Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1990-08-06_COUNCIL PACKET
AGENDA EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 6, 1990 ROLLCALL I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF HRA MEETING OF JULY 16, 1990. II. BID - POWER SWEEPER - CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK (Contd from 7/16/90) III. ADJOURNMENT EDINA CITY COUNCIL PROCLAMATION - Grand Opening Dayton's Southdale I. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All agenda items marked with an asterisk ( *) and in bold print.-are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of such items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. * II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of July 16, 1990 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planner. Public comment heard. Motion to close hearing. Zoning Ordinance: First and Second Reading requires 4/5 favorable rollcall vote of all members of Council to pass. Final Development Plan Approval of Property Zoned Planned District: 3/5 favorable rollcall vote required to pass. * A. Extention of Enforcement Date - Dr. Joyce Anderson - Home Occupation. * B. Set Hearing Date (08/20/90) 1. Preliminary Plat Approval for Lindell Addition - Steven Lindell - 7017 Antrim Road * 2. Preliminary Rezoning - Planned Industrial District to PCD -1, Planned Commercial District - Jerry's Enterprises /Opus - Generally located south of Eden Avenue and west of Soo Line railroad tracks IV. ORDINANCES First Reading: Requires offering of Ordinance only. Second Reading: Favorable rollcall vote of majority of all members of Council required to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: 4/5 favorable rollcall vote of all members of Council required to pass. A. Second Reading - Ordinance No. 312 -A2 - To Declare Certain Animal Noises to be a Public Nuisance V. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS VI. AWARD OF BIDS A. Brush Chipper * B. Grade, Sod and Landscape Work - Various locations * C. Removal of Diseased Trees & Stumps and Trimming of Boulevard Trees Agenda Edina City Council August 6, 1990 Page 2 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS 20 A. Yard Waste Rebate * B. Feasibility Report - Alley Improvement E -32, Sidewalk Improvement 5 -50 and Street Surfacing with Concrete Curb & Gutter Improvement BA -292 C. Appointment - Community Health Services Advisory Committee * D. Election Judge Appointments - Primary Election E. Hennepin County Committee Appointments Meeting 7:00 1. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Board Council Room Thurs 2. CASH Board 23 F. 1990 -91 Work Program 5:00 G. Request of Edina School District for Rebate of Excess Tax Increments VIII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES. 28 A. SHHSC - Regional Forum IX. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL X. POST AGENDA AND MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 29 A. Multi- family Recycling XI. FINANCE Mgrs Conf Rm A. Budget Assumptions * B. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Transfer of Funds Agreement * C. Payment of Claims per Check Register dated 08/06/90: Total $691,788.08 SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS Mon Aug 20 Joint Meeting - Council /Building Construction 6:00 p.m. Mgrs Conf Rm Appeals Board Regular Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Room Thurs Aug 23 Budget Hearing 5:00 p.m. Mgrs Conf, Rm Tues Aug 28 Budget Hearing 5:00 p.m. Mgrs Conf Rm Wed Aug 29 Budget Hearing 5:00 p.m. Mgrs Conf Rm Tues Sept 4 Regular Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Room Tues Sept 11 PRIMARY ELECTION Polls open 7 a.m. - 8 p.m. Mon Sept 17 Regular Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Room Poor Quality Document Disclaimer The original or copy of a document or page of a document presented at the time of digital scanning contained within this digital file may be of substandard quality for viewing, printing or faxing needs. MINUTES EDINA HOUSING AMD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JULY 16, 1990 Answering rollcall were Commissioners Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Chairman Richards. MINUTES of the HRA meeting of July 2, 1990 were approved as submitted by motion of Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Paulus. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. AWARD OF BID FOR POWER SWEEPER FOR CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK CONTINUED TO 8/6/90 Motion of Commissioner Paulus was seconded by Commissioner Rice to continue the award of bid for a power sweeper for Centennial Lakes Park to August 6, 1990. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. There being no further business on the HRA Agenda, the meeting was adjourned by motion of Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Rice. Motion carried unanimously. Executive Director tit �w 1888 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, in 1891, Joseph Hudson built an eight- story, full -line department store in Detroit, Michigan; and WHEREAS, in 1902, George D. Dayton built a six - story, multi -use building on the corner of Nicollet and 7th Street in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which housed Goodfellow's Dry Goods; and WHEREAS, in 1903, Mr. Dayton bought out Goodfellow's and changed the corporate name to Dayton Dry Goods Company, officially becoming The Dayton Company in 1910; and WHEREAS, in 1956, Dayton's Southdale Store opened in the first fully enclosed, climate - controlled shopping center in the United States, located in Edina, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, in 1969, the J. L. Hudson Company and The Dayton Corporation merged to create The Dayton Hudson Corporation, which in 1984 resulted in the formation of the Dayton Hudson Department Store Company; and WHEREAS, this decade will see Dayton's ushering in a new era in customer service with the opening of a new Southdale Store. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Thursday, August 9, 1990, be recognized as the Grand Opening of the new Dayton's at Southdale - -a four - level, 370,000 square foot store which has been designed with two primary goals in mind: ease of shopping and an ambiance which reflects an understated elegance and warmth. FURTHERMORE, with the commitment to construct the new store in the City of Edina, this exemplifies the strong public - private partnership between the City of Edina and Dayton's,, with Southdale continuing to be one of the premiere shopping centers in the country. MAYOR rs MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JULY 16, 1990 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members.Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Mayor Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to approve and adopt the consent agenda items as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF 6/4/90 6/18/90 AND 7/2190 APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to approve the minutes of the regular meetings of June 4, 1990, June 18, 1990 and July 2, 1990 as submitted. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR LINDELL ADDITION (LOT 1 BLOCK L DANEN'S MEADOWS) CONTINUED TO 8/20/90 Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to-continue the public hearing on preliminary plat approval for Lindell Addition, Lot 1, Block 1, Danen's Meadows (7017 Antrim Road) to August 20, 1990. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO EDINA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT - PARK PLAN CONTINUED TO 8/20190 Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to continue the public hearing on the amendment to the Edina Comprehensive Plan - Community Facilities Element - Park Plan to August 20, 1990. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. FIRST READING GRANTED FOR ORDINANCE NO. 312 -A2 (TO DECLARE CERTAIN ANIMAL NOISES TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE) Manager Rosland presented Ordinance No. 312 -A2 and stated that the amendment is in response to the recent decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals which ruled that the City's animal control ordinance as it pertains to dog barking was unconstitutional. The State Supreme Court refused to review the case and as such the decision of the Court of Appeals stands. Manager Rosland referred to a letter dated July 6, 1990 from Marsh Halberg, City Prosecuting Attorney, indicating that based upon his research into this problem, he would propose two options to the Council summarized as follows: Option I - Modify the existing ordinance phrase that says "disturb the peace and quiet" to say "unreasonably disturb.the peace and quiet." The advantage of this option is that is involves a minimal change to the ordinance and it allows flexibility to address the unique fact situation of each case for enforcement. Option II - Rewrite the ordinance to include greater specificity as to what may cause a violation. The advantage of this option is that it includes a very definite definition of a certain fact situation where the ordinance would be violated. One of the criticisms by the Court of Appeals is that the current ordinance does not give enough notice to people as what would cause a violation. Option II is drafted to say that if a dog barks continually for five minutes, and it could be heard anywhere off the premises, it would be a violation. The Prosecuting Attorney and staff would recommend that the Council consider adoption of the ordinance amendment as stated in Option II. Member Rice asked if a named complainant is a requirement under either option. Manager Rosland responded that staff would probably continue the existing policy. Mayor Richards then called for public comment on the proposed ordinance amendment. Nancy Dreher, 1 Spur Road, stated that the subject case heard by the Court of Appeals involved their dog. Regarding the proposed ordinance amendment, she made the following comments. 1) The Council should keep in mind the statement of the Court of Appeals that cities are required to be as specific as they possibly can with respect to something that can be vague and subject to abuse. This is an important matter and should not be treated lightly. It is now a matter of state concern, there are other municipalities that are concerned and she would hope that the Council would allow citizen input from both sides of the issue. 2) The second option is better than the first but still has some problems. 3) The precomplaint procedure is probably as important as what the ordinance says. It is the means by which citizens can be harassed. She pointed out that they still do not know which neighbor complained about their dog. She said she would like to see some language in the amendment that would say there has to be a willful violation. Also, the use of words like "unreasonably" and "any" makes it more vague. Mayor Richards commented that this issue has been addressed by the Council on a number of occasions. It is a serious matter - that we deal in a neighborly fashion with one another to create a hospitable environment for all. He said that the feedback from the citizens who have called him have indicated that we are on the right approach in trying to deal with this subject. Member Smith said he would support Option II and felt that a precomplaint process similar to that being used by the City of Minneapolis should be considered. Member Rice observed that he, too, favored Option II but felt that the Minneapolis process was unreasonably burdensome. Regarding citizen input, Member Kelly submitted that the Edina Sun - Current had published a front page article on the issue noting that the City planned to revise the ordinance at this meeting. Mayor Richards elaborated that if First Reading were granted that prior to Second Reading a precomplaint process should be outlined for review by the Council so that any policy issues could be resolved as part of the ordinance amendment adoption procedure. Attorney Erickson said that in discussing this with Prosecuting Attorney Halberg, they agreed that it would be best to leave the complaint process as an administrative procedure as opposed to putting it into the ordinance. It would be easier to change the procedure if it were not part of the ordinance if it was determined administratively later that another process would be better. That would not preclude review of the process by the Council. Member Smith introduced Ordinance No. 312 -A2 - To Declare Certain Animal Noises To Be a Public Nuisance, for First Reading as follows, with the understanding that prior to Second Reading the administrative policy on the precomplaint process would be presented for Council review and comment: ORDINANCE NO. 312 -A2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 312 TO DECLARE CERTAIN ANIMAL NOISES TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Sec. 9(j) of Ordinance No. 312 is hereby amended to read as follows: (j) No person owning, operating, having charge of, or occupying, any building or premise shall keep or allow to be kept, any animal which shall, by any.noise, unreasonably disturb the peace and quiet of any person in the vicinity. The phrase "unreasonably disturb the peace and quite" shall include, but is not limited to, the creation of any noise by any animal which can be heard by any.person, including a law enforcement officer or animal control officer, from a location outside of the building or premises where the animal is being kept and which animal noise occurs repeatedly over at least a five - minute period of time with one minute or less lapse of time between each animal noise during the five minute period." Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage and publication. Motion for First Reading of Ordinance No. 312 -A2 was seconded by Member Kelly. Chief Swanson said he had talked with Prosecuting Attorney regarding the precomplaint process and that they felt the Minneapolis process is excessive. The suggested process would be that when calling the Police Department regarding an alleged violation the complainant must give his/her identity. Data privacy law says that a complainant's name is confidential regarding complaints against property. Two warning notices would then be issued, the first would include the specific ordinance violation and would be delivered to the dog owner's home whether the owner was there or not. Then, prior to formal notice of complaint of ordinance violation, the Police Department would secure the cooperation of the complaining party to be part of the proposed prosecution with waiver of confidentiality. Mrs. Dreyer commented that if the precomplaint process is not included in the ordinance amendment, the citizens should be informed as to the process and also that a police officer should visit the dog owner's home. Mayor Richards then called for rollcall vote on the motion for First Reading of the ordinance. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards First Reading granted. Manager Rosland stated that Ordinance No. 312 -A2 would be on the Council Agenda for Second Reading on August 6, 1990. FIRST READING GRANTED FOR ORDINANCE NO. 715 -A1 - TO PROVIDE MANDATORY SEPARATION AND STORAGE OF RECYCLABLES FROM PRD AND MDD DISTRICTS AND ORDINANCE NO 1301 -A5 TO REQUIRE HAULERS TO OFFER RECYCLABLE COLLECTION SERVICE AND REPORTS Mayor Richards recalled that at the meeting of July 2, 1990 the Council had considered the recommendation and proposal of the Recycling Commission for a recycling program for apartments and condominiums and had approved the drafting of ordinances to implement the program. Recycling Coordinator Chandler advised that apartment and condominium owners were notified by mail that the Council would consider the proposed ordinance amendments on July 16, 1990. She said that several owners who had called her about the program were in the audience to speak about their concerns. The proposed ordinances were summarized as follows: Ordinance No. 715 -A1 - Requires that as of January 1, 1991: - Recycling programs shall be set up in all multi -unit housing buildings - Residents of such buildings (except nursing homes) shall be required to separate recyclables from other refuse - Apartment and condominium managers or associations shall report recycling program information to the City. Ordinance No. 1301 -A5 - Requires that as of January 1, 1991 garbage haulers: - Shall offer recycling service to their apartment and condominium customers - Shall report to the City, on a quarterly basis, the tonnage of recyclables collected from Edina apartments and condominiums. Mayor Richards then called for public comment on the proposed ordinances. Sandy Lattu, Manager of Cedars of Edina, 7340 Gallagher Drive, stated that she represented 600 units which is 20% of the apartments in the City. She said that although she supports recycling, the proposed ordinance to mandate recycling programs for multi -unit housing buildings would place a financial burden on Cedars of Edina of an additional $12,000 per.year for recycling service from their hauler. Ms. Lattu asked that the Council consider: 1) Subsidizing the recycling program cost for multi - family housing buildings the same as for the single family dwelling program (20 %), and 2) Delaying the start of the mandatory recycling program for multi - family housing buildings until the haulers install weighing equipment on their trucks for trash /refuse in order to reduce those hauling costs. Meanwhile, they would like to start a voluntary recycling program to teach their residents to recycle before it becomes mandatory. Carl Weisser, Manager of Point of France, 6566 France Avenue, stated they have had a recycling program for a number of years and have hauled their own recyclables. He said it would cost them extra money to have licensed haulers pick -up their recyclables. Coordinator Chandler clarified that the intent of the ordinance was that the garbage haulers shall offer recycling service to apartment /condominium customers. However, apartment /condominium managers are free to select their hauler or haul the recyclables themselves and make reports to the City. John Rocheford, Rocheford Management Company, stated that he manages over 800 condominium units in the City and that voluntary recycling has worked well. Without recycling, their hauling costs would be 30 -40% more that they are now. He asked for the support of the Council in requesting Hennepin County to also pay for the recycling program in multi - family housing buildings. Mayor Richards said that at the meeting of July 2, 1990 the Council recognized that the question of funding was an issue. It was the consensus of the Council that the funding issue be considered as part of the 1991 budget process in the budget hearings scheduled for August 23, 28 and 29 and final hearings when the 1991 budget will be certified in December. Member Smith introduced Ordinance No. 715 -A1 for First Reading as presented and on file in the office of the City Clerk. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards First Reading granted. Member Paulus introduced Ordinance No. 1301 -A5 for First Reading as presented and on file in the office of the City Clerk. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards First Reading granted. It was the consensus of the Council that the ordinances should be considered for Second Reading on Tuesday, September 4, 1990 following the budget meetings. CONCERN OF RESIDENT HEARD REGARDING HOME OCCUPATION AT 7121 GLOUCHESTER AVENUE Manager Rosland provided background information on the involvement of the Planning Department with Dr. Joyce Anderson, 7121 Glouchester Avenue. He explained that in late March, 1990, a resident on Glouchester Drive near Dr. Anderson's home registered a complaint alleging the following: 1) Dr. Anderson is a psychologist who regularly sees clients in her home. 2) Approximately 20 clients visit the home on a scheduled basis per week. 3) The clients park on the street. Between late March and April 6, 1990, the Planning staff observed the activity at the property and after confirming the complaints Dr. Anderson was contacted by telephone and advised that she was in violation of Ordinance No. 825.7.D, specifically the following provisions: (e) parking demands not accommodated on site, (f) more than 10 automobile trips weekly; (d) professional who typically conducts meetings in home. Since that time Dr. Anderson has indicated that she intends to continue her business. She maintains that a handicap forces her to. conduct her business from her home. Staff has also received two additional complaints regarding Dr. Anderson's business activity. Dr. Anderson and her attorney, John Mooty, have been advised by letter dated July 3, 1990 of the following potential: 1) Appeal the staff's contention that she is indeed in violation; 2) Seek an Ordinance amendment which could specify a handicap related exception. Mayor Richards commented that there are a number of people that have different views on the situation and that often the Council Members are cast into a position where they become a quasi - judicial body as to compliance or non- compliance. He said that the focus should be on the process and any judgement should be based on that. Attorney Erickson observed that the City has a process when a party objects to an administrative decision or interpretation of the ordinance. That process involves an appeal to the Board of Appeals which decision can then be appealed to the City Council. He recommended that the process be followed in this kind of case. After hearing comments from the parties involved, he suggested the Council instruct the individual asking for relief to either enter into the appeal process or seek an ordinance amendment. Dr. Joyce Anderson, 7121 Glouchester Avenue, commented that the statement has been made in the letters that she must cease her practice on July 19. She stated that the average number of clients she sees per week is 15 and not 20 which is the maximum. She said she is requesting a variance to the ordinance requirements because of her disability and need to practice in her home. It appears that she is in violation by 5 -6 client hours a week but she stated that she needs that for her livelihood because she cannot work in an office as evidenced by a letter from her physician. Dr. Anderson commented that there have been complaints by three neighbors but that nine families in the neighborhood support her position. Those neighbors state that they have no problem with what she is doing and that the activity is not disruptive. She said since receiving the letter of April 6, 1990 from the Planning staff she has asked all clients to park in her driveway and has been spacing her clients 10 - 20 minutes apart so that there is no overlap. Mayor Richards pointed out to Dr. Anderson the need to go through the appeal process; that the process does not begin with the Council but ends here. Dr. Anderson alluded to the date of July 19 when she.must cease practicing. Attorney Erickson commented that the City could put in abeyance any enforcement until the appeals process is completed and the Council has made a decision. Member Smith made a motion that the City stay any type of enforcement of the ordinance until August 31, 1990 to allow time for Dr. Anderson to go through the appeals process. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Speaking in support of Dr. Anderson were Mayo Brandjord, 7112 Glouchester; Harold Bagley, 7113 Glouchester; Paul Johnson, 7108 Glouchester; and Jim Reichardt, 7109 Glouchester. Michael Patera stated he lived across the street from Dr. Anderson. He said the Council should make sure before voting on the motion to stay enforcement that it would not affect the appeals period and may affect some substantive rights which could in essence give an indefinite stay to resolution of this particular problem. Dr. Anderson referred to letters from her adjacent neighbors, Annette Rissman, 7125 Glouchester Avenue, and Robert and Alice Kravig, 7117 Glouchester Avenue, who did not object to her practice. Following lengthy discussion, Mayor Richards then called for vote on the motion. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *BID AWARDED FOR STORK SEVER IMPROVEMENT NOS. STS -207 AND STS -208 Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice for award of bid for Storm Sewer Improvement Nos. STS -207 and STS -208 to recommended low bidder, Glendale Contracting, Inc., at $159,880.50. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF 7/10190 APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith to approve the following recommended action listed Section A of the Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of July 10, 1990: 1) To install "NO THRU TRUCK TRAFFIC" signs at the north and south ends of Tracy Avenue; to install "25 MPH" advisory signs with the "PEDESTRIAN" sign; to install yellow centerline striping to eliminate cars from passing; to notify NSP and companies that will be working in the Cahill redevelopment area, discouraging them from utilizing the road; and to recommend that the neighborhood seek a sidewalk petition, 2) To install "NO PARKING" signs on Overholt Pass, 30 feet from the end of the street on the west side; and to acknowledge. Sections B and C of the Minutes. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. MANAGER PRESENTS "SUPERIOR TO NONE" AWARD TO ASSESSOR Member Smith gave Manager Rosland the annual Manager's "Superior to None" Award for presentation to the City Assessor as recommended by the Manager. He explained that the award was contrived following a misstatement by Manager Rosland several years ago. Manager Rosland said that, in all seriousness, he was proud to present the award to Assessor Ralph Johnson for his excellent performance as evidenced by the minimal number of appeals to the annual Board of Review. VACANCY ON COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD NOTED Mayor Richards advised that Anne S. Francis is moving out of state and has resigned from the Community Health Services Advisory Board. He asked the Council Members to give him names of individuals they may wish to nominate for appointment so that the vacancy could be filled at the August 6, 1990 meeting. MTC PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF ROUTES 36 51 78 88 AND 89 NOTED Manager Rosland advised that notices have been received from the Metropolitan Transit Commission for public hearings on July 25 and August 30 on the following proposed changes: 1) Discontinue Route 36 weekday service serving the areas of Minneapolis, Edina, St. Louis Park and Minnetonka. 2) Discontinue Route 78 weekday service serving the areas of Edina, Richfield and Bloomington. 3) Discontinue Route 88 weekday and Saturday service serving the areas of Edina, Richfield and Bloomington. 4) Discontinue Route 89 weekday and Saturday service serving the areas of Edina and Bloomington. He suggested that this be announced in the Edina Sun - Current so that affected riders could submit their comments. PARR BOARD RECOMMENDATION APPROVED THAT EHA PURSUE HOSTING OF NATIONAL BANTAM TOURNAMENT AT BRAEMAR ARENA APRIL 4 -7. 1991 Park and Recreation Director Kojetin presented the Park Board recommendation of July 10, 1990 that the Edina Hockey Association (EHA) pursue hosting the National Bantam Tournament at Braemar Arena to be held April 4 -7, 1991. Peter Warner, EHA, explained that they have an opportunity to host the National Bantam Hockey Tournament next April. The tournament would consist of 10 hockey teams, with the Edina Bantam Team being an automatic entry as hosts. The other teams would be coming from throughout the United States. A presentation will be made Saturday, July 21 in Brainerd to the Minnesota Amateur Hockey.Association (MAHA) and commitments have been secured from several potential vendors. Mr. Warner said the EHA would like the opportunity to show off a first class facility. He asked that the Council consider a letter of support that would encourage the committee to award the tournament to Edina and that the City would be willing to support the event. Member Paulus asked if there would be any costs to the City. Mr.. Warner said he hoped this would be a revenue /fund raising venture for the ERA and they did not intend to ask the City for funding. Mayor Richards asked if they would have enough volunteers to do it right - that it would be a typical Edina affair that would meet the City's high standards. Mr. Warner said that would be the intention of the EHA Board and that the history of the community has been that volunteers do come forward. Member Rice made a motion directing staff to prepare a letter of support from the Council for the Mayor's signature that would encourage the MAHA committee to award the tournament to Edina. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. PROPOSED BOARD CHANGES /APPOINTMENTS FOR EDINA FOUNDATION PRESENTED James Van Valkenburg, President of Board of Directors, presented proposed board changes and appointments for The Edina Foundation. He said that currently there are nine members on the board, 3 appointed by the Council, 3 by the School Board, and 3 by the board members. They are proposing the following: 1) Expand the present working Board of Directors from 9 to 12 members to spread the work load, and 2) Develop a "Super or Advisory" Board of 9 members who would meet with the regular Board of Directors two or three times each year. This would be comprised of individuals who would be well known in the community, could give advice on funding raising and could assist on that. It may include the Mayor and Chair of the School Board. 3) Engage an individual on a parttime basis who could give the Foundation Board day -by -day management and direction. Mr. Van Valkenburg mentioned that these proposed changes would require an amendment to the by -laws and that if the Council and the School Board approve the concept he would draft an amendment and being that back for approval. Member Kelly said that an issue has been the resident requirement. She said she has always felt that the board should include individuals from the business and professional sector that work in the City but may not reside here. In response, Mr. Van Valkenburg said that was considered at one time but the Council and the School Board felt board members should be residents. Mayor Richards commented that he would not support the non - resident concept. Member Rice said he felt the proposed changes would be positive but questioned if a 21 member board might be unwieldy. Member Smith stated he would encourage the expansion of the working board to 12 members. It was the general consensus of the Council Members that the proposed changes be pursued. *PETITION FOR SIDEVALR ON RIDGEVIEW DRIVE REFERRED TO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to refer the petition for sidewalk on Ridgeview Drive to the Engineering Department for processing. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. REPORT GIVEN ON TRANSIT MEETING WITH COMMISSIONER LEVINE Mayor Richards reported that on July 11th he, Member Rice, Manager Rosland, Assistant Manager Hughes and a City Attorney representative had met with Commissioner Len Levine, MNDOT, together with individuals from the private sector and officials of Bloomington and Richfield. Commissioner Levine had recently returned from Europe where he had looked at intermodal transportation systems. He presented a proposal to explore the possibility of linking Southdale, the Mall of America and the airport with a rail transit system that could possibly be funded by federal and state funds. Mayor Richards said this could impact the proposed transit system for southeast Edina for which the City sought special legislation. Commissioner Levine felt that Edina could be a model community to implement some of the concepts that are being used in Europe because the City has set aside right of way. After hearing the proposal as presented by Commissioner Levine and his staff, the Commissioner suggested that the cities get back to him within 45 days to let him know what the cities and the private sector felt about the proposal. The meeting concluded with no specific views expressed. The suggestion was made that Edina officials and business /community leaders meet to explore the,proposal• further or consider alternatives. PUBLIC HFARING CONDUCTED; RESOLUTION ADOPTED AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (VERNON TERRACE PROJECT) Pursuant to due notice given, a public hearing was conducted on a proposal that the City issue Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds (Vernon Terrace Project) in an amount not to exceed $6,850,000. The bond proceeds would refund in part Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds issued by the City in the original principal amount of $12,600,000 to refund prior obligations of the City issued to finance the acquisition, construction and installation of a 152 -unit multifamily housing rental project developed on an approximate 3.5 acre parcel of land located at 5420 Vernon Avenue. James Van Valkenburg, representing the Electrical Workers Union Pension Plan, said the matter is before the Council for final approval of the refinancing and the refunding bonds. First Trust of St. Paul, current trustee for the bondholders, has obtained approval of the proposal from the District Court of Ramsey County. Mr. Van Valkenburg recalled that when the Council gave preliminary approval to the bond refunding proposal at its meeting of May 21, 1990 several questions were raised. As to the bondholders, many of the bonds are listed in street names. However, some 40 Edina residents are listed as owners of bonds totaling approximately $485,000. The question was raised as to the effect of a foreclosure and /or bankruptcy. Either would mean that the bondholders would receive less than they would under the current proposal. It would also be disruptive not only to the bondholders but also to the tenants. Under the proposal the bondholders would promptly receive approximately 58% of the principal amount due. Audits attached to the bond documents indicate that in April, 1990, the Electrical Workers Union Pension Fund had net assets in excess of $42 Million and assets in the Annuity Fund in 1989 were in excess of $27 Million. One other figure of importance is that at the current time 129 of the 146 Vernon Terrace units (80 %) are leased. Attorney Erickson stated he was concerned that a firm settlement agreement with the prior owner has not been worked out. Mr. Van Valkenburg said that, in reality, any approval by the Council would be conditioned on having the settlement agreement with the prior owner worked out. Obviously, it that does not happen there will be no issuance of refunding bonds. Kent Richey, Leonard, Street and Deinard acting as bond counsel, stated that there has been one slight modification in the security structure of the refunding bonds. At the May 21, 1990 meeting the Council was told that the bonds would be guaranteed by two pension funds having $70 Million in assets. Legislation governing pension plans requires that the guarantee be split 25% - 75% between the two funds, with the 25% being guaranteed by the smaller fund. Member Smith asked who would manage Vernon Terrace. Mr. Richey said Ohmega Building Corporation proposes to enter into a management contract initially with Great Lakes Management Company who is presently managing Vernon Terrace on site for the Trustee as it is in receivership. No further comments or objections were heard on the bond refunding proposal. Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (VERNON TERRACE PROJECT) SERIES 1990 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council ") of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City ") as follows: 1. The Council has received a request from Ohmega Building Corporation, a Minnesota non- profit corporation (the "Company "), that the City undertake to refinance a multifamily rental housing development as herein described pursuant'to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462A and 462C, as amended (the "Act"), through issuance by the City of its Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds (Vernon Terrace Project), Series 1990 in an aggregate principal amount of $6,735,000 (the "Bonds"), to refund in part Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Vernon Terrace Project) issued by the City in the original principal amount of $12,600,000 (the "Prior Bonds") to refund prior obligations of the City issued to finance the acquisition, construction and installation of a 146 -unit multifamily housing rental project (the "Project") together with related costs, developed on an approximate 3.5 acre parcel of land located at 5420 Vernon Avenue in the City. 2. The Project is reserved for rental in part by persons of low and moderate income, with at least twenty percent (20 %) of the units held for occupancy by families or individuals with adjusted income not in excess of eighty percent (80 %) of the median family income estimated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Minneapolis /St. Paul standard metropolitan statistical area. 3. It is proposed that, pursuant to a Loan Agreement proposed to be dated as of July 1, 1990, between the City and the Company (the "Loan Agreement "), the City will loan the proceeds of the Bonds to the Company in order to satisfy and refund the Prior Bonds. The Loan Repayments (as defined in the Loan Agreement) to be made by the Company under the Loan Agreement are fixed so as to produce revenue sufficient (together with revenues derived from the investment of funds and accounts relating to the Bonds) to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due. It is further proposed that the City assign its rights to the Loan Repayments and certain other rights under the Loan Agreement to First Trust National Association, in St. Paul, Minnesota (the "Trustee ") as security for payment of the Bonds under an Indenture of Trust proposed to be dated July 1, 1990 (the "Indenture "). 4. Prior to the date of issuance of the Prior Bonds, the City approved and submitted to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency ("MHFA") a "financing program" for the Project as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, and MHFA approved the financing program, and no new or amended financing program need be submitted to MHFA in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. 5. Forms of the following documents have been submitted to this Council for approval: (a) the Loan Agreement; (b) the Indenture; (c) a Mortgage, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement (the. "Mortgage ") from the Company to the Trustee proposed to be dated July 1, 1990; (d) a Guaranty Agreement among Electrical Workers Local 292 Annuity Plan, Electrical Workers Local 292 Pension Fund (each a "Guarantor ", or collectively, the "Guarantors ") and the Trustee; (e) a Bond Purchase Agreement (the "Bond Purchase Agreement ") among the Company, the City, the Guarantors and Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. (the "Underwriter"); (f) a Remarketing Agreement (the "Remarketing Agreement ") between the Company, the Trustee and Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. (the "Remarketing Agent ") proposed to be dated July 1, 1990; (g). a Certificate of Amendment between the City, the Trustee and the Company; and (h) Preliminary Official Statement with respect to the Bonds. 6. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) the Project described in the Loan Agreement and Indenture referred to above constitutes a multifamily rental housing development authorized by the Act; (b) the purpose of the Project is and the effect has been to promote the public welfare by providing additional decent, safe and sanitary rental housing opportunities for low and moderate income persons within the City; (c) the Project is located within the City limits; (d) the refinancing of the Project, the issuance and sale of the Bonds, the execution and delivery by the City of the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Certificate of Amendment and the Indenture, and the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Certificate of Amendment and the Indenture and of all other acts and things required under the constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to make the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Certificate of Amendment, Indenture and Bonds valid and binding obligations of the City in accordance with their terms, are authorized by the Act; (e) it is desirable that the Prior Bonds be refunded and that the Bonds be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in the Indenture; (f) the Underwriter has determined that the Loan Repayments under the Loan Agreement are fixed to produce revenue sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds issued under the Indenture when due, and the Loan Agreement and Indenture also provide that the Company is required to pay all expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Project, including, but without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project premises and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement and Indenture; (g) under the provisions of the Act, and as' provided in the Loan Agreement and Indenture, the Bonds are not to be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof; the City is not subject to any liability thereon; no holder of any .Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise by the City of its taxing powers to pay any of the Bonds or the interest or premium thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which has been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; and the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which has been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture. 7. Subject to the approval of the City Attorney and the provisions of paragraph 12 hereof, the forms of the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage, the Remarketing Agreement, the Guaranty, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Certificate of Amendment and the Indenture and exhibits thereto are approved in substantially the form submitted. The Loan Agreement, Bond Purchase Agreement, Certificate of Amendment and Indenture, in substantially the form submitted, are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and City Manager. Copies of all of the documents necessary to the transaction herein described shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided herein and in said Loan Agreement, Bond Purchase Agreement, Certificate of Amendment and Indenture. 8. The distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement is hereby authorized and the City hereby authorized the use of a final Official Statement reflecting the terms.of the Bonds approved hereby for the offer and sale of the Bonds. The City had not participated in the preparation of the Official Statement and makes no representations either express or implied as to the content or adequacy thereof. 9. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue its Bonds, in the form and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Indenture and at the initial annual interest rate of eight percent (8 %) subject to adjustment as provided for in the Indenture. The aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall be $6,735,000. The offer of the Underwriter to purchase the Bonds at the price set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to prepare and execute the Bonds as prescribed in the Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee for authentication and delivery to the Underwriter. 10. The Mayor and City Manager and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Underwriter certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. 11. The approval hereby given to the various documents referred to above includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto by the City Attorney and the City officials authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; said City officials are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the City.. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In the absence of the officers specifically named herein, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed by a person authorized to act in their absence. 12. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Adopted: July 16, 1990 ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Rice. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly; Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. Member Kelly introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RESOLVED, that the foregoing resolution is contingent upon the Company and the Guarantors reaching a settlement with First Trust National Association for payment of the existing Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds issued by the City for the Vernon Terrace Project prior to rescission of the foregoing resolution by the City Council. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Paulus. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. *CLAIMS PAID Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated 07/16/90 and consisting of 33 pages: General Fund $1,644,235.04, Communications $13,096.21, Art Center $11,428.17, Capital Fund $354.27, Swimming Pool Fund $16,215.58, Golf Course Fund $57,543.01, Recreation Center Fund $1,596.94, Gun Range Fund $1,328.00, Edinborough Park $8,272.92, Utility Fund $43,887.53, Storm Sever Utility $64,876.71, Liquor Dispensary Fund $112,886.20, Construction Fund $354,695.33, IMP Bond Redemption #2 $363,205.00, Total $2,693,848.33 and for confirmation of payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated 06/30/90 and consisting of 19 pages: General Fund $413,954.34, Communications $2,233.92, Art Center $1,783.00, Swimming Pool Fund $632.39, Golf Course Fund $22,872.50, Recreation Center Fund $13,627.85, Gun Range Fund $498.93, Edinborough Park $11,479.03, Utility Fund $30,248.67, Storm Sever Utility $474.41, Liquor Dispensary Fund $286,556.59, Total $784,361.63. Motion.carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared the meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. City Clerk o� ei �O /1 REPORT /RECOMMENDATION \�RPOIN.'j tae• To: Kenneth Rosland From: Craig Larsen Date: August 6, 1990 Subject: DR. JOYCE ANDERSON 7171 GLOUCHESTER INFO /BACKGROUND Agenda Item Consent ❑ Information Only 0 Mgr. Recommends To HRA To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Following the City Council meeting, Dr. Anderson submitted a request to amend the home occupations section of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment would have increased the number of allowed business trips from 10 to 20 per week. The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the proposed, amendment. the Commissioners encouraged Dr. Anderson to propose language which would be more tailored to her disability. I expect the matter to• be before the Commission at its August 29, 1990, meeting. The earliest Council hearing would be September 4, 1990. Staff does not intend to take any further enforcement action until Council action of possible amendment of the Zoning Ordinance. tA (n s e REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item # IV.A From: KEN ROSLAND, MANAGER Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Date: AUGUST 2, 1990 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA Subject: PROCEDURE - BARKING DOG E� To Council VIOLATIONS Action 0 Motion j ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance i ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Approval of Dog Barking Procedure as recommended by the Police Department. Info /Background: At the meeting of July 16, 1990, the City Council gave First Reading to Ordinance No. 312 -A2 - To Declare Certain Animal Noises to be a Public Nuisance. At that meeting the Council also discussed the procedure for a. precomplaint process and requested staff to draft a document that would set out a recommended procedure to be followed prior to issuance of any criminal charges for barking dog violations. The proposed procedure as outlined by Chief Craig Swanson is attached for your review and consideration. I M E M O R A N D U M TO: Kenneth E. Rosland, City Manager FROM: Craig G. Swanson, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Dog Barking Procedure DATE: July 31, 1990 In conjunction with proposed Ordinance No. 312 -A2, amending Ordinance No. 312 to declare certain animal noises to be a public nuisance, the following procedures are offered. This process would be followed explicitly prior to the prosecutor issuing any criminal charges for barking dog violations. Recommended procedure: 1. Complaints about animal noises will be received by the Edina Police Communications Center. Animal control officers or other Police Department employees will respond to the complaint only when the complainant is clearly identifiable by name and address. The complainant's identity is classified confidential in accordance with State Statute 13.44. 2. Animal control officers or other Police Department employees responding to the complaint will observe the location for violations of Ordinance No. 312 -A2. Upon determination of a violation, a "Warning Notice - Law Violation" will be issued. It will note the violation and include the term "First Warning." Along with this form, a copy of the ordinance, a copy of this policy and appropriate suggestions for curbing nuisance animal noises will be included. This packet of information will be delivered in person or left in an appropriate location at the residence. 3. A second or subsequent complaint will be' responded to in a similar manner. The second observation of an ordinance violation will be annotated "Second Warning" and the packet will be delivered in'person or mailed to the resident. 4. A third complaint will be responded to as outlined above. The animal control officer or Police Department employee will document his/her observations on an Edina Police Department offense report. In the body of the report, "Third Violation" will be noted and other violation dates and times will be referenced. This offense report will become the basis for a criminal complaint. A copy of the offense report will be forwarded to the City Prosecutor for action. A second copy will be mailed to the resident for information. 5. The City Prosecutor will review the facts and documentation surrounding the offense report and_make a prosecutional decision. Kenneth E. Rosland July 31, 1990 Page 2 The above procedure provides two formal warnings and helpful information to correct nuisance animal noises. I would further recommend that the three noted violations occur within a 12 -month period from the first warning. Thus, if a dog barking complaint was made every six months as opposed to three complaints within 12 months, no criminal complaint would normally be issued. The forms referenced in the procedure are attached. They are forms currently in use in the Police Department. If this or a similar procedure would be adopted, a more specific warning notice would be developed. If you have suggestions or comments, please contact me. CRAIG SWANSON CHIEF OF POLICE EDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT CGS:nah Attachments (2) EDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT WARNING NOTICE - LAW VIOLATION Name Address DOB License Plate No. Location Date Time: AM PM Officer Badge No. Traffic Offenses Equipment offenses Defective equipment; as checked: — Brakes Speed. MPH in zone I Impeding traffic I Windshield wipers I Horn_ Red Light I Obstructing traffic I Rear View Mirror Stop sign I Wrong way -1 way — earance Improper passing I Improper parking I Brake not set -- I Lights - headlight I Lights -too dim. Improper left turn I Improper right turn I Failure to signal I Keys in ignition Failure to yield I Following too close Bicycle violation - - U turn -- -- -- _( I License Plate - - - -- � Improper lane usage _-- ------ --------- - -._ -- --_ _ - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - I Iiilchhiking - Over center line .--------- -- ---- -------- - - - - - - - -- I Pedestrian viol. - - - - -- I Improper backing ___ __ - - -- - - - - - - - -- -- I Drivers tic. viol_ Equipment offenses Defective equipment; as checked: — Brakes I Windshield Emergency brake I Windshield wipers I Horn_ I Muffler _ I Lights Tail I Lights brake I Rear View Mirror I Bumpers Li ghts earance Lights - license plate ILights- trailer. -- I Lights - headlight I Lights -too dim. I No flares or flags I Lights-adiustment -- Other violations Failure to repair equipment or receipt of second warning for offence checked, could lead to court action. Copy of this violation is on file at the Edina Police Department, Edina, Minnesota. EDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT Race Code: B - BLACK A - ASIAN r--- SUPP W - WHITE U - UNKNOWN 1 - INDIAN COMPLAINT NUMBER EDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFENSE /REPORT MN0270600 i OFFENSE. INCIDENT DATE OCCURRED TIME OCCURRED LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE DATE RECEIVED TIME RECEIVED OFFICER(S) APPROVED BY VICTIM AGE ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE HOME PHONE COMPLAINANT (F) (M) HOME ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE HOME PHONE SUSPECT (F) (M) HOME ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE HOME PHONE ISN MOC SUSPECT DESCRIPTION SEX RACE I DOB HEIGHT WEIGHT BUILD HAIR EYES ISN MOC COMPLEXION BEARD MUSTACHE DRIVERS LICENSE # ISN MOC CLOTHING DESCRIPTION VICTIM'S /SUSPECT'S AUTO — MAKE AND DESCRIPTION LICENSE NUMBER STATE OF ISSUE SERIAL NUMBER COLOR LOSS DESCRIPTION (INCLUDE SERIAL #S) RECOVERED S STOLEN $ DATA ENTRY: CJRS POSSE Data Privacy Recuesteo: ❑ Yes ❑ No AGENDA ITEM: IV.A. August 1, 1990 Mayor Fred Richards and Members of the City Council City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council: We have now been provided with a copy of the proposed amended Ordinance No. 312 -A2 and wish to make our comments in writing for your consideration at the second reading of the amendment, which we understand will occur at the Council meeting on August 6. In general, while we view the amendment to the ordinance as an improvement over the current version, we find the proposal extremely restrictive. It does not go far enough, in our view, towards alleviating the deficiencies in the current ordinance which was held unconstitutionally vague by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Here are our specific suggestions: 1. As Mrs. Dreher mentioned at the last meeting of the Council, even a cursory reading of the amendment brings to mind one immediate deficiency. There is no scienter or willfulness requirement in the ordinance. A dog owner can be held responsible even though that owner has no knowledge that his or her dog is disturbing someone. Basic hornbook law teaches that scienter is a minimal threshold requirement for valid enforcement of penal enactments. A conviction under the ordinance would require proof of scienter and it seems sensible to include such an element in the ordinance itself (See Parry Hill v. District of Columbia, 291 A. 2d 505 (D.C. Ct. App. 1972), copy attached) . Minnesota Statutes on public nuisance contain a scienter element, and the Official Comments suggest that the better course in drafting such legislation is to include one (See e.a., Minn. Stat. §§ 609.71, .72 and .74 and Official Comments, also appended). When Mrs. Dreher raised this issue with your counsel, Mr. Hallberg, he questioned whether an owner could thereby avoid successful prosecution by pleading good intentions (i.e., "I have done everything I can with this dog, he still barks and there is August 1, 1990 Page 2 nothing I can do "). While each case stands on its own facts, we doubt that inserting a willfulness standard would create such a problem. For example, if your procedures require several notices to the dog owner, identification of the complaining party and an opportunity for correction, your prosecutors should be able to establish willfulness by proving that the procedures were followed and the owner failed to act. On the other hand, it seems to us unreasonable to subject dog owners, such as ourselves, to criminal prosecution where the owner is taking reasonable measures to correct the problem (i.e., step one was to build a wooden sound buffer around the kennel; when this did not alleviate the complaints, step two was to buy the dog a shock collar, which he wears every time he is put in the kennel; step three was to prepare a letter to all adjoining neighbors and then walk it to them explaining that we knew that there was a problem and asking that should the dog continue to bother them they call us first and allow us an hour or two to get home to correct the situation - an invitation at least one of our neighbors still continues apparently to refuse to accept). There is a big difference, we believe, between prosecuting a person who thumbs his nose at his neighbors by purposefully refusing to attempt to correct a problem and a person who has taken good faith efforts to correct the problem. 2. The term "any person in the vicinity" should be amended to "any person of ordinary sensibilities in the vicinity." That amendment is clearly required by the language of the Court of Appeals decision. As we argued in our briefs, if the complaining party chose to sue us in civil court for disturbing the peace of his or her home and thus creating a nuisance, one of the elements of the cause of action would include proof that the complaining party was a person of ordinary sensibilities. Fish v. Hanna Coal & Ore Corp., 164 F. Supp. 870, 872 (D. Minn. 1958). Obviously, the standard for a criminal violation ought to be at least as rigid. Without this, under the Fischer and the Dreher cases (copies enclosed), we think that the ordinance is still subject to constitutional challenge. 3. The five minute time limitation with one minute intervals is overly restrictive and, as we understand it, is much more restrictive than the guidelines that your officers use now in enforcing the ordinance. Technically, under the amendment as proposed, a dog that makes any noise three times in five minutes could be violating the ordinance. On its face, that is unreasonable. Language should be included to make this more reasonable. For example, ordinances in other municipalities that have been sustained against constitutional challenge contain language such as "excessively sustained and repetitive ", August 1, 1990 Page 3 "frequent or long continued ", "persistently or constantly" or similar (See Lear v. Texas, 753 S.W. 2d 737 (Ct. App. Texas 1988); People v. Restuccia, 449 N.Y.S. 2d 16, 113 Misc. 224 (1982) (copies enclosed). If you prefer to place a time limitation on the noise, five minutes is much too short. Now, as we understand it, your officers park and listen for longer than that. We urge that you use at least 15 and better 30 minutes as a guide. Think, for example, of the number of times that you have listened to the lawn mower in your neighbor's back yard while you were attempting to rest quietly in yours. Would anyone suggest that five minutes of lawn mower would be enough to disturb the peace of anyone beyond the limits of what should be accepted tolerance levels. 4. "Unreasonable" disturbance should also include an element of time and place. For example, it is most offensive to have an animal howling during the evening when others wish to sleep; that activity occurring during the day when there are other numerous accepted urban noises (planes, cars, lawn mowers, etc.) is not necessarily offensive to most persons of ordinary sensibilities. Some ordinances that we have seen limit the violation to the evening hours or to hours when excessive noise is unreasonable. 5. A more precise way to draw the ordinance is to follow the lead of San Antonio, whose recently enacted ordinance is enclosed. The San Antonio ordinance contains many of the simple limitations we suggest here. It also contains noise measurement requirements. The City of Edina might consider decibel levels as the measure of annoyance. (Who knows, if it did Edina might get front page Wall Street Journal coverage, as did San Antonio.) 6. Finally, process is as important as the wording of the ordinance itself. The Court of Appeals was especially offended, we think, by the concept that neighbors may remain anonymous while using the enforcement activities of the City Police to play out their own private agenda. We asked for, but have not yet received the internal operating procedures which were to be drafted. We will certainly want an opportunity to comment on them. However, a few points can be made right now. First, every dog owner should be provided with a synopsis of the animal control ordinance and a description of the enforcement procedures at the time licenses are obtained. There should, in addition, be some fairly deliberate warning procedure (such as at least two complaints, identification of the complainant, and a discussion between the complainant, the animal owner and the officer before the citation is issued). There should also be some waiting August 1, 1990 Page 4 periods between warnings and citation. As Mrs. Dreher mentioned at the Council meeting last, we received our first ticket after a warning tag had been placed on the door which Mr. Dreher followed with an immediate call to the Police Department. The police failed to return his call before the citation was actually issued. We simply need to give people the time and opportunities to deal with these situations before invoking penal enforcement. In conclusion, we urge that the proposed ordinance be further amended to include these suggestions, and that the Council give us the opportunity to further comment on the internal operating procedures before they are approved. In the meantime, it is always wise, we think, for former litigants to shake hands and make up. Perhaps we can do that with a poem that we ran across in one of the many cases that we have perused during the past year since this started: Dogs will howl and cats will yowl when placed in congregation. These grating sounds may oft result in human aggravation. Laws passed to curb such pesky noise should fit the situation. And be so phrased in artful ways to cause no obfuscation. In other words, the laws so passed must plainly be effective. Ineptly framed, they lack the force to meet their planned objective.. City of Columbus v. Becher, 115 Ohio 239, 184 N.E.2d 617 (Ct. App. Ohio 1961. Very ancy C. Dreher cc: Marsh J. Hallberg, Esq. Ken Rosland, City Manager, City of Edina PAGE 1 ,` +Citation Database Mode 291 A.2d 505. FOUND DOCUMENT DC -CS P Joseph G. W. PARRY -HILL, Appellant, V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee. No. 5892. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued Dec. 7, 1971. Decided May 9, 1972. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Dyer Taylor, J., found defendant guilty on charges involving barking dog and unleashed dog and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that with element of scienter read into regulation making it an offense for anyone to permit his dog to bark in manner disturbing to quiet of neighborhood, regulation was not unconstitutionally vague. Affirmed. 28K57 ANIMALS K. Criminal prosecutions. D.C.App. 1972. Evidence in prosecution of defendant on charges of permitting his dog to bark in manner disturbing to quiet of neighborhood and permitting his dog to go unleashed on public property was sufficient to establish scienter on defendant's part and to show disturbance of neighborhood. Parry -Hill v. District of Columbia, 291 A.2d 505 110K573 CRIMINAL LAW K. Right to speedy trial in general. D.C.App. 1972. Where charge that defendant permitted his dog to be on public place without leash on November 19, 1970 was filed January 28, 1971, and trial was commenced on February 3, 1971 after counsel had had meeting in January in attempt to find solution to neighborhood difficulties stemming from dog, defendant was not denied a speedy trial. Parry -Hill v. District of Columbia, 291 A.2d 505 132K19 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA K. In general. D.C.App. 1972. With element of scienter read into regulation making it an offense for anyone to permit his dog to bark in manner disturbing to quiet of neighborhood, regulation was not unconstitutionally vague. Parry -Hill v. District of Columbia, 291 A.2d 505 132K20 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA K. Violations and enforcement of regulations. D.C.App. 1972. Evidence in prosecution of defendant on charges of permitting his dog to bark COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS 291 A.2d 505. PAGE 2 in manner disturbing to quiet of neighborhood and permitting his dog to go unleashed on public property was sufficient to establish scienter on defendant's part and to show disturbance of neighborhood. Parry -Hill v. District of Columbia, 291 A.2d 505 William W. Taylor, III, Washington, D. C., for appellant. Joseph G. W. Parry -Hill also entered an appearance pro se. Earl A. Gershenow, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom C. Francis Murphy, Corp. Counsel, and Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee. Before FICKLING, GALLAGHER and REILLY, Associate Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant was charged with eleven counts of permitting his dog to bark in a manner disturbing to the quiet of the neighborhood(FN1] (barking dog) and one count of allowing his dog to go unleashed upon public property[FN2] (unleashed dog) in violation of District of Columbia Police Regs. art.' 18, ss 1, 2, respectively. Following a nonjury trial, appellant was convicted of one of the barking dog counts and of the single unleashed dog count. FN1. D.C. Police Regs. art. 18, s 1 provides: No person shall own or keep in the District of Columbia any animal of the dog kind which shall by barking, howling, or in any manner whatsoever disturb the comfort or quiet of any neighborhood, or any person. FN2. D.C. Police Regs. art. 18 s 2 provides: No animal of the dog kind shall be allowed to go at large without a collar or tag, as now prescribed by law, and no person owning, keeping or having custody of a dog in the District shall permit such dog to be on any public space in the District, unless such dog is firmly secured by a substantial leash, not exceeding four feet in length, held by a person capable of managing such dog, nor shall any dog be permitted to go on private property without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof. We consider first appellant's challenge to the 'barking dog' conviction on the grounds (a) the police regulation is unconstitutionally vague, and (b) in any event, he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal on this charge as the evidence did not establish scienter[FN3] on his part nor did it show a disturbance of the neighborhood on the date involved. FN3. The trial court construed the regulation to include the element of scienter in order to save the provision from any constitutional infirmity for failure to require criminal intent. With the element of scienter read into the regulation, as the trial court did, we think the regulation as drawn is susceptible of reasonable interpretation and is not unconstitutionally vague. We believe the evidence was sufficient to establish scienter on appellant's part as well as to show a disturbance of the neighborhood on the date charged. COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS 0 291 A. 2d 505. PAGE 3 As to appellant's contention that he was denied a speedy trial on the unleashed dog charge, we see no merit. This count charged appellant permitted his dog to be upon a public place without a leash on November 19, 1970. The charge was filed on January 28, 1971, and appellant went to trial on February 3, 1971. In early January, a meeting had been called in the Office of the Corporation Counsel in an attempt to reach an informal solution to neighborhood difficulties stemming from appellant's dog. We conclude that on this record the time elements proportions of denial of a speedy trial.. Our review of this record leads us to believe the careful, fair trial and that the verdicts on both Affirmed. END OF DOCUMENT involved do not rise to.the trial judge gave appellant a counts should be upheld. COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG U.S. GOVT. WORKS PUBLIC MISCONDUCT OR NUISANCE I$w Review Commentaries Constitutionality of unlawful assembly stat- ute. 1974, 58 Minn. Law Review 817. History and provisions of the Minnesota La- bor Relations Act. 24 Minn.L.Rev. 217 (1940). Unlawful Assembly 4-1. CJ.S. Unlawful Assembly §§ 1 to 7. Included offense 3 Sufficiency of evidence 2 Validity 1 1. Validity § 609.71 Interference with public property. The "Mor- rill Hall" Act. 1970, 54 Minn. law Review 1067. Lbrary References Notes of Decisions This section, as construed to prohibit three or more assembled persons from conducting themselves in such a disorderly manner as to threaten or disturb the public peace by unrea- sonably denying or interfering with the rights of others to peacefully use their property or public facilities without obstruction, interfer- ence, or disturbance, is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Hipp, 1973, 298 Minn. 81, 213 N.W.2d 610. 2. Sufficiency of evidence Evidence that defendant pleaded with a po- lice officer not to arrest one of her girl friends and thereafter physically tried to prevent him from doing so could, at best, only support a charge of obstructing a police officer in per- formance of his duty, and not a charge of 609.71. Riot unlawful assembly. State v. Hipp, 1973, 298 Minn. 81, 213 N.W.2d 610. Defendant, who did not arrive at site of demonstration in time to observe picketing who, when she did get there, was told that two friends for whom she had been waiting "had been arrested and had been hurt. ", and who, after her inquiries to police officers proved futile and upon being restrained from ap- proaching police van, asked if she "could please be arrested," believing this to be "the only way" possible to find her friends, could not be properly convicted of unlawful assem- bly. Id. 3. Included offense See, also, Notes of Decision under § 609.04. Disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly are not necessarily included within charged offense of making a terroristic threat, since one could commit the charged offense without committing either of the lesser offenses, and thus trial court did not err in refusing to sub- mit them to jury as lesser offenses. State v. Specht, 1984, 359 N.W.2d 612. When three or more persons assembled disturb the public peace by an intentional act or threat of unlawful force or violence to person or property, j 1 eac`Ti participant therein is guilty of riot and may be sentenced to imprison- ment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both, or, if the offender, or to the offender's knowledge any other participant, is armed with a dangerous weapon or is disguised, to imprison- ment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. Laws 1963, c. 753. Amended by Laws 1984, c. 628, art. 3, § 11, eff. May 3, 1984; Laws 1986, c. 444. Advisory Committee Comment This will supersede Minn.St. §§ 615.02 and 615.03. The principal change from the present law is in not including resistance to enforcement of the duties of a public officer as a basis for the more severe penalty imposed. Such cases are usually concerned with a group expressing some grievance, such as employees or the destitute in periods of economic depression, and who should not be labeled as felons. Moreover, there are specific provisions 485 § 609.71 CRIMES, CRIMINALS in recommended § 609.50 dealing with interfering with the duties of an officer. The sections governing conspiracy and the criminal liability of parties to crimes can also effectively deal with this problem. Also omitted have been the provisions of Clause 2 of Minn.St. § 615.03 making the penalty more severe if the defendant "direct, advise, or solicit other persons present ... to acts of force or violence." Inherent in the concept of unlawful assembly or riot is the encouragement of and assistance to others. Additional punishment should not, therefore, be imposed on this ground. Also superseded is Minn.St. § 615.06 imposing from three to seven years imprisonment or a fine if persons unlawfully assembled pull down or destroy a dwelling house or other building, shop, steamboat or vessel. Section 615.06 is also covered by the criminal damage to property provision, § 609.595. Historical Note Derivation: Gen.St.1913, §§ 8793, 8794. Minn.St. 1961, §§ 615.02, 615.03, 615.06. Rev.Laws 1905, §§ 5014, 5015. St.1927, §§ 10280, 10281. Gen.St.1894, §§ 6645, 6646. Gen.St.1923, §§ 10280, 10281. Pen.Code, §§ 351, 352. Cross References Cities, suppression of riotous and disorderly conduct, see § 412.101. Criminal syndicalism, see § 609.405. Felony, increase in maximum fine, see § 609.0341. Theft of property from area of destruction caused by riot, penalty, see § 609.52. Law Review Commentaries History and provisions of the Minnesota La- Obscene remarks to police officers. 45 bor Relations Act. 24 Minn.L.Rev. 217 (1940). Minn.L.Rev. 137 (1960). Riot 4-1. C.J.S. Riot §§ 1 to 11. Library References United States Supreme Court Demonstrations, freedom of speech, see Hess v. Indiana, 94 S.Ct. 326, 414 U.S. 105, 38 L.Ed.2d 303. Notes of Decisions Admissibility of evidence 7 ful acts, coupled with power of immediate exe- Common purpose, elements of offense 2 cution, and resulting disturbance of public Defenses 6 peace. State v. Winkels, 1939, 204 Minn. 466, Elements of offense 1, 2 283 N.W. 763. In general 1 Common purpose 2 Merger of offenses 4 2- — Common purpose, elements of of- Persons liable 5 fense Public peace 3 In prosecution for riot, common purpose may be inferred from circumstances and acts 1. Elements of offense --In general committed. State v. Winkels, 1939, 204 Minn. 466, 283 N.W. 763. Essential elements of riot are assemblage of three or more persons for any purpose, use of 3. Public peace force or violence against property or persons, or in the alternative, an attempt or threat to The term "public peace," as used in § 615.02 use force or violence or to do any other unlaw- (repealed; see, now, this section) meant that 486 4 Is d i- s 4 PUBLIC MISCONDUCT OR NUISANCE § 609.72 Advisory Committee Comment This contains the substance of Minn.St. § 615.05 which it will supersede. The term "without lawful purpose" is broader than the specific exceptions contained in § 615.05. Derivation: Historical Note Minn.St.1961, § 615.05. Gen.St.1894, §§ 6648, 6649. Pen-Code, §§ 354, 355. St.1927, § 10283. The 1971 amendatory Gen.St.1923, § 10283. ry act substituted the Gen.St.1913, § 8796. specified Penalty of misdemeanor for a former Rev.Laws 1905, § 5017. Penalty of imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $100. Cross References Misdemeanor, penalty when not otherwise provided, see § 609.03. Unlawful Assembly *-1. lUbrary References C.J.S. Unlawful Assembly §§ 1 to 7. 609.72• Disorderly conduct Subdivision 1. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private Place, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to; alarm, an or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor; (1) Engages in brawling or fighting-, or (2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character, or (3) Engages in offensive, obscene, or abusive language or in boisterous and i noisy conduct tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others. Subd. 2. Repealed by Laws 1969, c. 226, § 1, eff. April 30, 1969. Laws 1963, C. 753. Amended by haws 1967, c. 242, § 1; Laws 1971, c. 23, § 71, eff. March 5, 1971. Advisory Committee Comment There appeared to have been no distinct crime known as disorderly conduct at common law. Some of the acts now included by statute in this category fell under the general heading of breaches of the peace such as fighting or causing disturbances which would tend to provoke fighting among hose Statutes have developed � Present. preventing breaches l ed in the United States which go beyond merely others or annoy them or create resentments generally lnecceess rill ad offend breach of the peace. Y leading to a Examination of the statutes of several states reveal a variety of treatment of the subject ranging from a very broad and inclusive provision to rather complete and detailed Particularization. Sometimes they overlap and dupli- cate provisions found in vagrancy statutes. Until 1953, Minnesota had no statute specifically designating certain con- duct disorderly conduct. Minn.St. § 615.12 was limited to public conveyance. In that year, § 615.17 was enacted, which reads; 489 § 609.72 CRIMES, CRI mmKALS PUB "Every person who engages in brawling or fighting, shall be guilty of disorderly conduct, herein defined to be a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not to.exceed $100 or by imprisonment in the county jail for not to exceed 90 days." This statute was upheld against the objection that it was vague and indefi. nite in State v. Reynolds, 1954, 243 Minn. 196, 66 N.W.2d 886. The subject has been left almost entirely to municipal ordinance. The only ordinance which has come to the attention of the Supreme Court is the older Minneapolis ordinance in State v. Korich, 1945, 219 Minn. 268, 17 N.W.2d 497. In several cases the court has read into the ordinance certain limitations such as that the conduct must tend to disturb the peace. The present Minneapolis ordinance, enacted in 1958, contains no reference to disorderly conduct but specific acts commonly covered by this crime are prohibited. See Minneapolis Ordinances, Title 37.2. The crime of disorderly conduct appears to be directed at curtailing that kind of behavior which disrupts and disturbs the peace and quiet of the community by various kinds of annoyances. These acts standing alone may not be criminal under other categories of crime such as theft, or assault and battery, or libel, etc. The difficulty is in defining the conduct which falls within these objectives, for a given act under some circumstances is not objectionable, while under others it is. Thus sounding a horn at a carnival is not objectionable. But sounding it at midnight in a residential section would be. Swearing at a card game can be ignored, but swearing in a theater or other public place should be curtailed. One approach is to use general terms and leave the application to the facts of the individual case. This is the approach of the New York statutes. This approach is believed, however, not to be desired. Like vagrancy, the crime of disorderly conduct is commonly used by the police against those unable to defend themselves. _ The above recommended section increases the degree to which the state law will enter the field. It covers the instances which it is believed state law should cover and it states them as specifically as the nature of the subject permits. It does not undertake to be exclusive. Cities and municipalities may still enact ordinances adding other acts of disorderly conduct. The recommended section extends to conduct occurring in private places. Wisconsin St. § 947.01, (1), so provides also. Behavior in an apartment of an apartment building can be an aggravated disturbance to the residents of other apartments. That in a private house may be as objectionable and disturbing to the surrounding neighbors as if it occurred in the street. Instances such as these are intended to be covered by this provision. Two important qualifications are specified. The defendant must know or have reasonable grounds to know that his behavior will alarm, anger or disturb others. This is but an application of the principle that criminal liability. should be based on fault. The second qualification is that 'others" must be affected by the behavior. It is not sufficient that a single person or, depending on circumstances, only a few have grounds to complain. "Others" must be construed in the light of the objectives of the offense. A family quarrel in a private home would not be sufficient although it may be in the presence of the children or of other relatives or of visitors also in the home. '. But if passersby or neighbors were reasonably alarmed, angered or disturbed, the offense would be committed. 3 Clause (1): This is taken from Minn.St. § 615.17, which will be superseded. 490 Der N. A, PUBLIC MISCONDUCT OR NUISANCE § 609.72 Clause (2): This is taken from Minn.St. § 615.01, which will be superseded. The clause will also supersede Minn.St. § 614.32, dealing with disturbance of a religious meeting. Clause (3): This is suggested by Wisconsin St. § 947.01, but with the qualification added that it must reasonably tend to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in others. The notes of the Wisconsin committee indicate that this qualification was intended. Its application will depend on circumstances. Shouting at a football game is not prohibited but similar shouting in church would be. The former is reasonably to be expected, even though some people present may resent it or are angered by it. Sections Superseded by the Disorderly Conduct Provision Not Previously Referred To: § 614.53: - This deals with runners for hotels, railroads, and so forth annoying people on the public streets. § 613.15: This deals with abusive language about a member of another's family. The recommended section, however, will apply beyond members of one's fami- ly. Transfer Recommended § 615.13: This deals with the authority of a conductor of a railway train to make an arrest for offenses specified in Minn.St. § 615.12. This should be transfer- red to Chapter 629, dealing with arrest, with an appropriate change in the reference. Comment by Maynard E. Pirsig The recommended change in Minn.St. § 615.13 is made by § 11 of Art. II of the Criminal Code of 1963 (Laws 1963, c. 753, Art. II, § 11). Historical Note Derivation: Minn.St.1961, §§ 614.32, 614.53, 615.01, 615.15, 615.17. Laws 1953, c. 661, § 1. St.1927, §§ 10239, 10279, 10299, 10526. Gen.St.1923, §§ 10239, 10279, 10299, 10526. Gen.St.1913, §§ 8757, 8792, 8813, 9022. Laws 1907, c. %, § 1. Rev-Laws 1905, §§ 4985, 5013, 5188. Gen.St.1894, §§ 6521, 6522, 6644, 6940, 8004. Pen-Code, §§ 233, 234, 350. Laws 1889, c. 48, § 1. Gen.St.Supp.1879 -88, c. 98, § 11. Laws 1881, c. 134, § 1. Gen.St.1878, c. 100, §§ 15, 26, 27. Gen.St.1878, § 10. Laws 1876, c. 54, § 3. Gen.St.1866, c. 100, §§ 14, 25, 26. Pub.St.1858, c. 96, §§ 14, 27, 33. Laws 1858, c. 31, §§ 5, 11. Amendment to Rev.St.(Terr.), p. 24, § 117. Rev.St.(Terr.), c. 108, § 14. The 1967 amendment added the provisions of a subd. 2 which provided "Whoever does the following is guilty of disorderly conduct and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three days: attempts to take his own life." Subd. 2 was subsequently repealed by Laws 1969, c. 226, § 1. The 1971 amendatory act substituted the specified penalty of misdemeanor for a former penalty of imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $100. Cross References Disorderly behavior as contempt of court, see §§ 588.01 and 588.20. Disorderly behavior in presence of court, recognizance without process, see § 625.15. Disorderly conduct, interruption of proceedings of legislature and intimidation of members, gross misdemeanor, see § 3.151. Misdemeanor, penalty when not otherwise provided, see § 609.03. 491 r § 609.725 CRIMES, CRIMINALS PL Noto 6 State v. McFarland, 1905, 96 Minn. 482, 105 N.W. 187. 609.735. Concealing identity A person whose identity is concealed by the person in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise, unless incidental to amusement or entertainment, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Laws 1963, c. 753. Amended by Laws 1971, c. 23, § 73, eff. March 5, 1971; Laws 1986, c. 444. Advisory Committee Comment This contains the substance of Minn.St. § 615.16 which will be superseded The presumption contained in the latter section has not been retained in view of State v. Higgin, 1960, 257 Minn. 46, 99 N.W.2d 902. Historical Note Derivation: The 1971 amendatory act substituted the Minn.St.1961, § 615.16. specified penalty of misdemeanor for a former St.1927, §§ 10300, 10301. penalty of imprisonment for not more than 90 Gen.St.1923, §§ 10300, 10301. days or a fine of not more than ;100. Laws 1923, c. 160, §§ 1,.2. Cross References Misdemeanor, penalty when not otherwise provided, see § 609.03. Ubrary References Disorderly Conduct 4-1, 15. U.S. Disorderly Conduct §§ 1(1) et seq., 9. 609.74. Public nuisance Whoever by an act or failure to perform a legal duty intentionally does any of the following is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, ce, which is a misdemeanor: (1) Maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considera- ble number of members of the public; or (2) Interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, any public highway or right -of -way, or waters used by the public; or (3) Is guilty of any other act or omission declared by law to be a public nuisance and for which no sentence is specifically provided. Laws 1963, c. 753. Amended by Laws 1971, c. 23, § 74, eff. March 5, 1971; Laws 1986, c. 444. Advisory Committee Comment The present Minnesota statute on the subject of public nuisance is § 616.01, which reads: "A public nuisance is a crime against the order and economy of the state and consists in unlawfully doing an act or omitting to perform a duty, which act or omission shall: "(1) Annoy, injure, or endanger the safety, health, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of persons; 498 ES )y )r 6, PUBLIC MISCONDUCT OR NUISANCE § 609.74 "(2) Offend public decency; "(3) Unlawfully interfere with, obstruct, or tend to obstruct or render dangerous for passage, a lake, navigable river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or a public park, square, street, alley, or highway; or "(4) In any way render a considerable number of persons insecure in life or the use of property." Minn.St. § 616.02 makes violation a misdemeanor and makes persons who permit a building to be used for such nuisance also liable. The two sections will be superseded by the above recommended section. These sections were adopted in 1886 from the New York Penal Code of 1881. They have been interpreted by the New York courts as merely stating the common law on the subject. Minnesota cases appearing on these sections are confined almost entirely to civil suits in actions for damages. The New York cases construing these sections attach no material significance to terms used in these sections in reaching decisions on what constitutes a public nuisance. Common -law principles have been on the whole pursued and read into the sections. The cases tend to involve several classes of cases: (1) Where gambling or bawdy houses are maintained, and this has been extended to include places where drinking occurs and to which the public may go, and to establishments where abortions are performed. It was this class of cases to which the second clause of Minn.St. § 616.01 is directed. (2) Cases where the question is whether a particular industry is, or is conducted in such manner that it is, a public nuisance. This usually involves weighing of relative values. This class of cases is covered by Clause 1 of § 616.01. (3) Interference with the public use of highways, waterways, etc. This is covered by Clause 3 of § 616.01. No case was found which turned on the provisions of Clause 4 of § 616.01. The cases cited by the New York revision commissioners, relating to noise and offensive odors, can easily be brought under Clause 1. A number of states do not make the maintenance of a public nuisance a crime. They rely instead on the power of prosecuting officials to bring abatement or injunction proceedings. This includes Wisconsin and Louisiana. At the present time the power of the state or local authority to bring an injunction proceeding to abate a public nuisance is well recognized. See State ex rel. Goff v. O'Neil, 1939, 205 Minn. 366, 286 N.W. 316. There is probably still a place for the crime of public nuisance but it i believed it should be restricted to those instances which come within the s urposes of the criminal law. This will require (1) some criminal intent and (2) limitation of the statute to% such specific terms as the nature of the problem permits. `J Clause (1): Changes from the present statutes made by Clause (1) are: (1) The word "intentionally" has been added. This will eliminate those cases where there is a good faith claim on the p art of the defendant that he has a right to continue with the activity in which he is engaged. This claim he should be entitled to make without the possibility of a criminal penalty hanging over him. (2) The word "unreasonably" has been added. Reasonable use of one's own property is not a nuisance. This is the present law. (3) The words "unlawfully doing an act" have been omitted. Many, if not most, nuisance cases involve conduct on one's own premises. It is not illegal unless it is a nuisance. 499 §.609.74 CRIMES. CRIMDVU S (4) The word "morals" has been inserted and the present Clause 2 of Minn.St. § 616.01 has been removed. (5) "Members of the public" has been substituted for "persons." The distin- guishing aspect of a public nuisance is that it is the public that is affected. There may be "a considerable number of persons" affected and the public still not be involved as interpreted by judicial decisions. (6) "Creates a condition" is new. The purpose is to emphasize the charac- teristic feature of a nuisance; namely, that it is something which is more than a single act but is a state of affairs or situation or condition, harmful to the public. The present statute is deficient in this respect. "A certain degree of permanence ... is usually a part of the conception of a nuisance." Holmes, in Commonwealth v. Patterson, 1885, 138 Mass. 498. If single specific acts are sought to be prohibited, they should be the subject of a separate statute defining the act as a crime. Clause (2): This restates Subd. 3 of § 616.01 with some addition and rewording. This is a well recognized basis for a public nuisance. t It might well be made a specific crime quite aside from the crime of nuisance, but it was believed better to continue to treat it as a nuisance and retain the remedies that go with it, such as the right of public authorities to bring an action for an injunction. This will duplicate Minn.St. § 160.27, Subd. 5, Clause (1), in a measure but the duplication is not deemed objectionable. Public parks are not specifically mentioned in this clause since a public nuisance in a public park is deemed sufficiently covered by Clause (1). Clause (3): This covers the provision in Minn.St. § 616.02 to the same effect. There are a number of statutes declaring certain acts public nuisances. These include: $ 18331: i This makes certain grain -rust producing plants and bushes public nuisances. § 3721: This makes the sale of intoxicating liquor near the state fair grounds a i public nuisance. § 169.07: This makes obstructing the view to highway traffic signs a public nuisance. § 360.032: This makes trees and other obstructions to airport approaches public nui- sances. § 411.40: This empowers cities of the first class to declare public nuisances. § 411.45: This preserves legal actions to abate nuisances. § 437.09: This makes itinerant carnivals, street shows, etc., public nuisances. § 461.07: This authorizes ordinances making dense smoke a nuisance. See also Minn.St. § 461.09 giving similar authority to cities of the third class § 462.17: This makes buildings not conforming to city ordinances public nuisances § 471.92: This makes open wells, cesspools, cisterns, etc., public nuisances. 500 '4 PUBLIC MISCONDUCT OR NUISANCE § 609.74 § 614.01: This section is superseded by recommended §§ 609.75 to 609.76. No provision has been included in this revision making a lottery a public nuisance. However, places where lotteries are conducted contribute to injury of public morals and would thus fall within the meaning of Clause (1) of the recommended section. § 61639: This makes itinerant carnivals public nuisances. § 61733: This makes houses of prostitution public nuisances. Subsequent sections empower the county attorney to bring an action to abate the nuisance. § 618.14. This makes drug addict resorts a common nuisance. No provision has been included that is equivalent to Clause 4 of § 616.01. This was regarded as too broad and sweeping to include in a criminal statute. It adds nothing to what falls within Clause (1) of the recommended section. Historical Note Derivation Minn.SLI%I, §§ 616.01, 616.02, 616.16 St.1927, §§ 10241, 10245. Gen.St.1923, §§ 10241, 10245. Gen.SL 1913, §§ 8759, 8760. Rev-Laws 1905, §§ 4987, 4988. Gen.SL1894, §§ 6613, 6615, 6616. Pen.Code, §§ 319, 321, 322. Gen.St.1878, c. 98, §§ 8, 9. Laws 1876, c. 54, §§ 1, 2. The 1971 amendatory act substituted the specified penalty of misdemeanor for a former penalty of imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $ 100. Cross References Abatement, powers and duties of health officers, see §§ 145.22, 145.23. Buildings declared a nuisance, see § 462.17. Cities of fourth class, abatement of nuisances, see §§ 411.40, 411.45. Houses of prostitution, nuisances, abatement, see § 617.33 et seq. Misdemeanor, penalty when not otherwise provided, see § 609.03. Noxious bushes and weeds, see § 18.331. Nuisance defined, see, also, § 561.01. Offensive trades and employments, see § 145.17. Public dance halls, see § 624.46. Unauthorized signs on highways, abatement, see § 169.07. Uses of right of way, misdemeanors, see § 160.27. Law Review Animal feedlot regulation in Minnesota Marcia R. Gelpe, 1981, 7 Wm. Mitchell L.Rev. 399. Environmental rights act. 1972, 56 Minn. Law Review 575. Governmental tort liability. Orville C. Peter- son. 26 Minn.L.Rev. 613 (1942). Jet noise in airport areas May 1%7, 51 Minn. Law Review 1087. Nuisance 4-61. CJ.S. Nuisances § 20 et seq. Animals 6 Authority of legislature 2 Commentaries Liability of municipality and abutting prop• erty owner for injuries resulting from ice and snow. 21 Minn.LRev. 703 (1937). Obscenity and the law: Curious bed- fellows. Ronald I. Meshbesher. Feb. 1970, 38 Henne- pin Law. 4. Public water rights. William G. Peterson. 31 Bench and Bar No. 3, p. 19 (Sept. 1974). Library References Notes of Decisions Businesses 4 Jury queattons 13 501 PAGE 1 ';Citation Database Mode_ 754 P.2d 1241 FOUND DOCUMENT WA -CS P 110 Wash.2d 541 CITY OF SPOKANE, Petitioner, V. Don FISCHER, Respondent. No. 54574 -0. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. May 26, 1988. Dog owner was convicted in Municipal Court of violating an ordinance which made it a nuisance for dog owner to allow a dog to disturb or annoy any other person or neighborhood by frequent or habitual howling, yelping or barking. He appealed. The - Spokane County Superior Court, James M. Murphy, J., found the ordinance void for vagueness and reversed. The city appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, Dolliver, J., found the ordinance provided neither adequate notice to citizens of unlawful conduct nor adequate standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement and thus was void for vagueness. Affirmed. 268K594(2) MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS K. Form and sufficiency in general. Wash. 1988. City ordinance making it a nuisance for a dog owner or occupant of a premises on which a dog was kept to allow dog to disturb or annoy or any other person or neighborhood by frequent or habitual howling, yelping, or barking did not provide adequate notice to citizens of unlawful conduct or adequate standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement and thus was void for vagueness. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, s 3; West's RCWA 2.06.030(2), (c) . City of Spokane v. Fischer 754 P.2d 1241, 110 Wash.2d 541 James C. Sloane, Spokane City Atty., Stanley M. Schwartz, Asst., Spokane, for petitioner. Sara B. Derr, Spokane, for respondent. DOLLIVER, Justice. Don Fischer was convicted in Spokane Municipal Court, on March 11, 1986, of violating Spokane Municipal Code (SMC) 10.03.030. This ordinance, which has been in effect for approximately 40 years, states: No owner of a dog or owner or occupant of premises upon which a dog is kept or harbored may allow such a dog to disturb or annoy any other person or neighborhood by frequent or habitual howling, yelping or barking. Whoever harbors such a dog maintains a nuisance. Fischer received a 3 -day suspended sentence, was fined $40, including court costs, and placed on probation for a period of 1 year. Fischer appealed to the Spokane County Superior Court, asserting the statute in question was unconstitutional. The court found SMC 10.03.030 void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment and Const. art. 1, s 3 and reversed the conviction. The City appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified the COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS 754 P.2d 1241 PAGE 2 case to this court pursuant to RCW 2.06.030(2), (c). We accepted certification and granted direct review. The same rules of statutory construction apply to municipal ordinances as to state statutes. Puyallup v. Pacific Northwest Bell Tel. Co., 98 Wash.2d 443, 448, 656 P.2d 1035 (1982). They are presumed constitutional, and a party claiming otherwise has the burden of proving them unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Haberman v. WPPSS, 109 Wash.2d 107, 139, 744 P.2d 1032, 750 P.2d 254 (1987); Convention Center Coalition v. Seattle, 107 Wash.2d 370, 378, 730 P.2d 636 (1986); State v. Maciolek, 101 Wash.2d 259, 263, 676 P.2d 996 (1984). To meet its burden of proof, a plaintiff must show an ordinance does not satisfy the requirements of due process. "The test for evaluating the vagueness of legislative enactments contains two components: adequate notice to citizens and adequate standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement." State v. Maciolek, supra at 264, 676 P.2d 996; see Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983). Fischer contends SMC 10.03.030 is void for vagueness on its face. To support his contention, he argues the terms "frequent ", "habitual ", "disturb ", and "annoy ", which are elements of the crime, have no legal definition either legislatively or judicially. Therefore, as common usage terms, they must be defined by their dictionary meanings. Under their ordinary usage, Fischer claims the terms in the ordinance are too subjective. Any term not defined within the statute must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning unless a contrary intent appears. Dennis v. Department of Labor & Indus., 109 Wash.2d 467, 479 -80, 745 P.2d 1295 (1987); In re Estate of Little, 106 Wash.2d 269, 283, 721 P.2d 950 (1986). "An ordinance is unconstitutional when it forbids conduct in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." Burien Bark Supply V. King Cy., 106 Wash.2d 868, 871, 725 P.2d 994 (1986). The City claims a person of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is proscribed by the ordinance. Comparing SMC 10.03.030 to a similar ordinance in State v. Cole, 18 Ariz.App. 237, 501 P.2d 413 (1972), the City argues the terms "frequent" or "habitual" are not vague and their meaning is known to the average person of common intelligence. Article 8, section 2 of the Code of the City of Phoenix, states: "No person shall keep a dog within the City limits which is in the habit of barking or howling or disturbing the peace and quiet of any person within the City." (1962) (Emphasis added.) iState v. Cole, at 238, 501 P.2d 413 (quoting CCP s 8 -2). [T]he word "habit" is not unconstitutionally vague as being beyond the comprehension and understanding of a person of common intelligence. "Habit" has been defined as "a settled tendency of behavior or normal manner of procedure: custom, practice; ... a behavior pattern acquired by frequent repetition...." Webster's New International Dictionary 1017 (3rd ed. 1961). Given the obvious purpose of the ordinance, to preserve the peace and quiet of the city, we would be hard - pressed to find a word different from "habit" to express the prohibited conduct.... State v. Cole, at 239, 501 P.2d 413. Citing Everett v. O'Brien, 31 Wash.App. 319, 641 P.2d 714 (1982), the City argues "disturb or annoy" are not unconstitutionally vague terms. There the COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS 754 P.2d 1241 PAGE 3 court held "[a] person of ordinary understanding is capable of determining when noise from his motorcycle is unreasonably disturbing the peace, comfort, and repose of others." O'Brien, at 323, 641 P.2d 714. Neither case is controlling to the matter before us. The Phoenix ordinance, in contrast to SMC 10.03.030, does not allow any person, on the basis of subjective annoyance or disturbance, to make a determination as to an element of the crime. Furthermore, the Arizona case only addressed the term "habit ", not the other terms contained in the Spokane ordinance. O'Brien is distinguished in that the standard of reasonableness is contained in the ordinance. See also Seattle v. Eze, 45 Wash.App. 744, 727 P.2d 262 (1986), review granted, 107 Wash.2d 1026 (1987), which upheld a disorderly conduct ordinance using the phrase "unreasonably disturbs others ". No standard of reasonableness appears in the Spokane ordinance. The ordinance before us proscribes criminal conduct for a natural canine act- - barking. The scope of the ordinance is broad, extending generally to any dog owner or landowner allowing "frequent or habitual" barking which "disturbs or annoys" any other person or neighborhood. The crux of the ordinance is that it gives to any person who feels a dog's frequent or habitual barking is annoying or disturbing the power to make a subjective determination a crime has been committed. While under most circumstances, "frequent or habitual" may be understood by ordinary persons of common intelligence, it is impossible to know whether this barking "disturbs or annoys" another person or neighborhood. Rather than owners being able to determine readily their compliance with the ordinance, it is any person or neighbor's threshold tolerance for barking which determines lawful conduct by the owner or harborer of a dog. While numerous examples can be cited to demonstrate the potential for neighborhood abuse, some common examples illustrate the point. Many persons, especially the elderly and single women, purchase dogs for protection and security. This ordinance could penalize the owner whose dog barks whenever strangers or postal carriers approach the house or barks briefly every time it is let out of the house for a walk. Whether this behavior is lawful or unlawful will depend solely on the subjective feeling of annoyance or disturbance by a particular person or neighborhood. Conceivably, strangers walking by the same residence every day could file a complaint if the dog always barks at them. SMC 10.03.030 provides neither adequate notice to citizens of unlawful conduct nor adequate standards to prevent its arbitrary enforcement. It violates both the Fourteenth Amendment and Const. art. 1, s 3, and is void. Affirmed. PEARSON, C.J., and UTTER, BRACHTENBACH, DORE, ANDERSEN, CALLOW, GOODLOE and DURHAM, JJ., concur. END OF DOCUMENT COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS Big Ch. 174A (1985), procift the procedure by white a party may inwvcm to' commenced under Mism. Scat. 1219.95. Season 219.85, howave, doe Qrovide that 'interested perwas may object to the application to dos or abmdan agency service. The decision wbetherm allim intervention s within the wood dl 1; of the laming examiner, and staodhtg to intervene in agency pcoedings is mere liberally granted than in court protsediags. O. Beck, L Bakken A T. Muck Minnesota Ad- msisdative Procedure, 1624 at 82 (1957). We bold riot the Board acted within its discretion in allowing the unions to intervene pursuant to Km, Rule 1400.6200 (19 Affirmed to part red remanded. COURT APPEALS CRIMINAL STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS: C'7�9- 1920.. n so 0 County Randall. AWV . City of 13diom, Gained mpbrey; Reipe.awa 11220DDniversit St Pad MN Siff : . _.. . David J. McOs s Firm _ Ediolan Way Edit MN 55415 .: . VL Roger IL Doha, Steven D. DeRuyta I sound Saga 8 Deland Appellant ISO South Fdth so= State 2300 MPIL, hm 5940R " Filed April 24,1990' Office of Appellant Courts SYLLABUS C9p -idle eee that PaehtLfaad os'di a = tatimid Wan —bar asp errs disturb. true t,®ee.pr d prim ie m..lrJruy' dw not provide ndegmte notice or •tiegrrme standards an arbitrary anm hefine voWn due p�ooea Considered and decided by Randall, Raiding Judge, FoleN Judge, and GeMebriag, Judge. OPINION JRAN�AIL Judge (H s on. Jam P.ogea, District Court Trial This is an appeal from judgment aganst appelholdr violating a city ordmaom thin prohibits a porno hour keeping an animal which by any cols disturb; the peace and quiet of persons in the vicinity. Appellant argues the the city ordismts demos hum due pmoee of law. We teams. FACTS On Augur 14. 1989, on FdIno community offua was dis. Pawedbythepoliceda, -reosoaweracidaso'scoaplaim that a dog was barking at the hose of appellant Roger Dreher. Upon teaching the house, the officer sat in his vehicle and from about 50 yank away Hawed to appellant's dog tort. Iilefote laviao$g.. the officer k9 a waenitg citation and a copy of Edina City Number Number 312, WO) (Dec. 2, 1981N which Provides. No Peram owning, opmdng having charge of or °OaPYleS any building or premuses shall leap or alloy to be leap any animal which shag by any mfse disturb the peace and 9des, utility pas4ip datt vicinity thereof. Two days saw another complaint we made about appelhm's dog by a second Individual. The a®ecom ear appellaa's borne and Hammed fns mimm while the dog barked. The IS terrified that m this eeceod eocsim be Could lea bortisg and also -8 bawlmg�x� a8 type rota" The officer further 16edth.tit waniY Jmgaency and e "fiquency, and coo istmcy was dimubirg.' He sot- tified that the dog bawd about every 10 scond$ for ep-r posimaWy 10 minutes. The officer then tasted a formal ciation. to appellant for" vidadag the Edina ordinance. At trial edtha of the original complainants were celled and the city's cure mated m solely on the tdfiar'm tadmmny. Arta trial m.rbe cams, appolem way wovuaed of viostiug the Edina ordnance and sowed .530 fuse, plus mart oats. ISSUE Fatafita.pCorom¢ SU (win& 1985). Pasoan dcommoo imelOgstiee matt our be left to gutsy a the mooing of the «dinam nor dif ier at to is application. !d The purposes of the void for vagueness I -in are to pit people an notice of what . is pfohubutd and more itrpottaotiy, todbwumge arbitrary and disrimfoatary law mf«oemenf. Kokod- T. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1993} When fimdemeaW rights am not involved, as bee, vagueness challenges must be examined in light of the defeodam's equal conduct. State v. Beeper 351 N.W.2d 923,925 (N m. 1984). Appellant must show that the ordinance -lacks specificity n to his own behavior and net as to some bypothetical situation." Sense v. Kftw, 382 N. W.2d 287, 289 (Mim. CL App. 1984 Poll. for rev. denied (Minn. April 24, 19a). Appellant must pram a comIituticoW violation beyond a taxtmabk doubt Rio Von Noo•PeoQ1 Housing Corp. r. County d Ramsay, 335 N.W.2d 242, 245 (Muter 1983)Wpol dlaesland 464 US. 1033 (1984). . R Respond- coesandt the phrase 'di sturb the peace and guw well acoepred Sally w dmmod toomm5 so that when applied to appellant's eooduct, it meets the constitutional atam- ard. We disagree. Responders can three w for support. In Stan V. JeliueK 20 113, 1H{ Pf.W2d 750 (19611, ppVieaietfiatenda aem a ddo to�� Miooap�olsmwh erhi�«Mm W Oemsl that parishes 'ottomnct wh�CL; disyt f dF p@ and quiet, -, the Possums fbe ardimamm ari rim ®soda I.The erne rsdiaarnee tam�c;. No pence, in any public or PtiYM two, Ball engage In, or ploy . afda or tltmaoea m eager to a sualwa �' b engage m or m8 wmm cd my don, w. brawl, aw-kman oosdam,,aa at videam « collar conduct thepeaceandgdiei�v erne yid, 1111110 tin Ice a temgphmd 801. l edc combat. Jabnaf, in M n. V 165 N.W2d ar 753 n- 1 (gmtlog Min die Callow OtuBmsa, �B'10.�5} The s 4lreae morn sjsmd the chsllen1 o, reunion ibat the detameadatlaatsgweamooaonatOnanaaedIhaeI gp0off r the Min m 159 .W as 734As!ng a per• Jobasiiti 202 Similarity. in snet. case, the supreme court affirmed a I - n 1, ti,- ender flte same ordinaries when the ddeddaW entmdq.rLtrrI dmrpg a rever ential pmt of the setvk r, beraled a 1 1 and ogwed to leave. State v. Oboe, 287 Min 300, 301-0L 17&)LW.2d 230,231 (1910). Finally, in 1973 the Own nja,ed a v%uenes chal- Imnge to Minn. Sam. 90.11111X4 do unlawful asedmbly stauise. p disrLVcodopmdragamusumbybbckwg entrances and dmmmft ploperry. Wb m three or in=, asaembie, each person � s guilty of udaydul- y y hitb s a into, dememor, if the asembly it • 4 • Whfbom linvU purpose, but fire pwdcgan w conduct themslva is a dbmarly mama a to tIataib or lb<eaterift public pace. HIM 298 Mass. a 82, 213 N.W2d at 612 (quoting Min Sant 8609.705 (3)). (1 "T • Hlpp, 298 Min. 81, 89.90.213 N.W.21d 614 615.16 Job — Obosas and wboledear lo Unlike � �ll p a44 ordlialonehinm- an theo0cor's oomplimmwshthe «diem dadafd personal sense of amoymee ovqAa sound of a normal AM.a bartimg. Bloo>mg aeffie, I ilroptiog a ebseL service, or m awing with a business am upon acts, and may be umdersrood by ordinary people of mason ii� eemJjligenee as unu his a the'pea ist Here pmv�hy.Csdinmce dog' disturbed others in the provided no objective steoda - against whiff oppolam amid meaaae the level of his dog's barking, The ley words uo the ordinance — !' my dais disturb the Pem and quiet of any in the viddty 7 Who does ma mean? Dos that hadttde avow month old babies which may easily be disturbed and cry many mange entire Dos it include the elddy OF anyone wbD is ememely Mosidve sad elalms to be disturbed by any anise abovedw normal btmofcoavmodm? Does It include persons Vllp hecasepf dock love of pas, have W y 00 nd�o � damig dcp and www4i am, by the at~ a�ome rt:no aaswri m iv any g pet pavmifhyia�io raldm0sk4ea1t'I�t�� as writer Siva m an Bdds � so : an nedce of what aadact s prohibited, the tiefaspl;ravres srbiray mfaoemem A dry may eaF' " oodlnosio mmooably goctfy wbat cmdm s p oohi However, It may tint eatora an adu sam tivbose Violation a �dka T. upon ut&44 « not a polka offCa is ,= C v C 402 U.S. 611, 614 ( 1971). Yet the is pedsdy what this FAA oMim= dos, i B— the city iihod to m0odoce any evi0c m from the original -MPW— who reptaued appela��ntd'st �do�g baking, the gtsesbon" whefha apptstbmt vidaad the ordhsaQoe depended —ly on the officer's Wrehhotd of amoYama Does Edina City .Fd1mCt ty Ordi®oe, Number 312. 429(j� as applied rOrdiaaaoeNambm31z4 29(k) provides that bdom to appellant violate due process of law? an oflieer may issue a citstion be must personally investigate the ANALYSIS circumstatte forming the bads of the complaint. As tespontkot explained it. this requirement its Prscacal and exemplary. It puts the Appellant asserts that Edina City Ordinance. Number 312. buffer of a police o[f-ice, between two neighbors and, in theory, 329(j), is unconstimtionall, vague as applied to him and thereby should belpscreen nuisance calls from neighbors involved in a pony deprives him of due process of law. backyard dispute. However, when the prosecuting authorities made The Edina ordinance must meet due process standards of the decision not to call either of the two original mmplainans :o mefiniteness under both the United States Const,tutinn and the idert fc any direct o ijence waat they hca:d and observed. the c:!:. ti'nnesr,� Constxmtinn. State,. Newetrom. 371 1 W'j 5 ^_5, eser. !h, - ;h a ^..our +�iay pdiunecs and erm manners F nV.AlHL=?,Mo aeighbora d *ImdY tleFF isdfof its bestevldwm Rorcan- lag atiboritia always have the pdvi egeof e:ceptingwimoaea hem their to in able[ bur they also aocepr the risk that their case becomes weaker Under these circumstances the Edina ordinance violates pp m date protons of law and therefor we n:serse his CDOVICUM. We note that the Washingmn Supreme Coup recently ad. dressed this same issue involving similar fats and a parallel ordinance. See Ctty of Spouse v. Fisher, 110 Wash.2d 541. 754 P.2d 1241 (1988). In F.lo". the «diaaow provided for conviction if a dog wete'permitted to `disturb or army another person or neighbor by hesitation or habitual howling, yelping or barking." Id. at 543, 754 P.2d at 1241. The coat held the ordinance was uneoetitutjpnally vague. It reasoned that bemuse violation of the ordbianee turned on the neighbors' level of tolerance or intolerance for barking, an average person of oom- moo iarclligen a could not dew ine prohibited conduct. We fwd the reasoning by theeDlrt in Fischer logical and persuasive, and adopt it in this Casa. DECISION ` Edina City Ordinance, Number 312,129Q is wmnsirimp. ally vague an applied 0' appellant and deprives him of due pootan of lar. Raesmd. -' Unpubilshed Criminal Opinions This aPkim Will In opoblbied and may nos be died exbW an prodded by Mhm Star 14994^ uxbi 3 (Sapp. 1989) STATE OF b4NNFSOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C9.89-1532 Oda Tail f betty Foley; Judge smte orMindnews. Ittbart IL Humphrey. M Attorney Ocitend Raryoodeas Am== Paul R. Kompaures, General V. 20D Fad Burbling r. 117 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Waldemar B. Seeyk Otter Tail County Anorney Older Tod Cary Comtmme Fergus Falb, MN 36537 Mark Chards hi Fedora, John M. Smart Smut Public Defender Appellant. Susan LP. Hoge Assistant Saxe Public Defender 95 Law Ceuta University of Minnesota Mps, MN 55455 Fled: April 24,1990 Off ct: of Appellate Courts; � am decide�atdddbbgyye.Randall, Presiding Judge, Foley, UN�PUB�LISHED OPINION FOLEY, Judge (Elam HadmPklson DistiiaCourtTrialJudge) FACTS Appellant hNiLtak Charles McFadow was charged with sexually tats r mw1do 5 s bye old vstepdeughter in violation of Mim. S 1 609 rose) (1980. Al dial, the mote's rust win= ova the Pediatrician who had examined the victim. be the vx�'s sold y. McFadm advised the coat his pievio sly =unit ples of net guilty and eater a pka of guilty. Tbat bhme day. MrFadm enured his plea of Sold': The Omit sissified fie plus after McFadan vet questioned aancagapqtbe cramsrancs of the offense, the rtw�fimstarhsse of the pica atxJMeFadao's mderstendiog of his " 'fbe dory after the lFllilty plea wag Melon flied a moti6o to withdraw his plea dguilty. A haring was held on the motion five days later. At the Haring McFadxen stated be wasted to withdraw his motion and that be wanted to persist in his pia of guilty: TBe court advised McFadan he would probably not be ado change his plea again, and McFadzen indicated he Approximately one mouth Iota. McFadaea appeared before the trial cart for his sentencing hearing. At the beginning of the bemw& Mcleadzen advised the cam that be wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. McFadm asserted his innocence, and claimed his attorney had induced him to plead guilty. _McFadzen also claimed his attorney failed to interview and all important wit- nesses on his behalf. The trial cow denied McFadzen's motion to withdraw his guilty plan. This appeal followed. DECISION A defendant who has entered a plea c+f guil!c :o i ;ni inul 1 M ,Citation 753 S.W.2d 737 PAGE 1 Database Mode FOUND DOCUMENT TX -CS P Gladys. LEAK, Appellant, V. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Nos. 3 -87- 084 -CR, 3 -87- 085 -CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. June 8, 1988. Defendant was found guilty in the County Court at Law No. 1, Travis County, Leslie D. Taylor, J., on two charges of harboring barking dog in violation of city code. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Brady, J., held that: (1) defendant's claim that city code provision, which makes it unlawful for any person to keep or harbor any dog which makes frequent or long continued noise which is disturbing to persons of normal nervous sensibilities, was overly broad could not be maintained; (2) city code provision is not unconstitutionally vague although provision fails to specifically define any of its terms and there is no notice provision to inform parties when their conduct falls within proscribed zone of conduct; and (3) defendant violated provision of city code, where record showed that defendant harbored seven dogs that on repeated occasions barked for long interrupted periods of time, barking awakened neighbors on numerous occasions, and neighbor testified that he normally was not awakened from sleep and had no particular sensitivity to noise of any kind. Affirmed. [1] 268K594(2) MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS K. Form and sufficiency in general. Tex.App. Austin 1988. Defendant's claim that city code provision, which makes it unlawful for any person to keep or harbor any dog which makes frequent or long continued noise which is disturbing to persons of normal nervous sensibilities, was overly broad could not be maintained; code provision did not reach any constitutionally protected conduct. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, s 19. Lear v. State 753 S.W.2d 737 [2] 361K47 STATUTES K. Certainty and definiteness. Tex.App. Austin 1988. Vagueness challenge will be upheld only if statute is impermissibly vague in all of its applications. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, s 19. Lear v. State 753 S.W.2d 737 [3] 361K47 STATUTES K. Certainty and definiteness. COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS X753 S.W.2d 737 PAGE 2 Tex.App. Austin 1988. In order for statute not to be unconstitutionally vague, statute must provide objective standard from which one may gauge his conduct; if enactment requires person to conform his conduct to imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, it is not vague. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1,, s 19. Lear v. State 753 S.W.2d 737 (4] 361K47 STATUTES K. Certainty and definiteness. Tex.App. Austin 1988. When reviewing challenge to statute on grounds that it is unconstitutionally vague, court must determine whether statute is impermissibly vague as applied to challenging party's specific conduct; person, whose conduct is clearly within constitutional scope of statute, may not successfully challenge it for vagueness, and burden is upon challenging party to show that statute in its operation is unconstitutional to him in his situation and not that it is unconstitutional to others. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, s 19. Lear v. State 753 S.W.2d 737 (5] 268K594(2) MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS K. Form and sufficiency in general. Tex.App. Austin 1988. City code making it unlawful for any person to keep or harbor any dog which makes frequent or long continued noise which is disturbing to persons of normal nervous sensibilities is not unconstitutionally vague although provision fails to specifically define any of its terms and there is no notice provision to inform parties when their conduct falls within proscribed zone of conduct; terms claimed to be vague may be rendered certain by resort to dictionary, and provision does not reach constitutionally protected conduct. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, s 19. Lear v. State 753 S.W.2d 737 (6] 268K604 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS K. Keeping and use of animals. Tex.App. Austin 1988. Defendant violated provision of city code making it unlawful for any person to keep or harbor any dog which makes frequent or long continued noise which is disturbing to persons of normal nervous sensibilities, where record showed that defendant harbored seven dogs that on repeated occasions barked for long interrupted periods of time, barking awakened neighbors on numerous occasions, and neighbor testified that he normally was not awakened from sleep and had no particular sensitivity to noise of any kind. COPR. (C) WEST 1590 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS 753 S.W.2d 737 Lear v. State 753 S.W.2d 737 John Barrett, Barney Knight, appellee. PAGE Austin, for appellant. City Atty., Mary Ann Courter, Asst. City Atty., Austin, for Before POWERS, BRADY and CARROLL, JJ. BRADY, Justice. 01 Appellant Gladys Lear was found guilty on two charges,of "harboring -a barking dog" under Section 3 -3 -9, Code of the City of Austin, violation of which is a class "C" misdemeanor. The provision reads: "It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or harbor any dog which makes frequent or long continued noise which is disturbing to persons of normal nervous sensibilities." Appellant was assessed fines of $101.50 in each case. Appellant argues the code provision is unconstitutional because it is so vague and overbroad that it violates due process of law under both the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution. We will affirm the judgment of the trial court in both causes. FACTS The sole witness to testify in the non -jury trial was James A. Conner, who, with his wife, filed both complaints against appellant. Conner lives next door to Gladys Lear and her backyard abuts the side of the Conners' house. Conner testified that on May 31, 1984, at approximately 3:30 a.m., Gladys Lear's seven dogs (five dobermans, one boxer and a big white dog of an undetermined breed) began barking. The barking awakened Conner and his wife and did not abate by the time the couple left their home at 6:00 a.m. to go to work. On July 24 of the same year, the Conners were again awakened when Lear's dogs began barking at approximately 2:30 a.m. The barking stopped at approximately 4:00 a.m. and began again at around 5:00 a.m. and did not stop by the time the Conners left to go to work at 6:00 a.m. Conner testified he and his wife had previously moved out of the bedroom that is located on the side of their house in closest proximity to Lear's house because of previous episodes of barking by Lear's dogs. Despite this, the barking awakened the Conners on the two occasions that form the basis of the complaints now the subject of this appeal. Conner testified he had called Lear in the past to request that she try to quiet the dogs, but Lear had been unable to stop the dogs' barking. Further testimony by Conner revealed he has no particular sensitivity to noise of any kind and seldom woke up at night until the problem with Lear's dogs began. The barking is described as almost constant, lasting for a long period of time (never less than an hour) and occurring on a repeated basis. DISCUSSION In Clark v. State, 665 S.W.2d 476, 483 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), the Court of Criminal Appeals applied the Hoffman Estates test to determine when an enactment is overbroad or impermissibly vague: In a facial challenge to the overbreadth and vagueness of a law, a court's task is to determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. If it does not, then the overbreadth COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS 753 S.W.2d 737 PAGE 4 ik challenge must fail. The court should then examine the facial vagueness challenge and, assuming the enactment implicates no constitutionally protected conduct, should uphold the challenge only if the enactment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications. A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others. A court should therefore examine the complainant's conduct before analyzing other hypothetical applications of the law. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 495 [102 S.Ct. 1186, 1192, 71 L.Ed.2d 362] (1981) (hereinafter Hoffman Estates ). [1] Appellant does not point out, and we do not find, any constitutionally protected conduct reached by this enactment. Because the enactment prohibiting the harboring of a dog that makes frequent or long continued noise that disturbs persons of normal nervous sensibilities does not reach constitutionally protected conduct, the overbreadth challenge fails. We turn to the vagueness challenge. [2] A vagueness challenge will be upheld only if the enactment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications. Hoffman Estates, supra; McDonald v. State, 693 S.W.2d 660, 661 (Tex.App.1985, no pet.) (citing Clark v. State, 665 S.W.2d at 483). Put another way, the enactment must be incapable of a valid application. [3] Section 3 -3 -9 is not incapable of valid application if it satisfies the requirements invoked by the Hoffman Estates test. First, the challenged enactment must provide an objective standard from which one may gauge his conduct. Briggs v. State, 740 S.W.2d 803, 805 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). If the enactment requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, it is not vague. Rather, there must be a complete absence of a standard of conduct to prevail on a vagueness challenge. Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 1688, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971); Briggs v. State, 740 S.W.2d at 805 (a criminal statute must give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly). [4] Second, assuming a standard has been obtained, the reviewing Court must next determine whether the statute is impermissibly vague as applied to the challenging party's specific conduct. Hoffman Estates, supra; Clark v. State, 665 S.W.2d at 483. A person whose conduct is clearly within the constitutional scope of a statute may not successfully challenge it for vagueness. Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756, 94 S.Ct. 2547, 2561, 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974); Briggs v. State, 746 S.W.2d 331, 333 (Tex.App.1988, no pet.). The burden is upon the claimant to show that in its operation the statute is unconstitutional to her in her situation; that it may be unconstitutional to others is not sufficient. Parent v. State, 621 S.W.2d 796, 797 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). [5] With these requirements in mind, we turn now to an examination of s 3 -3 -9 and its application to Lear. We note at the outset that s 3 -3 -9 fails to specifically define any of its terms. There is also no notice provision engrafted to inform parties when their conduct falls within the proscribed zone of conduct. A law which imposes a criminal penalty is subject to greater scrutiny by a reviewing court. See Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498 -99, 102 S.Ct. at 1193. Nevertheless, because the provision does not reach constitutionally protected conduct and is reasonably clear in its application to the complainant, it is not constitutionally infirm. COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS r t' 753 S.W.2d 737 PAGE 5 While s 3 -3 -9 fails to define its terms, the terms the claimant alleges to be vague may be rendered certain, in the sense of defining a core standard of conduct, by resort to a dictionary. [FN1] There one finds that "frequent" includes something that is often repeated or occurring. Webster's New International Dictionary, 1007 (2nd ed. 1953). "Long continued" means without interruption or cessation. Id. at 577. "Noise" encompasses undesired sound of any sort. Id. at 1658. "Disturbing" includes rousing from sleep. Id. at 757. "Normal" includes ordinary or usual. Id. at 1665. "Nervous" relates to the nerves. Id. at 1643. "Sensibilities" refers to things perceived by the senses. Id. at 2279. FN1. See Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 501, 102 S.Ct. at 1195; Floyd v. State, 575 S.W.2d 21, 23 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) (words not defined by statute are to be given their plain ordinary meaning and words defined in dictionaries that are so well -known as to be understood by a person of ordinary intelligence are not vague). From these terms the Court may derive a core standard of conduct intended to be proscribed by s 3 -3 -9. That standard includes the harboring of dogs that make repeated, uninterrupted and undesired sounds that rouse from sleep the person of ordinary nervous sensibilities. [FN2] We think this standard provides fair warning of what conduct violates s 3 -3 -9. FN2. We point out that this standard limits its treatment of the word "disturbing" to the meaning that most aptly applies to this fact situation; that is, "to rouse from sleep" (one of several definitions of the cognate disturb). However, the standard enunciated is not to be read to mean that the only circumstance in which a dog's bark will be found "disturbing" is when it "rouses from sleep" a person of ordinary nervous sensibilities. Instead "disturbing" is to be read as being inclusive of this meaning. [6] Applying that standard to this case, we find that Lear violated the statute. The record shows that Lear harbored seven dogs that on repeated occasions barked for long uninterrupted periods of time. This barking awakened the Conners' on numerous occasions. James Conner testified that he normally is not awakened from sleep by traffic, train or airplane noise and has no particular sensitivity to noise of any kind. We hold that the standard set forth in s 3 -3 -9 clearly applies to the conduct of Lear and, therefore, she may not successfully challenge its provisions as being unconstitutionally vague. Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S.. at 756, 94 S.Ct. at 2561; Briggs v. State, 746 S.W.2d at 333. We overrule appellant's sole point of error. The judgment of the trial court in both causes is affirmed. END OF DOCUMENT COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS I :Citation 449 N.Y.S.2d 16 113 Misc.2d 224 FOUND DOCUMENT PAGE 1 Database Mode NY -CS P The PEOPLE of the State of New York V. Bettijoe RESTUCCIA, Defendant. City Court of Oswego, Oswego County. March 19, 1982. Defendant moved to dismiss the accusatory on the ground that an animal control ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. The City Court, Frank M. Klinger, J., held that the ordinance proscribing keeping animals that persistently or constantly bark, howl, whine, snarl or growl was not unconstitutionally vague and, since many homes in municipality were located in very close proximity to each other, some a matter of inches apart, the ordinance was reasonable. Motion denied. 268K594(2) MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS K. Form and sufficiency in general. N.Y.City Ct. 1982. Animal control ordinance proscribing keeping animals that persistently or constantly bark, howl, whine, snarl or growl was not unconstitutionally vague and, since many homes in municipality were located in very close proximity to each other, some a matter of inches apart, the ordinance was reasonable. People v. Restuccia 449 N.Y.S.2d 16, 113 Misc.2d 224 James K. Eby, Oswego, for Bettijoe Restuicca. Prosecuting Atty. James C. McCarthy, Oswego, for the People. DECISION and ORDER FRANK M. KLINGER, Judge. Defendant moves to dismiss the accusatory on the grounds that the Animal Control Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. In support of her motion respondent cites the case of City of Columbus v. Becher, 173 Ohio St. 197, 180 N.E.2d 836. In that case the ordinance prohibits keeping of any animal which "howls or barks or emits audible sounds to the annoyance of the inhabitants of this city." The Ohio Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutionally vague inasmuch as it did not indicate how many people would have to be annoyed for the conduct to constitute a violation of the ordinance. The Oswego ordinance does not suffer from the same defect in that it does not require that "annoyance" occur. What constitutes persistent or constant barking, howling, whining, snarling or growling may be subject to some judicial interpretation but the terms are certainly understandable so that persons of average education can appreciate the conduct which is prohibited. See This Court's decision in People v. Bragg. In addition, the fact that many homes in the City of Oswego are located in very close proximity to each other - -some even a matter of inches apart - -makes the ordinance all the more reasonable for the protection of those persons who might be persistently or constantly awakened or otherwise disturbed by an animal which might persistently or consistently bark, howl or whine, COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS 449 N.Y.S.2d 16 PAGE 2 snarl or growl. Accordingly, the defendant's Motion is denied and a trial date of Wednesday, April 28, 1982 at 2:00 P.M. is hereby set. END OF DOCUMENT COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS AN ORDINANCE 6255 0 AMENDING CHAPTER 21 (OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) TO INCLUDE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS BY WHICH NOISE NUISANCES CAN BE GAUGED, AND PROVIDING A FINE FOR VIOLATION OF NOT LESS THAN $35.00 NOR MORE THAN $1,000.00 FOR FIRSI VIOLATION IN TWELVE - MONTH PERIOD'AND A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN $70.00 NOR MORE THAN $1,000.00 FOR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS IN ANY TWELVE -MONTH PERIOD. WHEREAS, excessive sound and vibration are serious hazards to the public health and welfare, safety and the quality of life; and WHEREAS, a substantial body of science and technology exists by which excessive noise and vibration may be substantially abated; and WHEREAS, the people have a right to and should be ensured an - environment free from excessive sound and vibration that may Jeopardize their health or welfare or safety or degrade the quality of life; NOW, THEREFORE: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO: The City Code of the .City of San Antonio, Chapter 21 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SECTION 21 -51. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS. 'A- weighted sound level' means the sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A- weighting network. 'Daytime' means any time from thirty minutes before sunrise to thirty minutes after sunset. 'Impulsive sound' means sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. Examples of sources of impulsive sound include explosions, drop forge impacts, and the discharge of firearms. 'Nighttime' means any time from thirty—minutes after sunset" to thirty minutes before sunrise. 'Noise nuisance' means any loud, irritating, vexing or disturbing sound which causes distress, annoyance, dis- comfort or injury to or which interferes with the comfort or repose of any person of reasonable nervous sensibilities is the vicinity or hearing thereof, or any sound which endangers or injures the safety or health of humans or animals, or any sound which interferes with the physical well -being of humans or animals, or any sound which endangers or injures personal or real property. 'Sound level' means the weighted sound pressure level by the use of a sound level meter and frequency weighting ained network such as A, B or C as specified in American National Standards Institute specifications for sound level meters (ANSI S1.4- 1971). If the frequency weighting employed is not indicated, the A- weighting shall apply. 'Sound level meter' means an instrument which includes a microphone, amplifier, RMS detector, integrator or time averages, output meter, and weighting network used to measure sound pressure levels. SECTION 21 -52. NOISE NUISANCE ENUMERATION. - (a) The following acts, among others not hereinafter enumerated,` are declared to be 'noise nuisances', and are unlawful and in violation of the provisions of this ordinance when such acts are done or accomplished or carried on in such a manner, or with such volume, intensity, or with continued duration, so as to annoy, to distress, or to disturb the quiet, comfort, or repose of any person of reasonable nervous sensibilities within the vicinity or hearing thereof, or so as to endanger or injure the safety or health of humans or animals, or so as to interfere with the physical well -being of humans or animals, or so as to endanger or injure personal or real property: (1) The playing or permitting or causing the playing of any radio, television, phonograph, drum, juke box, nickleodeon, musical instrument, sound amplifier or similar device which produces, reproduces, or amplifies sound. (2) Any loud or vociferous language or any soliciting for, or description of, any amusement house, moving picture theater, or other like place of amusement, or for the performance therein, in the entrance thereto, the foyer or lobby thereof, or on the sidewalks adjoining the same. -2- (3) The keeping of any animal, fowl, or bird, which makes frequent or long, continued noise. (4) The continued or frequent sounding of any horn or other signal device on any automobile or vehicle, motorcycle, bus or other vehicle, except as a danger signal. (5) The discharge into*the open air of the exhaust of any steam engine, stationary internal combustion engine, automobile, motorcycle, or other motor vehicle or boat, except through a muffler or other device which prevents loud or explosive noises therefrom. (6) The erection, including construction, excavation, demolition, alteration, or repair work, or the permitting or causing thereof, of any building or other structure, or the operation or the permitting or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, excavation, drilling, demolition, alteration or repair work: - A. other than during the daytime on week days; or B. at anytime such that the sound level at or across a real property boundary exceeds 80dBA. C. This section shall not apply in cases of extreme and urgent necessity in the interest of public safety and convenience, and then only by permit obtained from, and issued by, the Director of Public Works, or any of his duly appointed and acting assistants and employees, which permit may be renewed during the time the emergency exists. (7) The crying, calling, or shouting, in person or by a mechanical device, or the use of any whistle, rattle, bell, gong, clapper, hammer, drum, horn, loudspeaker or phonograph with or without an amplifier, hand organ, or other devices or instruments, musical or otherwise, for the purpose of advertising any candidates for elective office, any goods, wares, or merchandise, or for the purpose of attracting attention to or inviting persons to any political rally, meeting or gathering, to any place of amusement, to any performance or show, or to any business or activity whatsoever. (8) The raucous shouting, whistling, yelling, singing, hooting, or crying of peddlers, hawkers, vendors or any other persons. —3— (9) The operation, playing, or permitting the operation or playing of any radio, television, phonograph, drum, musical instrument, sound amplifier, or similar device which produces, reproduces, or amplifies sound in any place of public entertainment at a sound level greater than 80dBA as read by the slow response on .a soundlevel meter at any point that is customarily occupied by a customer nr patron, unless a sign, legible and conspicuous to ordinary public view, and at least 225 square inches in area, is Iodated outside such place, near each public entrance, stating, in letters at least two inches high, 'WARNING: SOUND LEVELS WITHIN MAY CAUSE HEARING IMPAIRMENT.' (10) On any property located in a residential zone, as specified by Chapter 35 (Zoning), the making of any noise, wherein the sound pressure level from any operation, use or occupancy exceeds the decibel limits specified in the octave band indicated in the following table, designated as Table 1, when measured on any other property under separate ownership. TABLE 1 MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE DAYTIME OCTAVE BAND DECIBEL LIMI -TS AT OR WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 A SCALE (HERTZ) DECIBEL BAND LIMIT (dB re 0.0002 76 66 59 54 50 47 44 42 56 ICROBAR) F NUTS: A -Scale levels are provided for monitoring purposes only. (11) On any property located in a business or office zone, as specified by Chapter 35 (Zoning), the making or allowing or causing to be made of any noise, wherein the sound pressure level from any operation, use or occupancy exceeds the decibel limits specified in the octave band indicated in the following table, designated as Table 2, when measured on any other property under separate ownership. -4- TABLE 2 MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE DAYTIME OCTAVE BAND DECIBEL LIMITS AT OR WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF A BUSINESS OR OFFICE DISTRICT OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY 63 125 1250 1500 1000 2000 4000 A 8000 SCALE (HERTZ) DECIBEL BAND LIMIT (dB re 81 71 0.0002 _ 66 61 57 54 52 49 63 MICROBAR) NOTE: A -Scale levels are provided for monitoring purposes only. (12) On any property located by Chapter 35 (Zoning), in an industrial zone, as specified to be made of any noise, the making or allowing or causing wherein the sound from any operation, use limits pressure_ level or occupancy exceeds the decibel specified in the following table, designated octave band indicated in the any other property under as Table 3, when measured on separate ownership. �- TABLE 3 MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE DAYTIME OCTAVE BAND DECIBEL LIMITS AT THE BOUNDING PROPERTY OF A USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS OCTAVE BAND ` ! CENTER FREQUENCY 631 1251 250 1500 11000 1 2000 1 4000 8000 SCALE (HERTZ) I 1 t DECIBEL BAND LIMITS (dB re 83 74 69 64 62 57 54 52 65 0.0002 _ MICROBAR) NOTE: A -Scale levels are provided for monitorin only. g purposes -5- (b) Special Noise Corrections. Corrections shall be made to the basic octave band levels specified in Tables 1, 2 and 3 for the specific conditions listed in accordance with the following table, designated as Table 4. TABLE 4 CORRECTIONS PERMITTED TO BASIC OCTAVE BAND - :LEVELS NOISE IS PRESENT AT NIGHTTIME SUBTRACT 7dB NOISE CONTAINS STRONG PURE -TONE COMPONENTS OR IS IMPULSIVE (Meter reading changes at a rate greater than lOdB per second) " " ... 0.000000000 SUBTRACT 7dB NOISE HAS AN 'ON TIME' AND AN 'OFF TIME' BETWEEN OF NO MORE THAN SUCCESSIVE 'ON TIMES' OF AT LEAST 0.5 minutes hour ) 5.0 10.0 minutes minutes 1 hour ) ADD 10 DECIBELS 20.0 minutes 2 hour ) TO PERMITTED• 4 hour ) LEVELS SECTION 21 -53. VIBRATION. It shall be unlawful to operate, or to permit or to cause the operation of any device that creates vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property of the source if on private property or at fifty feet from the source if in a public space or public right -of -way. For the purpose of this section, 'vibration perception threshold' means the minimum ground -or structure -borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a reasonable person to be aware of the vibration by such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or visual observation of moving objects. SECTION 21 -54. EXCEPTIONS. (a) The provisions of this ordinanceshall not apply to: (1) the emission of sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of an emergency; or -6- (2) the emission of sound in the pe-Iformance of emergency work; or (3) any noise made by any vehicle, whether designed for land, air or rail transportation; or (4) noises produced by any government or public body. (b) Applications for a permit for relief from the noise and vibration restrictions designated in this ordinance on the basis of undue hardship may be made to the Director of Public Health or his duly authorized representative. Each application must be accompanie:i by a fifty,dollar ($50.00) fee. The relief requested may be granted upon a good and sufficient showing: (1) that additional time is necessary for the applicant to alter or modify his activity or operation to comply with the provisions,of this chapter; or (2) that the activity, operation, noise or vibration source will be of temporary duration and cannot reasonably be done in a manner that would comply with this ordinance; or - (3) that no reasonable alternative is available to the ` applicant. (c) If granted, the permit shall be in writing and contain all conditions, upon which said permit is granted, including but not limited to the effective dates, any time of day, location, sound pressure level, or equipment limitation. The Director of Public Health or his duly authorized representative may prescribe any reasonable conditions or requirements deemed necessary to minimize adverse effects upon the community or the surrounding area. SECTION.21 -55. METHOD OF NOISE MEASUREMENT. Whenever portions of this chapter prohibit noise over a certain decibel limit, measurement of said noise shall be made with a sound level meter and octave band analyzer meetine the standards prescribed by the American Standards Association The in shall be maintained in calibration and good working order. Octave band corrections may be employed in meeting the responsespecifica- tion. A calibration check shall be made of the system at the time of any noise measurement. Measurement recorded shall be taken so as to provide a proper representation a, the noise source. The microphone during measurement shall be positioned so as not to create any unnatural enchancement or diminution of the measured noise. -7- A windscreen for the microphone shall be used when required. Traffic, aircraft and other transportation noise sources and other background noises shall not be considered in taking measurements except where such background noise interferes with the primary noise being measured. Times when the level Of the primary noise being measured does not exceed that of the background -noise in all octave bands shall be considered as 'off times' of the primary noise in determining the corrections from Table 4, Section 21- 52(b). SECTION 21 -56. ENFORCEMENT. (a) Immediate threats to health and welfare. (1) The Director of Public Health or his duly authorized representative shall order an immediate halt to any sound which exposes any person, except those excluded pursuant to subsection (2), to continuous or impulsive sound levels in excess of those shown in Tables 1 through 4. Within five days following issuance of _ such an order, the Director of Public Health, or his duly authorized representative shall apply to the _ appropriate courtfor an injunction to replace the order. (2) No order pursuant to subsection (1) shall be issued if the only persons exposed to sound levels in excess of those listed in Tables 1 through 4 are exposed as a result of: A. trespass; or B. invitation upon private property by the person causing or permitting the sound. (3) Any person subject to an order issued pursuant to subsection (1) shall comply with such order until: A. the sound is brought into compliance with the order, as determined by the Director of Public Health or his duly authorized representative; or B. a judicial order has superseded the order by the Director of Public Health or his representative. (b) Penalty for violations of ordinance, habitual violations. -8- I Any person who violates any portion of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall on conviction be subject to a fine of not less than thirty -five dollars ($35.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). For the second or subsequent offense within a twelve -month period, the person shall be subject to a fine of not less than seventy dollars ($70.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. This ordinance, and the amendment contained herein, shall become effective April 1, 1986. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of .4i P/ C_'/r ATTEST: )00%Itity Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: -9- M A Y R City Attorn Story 1 of 14 ACCESS # 900521 -0165. HEADLINE Hush! Noise Cops In San Antonio Are Armed, Dangerous They Stalk Boom Boxes, Bars And an'Elusive Crooner; A Loud, Nefarious Laugh By David D. Medina Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal DATE 05/21/90 SOURCE WALL STREET JOURNAL (J), PAGE Al LENGTH 160 lines SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- It's Friday night at the La Cucaracha Lounge. Inside the smoky, cavernous bar, a blaring Mexican - Western band has the joint jumping. But outside, Rudy Davila and Horace Neaves are about to give the bar the silent treatment. The two hulking figures in gray and white uniforms ease their white pickup truck to the curb and aim a black apple -sized microphone toward the din spilling into the street. A dial on the attached box swings to the figure 78. "Burn 'em," orders the 6- foot -4 Mr. Davila, as he and Mr. Neaves pile out, and like lawmen from some old Western, part a wake through the revelers. They slap a ticket on the club's owner that will mean $98 in fines and court costs. Forget the Alamo. San.Antonio has a new, and some think equally lost cause: enforcing a six - month -old city ordinance * making it illegal to be too loud. Noise abatement is nothing new, of course. Make too much of a racket anywhere, and you can earn a disturbing- the -peace citation. Many cities also have specific limits for everything from car mufflers to jet airplanes. But most enforce their rules case -by -case, in response to complaints, often using off -duty police officers. San Antonio has tiptoed one step beyond: In the duo of Mr. Davila, 29, and Mr. Neaves, 57, it has a new, full -time team of official noise - busters. The two beat cops are empowered not only to answer complaints but also to sample ambient sounds and write citations at will. To get the job done, they * have been outfitted with a $7,600 portable sound analyzer, badges and guns. "To my knowledge . . that's unique," says * Joseph Soporowski, director of the Noise Technical Assistance Center at New Jersey's Rutgers University. So far, the silence sentries have brought to justice several raucous saloons and, alas, a hapless bride and groom whose wedding reception band was a bit too enthusiastic. They've also stalked a cantankerous parrot, some obnoxious roosters and a man who, clad only in underwear, periodically serenades his next -door neighbor. They've even busted God. Sort of. They forced the South Zarzamora Baptist Church to tone down its bell tower chimes. The chimes, programmed to play hymns only during the day, developed a nasty habit of malfunctioning in the wee hours, waking neighbors to strains of "How Great Thou Art." Some see San Antonio as leaping into a quiet cause abandoned by the federal government. Around the country, "there are a lot of regulations, but they aren't being enforced," maintains Mr. Soporowski. He says that federal * noise control efforts have all but ended with deep budget cuts at the Environmental Protection Agency. Moreover, he says, people underestimate the harmful * effects of noise. At 65 decibels -- the average level of * noise in Manhattan, the country's loudest urban center -- it interferes with normal conversation. * Constant noise above 85 decibels -- such as eight hours of a screaming child -- can deaden hearing, adds Joseph J. Rizzo., executive director of Better Hearing Institute. Others * say loud noise can cause blood vessel contractions that produce headaches, fatigue, higher blood pressure and even heart attacks. It also can disrupt concentration, cause stress and lead to a mental breakdown. For folks in San Antonio, however, relief is on the way. * The city has set a legal limit for "vexing, hazardous" sound at 74 decibels in most instances, when measured from the sidewalk property line. "We're here to protect their health," declares Mr. Davila. What started as a simple effort to hush up some loud bars produced the sweeping city ordinance that makes sounds above the prescribed limits cause for a summons. Fines can range from $35 to $1,000, more after a second offense. After a third, the officers can seek a search warrant and remove the * source of the noise. So far, more than 50 citations have been issued. Mr. Davila and Mr. Neaves work lousy hours -- 7:30 p.m. to * 4:30 a.m. -- but that's when noise carries most easily and is most disruptive. Their main target most nights is a strip of bars and restaurants along St. Mary's Street, which divides a residential neighborhood. As word spreads that the two are heading down St. Mary's, armed with handcuffs, .357 Magnums * and the sound analyzer swung over one of their shoulders, bar employees scramble to warn their bosses. The manager of Wacky's, a popular live -music spot, rushes inside after being told his music is too loud. He returns and obsequiously asks, "Is that better ?" Mr. Davila complains that he and Mr. Neaves are becoming too well known. "Eventually, we may have to go undercover," he jokes. At times the two park their truck blocks away and slip through back alleys to nail an unsuspecting decibel deviator. Mr. Neaves, a former police sergeant and a cop for 36 years before taking this job, admits that some of his former colleagues poke fun at him, turning conspicuously quiet when he's around. "I can't believe how quiet it is," says Mr. Davila, standing in a crowd of young bar - hoppers on St. Mary's Street. "Before, you couldn't hold a conversation out here." W 9/ Most residents -- especially those over 40 -- praise the * effort. "I'm in favor of it. I hate noise," says Larry Ronald White, 43. That's noteworthy, for Mr. White recently was ticketed because a rock -n -roll band playing on his patio for his daughter's wedding reception was making too much racket. Understandably, the 24- year -old bride was a little less charitable about the'citation. She "thought it was terrible," Mr. White admits. The fine was dropped after Mr. White wrote to a judge pointing out that he was a first - offender and that * his house was really "not a big noise center." Owners of some local night spots are less enthusiastic. * "If I had known the noise ordinance was going into effect I wouldn't have gotten into this business," contends bar owner Marty Bane. "It restricts you so much; you can't do anything." Mr. Bane has taken precautions, though. After being fined $35 for having a too -loud band, he spent another $35 on his own Radio Shack decibel reader and then hired someone at $5 an hour to use it, as well as to warn him when the noise -cops are around. y Claude Morgan, an`- employee of the Maui Waui T -shirt store, previously forced to lower the volume of a "boom -box" tape player out front, has launched a more obnoxious counterattack. When Mr. Davila and Mr. Neaves show up, he bursts into a wild laugh, then asks if that's a violation. Sometimes he puts "Noise- Cops" on the tape player, an original song that he and a friend composed that repeats the title -- loudly -- ad nauseam. Despite the grumbling, most business owners are caving in. The real trouble comes from rowdy patrons who openly defy the enforcers, says Mr. Davila. The towering 268 -pound officer got into a scuffle with one drunken man who claimed to be * defending a constitutional right to make noise. The encounter was no contest. The dynamic duo's brushes with the animal kingdom have been less successful. A loudmouthed parrot flew the coop as they arrived. "We could see a perch where they kept it outside, but it wasn't there," Mr. Neaves recalls. Four German shepherds kept behind a chain -link fence gave the officers the silent treatment. "We went out three different times and they never:barked once," he adds. And 15 roosters that occupied a backyard pulled the same stunt. As the officers waited for the morning song, nothing happened. "They made chicken noises, but no crowing," says Mr. Davila. Then there's the mysterious serenader who reportedly stands on his roof at 2:30 a.m. in his skivvies while he sings to his next door neighbor, asleep by her bedroom window. Every time, the nocturnal Don Juan scrams before the * noise busters show up. "We think he disappears when he sees her make a phone call (to the police)," says Mr..Davila. "It's bizarre," he says with a silent shrug. STORY .9 ACCESS NUMBER DATE NEWSPAPER SECTION PAGE HEADLINE BYLINE. STORY LENGTH KEYWORDS 107040 11/09/89 THE SAN ANTONIO METRO D10 Anti -noise law DAVE LOVERUDE 6 INCHES LIGHT enforcement starts today anti -noise ordinance decibels briseno berriozabal st. marys KEYWORD -HIT. San Antonio will be a quieter place starting today, when the city begins enforcing a 3- year -old anti -noise ordinance. Although the ordinance -- which limits noise to 80 decibels -- has been on the books since 1986, it has not been enforced. Beginning today, however, two recently hired officers in the city's Code Compliance Unit will start measuring noise levels, Assistant City Manager Alex Briseno said. Enforcement will begin on a limited basis this weekend, Briseno said, with officers stepping up their campaign next week after receiving more training. While pleased that the city has decided to take some action, City Councilwoman Maria Berriozabal said she does not believe the city has done enough to appease residents who live near loud bars, including those along St. Mary's Strip. "I don't think we're doing enough," Berriozabal said Wednesday. "These people are prisoners in their own home." 'Berriozabal acknowledged the importance of live music to the financial success of a bar. However, she said the music should not interfere with the lives of homeowners, many of whom lived along St. Mary's long before the street developed into a trendy collection of bars and restaurants. At least one St. Mary's hot spot welcomes the ordinance. Mildred Logan, general manager of Tycoon Flats, said the ordinance will force all bars on the strip to become good neighbors. Since it opened six years ago, Tycoon Flats has kept its music below 72 decibels and cuts off bands at 11 p.m., she said. "I don't feel it will have any effect on business," Logan said. "You can have a lot of fun before 11 p.m." (END) * *END OF STORY REACHED ** 4/ PAGE 1 Citation Database Mode X184 N.E.2d 617 FOUND DOCUMENT OH -CS P 115 Ohio App. 239, 20 0.0.2d 315 CITY OF COLUMBUS, Appellee, V. BECHER, Appellant. Court of Appeals of Ohio, Franklin County. July 25, 1961. Defendant was convicted in a Municipal Court for violation of a city ordinance pertaining to the keeping of noisy animals, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals, McLaughlin, P. J., held that ordinance providing that no person shall keep any animal which howls or barks or emits audible sounds to annoyance of inhabitants of the city, because of use of words 'annoyance,' and clause 'emits audible sounds' contained no ascertainable standard of guilt, lacked certainty and definiteness, and was unconstitutional. Judgment reversed. Judgment affirmed 173 Ohio St. 197, 180 N.E.2d 836. [1] 110K1169(1) CRIMINAL LAW K. Ohio App. 1961 Error, if any, in admission rejection of evidence was immaterial where evidence was conflicting, and sufficient to sustain conviction. CITY OF COLUMBUS v. BECHER 184 N.E.2d 617, 115 Ohio App. 239, 20 0.0.2d 315 [1] 110K1170(1) CRIMINAL LAW K. In general. Ohio App. 1961 Error, if any, in admission rejection of evidence was immaterial where evidence was conflicting, and sufficient to sustain conviction. CITY OF COLUMBUS v. BECHER 184 N.E.2d 617, 115 Ohio App. 239, 20 0.0.2d 315 [2] 268K640 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS K. Evidence. Ohio App. 1961 Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for violation of municipal ordinance pertaining to keeping of noisy animals. CITY OF COLUMBUS v. BECHER 184 N.E.2d 617, 115 Ohio App. 239, 20 0.0.2d 315 [3] 268K594(2) MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS K. Form and sufficiency in general. Ohio App. 1961 Ordinance providing that no person shall keep any animal which howls or barks or emits audible sounds to annoyance of inhabitants of the city, because of use COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS '11 184 N.E.2d 617 PAGE 2 of words 'annoyance,' and clause 'emits audible sounds,' contained no ascertainable standard of guilt, lacked certainty and definiteness, and was unconstitutional. CITY OF COLUMBUS v. BECHER 184 N.E.2d 617, 115 Ohio App. 239, 20 0.0.2d 315. [4] 11OK13 CRIMINAL LAW K. Creation and definition of offenses. Ohio App. 1961 A criminal statute, in order to be constitutional, must be so clear that all persons of ordinary intelligence who are subject to the penalties will understand its provisions. CITY OF COLUMBUS v. BECHER 184 N.E.2d 617, 115 Ohio App. 239, 20 0.0.2d 315 [5] 92K293 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW K. Regulation of keeping and use of animals. Ohio App. 1961 An ordinance proscribing keeping of noisy animals was unconstitutional in its application to a veterinarian proprietor of an animal hospital, where ordinance, if enforced, would take in the penalties enacted, without due process of law, defendant's property which was located in an area zoned for commercial or industrial use. CITY OF COLUMBUS v. BECHER 184 N.E.2d 617, 115 Ohio App. 239, 20 0.0.2d 315 [6] 279K64 NUISANCE K. Exercise of legal right. Ohio App. 1961 Operation of an animal or pet hospital within a municipality is not a 'nuisance per se.' CITY OF COLUMBUS v. BECHER 184 N.E.2d 6170, 115 Ohio App. 239, 20 0.0.2d See publication Words and Phrases for other definitions. [7] 268K625 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS K. Reasonableness of regulations. Ohio App. 1961 315 judicial constructions and Police power of a municipality is subject to constitutional limitation that it may not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. CITY OF COLUMBUS v. BECHER 184 N.E.2d 617, 115 Ohio App. 239, 20 0.0.2d 315 Syllabus by the Court 1. The operation of an animal hospital within a municipality is not a nuisance per se. COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS 184 N.E.2d 617 PAGE 3 2. A municipal ordinance providing that 'No person shall keep or harbor any animal of fowl * * * which howls or barks or emits audible sounds to the annoyance of the inhabitants of this city' contains no ascertainable standard of guilt, lacks certainty and definiteness, and is unconstitutional. Schwenker, Teaford, Brothers & Bernard, Columbus, for appellant. Russell Leach, City Atty., Robert W. Duncan, Asst. City Atty., and Bernard T. Chupka, Columbus, for appellee. McLAUGHLIN, Presiding Judge. Dr. Ralph J. Becher, veterinarian, proprietor of an animal hospital in Columbus, appeals his conviction in Municipal Court for the violation of this city ordinance: 'Section 2315.07. Noisy animals or fowl. No person shall keep or harbor any animal or fowl except homing pigeons bearing official bands, which howls or barks or emits audible sounds to the annoyance of the inhabitants of this city.' The penalty Section 2303.99 provides in pertinent part as follows: 'Any such violation shall constitute a separate offense on each successive day continued.' Several neighborhood witnesses testified that they were annoyed by the barking of dogs at the doctor's animal hospital. Others either testified or proffered testimony that the barking did not annoy them. (1)(2) Since the evidence was conflicting, and there has been a finding of guilty, the first three assignments of error which go: (1) to the admission or rejection of evidence; (2) defendant's motion for a directed verdict; and (3) the weight of the evidence; are overruled. The fourth and fifth assignments of error: (1) that the judgment of the trial court was contrary to law; and (2) the ordinance under which the defendant was convicted deprived defendant of constitutional rights guaranteed under the Ohio and federal Constitutions and therefore, is unconstitutional in its application as it affects the rights of the defendant; squarely raise the controlling question whether the ordinance is constitutional. 'Section 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution grants authority to municipalities to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police regulations as are not in conflict with general laws. A.municipal ordinance passed under such authority, to be valid, must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious or unreasonable and must bear a real and substantial relation to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public.' City of Cincinnati v. Correll, 141 Ohio St. 535, 49 N.E.2d 412. There can be no question as to the validity of the use of a municipality's police power to regulate the keeping of animals within the city. Such ordinances bear a real relationship to the general welfare of the public. See 7 McQuillin on Municipal Corporation, Section 24.282. However, this ordinance, by the use of the words, 'to the annoyance of the inhabitants of this city,' contains no ascertainable standard of guilt. The application of this penal ordinance depends upon the probably varying impression of juries or factfinder trial courts as to what degree or amount of 'annoyance' is necessary to establish guilt. It leaves to the court or jury, in a legislative capacity, the fixing of the degree or amount of 'annoyance' COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS J84 N.E.2d 617 PAGE 4 before the guilt of the accused is established. Annoyance is a relative term. It is not a word of fixed meaning in itself, or is it made definite by any statutory or judicial definition. It is not modified by any words such as, 'unreasonable,' 'continuous,' or 'substantial.' This ordinance could permit the arrest of any dog owner or keeper, because all dogs bark more or less and one barking of.one dog could annoy some of the inhabitants of the city. It could permit the arrest of the owner or keeper of a cat that 'mews'; a parrot or parakeet that talks; or love birds that 'coo'; a canary that 'sings.' In the words of Shakespeare in Hamlet: 'Let Hercules himself do what he may, 'The cat will mew and dog will have his day.' [3] Use of the word, 'annoyance,' makes this ordinance so vague, indefinite and uncertain that it is unconstitutional. This penal law offers no standard of guilt. It is impossible for persons of ordinary intelligence to know in advance what it is their duty to avoid. The lack of certainty of the challenged ordinance is not limited to the word 'annoyance.' We assume that the clause, 'or emits audible sounds,' means something - -but what? In the case of Roberts v. State, 46 Ohio App. 364, at page 370, 188 N.E. 763, at page 765, Judge Sherick states: '* * * The law is that criminal statutes which create and provide for the punishment of criminal offenses must be so clear and explicit that all persons of ordinary intelligence who are subject to their penalties will understand their provisions. * * *' [4] And at page 371, 188 N.E. at page 765, Judge Sherick says: '* * * The true test is: Is it understandable to a person of ordinary intelligence who is subject to its penalties ?' In Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 59 S.Ct. 618, 83 L.Ed. 888, it is said in the third paragraph of the L.Ed. headnotes: 'To be consistent with the constitutional requirement of due process, the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense should not forbid or require the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, but must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.' The author of the annotation to such case makes this statement (83 L.Ed. 893): '* * * Suffice it to say that a criminal statute which defines the offense in such uncertain terms that persons of ordinary intelligence cannot in advance tell whether a certain action or course of conduct would be within its prohibition is subject to the attack of unconstitutionality * * *.' In the case of Tozer v. United States, C.C. 52 F. 917, at page 919, Judge Brewer said: 'But, in order to constitute a crime, the act must be one which the party is able to know in advance whether it is criminal or not. The criminality of an act cannot depend. upon whether a jury may think it reasonable or unreasonable. * * *' [5] Furthermore, this ordinance is unconstitutional in its application and as it affects the rights of the defendant. The ordinance, if enforced, would take COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS 184 N.E.2d 617 PAGE 5 from this defendant his property, in the penalties enacted (each day being a separate offense), without due process of law in violation of the principles of right. Execution of this criminal ordinance, with a fine levied for each day's violation, would work an unconstitutional confiscation of property from which defendant is helpless to protect himself. [6] It must be borne in mind that the defendant is operating a business. An animal or, in a big city, a 'pet' hospital has become recognized as usual, important, and even necessary to modern living. Such business is not a nuisance per se. The record shows that this particular animal hospital has been operated by this defendant for a period of about sixteen years in a location zoned for commercial or industrial use. [7] Enforcement of this ordinance would drive this defendant out of business. As it affects his rights to operate his business and practice his profession, it is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is not a mere regulation but a prohibition. 'The police power of a municipality is subject to the constitutional limitation that it may not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably.' Doyle, J., in W. W. Enterprises, Inc. v. Brenneman, Dir., 112 Ohio App. 242, 247, 175 N.E.2d 854, 858. For the reasons stated this ordinance is, in our opinion, unconstitutional and void, and the judgment of the trial court must be reversed and the defendant ordered discharged. Judgment reversed. RUTHERFORD and HILDEBRANT, JJ., concur. MCLAUGHLIN, P. J., and RUTHERFORD, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, and HILDEBRANT, J., of the First Appellate District, sitting by designation in the Tenth Appellate District. CITY OF COLUMBUS v. BECHER END OF DOCUMENT COPR. (C) WEST 1990 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS 9ti;Ja. r 4, ° 0 REQUEST FOR °:; R PURCHASE TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director Park and Recreation Department VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: July 26, 1990 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Brush chipper Company 1. Vermeer Sales & Service 2. Truck Utilities Manufacturing 3• Road Machinery & Supply 4. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: AGENDA ITEM VI. A. Amount of Quote or Bid 1. $9.900 2,$9,930 3, $9.945 4. 5. Vermeer Sales & Service $9,900 GENERAL INFORMATION: This is for one new 12" brush chipper with a trade in of two 6" chippers: one 1965 Wayne chipper and one 1975 Lindig brush chinner. Sign a Department The Recommended bid is within budget not within} bud dt Y allin, Fin4;ce Director Kenneth Rosland, �:- y REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director Park and Recreation Department VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5 000 DATE: August 1, 1990 AGENDA ITEM vz . B . ITEM DESCRIPTION: Grade sod and landscaping. work Company Amount of Quote or &d 1.Perkins Landscape, 55331 Eden Prairie Rd. 1. $14,500 2. Jackson Landscape, 10906 162nd St. W., Lakeville 2. $14,960 3.Sunram Landscape, 7675 Troy Ln, Maple Grove 3. $15,500 4. 4. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Perkins Landscape, 55331 Eden Prairie Rd, Minnetonka, MN 55343 GENERAL INFORMATION: Grade, sod and landscape around the parking lot at Braemar Golf Club House and at Pamela and York park around playground rings. Also,_ landscape around Edina Art Center new building expansion and at Arneson Acres Building. Sign a re Department The Recommended bid is within budget not within.bu5get hn Wallin, �ance Director Kenneth Rosland City Manager .; REQUEST FOR PURCHASE rJ ,. n�,nwwv,,• TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director Park and Recreation Department VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: April 13, 1990 AGENDA ITEM vl . C . ITEM DESCRIPTION: Removal of diseased trees, s.turnQ:)s and trimming of Company boulevard trees. Amount of Quote or &d 1. Precision Landscape & Tree 1. Trimming $2.91 /DBH in. Removal $8.96 /DBH in. Grinding $1.96 /in 2. Ceres Tree Company 1. Trimming $3.34 /DBH in. Removal $9.34 /DBH in. Grindi-ig $1.79 /in. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Precision Landscape & Tree GENERAL INFORMATION: Contract tree removal and stump grinding of diseased trees on boulevard. Also, trimming of boulevard trees. All work to be done within the City of Edina. Work not to exceed $14,000. f. Sign6tur The Recommended bid is X within budget Department w not within.. budget Wallin, FXance Director Kenneth Rosland City Manager ,w'9Z1`SA.11T1 0 . •'�bRR1RAtbv� ieue REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To Ken Rosland From: Recycling Commission & Janet Chandler Date: August 6, 1990 Subject: Yard Waste Rebate Recommendation: Agenda Item # TT A. . Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr . Recommends [:]To HRA a To Council Action ❑ Motion Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Resolution authorizing $5 yard waste rebate to each property owner, to be credited on the utility bill during the September - October - November billing cycle. Info /Background: Funds are available from Hennepin County to those cities whose yard waste has been handled this year at no cost to the County. Edina is eligible to receive $71,163 of Yard Waste Rebate funds, with the County stipulation that the rebate shall be clearly passed on to the residents. Previously, the County had designated that $1.90 per ton from the tip fee would be used for yard waste composting. Since the County did not provide a compost program in 1990, these designated funds are being returned to the cities. There is no expectation that this funding will be extended beyond 1990. �r REBATE SYSTEM Each property owner, including commercial buildings, would receive the same $5 credit. This credit would appear on the utility bill during the September - October- November billing cycle. This across - the -board approach would be fair and easy to administer. Payment from the County is expected to be made in September, and would then be credited to the Utility Dept. 13,987 accounts @ $5 $69,935 Administrative costs 1.228 Total Fund $71,163 RESIDENT INFORMATION Residents would be informed in two ways. -The utility bill would have a short message printed at the bottom: "A one -time $5 Credit, funded by Hennepin County, is shown on each bill to help defray costs of fall yard waste disposal." -The "About Town" newsletter would carry an article with an explanation of the rebate. The fall issue is scheduled to be mailed in October. OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED City Staff and the Recycling Commission considered other ideas including: - establishing a drop -off site for yard waste, with the material to be.hauled out to a compost site elsewhere, - allowing residents to rake leaves into the street during the fall season for cleanup by city crews, - establishing compost project within Edina to handle leaves only - obtaining equipment to pick up and chop leaves for composting, - contracting with each hauler to pick up their customers' yard waste for 2 weeks, with no extra per bag charges. The major drawback to most of these ideas is the expectation on the part of the residents that a program, once begun, will continue each year. County funding, however, is available this year only. In addition to future program costs, other considerations were lack of space to develop a complete compost program and the difficulty of working out a system satisfactory to all haulers. YARD WASTE REMOVAL COSTS At this time, Edina garbage haulers offer a variety of rates for yard waste pickup. Two haulers will pick up all yard waste for full service customers with no extra charge. One hauler has a 6 bag limit for full service customers. Two haulers charge by the bag at all levels of service; 50 cents and $1, respectively. If the trend is to charge for yard waste by the bag at every level of garbage service, some Edina residents will be facing very large costs for fall cleanup in future years. RECOMMENDATIONS For this year, distribute the $5 rebate for residents described above. In the future, the City may wish to consider options to help residents deal with yard waste disposal, especially in the fall season. I ,i **0 P1110 10 (4) � I BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that it hereby authorizes a yard waste rebate of five dollars ($5.00) to each property owner in the City, to be credited on the utility bill during the September /October /November billing cycle. ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 1990. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of August 6, 1990 and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 8th day of August, 1990. Marcella M. Daehn City Clerk A. �r\ o e J•' ^�RPOM��O �G �tl tltl REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Mayor & City Council From. Francis Hoffman/�'� City Engineer Date: 6 August, 1990 Subject: Feasibility Reports - Set Hearing Date 20 August, 1990 E -32 Alley S -50 Sidewalk BA -292 Street Surfacing with Concrete Curb & Gutter Agenda Item # VII. B. Consent F�x Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends To HRA 0 To Council Action 0 Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Set Hearing Date - 20 August,. 1990 for Alley Improvement E -32; Sidewalk Improvement 5 -50; and Street Surfacing with Concrete Curb & Gutter Improvement BA -292. Info /Background The Engineering staff has investigated three projects which have been petitioned by adjacent property owners. The projects are feasible and staff recommends hearing the projects on 20 August, 1990. Improvement Location Est. Cost Project E -32 Alley between Oxford and Bedford Avenues $22,619.90 (Cone.) $ 9,969.36 (Bitum.) Project 5 -50 Sidewalk - Valley Ln. along S side from 100± $60,956.13 E of the centerline of Doron Ln. Easterly to the Soo Line RR tracks; Ridgeview Dr. along S & W side from Soo Line RR to W. 66th St.; W. 66th St. along N side from Ridgeview Dr. to Warren Ave. Project BA -292 Street Surfacing with Concrete Curb & Gutter $82,013.92 on Lincoln Dr. from S lot line of Lot 1, Blk. 1, Interlachen Hills 3rd Addn. south to mid -block of Lot.2, Blk. 2, Interlachen Hills 3rd Addn. These projects would be funded by special assessment and state aid. A U 06 '33 10 33 BHK &R INC BLOOMINGTON, MN 'I �H K &R® Insurance Counselors Risk Managers August 6, 1990 Edina City Clerk FA81 927 -5032 VITA ON DAVID B. ROSENBLATT I. ACADEMIC Agenda Item VII.0 P.1 Graduate: Blake School, 1960 University of Penn&, Wharton School Finance & Commerce, 1964 II. WORK - 1966/1987 - D.B Rosenblatt, Inc. - Apparel Mfgr., Wholesaler, Retailer 1979 -1987 President, CEO - 1987 /Present - Brandow Howard Kohler & Rosenbloom, Inc. - Commercial Insurance Broker. Holder of ARM designation. III. ORGANIZATION INVOLVEMENT - 1974/1987 - Director Norwest Bank 1221 Office. - 1984/1985 - Trustee Temple Israel. -1983 - Director United Way - Member Uptown Rotary IV. FAMILY BACKGROUND -1971 /Present - Edina resident. -Wife - Carol; Child Clinical Psychologist. - Daughter - .Till; 1989 Edina High Graduate. -Son - Brad; Edina Class of 1993 DBR /min /M6 ANDOW HOWARD KOHLRR a ROSENBLOOM, INC. Olympic Place 7815 Washington Ave jpum Bloomington. Minnesota $5435 612-944-43885 Telex 29 -1030 4801 WEST -,= =E =-. =DINA. MINNESOTA 55424 312 -927-8661 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the terms of Donald Lofthus and Larry Madden on the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Board will expire on September 29, 1990; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that it hereby recommends and nominates Donald Lofthus and Larry Madden to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners for re- appointment to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Board and urges the Commissioners to approve the re- appointments. ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 1990. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of August 6, 1990 and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 8th day of August, 1990. Marcella M. Daehn City Clerk -t e V4 Cn N REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: KEN ROSLAND, MANAGER From: MARCELLA DAEHN, CLERK Date: AUGUST 2, 1990 Subject: APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES - PRIMARY ELECTION Agenda Item # VII -D Consent [K] Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA KI To Council Action ❑ Motion ! xl Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the following election judges be appointed to serve on the election boards for the Primary Election to be held on September 11, 1990, and that the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized to make any substitutions or additions as may be deemed necessary: (See attached list) Info/ Background: Minnesota Election Law 204B.21, subd. 2 states that "Election judges for precincts in a municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality." The names on the attached list have been selected from lists that have been submitted to Senate District 42 Chairs pursuant to Statute 204B.21, subd. 1 and pursuant to Statute 204B.19, subd. 5 which requires party balance. (7/10/90) (PROPOSED) PRIMARY ELECTION JUDGES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 PRECINCT 1 - SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS CHURCH 500 S. BLAKE ROAD 1. Eugenia Williams - Chair 6425 Mendelssohn La. (55343) 938 -5086 2. Lois Hallquist 305 Grove P1. (55343) 935 -5886 3. Barbara Anderson 413 Arthur St. (55343) 938 -1160 4. Dorie Capetz 6304 Waterman Av. (55343) 935 -5724 5. Arleen Friday 6525 Belmore La. (55343) 933 -4464 PRECINCT 2 - EDINA CITY HALL 1. Marjorie Ruedy - Chair 2. Pauline Carroll 3. Elizabeth Anfinson 4. Joan Flumerfelt 5. Kathleen Tierney PRECINCT 3 - EDINA COVENANT CHURCH 1. Linda Smith - Chair 2. Sherrill Esten_sen 3. Jane Andrews 4. Patricia Dill 5. Barbara Bergan 4801 W. 50TH STREET 5048 Edinbrook #v. (36) 4836 Rutledge Av. (36) 5290 Villa Way (36) 5225 Division St. (36) 5016 Oxford Av. (36) 4201 W. 50TH STREET 4519 Bruce Av. (24) 4528 Arden Av. (24) 4526 Arden Av. (24) 4610 Edina Blvd. (24) 4801 Woodhill Way (24) PRECINCT 4 - MORNINGSIDE MUNICIPAL BLDG 4114 GRIMES AVENUE 1. Shirley Dibble - Chair 4101 W. 44th St. (24) 2 Rachel Schoening 4014 Monterey Av. (16) 3. Marjory Brothers 4310 Eton P1. (24) 4. Marion Cracraft 4227 Alden Dr. (16) 5. Jeanette Lushine 4166 Monterey Av. (16) PRECINCT 5 - HIGHLANDS SCHOOL 1. Rosemary McGlynn - Chair 2. Mildred Karr 3. Barbara Martin 4. Carol Ledder 5. Susan Little PRECINCT 6 - COUNTRYSIDE SCHOOL 1. Jane Bains - Chair 2. Catherine Swanson 3. Mary Cleaveland 4. Barbara Herbers 5. Susan Zwakman 922 -2712 920 -1304 929 -2251 929 -2114 929 -0948 922 -4620 926 -0655 922 -4236 922 -4879 926 -1141 926 -4048 922 -5457 922 -4914 922 -6623 926 -0576 5005 DONCASTER WAY 4909 Rolling Green Pkwy (36) 927 -5124 5121 Lake Ridge Rd. (36) 938 -9283 5205 Mirror Lakes Dr. (36) 929 -1808 5409 Chantrey Rd. (36) 929 -5920 5423 W. Highwood Dr. (36) 933 -4981 5701 BENTON AV 6101 Tracy Av. (36) 929 -9362 5804 Merold Dr. (36) 929 -8387 6204 Crest Ln. (36) 929 -5486 5801 Stuart Av. (36) 929 -2521 6109 Ridgeway Rd. (36) 920 -7181 PRECINCT 7 - NORMANDALE CHURCH 6100 NORMANDALE ROAD 1. Helen Peterson - Chair 6121 Code Av. (36) 929 -7067 2. Kathleen Engquist 6212 Wyman Av. (36) 929 -9497 3. Eunice Overby 5004 Kent Av. (36) 929 -4300 4. Gertrude Snoeyenbos 5125 Valley View Rd. (36) 929 -5414 5. Lois Strupp 5113 Richmond Dr. (36) 929 -5439 PRECINCT 8 - SOUTHVIEW JUNIOR HIGH 4725 SOUTHVIEW LANE 1. Jane Moran - Chair 5429 Wooddale Av. (24) 920 -0558 2. Myra Hykes 4516 Woodland Rd. (24) 929 -7595 3. Barbara Melin 4814 Golf Terrace (24) 920 -2852 4. LuJean Swenson 4620 West Woodland Rd. (24) 929 -4115 5: Kathleen Bradford 4600 Concord Terrace (24) 929 -3279 PRECINCT 9 - CONCORD SCHOOL 5900 CONCORD AVENUE 1. Aileen Konhauser - Chair 6313 Halifax Av. (24) 927 -9401 2. Florence Boughton 5921 Fairfax Av. (24) 920 -0454 3. Patricia Monson 6000 Ashcroft Av. (24) 922 -1465 4. Marie Robinson 5928 Halifax Av. (24) 925 -3419 5. Colleen Crew 6215 Halifax Av. (24) 925 -1629 PRECINCT 10 - CREEK VALLEY SCHOOL 6401 GLEASON ROAD 1. Barbara Erlandson - Chair 6501 Nordic Dr. (35) 941 -4011 2. Mary Shoquist 6713 Cheyenne Tr. (35) 941 -6187 3. Kathryn Rivers 6720 Rosemary Ln. (35) 941 -8085 4. JoAnn Lonergan 5713 W. 68th St. (35) 944 -7228 5. Jeanine Westling 6620 Pawnee Rd. (35) 941 -8511 PRECINCT 11 - CREEK VALLEY CHURCH 6901 TRACY AVENUE 1. Sharon Lee Smith - Chair 6708 Hillside Ln. (39) 941 -3673 2. Alice Burnell 5416 Creek View Ln. (39) 941 -5922 3. Karen Vickman 5201 Tifton Dr. (39) 941 -8576 4. Delphine Duff 6716 Cahill Rd. (39) 944 -3938 5. Carol Melichar 6417 Wilryan Av. (39) 941 -4674 PRECINCT 12 - CHRIST CHURCH 6901 NORMANDALE ROAD 1. Ardis Wexler - Chair 4913 Larkspur Lane (35) 925 -2097 2. Shirley Bjerken 4405 Ellsworth Dr. (35) 922 -0406 3. Carol Hite 4720 Aspasia Ln.. (35) 927 -4885 4. Wynn Meeker 4800 Wilford Way (35) 922 -5679 5. Mary Scholz 4512 Gilford Dr. (35) 920 -2152 PRECINCT 13 - CORNELIA SCHOOL 7000 CORNELIA DRIVE 1. Doris Peterson - Chair 4120 Parklawn Av. (35) 835 -7951 2. Elaine Tollefsrud 7400 Oaklawn Av. (35) 835 -7710 3. Margaret Polta 4480 Parklawn Av. (35) 831 -7263 4. Annadell Quantrell 4145 Parklawn Av. (35) 897 -1763 5. Audrey Sherman 4120 Parklawn Av. (35) 831 -2200 PRECINCT 14 - ST. PETERS CHURCH 5421 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH Wooddale Av. (24) 1. Mary Jane Platt - Chair 5504 Beard Av. (10) 926 -8447 2. Joyce Hanson 5829 Drew Av. (10) 926 -8856 3. Louise Carlson 3700 Chowen Curve (10) 926 -6253 4. Esther Olson 5441 York Av. (10) 926 -1006 5. Donna Brastad 5701 Chowen Av. (10) 926 -3468 PRECINCT 15 - VALLEY VIEW JUNIOR HIGH 6750 VALLEY VIEW ROAD 1. Katherine Luikens - Chair 7310 Claredon Dr. (39) 944 -1016 2. Jean Hare 6917 Mark Terrace Dr. (39) 944 -3877 3. Joann Buie 6224 Braeburn Cir. (39) 941 -7979 4. Carol Hanson 5809 Chapel Dr. (39) 944 -2759 5. Patricia Robbins 6028 Chapel Dr. (39) 941 -6448 PRECINCT 16 - SOUTHDALE HENNEPIN LIBRARY 7001 YORK AVENUE SOUTH 1. Mary McDonald - Chair 6929 Southdale Rd. (35) 926 -7860 2. Bonnie Bjerken 6524 West Shore Dr. (35) 926 -6998 3. Pat Halvorson 6700 Xerxes Av. (23) 869 -0366 4. Bernadine Chapman 4860 W. 64th St. (35) 922 -1370 5. Donna Montgomery 6824 Oaklawn Av. (35) 920 -9044 PRECINCT 17 - LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE MASTER 7128 FRANCE AVENUE 1. Lorna Livingston - Chair 5920 Wooddale Av. (24) 926 -5322 2. Jean McDermid 5116 Mirror Lakes Dr. (36) 929 -8859 3. Louise Jackson 6016 Zenith Av. (10) 927 -8279 4. Marie Bachman 7201 York Av. (35) 831 -6452 5. Mary Ryan 5508 Goya Ln. (36) 926 -5139 PRECINCT 18 - EDINBOROUGH PARK 1. Jean Erdall - Chair 2. Selma Shelton 3. Doris Blake 4. Betty Lou Petersen 5. Patricia MacCornack PRECINCT 19 - CHAPEL HILLS CHURCH 1. Charlotte Scanlon - Chair 2. Jane Hess 3. Audrey Nankivell 4. Alyce Hamilton 5. Jeanette Wurst PRECINCT 20 - BROOKVIEW CHURCH 1. Patricia Olander - Chair 2. Anita Delegard 3. Zelma Gray 4. Evelyn Herkal 5. Harriet Koch 7700 YORK AVENUE 6101 Abbott Av. (10) 922 -9202 7200 York Av. (35) 831 -8863 6701 Southdale Rd. (35) 920 -1470 4313 Cornelia Cir. (35) 926 -9523 5300 Malibu Dr. (36) 933 -0335 6512 VERNON AVENUE 6144 Arctic Way (36) 938 -3245 6509 Aspen Rd. (36) 933 -3865 6145 Arctic Way (36) 935 -6274 6913 Langford Dr. (36) 935 -1123 6205 Knoll Dr. (36) 935 -9923 5015 WEST 70TH STREET 7001 Lee Valley Cir. (39) 944 -2185 7209 Lanham Ln. (39) 941 -5056 5530 Village Dr. (39) 944 -5348 5501 Dewey Hill Rd. (39) 829 -1956 5501 Dewey Hill Rd. (39) 944 -0271 OIL REPORT /RECOMMENDATION ���iaPBBwj� To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: KEN ROSLAND, MANAGER Date: AUGUST 2, 1990 Subject: APPOINTMENT - NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD Recommendation: Agenda Item # VII-E.1 Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ❑ To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Info /Background: We have been advised by Hennepin County that terms will expire as follows: 9/29/90 Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Board Donald Lofthus 3 yr term Larry Madden " it Don Lofthus has advised that he has applied for reappointment by the County Board of Commissioners. The Council may wish to consider a letter of support for'his reappointment. A. k • , RrpAAti��� ibBB REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: City Council Members From: Mayor Richards Date: August 3, 1990 Subject: RECOMMENDATION FOR NOMINATION Recommendation: Agenda Item # VII.E.2. Consent ❑. Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA El To Council Action 0 Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion That the Edina City Council recommend to the South Hennepin Human Services Council that Alison Fuhr be nominated to serve on the CASH Board for another two years. Info /Background: See attached. August 3, 1990 Ms Peggy Kelly, Council Member Ms Susan Wohlrabe, Administrative Assistant City of Edina Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Peggy and Susan: CASH - Community Action Suburban Hennepin - was created to help the poor to help themselves. We derive our funding from the "Feds ", anywhere from $300,000 to $600,000, but the County Board organized the agency five years ago. Composed of 27 members at full strength, the Board, by law, must have 1/3 low income, 1/3 private, and 1/3 public officials representation. Terms of the low income run for 3 years, and terms for the private sector are for two years. Public officials are appointed or reappointed by the COunty Board on an annual basis. The maximum amount of time a member may serve is 6 years under our by -laws. We have serviced in a positive way many in the low income sector of subur- ban Hennepin county, a sector, incidentally, which does exist in our sub- urbs. We gave money to the Women's Consortium at Normandale to work with the residents of the townhouses down on York Avenue to assist them in get- ting through the social services maelstrom. We were the catalyst last year for the distribution of $1.3 million from the McKnight Foundation to various programs to enable low income -to get training or re- training for jobs, help in their homes so they could get out to get .a job, to enable single mothers or fathers to learn the ropes, how to live in a community and fend for themselves. It's a very rewarding process to watch particularly now as we fund low - income neighborhood groups in various apartment houses throughbut the..sub- urbs to teach them how to teach others how to do it. I would hope that you might recommend to the South Hennepin Human Services Counsel that I be nominated to serve on the CASH Board for another two years. Cordially, L L Alison D. Fuhr, Chair Sommunity Action Suburban Hennepin L REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: GORDON L. HUGHES ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER Date: AUGUST 6, 1990 Subject: 1990 -1991 WORK PROGRAM Recommendation: Adopt 1990 -1991 Work Program Info /Background: Agenda Item # VII.F. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA To Councii Action 0 Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Attached is the proposed 1990 -1991 Work Program which is a follow -up to the March 12, 1990, Strategic Planning Retreat. This work program was based upon the summary of that retreat which was prepared by Barbara Arney. This summary was sent to you on March 19, 1990. 0 CITY OF EDINA 1990 - 1991 WORK PROGRAM ISSUE #1 - CITY STANDARDS GOAL: High standards to maintain a premier community. FOCUS: As Edina matures, ordinances and policies must continually adapt to changing circumstances - an aging population, aging infrastructure and aging housing. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVE: Review and affirm, or revise City Ordinances, especially those concerning nuisances and property maintenance. WORK PROGRAM: Prepare a draft codification of City Ordinances for Council consideration by November, 1990. Staff review of draft, December, 1990 - January, 1991 Council Work Sessions February and March, 1991 Public Hearings April and May, 1991 Final Adoption of Recodification July, 1991 Estimated Cost: 1990 Budget $10,000 1991 Budget $10,000 . TOTAL $20,000 ISSUE #2 - STAFF DEVELOPMENT GOAL: High quality services from a high quality staff. FOCUS: Edina is committed to recruiting outstanding individuals, providing training and experience and where possible, promoting such individuals to more responsible positions.. All individuals presently serving as department heads have attained their positions through the promotion process. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVE: Provide an ongoing program of staff development that ensures a continuity of staff leadership. WORK PROGRAM Provide an overview of staff recruitment, development and promotion. Present report to City Council - May 1, 1991. 1990 -91 WORK PROGRAM Page Two ISSUE #3 - RECYCLING GOAL: A liveable City FOCUS: Edina commenced a City -wide, door -to -door recycling program for all single family dwellings and two family dwellings on July 1, 1989. On December 1, 1989, all townhouse units were included in the door -to -door program and on July 15, 1990, all apartments and condominium developments with eight or fewer units were included. Presently 808 of all single family, two family and townhouse residents participate in the recycling program. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVE: Divert 358 of Edina's waste stream for calendar year 1993. WORK PROGRAM AND TIMETABLE: Require recycling pick -up for all multi - family dwellings by January 1, 1991. City Council is presently completing consideration of ordinance. Cooperate with Hennepin County and the Edina Chamber of Commerce to advocate recycling for non - residential uses. Progress report - December 17, 1990. ISSUE #4 - FINANCIAL STRENGTH GOAL: Long -term stability in City revenues with minimal reliance on other levels of government. FOCUS: This issue is a carry -over from the 1989 -90 Work Program. SHORT -TERM OBJECTIVE: Identify and review the feasibility of tapping non - traditional revenue sources for supporting City operations. WORK PROGRAM AND TIMETABLE: Establish a think tank of community leaders to brainstorm alternative revenue sources. City Council appoint community leaders - October 1, 1990 First meeting of committee - October 15, 1990 Report - March 30, 1991 )ocn iaex REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: HRA & CITY COUNCIL From: GORDON L. HUGHES Date: AUGUST 6, 1990 Subject. BATE OF EXCESS TAX INCREMENTS - EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS Recommendation: Agenda Item # VII . G. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends El To HRA © To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Consider rebate to Edina School District of Excess Tax Increments from 50th & France and Grandview tax increment financing districts resulting from the 1988 School District Referendum. Info /Background: Attached is a letter dated July 12, 1990, from Raymond Smyth, Superintendent of Schools. This letter again requests the City rebate tax increments which resulted from the 1988 School District Referendum. You will recall that this request was considered by the City Council on July 24, 1989, and again on April 16, 1990. At the April 16, 1990, meeting, the City Council elected not to grant the rebate, in that the rebate did not appear to increase the revenues of the school district. The Council however stated their willingness to reconsider the request if the effect of the rebate would be increased revenues to the district. As, pointed out in Dr. Smyth's letter, the district has now determined that the rebate is in fact not revenue neutral and would increase the district's revenues. Therefore, they are renewing their request to rebate the increments for the 1989 -90 fiscal year as well as the 1990 -91 fiscal year. According to our information, the 1990 payable increments resulting from the 1988 referendum totalled $57,535.00 from the Grandview and 50th and Report /Recommendation, Rebate of Excess Tax Increments August 6, 1990 Page Two France tax increment financing districts. If the Council wishes to proceed with this rebate, I suggest that it be instituted for payable 1990 taxes. The.rebate should occur after receipt of the 1990 tax settlements, and should be conditioned upon collection of at least 95% of-the expected taxes from each tax increment financing district, i.e., no more than a 5% delinquency rate of total tax revenue. I would also recommend that the rebate be applied only for the 1990 payable taxes and that it be considered annually thereafter. Also, the Council may wish to require that the rebate be used for projects of mutual benefit to the District and City. WE CARE WE DARE WE SHARE 4 I July 12, 1990 PUBLIC SCHOOLS Mr. Ken Rosland, City Manager Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr. R nd: 4l' As you know, the Edina City Council recently considered the request from the school district to rebate excess tax increments generated by the 50th and France and Grandview tax increment districts. The decision by the council on May 7, 1990, was to not approve the request for rebate. The rationale for that decision was apparently based upon an understanding that the financial impact on the school district would be revenue neutral inasmuch as the school district's levy authority would be reduced for the year immediately following a rebate (1990 levy for 1991 -92 school year). The understanding of the "revenue neutral" concept was an interpretation of the statute (M.S. 469.177, subdivision 9 and 10) that Jim Hamann received more than a year ago from the research staff of the House of Representatives. Jim recently made a follow -up inquiry with the Minnesota State Department of Education as to whether the "revenue neutral" interpretation was still correct. Our motivation for this follow -up was because of reports from other districts (Shakopee Schools and South St. Paul Schools) that rebates of excess tax increments to these districts were being accounted as additional revenue. Officials in the Education Finance and Analysis Section of the Minnesota State Department of Education have stated that the interpretation of the statute at this time does not mandate a 5701 subsequent levy authority reduction following a rebate of excess tax increments. No adjustment is presently built into NORMANDALE the levy limit authority calculation annually prepared by the ROAD department. This, of course, means that a rebate of excess tax increments from a city to a school district is indeed • additional revenue for the school district. EDINA Because of this current interpretation of the statute by the A I N N E S O T A Minnesota State Department of Education, I am requesting that 5 54 24 you put this matter in front of the City Council for reconsideration to rebate.the excess tax increments for the 6 1 2- 9 2 0 - 2 9 8 0 AN EOU.4L OPPOP.. LU ,.!1; %, PL&ER 1989 -90 fiscal year as well as the 1990 -91 fiscal year. We will need to have Jim Hamann and Gordon Hughes get together to prepare the numbers if you agree to having this request reconsidered. The-amounts of these respective rebates for the two years are not large when viewed in the context of the school district's total budget. The additional funds would nevertheless ease somewhat the amount of curtailments that the district is likely going to be forced to make in the upcoming years. Your attention to this request will be very much appreciated. Sincerel , i L-I Raym P. Smyth Superintendent RPS /mef July 20, 1990 HENNEPIN Agenda Item VIII.A SERVICES Edina • Richfie TO: BLOOMINGTON, EDEN PRAIRIE, EDINA, RICHFIELD, CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIALS AND REPRESENTATIVES; HUMAN SERVICES AGENCIES, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, AND RESIDENTS FROM: CAROLYN FORBES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JEANNE GUENDEL, PLANNER SUBJECT: REGIONAL FORUM The new South Hennepin Human Services Council staff wishes to meet with you and develop an ongoing working relationship with your organization. Four new staff members are on board at SHHSC: Carolyn Forbes, Executive Director; Jeanne Guendel, Planner; Pat Helmberger, Information Coordinator; and Marie Luptak, Administrative Assistant. Our challenge, in partnership with you, is to provide for regional human services planning and service coordination to meet the diverse needs of the residents of our four cities. The South Hennepin Human Services Council invites you to a regional forum on August 9, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. in the Edina City Council Chambers, 4801 W. 50 St., Edina, MN. The purpose of the forum is to discuss the most pressing needs of the residents of the four cities of South Hennepin. This dialogue will help set the direction and agenda for South Hennepin Human Services Council planning activities. This forum is more than a stakeholders meeting.' The focus will be to arrive at a consensus on the most important needs in the South Hennepin region and to determine policy issues and directives upon which regional and collaborative strategies will be based. This forum is not intended to be an isolated, one year event. The goal is to establish ongoing working groups around the most important issues as a means to assure continued policy guidance and ongoing "strategic brainstorming ". It is recognized that much city -wide and intercity cooperation exits.among the human service agencies in the four cities. SHHSC hopes to strengthen those cooperative efforts. Your concerns, ideas and insight are essential in de- termining how SHHSC can best serve your organization. For any further information, feel free to call us at 888 -5532. Please INFORM US BY AUGUST 3 via telephone or letter if you plan to attend. Feel free to invite any interested members from your agency. 9801 Penn Avenue South • Room 106. • Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 • (612) 888 -5530 1: W 0 o e a0 REPORT /RECOMMENDATION IBeB To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item # %.A. From: KENNETH ROSLAND Consent ❑ Information Only 0 Date: AUGUST 6, 1990 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA Subject: ❑ To Council HENNEPIN COUNTY RE- CYCLING Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance 0 Discussion Recommendation: Info /Background: Attached are several pieces of information that I will discuss under Manager's items. 0 BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE A-2309 Government Center NENNEPIN Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 -0239 Lr�u Phone ' (612) 348 -6509 August 1, 1990 To: Municipal Recycling Coordinators SUBJECT: 1991 Recycling Funding Policy For your information the 1991 Hennepin County Funding Policy for Source- Separated Recyclables will not be on the August 2 Public service Committee Agenda as indicated in an eearlier letter. instead, the policy will be taken up by the Public Service Committee on August 16. we will be sending you copies of the policy soon. The Committee will take up the issue of recycling at on August 2. Enclosed is a memo to the Commissioners recommendations. if you have any questions please call me at 348 -3054. Sincerely, arl Michaud Recycling Coordinator the multi - housing units that makes several HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Staff has reviewed the information from other instead of providing a Association the County July 31, 1990 Comm,j on rs Ver Ge family Recycling proposal by the City of Edina and additional cities# activities. Staff recommends that subsidy to the Minnesota Multi Housing proceed as follows: 1. Hennepin County should amend Ordinance 13 u ttrequire multifamily recycling by July 1, 1991, In municipalities mist adopt mandatory ordinances that require property owners to provide recycling services with specially marked containers by July 1, 1991- 2. Hennepin County will subsidize the cost of containers The mu to a maxim of $5.00 per multifamily household. cities must apply for this reimbursement by December 31,. 1991. The estimated cost to the County for containers is $475,000, which would-come from a grant provided by the Metropolitan Council. 3, Five- to eight -unit buildings can b�icid atc he city's discretion in 1990 to the existing service and would be eligible for funding under the current reimbursement policy. `'cc: Dale AckmaM DATE: JULY 18, 1990 TO: HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FROM: KEN ROSLAND, EDINA CITY MANAGER JANET CHANDLER, RECYCLING COORDINATOR, EDINA SUBJECT: RECYCLING POLICIES FOR MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING UNITS Edina City Council and Staff have been considering the same question as the Hennepin County Board; namely, to what extent, if any, should apartment recycling be funded by government? We believe the Edina experience of the past few months has a bearing on your decision, and ask your consideration of the suggestions which follow. On July 16, Edina City Council gave unanimous approval to the first reading of ordinances which require that (1.) apartments and condominiums provide recycling programs for their residents by January 1, 1991, and (2) garbage haulers must offer recycling service to their apartment and condominium customers by January 1, 1991. This action was recommended by the Edina Recycling Commission and Staff, and reflects the general support for recycling that is evident in the Edina community. For its part, the City will prepare a flyer for distribution to all apartment residents as programs come on line, and the Recycling Coordinator has been authorized to assist apartment managers in setting up programs. The question of City funding will be decided during the 1991 budget process which has just begun, and is partly dependent on County policy. Leading up to the action of July 16, a survey of multi- housing management and haulers was taken, and an informational meeting was held for all interested parties. Through this process, we found that recycling service was already being provided for 608 of Edina condominium units and 98 of apartment units. Many building managers have reported that their recycling efforts have reduced their garbage hauling costs considerably, offsetting the cost of recycling. In some cases there has been an overall cost savings.' We have also heard from less optimistic building managers who don't believe that recycling can be provided on a break -even basis in their particular situations. These managers have not set up recycling programs because of their concerns over cost. Service providers also agree that a cost benefit cannot be guaranteed as a result of recycling programs. However, even in a worst case scenario, the cost of apartment recycling is modest: $1 to $1.40 per unit per month. Apartment and condominium owners have a valid claim to funding, since they also pay into the tip fee that supports recycling programs. On the other hand, is it reasonable to ask for funding for programs with the potential of cost savings without outside funding? This is the dilemma. We suggest that a fair answer would be for the County to provide a one -time stipend for each apartment or condominium as they come on line with recycling programs. An amount of $5 per housing unit would be consistant with the container rebate provided for single family homes. This stipend would defray start -up expenses (principally containers) and would be an incentive for building management to start recycling programs. It could work like this: - Apartments and Condominiums would set up their programs, with the containers appropriate for their situation. -Each building or complex would then register the program with the City, in order to become eligible for the stipend. -The city would verify that programs are up and running, pay the stipend to the buildings, and apply to the County for reimbursement. We urge the County Board to spend the $175,000 earmarked for the pilot program on an incentive system as outlined above. The County could obtain apartment recycling cost information from the many programs already in place. Recycling Coordinators would be willing to provide lists of apartment recycling programs already in place. We have found that apartment and condominium managers are also cooperative in sharing their experience.. Thank you for your consideration of our recommendation, which we believe would be a way to move ahead now on apartment recycling. w91��r� 0 • , ~�bRPORN�tiO/ itleB REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL JOHN WALLIN From: FINANCE DIRECTOR Date: AUGUST 6, 1990 Subject: 1991 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS Recommendation: Agenda Item # xI.A. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA 0 To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Review and discuss the 1991 Budget Assumptions. Info /Background: Enclosed for your review and discussion are the updated Budget Assumptions for 1991. Enclosed also are Private Sector Salary Data and Salary Comparisons that the City Council requested staff to provide at the last Budget Assumption meeting. 1 9 9 1 B U D G E T A S S U M P T I O N S - P R O P O S E D E X P'E N D I T U R E S - ACTUAL BUDGETED ASSUMP 8 PROPOSED 1989 1990 INCRSE 1991 SALARIES 6,533,474 6,905,743 4.00% 7,181,973 CONTRACTUAL SVCS. 1,862,493 1,747,816' 2.508 1,791,511 COMMODITIES 554,046 647,090 .008 647,090 CENTRAL SERVICES 2,618 333 2 754 600 2 508 2 823 465 EQUIPMENT NEW PROGRAMS 898,652 938,243 2.008 957,008 12,466,998 SCENARIO USED 2 12,993,492 4.488 8 INCREASE BUDGET 90 ABOVE LEVY LIMIT 174.820 13,575,867 4.488 (10,207) 1 9 9 1 B U D G E T A S S U M P T I O N S P R O P O S E D R E V E N U E S - ACTUAL BUDGETED ASSUMP % PROPOSED 1989 1990 INCREASE 1991 TAXES 8,857,413 10,017,692 10,456,407 LICENSES & PERMITS 893,191 696,300 5.00% 731,115 FEES & CHARGES 1,649,354 1,937,500 5.00% 2,034,375 INTERGOVERNMENTAL A 945.695 342.000 3.50% 353.970 TOTAL REVENUES 12,345,653 12,993,492 4.48% 13,575,867 1 9 9 1 B U D G E T A S S U M P T I O N S E X P E N D I T U R E D I S T R I B U T I 0 N- ACTUAL BUDGETED PROPOSED 1989 1990 1991 SALARIES 52.418 53.158 52.908 CONTRACTUAL SVCS. 14.948 13.458 13.208 COMMODITIES 4.448 4.988 4.778 CENTRAL SERVICES 21.008 21.208 20.808 EQUIPMENT 7.218 7.228 7.058 NEW PROGRAMS 1.298 100.008 100.008 100..008 1 9 9 1 B U D G E T A S S U M P T I O N S - R E V E N U E D I S T R I B U T I 0 N - ACTUAL BUDGETED PROPOSED 1989 1990 1991 TAXES 71.758 77.10% 77.02% LICENSES &PERMITS 7.238 5.368 5.398 FEES & CHARGES 13.368 14.918 14.998 INTERGOVT AID 7.668 2.638 2.61% 100.008 100.008 100.008 1 9 9 1 B U D G E T A S S U M P T I O N S - S U M M A R Y - ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1989 1990 1991 TOTAL REVENUES 12,345,653 12,993,492 13,575,867 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 12,466,998 12,993,492 13,575,867 TAX DOLLARS 8,832,983 9,987,692 10,431,407 TAX DOLLAR INCRSE 484,967 1,154,709 413,715 % INCREASE TAX $ 6.50% 13.07% 4.44% TAX CAPACITY RATE 9.89% 12.959% 13.071% EFFECTS ON RESIDENTIAL HOMES "DPROXIMATE 1989 CITY TAXES APPROXIMATE 1990 CITY TAXES 1989 ESTIMATED 1989 1989 DIFFERENCE MARKET VALUE TAXES TAXES 89 -90 $141,000 $359 $150,000 $365 $7 $235,000 $666 $250,000 $754 $89 $470,000 $1,433 $500,000 $1,726 $294 COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL $470,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- $2,440 $500,000 $3,279 $838 ESTIMATED 1991 TAXES 1991 EST. 1991 DIFFERENCE MKT. VALUE TAXES 90 -91 $159,000 $391 $25 TAX BUDGET $10,431,407 $265,000 $806 $52 TAX CAPACITY 79,805,575 $530,000 $1,846 $119 COMMERCIAL TAX CAP. RATE 13.1% $530,000 $3,429 $151 - P R O P O S E D N E W P R O G R A M S - NEW-PROGRAMS -91 SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 ,DJUSTMENTS: ELECTION ADJUST. (45,000) (45,000) (45,000) 2 FUTURES COMMISS. (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) GENERAL: 3 HOSPITAL. /FLEX 69,480 46,320 46,320 4 SOUTH HENNEPIN. 7,000 7,000 7,000 5 HUMAN RELATIONS 10,000 2,500 2,500 6 WELLNESS /TRAINING 8,000 8,000 6,000 7 RECYCLING 12,000 9,000 9,000 8 CODIFICATION 10,000 10,000 10,000 PUBLIC WORKS: 9 COMP.EQUIP- ENGINEER 5,000 5,000 5,000 10 COMP.EQUIP -SHOP 2,500 2,500 2,500 11 HAZARD WASTE DISP. 5.500 5.500 5.500 PAGE 1 SUBTOTAL 74.480 40.820 38.820 - P R O P O S E D N E W P R 0 G R A M S- PAGE - 2 SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 PUB. WORKS - CONTINUED MILLING ATTACH. 10,000 10,000 0 13 WHEEL BALANCE. -SHOP 4,000 4,000 0 14 BLACKTOP HEATER 25,000 0 0 POLICE DEPT.: 15 2 OFFICERS 0 75,000 0 16 FIRST RESPOND. FEE 0 0 0 17 CL /EB TRUST 0 0 0 18 SOUTHDALE CONTRIB 0 (35,000) 0 (MEDICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN) 19 OVERTIME 20,000 0 20,000 20 CONTR.SVC. INCREAS 12,000 5,000 5,000 21 EQUIP.REPLACE INCR 10,000 0 0 PAGE 2 SUBTOTAL 81.000 59.000 25.000 • 1 , .. - P R O P O S E D N E W P R 0 G R A M S- PAGE - 3 SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 FIRE DEPT.: « ADDT'L PARAMEDICS 0 0 0 (MEDICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN) 23 OVERTIME 25,000 20,000 20,000 24 TRAINING 2,000 0 0 25 PROTECTIVE EQUIP 2,000 0 0 PARK DEPT.: 26 ADAPTIVE RECREAT. 11,000 11,000 11,000 27 ADDT'L MAINT. 34,000 34,000 34,000 28 BLDGS & EQUIP 10,000 5,000 5,000 29 PATH /SURF. MAINT. 10,000 5,000 5,000 30 HWY 100 /CRSTWN 83;000 0 0 TOTAL NEW PROGRAMS 332,480 174,820 138,820 CITY OF EDINA MEMORANDUM DATE: August 3, 1990 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Ken Rosland SUBJECT: Salary Comparison At the last budget assumption meeting you asked staff to provide you with salary comparisons showing total compensation. Attached to this memorandum is that comparison. The salary figures shown include the employer monthly contribution for insurance benefits, (annualized) plus PERA (4.258 for office, technical, administration and public works, 128 for public safety employees) and FICA (7.658 for office, technical, administration and public works). The rank shows the relationship of the salaries, 1 is the highest to 10 which is lowest. Source of the data was the Stanton Report. Not all salaries are shown because either salaries were pending or position may not exist in that city. TOTAL COMPENSATION COMPARISON - 1990 Rank 2/7 6/9 5/9 4/10 5/8 2/9 2/10 5/10 NOTE: Salary figures include PERA, FICA (where applicable), and employer monthly contribution for insurance benefits. Source of information - DCA Stanton -1- r' CUSTODIAN FOREMAN SUPERINTENDENT PU DIRECTOR ENG. AIDE III ENG. AIDE IV INSPECTOR CHIEF INSPECTOR TOP 10 Max. Max. Max. .Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. GROUP V Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly CITIES Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Bloomington 27,293 7 54,409 2 69,180 1 84,286 2 33,996 7 40,653 9 43,912 8 62,242 3 Brooklyn Park - -- 55,455 1 67,587 2 76,828 7 40,308 3 - -- 47,480 4 64,072 1 Burnsville - -- 44,536 9 58,701 6 78,060 6 38,320 4 48,579 4 45,093 7 54,562 8 Coon Rapids 33,847 1 50,301 5 - -- 69,660 10 - -- 50,396 3 56,332 1 59,589 4 Edina 30,698 2 46,032 6 58,806 5 80,050 4 37,797 5 51,274 2 50,525 2 59,125 5 Minnetonka 27,680 5 45,006 8 48,027 9 72,533 9 36,196 6 44,459 8 41,479 10 50,937 10 Richfield 28,776 4 45,042 7 54,217 7 73,240 8 - -- 54,237 1 43,437 9 63,953 2 Roseville 27,630 6 - -- 52,851 8 79,583 5 40,455 2 45,181 7 45,181 6 53,007 9 St. Louis Park 29,882 3 53,430 3 63,613 3 80,730 3 33,723 8 47,306 6 47,250 5 58,019 6 Plymouth - -- 52,359 4 63,326 4 84,699 1 47,561 1 47,561 5 47,561 3 57,395 7 Rank 2/7 6/9 5/9 4/10 5/8 2/9 2/10 5/10 NOTE: Salary figures include PERA, FICA (where applicable), and employer monthly contribution for insurance benefits. Source of information - DCA Stanton -1- r' TOTAL COMPENSATION COMPARISON - 1990 Rank 2/6 5/7 1/6 3/9 1/10 3/7 3/6 4/10 NOTE: Salary figures include PERA, FICA (where applicable), and employer monthly contribution for insurance benefits. Source of information - DCA Stanton -2- APPRAISOR ASSESSOR POLICE DISPATCH POLICE OFFICER POLICE SGTS. POLICE LIEUT. POLICE CAPT. POLICE CHIEF TOP 10 Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. GROUP V Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly CITIES Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Bloomington 43,563 5 69,180 1 4,726 6 42,295 8 50,962 6 55,800 6 60,056 5 85,032 1 Brooklyn Park - -- 61,319 6 - -- - -- 48,320 9 - -- - -- 75,596 7 Burnsville - -- - -- 30,144 4 42,615 6 51,445 5 59,536 2 - -- 72,976 10 Coon Rapids 56,332 1 66,527 2 - -- 41,936 9 49,833 8 - -- 66,584 2 74,536 8 Edina 50,497 2 62,147 5 33,049 1 42,861 3 54,090 1 58,840 3 62,648 3 80,120 4 Minnetonka 40,463 6 53,958 7 30,124 5 42,307 7 49,900 7 54,788 7 51,903 6 73,828 9 Richfield - -- - -- 31,498 3 42,682 5 53,051 4 56,504 5 60,312 4 78,568 6 Roseville - -- - -- - -- 42,702 4 47,898 10 - -- 69,012 1 79,652 5 St. Louis Park 47,362 4 63,614 3 32,071 2 43,232 2 53,483 2 58,740 4 - -- 80,804 3 Plymouth 49,865 3 63,326 4 - -- 46,668 1 53,401 3 63,380 1 - -- 84,772 2 Rank 2/6 5/7 1/6 3/9 1/10 3/7 3/6 4/10 NOTE: Salary figures include PERA, FICA (where applicable), and employer monthly contribution for insurance benefits. Source of information - DCA Stanton -2- TOTAL COMPENSATION COMPARISON - 1990 NOTE: Salary figures include PERA, FICA (where applicable), and employer monthly contribution for insurance benefits. Source of information - DCA Stanton -3- ACCOUNTING SR. ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT FINANCE SENIOR FIREFIGHTER FIRE CHIEF CLERK GII CLERK GII'I FINANCE DIR. DIRECTOR CLERK - TYPIST CLERK- TYPIST TOP 10 Max. Max. Max. Max. Nax. Max. Nax. Max. GROUP V Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly CITIES Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Bloomington - -- - 30,436 5 37,930 2 69,180 1 91,672 1 19,349 5 28,783 5 Brooklyn Park - -- 67,420 6 29,343 8 39,257 1 59,081 3 83,028 2 27,317 3 29,343 4 Burnsville - -- 70,524 4 31,401 3 35,877 6 - -- 72,913 6 - -- 270034 9 Coon Rapids 41,875 2 74,536 3 39,713 1 37,711 3 60,708 2 76,038 5 - -- 36,269 1 Edina 41,585 3 76,200 2 29,581 7 32,189 8 52,076 5 76,134 4 27,090 4 32,189 3 Minnetonka - -- - -- 26,421 9 30,983 9 48,251 6 67,722 9 - -- 26,421 10 Richfield - -- - -- 31,381 4 36,202 5 - -- 60,037 10 - -- 28,774 6 Roseville - -- - -- 29,680 6 30,214 10 52,951 4 69,177 7 - -- 28,096 7 St. Louis Park 43,218 1 80,804 1 - -- 33,863 7 - -- 77,601 3 27,322 2 27,322 8 Plymouth - -- 69,876 5 33,432 2 36,667 4 - -- 67,914 8 31,919 1 33,432 2 Rank 3/3 2/6 7/9 8/10 5/6 4/10 4/5 3/10 NOTE: Salary figures include PERA, FICA (where applicable), and employer monthly contribution for insurance benefits. Source of information - DCA Stanton -3- TOTAL COMPENSATION COMPARISON - 1990 Rank 6/9 7/10 7/9 4/8 2/2 3/7 7/9 6/9 NOTE: Salary figures include PERA, FICA (where applicable), and employer monthly contribution for insurance benefits. Source of information - DCA Stanton -4- TELEPHONE OPERATOR- RECREATION DIRECTOR LIQUOR STORE SENIOR RECEPTIONIST SECRETARY SUPERVISOR 1 PARKS & REC. MANAGER PLANNER PLANNER CITY CLERK TOP 10 Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. GROUP V Yearly Yearly _ Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly CITIES Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Salary Rank Bloomington 26,269 4 31,250 6 54,409 3 69,180 7 - -- - -- 69,180 2 69,180 1 Brooklyn Park 24,990 9 30,413 8 54,829 2 74,076 5 - -- 37,820 6 61,319 8 41,399 8 Burnsville 25,310 7 35,877 3 47,288 6 70,563 6 - -- - -- 54,562 9 54,114 3 Coon Rapids 27,727 2 40,435 1 - -- - -- - -- 59,589 1 67,534 4 55,890 2 Edina 25,834 6 30,703 7 46,033 7 76,134 4 46,033 2 43,347 3 64,496 7 46,033 6 Minnetonka - -- 30,191 10 36,614 8 56,980 8 48,287 1 39,635 5 67,834 3 40,619 9 Richfield 26,019 5 36,269 2 48,287 5 - -- - -- 34,523 7 - -- 48,302 5 Roseville 25,303 8 30,225 9 34,935 9 79,583 3 - -- - -- - 64,701 6 - -- St. Louis Park 27,322 3 32,071 4 50,297 4 80,734 2 - -- 47,388 2 67,306 5 48,503 4 Plymouth 31,919 1 31,919 5 57,507 1 84,699 1 - -- 42,177 4 74,180 1 42,184 - 7 Rank 6/9 7/10 7/9 4/8 2/2 3/7 7/9 6/9 NOTE: Salary figures include PERA, FICA (where applicable), and employer monthly contribution for insurance benefits. Source of information - DCA Stanton -4- TOTAL COMPENSATION COMPARISON - 1990 Rank 3/7 3/10 NOTE: Salary figures include PERA, FICA (where applicable), and employer monthly contribution for insurance benefits. Source of information - DCA Stanton -5- ASST. CITY MANAGER MANAGER TOP 10 Max. Max. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION GROUP V Yearly Yearly PER MONTH CITIES Salary Rank Salary Rank FOR HEALTH /LIFE BENEFITS PERA FICA Bloomington 70,411 4 98,274 2 - -- 4.25% of Salary for Non- 7.65% for all Non - Public Public Safety Personnel Safety Personnel Brooklyn Park - -- 85,266 8 205.00 12% of Salary for Public O% for Public Safety Safety Burnsville - -- 85,558 6 220.00 Coon Rapids 66,527 6 81,969 9 - -- Edina 72,329 3 92,024 3 190.00 Minnetonka 61,008 7 87,193 5 235.00 Richfield 73,353 2 87,340 4 210.00 Roseville 68,953 5 81,150 10 235.00 St. Louis Park - -- 85,434 7 219.00 Plymouth 76,866 1 100,141 1 251.60 Rank 3/7 3/10 NOTE: Salary figures include PERA, FICA (where applicable), and employer monthly contribution for insurance benefits. Source of information - DCA Stanton -5- CITY OF EDINA MEMORANDUM DATE: August 3, 1990 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Ken Rosland SUBJECT: Private Sector Salary Data Attached. to this memorandum is data to illustrate percentage of salary increases in the private sector. The anticipated increases for 1991 will not be available until November, 1990. However, the Stanton staff that prepared this data felt that similar increases will occur in 1991 assuming there is not a major recession in 1991. The highlighted data in the report is most applicable to our region. 10 ANTICIPATED SALARY INCREASES FOR 1990 ,RIG Stanton Group I, Merit Increase Projections by Industry Anticipated Overall Industry Category Merit Increase Durable Goods Manufacturing 5.0% Non - Durable Goods Manufacturing 5.1% Energy 5.7% Trade 5.1% Utilities 4.5% Services 5.3% Banking & Finance 5.6% Insurance 5.7% Nonprofit_ All industry Categories=CoiiiWi 5.1% 5:19fo * Total increase projections reflect anticipated merit plus general and/or cost of living figures 2 Executive Compensation Sen-Ice. Inc.. a subsidiary of the Wvatt Company. from various surveys conducted-by same. all effective January through May. 1989. Wall Street Journal 3 "CURBING WAGE ROOSTS will get high prioritv again in 1990 collective bargaining. a Bureau of National Affairs survey of 250 companies with pacts expiring next year indicates. Despite labor- shortage warnings. 80% aim for first -year wage increases of under 4 %: and 77% say they'd try to replace workers. if struck. or would consider it." Wall Street Journal. Tuesday, October 17. 1989. Labor Letter. Comp Flash 4 "The prospect for 1990: salary increases to plateau at 5.5%. Compensation data from 3.308 organizations show that... employees can expect to receive about the same raises next year as they received this year - average increases will.be 5.5% in IQ90 compared with 5.4% in 1989. William M. Mercer Meidinger Hansen. Inc. reports data compiled showed the following: (National) Anticipated 1990 Budget Increase All employees 55 % (Executives _ _ 5.8 %(_ 1Exempt (salaried) 5 *7%j Nonexempt (hourly) 5.2% "The ... survey also made the following findings: o I.ump -sum pay increases are either being used or considered bv_ 25% of the respondents as an alternative to traditional pay increases. o For middle managers (annual salary from $50.000 to $85.200). the maximum incentive award is. on average. 25�r of base salary. o For top executives (annual salary from $150.000 to $250.000). the maximum incentive award is. on average. 50% of base salary. o Gain sharing is used or .being considered by 16% of the respondents." 4 Comp Flash. November. 1999. page 2. Published by the Periodicals Division of the American Management Association. WA_ Stanton Grouo American Compensation Associations - - - -- Employee Group ---- - Projected 1990 Figures Executive Exem t Nonexempt Salary Budget Increase National 5.7% 5.5% 5.0% Eastern Region 5.8% 5.6% 5.6% Central= tiegioi � 5:�7 %' S.-4%] �5 A Southern Region 5.5% 5.3% 5.2`"0 Western Region 5.8% 5.6% 5.4% Salary Structure Increase National 4.1% 4.1% 3.9% Eastern Region 4.4% 4.2% 4.2% Central Region -', F4-'2 0] l4 -% Sootliern Region 4.0% 37"o 3.7% Western Region 3.8% 3.9% 3.8% General Increase National 4.07c 4.1% 3.9% Eastern Region 3.7% 3.7% 3.9% Central Region �4 °2 -�'0� (4 U7 %) I -. - %i Southern Region 4.617 4.6% 4.2`70 Western Region 3.8% 4.2% 3.8% Merit Increase National 5.6% 5.4% 5.2% Eastern Region 5.8% 5.5% 5.4%-7 (. t Region l i 5.6% (5:295 7 �_O�lel Southern Region 5.4% 5.2% 5.0% Western Region 5.7% 5.4% 5.3% Total Increase National 5.7% 5.5% 5.3% Eastern Region 5.9% 5.6% 5.6%- Central Reg6J 5.7 '76- r5.4% ] -2% l S6t thern Region 5.5 % 5.3 �0 5.2`.'0 Western Region 5.8% 5.6% 5.4% CENTRAL EAST ST ' •,. a=- Stanton Grouo Projected 1990 Figures - -by Industry AVERAGE (NATIONAL) MERIT INCREASE Industry Executive Exempt Nonexempt Computer Service & Software 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% Construction /Engineering 5.9% 5.8% 5.5% Consulting 6.6% 6.0% 5.7% Electrical & Electronic 5.9% 5.5% 5.7% Finance /Banking 5.7% 5.5% 5.3% Food & Beverage 5.8% 1 ;1.1 %- 5.2% , over nment . S 14.0% ; 4,A.%l ,' (3-8A.- 7 Hospital & Health Care S.7% 5.2% 4.8% Insurance 6.0% 5.7% 5.6% Manufacturing 5.4`70 5.2% 5.1% Nonprofit 5.3% 5.2`0 5.1% Printing & Publishing 5.3% 5.1% 5.1 % Retail 5.7% 5.2`.70 5.1% Transportation 4.8`& 4.7% 4.61c, Utilities 5.2% 4.7"0 4.4% Overall Average* 5.6% 5.4% 5.2% * Includes additional industries not listed. AVERAGE (NATIONAL) STRUCTURE INCREASE Industry Executive Exem t Nonexempt Computer Service & Software 4.3% 4.1% 4.1% Construction /Engineering 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% Consulting 4.217c 4.2% 3.9% Electrical & Electronic 3.9% 3.8% 3.6% finance /Banking 4.2% 4.0% 3.9% Food & Beverage 4.5% 4.290 4.0% Government 2.9% 3.5`'0 3.5% Hospital & Health Care 4.0% 4.0% 3.8% Insurance 4.4% 4.4% 4.2% Manufacturing 4.1% 4.1% 3.9% Nonprofit 4.7% 4.2% 43% Printing & Publishing 4.0% 4.3% 4.5% Retail 3.8% 3.9`70 4.0% Transportation 3.7% 4.1% 3.9`?0 Utilities 3.7% 3.6% 3.3% Overall Average* 4.1% 4.1% 3.9% * Includes additional industries not listed. 5 American CompensMinn Association. 1989 -1990 Salary Budget Survey. data reported by over 2.880 U.S. firms with over 8 million employees nationwide. WA_ Stanton Groun Cost of Living 6 Cost of living indeces for September, 1989: Nationwide All Urban -1967 Base and 1982 -84 Base r4.3-WL Urban and Clerical -1967 Base (4:3% and 1982 -84 Base 6 Cost of Living figures are available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' "Hotline" (for the previous month) on the 21st day of each month at 7:30 a.m. Call 290 - 3996. Note: CPI is now calculated utilizing a 1967 Base and a (revised) average 1982 -84 Base. Anticipated 1990 Cost of Living 7 Possible Economic Condition COL Increase (CPI -U) Late Recession 4.7% Boom 3.5% Early Recession 3.8% 7 From Data Resources, Inc., a publication of McGraw -Hill, which utilizes a variety of sources, such as major forecasting groups using consensus techniques, based upon specific economic indicators. YO �911v��r\ o(e1n :��:.� REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To Mayor and Council From: John Wallin Finance Director Date: August 6, 1990 Subject :Resolution Authorizin Execution of Transfer of Funds Agenda Item # xi : s Consent Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ® To Council Action ❑ Motion 0 Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Approve resolution authorizing execution of transfer of funds Info/Background- Because of changes in the way that First Banks now handle their wire transfers the Bank now needs a resolution authorizing money transfers. A central division within the bank will now handle all wire transfers where in the past, a specified person at First Bank Edina would do transfers as well as other customer service tasks for the City. That person will still be doing the same customer service with the exception of the wire transfers. The central handling of these transactions will increase both the speed and efficiency of the City's funds transfers as well as reduce the costs involved. Oil?First Banks s Members First Bank System RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF TRANSFER OF FUNDS AGREEMENT From time to time, this Company (corporation /bank) orally requests ( ) a national banking association (Bank) to transfer funds to other banks for credit to persons or corporations desig- nated by this Company. So that the Bank may have standing instructions upon which-to act pursuant to oral requests for the transfer of funds; Be it resolved, that the (official title) of this Company is hereby authorized to execute the Domestic and In- ternational Funds (Wire) Transfer Agreement on behalf of this Company with a national banking association (Bank) providing for telephone requests for the transmission of funds belonging to this Company upon the terms and conditions set forth in said agreement. The authority conferred herein shall continue in full force and effect until written notice of its revocation shall be re- ceived by said Bank at its office. I, , Secretary of hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of said Company at a meeting of said Board duty and regularly called; noticed and held, and at which time was present a quorum of said Board on 19 , and that said resolution is in full force and effect. I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of said Company this day of (Seal) 19 . Secretary 063-0019 NS c03.87c1 (WHITE BANK COPY) (YEL WW CUSTOMER COPY) r 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 1 CHECK NO -127M27 DATE e?�ia/qq AMOUNT 459.25 VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE A***** 46a.25 * ** -CKS 217L56 07/18/90 13.50 LINHOFF PHOTO PROCESSING 12- 4508- 434 -43 173626 217L56 07/18/90 13.50- LINHOFF PHOTO PROCESSING 12- 4508 - 434 -43 173626 .00 * k * k k * k * ** -CKS 218700 07/18/90 24.51 WEEKEND FREEDOM PULLEY 10- 4540 - 560 -56 63971 8034 24.51 * 218701 07/18/90 54.85 BOYER TRUCK PARTS SERV /CRAM 10- 4540 - 560 -56 849414 8552 54.85 * 218702 07/18/90 1,828.70 PROCESS SYSTEM CORP MONITOR 40- 4504 - 802 -80 80929 8255 1,828.70 * 218703 07/18/90 16.00 VERDE CLINTON REFUND 10- 1145 - 000 -00 16.00 * 218704 07/18/90 8,200.00 H &H WATERTOWER INC WASH H2O TOWER 40- 4248 - 804 -80 2672 8083 8,200.00 * 218705 07/18/90 150.00 BILL ZAWISLAK SERVICES 10- 4212 - 510 -51 150.00 * 218706 07/18/90 150.00 BONNIE SHEA SERVICES 10- 4212 - 510 -51 150.00 * 218707 07 /18 /a0 150.00 DAVID HARTLEY SERVICES 10- 4212 - 510 -51 150.00 * 218708 07/18/90 93.56 ST HILAIRE SUP REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 540 -54 13428 6851 93.56 * 218709 07/18/90 6.89 SIMON & SCHUSTER OFFICE SUPPLIES 30- 4516- 781 -78 8597 6.89 218710 07/18/90 100.00 CURIS HEAD PERFORMANCE 7/15/90 30- 4224'781 -78 100.00 * 218711 07/18/90 255.00 SHARE AMBULANCE REFUND 10- 3180 - 000 -00 255.00 * 218712 07/18/90 133.65 AQUA CITY CONSTRUCTION 60- 1300 - 033 -11 6947IN 133.65 * 218713 07/18/90 114.00 SAY IT ONCE COMPUTER TRAINING 12- 4202 - 434 -43 782 114.00 * k k k k k k * ** -CKS 218715 07/18/90 80.00 GFOA MEMBERSHIP 10- 4204 - 160 -16 289751 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 2 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 80.00 * 4 218716 07/18/90 33.50 PAT MAZO REFUND 26- 3415 - 681-68 33.50 * 218717 07/18/90 30.96 LOOS & CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 30- 4504 - 782 -78 83050 8719 30.96 * 218718 07/18/90 72.25 PERSONNEL POOL PRO SERVICES 30- 4201- 782 -78 8718 72.25 * 218719 07/18/90 139.00 IDELLES INT DESIGN PRO SERVICES 30- 4201 - 782 -78 20496 8717 139.00 * 218720 07/31/90 350.00 PERKINS LANDSCAPE REMOVE FILL 10- 4201 - 643 -64 8994 218720 07/18/90 378.00 PERKINS LANDSCAPE REPAIRS 10- 4248 - 642 -64 8638 728.00 * 218721 07/18/90 175.00 SHARE AMBULANCE REFUND 10- 3180 - 000 -00 175.00 * 218722 07/18/90 80.00 M.P.S.A. MEETING 10- 4202 - 640 -64 80.00 * 218723 07/23/90 130.00 B LARSONS SALES SQUEE GEES 10- 4580 - 301 -30 8121 8624 130.00 * 218724 07/23/90 76.14 WALSER FORS PARTS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 160397 8620 76.14 * 218725 07/23/90 469.97 METRO ELECTRIC REPAIRS 50- 4248 - 862 -86 12431 8621 469.97 * 218726 07/23/90 309.25 DIESEL INJECTN SPEC INJECTOR PUMP 10- 4540 - 560 -56 9362 8492 218726 07/23/90 295.00 DIESEL INJECTN SPEC INJECTOR PUMP 10- 4540 - 560 -56 9372 8493 604.25 * 218727 07/23/90 50.00 SUE CHRISTIANSEN ED MATERIALS 10- 4280 - 504 -50 8759 50.00 * 218728 07/23/90 20.00 LAURA VILENDRER REFUND /SKATING 30- 35051000 -00 20.00 * 218729 07/23/90 8.00 AMERICAN AMUSEMENT REFUND 10- 3045 - 000 -00 8.00 * 218730 07/23/90 8.00 APOLLO VENDING CO REFUND 10- 3045 - 000 -00 8.00 * 218731 07/23/90 8.00 CANTEEN CORP REFUND 10- 3045 - 000 -00 8.00 * 218732 07/23/90 8.00 JIMMY JINGLE INC REFUND 10- 3045 - 000 -00 8.00 * 218733 07/23/90 8.00 NORTHEAST VENDING REFUND 10- 3045 - 000 -00 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 3 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 8.00 218734 07/23/90 8.00 SERVICE AMERICA CORP REFUND 10- 3045- 000 -00 8.00 218735 07/23/90 8.00 WESTERN NATIONAL REFUND 10- 3045 - 000 -00 8.00 218736 07/23/90 8.00 THEISEN VENDING CO REFUND 10- 3045- 000 -00 8.00 " 218737 07/23/90 95.00 CONNIE DUSSL PERFORMANCE 9/19/90 30- 4224 - 781 -78 218737 07/23/90 95.00- CONNIE DUSSL PERFORMANCE 9/19/90 30- 4224 - 781 -78 218737 07/23/90 95.00 CONNIE DUSSL PERFORMANCE 9/16/90 30- 4224 - 781 -78 95.00 * 218738 07/23/90 660.00 LINDA KOZAK COMMISSION 30- 4201 - 781 -78 660.00 * 218739 07/23/90 126.00 YELLOW PAGES CLASSIFIED AD 10- 4001 - 140 -14 218739 07/23/90 126.00- YELLOW PAGES CLASSIFIED AD 10- 4001 - 140 -14 218739 07/23/90 126.00 YELLOW PAGES CLASSIFIED AD 10- 4201 - 140 -14 126.00 * 218740 07/23/90 135.00 FRANK MUSIL PAYMENT 30- 4201 - 781 -78 135.00 * 218741 07/23/90 615.00 LINDA KOZAK 8/1/90 - 8/14/90 30- 4201 - 781 -78 615.00 * 218742 07/23/90 168.00 HENN CTY TREASURER LICENSE 10- 4310 - 560 -56 168.00 * AU BON PAIN 218743 07/23/90 138.75 MEETING EXP 10- 4206 - 100 -10 531785 8745 218743 07/23/90 81.99 MEETING EXP 10- 4280 - 504 -50 531792 8745 220.74 * 218744 07/23/90 148.01 US WEST COMM CUT WIRE 41- 4248 - 900 -90 A03168 148.01 * 218745 07/23/90 22.01 EDINA POOL POSTAGE 26 -4290- 681 -68 22.01 * 218746 07/23/90 184.40 MPLS HEALTH DEPT PRO SERV 10- 4201 - 420 -42 6916 184.40 * 218747 07/23/90 66.00 RC INDENTIFICATION PHOTO SUPPLIES 10- 4508 - 420 -42 10582 66.00 * 218748 07/23/90 80.00 PROFILE EVALUTN INC CONT ED 10- 4202 - 420 -42 80.00 * 218749 07/23/90 857.52 TCS ENTERPRISE AMMUNITION 10- 4572 - 420 -42 2484 857.52 * 218750 07/23/90 170.50 KUSTOM ELECTRONICS EQUIP REPLACE 10- 4901 - 420 -42 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 218751 218752 218752 218752 218753 218753 218754 218755 218756 218757 218757 218758 218758 218759 218760 218761 218761 218762 218763 218764 218765 218766 4 07/23/90 07/23/90 07/23/90 07/23/90 07/31/90 07/23/90 07/23/90 07/23/90 07/23/90 07/23/90 07/23/90 07/31/90 07/23/90 07/23/90 07/24/90 07/27/90 07/24/90 07/24/90 07/24/90 07/24/90 07/24/90 07/24/90 AMOUNT 170.50 275.00 275.00 * 46.20 177.50 300.70 524.40 * 750.75 950.75 1,701.50 * 195.57 195.57 * 56.61 56.61 * 189.50 189.50 * 56.86 290.00 346.86 * 300.00 770.00 1,070.00 * 340.59 340.59 * 131.38 131.38 * 198.00 224.00 422.00 * 45.00 45.00 * 3.65 3.65 * 100.00 100.00 * 32.00 32.00 * 139.00 139.00 * CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ASSO OF TRAINING DISTINTIVE LAUNDRY DISTINTIVE LAUNDRY DISTINTIVE LAUNDRY DCA INC DCA INC OLSON GRAPHIC PROD AT &T DANIEL SMITH HUDSON PHOTO HUDSON PHOTO MN SAFETY COUNCIL MN SAFETY COUNCIL COLLEEN FOGARTY VINCENT METALS DEPT OF LABOR DEPT OF LABOR YOUR SPECIAL EVENT ACTION MESSENGER KEY DESIGN ARA FOOD SERV CO AMERICAN PLANNING CONT ED LAUNDRY /UNIFORMS LAUNDRY /UNIFORMS LAUNDRY /UNIFORMS FLEX PLAN FEE FOR SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES PHONE COST /GOODS SOLD FURNITURE /FIXTURES FURNITURE /FIXTURES TRAINING TRENCHING COURSE REFUND PIPE /FITTINGS OSHA PENELTY OSHA PENALTY ADVERTISING POSTAGE PRO SERVICE REFUND DUES 08 -06 -90 PAGE 4 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 4202 - 420 -42 1232 30- 4262 - 782 -78 8752 30- 4262 - 782 -78 8753 30- 4262- 782 -78 8754 10- 4156 - 510 -51 39217 10- 4156 - 510 -51 23- 4504 - 612 -61 118773 8727 23- 4256- 612 -61 23- 4624 - 613 -61 8270 23- 1330 - 000 -00 3514 8271 23- 1330 - 000 -00 3491 8271 10- 4112- 510 -51 29464 40- 4202 - 809 -80 29608 8026 40- 3800 - 000 -00 10- 4540 - 646 -64 43160 8569 40- 4504 - 811 -81 8803 50- 4200 - 840 -84 30- 4214 - 781 -78 30- 4290 - 781 -78 95543 8809 30- 4201 - 781 -78 2689 8811 10- 3045 - 000 -00 10- 4204 - 120 -12 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 218767 07/24/90 218768 07/27/90 218768 07/24/90 218769 07/25/90 218769 07/25/90 218769 07/25/90 218770 07/25/90 218770 07/25/90 218770 07/25/90 218771 07/25/90 218771 07/25/90 218771 07/25/90 218772 07/25/90 218772 07/25/90 218772 07/25/90 218773 07/25/90 218773 07/25/90 218773 07/25/90 218774 07/25/90 218774 07/25/90 218774 07/25/90 * * * * ** 218777 07/25/90 218778 07/25/90 218779 07/25/90 218780 07/25/90 218781 07/25/90 218782 07/25/90 08 -06 -90 PAGE ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 4202 - 490 -49 10- 1300 - 019 -20 CHECK REGISTER 60- 1300 - 019 -20 AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 291.80 JOHN SCHIRMANG REIMBURSEMENT 291.80 * 10- 3045 - 000 -00 10- 4504 - 624 -62 4,900.00 THOMAS & SONS CONSTRUCTION 460.00 THOMAS & SONS CONSTRUCTION 5,360.00 * 10- 4504 - 624 -62 10- 3045 - 000 -00 156.00 EDINA ATHLETIC ASSO BUNTING 156.00- EDINA ATHLETIC ASSO BUNTING 156.00 EDINA ATHLETIC ASSO BUNTING 156.00 * 10- 3180 - 000 -00 16.00 EDINA COUNTRY CLUB REFUND 16.00- EDINA COUNTRY CLUB REFUND 16.00 EDINA COUNTRY CLUB REFUND 16.00 * 10- 4201 - 482 -48 16.00 MIDWEST VENDING REFUND 16.00 MIDWEST VENDING REFUND 16.00- MIDWEST VENDING REFUND 16.00 * 170.19- VILLAGE HOMES OF REPAIRS 170.19 VILLAGE HOMES OF REPAIRS 170.19 VILLAGE HOMES OF REPAIRS 170.19 * 236.00 MARY MCBRIDE AMBULANCE REFUND 236.00- MARY MCBRIDE AMBULANCE REFUND 236.00 MARY MCBRIDE AMBULANCE REFUND 236.00 * 136.05 MEDICARE - TRAVELERS AMBULANCE REFUND 136.05- MEDICARE - TRAVELERS AMBULANCE REFUND 136.05 MEDICARE - TRAVELERS AMBULANCE REFUND 136.05 * 08 -06 -90 PAGE ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 4202 - 490 -49 10- 1300 - 019 -20 908541 8761 60- 1300 - 019 -20 908542 8837 26- 4504- 682 -68 26- 4504 - 682 -68 26- 4504 - 682 -68 JILL ROSENBLATT 10- 3045 - 000 -00 10- 4504 - 624 -62 10- 3045 - 000 -00 10- 3045 - 000 -00 10- 3045 - 000 -00 HEIDI JOHNSON 10- 3045 - 000 -00 10- 4504 - 624 -62 10- 3045 - 000 -00 60- 1300 - 290 -04 7622 60- 1300 - 290 -04 7622 60- 1300 - 290 -04 7622 10- 3180 - 000 -00 10- 3180 - 000 -00 10- 3180 - 000 -00 CHRISTI GUSTAFSON 10- 3180 - 000 -00 10- 3180 - 000 -00 10- 3180 - 000 -00 * * * -CKS 5 26.18 MEGAN JOHNSON REIMBURSEMENT 10- 4504;624 -62 26.18 20.04 JILL ROSENBLATT REIMBURSEMENT 10- 4504 - 624 -62 20.04 * 34.69 HEIDI JOHNSON REIMBURSEMENT 10- 4504 - 624 -62 34.69 * 29.77 EVA PASKO REIMBURSEMENT 10- 4504 - 624 -62 29.77 * 25.21 CHRISTI GUSTAFSON REIMBURSEMENT 10- 4504 - 624 -62 25.21 * 75.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH LAB CERT FEE 10- 4201 - 482 -48 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 6 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 75.00 * 4 218783 07/25/90 55.50 ASPLUND COFFEE CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 30- 4516 - 781 -78 55.50 * 218784 07/25/90 74.95 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO REPAIRS 10- 4248 - 440 -44 061751 8122 74.95 * 218785 07/25/90 122.77 FIRE SPECIALIST CO AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 10- 4510 - 440 -44 5053 7232 122.77 * 218786 07/25/90 1,700.00 ALEX AIR APPARATUS USED SCOTTS /6 10- 4504 - 440 -44 8160 8124 218786 07/25/90 17,000.00- ALEX AIR APPARATUS USED SCOTTS /6 10- 4504 - 440 -44 8160 8124 218786 07/25/90 17,000.00 ALEX AIR APPARATUS USED SCOTTS /6 10- 4504- 440 -44 8160 8124 218786 07/25/90 1,000.00 ALEX AIR APPARATUS USED SCOTTS /6 10- 4574- 440 -44 8160 8124 2,700.00 * 218787 07/25/90 2,475.00 MOTOROLA INC PORT RADIO /3 10- 4901 - 440 -44 244520 8110 2,475.00 * 218788 07/25/90 30.00 KANDIYOHI BOTTLED GENERAL SUPPLIES 23- 4504 - 611 -61 30.00 * 218789 07/25/90 500.00 SWANNES BIG BAND SERVICES 9/9/90 30- 4224 - 781 -78 500.00 * 218790 07/25/90 50.00 JOYANN BUSS SERVICES 9/4/90 30- 4224 - 781 -78 50.00 * 218791 07/25/90 75.00 VALERIE WEBER SERVICES 9/6/90 30- 4224 - 781 -78 75.00 * 218792 07/25/90 1,000.00 MELODIANS ORCHESTRA SERVICES 9/9/90 30- 4224 - 781 -78 218792 07/25/90 100.00 MELODIANS ORCHESTRA SERVICES 9/9/90 30- 4224 - 781 -78 218792 07/25/90 1,000.00- MELODIANS ORCHESTRA SERVICES 9/9/90 30- 4224 - 781 -78 100.00 * 218793 07/25/90 75.00 JIM SCHATTAUER SERVICES 9/20/90 30- 4224 - 781 -78 75.00 * 218794 07/25/90 70.00 CROSSVIEW LUTHERAN REFUND 10- 3500 - 000 -00 70.00 * 218795 07/25/90 4,160.00 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS ASPHALT 27- 4288 - 664 -66 56757 8304 4,160.00 * 218796 07/25/90 3.00 CF ANDERSON AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 10- 4510 - 440 -44 227425 8123 3.00 * 218797 07/27/90 53.95 BALLOON MAN INC BALLOONS 26- 4504 - 682 -68 53.95 * 218798 07/27/90 10.00 LESLIE HABERKORN REFUND 10- 3500 - 000 -00 10.00 * 218799 07/27/90 20.00 STEVE FISCHER REFUND 10- 3500 - 000 -00 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 218800 218801 218802 218803 218803 218804 218805 218805 218806 218806 218807 218807 218808 218809 218809 218810 218811 218812 218813 218814 218815 218816 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/31/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/27/90 07/30/90 AMOUNT 20.00 * 18.00 18.00 * 60.00 60.00 * 20.00 20.00 * 209.25 21.55 230.80 * 30.75 30.75 * 336.50 4,558.50 4,895.00 * 390.38 2,309.75 2,700.13 * 50.10 66.30 116.40 * 4,700.00 4,700.00 * 130.56 27.33 157.89 * 67.50 67.50 * 316.58 316.58 * 7,078.00 7,078.00 * 606.60 606.60 * 6,086.40 6,086.40 * 490.00 490.00 * 7.00 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION LIZ ANDERSON DENISE CRONIN BARBARA NICHOLS PRO COLOR PRO COLOR STEPHEN LANDRY INDECO INDECO KUNDE CO KUNDE CO CAROLES VINKING ENT CAROLES VINKING ENT NORDQUIST SIGN CO LOWELL MCCARTHY LOWELL MCCARTHY AMERICAN LEGION CSI ELECTRIC INC ENVIRONET INC VIKING ENTERPRISE B & F DIST FINLEY BROS ENT FINA SERVE INC REFUND REFUND REFUND SIGNS /TUPA PARK SIGNS /TUPA PARK FOOD PRO SERVICES POOL ENGINEERING REPAIRS REPAIRS SHADES SHADES SIGN /TUPA PARK MILEAGE SUPPLIES BASEBALL PROGRAMS CONSTRUCTION ASBESTOS ABATEMENT AC SHADES GASOLINE REPAIRS REFUND 08 -06 -90 PAGE 7 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 3500 - 000 -00 10- 3500- 000 -00 10- 3500 - 000 -00 10- 2240 - 000 -00 A31801 8931 10- 2240 - 000 -00 A31802 8932 10- 4206 - 440 -44 10- 4201- 500 -50 26- 1300 - 001 -00 10- 4248 - 644 -64 102 10- 4248 - 646 -64 10- 4504- 646 -64 8926 10- 4504 - 646 -64 8929 10- 2240- 000 -00 11302 3889 10- 4208 - 624 -62 10- 4504 - 624 -62 10- 4504 - 621 -62 8927 60- 1300n016 -20 A8757 8812 10- 4201 - 500 -50 5827 8845 23 -1300- 001 -00 8260 10- 4612- 560 -56 26486 10- 4201 - 647 -64 6005 8509 10- 3056 - 000 -00 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 8 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 7.00 * a 218817 07/30/90 113.09 BOYER FORD TRUCK BASE 10- 4540 - 560 -56 8771 113.09 * 218818 07/30/90 48.23 VERMEER REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 P71049 8680 48.23 * 218819 07/30/90 1,864.00 DICTAPHONE CORP SERVICE CONTRACT 10- 4288 - 420 -42 1,864.00 * 218820 07/30/90 25.00 CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUBSCRIPTION 10- 4204 - 420 -42 25.00 * 218821 07/30/90 30.00 COMM SPECIALIST INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504- 420 -42 010602 30.00 * 218822 07/30/90 8.00 EMBERS RESTAURANT REFUND 10- 3045 - 000 -00 8.00 * 218823 07/30/90 140.60 JOAN WATERSTREET CONT ED 10- 4202 - 420 -42 218823 07/30/90 10.00 JOAN WATERSTREET CONT ED 10- 4202 - 460 -46 218823 07/30/90 13.70 JOAN WATERSTREET MEETING EXPENSES 10- 4206- 420 -42 218823 07/30/90 37.08 JOAN WATERSTREET MILEAGE 10- 4208 - 420 -42 218823 07/30/90 4.04 JOAN WATERSTREET EQUIP MAINT 10- 4274 - 420 -42 218823 07/30/90 92.77 JOAN WATERSTREET GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 420 -42 218823 07/30/90 74.06 JOAN WATERSTREET PHOTO SUPPLIES 10- 4508 - 420 -42 218823 07/30/90 14.28 JOAN WATERSTREET AMMUNITION 10- 4572 - 420 -42 386.53 * 218824 07/30/90 102.90 TAPE DIST OF MN VIDEOTAPE 12- 4508 - 434 -43 3069 8918 102.90 * 218825 07/30/90 60.00 SOUND ACOUSTIC INC PRO SERVICES 30- 4201 - 782 -78 1120 8941 60.00 * 218826 07/30/90 10.45 MARGARET THOMPSON MILEAGE 10- 4208 - 160 -16 10.45 * 218827 07/30/90 90.00 PAT BENSON CLEANING 27- 4201 - 662 -66 30593 8283 90.00 * 218828 07/30/90 250.00 JOHNSON WROUGHT IRON RAILING 27- 4504 - 662 -66 9935 8744 250.00 * 218829 07/30/90 14.00 DOROTHY SCHIRMANG REIMBURSEMENT 10- 4204 - 510 -51 14.00 * 218830 07/31/90 125.00 MIKE HANSON SERVICES 10- 4201 - 490 -49 125.00 * 218831 07/31/90 69.57 CHRIS OMODT REIMBURSEMENT 10- 4266 - 420 -42 69.57 * 218832 07/31/90 781.44 JOANNA FOOTE SAL TEMP EMPL 12- 4120 - 434 -43 6946 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 218832 07/31/90 97.68 JOANNA FOOTE SERVICES 879.12 * 218833 07/31/90 475.00 JAMES P HILL FEE FOR SERVICE 475.00 * 218834 07/31/90 644.00 THE BEREAU OF SUBSCRIPTIONS 218834 07/31/90 148.00 THE BEREAU OF SUBSCRIPTIONS 792.00 * 218835 07/31/90 110.00 DOOR SERVICE CO REPAIR DOOR 110.00 * 218836 07/31/90 99.00 THERMEX CORP REPAIRS 99.00 * 218837 07/31/90 424.00 CREATIVE SALES INC FERTILIZER 424.00 * 218838 07/31/90 15.00 CARMELLA CHAZIN REFUND 15.00 * 218839 07/31/90 32.07 WILLIAM E LUTTS MEETING EXPENSES 32.07 * 218840 07/31/90 24.00 BOB KOJETIN MEETING EXPENSES 24.00 * 218841 07/31/90 11,100.00 RIDGEDALE ELECTRIC LIGHTS 11,100.00 * 218842 07/31/90 61.82 JANET CHANDLER MILEAGE /PARKING 61.82 * 218843 07/31/90 342.00 FRED SOMERS AC INSTRUCTOR 342.00 * 218844 07/31/90 45.00 NORMA HANLON AC INSTRUCTOR 45.00 * 218845 07/31/90 615.00 COLLEEN HAAS AC INSTRUCTOR 615.00 * 218846 07/31/90 245.00 SUE DAVIES AC INSTRUCTOR 245.00 * 218847 07/31/90 25.00 BRENDA HAGEMO REFUND 25.00 * 218848 07/31/90 14.82 CHRISTINE GUSTAFSON REIMBURSEMENT 14.82 * 218849 07/31/90 9.13 KATHY NEWSOME REFUND 9.13 * 218850 07/31/90 25.00 FRED FIELDS REFUND 08 -06 -90 PAGE 9 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 30- 4600 - 781 -78 10- 4201 - 860 -86 10- 4204 - 140 -14 10- 4204 - 140 -14 27- 4248 - 664 -66 50490 8991 27- 4248- 663 -66 25122 8580 30- 4558 - 782 -78 9264 8933 30- 3055- 000 -00 10- 4206 - 440 -44 10- 4202 - 600 -60 27- 1300 - 004 -00 1000 8063 10- 4504 - 507 -50 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 42011611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 10- 3500 - 000 -00 10- 4504 - 624 -62 10- 4504 - 624 -62 10- 3500 - 000 -00 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 218853 07/31/90 * * * * ** 218Al2 * * * * ** 218A21 * * * *** 218A29 218A29 218A29 * * * * ** 218A33 * * * * ** 218A67 R* AIt* 218A39 218A39 218A39 218A39 218A39 218A39 218A39 218A39 218A39 218A39 AMOUNT 25.00 * 1,317.92 1,317.92 * 30.00 499.99 467.00 71.50 1,068.49 * 188.00 188.00 * CHECK REGISTER a 218851 07/31/90 218852 07/31/90 218852 07/31/90 218852 07/31/90 218852 07/31/90 218853 07/31/90 * * * * ** 218Al2 * * * * ** 218A21 * * * *** 218A29 218A29 218A29 * * * * ** 218A33 * * * * ** 218A67 R* AIt* 218A39 218A39 218A39 218A39 218A39 218A39 218A39 218A39 218A39 218A39 AMOUNT 25.00 * 1,317.92 1,317.92 * 30.00 499.99 467.00 71.50 1,068.49 * 188.00 188.00 * CHECK REGISTER 175.00 ACME WINDOW CLEAN 08 -06 -90 PAGE 10 VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE KRAFT FOOD SERVICE FOOD RESALE 27- 4624 - 663 -66 8069 LANDSCAPE PROD CTR BARK 27- 4522 - 664 -66 8585 LANDSCAPE PROD CTR EDGING ROCK 27- 4522 - 664 -66 8807 LANDSCAPE PROD CTR SHRUBS /FABRIC 27- 4560- 664 -66 8808 LANDSCAPE PROD CTR SHRUBS 27- 4560 - 664 -66 8740 WARREN ANDERSON SIGNAGE 27- 4288 - 662 -66 8996 07/23/90 175.00 ACME WINDOW CLEAN SERVICE 175.00 * 07/24/90 195.71 ADT SECURITY SYS. ALARM SERVICE 195.71 * 07/27/90 63.28 ALBINSON NORTH ARROWS 07/27/90 219.60 ALBINSON SPRAY PAINT 07/30/90 174.43 ALBINSON PAINT 457.31 * 07/27/90 5,627.17 AEC ENG /DESIGNERS PRO ENG SERV 5,627.17 * AQUA ENGINEERING 07/18/90 64.95 ,Al nU vTnrn 9 A.11gi6 SPRINKLER REPAIR 64.95 * 07/30/90 10.24- ALTERNATOR REBUILD BATTERIES 07/30/90 98.00 ALTERNATOR REBUILD ALTERNATOR 07/30/90 121.38 ALTERNATOR REBUILD REPAIR PARTS 07/30/90 242.04 ALTERNATOR REBUILD BATTERIES 07/18/90 476.17 ALTERNATOR REBUILD TOOLS 07/18/90 476.17- ALTERNATOR REBUILD TOOLS 07/30/90 251.03 ALTERNATOR REBUILD TOOLS 07/30/90 35.57 ALTERNATOR REBUILD TOOLS 07/30/90 54.04 ALTERNATOR REBUILD SCREWDRIVERS 07/18/90 476.17 ALTERNATOR REBUILD TOOLS 1267.99* 218A40 07/18/90 443.12 ACTION MAILING SERV MAG MAILING 10- 4504- 390 -30 623 8626 30- 4304 - 782 -78 8816 10- 4504- 260 -26 665704 5352 10- 4504 - 260 -26 665684 5352 40- 4504 - 802 -80 663204 8560 40- 4201 - 800 -80 2869 60- 1300 - 044 -08 25701 10- 4504 - 560 -56 7049 10- 4540 - 560 -56 11795 10- 4540 - 560 -56 7050 10- 4642- 560 -56 7046 40- 4580 - 800 -80 7041 40- 4580 - 800 -80 7041 40- 4580-801-80 7045 40- 4580- 801 -80 7048 40- 4580 - 801 -80 7043 40- 4580- 801 -80 7041 12- 4215 - 434 -43 3239 8575 8631 8633 8575 8483 8483 8474 8474 8498 8483 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS 1990 CIT`! OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 218A41 07/31/90 218A41 07/31/90 218A43 07/18/90 218A45 07/23/90 218A53 07/24/90 218A80 07/18/90 218A80 07/30/90 218A80 07/30/90 218A80 07/18/90 218A91 07/18/90 k k * * * * 218A95 07/18/90 218A95 07/18/90 218A95 07/18/90 218A99 07/25/90 218A99 07/25/90 218A99 07/31/90 218B05 07/25/90 218806 07/30/90 AMOUNT 443.12 * 367.15 316.98 684.13 * 305.19 305.19 * 250.00 250.00 * 94.86 94.86 * 1,160.53 19.18 225.12 37,385.00 38,789.83 * 100.60 100.60 * 75.00 75.00 75.00 225.00 * 145.10 57.60 19.55 222.25 * 36.50 36.50 * 55.80 55.80 * CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION AMBASSADOR SAUSAGE MEAT AMBASSADOR SAUSAGE MEAT AM LASER CUT GRAFIX AMER. PHOTO COPY AMERICAN SHARECOM ASTLEFORD INTL ASTLEFORD INTL ASTLEFORD INTL ASTLEFORD INTL AUTO SOUND /ENTRONIX LINDENFELS LINDENFELS LINDENFELS AXT -LYLE AXT -LYLE AXT -LYLE BACH -BILL BACHMANS GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIP MAINT TELEPHONE 08 -06 -90 PAGE 11 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 27- 4624 - 663 -66 5506 27- 4624 - 663 -66 5506 * ** -CKS 30 -4504- 782 -78 65470 8715 * ** -CKS 10- 4274 - 420 -42 52452 8457 * ** -CKS 10- 4256 - 510 -51 * ** -CKS GEAR /PIN SWITCH LIGHT DUMP TRUCK 10-4540-560-56 210127 7862 10- 4540 - 560 -56 A65784 8615 10- 4540 - 560 -56 A65873 8769 10- 4901 - 305 -30 65117 6280 * ** -CKS REPAIRS 10- 4248 - 560 -56 854; BRUSH 27- 4250-664 -66 4149 BRUSH REMOVAL 27- 4250 - 664 -66 4609 CONSTRUCTION 60- 1300 - 200 -03 4116 * ** -CKS MILEAGE 29- 4208 - 721 -72 CONCESSIONS 29- 4624 - 722 -72 VENDING PRODUCT 29- 4624 - 722 -72 OFFICE SUPPLIES SHRUBS 30- 4516- 781 -78 10- 4504 - 440 -44 8850 * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 12 VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * * * * ** a * ** -CKS 218613 07/27/90 847.50 BARR ENGINEERING PRO ENG SERV 41- 4201 - 900 -90 1,99 4 847.50* * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218B17 07/25/90 62.40 BFI RECYCLING SYS ERROR /PREV BILL 10- 4226 - 507 -50 62.40 218818 07/18/90 134.94 BATTERY WAREHOUSE STARTER BATTERY 10- 4540 - 560 -56 30349 8350 218B18 07/18/90 10.80 BATTERY WAREHOUSE REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 30304 8334 218818 07/18/90 85.90 BATTERY WAREHOUSE REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 29356 8551 218818 218618 07/23/90 07/30/90 134.94 BATTERY WAREHOUSE REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 31209 8350 249.64 ''' BATTERY WAREHOUSE BATTERY 10- 4540- 540 -54 33371 8770 "S::_�ilw 616.22* * ** -CKS 218827 07/23/90 126.00 BERGFORD TRUCKING LIQUOR DELIVERY 50- 4626- 822 -82 218627 07/23/90 392.50 BERGFORD TRUCKING LIQUOR DELIVERY 50- 4626- 842 -84 218B27 07/23/90 271.00 BERGFORD TRUCKING LIQUOR DELIVERY 50- 4626- 862 -86 789.50 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218B30 07/30/90 23.68 BERTELSON BROS. INC. TRAYS 10- 4504 - 140 -14 587177 218B30 07/30/90 96.40 BERTELSON BROS. INC. BINDERS 10- 4504 - 160 -16 587413 218630 07/30/90 57.84 BERTELSON BROS. INC' BINDERS 10- 4504 - 160 -16 582288 218B30 07/23/90 40.00 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 420 -42 580976 218B30 07/18/90 62.10 BERTELSON BROS. INC. HUDSON BOOKS 10- 4504 - 440 -44 582669 8114 218B30 07/30/90 170.83 BERTELSON BROS. INC. TAPE /BOXES 10- 4504 - 510 -51 582288 218830 07/30/90 15.90 BERTELSON BROS. INC. ENVELOPES 10- 4504- 510 -51 583294 218B30 07/30/90 32.98 BERTELSON BROS. INC. LEGAL PADS 10- 4504 - 510 -51 583212 218B30 07/30/90 54.68 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 510 -51 583207 218B30 07/30/90 13.56 BERTELSON BROS. INC. DICTIONARY 10- 4504- 800 -80 582288 218630 07/31/90 55.52 BERTELSON BROS. INC. SUPPLIES 27- 4516- 661 -66 584084 218630 07/31/90 25.58 BERTELSON BROS. INC. SUPPLIES 27- 4516- 661 -66 585433 218B30 07/31/90 35.60- BERTELSON BROS. INC. CREDIT 27- 4516- 661 -66 218630 07/23/90 47.20 BERTELSON BROS. INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 30- 45167781 -78 161900 8738 218830 07/24/90 95.04 BERTELSON BROS. INC. OFFICE SUPPLIE 30- 4516 - 781 -78 161900 8713 218630 07/31/90 11.70 BERTELSON BROS. INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 30- 4516 - 781 -78 8755 218B30 07/27/90 60.65 BERTELSON BROS. INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 30- 4516- 782 -78 585966 8755 828.06 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218B32 07/31/90 21.43 BEST LOCK OF MPLS KEYS /LOCK 27- 4504 - 662 -66 6649 8917 21.43 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218839 07/27/90 375.00 BJORKS COUNTRY STORE CONTRACTED REPAIRS 60- 1300 - 286 -04 218839 07/27/90 1,890.00 BJORKS COUNTRY STORE CONSTRUCTION 60- 1300 - 290 -04 8365 1990 CITY OF EDINA GARBAGE CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT * * * * ** 10- 4250 - 540 -54 2,265.00 218642 07/23/90 31.06 218B42 07/30/90 16.43 218B42 07/23/90 6.00 GARBAGE 27- 4250 - 662 -66 53.49 * * * * ** GARBAGE 28- 4250 - 702 -70 218650 07/25/90 189.99 50- 4250 - 861 -86 189.99 * * * * ** 218B54 07/24/90 345.47 218B54 07/23/90 17.03 362.50 * * * * ** 218659 07/31/90 626.78 218859 07/31/90 156.70 218659 07/31/90 156.70 218B59 07/31/90 626.79 218B59 07/31/90 104.46 218659 07/31/90 417.85 218659 07/31/90 151.73 218659 07/31/90 77.68 218859 07/31/90 346.34 218B59 07/31/90 495.53 218859 07/31/90 104.46 218B59 07/31/90 313.39 218B59 07/31/90 26.12 218859 07/31/90 26.12 3,630.65 * * * * * ** 218662 07/18/90 350.49 350.49 * * * * * ** 218877 07/25/90 450.70 218877 07/25/90 400.00 850.70 * 218B78 07/30/90 270.96 270.96 * * * * * ** 218882 07/30/90 28.59 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION BLACK PHOTOGRAPHY BLACK PHOTOGRAPHY BLACK PHOTOGRAPHY BEST BUY SUPERSTORE BLUMBERG PHOTO BLUMBERG PHOTO BFI OF MN INC BFI OF MN INC BFI OF MN INC BFI OF MN INC BFI OF MN INC BFI OF MN INC BFI OF MN INC BFI OF MN INC BFI OF MN INC BFI OF MN INC BFI OF MN INC BFI OF MN INC BFI OF MN INC BFI OF MN INC BOYUM EQUIPMENT PHOTO PROCESS FILM /DEVELOPING OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES EQUIP REPLACE PHOTO SUPPLIES 08 -06 -90 PAGE 13 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 301 -30 163027 8625 10- 4504 - 301 -30 171294 8767 30- 4516 - 782 -78 171301 8739 * ** -CKS 12- 4504 - 434 -43 8842 * ** -CKS 10- 4901 - 420 -42 B41217 8058 12- 4508 - 434 -43 828226 4412 * ** -CKS GARBAGE 10- 4250 - 301 -30 GARBAGE 10- 4250 - 440 -44 GARBAGE 10- 4250 - 520 -52 GARBAGE 10- 4250 - 540 -54 GARBAGE 10- 4250 - 645 -64 GARBAGE 10- 4250 - 645 -64 GARBAGE 10- 4250 - 645 -64 GARBAGE 23- 4250- 612 -61 GARBAGE 26- 4250 - 682 -68 GARBAGE 27- 4250 - 662 -66 GARBAGE 27- 4250 - 664 -66 GARBAGE 28- 4250 - 702 -70 GARBAGE 50- 4250 - 841 -84 GARBAGE 50- 4250 - 861 -86 * ** -CKS WHEEL 10- 45407560 -56 5327 7950 BRAUN CONSTRUCTION BRAUN CONSTRUCTION BRISSMAN- KENNEDY INC CLEANING SUPPLIES BRUNSON INSTRUMENT NAILS 27- 1300 - 004 -00 950 60- 1300 - 290 -04 950 10- 4512 - 520 -52 162929 8843 10- 4504 - 260 -26 80871 8342 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT 218B82 07/18/90 156.63 + 185.22 * 218683 07/25/90 274.97 274.97 * k k * k k 218888 07/23/90 180.00 218888 07/23/90 150.00 * 330.00 * *kk *k 218891 07/18/90 120.00 218891 07/30/90 15.00 135.00 * kkk * * k 218C01 07/25/90 160.06 218C01 07/24/90 123.56 kkk * k 283.62 * 218CO3 07/30/90 148.80 148.80 * kkkkk k 218C08 07/23/90 356.00 356.00 * 218C09 07/27/90 110.65 110.65 * kkkkkk 218C12 07/30/90 77.37 77.37 * 218C13 07/27/90 26.60 26.60 * kkkkkk 218C16 07/23/90 21.90 21.90 * 218C17 07/23/90 104.19 104.19 * kkkkkk 218C25 07/18/90 142.50 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION BRUNSON INSTRUMENT BATTERY BRYAN ROCK PROD. INC LANDSCAPING ROCK BUR OF CRIMINAL APP BUR OF CRIMINAL APP BURY & CARLSON INC BURY & CARLSON INC C & S DISTRIBUTING C & S DISTRIBUTING TELETYPE TELETYPE DUMP CHARGE DUMP CHARGE COST /GOODS SOLD COST /GOODS SOLD CUMMINS DIESEL SALES SERVICE CONTRACTS CARLSN LK STATE EQU CARLSON PRINTING CORNER MARKING CO CASH REGISTER SALES 08 -06 -90 PAGE 14 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 4504 - 260 -26 080933 5353 10- 4504 - 440 -44 103317 8849 * ** -CKS 10- 4268 - 420 -42 10- 4268 - 420 -42 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 301 -30 34845 8553 10- 4504 - 301 -30 34935 8772 * ** -CKS 23- 4624 - 613 -61 108501 8604 23- 4626 - 613 -61 108308 8380 * ** -CKS 30- 4288 - 782 -78 8940 * ** -CKS CONTRACTED REPAIRS 10- 4248 - 560 -56 S07875 8174 BUSINESS CARDS 10- 4504 - 510 -51 48440 * ** -CKS SIGNS 27- 4504 - 662 -66 20063 8208 RIBBONS 27- 4516'661 -66 410295 8665 CATCO FITTINGS CDP MONTHLY PAYMENTS SOUTHAM BUS INFO /COM AD FOR BIDS * ** -CKS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 353544 8570 10- 4504 - 280 -28 10- 4210 - 140 -14 * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 15 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 142.50 * * ** -CKS 218C27 07/24/90 916.00 CHEMLAWN WEED SPRAYING 10- 4248 - 643 -64 6261 916.00 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218C31 07/18/90 55,944.50 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON COMM HEALTH SERV 10- 4201 - 480 -48 11235 55,944.50 * * ** -CKS 218C33 07/24/90 531.48 CITY OF EDINA WATER 10- 4258 - 520 -52 218C33 07/24/90 27.10 CITY OF EDINA WATER 10- 4258 - 540 -54 218C33 07/24/90 235.64 CITY OF EDINA WATER 10- 4258 - 540 -54 218C33 07/24/90 27.10 CITY OF EDINA WATER 10- 4258 - 646 -64 218C33 07/23/90 160.00 CITY OF EDINA REFUSE 50- 4250 - 821 -82 1932 218C33 07/24/90 48.16 CITY OF EDINA WATER 50- 4258 - 821 -82 218C33 07/24/90 27.10 CITY OF EDINA WATER 50- 4258 - 861 -86 1,056.58 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218C35 07/30/90 137.60 CITYLINE ADVERTISING 30- 4214 - 781 -78 543 218C35 07/18/90 71.00 CITYLINE ADVERTISING 30- 4214 - 781 -78 573 8717 208.60 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218C39 07/18/90 330.00 CLEAN -FLO LAB LAKE TREATMENT 10- 4201 - 358 -30 5378 6831 218C39 07/24/90 330.00 CLEAN -FLO LAB INDIANHEAD LAKE 10- 4201 - 358 -30 5419 6831 660.00 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218C44 07/24/90 146.36 COCA COLA BOTTLING CONCESSIONS 29- 4624 - 722 -72 146.36 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218C49 07/30/90 84.00 COMPUTERLAND COMPUTER SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 140 -14 218C49 07/30/90 1,695.00 COMPUTERLAND COMPUTER SYSTEM 10- 4902 - 120 -12 8806 218C49 07/30/90 2,199.00 COMPUTERLAND COMPUTER SYSTEM 10- 4902 - 140 -14 8805 218C49 07/31/90 799.00 COMPUTERLAND TAPE BACKUP SYST 10- 4902 - 140 -14 8805 218C49 07/31/90 1,559.00 COMPUTERLAND LASER PRINTER 10- 4902 - 420 -42 8823 218C49 07/18/90 579.00 COMPUTERLAND PRINTER CABLES 10- 4902 - 490 -49 8461 218C49 07/23/90 295.00 COMPUTERLAND COMPUTER 23- 1300 - 000 -00 8588 7,210.00 * * « * * ** * ** -CKS 218C52 07/23/90 5.00 COMM OF TRAN BOOKS /PAMPHLETS 10- 4502- 420 -42 85512 5.00 * 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE * * * * ** 4 218C65 07/18/90 * * * * ** 60.00 * 218C88 07/27/90 218C89 07/30/90 218C89 07/18/90 218D07 07/24/90 218D07 07/30/90 ** * * ** 218D09 07/30/90 218D09 07/30/90 ****A* 88.06 218D19 07/18/90 * ** * ** 218D24 07/18/90 218D24 07/18/90 218D24 07/30/90 218D24 07/30/90 218D24 07/30/90 * * * * ** 218D33 07/31/90 218D33 07/31/90 * * * *** 371.10 218D86 07/30/90 ** ** ** 218E02 07/18/90 08 -06 -90 PAGE 16 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS 10- 4294 - 560 -56 16451 8502 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 510 -51 8711 10- 4540 - 560 -56 44422 8490 27- 4540 - 664 -66 43507 7655 * ** -CKS 23- 4248 - 612 -61 179279 30 -4288- 781 -78 183179 8938 * ** -CKS 10- 4208 - 140 -14 10- 4504 - 180 -18 * ** -CKS 27- 4504- 663 -66 8441 * ** -CKS 10- 4202 - 281 -28 10- 4310 - 560 -56 10- 4310 - 560 -56 10- 4504 - 646 -64 10- 4580 - 301 -30 • * ** -CKS 10- 4201 - 600 -60 10- 4208 - 600 -60 * ** -CKS 27- 4624-663 -66 8067 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 314 -30 11781 CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 60.00 CONTACT MOBILE COMM REC CRYSTAL 60.00 * 642.85 CURTIS 1000 ENVELOPES 642.85 * 55.85 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO. REPAIR PARTS 13.45 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO. PARTS 69.30 * 88.06 D.C. HEY CO. REPAIRS 48.13 D.C. HEY CO. SERVICE CONTRACT 136.19 * 44.12 DAEHN - MARCELLA MILEAGE 37.10 DAEHN - MARCELLA MILEAGE 81.22 * 371.10 DANS REGISTER SERV. CASH REG /NEW 371.10 * 2.50 DIANE SANKEY TANKER ENDOR 56.00 DIANE SANKEY CAR REGISTRATION 15.00 DIANE SANKEY DUPLICATE TITLES /2 3.18 DIANE SANKEY CABLE CONNECTOR 31.06 DIANE SANKEY TOOL POUCHER 107.74 * 756.00 DAVIS- EUGENE SERVICES 81.60 DAVIS- EUGENE MILEAGE 837.60 * 294.72 DENNYS 5th AV BAKE BAKERY GOODS 294.72 * 514.80 E KRAEMER & SONS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 08 -06 -90 PAGE 16 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS 10- 4294 - 560 -56 16451 8502 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 510 -51 8711 10- 4540 - 560 -56 44422 8490 27- 4540 - 664 -66 43507 7655 * ** -CKS 23- 4248 - 612 -61 179279 30 -4288- 781 -78 183179 8938 * ** -CKS 10- 4208 - 140 -14 10- 4504 - 180 -18 * ** -CKS 27- 4504- 663 -66 8441 * ** -CKS 10- 4202 - 281 -28 10- 4310 - 560 -56 10- 4310 - 560 -56 10- 4504 - 646 -64 10- 4580 - 301 -30 • * ** -CKS 10- 4201 - 600 -60 10- 4208 - 600 -60 * ** -CKS 27- 4624-663 -66 8067 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 314 -30 11781 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT 218E02 07/25/90 343.58 218E02 07/25/90 329.82 218E02 07/30/90 327.66 k k k* k k 1,515.86 218E14 07/31/90 83.80 218E14 07/18/90 633.06 218E14 07/18/90 272.00 218E14 07/18/90 172.56 218E14 07/27/90 75.00 7342 ACID TANK 1,236.42 kkkkkk 8572 WATER CHEMICALS• 218E20 07/24/90 85.00 WATER CHEMICALS 40- 4622- 805 -80 85.00 k k k k k k WATER CHEMICALS 40- 4622 - 805 -80 218E51 07/30/90 75.00 75.00 k k k k k k 218E71 07/18/90 109.68 218E71 07/27/90 53.83 218E71 07/24/90 94.50 258.01 k k k k k k 218E75 07/18/90 300.00 300.00 * k k k k k k 218E94 07/25/90 1,200.00 1,200.00 * k k k k k k 218F05 07/31/90 142.00 142.00 * k k k k k k 218F11 07/18/90 353.22. 218F11 07/25/90 40.00 218F11 07/18/90 233.00 218F11 07/27/90 151.16 218F11 07/18/90 2,097.91 218F11 07/25/90 2,042.32 4,917.61 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION E KRAEMER & SONS INC RIP RAP E KRAEMER & SONS INC FILL E KRAEMER & SONS INC RIP WRAP EARL F. ANDERSON EARL F. ANDERSON EARL F. ANDERSON EARL F. ANDERSON EARL F. ANDERSON ECOLAB PEST ELIM SIGN SIGNS ORANGE FENCE WHITE OAK POOL SIGNS 08 -06 -90 PAGE 17 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 41- 4504 - 900 -90 12218 7094 41- 4504 - 900 -90 11532 8619 41- 4504 - 900 -90 11780 8764 10- 4248 - 520 -52 98878 8997 10- 4504 - 343 -30 97452 7937 10- 4504- 646 -64 98142 8473 10- 4542 - 325 -30 98065 8550 26- 4504- 682 -68 98732 SERVICE CONTRACTS 30- 4288 - 782 -78 40418 8810 EGGHEAD DIS SOFTWARE COMPUTER SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 140 -14 ELVIN SAFETY ELVIN SAFETY ELVIN SAFETY EMPLOYEES CLUB ESS BROS & SONS FADDEN PUMP FEED RITE CONTROL FEED RITE CONTROL FEED RITE CONTROL FEED RITE CONTROL FEED RITE CONTROL FEED RITE CONTROL ANACIN /TYLENOL CANISTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 10- 4642 - 301 -30 26- 4642- 681 -68 30- 4504 - 782 -78 10- 4504 - 500 -50 8471 8586 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS ADJ RINGS 40- 4550 - 812 -80 2194 8612 * ** -CKS PUMP SEAL 40- 4540 - 801 -80 59817 7901 * ** -CKS CHLORINE 26- 4564 - 682 -68 142454 7774 BRACKET 40- 4540 - 805 -80 143243 7342 ACID TANK 40- 4622 - 805 -80 142758 8572 WATER CHEMICALS• 40- 4622 - 805 -80 143348 7342 WATER CHEMICALS 40- 4622- 805 -80 142379 7342 WATER CHEMICALS 40- 4622 - 805 -80 143260 7342 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT xxxxxx a 218F26 07/24/50 203.73 218F26 07/18/90 2,670.00 218F26 07/18/90 273.78 218F26 07/25/90 2,780.78 5,928.29 * xxxxxx 218F37 07/31/90 60.00 xxxxxx 60.00 * 218F47 07/23/90 23.63 23.63 * x *xxxx 218F56 07/31/90 10,918.00 218F56 07/31/90 3,387.20 218F56 07/31/90 3,639.00 17,944.20 * xxxxxx 218F70 07/18/90 59.00 218F70 07/31/90 312.00 371.00 * xxxxxx 218G01 07/18/90 616.50 218G01 07/18/90 299.80 218G01 07/18/90 281.15 218G01 07/18/90 268.20 218G01 07/18/90 109.70 218G01 07/18/90 20.10 218G01 07/18/90 390.30 xxxxxx 1,985.75 * 218G08 07/24/90 1,381.19 1,381.19 * xxxxxx 218G13 07/18/90 500.00 500.00 * xxxxxx 218G16 07/23/90 44.80 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL REPAIR PARTS FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL SEWER RODS FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL REPAIR PARTS FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL REPAIR PARTS FLOYD LOCK & SAFE CO SAFE REPAIRS FOWLER ELECTRIC FRANK B. HALL & CO FRANK B. HALL & CO FRANK B. HALL & CO FRIDEN ALCATEL FRIDEN ALCATEL G & K SERVICES G & K SERVICES G & K SERVICES G & K SERVICES G & K SERVICES G & K SERVICES G & K SERVICES REPAIR PARTS INSURANCE INSURANCE INSURANCE POSTAGE TYPE EQUIP RENTAL LAUNDRY LAUNDRY LAUNDRY CLEANING SUPPLIES LAUNDRY LAUNDRY LAUNDRY G.L. CONTRACTING INC REPAIRS GARTNER REFRIG INC. REPAIR GAS SUPPLY INC. PARTS 08 -06 -90 PAGE 18 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS 40- 4540- 810 -80 3837 8501 40- 4540 - 810 -80 3811 8344 40- 4540 - 810 -80 3804 8349 40- 4540 - 810 -80 3815 8345 * ** -CKS 50- 4248 - 841 -84 20139 * ** -CKS 27- 4540 - 664 -66 97180 8732 * ** -CKS 10- 4260 - 510 -51 054253 10- 4260 - 510 -51 10- 4260 - 510 -51 054254 * ** -CKS 10- 4290 - 510 -51 10- 4290 - 510 -51 * ** -CKS 10- 4262- 301 -30 10- 4262 - 560 -56 10- 4262 - 646 -64 10- 4512 - 540 -54 28- 4262 - 702 -70 30- 4262 - 782 -78 40- 4262x801 -80 * ** -CKS 40- 4248 - 801 -80 27866 8683 * ** -CKS 28- 4248 - 704 -70 3143 7791 * ** -CKS 10- 4620 - 560 -56 60888 8424 1990 CITY OF EDINA 10- 4248 - 560 -56 CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 10- 4510 - 440 -44 8113 44.80 * ** -CKS 27- 4504 - 664 -66 54230 8356 218G24 07/25/90 47.30 GEN. COMMUNICATIONS RADIO REPAIR r 218G24' 07/18/90 400.00 GEN. COMMUNICATIONS GE MOBILE /USED 218G24 07/18/90 400.00 GEN. COMMUNICATIONS GE MOBILE /USED 218G24 07/30/90 63.00 GEN. COMMUNICATIONS RADIO REPAIR 218G24 07/30/90 63.00 GEN. COMMUNICATIONS RADIO REPAIR 973.30 * 218G26 07/30/90 13.44 GENERAL OFFICE PROD GENERAL SUPPLIES 13.44 * 218G30 07/23/90 45.00 GENERAL SPORTS WHISTLES /LANYARDS 45.00 * * * *x ** 218G46 07/23/90 50.00 GARVENS GREETINGS MIX 50.00 * * * *x *x 218G57 07/18/90 209.88 GOPHER OIL CO. FLOOR DRI /HI DRI 218G57 07/30/90 209.88 GOPHER OIL CO. FLOOR DRI /HI DRI 419.76 * *xx * ** 218672 07/25/90 85.00 GARY SMIEJA REPAIRS 85.00 * *x * *x* 218G79 07/31/90 10,933.00 GREUPNER -JOE LESSONS *xx * ** 10,933.00 * 218H05 07/25/90 67.30 H.L. MOORE AMBULANCE SUPPLIE 67.30 * *x *x ** 218H09 07/18/90 33.50 HALLMAN OIL 33.50 * * * * * ** 218H21 07/30/90 157.29 HARMON GLASS WINDSHIELD 08 -06 -90 PAGE 19 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS 10- 4248 - 440 -44 68345 5051 10- 4294 - 560 -56 67543 8187 10- 4294 - 560 -56 67542 8184 10- 4294 - 560 -56 68505 8765 10- 4294 - 560 -56 68504 8766 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 420 -42 * ** -CKS 26- 4642 - 681 -68 31947 * ** -CKS 50- 4632 - 842 -84 2200 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 560 -56 405177 8505 10- 4504 - 560 -56 405967 8610 * ** -CKS 10- 4248 - 560 -56 * ** -CKS 27- 3417 - 661 -66 * ** -CKS 10- 4510 - 440 -44 8113 * ** -CKS 27- 4504 - 664 -66 54230 8356 * ** -CKS 10- 4248 - 560 -56 8589 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE k k k k k k a 21SH23 07/31/90 218H23 07/31/90 218H23 07/31/90 k k k k k k 218H28 07/24/90 k k k k k k 218H33 07/24/90 218H33 07/24/90 218H33 07/30/90 218H34 07/23/90 218H34 07/30/90 * k k k k * 218H37 07/25/90 218H37 07/27/90 k k k k k k 218H60 07/30/90 k k k k k k 218H74 07/23/90 k k k k k k 218I59 07/24/90 218I59 07/24/90 k k k k k k 218J23 07/27/90 218J23 07/30/90 k k k k k k 218J27 07/18/90 AMOUNT 157.29 * 9,392.00 4,864.00 28,377.00 42,633.00 * 300.00 300.00 4.50 48.72 471.82 525.04 * 10,032.27 7,676.80 17,709.07 * 150.00 324.00 474.00 * 72.00 72.00 * 38.16 38.16 * 482.13 72.30 554.43 * 552.10 81.00 633.10 * 23.76 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION HARRIS HOMEYER CO HARRIS HOMEYER CO HARRIS HOMEYER CO HAYDEN- MURPHY EQUIP HENN CTY SHERIFF HENN CTY SHERIFF HENN CTY SHERIFF HENN COUNTY TREAS HENN COUNTY TREAS HENN TECH CENTER HENN TECH CENTER HOBART HOOTEN CLEANERS INTERIOR COM SYS INTERIOR COM SYS JR JOHNSON SUP JR JOHNSON SUP JERRYS FOODS INSURANCE INSURANE INSURANCE REPAIRS EQUIP MAINT EQUIP MAINT WORKHOUSE /JAIL WORKHOUSE /JAIL WORKHOUSE /JAIL TRG -CODE HAZ MAT II REPAIRS 08 -06 -90 PAGE 20 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS 10- 4260 - 510 -51 10- 4260 - 510 -51 10- 4260 - 510 -51 - * ** -CKS 41- 4248 - 900 -90 9116 8628 * ** -CKS 10- 4274 - 420 -42 10- 4274 - 420 -42 10- 4286- 220 -22 10- 4286 - 220 -22 21104 10- 4286- 220 -22 21148 * ** -CKS 10- 4202 - 440 -44 022910 8129 10- 4202 - 440 -44 22907 8853 * ** -CKS 27- 4248 - 663 -66 8946 * ** -CKS LAUNDRY 10- 4262 - 420 -42 * ** -CKS INSTALL PHONES 10- 4201 - 800 -80 27933 PHONES 10- 4256 - 510 -51 028111 8835 * ** -CKS GENERAL SUPPLIES 30- 4504 - 783 -78 82443 8819 TREES /PLANTS /SHRUBS 30- 4560 - 782 -78 81884 8743 * ** -CKS MEETING EXPENSES 10- 4206 - 140 -14 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 21 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 218J27 07/24/90 3.28 JERRYS FOODS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504- 600 -60 218J27 07/25/90 30.95 JERRYS FOODS COST /GOODS SOLD 23- 4504 - 611 -61 218J27 07/24/90 26.75 JERRYS FOODS GENERAL SUPPLIES 23- 4504 - 611 -61 84.74 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218J31 07/18/90 1.88 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 200 -20 218J31 07/18/90 30.43 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 260 -26 218J31 07/18/90 326.33 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 301 -30 218J31 07/18/90 34.97 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 322 -30 218J31 07/18/90 11.57 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 325 -30 218J31 07/18/90 127.10 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 325 -30 218J31 07/18/90 50.71 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 390 -30 218J31 07/18/90 131.52 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 420 -42 218J31 07/18/90 116.09 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 440 -44 218J31 07/18/90 3.49 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 480 -48 218331 07/18/90 17.34 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 507 -50 218J31 07/18/90 64.23 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 510 -51 218J31 07/18/90 37.74 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504- 520 -52 218J31 07/18/90 55.78 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 540 -54 218J31 07/18/90 229.28 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 560 -56 218J31 07/18/90 505.93 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 646 -64 218J31 07/18/90 43.20 JERRYS HARDWARE REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 322 -30 218J31 07/18/90 75.40 JERRYS HARDWARE REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 520 -52 218J31 07/18/90 24.76 JERRYS HARDWARE REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 646 -64 218J31 07/18/90 34.40 JERRYS HARDWARE TOOLS 10- 4580-643 -64 218J31 07/18/90 41.23 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 26- 4504- 682 -68 218J31 07/18/90 98.08 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 27- 4504- 661 -66 218J31 07/18/90 27.38 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 27- 4504 - 662 -66 218J31 07/18/90 46.29 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 27- 4504 - 664 -66 218J31 07/18/90 140.34 JERRYS HARDWARE TOOLS 27- 4580- 664 -66 218J31 07/18/90 20.93 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 29- 4504- 721 -70 218J31 07/18/90 59.07 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 30- 4504 - 782 -78 218J31 07/18/90 274.88 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 40- 4504 - 801 -80 218J31 07/18/90 35.85 JERRYS HARDWARE REPAIR PARTS 40- 4540 - 803 -80 218J31 07/18/90 21.16 JERRYS HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 50 =4504- 841 -84 218J31 07/18/90 44.08 JERRYS HARDWARE REPAIR PARTS 50- 4540 - 841 -84 2,731.44 * * * * ** **A-CKS 218J35 07/23/90 204.87 JERRYS PRINTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504- 490 -49 2699 218J35 07/18/90 238.27 JERRYS PRINTING VOTER RECEIPTS 10- 4600 - 180 -18 3095 8667 218J35 07/24/90 10.06 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING 12- 4600 - 434 -43 502456 218J35 07/27/90 49.92 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING 12- 4600- 434 -43 3183 218J35 07/25/90 22.00 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING 12- 4600 - 434 -43 502456 218J35 07/25/90 241.00 JERRYS PRINTING POOL SEASON TICKETS 26- 4600 - 681 -68 504182 766.12 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218J41 07/18/90 259.18 JIM HATCH SALES SHOVELS 10- 4580 - 301 -30 10669 8504 259.18 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 22 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 218J59 071L18/90 525.00 JOHN H EKLUND HAUL BRUSH 10- 4250 - 644 -64 525.00 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218J74 07/23/90 158.18 JUSTUS LUMBER LUMBER 10- 4504 - 314 -30 42309 7938 218J74 07/23/90 39.54 JUSTUS LUMBER LUMBER 10- 4504- 314 -30 45748 8336 218J74 07/23/90 188.22 JUSTUS LUMBER STUDS 41- 4504- 900 -90 46130 8400 218J74 07/23/90 267.36 JUSTUS LUMBER LUMBER 41- 4504- 900 -90 45494 8323 653.30 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218J99 07/31/90 600.00 JANET CANTON MILEAGE 10- 4208 - 160 -16 218J99 07/31/90 60.00 JANET CANTON MILEAGE 10- 4208 - 160 -16 218J99 07/31/90 600.00- JANET CANTON MILEAGE 10- 4208 - 160 -16 60.00 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218K05 07/30/90 375.06 K & K SALES DOOR PARTS 50 -4540- 821 -82 53017 8485 218K05 07/30/90 284.00 K & K SALES RIM DEVICE 50- 4540- 841 -84 53025 8481 659.06 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218K14 07/23/90 141.57 KAPAK CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 420 -42 50302 141.57 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218K35 07/25/90 18.37 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 260 -26 782426 8763 218K35 07/18/90 62.11 KNOX COMM CREDIT LUMBER 10- 4504- 322 -30 842525 8407 218K35 07/27/90 92.70 KNOX COMM CREDIT TOOLS 10- 4504 - 343 -30 844250 8423 218K35 07/24/90 8.74 KNOX COMM CREDIT PLUMBING SUPPLIES 10- 4540 - 646 -64 843107 8643 218K35 07/30/90 63.63 KNOX COMM CREDIT SUPPLIES 27- 4504 - 664 -66 844285 8756 218K35 07/18/90 22.46 KNOX COMM CREDIT SUPPLIES 27- 4504 - 664 -66 844539 8587 218K35 07/30/90 90.66 KNOX COMM CREDIT LUMBER 27- 4604 - 661 -66 843278 8736 218K35 07/30/90 34.90 KNOX COMM CREDIT LUMBER 27- 4604 - 662 -66 782501 8758 218K35 07/30/90 37.68 KNOX COMM CREDIT LUMBER 27- 46047662 -66 843260 8664 218K35 07/30/90 51.88 KNOX COMM CREDIT LUMBER 27- 4604- 664 -66 843338 8721 483.13 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218K51 07/23/90 155.00 KREMER SPRG & ALGN U BOLT 10- 4540 - 560 -56 23246 8396 155.00 * * * R * ** -CKS 218L01 07/23/90 615.00 LINDA KOZAK 7/18/90- 7/31/90 30- 4201 - 781 -78 218L01 07/25/90 73.75 LINDA KOZAK SUPPLIES 30- 4204 - 783 -78 688.75 * 218L02 07/31/90 1,606.67 LABOR RELATIONS ASN. FEE FOR SERVICE 10- 4201 - 140 -14 1990 CITY CHECK NO. * * * * ** 218L04 218L04 218L04 218L04 218694 OF EDINA DATE 07/18/90 07/18/90 07/18/90 07/18/90 @;�18�99 AMOUNT 1,606.67 2,166.30 10,558.00 1,951.00 6,985.00 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR LAHASS LAHASS LAHASS LAHASS ITEM DESCRIPTION r REPAIRS SNOWPLOW SERVICE BODY CRANE HOIST 08 -06 -90 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # 10- 4248 - 560 -56 9813 8469 10- 4901 - 305 -30 9765 6651 40- 1340 - 000 -00 9858 7378 40- 1340 - 000 -00 9859 7379 PAGE 23 MESSAGE * ** -CKS — 21,660. 30 - 8 218LO6 07/18/90 363.00 LAKE RESTORATION TREATMENT 41 -4201- 902 -90 8420 8567 ** *-CKS 218L06 07/18/90 218.00 LAKE RESTORATION TREATMENT /POND 41- 4201 - 902 -90 8145 8568 581.00* -2'e * ** * ** * ** -CKS 218L28 07/18/90 244.72 LAWSON PRODUCTS PARTS 10- 4504 - 301 -30 8168 218L28 07/23/90 257.74 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 301 -30 8248 218L28 07/23/90 187.11 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 301 -30 8170 218L28 07/23/90 209.96 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 322 -30 8250 218L28 07/23/90 223.49 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 646 -64 8249 218L28 07/18/90 221.88 LAWSON PRODUCTS PARTS 10- 4540 - 322 -30 8171 218L28 07/18/90 132.42 LAWSON PRODUCTS PARTS 10- 4540 - 520 -52 8170 218L28 07/18/90 444.18 LAWSON PRODUCTS PARTS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 8052 218L28 07/18/90 237.04 LAWSON PRODUCTS PARTS 10- 4620 - 560 -56 8173 218L28 07/18/90 151.76 LAWSON PRODUCTS PARTS 10- 4620 - 560 -56 8172 218L28 07/18/90 330.86 LAWSON PRODUCTS PARTS 40- 4504 - 802 -80 8173 218L28 07/23/90 353.55 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 40- 4504- 802 -80 8042 218L28 07/23/90 438.35 LAWSON PRODUCTS REPAIR PARTS 40- 4540 - 801 -80 8247 3,433.06 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218L30 07/18/90 390.00 LAYNE MINNESOTA CO. INSTALL MOTOR 40- 4248 - 801 -80 17303 8616 390.00 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218L34 07/18/90 45.00 LEEF BROS. INC. LAUNDRY 27- 4262r664 -66 45.00 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218L42 07/18/90 30.50 LESCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 27 -4504- 666 -66 888438 8313 30.50 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218L56 07/18/90 32.25 LINHOFF DEVELOP FILM 10- 4504- 260 -26 174026 218L56 07/18/90 13.50 LINHOFF PHOTO PROCESSING 12- 4508- 434 -43 173626 218L56 07/18/90 24.80 LINHOFF PHOTO PROCESSING 12- 4508 - 434 -43 173719 218L56 07/18/90 2.20 LINHOFF PHOTO PROCESSING 12- 4508 - 434 -43 172348 72.75 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 24 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * * * * ** dt * ** —CKS 218L60 07/25/90 2,774.28 LOGIS DATA PROCESSING 10- 4233 - 160 -16 218L60 07/25/90 874.46 LOGIS DATA PROCESSING 10- 4233 - 200 -20 218L60 07/25/90 3,748.71 LOGIS DATA PROCESSING 10- 4233 - 420 -42 218L60 07/25/90 1,872.81 LOGIS DATA PROCESSING 40- 4233 - 800 -80 218L60 07/25/90 288.57 LOGIS DATA PROCESSING 50- 4233 - 820 -82 218L60 07/25/90 288.57 LOGIS DATA PROCESSING 50- 4233 - 840 -84 218L60 07/25/90 288.55 LOGIS DATA PROCESSING 50- 4233 - 860 -86 10,135.95 * * * * * ** * ** —CKS 218L80 07/24/90 114.91 LYNDALE GARDEN CTR TREES /PLANTS /FLOWERS 30- 4560 - 782 -78 38638 8757 114.91 * * * * * ** * ** —CKS 218M02 07/23/90 335.55 MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC. SERVICE 10- 4248 - 560 -56 6686 8623 218M02 07/23/90 21.13 MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC. DOOR LATCH 10- 4540 - 560 -56 6554 8622 356.68 * * * * * ** * ** —CKS 218M07 07/23/90 60,466.77— MARK VII SALES BEER 50- 4630 - 822 -82 218M07 07/23/90 6,046.77 MARK VII SALES BEER 50- 4630 - 822 -82 218M07 07/23/90 60,466.77 MARK VII SALES BEER 50- 4630 - 822 -82 218M07 07/23/90 9,334.95 MARK VII SALES BEER 50- 4630- 842 -84 15,381.72 * * * * * ** * ** —CKS 218M16 07/24/90 362.94 MCCAREN DESIGNS TREES /PLANTS /FLOWERS 30- 4560 - 782 -78 3267 8548 362.94 * * * * * ** * ** —CKS 218M18 07/23/90 73.60 MCGARVEY COFFEE COFFEE 10- 4504 - 510 -51 43968 8749 218M18 07/30/90 267.55 MCGARVEY COFFEE COFFEE 27- 4624 - 663 -66 7184 341.15 * 218M19 07/18/90 7,352.30 MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 218M19 07/18/90 39.72 MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY TOOLS 10- 4580- 560 -56 218M19 07/18/90 429.86 MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY PARTS 10- 4620 - 560 -56 218M19 07/18/90 27.02 MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY REPAIRS 28- 4248 - 702 -70 218M19 07/18/90 285.60 MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 40- 4504 - 801 -80 8,134.50 * * * * ** * ** —CKS 218M22 07/18/90 184.39 MCNEILUS STEEL REBAR /STEEL 10- 4504 - 301 -30 75393 8317 218M22 07/30/90 270.90 MCNEILUS STEEL 12" ALUM SQUARE 10- 4540 - 540 -54 2807 8352 218M22 07/18/90 346.94 MCNEILUS STEEL AL SHEET 10- 4540 - 560 -56 76583 8409 218M22 07/18/90 105.04 MCNEILUS STEEL CHANNEL /STEEL 10- 4620 - 560 -56 75392 7327 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 218M27 218M27 218M27 218M27 218M27 218M27 218M27 218M27 218M27 218M27 218M27 218M27 218M29 218M32 218M32 218M32 k k k k k k 218M35 k k k k k k 218M42 218M42 218M42 218M42 218M42 218M42 218M42 218M42 218M42 218M42 *kkkkk 218M44 kkk *kk 218M46 218M46 218M46 07/18/90 AMOUNT 907.27 453.25 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION MERIT SUPPLY SUPPLIES PAINT STRIPPER ROUND -UP TRASH CONTAINERS CLEANING SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES PARTS HVYDTY CLEANER PAPER PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES SEWER BLOCS AMBULANCE COLLECT CIGARETTES CIGARETTES CIGARETTES 08 -06 -90 PAGE 25 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 30- 4512 - 782 -78 246 to stee 600 Be 10- 4504- 335 -30 24652 10- 4504- 390 -30 24699 10- 4504 - 645 -64 24700 10- 4504 - 646 -64 24771 10- 4512 - 540 -54 24738 10- 4620 - 560 -56 24641 10- 4620 - 560 -56 24671 27- 4504- 662 -66 24740 30- 4504 - 782 -78 8741 30- 4512 - 782 -78 24739 40- 4504 - 801 -80 24737 * ** -CKS 93 8568 8412 8564 8563 8692 8617 8395 8475 8657 8654 8618 10- 3180 - 000 -00 * ** -CKS (2 invoices) 50- 4632 - 862 -86 50- 4632 - 862 -86 106 50- 4632 - 862 -86 07/18/90 218,619.58 METRO WASTE CONTROL 07/18/90 199.50 MERIT SUPPLY 07/23/90 222.00 MERIT SUPPLY 07/27/90 408.95 MERIT SUPPLY 07/24/90 384.90 MERIT SUPPLY 07/30/90 499.80 MERIT SUPPLY 07/18/90 244.55 MERIT SUPPLY 07/23/90 467.50 MERIT SUPPLY 07/30/90 96.70 MERIT SUPPLY 07/24/90 189.00 MERIT SUPPLY 07/23/90 456.40 MERIT SUPPLY 07/30/90 40 MERIT SUPPLY 4112.55* -* COR. 07/18/90 142.66* MESSERLI & KRAMER 07/25/90 250.77 M AMUNDSON 07/31/90 235.18 M AMUNDSON 07/23/90 235.18 M AMUNDSON 721.13 133.32 SUPPLIES PAINT STRIPPER ROUND -UP TRASH CONTAINERS CLEANING SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES PARTS HVYDTY CLEANER PAPER PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES SEWER BLOCS AMBULANCE COLLECT CIGARETTES CIGARETTES CIGARETTES 08 -06 -90 PAGE 25 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 30- 4512 - 782 -78 246 to stee 600 Be 10- 4504- 335 -30 24652 10- 4504- 390 -30 24699 10- 4504 - 645 -64 24700 10- 4504 - 646 -64 24771 10- 4512 - 540 -54 24738 10- 4620 - 560 -56 24641 10- 4620 - 560 -56 24671 27- 4504- 662 -66 24740 30- 4504 - 782 -78 8741 30- 4512 - 782 -78 24739 40- 4504 - 801 -80 24737 * ** -CKS 93 8568 8412 8564 8563 8692 8617 8395 8475 8657 8654 8618 10- 3180 - 000 -00 * ** -CKS (2 invoices) 50- 4632 - 862 -86 50- 4632 - 862 -86 106 50- 4632 - 862 -86 07/18/90 218,619.58 METRO WASTE CONTROL SEWER CHARGE 40- 4312 - 812 -80 505008 218,619.58 07/25/90 133.32 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. BLACKTOP 10- 4524 - 301 -30 3978 07/25/90 133.32- MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. BLACKTOP 10- 4524 - 301 -30 07/18/90 39.16 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. BLACKTOP 10- 4524 - 301 -30 3916 07/18/90 87.29 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. BLACKTOP 10- 4524 - 301 -30 3915 07/25/90 133.32 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. BLACKTOP 10- 4524 - 301 -30 07/25/90 12,793.82 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. BLACKTOP 10- 4524 - 314 -30 3978 07/18/90 2,667.32 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. BLACKTOP 10- 4524 - 314 -30 3916 07/25/90 79.88 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. DUMP CHARGE 40- 4504r803 -80 455 07/25/90 133.70 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. BLACKTOP 40- 4524 - 803 -80 3978 07/25/90 404.15 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. GENERAL SUPPLIE 41- 4504 - 900 -90 3978 16,338.64 * 07/23/90 111.34 MIDWEST CHEM SUPPLY PLASTIC LINERS 10- 4514 - 520 -52 1811 8650 111.34 * 07/27/90 26.40 METZ BAKING CO HOT DOG BUNS 26- 4624 - 683 -68 6148 7194 07/31/90 120.60 METZ BAKING CO BREAD 27- 4624 - 663 -66 5511 07/31/90 105.91 METZ BAKING CO BREAD 27- 4624- 663 -66 5511 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 26 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 218M46 07/30/90 132.08 METZ BAKING CO BREAD 27- 4624 - 663 -66 5511 + 384.99 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218M58 07/30/90 442.36 e2, cg MILLIPORE LAB SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 482 -48 80748 8733 442.36* 4-59 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218M62 07/25/90 95.90 MIDWEST LSCAPING TREES 10- 4504- 440 -44 25421 7236 95.90 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218M65 07/18/90 15.52 MN. BLUEPRINT' FIELD BOOK 10- 4504 - 260 -26 191979 8515 218M65 07/18/90 15.52- MN. BLUEPRINT FIELD BOOK 10- 4504 - 260 -26 191979 8515 218M65 07/18/90 15.52 MN. BLUEPRINT FIELD BOOK 10- 4504 - 260 -26 191979 8515 15.52 * * * * ** * "* -CKS 218M68 07/24/90 58.84 MN CELLULAR PHONE CAR PHONE 10- 4204 - 100 -10 237646 218M68 07/24/90 175.73 MN CELLULAR PHONE CAR PHONE 10- 4204 - 140 -14 807727 218M68 07/30/90 47.40 MN CELLULAR PHONE EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226 - 420 -42 218M68 07/30/90 10.79 MN CELLULAR PHONE EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226 - 420 -42 218M68 07/30/90 47.96 MN CELLULAR PHONE EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226 - 420 -42 218M68 07/30/90 43.41 MN CELLULAR PHONE EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226- 420 -42 218M68 07/30/90 104.70 MN CELLULAR PHONE EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226 - 420 -42 218M68 07/30/90 9.13 MN CELLULAR PHONE EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226 - 420 -42 218M68 07/30/90 15.45 MN CELLULAR PHONE EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226 - 420 -42 218M68 07/30/90 89.45 MN CELLULAR PHONE EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226 - 420 -42 218M68 07/30/90 35.40 MN CELLULAR PHONE EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226- 420 -42 218M68 07/25/90 23.09 MN CELLULAR PHONE PHONE RENTAL 10- 4226 - 440 -44 8852 661.35 * * * R * ** -CKS 218M70 07/23/90 46.00 MN. CONWAY SAFETY EQUIP 10- 4642 - 420 -42 148482 218M70 07/25/90 178.00 MN. CONWAY HOSE 10- 4901 - 440 -44 15893 7237 224.00 * * * *x ** * ** -CKS 218M73 07/18/90 91.10 MN, ELEVATOR SERVICE CONTRACT 30- 4288 - 782 -78 60449 8714 91.10 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218M76 07/23/90 97.75 MN. GLOVE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 646 -64 8224 218M76 07/23/90 22.49 MN. GLOVE SAFETY EQUIPMENT 10- 4540 - 260 -26 45001 8343 218M76 07/30/90 76.14 MN. GLOVE GLOVES 10- 4642 - 301 -30 45181 8586 218M76 07/18/90 264.56 MN. GLOVE CANVAS /NYLON GEAR 10- 4642- 560 -56 44799 8343 460.94 * 218M77 07/24/90 3,072.00 MN. GOLF ASSOC. COMPUTER HANDICAPS 27- 3470 - 000 -00 1990 CITY OF EDINA 88232 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT 88174 3,072.00 k k k k k 88175 218M80 07/24/90 65.35 218M80 07/18/90 56.16 218M80 07/18/90 11.91 218M80 07/18/90 1,671.44 REPAIR PARTS 27- 4540 - 664 -66 1,804.86 218M81 07/23/90 34.89 218M81 07/27/90 31.89 218M81 07/18/90 561.43 218M81 07/25/90 20.09 218M81 07/18/90 466.02 218M81 07/23/90 122.45 218M81 07/25/90 3.39 1,240.16 k k k k k k 218M85 07/23/90 34.40 218M85 07/18/90 8.00 218M85 07/23/90 45.20 87.60 kkkkkk 218M90 07/18/90 352.00 218M9O 07/23/90 138.75 218M9O 07/23/90 264.00 754.75 * kkk * k k 218M92 07/31/90 9.25 9.25 * k *kkk k 218M97 07/24/90 5,620.26 5,620.26 * 218M98 07/24/90 1,064.00 1,064.00 * k k k k k k 218N13 07/31/90 43.45 218N13 07/31/90 43.45 86.90 Rkkkkk 218N21 07/23/90 127.62 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION MN SUBURBAN NEWS MN SUBURBAN NEWS MN SUBURBAN NEWS MN SUBURBAN NEWS MN. TORO INC. MN. TORO INC. MN. TORO INC. MN. TORO INC. MN. TORO INC. MN. TORO INC. MN. TORO INC. MN. WANNER MN. WANNER MN. WANNER MODEL STONE CO MODEL STONE CO MODEL STONE CO MONARCH MARKETING MPLS FINANCE DEPT MINNEGASCO MUZAK MUZAK NAPA AUTO PARTS 08 -06 -90 PAGE 27 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS ORD PUBLICATION 10- 4210 - 140 -14 88232 AD FOR BIDS 10- 4210 - 140 -14 88174 PUBLIC HRG NOTICE 10- 4210 - 140 -14 88175 PRINTING /ADVERTISING 30- 4600 - 781 -78 6037 5283 DECK BELT 10- 4540 - 560 -56 131958 8467 DECK BELT 10- 4540 - 560 -56 8484 REPAIR PARTS 27- 4540 - 664 -66 129472 8369 IRRIGATION PARTS 27- 4540- 664 -66 136018 8737 REPAIRS 27- 4540 - 664 -66 132824 8517 IRRIGATION PARTS 27- 4540 - 664 -66 134224 8576 IRRIGATION PARTS 27- 4540 - 664 -66 134673 8517 REPAIR PARTS PARTS /WELD REPAIR PARTS 4000 WITH AIR 4000 W /AIR /CHLORIDE 4000 W /AIR REPAIRS WATER PURCHASED INSTALL GAS LINES ADVERTISING ADVERTISING MAST CYL 10- 4540 - 560 -56 75736 40- 4504- 802 -80 75696 40- 4540 - 801 -80 75735 10- 4528 - 314 -30 89785 7098 10- 4528 - 314 -30 90575 7098 41- 4528 - 900 -90 90466 7098 50- 4516 - 860 -86 505143 40- 464Or803 -80 40- 4201 - 800 -80 50- 4214 - 822 -82 50- 4214- 862 -86 10- 4540- 560 -56 726382 8554 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 28 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 127.62 a * * R * ** -CKS 218N31 07/18/90 53.00 NEBCO DISTRIBUTING INSTALLATON 26- 4201 - 683 -68 024905 7070 218N31 07/18/90 195.00 NEBCO DISTRIBUTING WISCO OVEN 26- 4504 - 683 -68 024906 7070 218N31 07/18/90 158.60 NEBCO DISTRIBUTING CONCESSIONS 26- 4624 - 683 -68 024804 7070 218N31 07/27/90 43.40 NEBCO DISTRIBUTING POPCORN /PRETZELS 26- 4624 - 683 -68 25482 7070 218N31 07/18/90 13.00 NERCO DISTRIBUTING SPOONS 26- 4624 - 683 -68 024904 7070 463.00 * R * R * * R * ** -CKS 218N33 07/18/90 96.00 NELSON RADIO COMM SIREN REPAIR 10- 4620 - 560 -56 15815 8503 96.00 * k * R * k * ** -CKS 218N48 07/18/90 75.52 NO STAR TURF MOWER PARTS 27- 4540 - 664 -66 248200 8518 218N48 07/23/90 389.68 NO STAR TURF MOWER REPAIR PARTS 27- 4540 - 664 -66 249260 8546 465.20 * k R k * R * ** -CKS 218N72 07/18/90 1,500.50 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES 10- 4616 - 560 -56 218N72 07/18/90 1,611.16 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES 10- 4616 - 560 -56 7814 218N72 07/18/90 1,500.50- NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES 10- 4616- 560 -56 218N72 07/18/90 1,500.50 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES 10- 4616 - 560 -56 3,111.66 k * * * * R * ** -CKS 218N82 07/25/90 38.05 NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY COST /GOODS SOLD 23- 4624 - 613 -61 174516 8725 218N82 07/24/90 13.65 NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY COST /GOODS SOLD 23- 4624- 613 -61 174094 8726 218N82 07/24/90 144.87 NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY COST /GOODS SOLD 23- 4624 - 613 -61 174424 8601 196.57 * R R * ** -CKS 218N96 07/18/90 8.12 MINN COMM PAGING SERVICE /RENTAL 10 -4226- 301 -30 6581 8.12 * k * * * * R * ** -CKS 218N99 07/23/90 159.85 NAOMI JOHNSON CLASS SUPPLIES 23- 4588 - 611 -61 159.85 * k * ** -CKS 218P11 07/24/90 96.00 PARK NIC MED CTR DOT EXAM 10- 4201 - 300 -30 218P11 07/24/90 8.00 PARK NIC MED CTR SHOTS 10- 4201 - 440 -44 104.00 * * k * ** -CKS 218P31 07/25/90 5.00 PETER COTTON BANK CHARGE 10- 4201 - 440 -44 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 29 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 218P31 07/25/90 5.00- PETER COTTON BANK CHARGE 10- 4201 - 440 -44 218P31 07/31/90 1,312.50 PETER COTTON SERVICES 10- 4201- 440 -44 218P31 07/25/90 5.00- PETER COTTON BANK CHARGE 10- 4201 - 440 -44 218P31 07/18/90 945.00 PETER COTTON PRO SERVICES 10- 4201 - 440 -44 2,252.50 k k k k k k * ** -CKS 218P34 07/24/90 112.20 PERSONNEL DECISIONS FEE FOR SERVICE 10- 4112 - 510 -51 218P34 07/31/90 750.00 PERSONNEL DECISIONS FEE FOR SERVICE 10- 4201- 440 -44 25739 862.20 218P35 07/25/90 25.00 PETERSON- BARBARA POSTAGE 30- 4290 - 781 -78 218P35 07/25/90 18.71 PETERSON - BARBARA GENERAL SUPPLIES 30- 4504 - 781 -78 218P35 07/23/90 12.18 PETERSON- BARBARA GENERAL SUPPLIES 30- 4504 - 781 -78 218P35 07/25/90 9.01 PETERSON- BARBARA GENERAL SUPPLIES 30- 4504 - 782 -78 218P35 07/23/90 57.44 PETERSON- BARBARA GENERAL SUPPLIES 30- 4504 - 782 -78 218P35 07/23/90 42.50 PETERSON- BARBARA OFFICE SUPPLIES 30- 4516 - 781 -78 218P35 07/25/90 14.30 PETERSON - BARBARA OFFICE SUPPLIES 30- 4516 - 781 -78 179.14 k k k k k R * ** -CKS 218P44 07/25/90 345.00 PHYSIO CONTROL MAINT CONTRACT 10- 4274 - 440 -44 D22163 5053 345.00 k k k k k k * *" -CKS 218P58 07/25/90 125.00 - i9ss9- PLUNKETTS PRO SERVICES 23- 4201 - 612 -61 S74232 8599 125.00* kk *kkk * ** -CKS 218Q09 07/31/90 77.61 QUALITY REFRIG SERVICES 27- 4248 - 663 -66 70183 218Q09 07/31/90 84.08 QUALITY REFRIG REPAIRS 27- 4248 - 663 -66 70344 8581 218Q09 07/31/90 11.00- QUALITY REFRIG CREDIT 27- 4248 - 663 -66 016839 150.69 k k k k k k * *" -CKS 218R12 07/18/90 36.02 RADIO SHACK CORD /PLUG 10- 4294 *560 -56 21091 21BR12 07/30/90 13.75 RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 420 -42 019545 218R12 07/23/90 8.04 RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 420 -42 018830 218R12 07/30/90 236.96 RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 540 -54 218R12 07/30/90 23.96- RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504- 540 -54 904598 8690 218R12 07/30/90 23.96 RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 540 -54 904598 8690 218R12 07/30/90 236.96- RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 540 -54 904598 8690 218R12 07/30/90 23.96 RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 540 -54 021868 8690 81.77 k k k k k k * ** -CKS 218R21 07/24/90 158.00 RED WING SHOES SHOES 10- 4642 - 301 -30 205034 218R21 07/24/90 96.00 RED WING SHOES SHOES 40- 4642 - 801 -80 205034 254.00 * 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 30 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 218822 07 ,424/90 14.25 REM SUPPLIES HOT MACHINE REPAIR 26- 4201- 683 -68 01162 218R22 07/31/90 391.61 REM SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 30- 4504 - 782 -78 1173 405.86 * xkkxkk * ** -CKS 218R25 07/24/90 91.70 RENTAL EQUIP & SALES REPAIRS 10- 4248 - 644 -64 12348 8678 91.70 * xRxxRx kxk —CKS ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO. 218R42 07/18/90 64.98 RIEKE GARR0 i uW66FbR COCOA 10- 4540 - 560 -56 8421 64.98 * kxRRxR * ** -CKS 218R51 07/24/90 10.80 RFG PET & SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 470 -47 1 .582 218851 07/24/90 89.87 RFG PET & SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 470 -47 1581 218851 07/24/90 477.42 RFG PET & SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 470 -47 2767 578.09 * RRxRxx * ** -CKS 218R79 07/31/90 453.01 RTW INC. FEE FOR SERVICE 10- 4260 - 510 -51 218R79 07/31/90 289.85 RTW INC. FEE FOR SERVICE 10- 4260 - 510 -51 742.86 * Rxxxxx * ** -CKS 218S11 07/27/90 58.25 SCHMIDT MUSIC MUSIC SUPPLIES 10- 4596 - 627 -62 218511 07/27/90 182.00 SCHMIDT MUSIC MUSIC SUPPLIES 10- 4596 - 627 -62 8925 240.25 * xRkRxk * ** -CKS 218S13 07/18/90 45.33 SIGN -TI -FIC CREDIT CARD SIGN 50- 4514 - 822 -82 8203 218513 07/18/90 45.33 SIGN -TI -FIC CREDIT CARD SIGN 50- 4514 - 842 -84 8203 218S13 07/18/90 616.00 SIGN -TI -FIC SIGNAGE 50- 4514- 842 -84 8385 218S13 07/18/90 45.34 SIGN -TI -FIC CREDIT CARD SIGN 50- 4514 - 862 -86 8203 752.00 * xxx *kk * ** -CKS 218S15 07/23/90 130.63 SEARS GENERAL SUPPLIES 30- 4504 - 782 -78 8071 130.63 * 218S16 07/25/90 52.99 SOFTWARE ETC WINDOW CONVERSION 10- 4233 - 440 -44 70240 8128 52.99 * k x R R k R * ** -CKS 218S27 07/18/90 30.94 SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINT 10- 4544 - 646 -64 26712 8565 218S27 07/18/90 16.86 SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINT 10- 4544 - 646 -64 64477 8639 218S27 07/23/90 207.92 SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINT 40- 4504 - 803 -80 22042 8468 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 31 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 218527 07/18/90 435.14 SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINT 40- 4544- 803 -80 14817 8351 690.86 * r * ** -CKS 218545 07/23/90 21.67 ST. PAUL BOOK GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 420 -42 011536 21.67 * * * * * ** " ** -CKS 218554 07/18/90 805.00 STAR TRIBUNE WANT ADS 10- 4212 - 510 -51 805.00 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218572 07/24/90 130.15 STREICHERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 470 -47 M71886 218572 07/24/90 2,950.00 STREICHERS AMMUNITION 10- 4572 - 420 -42 M72060 8452 218572 07/24/90 175.00 STREICHERS EQUIP 10- 4901 - 470 -47 M71886 3,255.15 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218577 07/18/90 100.00 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET DED WARRANTY 10- 4248 - 560 -56 105058 218577 07/23/90 19.32 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540- 560 -56 128660 218577 07/23/90 37.40 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET SUPT KIT 10- 4540 - 560 -56 128916 218577 07/27/90 3.00 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET CAP ASM -0 10- 4540 - 560 -56 129170 218577 07/18/90 5.45 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET NUT WHK.BOLT 10- 4540 - 560 -56 128516 218577 07/23/90 251.76 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET SHOE KIT 10- 4540 - 560 -56 129026 416.93 * 218578 07/18/90 152.07- SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP CREDIT 10- 4540 - 520 -52 8414 218578 07/18/90 201.81 SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP PIPE WRENCHES 40- 4580 - 801 -80 8422 49.74 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218583 07/18/90 46.94 SUPERAMERICA GAS 10- 4612- 560 -56 46.94 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218T04 07/24/90 45.35 TAYLOR SALES CLEANING SUPPLIES 26- 4512- 683 -68 53508 7689 45.35 * 218T05 07/30/90 434.00 THE PRINT SHOP PRINTING 10- 4504 - 628 -62 14241 218T05 07/27/90 16.00 THE PRINT SHOP PRINTING 10- 4600 - 507 -50 93367 8584 218T05 07/27/90 102.00 THE PRINT SHOP PRINTING 10- 4600 - 508 -50 93299 8533 552.00 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218T10 07/30/90 75.45 TERRY ANN SALES CO. BAGS 27- 4512 - 663 -66 1083 8948 75.45 * 218T11 07/18/90 155.00 TESSMAN SEED & CHEM. LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 643 -64 61269 8393 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 08 -06 -90 PAGE 32 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 155.00 4 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218T13 07/24/90 900.00 TOM HORWATH FORESTRY 10- 4201 - 644 -64 218T13 07/24/90 120.00 TOM HORWATH SERVICES 10- 4201 - 644 -64 218T13 07/24/90 76.50 TOM HORWATH MILEAGE 10- 4208 - 644 -64 1,096.50 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218T40 07/18/90 107.10 TOLL COMPANY GASOLINE CYLINDER 10- 4504- 560 -56 400115 8500 107.10 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218T66 07/27/90 168.81 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFT PLAYGROUND SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 624 -62 387295 8462 218T66 07/27/90 9.45 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFT PLAYGROUND SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 624 -62 385172 8930 218T66 07/25/90 41.68 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFT CRAFT SUPPLIES 23- 4588- 611 -61 389536 8602 218T66 07/25/90 64.86 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFT COST /GOODS SOLD 23- 4624 - 613 -61 388786 8381 284.80 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218T72 07/23/90 571.20 TROPICAL SNO TROPICAL SNO 26- 4624 - 683 -68 10522 7689 571.20 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218T74 07/18/90 291.00 TURF SUPPLY CO. CHEMICALS 27- 4564 - 664 -66 30466 8560 291.00 * FR * * ** * ** -CKS 218T88 07/18/90 153.96 TWIN CITY HOME JUICE MIX 50- 4632 - 842 -84 153.96 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218T96 07/30/90 39.56 TWIN CITY GAR. DOOR GARAGE DOOR 10- 4540 - 540 -54 9088 8557 39.56 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218U08 07/31/90 612.05 UNIFORM UNLIMITED UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 10- 4266 - 420 -42 218UO8 07/31/90 2,728.25 UNIFORM UNLIMITED UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 10- 4266 - 420 -42 218U08 07/31/90 729.55 UNIFORM UNLIMITED UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 10- 4266- 430 -42 218U08 07/31/90 101.30 UNIFORM UNLIMITED UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 10- 4266- 430 -42 218U08 07/31/90 19.50 UNIFORM UNLIMITED UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 10- 4274 - 420 -42 218UO8 07/31/90 190.50 UNIFORM UNLIMITED UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 10- 4274 - 420 -42 218008 07/31/90 19.50- UNIFORM UNLIMITED UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 10- 4274 - 420 -42 218U08 07/31/90 115.20 UNIFORM UNLIMITED UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 10- 4642 - 420 -42 218U08 07/31/90 80.10 UNIFORM UNLIMITED UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 10- 4642- 420 -42 4,556.95 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 218W11 07/30/90 462.89 ITEM DESCRIPTION 462.89* sie.80 * 1990 CITY OF EDINA VERSATILE VEHICLE CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT 218U20 07/24/90 50.00 * * * * ** VOTER REG /ELEC SECT 50.00 * * * * * ** 07/31/90 32.00 218V15 07/18/90 483.70 W. e9R9eN 483.70 * * * * * ** WALDOR PUMP & EQUIP PUMP REPAIR 218V43 07/18/90 47.35 218V43 07/25/90 499.00 218V43 07/25/90 70.00 616.35 * * * * * ** 218V46 07/30/90 36.77 36.77 * * * * * ** 218V48 07/18/90 9.31 * * * * ** 9.31 * 218W08 07/30/90 8.47 8.47 * * * * * ** 218W10 07/30/90 67.83 67.83 * 218W11 07/30/90 462.89 ITEM DESCRIPTION 462.89* sie.80 * * * * * ** PAPER SUPPLIES VERSATILE VEHICLE 218W13 07/23/90 107.36 VERSATILE VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 107.36 * * * * * ** VOTER REG /ELEC SECT POSTAGE 218W28 07/31/90 32.00 218W28 07/23/90 119.00 W. e9R9eN 151.00 * * * * * ** WALDOR PUMP & EQUIP PUMP REPAIR 218W35 07/25/90 216.24 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIVERSITY OF MN SCHOOL VAN PAPER CO. PAPER SUPPLIES VERSATILE VEHICLE GOLF CAR PARTS VERSATILE VEHICLE REAR AXEL VERSATILE VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS VESSCO CHLORINATOR PARTS VOTER REG /ELEC SECT POSTAGE W.W. GRAINGER ELECTRIC MERWYN WALKER W. e MILEAGE W. seRDON 6041TH P Ce'P ANN PROPANE W. e9R9eN —SMET" W. GORDON SMITH PRePANE GASOLINE WALDOR PUMP & EQUIP PUMP REPAIR WATER PRODUCTS CORR PER TUBE WATER PRODUCTS REPAIR PARTS WEIGLE -SUE 21624 08 -06 -90 PAGE 33 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 4202 - 480 -48 * ** -CKS 10- 4514 - 520 -52 317307 8608 * ** -CKS 27- 4540 - 665 -66 6738 8296 27- 4540 - 665 -66 04956 8456 27- 4540 - 665 -66 04955 8435 * ** -CKS 40- 4540 - 805 -80 8195 8470 * ** -CKS 10- 4290 - 140 -14 * ** -CKS 27- 4504 - 663 -66 8746 * ** -CKS 27- 4208 - 661 -66 27- 4612- 664 -66 41788 8663 * ** -CKS 41- 4248 - 900 -90 2325 8672 * ** -CKS 27- 4540- 664 -66 141841 8606 40- 4540- 803 -80 140259 8488 * ** -CKS 10- 4208 - 600 -60 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE * * * * ** a 218W41 07/24/90 218W41 07/24/90 218W41 07/23/90 * * * * ** 218W44 07/30/90 218W44 07/23/90 * * * * ** 218W49 07/18/90 21BW49 07/23/90 lY l * R * Y1 218W71 07/31/90 218W71 07/18/90 * * * * ** 218W76 07/30/90 8W4.1a 07/18/90 218X05 07/24/90 218X05 07/25/90 218X05 07/24/90 218X05 07/24/90 * * * * ** 326,493.85 4,062.16 691,788.08* AMOUNT 216.24 452.00 237.65 93.55 783.20 34.65 15.68 50.33 101.25 452.75 554.00 568.25 568.25 1,136.50 23.48 23.48 48.00* 113.48 920.00 113.49 113.48- 1,033.49 a26 , 5.�T 1,770.96 7,099.78 40,030.91 950.11 389.54 10,783.79 271,637.03 4,108.66 20,575.92 3,885.37 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION WEST PHOTO WEST PHOTO WEST PHOTO WEST WELD SUPPLY CO WEST WELD SUPPLY CO WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT WINFLD DEV RENT TRU WINFLD DEV RENT TRU WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY WM. H. McCOY XEROX CORP. XEROX CORP. XEROX CORP. XEROX CORP. FUND 10 TOTAL FUND 12 TOTAL FUND 23 TOTAL FUND 26 TOTAL FUND 27 TOTAL FUND 28 TOTAL FUND 29 TOTAL FUND 30 TOTAL FUND 40 TOTAL FUND 41 TOTAL FUND 50 TOTAL FUND 60 TOTAL TOTAL PHOTO SUPPLIES PHOTO SUPPLIES PHOTO SUPPLIES VALVE ACETONE VALVE MO REIEL RENT RENT PARTS PROPANE SUPPLIES XEROX SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES GENERAL FUND COMMUNICATIONS ART CENTER SWIMMING POOL FUND GOLF COURSE FUND, RECREATION CENTER FUND GUN RANGE FUND EDINBOROUGH PARK UTILITY FUND STORM SEWER UTILITY LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND CONSTRUCTION FUND 08 -06 -90 PAGE 34 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS 10- 4508 - 420 -42 40901 8391 10- 4508 - 420 -42 40777 8373 10- 4508 - 420 -42 40912 8373 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 560 -56 85205 8611 10- 4504 - 560756 84438 7835 * ** -CKS 10- 4504- 560 -56 24137 7892 10- 4504- 560 -56 24136 7894 * ** -CKS 10- 4201 - 627 -62 10- 4201 - 627 -62 101921 * ** -CKS 27- 4540 - 664 -66 38717 8263 10- 4504 - 301 -30 (3 invoices) * * * -CKS 10- 4504 - 510 -51 10- 4504 - 510 -51 10- 4504 - 510 -51 10- 4504 - 510 -51