LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF

LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Wayzata City Hall
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
ROLL CALL
3.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Baasen
 Administer Oath of Office to David Gross- New LMCD Board Member (City of Deephaven)
 Administer Oath of Office to Jeff Morris- New LMCD Board Member (City of Excelsior)
5.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES- 4/22/15 LMCD Special Board Meeting
4/22/15 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
6.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
A) Audit of vouchers (4/24/15 - 5/15/15)
B) MCWD, approval of Cost-Share Agreement for 2015 Lake Minnetonka Watercraft Inspection
Program
C) Approval of 2015 State of Minnesota Grant Contracts:
 LMCD Watercraft Inspection Program
 LMCD EWM Harvesting Program
7.
PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (limited to 5 minutes)
8.
PUBLIC HEARING
 T & T Boatworks Marina, 2015 new multiple dock and special density license applications to
increase Boat Storage Units from 90 to 99 on 1,104 feet of continuous shoreline on Wayzata Bay
9.
OTHER BUSINESS
A) U of M Carlson School of Management, presentation of Lake Minnetonka survey findings
B) Ordinance Amendment, first reading of a draft ordinance relating to Quiet Waters on North Seton
Channel
C) Executive Committee, update of proposed changes to the LMCD Code for Lake Minnetonka yacht
clubs and sailing schools
D) Craig Rapp, LLC, update on LMCD Strategic Plan Facilitator Proposal
E) 2015 EWM Harvesting Program, project overview
F) Staff overview of 2015 LMCD Residential Code Enforcement Program
G) Chair update of 4/22/15 Executive Session to discuss the 2014 performance of Executive Director
Greg Nybeck
10.
UPDATE FROM STANDING LMCD COMMITEES
11.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
12.
OLD BUSINESS
13.
NEW BUSINESS
14.
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM
5
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
5:30 P.M., Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Wayzata City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Green called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Dan Baasen, Wayzata; Jay Green, Mound; Gary Hughes, Spring Park; Gregg Thomas, Tonka
Bay; Jennifer Caron, Excelsior; Gabriel Jabbour, Orono; Fred Meyer, Woodland; Rob Roy, Greenwood; and Sue
Shuff, Minnetonka. Also present: Greg Nybeck, Executive Director.
Members absent: Ann Hoelscher, Victoria; Chris Jewett, Deephaven; Dennis Klohs, Minnetonka Beach; Dave
Lang, Minnetrista; and Deborah Zorn, Shorewood.
Green stated that this special Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) meeting has been scheduled to
discuss the draft 2016 LMCD Budget. He asked Nybeck to provide an overview of the materials provided to the
Board (including information e-mailed earlier this day).
Nybeck provided an overview of the options he offered for Board discussion via an amended staff memo, dated
4/14/15. A summary of his comments were as follows:
 Option 1:
1. Most basic of the three options (similar to the activities planned in the adopted 2015 LMCD
Budget).
2. A slight decrease of 3.1% in the overall levy to the LMCD member cities (reduction of $10,625).
3. Personnel Services in 2016 would remain relatively flat when compared to 2015. One contributing
factor is that the compensation adjustment for the Executive Director position has not been decided
on by the Board for 2015, which would be the baseline salary figure for 2016. Salary and hourly
adjustments are included at approximately 2.5% in the "Contingency" line item.
4. $4,500 for the Proactive Residential Code Enforcement Program in 2016 (similar to 2015). He
reminded that these expenses, plus expenses incurred for prosecution situations, are generally offset
by court fine revenue for prosecution matters associated with this program.
5. $35,000 for Equipment Replacement in 2016 (consistent with 2015). These funds are set aside to
replace depreciated EWM Harvesting equipment.
6. $95,000 for the 2016 EWM Harvesting Program (consistent with 2015). A $30,000 grant from the
Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources (MN DNR) is budgeted for in 2016.
7. $40,000 has been proposed for unspecified aquatic invasive species (AIS) prevention programs in
2016 (most likely watercraft inspectors). Two grants for this program are budgeted for in 2016
($20,000 from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and $4,000 from the MN DNR).
8. Actual expenditures for 2015 are proposed to be slightly higher than what was budgeted for (due to
the Board desire for a contracted facilitator to update the LMCD's Strategic Plan).
 Option 2:
1. A slight increase of 3.0% in the overall levy to the LMCD member cities (an increase of $10,375).
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Special Board Meeting
April 22, 2015


Page 2
2. Proposed differences from Option 1 include:
a) A $35,000 line-item for added law enforcement, during peak days and times, by the Hennepin
County Sheriff's Office (HCSO) Water Patrol.
b) An additional $2,000 is proposed to the "Contingency" line item (overtime could be considered for
unique situations by hourly employees).
c) The funding for unspecified AIS prevention programs (watercraft inspections) has been deleted.
This would assume that another organization could take over the project management for this
effort (would result in a net reduction of $16,000 in expenses).
Option 3:
1. An increase of 7.7% to the overall levy to the LMCD member cities (an increase of $26,375).
2. The primary difference in this option, when compared to Option 2, is that funding for unspecified AIS
prevention programs (watercraft inspectors) has been added back in to the budget.
These three options have been provided for Board discussion, in which he envisioned the draft 2016
LMCD Budget will be another option.
A summary of the Board discussion was as follows:
 Equipment Replacement Fund (Depreciation):
1. The initial EWM Harvesting Program equipment was purchased in 1989 (donated funds).
2. The budget for depreciated equipment has varied over the years (some years no funds were
budgeted).
3. It was noted that staff was currently working on a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
4. A question was raised as to the proper level of funding for depreciated equipment.
5. The consensus was to take this discussion up further after completion of the CIP.
 Role for Watercraft Inspections:
1. The initial goal of the program was to prevent the introduction of zebra mussels into the Lake.
2. In recent years, some Board members have questioned the current role of LMCD for inspections.
3. A discussion of who could assume project, should the LMCD back off from this, and the various
funding partners (including the reliability of the partnerships).
4. The consensus was for the LMCD to continue to take a leadership role on partial funding and
managing watercraft inspections on Lake Minnetonka (selected public accesses).
 Funding for Added HCSO Water Patrol Presence:
1. A question was raised as to how the member cities could react if this project were funded by them
and contracted with the HCSO.
2. A question was raised as to the appropriateness of funding this with levied funds vs. alternative
funding sources.
3. The general consensus was that this should be considered with Save the Lake Funds in 2016
(currently being funded in 2015 through the Save the Lake Fund).
 Three Possible Programs/Activities Where Reductions Could be Considered:
1. Reductions to the annual budget for the EWM Harvesting Program (taking into consideration that up
to eight bays have whole bay or large scale herbicide treatments coordinated by the Lake Minnetonka
Association).
2. Elimination or "mothballing" one of the three EWM harvesters.
3. Reduction in frequency or consider eliminating the Shoreline Inventory Program (currently conducted
every two years in conjunction with the Proactive Residential Code Enforcement Program).
4. There was no Board consensus on this.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Special Board Meeting
April 22, 2015
Page 3
At this time, no action was taken on forwarding a version of the draft 2016 LMCD Budget to member cities.
Further consideration and discussion was planned for a Special LMCD Board Meeting on May 13th (5:30 p.m. at
Wayzata City Hall). The Board directed staff to prepare an updated option(s) for consideration at this meeting
(based on the Board discussion and direction at this meeting).
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m.
___________________________________
Jay Green, Vice Chair
___________________________________
Gregg Thomas, Secretary
ITEM
5
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
7:00 P.M., Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Wayzata City Hall
1. CALL TO ORDER
Baasen called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Members present: Dan Baasen, Wayzata; Jay Green, Mound; Gary Hughes, Spring Park; Gregg Thomas,
Tonka Bay; Jennifer Caron, Excelsior; Gabriel Jabbour, Orono; Fred Meyer, Woodland; Rob Roy,
Greenwood; Sue Shuff, Minnetonka, and Deborah Zorn, Shorewood. Also present: Charlie LeFevere, LMCD
Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician; and Emily Herman,
Administrative Assistant.
Members absent: Ann Hoelscher, Victoria; Chris Jewett, Deephaven; Dennis Klohs, Minnetonka Beach;
and Dave Lang, Minnetrista.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Shuff moved, Green seconded to approve the agenda as submitted.
VOTE:
Ayes (9), Abstained (1, Meyer); motion carried.
4. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Baasen
Baasen made two Chair announcements: First, the City of Woodland has re-appointed Fred Meyer to the
LMCD. He welcomed Meyer to the Board and asked LeFevere to administer the Oath of Office. Meyer was
seated as a representative to the Board. Second, the Board will consider going into an Executive Session at
the end of this meeting to review the performance evaluation of the LMCD Executive Director.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-
3/25/15 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
4/8/15 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
MOTION: Zorn moved, Thomas seconded to approve the 3/25/15 LMCD Regular Board Meeting minutes
as submitted.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Green moved, Shuff seconded to approve the 4/8/15 LMCD Regular Board Meeting minutes as
submitted.
VOTE:
Ayes (9), Abstained (1, Zorn); motion carried.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 22, 2015
Page 2
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Roy moved, Shuff seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Items so
approved included: 6A) Audit of vouchers (4/16/15 - 4/30/15); 6B) February and March financial summary and
balance sheets; 6C) City of Wayzata, draft Findings of Fact and Order approving 2015 new multiple dock and
special density license applications; and 6D) Bayshore II HOA, staff recommends Board approval of 2015 new
multiple dock (minor change) license application as outlined in 4/17/15 staff memo.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (limited to 5 minutes)
There were no public comments.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Craig Rapp, LLC, Chair update on LMCD Strategic Plan Facilitator Proposal
Baasen asked Zorn to provide an update on this agenda item.
Zorn stated that the Strategic Planning Committee will be meeting with Mr. Rapp early next week, in
which she was confirming the date and time. She believed the meeting would provide for an overview of
the currently submitted proposal and the drafting of a service agreement. She stated that the Board
previously agreed to dedicate the first meeting of each month working with the facilitator; with the second
meeting providing for regularly scheduled agenda items. With that said, Mr. Rapp has confirmed the first
meeting of every month worked within his schedule.
Nybeck requested she communicate the scheduled date and time with staff for posting purposes (to
ensure compliance with the Open Meeting Law).
Baasen asked if Rapp continues to anticipate a June start date.
Zorn confirmed Rapp intends to start in June. She stated that Rapp believed that time frame would
coincide with the completion of the Carlson School of Management survey, as well as some of the Board
members not being able to attend some of the scheduled May meetings.
B. 2015 EWM Harvesting Program, consideration of awarding Truck Hauling Bids
Baasen asked Harper for an overview of this agenda item.
Harper directed the Board to his staff memo, dated 4/21/15. He provided a detailed overview of the trucking
bids that were recently submitted. He stated that staff identified irregularities with the C & C Lawns, Inc. bid.
Specifically, they did not provide the required bid information as outlined within the Instructions to Bidders and
that the trucks proposed did not meet specification (providing photographs of how the transport barge off loads
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 22, 2015
Page 3
into a correctly specified truck). To this end, he recommended the Board reject the bid from C & C Lawns, Inc.
and award the contract to Curfman Trucking & Repair, Inc. at the 2015 rates outlined within the staff memo.
Upon approval, a contract will be executed after all the necessary documents have been received. He
entertained questions and comments from the Board.
Baasen questioned how many years the LMCD has contracted with Curfman Trucking & Repair, Inc. for
this service, including whether or not the LMCD has been satisfied with their work.
Harper confirmed the LMCD has contracted with Curfman Trucking & Repair, Inc. for an estimated 13
years and that staff has been satisfied with their work.
MOTION:
Green moved, Jabbour seconded to award the bid to Curfman Trucking and Repair, Inc.
for the trucking of EWM and other lake vegetation for the 2015 EWM Harvesting Program.
Shuff questioned if the LMCD’s use of two or three harvesters has an impact on this type of trucking
service the LMCD solicits bids for (referencing a comment made by Green at the Special LMCD Board
meeting earlier this evening).
Green stated that his comment pertained to the fact that the LMCD has to harvest so many acres in order
to receive sufficient grant funds from the MN DNR to cover the program’s expenses, as well as the
acknowledgement that there are less off load sites on the east side of the Lake vs. west side.
Harper confirmed that having two harvesters rather than three would not impact the trucking contract as
you need to have the truck there to off load the harvesters. In referencing Green’s comments, he stated it
really plays into how quickly the harvesters can off load as it is more efficient to have closer compost sites
to alleviate the truck’s travel time.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Shorewood Yacht Club (Site 1), consideration of overpayment of fees from 2009 through 2015
Jabbour, owner of Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC), recused himself from this agenda item.
Baasen asked Nybeck for an overview of this agenda item.
Nybeck directed the Board to his staff memo, dated 4/15/15. He provided the following comments:
 Background Information:
1. The mailing of 2015 renewal (without change) multiple dock license applications on 10/30/14.
2. Subsequently, a representative of the SYC communicated that their proposed 2015 application fee
for Site 1 did not seem accurate.
3. Staff worked with that representative to determine the accurate slip sizes (based off of physical
measurements of the dock) and ascertained the respective fees (including overpayment of past
boating seasons).
 Overpayment Assessment:
1. The application fee includes a $50 base fee plus $7.50 for each watercraft storage unit (WSU),
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 22, 2015


Page 4
which is based off of the size of each boat storage unit (BSU). Based on this application fee and
the field assessment of the BSUs, it was determined that the annual overpayment was 70.5 WSU
($528.75).
2. LeFevere has communicated to staff that the statute of limitations for overpayment of fees is six
years. Based on this matter being brought to the LMCD’s attention last November, the LMCD could
not legally consider overpayment of fees prior to November of 2008.
3. He directed the Board to a spreadsheet within their packet that outlined the receipt of $3,191.25 in
overpayment of annual multiple dock license fees from 2009 to 2015 (2009 – 2014 annual
overpayment of $528.75 and $18.75 for 2015).
Recommendation: Staff recommended the Board approve a refund of $3,191.25 in overpayment of
application fees from the General Reserve Fund to SYC. He acknowledged that fees for SYC’s Site 1
will be corrected for the 2016 boating season.
He entertained questions and comments from the Board.
Green asked if staff was reviewing other applications to confirm this matter did not exist with other
licensed holders, to which Nybeck stated yes. Green further questioned the above interpretation of the six
year statute of limitations (he believed that date did not start until a respective offense stops), as well as
how far back the overpayment existed.
LeFevere stated that the six year statute of limitations starts to run when the cause of action accrues (the
date on which a suit could first be brought). There is an exception for specific continuing courses of
conduct; however, he stated that would not apply in this situation as each payment is a discrete and
separate obligation like an installment payment. He further explained that each overpayment was its own
event and that could have been sued upon within the six year period of time. The rational for the LMCD
considering extending that time frame a little past six years was that the owner brought the overpayment
to the LMCD’s attention last fall so staff is recommending refunds for the six year period before it was first
brought to staff’s attention, even though the licensee did not commence a lawsuit at that time. The six
year period is a general statute of limitation that is most likely to apply in this case rather than any of the
shorter statute of limitations. The idea behind declining to pay for the period outside of the statute of
limitations is that a public body may not use public funds to make a payment for a claim that it is not
legally obligated to pay.
Zorn referenced Green’s question as to how far back the overpayment existed.
Harper stated the WSU concept was adopted by the LMCD in 1987. From 1987 to 1997, SYC wrote in
237 WSUs on the applications. In 1997, LMCD staff simplified the application process by populating
(established database mail merge) the WSU count into the renewal without change application for the
applicants’ review and approval. That populated WSU number was signed off on SYC’s applications from
1997 through 2005. In 2006, a new application was submitted due to a change in the ownership of the
facility (SYC). A representative of the SYC manually wrote in the changed WSU count of 240 (from 237).
This new WSU number of 240 was entered into the LMCD’s database and renewal without change
applications were generated to the applicant for their review from 2007 to 2010. In 2011, another new
application was submitted by the same owner, in which the same WSU number of 240 was manually
entered. This number continued to be documented on the renewal without change applications until this
matter was brought to the LMCD’s attention.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 22, 2015
Page 5
Green believed that had there not been a statute of limitations, the overpayment could have been
substantially much larger.
Baasen reminded the Board that there is the statute of limitations in place.
LeFevere stated a Minnesota court had recently renewed a doctrine of law whereby if a payment is
required by public body, even if it is an illegal requirement, one can decline to pay it but one cannot get it
back after it is paid. He recognized that is a harsh result; however, if push came to shove, he believed
that law would be utilized as the legal argument. He further stated the public body is not profiting from
such payments and that funds received affect how the budget is adjusted the following year.
Zorn questioned if staff was setting a precedent via their efforts to simplify the application process by
populating the documented WSUs directly into the application (comparing the LMCD process to an
invoice vs. application in which non-payment would prevent a stakeholder from operating on the Lake).
She struggled with this matter based on: 1) not knowing who provided the documented WSU number of
240 and 2) the overpayment was made by a stakeholder within her represented city which was brought to
her attention by other avenues than staff (expressing concern for lack of communication). In closing, she
asked who is responsible for determining the accuracy of the applications and if the other applications are
currently being reviewed for accuracy.
Nybeck directed the Board to the fee assessment spreadsheet provided by staff in the packet. The
breakdown of 240 WSUs on the renewal (without change) applications from 2009 through 2014 was
provided by staff based on information offered by SYC in 2006.
Rob asked if staff verified the WSU number.
Nybeck confirmed that number was not verified in 2006. He reiterated that the WSU number was
provided by the applicant. Therefore, when the current applicant brought this matter to the LMCD’s
attention, staff believed a valid point was made and the LMCD, in consultation with LeFevere, offered the
above noted correction for overpayment. He believed this unique matter was not the fault of either party
and that the staff is requesting approval of this matter so that all parties can move forward.
Roy stated that approval of staff’s recommendation would move this matter forward; however, he
expressed concern that staff is not verifying the accuracy of the applications submitted.
Nybeck stated that prior to 2006, SYC (Site 1) did not have a breakdown of the BSUs and WSUs. In
2006, the representative provided the breakdown of the WSUs (offering the 240 number). The matter of
asking the applicant to validate the number of WSUs dates back prior to 1990.
Baasen asked if there was a possibility that someone would submit a documented number on the
application and staff would then just accept that number.
Harper stated that this particular site plan goes back to the 1980s and is of poor quality and does not
have dimensions. In most cases, when sites make changes to their facility, the LMCD requires an
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 22, 2015
Page 6
updated site plan which documents the dimensions of all BSUs and other dock dimensions.
Baasen asked if there have been any adjustments to SYC’s (Site 1) licenses, in which Harper stated that
there had not.
Thomas believed staff’s recommended resolution of this matter was a good one; acknowledging this is
offered on the advice of LeFevere. He asked if the annual renewal notice highlighted the calculations of
how the WSU and BSUs are determined.
Harper confirmed the renewal application does calculate the documented WSU and BSU numbers.
Thomas stated that the applicant then had the ability to review and change the end numbers should they
feel they were incorrectly offered.
Baasen questioned if it was a courtesy or an obligation for the LMCD to go back six years when
determining the assessment of the application fee was incorrect.
LeFevere stated that decision would depend on how hard of a line the LMCD would like to take. If the
LMCD were not a governmental body, it could pay amounts overpaid more than six years ago; however,
because the LMCD is governmental, it does not have the ability to give away more money than it is legally
required to pay. In his opinion it does not matter who is at fault as the applicant would not be entitled to
any more funds either way.
Baasen invited Jabbour to address the Board.
Jabbour stated that he does not want the LMCD’s money but their accountability. He resented the use of
the word overpayment in addressing this matter as he believed it should be represented as an
overcharge. The LMCD was in receipt of a letter from a respected stakeholder who formerly owned SYC
and filed the original multiple dock license application, in which the stakeholder documented that he did
not know how the LMCD concluded their fees. He challenged the Board by asking how many knew what
a BSU was. He reiterated that the money is not the issue as he would donate ten times that amount to
benefit Lake Minnetonka. His goal in pursuing this matter is to bring accountability and fairness to the
LMCD. He also believed the LMCD has a lot of housekeeping that needed to be performed. The matter
of who is responsible is irrelevant. He stated that his legal counsel advised him that he could collect for
28 years (plus interest). As he is a member of the Board, he is trying to work with the LMCD and
communicated that he would forego any and all interest. He recognized this matter is not worth the time
in pursuing; however, he believed that when the LMCD steps on someone’s toes, they should offer an
apology. In closing, he stated that he knows more about marinas and docks than most people on this
Lake. However, he relied 100% on staff to assess the application fees. He referenced the example of
how many people know where their taxes are going but everyone had the option to go to tax court and
receive a refund if warranted.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 22, 2015
Page 7
MOTION:
Green moved, Shuff seconded to approve the reimbursement of $3,191.25 in
overpayment of SYC (Site 1) renewal without change application fees from 2009 to 2015.
MOTION TO
AMEND:
Zorn moved, Caron seconded to change the word “overcharge” vs. “overpayment” within
the motion.
Baasen asked LeFevere if that request could be considered.
LeFevere stated it is a decision for the Board.
Hughes questioned what word was utilized on the application.
Nybeck confirmed that the renewal without change application that referenced the fee structure documents the
word “payment.”
Caron stated, to Jabbour’s point, that he would like the LMCD to acknowledge that a significant error
occurred. She believed that his comment to recognize this as an overcharge vs. overpayment was a way
for the LMCD to acknowledge that point.
VOTE ON
MOTION TO
AMEND:
Ayes (9), Nays (1; Shuff), motion to amend original motion approved.
Caron questioned if the LMCD was reviewing all renewal without change applications relative to this
matter and if so, what was the process for such and when will the Board be apprised of the outcome.
Nybeck stated he would initiate that exercise if it is the direction of the Board. He directed the Board back
to the attached spreadsheet within the packet. He stated that SYC (Site 1) is unique in that it is the only
facility on the Lake that, for years, did not have the breakdown of BSUs and WSUs (referencing the left
side of the spreadsheet which is also documented within the renewal without change application). Prior
to 2006, the LMCD only had the BSUs of “82” and WSUs of “240.” He further stated that the breakdown
listed on the renewal without change application is what is offered in the application. In closing, he was
open to reviewing all applications if that was the Board’s direction.
Caron believed a process issue existed in which the LMCD did not have a check and balance system with
the applicants in place. She asked if the LMCD was counting boats on the Lake then why was staff not
verifying the site plans.
Thomas suggested that the bill that outlined the calculations of the WSUs and BSUs could provide the
checks and balances, in addition to the original numbers that were offered by the applicant.
Caron concurred that process offers one procedure of checks and balances; however, she believed the
LMCD should be reviewing those numbers for accuracy.
Zorn concurred with Caron’s comment. She further stated that the LMCD could build on that process by
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 22, 2015
Page 8
sending out the applications earlier than usual and documenting within a cover letter that if the applicant
believes their numbers should be verified to call the LMCD office (offering further education). She did not
believe the LMCD was giving the applicant the ability to re-verify their numbers.
Baasen stated that prior to the Board directing staff to review each application; a process should be in
place.
Zorn stated that staff documented SYC (Site 1) was a unique application (offering the lack of detail) and
questioned why that detail was not addressed sooner than later.
Nybeck stated that the LMCD has a very specific cover letter that is offered with the renewal without
change application (reiterating this is an application and not an invoice or bill). Within that letter, staff
offers, in bold, the ability for the applicant to make any changes to the application that they deem not
correct and staff would work with the applicant to update the database. This matter also pertained to the
calculation of the BSUs and WSUs (reiterating this letter goes out on an annual basis). He believed the
Board was speculating on this matter; therefore, he will bring back detailed documentation of the cover
letter, renewal without change application, and staff’s process that is in place to process such.
Zorn believed that information would have been helpful in considering this agenda item.
VOTE ON
ORIGINAL
MOTION (AS
AMENDED):
Motion carried unanimously.
10. UPDATE FROM STANDING LMCD COMMITTEES
Harper stated Ordinance Review Committee chair Dennis Klohs would like to schedule a committee meeting
prior to the May 13th Regular LMCD Board Meeting.
Nybeck reminded the Board that it has already scheduled a Special LMCD Board Meeting for 5:30 p.m. on
May 13th to further review the draft 2016 LMCD Budget. The Board recommended Harper contacting Klohs;
offering to schedule the ORC meeting after the May 13th Regular LMCD Board Meeting.
Green stated the next Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Task Force is scheduled for May 8th at the LMCD office.
Additionally, the West Metro AIS Committee held a workshop on April 10th, in which Nybeck and Jabbour
were in attendance. He asked for an update on that meeting.
Nybeck stated the workshop was well attended and offered a variety of information (offering AIS high profile
guest speakers). He believed the workshop was well received. An update of this session will be provided at
the May 8th AIS Task Force meeting.
Baasen asked if the recent newspaper articles relative to zebra mussel treatments on Christmas Lake will
have any implications on Lake Minnetonka.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 22, 2015
Page 9
Green did not believe so based on the logistics of Christmas Lake, single access, etc. Additionally, he stated
he and Jabbour met with Drs. Sorensen and McCartney relative to the consideration of different AIS
transportation risk factors offered with various types of watercraft. Specifically, addressing a common
comment that a specific boat is at high risk of carrying AIS; however, there is not research to back the
comment up. Their goal is to develop a program and request funding to obtain more concrete data.
Jabbour stated this project will tie in to his work with American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC) on developing
new manufacturing specifications for watercraft, which will be 100% privately funded.
Hughes stated that he will work with Nybeck on the continued consideration of amendments to the High Water
ordinance. He did not believe it was necessary to send this matter back to the Public Safety Committee.
Nybeck stressed the importance of this matter remaining at the Board level.
Baasen stated the Save the Lake (STL) Committee will be meeting on April 28th at 7:30 a.m. to discuss: 1) the
STL solicitation letter, 2) the recently held STL banquet, and 3) the last two Boater Safety Education Program
sessions scheduled for June. Additionally, the Executive Committee will also be meeting that date at 5:00
p.m. in follow-up to discussions held with the yacht clubs, as well as discussing the Executive Director’s
performance review.
11. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Nybeck directed the Board to his Executive Director Report, dated 4/22/15, within their handout folders. This
report offered a list of past and upcoming meetings, as well as this date’s Lake level reading of 928.55’. He
reminded the Board that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District keeps the dam closed when the water level
is below 928.60’. Additionally, he stated a few telephone calls came in relative to low water and that historical
Lake levels were listed within his report.
12. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
13. NEW BUSINESS
Jabbour recommended the Board invite a representative from the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) to
present an update on, possibly, a monthly basis.
Zorn asked if there were other agencies that should be offered the same invitation.
Baasen believed the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and Three Rivers Park District typically
have a full plate; however, he recognized the LMA has members that are direct residents of the Lake.
Jabbour recommended the LMCD reinstate the Lake outings that were previously held with the MCWD.
Meyer questioned what whole bay treatments were planned for 2015.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 22, 2015
Page 10
Rob confirmed that all eight bays (St. Louis and Carson’s combined) will be treated this year. He
acknowledged that St. Albans and Grays Bay were not treated in 2014 due to the historic high water levels.
He further stated that the Cities of Excelsior and Greenwood have appointed board members to the St.
Albans Bay Lake Improvement District (LID). He anticipated the first meeting to be held in late May.
14. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION- 2014 Performance Evaluation of the Executive Director
LeFevere stated that the Open Meeting law (Section 13D.05, Subd. 3) provides an exception for the Board to
close a meeting for the purpose of personnel evaluations or personnel subject to its control (the Executive
Director). Prior to closing the meeting, the Board must identify the individual(s) being evaluated, which is the
only topic allowed to be discussed. If the Board moves to close the meeting, a summary of the results of that
personnel evaluation must be provided at the following open Board meeting. Additionally, if the Board is not
going back into an open meeting, the Board is required to announce the meeting will be adjourned upon
completion of the executive session.
MOTION: Jabbour moved, Thomas seconded to: 1) go into Executive Session at 8:00 p.m. to discuss
the Executive Director’s personnel evaluation, as allowed by Open Meeting Law and 2) adjourn
the meeting upon completion of the executive session.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
___________________________________
Dan Baasen Chair
___________________________________
Gregg Thomas, Secretary
ITEM
9B
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO QUIET WATERS ON NORTH
SETON CHANNEL
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TI{E LAKE MINMTONKA
ORDAINS as follows:
ERVATION DISTRICT
1.
Section
LMCD Code Section 3.02. Subd. 10 is
substituted therefor:
the following is
Subd. 10. That part of the Norttr Seton
line drawn between the slow buoy located
93.64/;04.8 west and the slow buoy
93.M825 west, and extended northwesterly
Section
2.
This ordinance shall be
a straight
north,
the shore.
ive on the day
its publication.
Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka
2015,
Dan Baasen, Chair
ATTEST:
Date
of
Effective
CLt 236642vl
LKI104
f
',, tl
1'
.ll
-{
tr
F
u
--{
J
ITEM
9F
LAKE M I N N ETON KA CONSERVATIONI DISTRICT
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, SUITE 2OO. MOUND, IVINNESOTA 55364. TELEPHCNE 9521745-0789. FAX 952/745-90B5
Gnegony S' hlyheol<, EXECTJTIVE DIRECTOR
May 8, 2015
TO:
Boarrd of Directors
FROM:
Emi|yHerman,AdministrativeAssistanUCodeEnforceme^@
SUBJECTi 2015 LMCD Code Enforcement Program
In preparing to initiate the LMCD's 2015 Proactive Code Enforcemr-.nt Program, the
following is offererd for the Board's review and consideration.
Background
The Board developed the Proactive Code Enforcement Program in 20Ct6 for thre purpose
of enforcing watercraft storage ordinan,ces at residential sites. The prirnary enforcernent
efforts include do,cumenting sites with I'ive or more restricted watercrafllthat dro not have
an approved multiple dock license or siites with three or four restricted 'watercraft that do
not look to be in r;ompliance with the 1:50' Rule.
Communication
An initial and second letter of communication is submitted to a site owner upon their
respective non-compliant inspection. l-he letters are educational in niature and always
offer staff's assistance in assessing thr-.ir site's watercraft storage options. The second
letter provides the same amount of education; however, the Board has directed staff to
add the verbiagr-., "...ongoing violations may result in legal consequences." lhave
attached copies of the initial and second three/four boat violation letters, as well as a
variety of educational material used for this program. The five boat violation letters are
only changed to reflect five or more.
lf a site remains out of compliance during the third inspection and bey'ep6, staff
documents the s;torage three times vrithin a 14 day period. That rCocumentation is
submitted to the I-MCD prosecuting attorney for the filing of a complaint and settlement.
Staff submits a oopy of the letters and notification of any prosecution to the respective
Board member.
2014 Update
The following 20'14 findings were furthelr refined from staff's December presentation and
offered below:
s
30% Post Consumer Waste
Web Page Address: httpr://www.lmccl.org
.
E-mail Address: [email protected]
To orotect and oreserve Lake Minnetonka.
LMCD Board of Directors
May 8, 2015
Page 2
5-Boat
Violation
3-4
Vio
7
1
Shared Dock Violation
0
0
Prosecutinq Cornplaints ""
s Further Documentation
Researchinq Clustered
Sites Assessed and Found in Complia nce
2
*
1
3
75
Unable to obtain compliance; filed Complaint same year (signed Agreement to
Suspend Prosecution for one year and paid prosecution costs).
rt*
One of the prosecuting complaints represents four sites owned by the same
individual.
Program Expens,es and Revenue
ln presenting the 2014 findings to the Board last December, a few members expressed
an interest in staif reporting: 1) the prosecution costs and fine revenu€r and2l the value
and operational costs of the LMCD's 1994,19' Mako watercraft with a Mercury 175 HP
motor. Please find attached detailed spreadsheets outlining the requested inrformation
from the start of this program to present. Comments relative to this inforrnation are
offered below:
1.
Staff could not verify exact attorney fees based on the invoicing of combined tasks,
In talking with Mr. Tallen, he stated staff could safely calculate one hour for the
drawing of er complaint and respective settlement (50/50). Staff has requested the
code enforcement work be separately invoiced as of May. Based on an initial
three-part communication process (now down to two), complaints were not filed
until 2009. After 2009, the number of complaints has significantly been reduced
and remain consistent. The LMCD receives 80% of the court fine rerrenue and
100o/o of prosecution fees.
2.
The watercraft and its respective trailer were donated to the LMCD in Dercember of
2005. The'watercraft is utilized for this program, as well as simultaneously for the
Shoreline Broat Storage Count project that has been completed ev'ery other year.
The manufarcturer's suggested retail price of the watercraft, motor, and trailer was
assessed [r1 Tonka Bay Marina in 2005; $15,993, $11,423, and i03,874, ($31,290)
respectively. The retail price was assessed at $7,280, $3,,190, and $1,940
($12,710), respectively. This equipment has been fully deprecietted. Additionally,
LMCD Board of Directors
May 8, 2015
Page 3
the trailer has since been sold. The LMCD annually utilizes Tonka Bay Marina for
its winter storage (shrink wrapped and stored outside on blocks), as well as all of
its maintenance.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board provide approval to: 1) continue the program for the
2015 season as offered above and 2) re-hire Mr. Miles Wilson as a seasonal
employee (third season) to assist in this program at a rate of $13 per hclur without
benefits. Mr. Wilson navigates the watercraft and provides additional assistance
when needed.
LAKE
M IN N ETON
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, SUITE
2OO .
KA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
I\4OUND, MINNESOTA 55364
'
TELEPHON E 9521745-0789
'
FAX 952/745-9085
Gregony S' llybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECI.OR
Date
Name
Address
City, State Zip
RE:
Site#
_Bay
Dear:
ln the summer of 20tr4, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) staff conducted
lake-wide inspections of docks and watercraft storage on Lake Minnetonka. Your residential
site was identified as one that was potentially not in full compliance with one or more LMCD
Ordinances. The LMCD Board of Directors has opted to initially pursue ? crcUrse of education
and voluntary compliance for all sites so identified. The intent of this letter is to provide you
with relevant and current information to allow you to assess your dock and watercraft storage
configuration, and to take steps to bring them into compliance, if necessaryt, during the 2015
boating season and beyond.
:rcraft stored at vour
site than what was allowed within your dock use area (please refer to the first and third bullet
points that are noted on page two). The LMCD website and staff are resoLtrces you can use to
help answer any questions you have. Chapter 2 of the LMCD Code, "Regulations of
Structures within the Lake," is the relevant Chapter in answering your quesitions. To assist
you, copies of various sections of this Chapter are enclosed for your revievv, which can also be
found on the LMCD web site at www.lmcd.orq, under "Rules and Regul?ticrns." The following
is offered to help summarize the general rules and regulations:
What is a restricted watercraft?
A restricted watercraft is defined as any boat or vessel for use on or stored on the public
waters on the lake except for unrestricted watercraft. An unrestricted watercraft (Sec. 1.02,
Subd. 55c) is defined as a boat or vessel that is:
1)
1)
2)
16'or less in length and has no motor; or
16'or less in length and has no motor of 10 horsepower or less, as rated by the
manufacturer at the time of manufacturer, whether or not the motor is operational; or
20' or less in length and has no motor, and that is propelled solely by human power.
Personalwatercraft (Jet Ski, Wave Runner, or similar) would qualify as a rr=stricted watercraft
(due to horsepower) A sailboat longer than 16' would also qualify as a restricted watercraft.
f,r
30%
Web Page Address: http://wwui lmcd org
Post Co rsumer Waste
'
E-mailAddress: [email protected] org
To orotect and preserve Lake Minnetonka.
Name
Date
Page 2
How manv boats can lstore?
LMCD ordinances regulate the number of restricted watercraft that may be moored or docked
within a Dock Use Anea (Sec. 2.01) at a residential site. In summary, Sec. 2.02 provides for:
o
.
The Genenal Rule is one restricted watercraft for each 50' (1:50',1 of continuous
shoreline; without reference to the owners of the watercraft beinl; residents of the
site (Subd.1); or
Unless a Ereater number is allowed by the 1:50' General Rule, up to two restricted
watercraft may be moored or docked at any dock or mooring facility that is located
on a site (as defined) that was in existence on August 30, 1978; without regard to
the owners of the watercraft being residents of the site (Subd 2); or
o
.
lf the 1:50' General Rule cannot be met, up to four restricted watercraft may be
moored or docked at a site, provided a number of conditions are followed. One of
these conditions includes all resllricted watercraft must be ownecl by and reqistered
to persons who live in the one, single-family residential structure on the site (Subd 3;
a-c); or
Docks and mooring areas lawfully in existence on May 3, 1978 rnay continue
provided the number of restricted watercraft does not exceed the number moored or
docked on that date. Restrictions apply, one of which is to secure a non-conforming
use permit.
In order to store five or more restricted watercraft, a multiple dock license would need to be
approved by the LMCD Board of Directors (Code Section 2.03), based on a minimum of 226'
of shoreline.
Residents should check with their city for any additional storage restrictions.
The LMCD is requesting your cooperation in this matter. Repeat inspections are scheduled for
the 2015 boating season and beyond, in which ongoing violations may result in legal
consequences. The LMCD welcomes your call so that staff can assist you in assessing your
watercraft storage needs.
Sincerely,
Emily Herman
Ad min istrative AssistanUCode Enforcement
Enclosures: LMCD Code Excerpts
Cc:
LMCD Board Representative - City of
Others as Needed
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, SUITE
2OO
.
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
.
TELEPHONIE 9521745-0789. FAX 952/745-9085
Gregory lS. lNyireck, EXECUTIVE DIRECI'OR
Date
Name
Address
City, State Zip
RE: Site #_,
Bay
Dear:
Since the summer of 2006, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) staff conducted lake
wide inspections of watercraft storage on Lake Minnetonka. During one of those boating seasons,
your site was identified as one that may have had more restricted watercraft drccked or moored than
what is allowed by LMCD Code. In follow-up to that inspection, a letter was submitted to you with
the intent to provide reilevant and current educational information to allow you 1to assess whether the
watercraft storage was out of compliance, and, if so, to take the steps necessary to voluntarily bring
the storage into compliance. Additionally, the letter documented that re-inspections were planned by
the next boating season and beyond. Based on my re-inspection and documentation received, boat
storaqe at the subject site continued to be out of compliance during the 2014 b<lating season.
To assess how many restricted watercraft your site can maintain, the following information is
enclosed:
.
.
.
A document outlining frequently asked questions relating to boat storage.
An excerpt from LMCD Code Section 2'02, outlining watercraft density rules and regulations
(found in its entirety on the LMCD website).
An educational flyer to assist in defining your dock use area.
I continue to welcome your call so that I may review findings as they relate specifically to your
property, as well as assist in assessing your watercraft storage needs. Fle-inspection of your
watercraft storage is planned for the 2015 boating season.Any further violations could result in legall
consequences as documentation would then be turned over to the LMCD prosecuting attorney
Sincerely,
Emily Herman
Administrative AssistanUCode Enforcement
Enclosures
Cc:
s
LMCD Board Representative
- City of
Web Page Address: http://www.lmcd.org
'
E-nrail Address: [email protected]'org
To protect and preserve Lake Minnetonka.
Section 2.02. Shoreline Requirements
Subd. 1. General Rule. No docks or mooring areas shall be constructed, establlished or maintained that
provide space for or are used for mooring or docking a greater number of restricterd watercraft than one for
each 50 feet of continuous shoreline in existence on May 3, 1978, unless authorrized to do so by special
density license pursuant to Section 2.05. For sites with continuous shoreline greater than 100 feet, when
measurements determining the number of restricted watercraft allowed result in the provision of a
fractional restricted watercraft, any fraction up to and including one-half (1/2) shall be disregarded, and
fractions over one-halt (ll2) shall be counted as one additional resfticted watercraft.
Subd. 2. Special Rule for Sites in Existence on August 30. 1978. Unless a greerter number is authorized
by the provisions of Subd. 1 above, up to two rrxtricted watercraft may be moored or docked at any dock
or mooring facility that is located on a site (as defined in Section I.02) rhat was in existence on August 30,
r978.
Subd. 3. Additional Watercraft Allowance in Certain Cases. Unless a greater nutnber is authorized by the
provisions of Subd. 1 above, up to four restricted watercraft may be moored or docked at a dock or
mooring area located on any site (as defined in Section 1.02) provided that all of the following conditions
are met:
a)
There must be one, and no more than one, single family residential structure on the site. If there is
no residential structure on a site, any one off-lake lot, parcel or other piece of property that 1) is
legally subdivided and recorded in the office of the County Recorder; 2) adjoins the site or is
separated from the site only by a public right-of-w ay; 3) is wrder common ownership and unified use
with the site; and 4) is occupied by one single family residential structure, rnay be designated to be a
part of one site by the owner, for purposes of this paragraph.
b)
The dockage rights at the site are owned exclusively by the owners of the krt parcel or other piece of
property on which the residential structure referred to in paragraph a) is located.
c) All of the restricted watercraft moored or docked
at a dock or mooring at the site must be owned by
and registered to persons who live in the one residential structure referred to in paragraph a).
The homestead or non-homestead status of property for ad valorem real estate tax purposes has no bearing
on or application to this subdivision.
on May 3. 1978. Docks
and mooring areas lawfully in existence on May 3, t978 may continue providecl the number of restriated
watercraft moored or docked at such docks and mooring areas does not exceed the number moored or
docked on May 3, 7978. No such docks or moorings may be maintained without first securing a dock
license under Section 2.03 or a non-conforming use permit under this subdivision. Applications for nonconforming use permits shall be made on forms provided by the District and upon payment of the fee
established by resolution of the Board. Non-conforming use permits need not be renewed on an annual
basis. Such licenses and permits will be issued only after a public hearing and upon presentation of
evidence deemed sufficient by the Board to prove that the dock or mooring wars in existence on May 3,
1978 and that the number of restricted watercraft applied for were moored or docked at such facility as of
such date.
The following is a Synopsis of the LMCD diock use area rules for residentieil properties (Secfion
2.01). For a full copy of the rules please see Chapter 2 of the LMCD Code or call the LMCD
office.
Dock Use Area (Section 2.01-)
No person shall use any area of the lake outside an authorized "dock use area (DUA)", for
docks, moorings, watercraft, storage, swimming floats, skijump storage, on diving towers unless
specifical ly perm itted.
DUA Lenqth (measured from the 929.4 NGVD)
The length of a dock use area is eqr.ral to the properly shoreline frorrtage width, with a
maximum of 100 foot dock length.
Sites in existence on February 5, 1970 with a lake frontage of 40-60t feet may have a
dock extending up to 60 feet into tht-' lake.
Sites in existence on February 5, 1970 with lake frontage of 40 feet or less may extend to
reach a water depth of 4 feet (not to extend beyond 60 feet).
DUA Width portion within setbacks measured from extended side property lines into the lake.
For that portion of the length or authrorized dock use area which extu.nds from the shore:
0 - 50 feet
50 - 100 feet
10 foot setback
15 foot setback
anooies require a 20-foot setback from the extended oropertv
li
t
Side opening slip (Boat parked parallel to shore) setback shall be at leerst equal to the slip
depth (not less than2O feet).
.i.
Lots with 50 feet or less of shoreline in existence on February 2, 1970, qualify for a 5 foot
setback, providing it in no way impairs access to neighboring docks.
Dock Structure
,
May exceed 8 feet, excluding posts, in either is length or width, but not both.
*
Permanent docks require a permit from the LMCD.
Example of Dock Use Area
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What is a restricted watercrall?
A restricted watercraft is defined as any boat or vessel for use on or stored on the public waters on the
lake except for unrestricted watercraft. An unrestricted watercraft is defined as a boat or vessel that is:
1)
16' or less in length and has no motor; or
3)
or less, as rated by the manufacturer at
the time of manufacturer, whether or not the motor is operational; or
20'or less in length and has no motor, and that is propelled solely by human power.
2) 16' or less in length and has no motor of 10 horsepower
Personal watercraft (Jet Ski, Wave Runner, or similar) would qualify as a restricted watercraft (due to
horsepowefl. A sailboat longer than 16' (motorized or un-motorized) would alsio qualify as a restricted
watercraft.
How manv boats can I store?
LMCD ordinances regulate the number of restricted watercraft that may be stored within a Dock Use
Area at a residential site. In summary, Section 2.02 provides for:
.
.
.
.
Subd. 1: The General Rule is one restricted watercraft for each 50' (1:50') of continuous shoreline;
without reference to the owners being residents of the site; or
Subd. 2: Unless a greater number is allow,ed by the 1:50' General Rule, up to two restricted
watercraft may be moored or docked at any dock or mooring facility that is located on a site (as
defined) that was in existence on August 30. 1978; without regard to the o'wners being residents of
the site; or
Subd. 3 (a-c): Unless a greater number is allowed by the 1:50' General Rule, up to four restricted
watercraft may be moored or docked at a dock or mooring area at a site, prrovided a number of
conditions are met, One of these conditions includes all restricted watercraft must be owned and
reqistered to the residents who live in the one single-familv residential structure on the site.
Subd. 4: Docks and mooring areas lawfull'/ in existence on May 3, 1978 may continue provided the
number of restricted watercraft does not e:xceed the number moored or docked on May 3, 1978.
Restrictions apply, one of which is to secure a non-conforming use permit.
In order to store five or more restricted watercraft, a multiple dock license would need to be approved by the
LMCD Board of Directors (Code Section 2.03), biased on a minimum of 226' ol shoreline.
Communication to your local municipality on your boat storage needs isi highly recommended as
the most restrictive Ordinance applies.
a
o
6
oo
si
o!
a
c
o
o
IE
0,
tr
o8
g;
o
{
=.:
*s
tr
g
e
.9
=
o
o
o
o
4
n
EES
g
l
rr, q
lo
vi
n
4 g
6
D
!
q
A
8 8 8
oi
(o
u @ @
6
n
o 3 E 3
A
A
rf) <t $
N
o: ! tr
fiEg
EE#
rt
Ia
@
a
4
!
@
q
o
o
N
(n
3
rt
D
@
g
E
E
o
rt
cr)
a
@
:-12
o6
9E
EF
f6
z()
o
;
t.U
!
o
F
o
N
@
t)
N N
F t sf I
\
N
rt
5
3
Rx,
|r.
=
o
3
a
t
ol
c
n
t
o
tr
!
r
\
n
;
4
I
3
q
N
g
I
A
t
11
I
rO
o
o
N
5€E
c
$ E,E
o
-od
E
5
6
=o
PE.
o
cl
t
p
=qti
o
o
o
g
o
b0
tt
5
tx
@
l,lJ od
o
UJ
a
o
G
q)
E
e
c
E
0,1
0)
a
q
T
q
G
o
!
o
IJ
o
=
3
C\
N
D
t.
s
II
8
n 4
@
I
s t
r) !
o)
(o
3
J!
G'
N N at
N F.
n e n
r
=
Io
UJ
t
b
! t
N
tr
;
o
o
E
o
(')
3 @ vt
a
0)
o)
I:
r)
ro
e
(o o
s u?
n
!)
U)
(f)
e.
'd
o
(o F
(f,
N
rF
c
rl
N @
:!t
It
I
g
N
o.i
@
u)
:q
o
@
6
E
o
\
E
6
E
@
n
@
6
.o
sF
t?
CI
G
o
E
u
|!
o
4
o
I
@
u 4 n
{
r.
s 3
@
d
F T
f,
o
E
!
g
tt,
a
n
o
9!
D ro
()
t
{rt
b
;
rl
n
n 6
! t(a
c N
A @
Y.
@ D
o
s ro$ *
o
-
\t
oi
@ @ @
c.i
ot
r
ol m
;
F
6 6
@
E
o o-
o
o
o
oo
o)
I
o.
g)c
co
9E
s.g
pP
dE
;ul
r"o
ai tt
-.o
9o
nO
-=
U.
U.
t
t
t
I
II ,!
lL
(
(
5J
o
o
q
5.EE
g,l
=r
o
o
lo
a
o)
5;
@
.lJ
I
uJ
s r
5 8
: IN
cD
N
\
N
N
n
c
o
s
|!
8
C\
o
o
N
!
o
o
E
(,
TE
o
o
I
e
c
E
E
@
(5O
Fti
€8i
8s:
o
o
+ N
t,
00
Ec
i.9
E:E
*E
fi
Ir
.:
':t!
o
o
a
o
cc
CL
IL
N
*
b
(r)
o
ts
o
o
c
x
t N
=
=
to
lll
$
N
n
o
o
@
e
3
9
E
o
t
d
o
E
Y
N
c
o
3
J
r!
:
N
o
a
(!
d)
s
q
(n st
t
q)
rn
@
Fl
4,tt
rt
r.{
o
N
-n
Io
O
Iln
sr
N
'i
o
rn
tfl
cd
cn
{/}
<t\
{/}
{,t}
vl
{/}
{.r} 4,rt
*
*
(r1
H
<r
o
.:
i
ct o
N cr o
o
G,
E
tn
o
o
N
o
G, vo
u-
OJ
t
o
o
o
LrJ
e
CJ
o
o
e,
E
(!
.9 ,N J
o
CJ
'6
o
o- .N
-> .9
e
(o
,!(!
G'
U c
.:o
;
o
E
I
ta
.= ,o
(u
(u
(u
u-
o
N
I
(u
g
r..l
o
E
tn
;
=
F
o
F
(!
N
-Y
o
(U
P
F
c
o
=
.E
o
(J
N F
srn
.4
vr
(o
(n
1J\
*
T'
o=
N
o
FI
o
N
I
I
tn
.t
.:(!
o
3
o ,9
J
o
N
o
(J
G,
I
C'T
,=
(!
d.
o
P
c!
(o
(Y)
tn
(o
lJ;
\ri
F-
c\l
{.t}
<J\
€,
<J\
s
CL
(u
.c
(r1
{,t}
o
N
I
@
o
c
c
(!
.N
o
to
J
I
I(!
o
J
o
]o
.9
t!
(!
,N
.=
o
a
q.l
OJ
P
't
J
(o
F
3
P
o
4
(n
F nl
(o
or
lJ1
r-{
FI
F
q
(r1
€
ro
(l'
a
ltl
{/}
tn
(o
!
.=
(o
ct
;
3
OJ
€
s
rl
o
t-
E
ct'!
tn
ctr
o
J
o
.9
P
J
F
F
o
F
ct,
!-{
o
o
(u
P
J
CL
*
t4
o l
o
:N
P
ra(o
S
IL
Ol
d:,
\f
F{
+
ct)
f,R
cl
;8
n
FI
+
(o
rn
rn
<t\
rJ']
cri
o
+.
00
oo
U (n
J
A
<f
crl
cn
rn
o
sr
t-l
I
o|
€
N
N
N
CD
crl
ui rl
r\
(n ln
*
I
N
Fl
o
o
N
o
I
o
o
=
o
o
@
d
\t-'l
rn
cn
or
F-'l
t/l
Fl
d
c! N
(n
(o
N
tjl c.l F
(\l (n
t/!
v,
<rr
4,)\
<h- {/D <.r,
=
o
J=
(!
c;
Fl
=
o
(J
<t\
J
*
r'{
d
tf1
|.o
4,r>
cr'!
@
,/i
€
8 U(\
r\
o
o
(\l
s5S
T
(o
I
JP(!
,=
o
(o
o
N o
o
o ui9
.=
o
;Fg
G,
o
=
iI
(t)
l
Lr_
.gE.g!
--6ing
!Le
-bo t''6
g
^
diE
EiE
o
v(!
-cl
oo
o o
(tJ
6
(u
o
U J
g
F
F
I
rt>
c-\1
m
m or
(r1
.z
t^
Fvl
cLi
nor
VU
]U
I
o
*
@
E
dr
o
-)
E
3
a
(u
th
CJ
d.
CL
E
o
lJ-
o-c .:
o
o
o
U
co
.99
o. I
OJ
o
q6
Eo
cl 3
g6
=o
oo
o
.=
(U
Fo.
.9
(tt
.!
o
P
o ;
J
to
F
(o
o
I
s
8
N o-
o(U
l\^
r-.1
Ft
<fr
o
o
(u
tfl
oo
ar1
'l-
'g-
F HE.
E
'A=
bu
ct
nl
q
bo
*
g
b;,trsH
(!,
tn
CD
&,
]
)
o
:?
U
OI
'c
o
N
i(!
(o
>=
<=o( o\OJ
l-E
o
\o
rJt
o
!CL
:;
:d
iL
oq
;
(u
(u
tJ1
o
(J
J
-o F
o
G,
o
F
`