Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-17 Reg Mtng MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING'OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JANUARY 17,2012 7:07 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. II. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle,Sprague, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. III. MEETING AGENDA APPROVED Member Brindle made a motion,seconded by Member Sprague,approving the meeting agenda. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle,Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. IV. CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTED Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, approving the consent agenda as revised to remove Items IV.I., Request to Purchase — Ice Resurfacer — Braemar Ice Arena; and, IV. L., Engineering Services for Bike Boulevard Improvement,as follows: IV.A. Approve regular and work session meeting minutes of January 3, 2012, work session of January 4, 2012,and work session of January 9,2012. IV.B. Receive payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated January 5, 2012, and consisting of 31 pages; General Fund $138,731.15; Communications Fund $11.54;Working Capital Fund $29,815.63; Art Center Fund $6,694.34; Golf Dome Fund $3,095.61; Aquatic Center Fund $57.26; Golf Course Fund $11,631.46; Ice Arena Fund $145.00; Edinborough/Centennial Lakes Fund $18,607.85; Edinborough Park Fund $1,584.00; Centennial Lakes Park Fund $1,947.54; Liquor Fund $248,347.79; Utility Fund $851,313.09; Storm Sewer Fund $909.34; PSTF Agency Fund $4,544.52; TOTAL$1,317,436.12 and for approval of payment of claims dated January 12, 2012, and consisting of 29 pages; General Fund $882,319.93; Communications Fund $1,022.82; Police Special Revenue $182.79; Working Capital Fund $55,004.71; Equipment Replacement Fund $18,895.50; Construction Fund $6,112.65;Art Center Fund $3,813.59; Golf Dome Fund$3,206.00;Aquatic Center Fund $8,344.78; Golf Course Fund $9,015.22; Ice Arena Fund $31,473.91; Edinborough/Centennial Lakes Fund $8,615.77; Edinborough Park Fund $450.00; Centennial Lakes Park Fund $1,263.43; Liquor Fund $170,801.26; Utility Fund $398,166.87; Storm Sewer Fund $8,450.87; PSTF Agency Fund $408.33; Payroll Fund$5,101.39;TOTAL$1,612,649.82. IV.C. Adopt Resolution No. 2012-16 approving grant with Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Minnesota Financial Crimes Task Force for 2012. IV.D. Request to Purchase,two 2012 GMC Sierra 1500 AWD Ext Cab SLE, Police Department,awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Nelson Auto Center at$49,337.26. IV.E. Request to Purchase, one 2013 Ford Police Interceptor Sedan, Police Department, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder,Nelson Auto Center at$26,527.61. IV.F. Request to Purchase, one 2012 Ford Explorer 4WD, Police Department, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Midway Ford at$24,459.40. IV.G. Request to Purchase,one 2012 Chevrolet Traverse AWD, Police Department,awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder,Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet at$24,525.35. IV.H. Request to Purchase, two LUCAS Chest Compression Devices, Fire Department, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Physio Control at$26,373.50. IV.J. Adopt Resolution 2012-20 Requesting MnDOT funding for Tracy Avenue and TH62 ramp intersections. Page 1 Minutes/Edina City Council/January 17, 2012 IVX Adopt Resolution 2012-21 requesting Mn/DOT funding for France Avenue and TH62 ramp intersections. IV6 lin nearing Seruie.es fer.Rike Reule.aFd ImpFeyemenf W.M. Approve First Reading—Ordinance No. 2012-03 amending Section 905 Open House Parties. IV.N. Adopt Resolution No. 2012-22 approving Agreement No. 00354 Minnesota Department of Transportation—Bike Boulevard Project. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 111.1. REQUEST TO PURCHASE—ICE RESURFACER—BRAEMAR ICE ARENA—APPROVED Manager Neal indicated there were three electric Zamboni machines at Braemar and life expectancy was 20 years. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, awarding contract for ice resurfacer, Braemar Ice Arena, to the recommended low bidder, Frank J. Zamboni & Company, Inc. at $108,111.77. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle,Sprague,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. IV.L. ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR BIKE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT—APPROVED Public Works Director/City Engineer Houle explained the current project would not include geometric changes where the bicycle path passes under Highway 62. Staff would research options for that area, but additional funding would be needed to change the geometric design of that area. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, authorizing the City Manager to approve the proposal for engineering services for Bike Boulevard improvement. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle,Sprague,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Mr. Houle reported the City had received a $250,000 Transit for Livable Communities grant and described the alignment of the bicycle lane that would be constructed. V. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS None. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD—Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. VI.A. COUNTRYSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-385—RESOLUTION NO. 2012-18 ADOPTED Assistant Engineer Sullivan provided an explanation of how the Engineering Department prioritized neighborhood reconstruction projects. He answered questions of the Council, explaining the Storm Sewer Comprehensive Plan was used to identify deficiencies so repairs could be integrated into the projects. It was noted the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was a proven program to identify substrata deterioration based on pavement condition. Mr. Sullivan summarized the Countryside Neighborhood roadway improvement that had been initiated by the City. He identified the project area of 120 homes, described existing conditions, and the proposed improvements to add new concrete curb and gutter, tighten oversized intersections, and install sidewalks as recommended by the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC). He advised that during neighborhood informational meetings, residents did not respond favorably to the installation of sidewalks but were not aware of the ETC's recommendation. The anticipated cost at preliminary design to add sidewalks was $1,700 per Residential Equivalent Unit(REU). Mr. Sullivan presented the proposed utility improvements including installation of sump drain pipe at the curb line to address groundwater issues. The preliminary project cost was estimated at $2,833,725 that included Page 2 Minutes/Edina City Council/January 17, 2012 $1,433,725 for street improvements and $1,400,000, for City-owned utility repairs, which would be funded from respective utility funds. The City would pay $1,400,000 and benefitting properties would be assessed $1,433,725. Based on the City's Special Assessment Policy, there would be 116 REUs to be assessed at$12,360 per REU. 114 properties would be assessed at one REU each and six properties would be assessed at 1/3 REU each, or $4,120 Mr. Sullivan presented the project schedule. Staff recommended authorization to complete plans and specifications and take bids if the Council found this project to be necessary, cost-effective, and feasible. The Council discussed the project and asked questions of Mr. Sullivan who explained the 1%:-inch copper water main was common in the 1960-70's; however, it was not adequate for fire suppression and would be upgraded to a six-inch main. The water service to the 120 REUs would be increased from a %-inch copper service pipe to a one-inch copper service pipe. Mr. Sullivan stated staff would provide residents with a list of plumbing contractors,which would also be made available on the City's website. Mr. Sullivan addressed locations of drainage problems and described intended improvements to resolve those issues. The City would fund storm sewer improvements from the Storm Sewer Fund, and the resident would be responsible to make the sump pump drain connection to the curb-side, if desired. He noted that reducing pavement surface at intersections would minimize runoff, and barrier style curb and gutter would extend the pavement life by addressing runoff and protecting pavement edges. Mr. Sullivan stated this project included more utility work than most projects. He noted the assessment to benefiting properties was higher because the lots were larger, creating a lower density. The Council asked why residents were not surveyed about curb and gutter. Mr.Sullivan stated the question of curb and gutter used to be included on the resident survey, and the answer was that the vast majority did not want it. In 2005, the Council decided to fund curb and gutter from the Storm Sewer Fund and to change calculation of REU from a front footage basis to a per lot basis. Staff would still recommend including curb and gutter even though residents might not support it. It was noted there had been several past projects where residents opposed concrete curb and gutter and then later indicated that was a mistake due to issues with snow plowing and cars parking on their yard area. Mr. Sullivan stated staff would coordinate with residents to address existing yard elevations to create a smooth transition from the curb. If the grades for a low area could not be addressed, there was opportunity to install sump pump drain tile. The Council asked staff to assure road widths and turning radii were taken into account to assure safety if the walkway was within the street. The Council discussed the 2009 Safe Routes to School Study, noting it was a speed zone study for collector streets and did not include recommendations about future sidewalk and pedestrian facilities. Mr. Sullivan displayed a map of the neighborhood that identified the elementary school walking shed. Mr. Houle indicated the City does not have a Comprehensive Safe Routes to School Plan at this time, but it was on staffs to-do list, along with looking at the Safe Routes To School, updating the Sidewalk Plan and addressing alternate means of funding. The Council acknowledged residents were not made aware of the sidewalk component at the September and October open houses since the ETC did not make its recommendation until November 17, 2011. With regard to storm drainage, Mr. Sullivan stated the goal was to capture and redirect water that drained down Crescent Lane to alleviate that problem. The intention was to make improvements only as necessary, not overbuild, and keep costs down to an absolute minimum. Mr. Sullivan addressed improvement funding, noting about 20% of the property taxes come to the City so not many projects could be completed if the projects were not assessed to the benefiting property. Mr. Sullivan explained that during the open houses, residents' concerns were addressed relating to trees, irrigation systems, and pet containment. He commented on the City's 20/20 vision to have a sound infrastructure for recreation and business, assure safety, and maintain a high level of pride in the community. Mr. Neal indicated that rating agencies look at whether the City had sound public infrastructure for purposes Page 3 Minutes/Edina City Council/January 17, 2012 of bonding or borrowing money. Being able to demonstrate a consistent record of addressing infrastructure in an orderly and timely manner was a positive in their determination. Mr. Neal stated Edina had an AAA bond rating adding that fewer than five percent of cities in the United States had such a rating with Moody's and Standards and Poors. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. Public Testimony Rodger Peissig, 6116 Westridge Boulevard, addressed the Council. Itai Sher, 6112 Crescent Drive, addressed the Council. Robert Reed,6223 Westridge Boulevard,addressed the Council. Tim McNamara,6201 Crescent Drive, addressed the Council. Member Swenson made a motion,seconded by Member Sprague,to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle,Sprague,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. The Council and Mr. Sullivan addressed issues raised during public testimony. With regard to cost variability, Mr. Houle explained the open house notices included an estimated number prior to topographic surveys or rough cost estimates. Staff had found the estimates quoted were not realistic, so future notices would contain costs and assessments on projects completed during the past five years. Mr. Houle noted with the current competitive bid environment, recent bids had been 10-20% lower than staffs estimates. It was noted if the project bid comes in 10% or more above staffs estimates; it would be returned to the Council with a recommendation to not award the project. Mr. Houle stated if the project was approved, the final assessment hearing would be held and the first payment due on the spring tax bill of 2014. This neighborhood received its first project notice in 2010. Mr. Houle indicated staff would do a better job of marketing the projects and was considering whether to start the process three years prior instead of two years prior. In addition, utility companies were notified at the beginning of the process because there was a five-year moratorium against cutting into newly-reconstructed streets. In this case, the gas company was upgrading its lines. The Council acknowledged the concern expressed about road impact caused by garbage trucks and indicated the Energy and Environment Commission was currently studying that issue. The Council reviewed past project costs compared to staff's estimates, noting last year's assessments averaged 30% below. It was noted the Council had previously discussed the merits of curb and gutter and determined it was best engineering practices to dictate curb and gutter. The Council discussed its vision to provide safe walkable/bikable opportunities and agreed with the need to have a policy in place that also addressed safe routes to schools, walking routes, and funding mechanisms. It was also agreed the sidewalk decision for this project would be delayed to allow time for resident notification, input, and public hearing and additional study including the option of creating a Sidewalk Utility Fund. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2012-18,receiving feasibility study and ordering improvement for Countryside Neighborhood Roadway Improvement No. BA-385 as recommended by Engineering to not include the sidewalk. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle,Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Page 4 Minutes/Edina City Council/January 17, 2012 VI.B. RICHMOND HILLS PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-388—RESOLUTION NO. 2012-19 ADOPTED Toby Muse, Short, Elliot Hendrickson (SHE), summarized the Richmond Hills Park reconstruction improvement that had been initiated by the City. He identified the project area, described existing conditions, and the proposed improvement to streets and utilities. Several intersections would be tightened to eliminate potential encroachment onto private property, slow speed of traffic, and make turning movements more deliberate. The project proposed barrier concrete curb and gutter on all streets along with concrete driveway aprons, but sidewalks were not proposed. Mr. Muse indicated sump pump drain tile would be installed at the curb to address ground water flow issues. If the project was approved, residents would receive a list of contractors and instructions about how to approach private contractors to do sanitary sewer service work. Mr. Muse stated the preliminary project cost was estimated at $6,583,000, with the City paying $3,710,000, and benefitting properties assessed $2,873,000, for street reconstruction and sanitary sewer service pipe between the trunk pipe and right-of-way line. 171 Residential Equivalent Units (REUs) would be assessed $16,800/REU including replacement of the sanitary sewer pipe and $13,400/REU if the resident had already replaced the sanitary sewer pipe. Mr. Muse presented the project schedule. Staff recommended authorization to complete plans and specifications and take bids if the Council found this project to be necessary, cost-effective, and feasible. Paul Pasko, SEH, stated as of 2009 neighborhood streets had a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 25 and in 2012 a PCI of 10. In 2009, Normandale Court had a PCI of 19, and in 2012 a PCI of 9. He displayed a map of the subject neighborhood and identified the location of duplex properties that were considered as a single REU because the duplex shared a single driveway and property identification number as well as sanitary sewer and water service. With regard to the high estimated assessments, Mr. Houle noted the costs were similar to the per lot assessments in the Minnehaha Woods project, and utility replacement was needed with this project due to the high number of breakages. He explained the options to pay the assessment including full or partial payment by November 30, 2013, or collection through property taxes with the first payment due the spring of 2014. He also explained the deferral options for seniors or property owners with limited income. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Public Testimony K.K. Strand, 5521 Code Avenue, addressed the Council. Gerard Shannon, 5033 Kent Avenue, addressed the Council. Jane Stresnak, 5400 Richmond Lane, addressed the Council Martha Dover, 5113 Richmond Drive,addressed the Council. Shawn Buss, 5024 Kent Avenue, addressed the Council. Yuriy Malinin, 5033 Richmond Drive,addressed the Council. Margaret Huber, 5025 Kent Avenue, addressed the Council Doug Erickson, 2200 West 66`h Street, #204, Richfield, addressed the Council. Aiissa Movern, 5005 West 56th Street, addressed the Council. Page 5 Minutes/Edina City Council/January 17,2012 Margaret Dahl, 5009 West 56th Street, addressed the Council. Susan Arenson, 5103 Windsor Lane, addressed the Council. Lucinda Winter, 5532 Code Avenue,addressed the Council. Dick Stresnak, 5400 Richmond Lane, addressed the Council. Dina Scholl, 5032 Windsor Lane, addressed the Council. Elizabeth Shannon, 5033 Kent Avenue, addressed the Council. Donald Reading, 5017 Kent Avenue,addressed the Council. Laura Giertsen, 5029 Yvonne Terrace, addressed the Council. Keith Thompson, 5017 Richmond Drive, addressed the Council. Karin Marshall, 5524 Richmond Drive,addressed the Council. Jack Heffernan, 5105 Windsor Avenue, addressed the Council. Chris Rofidal, 5037 West 56th Street, addressed the Council. Member Brindle made a motion,seconded by Member Sprague,to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle,Sprague,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. The Council and staff addressed the issues raised during public testimony. It was noted that all of the technical information and resident input was provided to the Council the Friday before the meeting. The Council discussed the cost split between the City and assessments to residents and that this project proposed more utility replacement than normal, but Chapter 429 would not allow the property to be assessed for more than the benefit to the property. Mr. Houle reviewed the Council's 2005 decision to reformulate the assessment policy to fund curb and gutter costs, usually 25% of the project total, and special assess 100% of roadway costs. A consulting firm had been hired to conduct an analysis, and it was determined such an assessment would stand. Mr. Houle explained that a thin overlay had been placed on Richmond Lane to extend the life expectancy. He explained the process for recycling asphalt, which was part of the bid and resulted in a cost savings. Mr. Pasko described the construction process for sewer pipe, which would be cured in place pipe lining, not a processes using fracking, so the sewer service pipe would not be damaged. He noted the sewer service pipes were about the same age as the trunk pipe,which had defects. Thus, it was reasonable to assume the sanitary sewer service pipes were in the same poor condition. This project would only replace the sanitary sewer service pipe from the property line to the trunk line. Residents could make the determination whether to replace the pipe from the right-of-way line to the house. Mr. Pasko described the day-to-day communication that would occur during the project and access provided to homes. In addition, residents with mobility issues would be identified and assured access. The Council acknowledged residents' concerns expressed that the proposed assessment of $17,000 would equal $140 per month for ten years, considered by many residents to be a financial hardship. The Council found residents had raised compelling issues to consider a longer assessment term, and support was expressed Page 6 Minutes/Edina City Council/January 17, 2012 to revisit the financial model. Mr. Neal stated staff would look at that option. He explained the City sells revenue bonds, secured by the special assessment levied, and 2% was added to the net interest rate received to cover the City's processing and financing costs. In 2012, the assessment interest was 4.3%. With regard to sump pumps, Mr. Houle explained that per Code, the only time the City required connection was when it discharged to a public right-of-way. He also explained how this project area was determined and why it would not reduce assessment to extend the construction limits. This project had been on the calendar for 2017 but was being considered in 2012 because it was reprioritized due to pavement deterioration. Mr. Pasko reviewed the process used to estimate costs. Mr. Houle stated the City typically does three to four projects each year and charged for engineering services whether conducted in-house or by consultants to the City. Mr. Houle addressed the request for additional street lighting, noting ornamental lighting would add cost to the project. Mr. Houle assured the Council staff would look at intersections to assure each was adequately lit by cobra-head fixtures with cutoff lights and make adjustments, as needed. This would not add to assessment costs. He noted the ETC had recommended a crosswalk at Kent Avenue and Warwick Place; however, that location would not meet crosswalk warrants. Stamped crosswalks were proposed along the frontage road and staff looked to narrow roadways and intersections in all projects to reduce hard surface which often resulted in traffic calming. Mr. Houle indicated a grit chamber prior to Melody Lake would be installed as part of the storm sewer system. Mr. Houle explained the City hired an engineering firm to evaluate one-third of the City's pavements each year. That data was placed into a computer program to determine the PCI. Sewer mains were videotaped so the condition could be analyzed to determine if there had been cracking or root intrusion. The Council discussed the need to assure residents received accurate information relating to their specific project and had a realistic expectation. Mr. Houle stated future open house notices would not include an estimated assessment but, instead, include examples of past project costs and assessments. To keep residents informed, the City's website contained the ten-year CIP and map for street projects as well as a video on roadway reconstruction. During a project, property owners without internet access received a mailed copy of the weekly City Extra. The Council acknowledged that notice to residents had contained inconsistencies, lack of detail, and boiler-plate estimates instead of estimates relevant to resident's specific project. In the case of newly-purchased homes, it was explained that a title search would not discover the assessment until it became pending, once approved by the Council. However, property owners received notice two years in advance, and that information was required, under State law,to be disclosed on the purchase agreement. The Council discussed whether to consider a longer term assessment. It was noted that during a past project a longer term was considered, but the Council decided the shorter payment period was preferred given interest rates. A request was made that the City engage the Citizen's League this year to,conduct budget workshops that would study the issue of special assessments and evaluate alternatives. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2012-19, receiving feasibility study and ordering improvement for Richmond Hills Park Neighborhood Roadway Improvement No BA-388, and directing staff to investigate whether a 15-year term was appropriate. Member Sprague seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle,Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Vll. COMMUNITY COMMENT Jacqueline Whitbeck, 6128 Brookview Avenue, stated support for a moratorium on subdividing to create a 50- foot lot or building on a 50-foot lot. VIII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS VIII.A. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-17 ADOPTED—ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS Page 7 Minutes/Edina City Council/January 17,2012 Mayor Hovland explained that in order to comply with State Statutes; all donations to the City must be adopted by Resolution and approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donations. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2012-17 accepting various donations. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.B. AWARD OF CONTRACT—WATER METER REPLACEMENT PROJECT CONTRACT NO. PIN 12-1 Mr. Houle presented staff's recommendation to replace the City's 14,000 water meters since the equipment was no longer supported by the vendor, and the bandwidth license would expire in January of 2013. In addition, starting in 2014,any modification to a meter had to meet the Safe Drinking Water Lead Free Act. The CIP appropriated $1.2 million for this replacement, and the low qualified bid was at $3.6 million. Mr. Houle recommended delaying Water Treatment Plant #5 from 2013 to 2015 to provide funding and undertaking additional study on the need for Water Treatment Plant#5. The Council asked questions of the staff related to the need for battery and equipment replacement and how to assure a new system would not have those issues. Utilities Coordinator Goergen explained the original system was installed in 1996-1997, and the issue was the reading system and 10-year battery life. The third party vendor and distributor's relationship fractured,so the equipment was no longer supported or warranted. He indicated the equipment, when purchased, was a top-of-the line system and performed as expected but had now started to fail at a catastrophic level. Staff could no longer collect meter reads in an acceptable timeframe, and many man hours were being spent to process utility bills. Mr. Houle stated the bid specifications were for a 20-year system upgradable to a better system. Utility Engineer Struve indicated the batteries also had a 20-year warranty and allowed field replacement. Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, awarding contract, Water Meter Replacement Project No. PW12-1, to the recommended low bidder, Ferguson Waterworks,at$3,617,504.29. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle,Sprague,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS — Mayor Hovland acknowledged the Council's receipt of various correspondence. IX.A. VALLEY VIEW ROAD AND SALLY LANE TREE DELIMBING—MOVED TO MEDIATION Attorney Knutson recommended the City enter mediation with the property owner to resolve the conflict over delimbing trees to create safe sight distances. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, directing Attorney Knutson to enter nonbinding mediation regarding the Council's order to delimb conifer trees at Valley View Road and Sally Lane to a height of eight feet and if not satisfied to seek binding arbitration or declaratory judgment action. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle,Sprague,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. X. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS—Received XI. MANAGER'S COMMENTS—Received M.A. RECYCLING CONTRACT—REFERRED TO THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, directing the Energy and Environment Commission to move forward with a multilateral RFP process for the City's recycling contract. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. X11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 11:54 p.m. Page 8 Minutes/Edina City Council/January 17, 2012 Respectfully submitted, Debra A. a gen, City Clerk Minutes approved by Edina City Council, February 6, 2012. James B. Hovland, Mayor Video Copy of the January 17, 2012, meeting available. Page 9