. This is a requirement of Fed.R.Crim.P. 41 (c)(2)(D) and most state statutes and rules which permit oral warrants. If the recording is done by the applicant rather than thejudge orjudicial officer, the applicant must provide the tape or other original record to the issuing judge or judicial officer as soon as practical so that the judge or judicial officer will be able to have the transcript timely prepared and filed as required by the rule. Pursuant to Rule 36.05 the judge or judicial officer may issue the warrant only after assuring that reasonable circumstances exist for the use of the oral warrant process, that the application is otherwise in conformity with law, and that probable cause exists for the issuance of the warrant. The officer and the judge orjudicial officer must keep in mind that in addition to the special requirements for issuance of an oral warrant, all other requirements for the issuance of a warrant must also be met. See Minn. Star. §§ 626.05 -.17 (1992). Once these require- ments are met, the judge orjudicial officer may authorize the officer to sign the name of the judge or judicial officer to the duplicate original warrant. Rule 36.05 also requires that thejudge orjudicial officer note the exact time the original warrant issigned. In ruling on the oral warrant application, it is strongly suggested that the judge orjudicial officer state on the record whether probable cause exists, what premises or person may be searched under the warrant, and highlight any differences between the authority requested and that granted, The judge or judicial officer should also identify what items may be searched for under the warrant and indicate whether the request has been modified or limited: See ABA Guidelines forthe Issuance of Search Warrants, Guideline 11(12) (1990). Rule 36.06 mandates filing under the provisionsof Rule 33.04, which contains special provisions for filing warrants and related documents. The judge or judicial officer is responsible for seeing that the certified transcript, any longhand verbatim record, and the original warrant are filed. Additionally, Rule 36.06 requires that if the record was made using a tape recorder, the original_ tape be filed as well. If any other form of electronic recording device is utilized, the medium upon which that record is made must also be filed. This requirement ensures the accuracy of the oral warrant record and emphasizes a principal concern of this process, that the oral submission be as reviewable after the fact as traditional affidavits. Rules 36.07 and 36.08 also emphasize that the oral warrant process must observe all the formalities of the conventional warrant process. All concerned are cautioned that the circumstances that permit the use of the oral warrant process do not justify -any other departures from traditional warrant law and practice. The additional requirement in Rule 36.08 that the person executing the warrant enter the time of execution on the duplicate original warrant is modeled on Fed,R.Crim.P. 41(cX2)(F), Rule 36 does not specify sanction for violation of the various procedural requirements of the rule. That is left to caselaw development." 77. Farms. Amend the Introductory Statement to the Criminal Forms following the rules to read as follows: "The following forms are limited in number. No attempt is made to furnish a complete manual of forms. For all complaints charging a misdemeanor offense the prosecuting attorney, judge, judicial officer or clerk of court authorized to issue process shall use the appropriate form as set forth in the following criminal forms or a form substantially in compliance with these forms. The other forms provided herein are not mandatory, but shall be accepted by the court if offered by any party or counsel for their designated purpose." 78. Forms. Amend the Introductory Statement to the Criminal Forms by adding the following comment "Comment The Final Report of the Minnesota Supreme Coun Task Force u„ Racial Bias in the Judicial System (1993) recommends that all judicial forms and documents be drafted in easily translatable English, and be translated by approved legal translators into such additional languages as the State Court Administrator approves. It is recommended that any criminal forms that are translated consist of both English and the additional language." COURT OF APPEALS FILED MARCH 8,1994 Washington County " ' . Davies, Judge District Court File No C199222 Suzanne Jon & Kroschel, et al., �(; Flinch S 3346 Soo. Trafing / ost Tr. Appellants, Afton, MN 55001• Nicholas Mucciacciaro, -'. Jon Erik Kingstad � • St. Croix Law Center Appellant, . 310 South St. Croix Trail Lakeland, MN 55043 VS. .. t The City of Arlon, -.. Pierre N. Regnier .. ::.Marsha Eldot Devine Respondent, .. . Jardine, Logan & O'Brien - - .•--i,:. 2100 Mentor Tower -. 444 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101 .. The League of Minnesota -, Richard B. Allyn Cities Insurance Trust, M. Gregory Simpson Robin, Kaplan, Miller & Cvesi Respondent. 2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 Filed March S, 1994 Office of Appellate Courts SYLLABUS I. A city does not have a duty under Minn. Stat. § 466.07 (1990) to reimburse Its mayor and city council members for costs and attorney fees incurred to defend an alleged violation of the Min- nesota Open Meeting Law. 11..A city may reimburse its mayor and city council members pursuant to Minn. Star. § 465.76 (1990) for costs and attorney fees incurred to defend an action alleging a violation of the open meeting law, III. Pursuant to the tears of the covenant issued by the Minnesota League of Cities InsuranceTrnt, it must defend, or must reimburse for costs and attorney fees incurred to defend, an action alleginf violation of.the open meeting law. Affirmed in part, reversed In part, and remanded. Considered and decided by Davies, Presiding Judge, Kalitowsld, Judge, and Fleming, Judge. Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Coast art. Vl, § 10. OPINION nA VTVC T:,.1 �.... T-. -r. I--- i,:_._: _..._ .. . FINANCE AND COMMERCE APPELLATE COURTS EDITION MARCH 11, 1994 Appellants commenced this action seeking a declaratory judg- ment that respondents have either the duty or the authority to defend, — or to reimburse them for costs and attorney fees incurred to defend, an action alleging that appellants violated the open meeting law. The trial court granted summary judgment for respondents. The trial court also granted $500 in attorney fees for each respondent. We.affirm the grant of attorney fees, but otherwise reverse and remand, FACTS . Appellants were defendants in an actioni brought by an Afton resident against the mayor of Afton and two city council members 'in both their personal and official capacities. Thuma v, Kroschel, 506 N.W.2d 14,16 (Minn. App.1993), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Dec,.14, 1993) (the Thuma action). This action is a derivative of that action. At all relevant times, appellant Jon S. Kroschel was the mayor of the City of Afton; and appellants Suzanne Flinch and Nicholas Mucciacciaro were members of the Afton City Council. Count I of the Thuma complaint alleged that by holding a closed meeting during which they deliberated and approved a contract for the repair of the well in Afton Square Town Park, appellants violated the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn, Stat. § 471.705, subd. 1 (1990). Count II alleged that the mayor's action in approving the contract under "emergency powers" was ultra vires because the mayor has no "emergency powers." Count III alleged that failure to obtain two quotations for the emergency well -drilling contract violated the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law, Minn. Stat. § .471.345, subd. 5 (1990). The Thuma complaint sought a "civil penalty" against each individual defendant in the amount of $100 for each separate viola- tion of.the open meeting law. It also sought to have appellants removed from office because of multiple violations of the open meeting law. It did not seek compensatory 'damages or punitive damages and the city was not a party to the suit. The trial court found that each appellant violated the open meeting law on one occasion; that Mayor Kroschel acted ultra vires in executing the contract without authority of the city council; but that appellants had not violated the Uniform Municipal Contracting Act. For the open meeting violation, the trial court imposed a $100 "civil penalty" on each appellant pursuant to Minn. Star. § 471.705, subd 2.(1900y.. On appeal, this coumaffirmed the ruling that appellants violated the open meeting law: Tbuma Y. Kroschel 506 N.W.2d 14, 19 (Minn. App.1993), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Dec.14,1993). This court concluded, however, that the trial court did not have jurisdic- tion to decide the ultra vices issue on the merits. Id. at 21. While the Thuma action was pending, appellants commenced this declaratory judgment action againstthe city and the Minnesota League of Cities Insurance Trust (MLCIT). Appellants assert that respondent city was obligated to provide them a defense in the Thuma action pursuant to either Minn. Stat. § 466.07 (1990) (indemnification for municipal employee liability) or Minn. Star. § 465.76 (1990) (reimbursement to municipal employee for costs and attorney fees incurred in the, defense of charges of a "criminal nature"). Appellants also assert that respondent MLCIT, a self -in- suring -pool operated for the benefit of Minnesota municipalities, owes them a defense and reimbursement under the covenant issued to the city by MLCIT. Counsel for the city and MLCIT appeared at a first summary judgment motion hearing but the hearing was canceled when ap- pellantsadvised them that a stipulation for dismissal would be filed because the city council had voted to reimburse appellants, Within days, the council decision to reimburse appellants was rescinded,' and the summary judgment motion hearing was again noticed. At the rescheduled hearing, the city and MLCIT sought attorney fees because their counsel had to appear twice to argue the same sum- mary judgment motion. The trial court granted attorney fees in the sum of $500 for each respondent. At the hearing, the district court also granted summary judgment in favor of the city and MLCIT, dismissing with prejudice appellants' petition for declaratory relief. We affirm the award of attorney fees to respondents, but reverse the dismissal, and remand. ISSUES 1. Does the city have a duty under Minn. Star, § 466.07 (1990) to defend the Thuma action, or to reimburse for costs and attorneys fees incurred by appellants to defend the action? 2. May the city under Minn. Stat. § 465.76 (1990) reimburse appellants for costs and attorney fees incurred to defend the Thuma action? 3, Is MLCIT obligated to provide coverage on behalf of the city pursuant to.the terms of the covenant it issued to the city? 4. Did the trial, court abuse its discretion by awarding attorney fees to each respondent in the amount of $5007 . ANALYSIS On appeal from summary judgment, this court must determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law. Offerdahl Y. Univer- sity of Minn. Hasps. & Clinics, 426 N.W.2d 425,427 (1988). The parties agree that there are no material facts in dispute and that resolution of this case depends upon the legal determination of how statutes are applied to undisputed facts. This court owes no deference to the trial court's resolution of a legal issue. Queen v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs., 481 N.W.2d 66, 67 (Minn. App. 1992). "The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature." Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (1990); accord Tuma v. Commissioner of Economic Sec,, 386 N.W.2d 702, 706 (Minn. 1986). When interpreting a statute, the court must examine the language of the statute and, "[a]bsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that legisla- tive intention most ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." . Swenson Y. Emerson Elec. Co., 374 N.W.2d 690,699 (Minn.1985) (quoting Consumer Prod. Safety Comm 'n Y. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108, 100 S. Ct. 2051, 2056 (1980)), cert. denied, 476 U.S.1130 (1986). I The open meeting law requires that meetings of the governing body of any city shall generally be open to the public. Minn. Stat. §471.705, subd. 1 (1990), Any person who violates the open meeting law "shall be subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100 for a single occur. rence."' Minn. Star. § 471.705, subd. 2 (1990) (emphasis added). This court, has already held that appellants violated the open meeting law. Thuma; 506 N.W.2d at 19. We also affirmed that the, violation was unintentional. Id. . The Municipal Tort Liability Act peovides: Indemnification required. [Subject to the statutory max - \imums contained in -section 466.041, a municipality or an - instrumentality of a municipality shall defend and indem. nify any of its officers and employees, whether elective or appo ntive, for damages, including punitive damages,, claimed or levied against the officer or employee, provided that the officer or employee: . (1) was -acting in the performance of the duties of the position; and (2 was not guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of?duty, or bad faith. Minn. Stat. § 466.07, subd.1 (1990) (emphasis added). The trial court concluded that the duty of a municipality to defend and indemnify' 'The claim here is for reimbursement of the costs of defense, not for indemnification of the $100 civil penalty. Its employees under section 466.07 does not extend to the Thuma action because that action, alleging violations of the open meeting law, was not a claim for "damages" or "punitive damages." The plaintiff in the Thuma action sought imposition of a "civil penalty" under Minn: Star. § 471.705, subd. 2 (1990). The trial court con- cluded that the "civil penalty" was not analogous to "damages," as referred to in section 466.07, and the duty of the city to defend its All opinions since 1989 can be faxed. Ca11883.4244 50 employees under section 466.07 did not extend to the Thuma action. We agree. Prior to 1987, a municipality had a duty to defend and indemnify Its employees against any "tort claim or demand." Minn. $tat. § 466.07 (1086). Section 466.07 was amended in 1987, however, to remove the word "tort" from that phrase. 1987 Minn. Laws ch. 79, § 2. As amended, section 466.07 provides that a municipality must defend and indemnify its employees against any claim for "damages, including punitive damages." Minn. Stat. `§ 466.07 (1990). Appellants argue that removal of the word "tort" by the 1987 amendment was intended to broaden a municipality's duty to defend and indemnify its employees. That may be true, but we are not persuaded that the duty was extended to reach this kind of case. The attorney general has specifically rejected that contention; Indeed, while the 1987 amendment deletes the reference to "tort," itspecifically incorporates the notion that the defense and indemnification requirements are directed to actions for "damages." As noted in [Op. Ally. Gen. 471-a (April 29,1983)], an action to impose sanctions under the Open Meeting Law is wholly unrelated to the establishment of monetary damages. Yii Thus, ►tcontinues to be our view that Minn. StaL § 466.07 does not expressly provide authority for defense and indemnification of officers charged personally with Open Meeting I.aw violations, ' Op. Att'y Gen. 471-a (Dec. 31,1992) (emphasis added). . One of the legislature's reasons for requiring indemnification of municipal employees for damage claims was to reduce the risk that employees would be burdened with damage awards. Hearing on S.F. No. 53 Before the Senate Judiciary Committee (Feb. 2, 1987).. We do not believe the $100 civil penalty under the open meeting jaw is the type of personal expense the legislature was concerned about when it enacted the indemnification law, or the 1987 amendment to it. Appellants also attempt to characterize the civil penalty in the open meeting law as punitive damages. As such, appellants argue, the city must defend them under section,466.07. We conclude, however, for several reasons, that civil penalties do not constitute punitive damages. First, punitive damages are allowed only where the harm complained of is the result of "deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others." Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(a) (1990). But a civil penalty is called for under the open meeting law even when, as here, the violation was unintentional. Thurna, 506 N. W.2d at 19. Second, punitive damages are awarded to a plaintiff; a civil penalty'is awarded to the government (in this case, the city). Appellants also argue that there is no rational public policy basis to maintain that a violation of the open meeting law is not entitled to defense by the municipality, while at the same time requiring a municipality to defend a public official or employee accused of unlawful discrimination, violations of civil. rights, sexual harass- ment, or police brutality. We conclude, however, that the wrongs referred to by appellants are directed against individuals (or groups of individuals) who, as victims, are allowed to seek compensatory and/or punitive damages for themselves, whereas an open meeting violation is more property viewed as a wrong directed at society as a whole. Thuma, as an individual plaintiff, could not seek damages as compensation for herself for an open meeting violation. Cf. Grossman Y. School Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 640, 389 N.W.2d 532, 536 (Minn. App. 1986) (Complaint. alleging open meeting violations.must seek "civil penalty," not to exceed $100 to be paid to plaintiff himself, rather than "damages" of $100.). The whole purpose is deterrence. We hold that the city has no duty under section 466.07 to defend or reimburse appellants for costs and attorney fees incurred in defense of the Thuma action. Minn. Star. § 465.76 (1990) provides: If reimbursement is requested by the officer or employee, • the governing body of a home rule charter or statutory city or county may; after consultation with its legal counsel, reimburse a city or county officer or employee for any costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the person to defend charges of a criminal nature brought against the person that arose out of the reasonable and lawful perfor- mance of duties for the city or county. (Emphasis added.) The trial court concluded that appellants are not entitled to rein bursement of their attorney fees under Minn. Star. §.465.76 becout (1) allegations of a violation of the open meeting law are not chargr of a "criminal nature," and (2) the allegations did not arise out of it lawful performance by appellants'of their duties. We recognize that a violation of the open meeting law is not criminal act and that the statutory penalty is a "civil penalty." Min Stat. § 471.705, subd. 2.. We also recognize that the safeguan normally afforded a criminal defendant are not applicable in dete mining whether a violation has occurred. Nevertheless, we do n believe the legislature required defense of officials in suits f damages under section 466.07 and permitted their defense, and section 465.76, against criminal charges that could result in incz ceration, yet intended to bar reimbursement of defense costs actions seeking a civil fine. The attorney general has opined that "the authority of cities reimburse officers for criminal defense may be construed to inclu as well defense of allegations of violation of the Open Meed Law." Op. Att'y Gen. 471-a (Dec. 31, 1992). We agree. 'I attorney general opinion goes on, however, to state a propositi with which we do not fully.agree--that in "virtually all cases would be required] that [the] officer not be guilty of the violatl charged If reimbursement is to be granted," Id. That is, if a violat: is found to have occurred, according to the attorney general cannot then be said that the allegation of violation of the bl meeting law "arose out of the reasonable and lawful performan of public duties. But it has been established in this case tl although appellants violated the open meeting law, the violation v unintentional. In such a circumstance, we find the condurt to within the "reasonable and lawful performance of publk I within the meaning of section 465.76. The violation was a) ... piy unfortunate misstep --a stumble --while the azppellants went about performance of legitimate public services. a We do not address, however, the question of whether the statute we allow payment of defense costs if the open meeting violation were wil or intentional. • .. r We conclude that the city may provide reimbursement pursuan section 465.76. Because the city council members who are disinterested in re bursement is less ttian a quorum the council must paresent reimbursement decision to a district court For approval. 3 Section 465.76 provides:.. [Ilf lessthana quorum of the governing body is disinterested, reimbursement shall be approved by a judge of the'district court. (That may be unnecessary, however, in light of our decisior MLCIT liability that follows in part III.) We remand to the dis court. M. Under the covenant issued to the city by MLCIT, MLCIT h duty to defend and indemnify city officials in suits arising from l errors and omissions in performing city duties, except that MLCIT's duty to pay on behalf of or to .indemnify a "covered party" other than the "city" shall not apply to any -" act, error or omission: d. For which the "city" is not authorized to Indemnify any person bav statute. (Emphasis added ) 4 The provision in its entirety reads: MLCIT's duty to pay on behalf of or to indemnify a "wvered( " than the "city shall not apply to any act, error or omission: - a.Which constitutes malfeasance in office; or b. Which constitutes willful neglect of duty; or c.Which constitutes bad faith; or d. For which the "city" is not authorized to indemnify any person by st or 1.- 51 All opinions since 109 can be faxed. Ca,'IM FINANCE AND COMMERCE APPELLATE COURTS EDMON e, Which constitutes dishonesty on the part of a "covered party;" or `f. Which constitutes the willful violation of a statute or ordinance by any f6cial, employee, or agent of the "city." 'The terms "malfeasance," "willful neglect of duty," and "bad faith" shall be given the same meaning in this covenant as given in the applicable statute with respect to the "city's" duty to defend or indemnify its official, employees or agents. The coverage afforded by the covenant thus parallels the city's statutory duty and authority to defend and to reimburse; and, be- cause the city may (under our holding in part II) reimburse appellants' defense costs pursuant to section 465.76, we conclude that MLCIT has a concomitant duty under the covenant to reimburse appellants for the costs and attorney fees they incurred in defense of the Thuma action (in the absence of malfeasance, etc.). We note, however, that MLCIT does not have a duty to indemnify for the $100 penalties imposed against each appellant because the policy specifically excludes coverage for "fines or penalties Im- posed by law.", Furthermore, In addition to the exclusion in the covenant, the open meeting law explicitly calls for "personal liability" for the $100 civil penalty. Minn. Stat. § 471.705, subd. I IV: The trial court granted attorney fees in the amount of $500 for each respondent. The district court has broad discretion in awarding ,fees. Solon v. Soloa, 255 N.W,2d 395, 397 (1977). Appellants do not dispute that respondents had to appear twice due to appellant's actions. We find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in awarding attorney fees to respondents under these circumstances, DECISION The city does not have a duty to defend and reimburse under Minn. Stat. § 466.07 (1990) for costs and attorney fees incurred by appel- lants In their defense of the Thuma action. The city may, however, )under Minn. Star, § 465.76 (1990), provide reimbursement for attorney fees and other defense costs. Because less than a quorum of the city council is disinterested in this matter, approval of any reimbursement decision must be sought from a district court., Under the terms of the covenant issued by MLCIT to the city, MLC1T has a duty to defend and, therefore, to reimburse for the cost of defending. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees in the amount of $500 to each respondent. Affirmed in -part, reversed In part, and remanded. Blue Earth County Lansing, Judge District Court rlCX911921 Willard T. Dorn, et. al„ Michael D. Schwartz David E. Wandling Appellants, Michael D. Schwartz, P.A. Suite 230 12900 Whitewater Drive Minneapolis, MN 55343 VS. John Peterson, Individually Bailey W. Blethen and in his capacity as an - - Blelhen, Gage & Krause Employee of H & C Electric 127 South Second Street Supply Company, et, al., P.O. Box 3049 Mankato, MN 56001 Respondents. Filed: March 8,1994 Office of Appellate Courts SYLLABUS I, There is no age ceiling on the Minnesota Human Rights Act's MARCH 11, 1994 prohibition against discharge based on age, but the Act permits an exemption for a mandatory retirement age established by law or an employer's published retirement policy if it is established consistent with Minn. Stat. § 181.81 (1990). II. An employer's statement to the Department of Jobs and Training in response to an employee's claim for unemployment benefits is absolutely privileged and cannot be the basis for a defamation action both because the response is an integral part of a quasi-judicial proceeding and because the response is required by statute. . Affirmed in part and reversed In part. Considered and decided by Norton, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, Forsberg, Judge. OPINION LANSING, Judge (Hon. James D. Mason, District Court Trial Judge) This appeal raises the question of whether the Minnesota Human Rights Act protects employees seventy years of age and older against discharge based on age. We hold that Minn. Stat. § 363,03, subd. I (2)(b) (1990) prohibits discharge based on agewith no upper age limit, but Minn. Stat. § 363.02, subd. 6 (1990)allows an exemp- tion for a mandatory retirement age to be established by law or by an employer's published retirement policy if it is established con- sistent with Minn, Star. § 181.81 (1990). This appeal also requires us to determine whether an employer's submission to the Depart- ment of Jobs and Training of reasons for discharge Is absolutely or qualifiedly privileged for purposes of a defamation action. We conclude that within the context of the unemployment compensa- tion claim procedure, an employer's statement of reasons for dis- charge is absolutely privileged. FACTS. H & C Electric Supply Company employed Willard Dorn from 1960 to 1991 and John Hoerr from 1980 to 1991. Both employees were discharged in 1991 by John Peterson, general manager for H & C Electric. At the time of discharge Dorn was seventy-nine years old and Hoerr was seventy-eight years old. H & C Electric did not have a mandatory retirement policy. Peterson stated that Dom and Hoerr were discharged for deficient performance. Dom and Hoerr claim that Peterson told them that the discharge was because of their age. Both Dom and Hoerr applied for unemployment benefits. Peter- son,. in response to an inquiryfrom the Department of Jobs and Training, wrote a letter saying that he had terminated Hoerr so other more qualified employees could advance, that Hoerr's termination had nothing to do with his age, that Hoerr had difficulty using H & C Electrie's computer system, and that Hoerr had held his position as buyer because of H & C Electric's prior owners. Peterson wrote a separate letter stating that Dom was terminated because his ,productivity had decreased over the past eight to ten years, that Dorn could not provide some services other buyers could, and that he, like Hoerr, had kept his job because of his personal relationship with the prior owners, Audrey Roden, Peterson's secretary, typed the letters, and Bob Stark, H & C Electric's plant manager, knew the letters' contents. Dom and Hoerr brought this action claiming (1) age discrimina- tion under Minn. Star. § 363.03, subd. 1 (2)(b) (1990), and (2) defamation based on Peterson's statements to the Department of Jobs and Training. The district court held that Dorn and Hoerr were not protected from age discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and that Peterson's statements were privileged. The district court entered summary judgment against Dorn and Hoerr and they appeal. ISSUES I. Does Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subd, 1 (2)(b) (1990) protect employees seventy years of age or older from discharge based on age? IL Is an employer's response' to a specific inquiry from the Department of Jobs and Training relating to an employee's claim for unemployment benefits protected by absolute or qualified a hot-line to ask elp, said Kelly ate director. challenge is sue- d hope we could elp more people," still got minors poor — people filth insurance — me up with the abortion." abortion in Min- )m about $250 to lights advocates, law would add to of victories here icluding removal 14,000 e women ligible for ley. ban on abortions my Medical Cen- nton's lifting of a abortions and a revented federal- , from referring on clinics. are performed at clinics and hospi- 3t. Paul -Ramsey five Twin Cities Women's Health iow a change in affect Hennepin Center, where a bortions was lift - he policy change rily to allow for ity of Minnesota at the Minneap- abortion proce- >spital's intent is at training at ex- inics. ortions have tak- medical center s lifted, said Dr. the hospital's Ise public money rtions would, if Tease the hospi- abortion clinics. A National Weather Service in actor who visited the station in .rly January said the Hibbing of- fice was a disorganized and unsat- isfactory station. The inspector also said most of the staff at the station, operated by Weather One Corp., was unfa- miliar with a procedure used to calibrate instruments that mea- sure barometric pressure. "He was right on some things. We should have been doing the (barometric) comparisons," con- tractor Michael Nbalik said Mon- day. The federal inspector's report Minneapolis -St. Paul. All 18 people on board were killed. The safety board has not ruled on the cause of the crash but re- ports released to date have raised questions about the pilot's training history, his ability to work with others and the labor-management climate at the airline. The NTSB has scheduled its hearing on the crash for May 24, There is no indication the board is looking at the weather station's operation as a cause. The weather station has received "no special focus," said board spokesman Alan Pollock. service because it was out of cali- ration. The device was about 20 feet off — a discrepancy considered "slightly out of tolerance," Pollock said. Mihalik disagreed with the in- spector's finding, saying the de- vice was "just within tolerance." He also challenged the investi- gator's finding that his office is disorganized. "I'll challenge anybody to come up here and work with any of my employees, especially when the weather is bad, and I'll guarantee they'll walk away impressed," he said. Officials to be reimbursed for legal fees MARY R. SANDOK ASSOCIATED PRESS Three Afton City officials found to have violated Minnesota's open meeting law unintentionally can be reimbursed for their legal fees stemming from the case, the state Court of Appeals has ruled. In a unanimous opinion to be filed today, a three -judge panel said that the city's insurance car- rier must reimburse. the three offi- cials. The ruling reversed key parts of a Washington County trial court's decision. Mayor Jon Krosehel and City Council Members Suzanne Flinch and Nicholas Mucciacciaro spent a total of between $56,000 and $80,000 defending themselves against an Afton resident's law- suit, according to estimates from attorneys involved in the case. The appeals court rejected the officials' claims that the city was required to pay their legal bills, but said that the city could pay the costs voluntarily. The court said that the Minnesota League of Cit- ies Insurance Trust, under terms of its policy with the city, had a duty to reimburse them. Pierre Regmer, an attorney rep- resenting the city of Afton, said the ruling "has much more of an impact on the League of Minneso- ta Cities Insurance Trust, because it mandates the league to reim- burse them for their attorney fees. "As far as the city is concerned, the court affirmed what we ar- gued all along: there's no manda- tory requirement of the city to reimburse as they claimed." The appeals court previously af- firmed a finding that the three officials unintentionally violate. the open meeting law in June 1991 by holding a closed meeting dur- ing which they approved a well repair contract. Each official was fined $100. In the reimbursement case ap- peal, the court said its ruling did not address whether cities were permitted to pay defense costs if open meeting law violations were found to be intentional. Richard Allyn, attorney for the trust, said trust officials will de- cide in the next few days what their next step will be. Jon Erik Kingstad, Mucciacci- aro's attorney, praised the ruling. "The public interest is, if people don't get the assurance that they can receive a defense for keeping offices that they legitimately won in an election, a lot of people who don't have the financial means will simply be excluded from pub- lic office," he said. Age discrimination ruling. In another case, the court held that the Minnesota Human Rights Act protects workers, no matter how old, from discharge based on age. But it permits exemptions for a mandatory retirement age estab- lished by law or an employer's published retirement policy if it is consistent with state law. That ruling stemmed from a case brought in Blue Earth County regarding the firing in 1991 of two employees — then ages 78 and 79 — by H&C Electric Supply Co. An appeals court panel ruled that the former employees — John Hoerr and Willard Dorn — can sue for age discrimination be- cause the company did not have a mandatory retirement policy. was a warehouse for Farwell Uz mun and Kirk hardware wholesal— ers. It is the third such renovatic • Debt Consolidation • Purchase/Refinance •Second Homes • Rural Property • 100% Equity Loans • Home Improvement • Slow Credit • CID Payoffs single-family homE for artists' families sold three. You can install this thermal windo present window frame using our s Weatherstrip and special balance with WOOD sash glazed with insl Easy to follow instructions Specially engineered windows tilt you can easily wash both sides frc A time saver! A wide variety of sta Special sizes can be made to fit ye opening. Stock Sizes or Custom Made 1301 EAST 7TH ST. AT JOHNSON PARKW, f 91011 fC01 ^LM /_1RBJRA1/+llC9 Since the City Council does not have time to discuss every point presented, it may appear that decisions are preconceived. However, staff provides background information to the City Council on each agenda item in advance; and decisions are based on this information and experiences. In addition, some items may have been discussed at previous council meetings. If you are aware of information that has not been discussed, please fill out a 'Request to Appear Before the City Council" form; or, if you came late, raise your hand to be recognized. Comments that are pertinent are appreciated. Items may be continued to a future meeting if additional time is needed before a decision can be made. AGENDA LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 15, 1994 7:00 p.m. Meeting Convenes Pledge of Allegiance 1. Agenda 2. Minutes: March 3, 1994 3. Claims 4. Public Informational 5. Old Business A. Update on HF 1828 6. Planning, Land Use & Zoning A. Recommendation from.Planning Commission on Highway 5 Study B. Other 7. City Engineer's Report 8. City Attorney's Report 9. City Council Reports A. Mayor John B. Council member Conlin C. Council member Johnson D. Council member Johnston E. Council member Mottaz 10. City Administrator's Report A. Recommendation from Solid Waste Committee on Open Burning B. Recommendation from Solid Waste on Composting C. Set date for "Clean -Up" Days D. Recodification 11. Adjourn �ONtis 70 ALG or.J /1la/zt�I�L A/ s cN�Ive�.E. /. YQw D Gi," // P.� 7 CO ,4 /EPA S / %3ic/7Y Szup y 70 s e vs S UP57/ze4W O!/W 447io,tJ ,cleAsu2� j R/7/ 4fJT<o,J wews'vieeS /N PD,u /0 A67eR vA7,p- D/ScA/A)e4 E. 14v-seS_ o?. YQ c� /, Gu,' // 1pA Y Fo 4 7 e C//ew1/c,o c_ 7e�� 7sy P•d 7' /� OGSo .v L,4,e e Fo.� 7•S//s S'PA,� 3, 4 5A,e/ti4 7/AWe 2)/Sc114Rer- .S/foeec,p /Se ,ve 70 C.ee.4- -e cAPAcr7Y /.v 7He i°dAJ6 7'f/e PaAvO 5/ACC Pie �.ePAYPO P.e/o,e z�7 leeee4S e Ae14-; -e ANY ri/P�/scNA��EJ Pvuv Sif'AG C 3 e Tiet:9 T' eD SO 7W l 7' /°f%S�iyb,Cus CONpe�v7.c°AT/0.J /S No CFj eP./7e4 7fj�A�+J ,(4/NAT �F)c/S7S /.0 OCSd.✓ LA/c e s- A l2ld �iz-d2.ti P,ed G,e.�sh ,5N.9cc. /3e �dN0ue7e4 e.9sdee �iEyc/CP.ucy 0 F Idd.✓D e// 7`ds e,v 7,